PDA

View Full Version : Mustang III, could be bad for blue...



Hunde_3.JG51
05-29-2005, 01:34 PM
This was posted in ORR, reportedly from the readme of the upcoming patch:

"Mustang MK.III, 1944 - RAF only, 25 Lbs (8l inches) engine boost, 642 km/h on Sea Level" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

This could bad for the blue side. It may prove especially devastating to FW-190 drivers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif.

Actually I have a question also. Is there any disadvantage of the Mustang III vs. the P-51D? The Mustang III was used to intercept V-1's, and I welcome every plane, I just don't want to see servers filled with RAF Mustang III's and the USAAF P-51D becomes an afterthought. This thing is going to be scary.

Art-J
05-29-2005, 01:49 PM
Nah... I don't think so. Faster or not, it still has four .50s and mediocre ammo load, thus it requires good shooting skill. I think this is why You don't see many P-51B & C drivers now (compared to "D" ones) and You won't see many of them after this boosted baby is released. Only a few dedicated experts will know how to use it effectively, I guess...

KGr.HH-Sunburst
05-29-2005, 02:04 PM
nope just like Art-J said the mustang mkIII will have only 4 .50cals so people will prefer the "D"
and it doesnt have the nice bubble canopy
so the overall visability is just like the P51B-C

robban75
05-29-2005, 02:08 PM
Hmm, well, had the D-9 '44 been modelled with a correct SL top speed, the Mustang III would "only" be 20km/h faster.

Currently the D-9 '45 is 18-20km/h faster than the P-51D at SL. And as we all know, the P-51 can compete well against the D-9.

But yeah, the Mustang III will be the Fw 190's toughest adversary.

It'd be nice to have a D-9 with the A-lader Jumo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
05-29-2005, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by robban75:
Hmm, well, had the D-9 '44 been modelled with a correct SL top speed, the Mustang III would "only" be 20km/h faster.

Currently the D-9 '45 is 18-20km/h faster than the P-51D at SL. And as we all know, the P-51 can compete well against the D-9.

But yeah, the Mustang III will be the Fw 190's toughest adversary.

It'd be nice to have a D-9 with the A-lader Jumo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

tempest, imo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

oh and MKIII will be faster than a normal p51c upto 20000ft or so, but the advantage drops away with altitude.

for strike missions, mossie, tempest and p51 MKIII, with XIV top cover perhaps, will be extremely potent http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

fordfan25
05-29-2005, 03:02 PM
im wanting that new late war p38 as bad as i am the MK3. hopefully well see a bit more GO to the lightning after the new FM is in place http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif still a p47N woulda been a dream come true for many a RED. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif not that im complaining.....well ok i am so what lol

faustnik
05-29-2005, 03:17 PM
I agree with P1ngyu, the Tempest will be the Fw190 pilots worst nightmare. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

p1ngu666
05-29-2005, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I agree with P1ngyu, the Tempest will be the Fw190 pilots worst nightmare. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

maybe, but its similer to 190 in how it flies. a XIV would be more scary for me, cos of better climb and turn, and the speed is pretty good too

there is a tempest poster above my pc, i keep staring at its magnificence http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

jurinko
05-29-2005, 03:56 PM
no problem expected here. I can always do the same with them like here

http://www.scitech.sk/~jurinko/HL_Fw190A8=2xP47+SpitMkIX.ntrk

BBB_Hyperion
05-29-2005, 05:18 PM
Dont worry when its in its banned or 262 is allowed .)

Hunde_3.JG51
05-29-2005, 05:22 PM
Well, I meant it might be a problem for some blue flyers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, I'm not worried http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://warbirdsofprey.game-host.org/fbd2stats-02/playerdetails.php?id=2073

As for the Tempest, I agree but will it be flyable? I mentioned the Mustang III because it was mentioned in the readme and may be here soon.

MEGILE
05-29-2005, 05:26 PM
Mustang III is vapourware to MG-151s

p1ngu666
05-29-2005, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Well, I meant it might be a problem for some blue flyers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, I'm not worried http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://warbirdsofprey.game-host.org/fbd2stats-02/playerdetails.php?id=2073

As for the Tempest, I agree but will it be flyable? I mentioned the Mustang III because it was mentioned in the readme and may be here soon.

sure, buts not just speed, accel, climb and turn will all be better because theres hardly any weight increase, but a increase in power..

plus itll be able to disengauge when it wants too. only the firepower is abit lacking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

wouldnt surprise me if we get lots of coops with MKIII all of a sudden, much like theres alot of coops featuring cannon corsairs, probably around 80% of corsair coops have teh 1c.

MKIII be excellent for tatical recon, if theres a need for it

VW-IceFire
05-29-2005, 06:39 PM
I'm looking forward to the challeng of fighting Mustang Mark III's and I'm also looking forward to flying the plane in combat.

It may just fit my style and be a good stopgap if there is no Tempest flyable. It'll be good for armed recon sorties at cloud level.

Thing is, it's still a Mustang. Its happiest at a high speed, it becomes a pig at slower speeds, and while it may be fast, we generally see people don't necessarily fly the fast machine but the one that turns. Right now thats the Spitfire...but it could easily change to another plane if it appears to be better to the crowd. I doubt you'll see servers full of Mustang Mark III's. Its not got the mass-appeal that other aircraft do. But it'll give the RAF types something to chew on since we seem to be lacking in everything else.

fordfan25
05-29-2005, 08:02 PM
yea the fact that it still wont turn well,and when i say that i mean like a spit or la-7,and it does not have cannons ect to give insta kills it wont fall under the uber shadow. it will just be a fast plane. hard to kill but also hard to get kills relative to say a ki84 or la-7 ect. the normal mustangs are great up high but in most HL dog fight servers 85% of fights are low alt. that % is guastamation on my part so be quit tagert http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif j/k

gkll
05-29-2005, 09:36 PM
Believe it or not I've never looked, the present 51c is not the malcom hood version? I thought I remember reading somewhere that all the III's had the spit-like malcom hood....

Copperhead310th
05-29-2005, 09:54 PM
what the LW boys better be worried about is that p-38L Late. Stall fighting this plane....even in a 109 will be a big NO-NO.
and witht he speeds it can pull it will just about run down anything in the Axis Aresenal.
very hot ship. no more run-o-nines and run-ninties. trying to run away from the late p-38 will also be bad for thier health i'm afraid.


Sill neither of them are as fast as the P-47M or P-47N. which were the two fastest prop fighters of WWII.

fordfan25
05-29-2005, 10:01 PM
Copperhead310th , how much faster do you think the late war p-38 is going to be from the L we have now? and yes i dont want to sound ungreatfull but a p-47N would have made me wet my self. id give Ivans left hand for that baby l;ol

darkhorizon11
05-29-2005, 10:22 PM
Given we have like 10 109s and 10 190s I think we deserve another Mustang, although the variant I really want to see is the original A-36. As for the fire power, thats definitely not a priority air to air combat. Take your 109 and 190 with your twin MG151 and MK108, won't do you much good against my four .50s when your death rays are pointed forward and I'm behind you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Heck, for going against other fighters I'd settle for two 12.7mm as long as I have the performance advantage.

lrrp22
05-29-2005, 10:55 PM
THe Mustang III is much faster than either the late P-38 or P-47M/N at low to medium altitudes. It will accelerate and climb better too. The P-38 may turn better at very low speed, but that's about it.


Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
what the LW boys better be worried about is that p-38L Late. Stall fighting this plane....even in a 109 will be a big NO-NO.
and witht he speeds it can pull it will just about run down anything in the Axis Aresenal.
very hot ship. no more run-o-nines and run-ninties. trying to run away from the late p-38 will also be bad for thier health i'm afraid.


Sill neither of them are as fast as the P-47M or P-47N. which were the two fastest prop fighters of WWII.

lrrp22
05-29-2005, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by gkll:
Believe it or not I've never looked, the present 51c is not the malcom hood version? I thought I remember reading somewhere that all the III's had the spit-like malcom hood....

The Mustang III is the Malcolm Hood version.

gkll
05-29-2005, 11:13 PM
with a malcom hood it might just tempt me to take up BnZ tactics, and learn them right... this will be one hot aircraft with the capability to stay for more than a 90 degree turn on the boom, which trap I will fall prey to for many many mindless repetitions as I learn the BnZ discipline...

Hristos
05-29-2005, 11:54 PM
Mustang Mk III alone would not be a problem. But a Mustang Mk III with few Spifirest might.

Mk III slows people down, Spitfires clean the mess. When coordinated, this tactic is very effective.

Same for Tempest in combination with Spitfire

Luckily, very few Spitfire pilots are capable of using any tactic at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

gkll
05-30-2005, 12:15 AM
Mustang Mk III alone would not be a problem. But a Mustang Mk III with few Spifirest might.

Mk III slows people down, Spitfires clean the mess. When coordinated, this tactic is very effective.

Same for Tempest in combination with Spitfire

Luckily, very few Spitfire pilots are capable of using any tactic at all .


Yes interesting you mention such a scenario. Many inexperienced spit pilots could benefit from some comms and control by a Bnz III 'flight leader', I know such pilots.... nice idea. However I am no ace myself unfortunately.

geetarman
05-30-2005, 06:39 AM
Although a MK III will be nice, a P-51D is fast enough for most engagements and has better visibility and more guns. I'll try the Mk III for a bit, but will probably return to the D

Hetzer_II
05-30-2005, 06:51 AM
Im not that afraid of the III...

Just 2 thoughts:

1)There were surely more 262 than 25´boost III.... so give us our birds... and let us see what will happen.. or also ban mkIII...

2) If not... give me my d9 which realy is worth its name... its much to slow on some alts (for example at 2000..... and dont fill up my 151´s with cheese again...

thx

PBNA-Boosher
05-30-2005, 06:55 AM
Quiero P-51A / A-36

Diablo310th
05-30-2005, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
im wanting that new late war p38 as bad as i am the MK3. hopefully well see a bit more GO to the lightning after the new FM is in place http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif still a p47N woulda been a dream come true for many a RED. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif not that im complaining.....well ok i am so what lol

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif guess us Jug drivers live with what we have, will never get anything more up to date. Shoot..i'd be happy with a small update to the -D35 or later.

VW-IceFire
05-30-2005, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
Im not that afraid of the III...

Just 2 thoughts:

1)There were surely more 262 than 25´boost III.... so give us our birds... and let us see what will happen.. or also ban mkIII...

2) If not... give me my d9 which realy is worth its name... its much to slow on some alts (for example at 2000..... and dont fill up my 151´s with cheese again...

thx
Actually...as far as I know...the entire RAF Mustang fleet was upgraded to higher boost settings as of April 1944. The same goes for the Spitfire IX. Not just a few specialized aircraft but the entire fleet of Spitfires were given higher boost numbers to keep them competitive in the 1945 arena. Top speed did not really increase much but top speed at lower altitudes did and there was very little impact on the engines if any as a result of this.

As far as I know, the Mark III is not some rare hotrod...it was a standard modification undertaken by the RAF (but not by the USAAF).

AFJ_Locust
05-30-2005, 07:42 AM
4 guns or not Ill ride that speed demon

ImpStarDuece
05-30-2005, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
Im not that afraid of the III...

Just 2 thoughts:

1)There were surely more 262 than 25´boost III.... so give us our birds... and let us see what will happen.. or also ban mkIII...

2) If not... give me my d9 which realy is worth its name... its much to slow on some alts (for example at 2000..... and dont fill up my 151´s with cheese again...

thx


For Number 1)


In late 1942, a deal was worked out between Britain and the USA in which Spitfire VBs would be transferred to the 8th Air Force in England, mainly for use as fighter-trainers. This cleared the way for Lend-Lease supplies to continue of the new Mustang model to the RAF.

The RAF equivalent to the USAAF P-51B/C was known as the Mustang III. The RAF ultimately received <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">274 P-51Bs </span> and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">626 P-51Cs</span>. RAF serials were FB100/FB124, FB135/FB399, FR411, FX848/FX999, FZ100/FZ197, HB821/HB962, HK944/HK947, HK955, HK956, KH421/KH640, SR406/SR438, and SR440. Serial numbers FX848, 849, 907, 909, 910, 911, 913, 914, 915, 916, 918, 927, 928, 932, 948 were handed back to the USAAF upon arrival in Britain. HK944/947, 955, 956 were ex-Twelfth USAAF aircraft. KH490 crashed in the USA before delivery. Serial numbers SR406/438 and SR440 were a mixed bag of P-51Bs and Cs delivered to the RAF from the USAAF--US serial numbers were respectively 43-12162, 43-12407, 43-12412, 43-12473, 43-12484, 43-12427, 43-70114(?), 43-12189, 43-12177, 43-7039, 43-6831, 43-12155, 43-12188, 43-12456, 43-12480, 43-12399, 42-10663(?), 42-106683, 42-106630, 42-106687, 43-7071, 43-7144, 43-5595, 43-7171, 43-6829, 43-12420, 43-7152, 43-7135, 42-103209, 42-106478, 42-106431, 43-7007, 43-12420, 43-7159. (Question marks denote serial numbers which are probably erroneous). The first RAF squadron to receive the Mustang III was No. 65 Squadron based at Gravesend, which received its planes in December 1943.

A total of 59 Mustang IIIs were diverted to the Royal Australian Air Force and to other Allied air arms.

After these Mustang III aircraft had been delivered to England, the RAF decided that the hinged cockpit canopy offered too poor a view for European operations. A fairly major modification was made in which the original framed hinged hood was replaced by a bulged Perspex frameless canopy that slid to the rear on rails. This canopy gave the pilot much more room and the huge goldfish bowl afforded a good view almost straight down or directly to the rear. This hood was manufactured and fitted by the British corporation R. Malcolm & Co., and came to be known as the "Malcolm Hood". This hood was fitted to most RAF Mustang IIIs, and many USAAF Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51B/C fighters received this modification as well.

Many pilots regarded the Malcolm-hooded P-51B/C as the best Mustang of the entire series. It was <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">lighter, faster</span>, and had <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">crisper handling </span> than the later bubble-hooded P-51D and actually had a<span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> better all-round view</span>. Its primary weakness, however, was in its armament--only four rather than six guns, which often proved prone to jamming. Some of the modifications applied to the P-51D to improve the ammunition feed were later retrofitted into P-51B/Cs, which made them less prone to jamming. With modified guns and a Malcolm hood, the P-51B/C was arguably a better fighter than the P-51D, with better visibility, lower weight, and without the structural problems which afflicted the D. Its departure characteristics were also more benign.

The first RAF base to receive Mustang IIIs was at Gravesend in Kent. The Mustang III initially equipped No. 65 Squadron in late December of 1943, followed by No. 19 Squadron in March of 1944. Later the Mk. III also equipped Nos 64, 65, 66, 93, 94, 112, 118, 122, 126, 129, 165, 234, 237, 241 249, 250, 260, 268, 306, 309, 315, 316, 345, 430, 441, 442, and 516 Squadrons and No. 541 Squadron of RAF Coastal Command. These units included four Polish squadrons (306, 309, 315, 316), three RCAF, and one Free French.

The new RAF Mustang IIIs began operations late in February 1944, escorting US heavy bombers as well as both US and RAF medium bombers.

Numerous RAF Mustang IIIs were diverted to the interception of V-1 "buzz-bombs". Some of them were "souped up" by using a special high-octane fuel and internal engine adjustments in order to increase the intake manifold pressure and made it possible to achieve a speed of 420 mph at 2000 feet. Since the typical V-1 flew at 370 mph, this made the "souped-up" Mustang very useful against these weapons.

Fear it, fear it good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif.

Most, if not all, Mustang IIIs were on 150 av gas and +25lbs boost before the end of the war. I think that the numbers of Mustang IIIS with boosted engines would probably be superior in number to the total number of 190D9s that saw service. Afterall, only 650 Doras were made http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I think that production numbers of Me-26 is about 1443 - 1660 (thats representing the upper and lower numbers of production figures I can find) with the first operational unit making its first sortie in September of 1944. So indeed more Me-262s were produced than Mustang IIIs. However, most sources point out that less than two hundred exampes saw combat. Then again, there is also that enormous number of Ta-152 that were flying by the end of the war http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif.

mynameisroland
05-30-2005, 08:23 AM
Whats there to fear?

1x Mg151 and your glass jaw of an engine is dead, and if you try to turn at 640kmh you will lose your wings http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Monty_Thrud
05-30-2005, 08:29 AM
I'd be happy if we got the MkIXe Spitfire with 25LBS boost...whilst we're waiting for the MkXIV and Tempest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

ImpStarDuece
05-30-2005, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Whats there to fear?

1x Mg151 and your glass jaw of an engine is dead, and if you try to turn at 640kmh you will lose your wings http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hmm, what to fear indeed?

A P-51 without the reduced structural strength of the D, better handling, better climb, better acceleration and better speed down low. In all likely hood it'll be flown by decent pilots too. After all, who has ever heard of a Mustang III late? I'm sure all the internet aces will still want their bubble canopy and 6 .50 cals instead of some weird British variant of the "Pony" and only 4 HMGs.

anarchy52
05-30-2005, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Numerous RAF Mustang IIIs were diverted to the interception of V-1 "buzz-bombs". Some of them were "souped up" by using a special high-octane fuel and internal engine adjustments in order to increase the intake manifold pressure...

Most, if not all, Mustang IIIs were on 150 av gas and +25lbs boost before the end of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your claim is based on?

http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/2taf150_112044.gif

Also there is the question of just how much 150 avgas was available.

p1ngu666
05-30-2005, 09:51 AM
curious lack of tiffy, tempest, mossie AND p51 in that document http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

lrrp22
05-30-2005, 09:54 AM
Anarchy,

There were no Mustang III's attached to 2nd TAF as of the date of that order. 122 Wing (65, 19 and 122 sqn's) was reassigned to Fighter Command at the end of September.

From February of '44 to March of '45, 55.7% of all aero fuel produced was 100/150 grade.



Originally posted by anarchy52:

Your claim is based on?

Also there is the question of just how much 150 avgas was available.

TAGERT.
05-30-2005, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
This was posted in ORR, reportedly from the readme of the upcoming patch:

"Mustang MK.III, 1944 - RAF only, 25 Lbs (8l inches) engine boost, 642 km/h on Sea Level" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

This could bad for the blue side. It may prove especially devastating to FW-190 drivers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif.

Actually I have a question also. Is there any disadvantage of the Mustang III vs. the P-51D? The Mustang III was used to intercept V-1's, and I welcome every plane, I just don't want to see servers filled with RAF Mustang III's and the USAAF P-51D becomes an afterthought. This thing is going to be scary. Agreed 100%! They should boost the P-51D too! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

TAGERT.
05-30-2005, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Your claim is based on?

http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/2taf150_112044.gif

Also there is the question of just how much 150 avgas was available. Strange.. that page does not look like the typical 8.5 by 11.. As if someone edited it and cut out a few lines?

JG53Frankyboy
05-30-2005, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
This was posted in ORR, reportedly from the readme of the upcoming patch:

"Mustang MK.III, 1944 - RAF only, 25 Lbs (8l inches) engine boost, 642 km/h on Sea Level" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

This could bad for the blue side. It may prove especially devastating to FW-190 drivers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif.

Actually I have a question also. Is there any disadvantage of the Mustang III vs. the P-51D? The Mustang III was used to intercept V-1's, and I welcome every plane, I just don't want to see servers filled with RAF Mustang III's and the USAAF P-51D becomes an afterthought. This thing is going to be scary. Agreed 100%! They should boost the P-51D too! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

good idea. if the RAF boosted their MustangIII i doubt they didnt boost their MustangIV http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lrrp22
05-30-2005, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:

good idea. if the RAF boosted their MustangIII i doubt they didnt boost their MustangIV http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

They did- the Mustang IV's Pilot's Notes authorize 81" Hg with 150 grade fuel. However, the Mustang III represented the majority of RAF strength 'til V-E Day.

p1ngu666
05-30-2005, 10:09 AM
they did boost there IV's, but there wasnt many of them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

JG53Frankyboy
05-30-2005, 10:13 AM
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51.html
is saying both variants were around 900 each deliverd to the RAF ?

lrrp22
05-30-2005, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51.html
is saying both variants were around 900 each deliverd to the RAF ?

Most of the Mustang IV's came post war although 6-7 sqn's were operational in the U.K. by April, '45.

JG53Frankyboy
05-30-2005, 10:18 AM
ok, thx, its always the important difference betwenn in service ore delivered

anarchy52
05-30-2005, 10:19 AM
Incredibly agile allied camp response as expected http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 10 posts in ~30 minutes
Fear not ol' chaps nobody is going to take away your preciousssssssss

On the 150 grade avgas:
Doc concerning the use of 150 grade fuel for 2nd TAF doesn't mention Mustang III, that wasn't the point either.
The point was that perhaps 150 grade turbosuperultraoverboosted monsters weren't as widespread as some might think. End of 1944 150 grade was cleared for 2nd TAF, but was certainly not used operationally as of that date because some modifications were needed before it could be used.
The fastest planes were needed for V-1 interception and I guess they'd have the priority for 150grade fuel also.

JG53Frankyboy
05-30-2005, 10:24 AM
to be fair, since when does the game take care about how often a plane ore variant of it saw action ?

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-30-2005, 10:51 AM
Whats the problem? Blue has been running from and running down red for years. Dora was king at the deck its time to return the favor. You will get use to it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

anarchy52
05-30-2005, 10:54 AM
I think reds will have more trouble adjusting to the MG151/20 and self-sealing tanks on focke then blue to overboosted MustangIII and P-38 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Be sure

MEGILE
05-30-2005, 11:16 AM
My boost is bigger than yours http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stathem
05-30-2005, 11:18 AM
The last V-1 was launched at Britain on the 1st Sept. '44 - i guess they just de-tuned all the Mustangs after that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

CUJO_1970
05-30-2005, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
I think reds will have more trouble adjusting to the MG151/20 and self-sealing tanks on focke then blue to overboosted MustangIII and P-38 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Be sure



Definitely the truth.

The free-pass damage model the reds (especially Spitfires) have been enjoying for so long is about to end.

No more reds flying around as if nothing is wrong after taking multiple 20mm hits.(especially Spitfires)

When the Focke-Wulf reaches out and touches you after 4.0 you will know it. In fact, they are more deadly IMO to fighters than the current MK-108 Focke-Wulfs, not because they are more powerful but because they have a higher ROF and better trajectory.

ECV56_Pato1
05-30-2005, 11:37 AM
AND you're also missing that late 109's will surely have his elevator back, that plus brand new 151/20 modelling, will translate into pretty rough times ahead for allied pilots...
I can hardly wait!
S!
Pato

Hetzer_II
05-30-2005, 11:39 AM
I bet they will tune down the 151 in the final again..


we will see...

DarthBane_
05-30-2005, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by ECV56_Pato1:
AND you're also missing that late 109's will surely have his elevator back, that plus brand new 151/20 modelling, will translate into pretty rough times ahead for allied pilots...
I can hardly wait!
S!
Pato

I stoped using 109 since the beggining of stiff elevator problem. If what you say is true, comeback to 109 is certain. It would make sence to give us g10 with 151/20 than. Best if we could remove hood mg-s for little extra meat. I would remove my radio also. And all armor plates. That would be a dangerous fighter.

jugent
05-30-2005, 11:48 AM
Perhaps is this the new target for whining, there are so many german uberplanes so the Mustang III maybe put some balance in this game.
The 109 20mm-guns are so superior to the 0.5 browning, and the damageprofile of the 109-family is to hard. The engine is almost imune to fire.
I realy look forward to have a plane that can take out the UFO-like FW 190.

hop2002
05-30-2005, 11:50 AM
Doc concerning the use of 150 grade fuel for 2nd TAF doesn't mention Mustang III, that wasn't the point either.

There were no Mustangs with 2nd TAF at that time (not sure if there were before the end of the war).

2nd TAF was not the only British fighter force in the ETO, though.

The RAF had 2 main forces flying fighters in the ETO, 2nd TAF which, from June 44 onwards, was based on airfields on the continent, and ADGB (Air Defnce Great Britain, formerly Fighter Command) which remained based on British airfields.

ADGB carried out many sorties over the Netherlands, right up to the end of the war.

ADGB switched over to 150 octane fuel first, from late Spring 1944 (and large numbers of Spitfire IXs were converted, which had nothing to do with chasing V-1s)

2nd TAF only converted at the end of 1944, largely because of the difficulties in supplying 2 different grades of aviation fuel.


The point was that perhaps 150 grade turbosuperultraoverboosted monsters weren't as widespread as some might think. End of 1944 150 grade was cleared for 2nd TAF, but was certainly not used operationally as of that date because some modifications were needed before it could be used.

The modifications were usually pretty simple, being confined to adjustments to the boost control.

DarthBane_
05-30-2005, 11:52 AM
And polished surface without camouflage painting. +Retracting tail wheel modification.
Would be nice if we could prepare the plane with mechanics acording to our wishes.

mynameisroland
05-30-2005, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by jugent:
Perhaps is this the new target for whining, there are so many german uberplanes so the Mustang III maybe put some balance in this game.
The 109 20mm-guns are so superior to the 0.5 browning, and the damageprofile of the 109-family is to hard. The engine is almost imune to fire.
I realy look forward to have a plane that can take out the UFO-like FW 190.

yes the 20mm's are more powerful than the .50 cals is that really surprising>?

What Fw 190's are you flying against it is one of the least ufo like fighters out there.

You are trolling

lrrp22
05-30-2005, 12:15 PM
Free pass damage modeling? Do you mean the one hit-instant stop P-51 and P-47 engines?

Me thinks Blue doth protest too much! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif It seems that Blue is a bit taken aback by the prospect of post-early 1944 Allied fighters!



Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Definitely the truth.

The free-pass damage model the reds (especially Spitfires) have been enjoying for so long is about to end.

No more reds flying around as if nothing is wrong after taking multiple 20mm hits.(especially Spitfires)

p1ngu666
05-30-2005, 12:55 PM
yep, p47 and other engines like it are really fragile
190A engine, well, thats carved out of diamonds, blessed by thor, this gives it near imortality to hits from ahead

mynameisroland
05-30-2005, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yep, p47 and other engines like it are really fragile
190A engine, well, thats carved out of diamonds, blessed by thor, this gives it near imortality to hits from ahead

On the other hand one .303 inch bullet in the Fw 190's fuel tank and its game over. But lets ignore that and over exagerate how tough its engine is.

fordfan25
05-30-2005, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yep, p47 and other engines like it are really fragile
190A engine, well, thats carved out of diamonds, blessed by thor, this gives it near imortality to hits from ahead

On the other hand one .303 inch bullet in the Fw 190's fuel tank and its game over. But lets ignore that and over exagerate how tough its engine is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

funny seeing as i get behind FW's all the time. thay take more to bring down than a frickn IL-2

NorrisMcWhirter
05-30-2005, 01:39 PM
Shooting from dead 6 into any plane isn't the best of ways to shoot it down. If you haven't worked that out by now..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Plus, it's the same game for a 190 firing 4x20mm cannons into a Pxx. Dead 6 = less probability of downing it whereas deflection shots = deadly (relatively, speaking).

Roland is quite right; the 190 has a major achilles heel with the fuel leak problem but I don't think the engine is particularly robust, either. At least it stops a short while after being damaged whereas certain aircraft (P39/Spitfire) seem to run all day trailing smoke.

And to suggest that the 109 has a robust engine DM...well, you lost your credibility right there.

Regardless, we can pick and choose deficiencies in any aircraft. It's what we want to choose to see http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif One thing is for sure, though...if the 151/20 actually gets fixed in 4.0 then we'll see more whining than ever before.

Cheers,
Norris

robban75
05-30-2005, 01:41 PM
Yet, a single hit from a 50.cal in the wing will render the 190 nothing but defenseless. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I'd much rather have a fragile engine TBH.

Hunde_3.JG51
05-30-2005, 02:57 PM
The fuel leak problem combined with the equation "1x .50 = -90km/h" problems are much more problematic than a more sensitive engine would ever be. Lets also remember the FW-190 had a tough radial and armored cowling ring. On that note the P-47's engine should be tougher vs. non-cannon rounds.

But anyway, please stay on topic and lets not turn this into red vs. blue. I was just looking for some info on the Mustang III, and I wanted to see how may would fly it and forego the USAAF P-51D. I was really blown away by the 642 km/h at SL speed listed. This thread started off well but it is getting a bad tone to it.

BigKahuna_GS
05-30-2005, 04:11 PM
S!


The RAF Mustang Mark III will be a very impressive aircraft in terms of speed from the deck to high altitude. With great speed on the deck opens up opportunities for low level ground attack runs with the ability to escape persuers. I could also see low level-high speed slashing attacks.

It will be a welcomed member to the Mustang Corral. Irpp has more information this aircraft and on US 8th AF Mustangs that operated at 72 "MAP" and overboosted.

All we need now is the Tempest, Spit 14, F4U-4, P47M, P47N, to make the Allied side complete.

__

faustnik
05-30-2005, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

It will be a welcomed member to the Mustang Corral. Irpp has more information this aircraft and on US 8th AF Mustangs that operated at 72 "MAP" and overboosted.

__

Kahuna,

What fuel did the 8th AF P-51s use at "72" boost?

lrrp22
05-30-2005, 05:00 PM
100/150 grade. Conversion to 100/150 grade began in mid-June of '44. For some reason, 8th AAF limited MAP to 72". VIIth Fighter Command/20th AAF on Iwo Jima wasn't so conservative- it ran its P-51D groups at the RAF-standard 81" Hg on 115/145 grade fuel.



Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

It will be a welcomed member to the Mustang Corral. Irpp has more information this aircraft and on US 8th AF Mustangs that operated at 72 "MAP" and overboosted.

__

Kahuna,

What fuel did the 8th AF P-51s use at "72" boost? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MEGILE
05-30-2005, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

All we need now is the Tempest, Spit 14, F4U-4, P47M, P47N, to make the Allied side complete.

__

Yeah, complete for the 10% of il2 pilots who fly only Western front 1945 Dogfight servers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
05-30-2005, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
100/150 grade. Conversion to 100/150 grade began in mid-June of '44. For some reason, 8th AAF limited MAP to 72".

I thought the 8th rejected the 150 grade fuel because of engine problems?

p1ngu666
05-30-2005, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yep, p47 and other engines like it are really fragile
190A engine, well, thats carved out of diamonds, blessed by thor, this gives it near imortality to hits from ahead

On the other hand one .303 inch bullet in the Fw 190's fuel tank and its game over. But lets ignore that and over exagerate how tough its engine is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ya, weak from the rear for sure :\
the front of the aircraft, including the wings are VERY VERY TOUGH.
simple test, test runway, 1 guy spawns in b25, other in 190A series, b25 guy hops to rear turret, shoots engine (which 190driver has reved up so non fatal damage canbe seen)
now compair to other aircraft

u will probably damage something else before the engine. i can knock out any engine ingame with a few hits, even the dreaded lagg3 and la7 or screw them up
190 id need a extremely long burst, with a very high hit rate.

as a b25 driver, id like a chance to down the attacking aircraft.

p1ngu666
05-30-2005, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
100/150 grade. Conversion to 100/150 grade began in mid-June of '44. For some reason, 8th AAF limited MAP to 72".

I thought the 8th rejected the 150 grade fuel because of engine problems? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

they would probably fly further at once, and they would want the aircraft as standard across the board to make it easier on planning if all aircraft where the same. also i think they relied on the brits for engine servicing for awhile too

p1ngu666
05-30-2005, 06:17 PM
8th also operated above where it would be of benifit mostly too?
ie, 20,000ft or above?

fordfan25
05-30-2005, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

All we need now is the Tempest, Spit 14, F4U-4, P47M, P47N, to make the Allied side complete.

__

Yeah, complete for the 10% of il2 pilots who fly only Western front 1945 Dogfight servers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

weard you get those figures

OldMan____
05-30-2005, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yep, p47 and other engines like it are really fragile
190A engine, well, thats carved out of diamonds, blessed by thor, this gives it near imortality to hits from ahead

On the other hand one .303 inch bullet in the Fw 190's fuel tank and its game over. But lets ignore that and over exagerate how tough its engine is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ya, weak from the rear for sure :\
the front of the aircraft, including the wings are VERY VERY TOUGH.
simple test, test runway, 1 guy spawns in b25, other in 190A series, b25 guy hops to rear turret, shoots engine (which 190driver has reved up so non fatal damage canbe seen)
now compair to other aircraft

u will probably damage something else before the engine. i can knock out any engine ingame with a few hits, even the dreaded lagg3 and la7 or screw them up
190 id need a extremely long burst, with a very high hit rate.

as a b25 driver, id like a chance to down the attacking aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

from all planes, no had better reason for having good engine protecion as the FW190 did. The simple armor ring of 12mm around the nose is enough to deflect most bullets. So nothing so strange here (since game does not model proppeler hit). I can make some calculations in my terminal balistics simmualtor I am working on, but I am pretty sure 12mm armor at that angle can deflect even .50 bullets on reasonable distance.

Loki-PF
05-30-2005, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Shooting from dead 6 into any plane isn't the best of ways to shoot it down. If you haven't worked that out by now..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Plus, it's the same game for a 190 firing 4x20mm cannons into a Pxx. Dead 6 = less probability of downing it whereas deflection shots = deadly (relatively, speaking).

Roland is quite right; the 190 has a major achilles heel with the fuel leak problem but I don't think the engine is particularly robust, either. At least it stops a short while after being damaged whereas certain aircraft (P39/Spitfire) seem to run all day trailing smoke.

And to suggest that the 109 has a robust engine DM...well, you lost your credibility right there.

Regardless, we can pick and choose deficiencies in any aircraft. It's what we want to choose to see http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif One thing is for sure, though...if the 151/20 actually gets fixed in 4.0 then we'll see more whining than ever before.

Cheers,
Norris

One thing is for sure, though...if the 151/20 actually get more powerfull in 4.0 then it's the result of the whine heard round the world

p1ngu666
05-30-2005, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yep, p47 and other engines like it are really fragile
190A engine, well, thats carved out of diamonds, blessed by thor, this gives it near imortality to hits from ahead

On the other hand one .303 inch bullet in the Fw 190's fuel tank and its game over. But lets ignore that and over exagerate how tough its engine is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ya, weak from the rear for sure :\
the front of the aircraft, including the wings are VERY VERY TOUGH.
simple test, test runway, 1 guy spawns in b25, other in 190A series, b25 guy hops to rear turret, shoots engine (which 190driver has reved up so non fatal damage canbe seen)
now compair to other aircraft

u will probably damage something else before the engine. i can knock out any engine ingame with a few hits, even the dreaded lagg3 and la7 or screw them up
190 id need a extremely long burst, with a very high hit rate.

as a b25 driver, id like a chance to down the attacking aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

from all planes, no had better reason for having good engine protecion as the FW190 did. The simple armor ring of 12mm around the nose is enough to deflect most bullets. So nothing so strange here (since game does not model proppeler hit). I can make some calculations in my terminal balistics simmualtor I am working on, but I am pretty sure 12mm armor at that angle can deflect even .50 bullets on reasonable distance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yep, but what about if i shoot into the front?
theres a fan, so half or so of my bullets will hit that. i still need FAR more than twice the bullets to kill the engine

NorrisMcWhirter
05-31-2005, 03:04 AM
^ The test isn't exactly representative of air combat. Try flying the 190 with even very minor wing damage. If flying externals, I very often have to switch to them then zoom in on my wings to see why the plane is all over the place and usually you see a small hole somewhere.

As to whining (sorry to hijack), no one did more whining than those concerning the .50s. What is actually quite amusing about your claim is that there has been a genuine issue all along (even acknowledged by the dev) that was identified by the 'whining' whereas the .50s had no issue in the eyes of the dev yet were changed simply because of the whining. Big difference.

As to the thread title, I've flown the new Mustang and I did notice a subtle difference but it's hard to tell offline against the dodgy AI. That said, the Mustang always poses a serious threat to the 190 driver and one with increased speed will undoubtedly cause more problems. It should be an interesting matchup with a more usable D9 (corrected 151/20s) vs better performing P51.

Ta,
Norris

mynameisroland
05-31-2005, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yep, p47 and other engines like it are really fragile
190A engine, well, thats carved out of diamonds, blessed by thor, this gives it near imortality to hits from ahead

On the other hand one .303 inch bullet in the Fw 190's fuel tank and its game over. But lets ignore that and over exagerate how tough its engine is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ya, weak from the rear for sure :\
the front of the aircraft, including the wings are VERY VERY TOUGH.
simple test, test runway, 1 guy spawns in b25, other in 190A series, b25 guy hops to rear turret, shoots engine (which 190driver has reved up so non fatal damage canbe seen)
now compair to other aircraft

u will probably damage something else before the engine. i can knock out any engine ingame with a few hits, even the dreaded lagg3 and la7 or screw them up
190 id need a extremely long burst, with a very high hit rate.

as a b25 driver, id like a chance to down the attacking aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fw 190 (look at my avtar and even look closely at my sig) has a very small frontal area of engine that yo could get your shot in to. Armoured ring , large spinner/prop and 12/14 bladed spinning fan infront of a radial engine. That adds up to a very tough engine from a head on perspective. Radials can fly on with whole cylinder heads shot away and still rtb.

The Fw is not over moddelled in this area I have had fatal engine damage many times. The Fw 190 A8 Sturmbocks had no additional engine armour yet attacked B17/24 formations dead six and closed to within 200 yards. They were very well armoured for this type of engagement dont whine to get something corrected that was historical ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

dadada1
05-31-2005, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by Loki-PF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Shooting from dead 6 into any plane isn't the best of ways to shoot it down. If you haven't worked that out by now..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Plus, it's the same game for a 190 firing 4x20mm cannons into a Pxx. Dead 6 = less probability of downing it whereas deflection shots = deadly (relatively, speaking).

Roland is quite right; the 190 has a major achilles heel with the fuel leak problem but I don't think the engine is particularly robust, either. At least it stops a short while after being damaged whereas certain aircraft (P39/Spitfire) seem to run all day trailing smoke.

And to suggest that the 109 has a robust engine DM...well, you lost your credibility right there.

Regardless, we can pick and choose deficiencies in any aircraft. It's what we want to choose to see http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif One thing is for sure, though...if the 151/20 actually gets fixed in 4.0 then we'll see more whining than ever before.

Cheers,
Norris

One thing is for sure, though...if the 151/20 actually get more powerfull in 4.0 then it's the result of the whine heard round the world </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lest we forget the 50 cal thread, which incidently I did think needed addressing.

OD_79
05-31-2005, 06:15 AM
All I can say to all of this is bring on the new Spitfire and the Tempest, give the RAF it's best fighters and weep! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

OD

mynameisroland
05-31-2005, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by OD_79:
All I can say to all of this is bring on the new Spitfire and the Tempest, give the RAF it's best fighters and weep! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

OD

Unfortunately it doesnt look like the Spit XIV or the Tempest will make the cut as flyable aircraft.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

p1ngu666
05-31-2005, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yep, p47 and other engines like it are really fragile
190A engine, well, thats carved out of diamonds, blessed by thor, this gives it near imortality to hits from ahead

On the other hand one .303 inch bullet in the Fw 190's fuel tank and its game over. But lets ignore that and over exagerate how tough its engine is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ya, weak from the rear for sure :\
the front of the aircraft, including the wings are VERY VERY TOUGH.
simple test, test runway, 1 guy spawns in b25, other in 190A series, b25 guy hops to rear turret, shoots engine (which 190driver has reved up so non fatal damage canbe seen)
now compair to other aircraft

u will probably damage something else before the engine. i can knock out any engine ingame with a few hits, even the dreaded lagg3 and la7 or screw them up
190 id need a extremely long burst, with a very high hit rate.

as a b25 driver, id like a chance to down the attacking aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fw 190 (look at my avtar and even look closely at my sig) has a very small frontal area of engine that yo could get your shot in to. Armoured ring , large spinner/prop and 12/14 bladed spinning fan infront of a radial engine. That adds up to a very tough engine from a head on perspective. Radials can fly on with whole cylinder heads shot away and still rtb.

The Fw is not over moddelled in this area I have had fatal engine damage many times. The Fw 190 A8 Sturmbocks had no additional engine armour yet attacked B17/24 formations dead six and closed to within 200 yards. They were very well armoured for this type of engagement dont whine to get something corrected that was historical ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well hitting the spinner often kills other engines, but oks, im at point blank range, i can aim into the gap.
now, how many times should it be than other engines?
heck, ill discount the likely chance of bullets hitting the oilcooler, and 2 out of 3 hitting the fan.

so 3-4x as tough than a bare engine say. its WAY more than that...
and its tough on all the A series, not just the late ones

OD_79
05-31-2005, 07:04 AM
Are we ever going to get a set answer on what aircraft will be flyable then? I saw the the Tempest probably wouldn't be, but the Spit would be. Is there any certain answer out there, at least so we know what we'll be getting?
I mean now I hear there is a Mustang MkIII, why? Why give the RAF an aircraft that wasn't one of their more important ones?

OD.

NorrisMcWhirter
05-31-2005, 07:11 AM
^ Why? Because the 3D model effectively already exists. It seems that anything requiring new internals is far less likely to appear than a tweak to an existing aircraft.

Either that it's because of the whining about the boosted Merlins.

Cheers,
Norris

mynameisroland
05-31-2005, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yep, p47 and other engines like it are really fragile
190A engine, well, thats carved out of diamonds, blessed by thor, this gives it near imortality to hits from ahead

On the other hand one .303 inch bullet in the Fw 190's fuel tank and its game over. But lets ignore that and over exagerate how tough its engine is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ya, weak from the rear for sure :\
the front of the aircraft, including the wings are VERY VERY TOUGH.
simple test, test runway, 1 guy spawns in b25, other in 190A series, b25 guy hops to rear turret, shoots engine (which 190driver has reved up so non fatal damage canbe seen)
now compair to other aircraft

u will probably damage something else before the engine. i can knock out any engine ingame with a few hits, even the dreaded lagg3 and la7 or screw them up
190 id need a extremely long burst, with a very high hit rate.

as a b25 driver, id like a chance to down the attacking aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fw 190 (look at my avtar and even look closely at my sig) has a very small frontal area of engine that yo could get your shot in to. Armoured ring , large spinner/prop and 12/14 bladed spinning fan infront of a radial engine. That adds up to a very tough engine from a head on perspective. Radials can fly on with whole cylinder heads shot away and still rtb.

The Fw is not over moddelled in this area I have had fatal engine damage many times. The Fw 190 A8 Sturmbocks had no additional engine armour yet attacked B17/24 formations dead six and closed to within 200 yards. They were very well armoured for this type of engagement dont whine to get something corrected that was historical ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well hitting the spinner often kills other engines, but oks, im at point blank range, i can aim into the gap.
now, how many times should it be than other engines?
heck, ill discount the likely chance of bullets hitting the oilcooler, and 2 out of 3 hitting the fan.

so 3-4x as tough than a bare engine say. its WAY more than that...
and its tough on all the A series, not just the late ones </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All A series had engine armour, is your gunnery as accurate as you think? You should check it in Arcade mode so you can see where its hitting then do a comparison against the P47 and La7 then see how the Fw's radial compares. I have had my engine destroyed more than a few times especially by .50 cals.

Again I want to mention the Luftwaffe attacking heavy bombers using the Fw A series from dead 6 they werent worried about the engine so much as the Mk108 ammo and the pilot which did receive extra protection.

Blutarski2004
05-31-2005, 09:02 AM
On the topic of FW190 engine vulnerability, here is what Kit Carson stated in his now timelessly famous article -

QUOTE -
Engine and Propeller:
The BMW 801D was a 14 cylinder, twin-row radial with direct fuel injection. A 10.9 foot diameter, 3-bladed VDM prop was used and was provided with hand lever or automatic pitch control. The 801D radial air-cooled engine first appeared on the Dornier Do 217 and the Fw 190. Its most novel feature was the oil cooler system which was a number of finned tubes shaped into a ring of tubes a little larger in diameter than the cooling fan. This ring was fitted into the rounded front portion of the cowling just aft of the fan.
I don't think this was a good idea. For example, my principal aiming point was always the forward portion of an enemy ship; the engine, cockpit, wing root section. If you get any hits at all, even only a few, you're bound to put one or two slugs into the engine compartment. Having a couple of bullets riccochet off the engine block and tear up some ignition harness is not too bad at all, at least not fatal. But to have all those thin-walled oil cooling tubes ahead of the engine is bad news. Any hits or riccochets in the engine section are bound to puncture the oil tubes. Then the whole engine is immersed in oil spray, and sometimes it would flash over into a fire. All of the 12 Focke-Wulfs that I shot down sent off a trail of dense, boiling oil smoke heavy enough to fog up my gun camera lens and windshield if I were so close.
- UNQUOTE

Before anyone sets his hair on fire, let it be said that every internal combustion powered a/c needed an oil cooling system. Wherever it was placed, it would be a point of vulnerability. I think Carson's intimation here is that a more protected location might have been found on the FW190 - a fighter for which he overall had the highest praise.

lrrp22
05-31-2005, 09:05 AM
The RAF had more Mustang III/IV squadrons on strength at V-E day (22) than it did Spitfire XIV and Tempest V squadrons combined (14-15, IIRC). The Merlin Mustang was a very important RAF fighter.



Originally posted by OD_79:
Are we ever going to get a set answer on what aircraft will be flyable then? I saw the the Tempest probably wouldn't be, but the Spit would be. Is there any certain answer out there, at least so we know what we'll be getting?
I mean now I hear there is a Mustang MkIII, why? Why give the RAF an aircraft that wasn't one of their more important ones?

OD.

OD_79
05-31-2005, 09:31 AM
You're only counting Tempest and Spitfire XIV squadrons there, there were Mk Ix's and V's for the Spit still around, there were loads of Typhoons, so when you look at it the Mustang is not as important as you make out. All my point was why are we getting another US aircraft in RAF markings when we could have some proper late war Royal Air Force aircraft that really are potent, or even more potent than the MkIX Spit, plus it's not got a Merlin it was a griffon engine...I believe it had over 2000hp so plenty of va va voom!

OD.

lrrp22
05-31-2005, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by OD_79:
You're only counting Tempest and Spitfire XIV squadrons there, there were Mk Ix's and V's for the Spit still around, there were loads of Typhoons, so when you look at it the Mustang is not as important as you make out. All my point was why are we getting another US aircraft in RAF markings when we could have some proper late war Royal Air Force aircraft that really are potent, or even more potent than the MkIX Spit, plus it's not got a Merlin it was a griffon engine...I believe it had over 2000hp so plenty of va va voom!

OD.

...and we have Spit V's and IX's, although a +25 lbs boost LF IX would be nice. The Typhoon was, of course, a very important type.

mynameisroland
05-31-2005, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
On the topic of FW190 engine vulnerability, here is what Kit Carson stated in his now timelessly famous article -

QUOTE -
Engine and Propeller:
The BMW 801D was a 14 cylinder, twin-row radial with direct fuel injection. A 10.9 foot diameter, 3-bladed VDM prop was used and was provided with hand lever or automatic pitch control. The 801D radial air-cooled engine first appeared on the Dornier Do 217 and the Fw 190. Its most novel feature was the oil cooler system which was a number of finned tubes shaped into a ring of tubes a little larger in diameter than the cooling fan. This ring was fitted into the rounded front portion of the cowling just aft of the fan.
I don't think this was a good idea. For example, my principal aiming point was always the forward portion of an enemy ship; the engine, cockpit, wing root section. If you get any hits at all, even only a few, you're bound to put one or two slugs into the engine compartment. Having a couple of bullets riccochet off the engine block and tear up some ignition harness is not too bad at all, at least not fatal. But to have all those thin-walled oil cooling tubes ahead of the engine is bad news. Any hits or riccochets in the engine section are bound to puncture the oil tubes. Then the whole engine is immersed in oil spray, and sometimes it would flash over into a fire. All of the 12 Focke-Wulfs that I shot down sent off a trail of dense, boiling oil smoke heavy enough to fog up my gun camera lens and windshield if I were so close.
- UNQUOTE

Before anyone sets his hair on fire, let it be said that every internal combustion powered a/c needed an oil cooling system. Wherever it was placed, it would be a point of vulnerability. I think Carson's intimation here is that a more protected location might have been found on the FW190 - a fighter for which he overall had the highest praise.

Thanks for that post it makes an informative read. I think however that Carsons experience is differnent from Pingus in so far that Carsons kills most likely came from the rear hemisphere whereas Pingu is firing directly in to the Fw's nose. What I was also reffering to were the heavy bomber interceptor Fw's that expected such a scenario of attacking bombers from dead 6 and they received no additional engine up armouring.

regards

OldMan____
05-31-2005, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
On the topic of FW190 engine vulnerability, here is what Kit Carson stated in his now timelessly famous article -

QUOTE -
Engine and Propeller:
The BMW 801D was a 14 cylinder, twin-row radial with direct fuel injection. A 10.9 foot diameter, 3-bladed VDM prop was used and was provided with hand lever or automatic pitch control. The 801D radial air-cooled engine first appeared on the Dornier Do 217 and the Fw 190. Its most novel feature was the oil cooler system which was a number of finned tubes shaped into a ring of tubes a little larger in diameter than the cooling fan. This ring was fitted into the rounded front portion of the cowling just aft of the fan.
I don't think this was a good idea. For example, my principal aiming point was always the forward portion of an enemy ship; the engine, cockpit, wing root section. If you get any hits at all, even only a few, you're bound to put one or two slugs into the engine compartment. Having a couple of bullets riccochet off the engine block and tear up some ignition harness is not too bad at all, at least not fatal. But to have all those thin-walled oil cooling tubes ahead of the engine is bad news. Any hits or riccochets in the engine section are bound to puncture the oil tubes. Then the whole engine is immersed in oil spray, and sometimes it would flash over into a fire. All of the 12 Focke-Wulfs that I shot down sent off a trail of dense, boiling oil smoke heavy enough to fog up my gun camera lens and windshield if I were so close.
- UNQUOTE

Before anyone sets his hair on fire, let it be said that every internal combustion powered a/c needed an oil cooling system. Wherever it was placed, it would be a point of vulnerability. I think Carson's intimation here is that a more protected location might have been found on the FW190 - a fighter for which he overall had the highest praise.


But this tubes are exactly what the 12mm armor was supposed to protect. I made calculation based on Krup armor penetration formulae.. and .50 when hitting from any angle close or worse than 30 degrees cannot penetrate 12mm Krup Wh armor from more than 100 meters. So only very few shots, the ones in the correct angle would be able to cut it.

Russain engiens are (in game)as tough as FW190 engines)


About 2 on each 3 attacks I make on B25 or A20 I have my engine damaged and have to return base (it continues working but with much reduced power). 66% of success is not a bad kill ration for a rear gunner at 300 meters. Many times you don't see that the FW is damaged.. (it does not smoke with engine damage) but it will be damaged.

lrrp22
05-31-2005, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
^ Why? Because the 3D model effectively already exists. It seems that anything requiring new internals is far less likely to appear than a tweak to an existing aircraft.

Either that it's because of the whining about the boosted Merlins.

Cheers,
Norris

Norris,

Oleg added the Mustang III is because he was provided a large amount of source test data and operational squadron information as well as the fact that, like you said, the 3D model required no additional work to implement. It was strictly an FM power boost.

I have to say that I was amazed at how receptive and helpful Oleg was.

Blutarski2004
05-31-2005, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
But this tubes are exactly what the 12mm armor was supposed to protect. I made calculation based on Krup armor penetration formulae.. and .50 when hitting from any angle close or worse than 30 degrees cannot penetrate 12mm Krup Wh armor from more than 100 meters. So only very few shots, the ones in the correct angle would be able to cut it.

Russain engiens are (in game)as tough as FW190 engines)


About 2 on each 3 attacks I make on B25 or A20 I have my engine damaged and have to return base (it continues working but with much reduced power). 66% of success is not a bad kill ration for a rear gunner at 300 meters. Many times you don't see that the FW is damaged.. (it does not smoke with engine damage) but it will be damaged.


..... I rhink that Carson was talking more about vulnerability to damage from ricochets and fragments which might be generated as a result of hits in the general engine area - not necessarily by fire from the front. He claims that all twelve of the FW190's which he shot down showed large clouds of oil smoke as they went down.

As far as the IL2/FB/XXX damage model goes, I remain convinced that it is "scripted" - i.e.: a hit by X projectile in Y location will produce Z damage all the time.

Blutarski2004
05-31-2005, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Thanks for that post it makes an informative read. I think however that Carsons experience is differnent from Pingus in so far that Carsons kills most likely came from the rear hemisphere whereas Pingu is firing directly in to the Fw's nose. What I was also reffering to were the heavy bomber interceptor Fw's that expected such a scenario of attacking bombers from dead 6 and they received no additional engine up armouring.

regards


..... Maybe the frontal armor did an excellent job of protecting the oil cooler lines from frontal fire, but not such a good job from rear fire - ricochets, fragment, etc. Just thinking out loud here.

As I mentioned to Oldman, I think that the DM's are scripted - i.e.: X projectile hitting in Y location will always give Z damage. This would explain the high frequency of same type damage effect.

faustnik
05-31-2005, 10:19 AM
What P1ngyu said about the Fw190 direct is entirely true. From a true 12 o'clock the Fw190A engine takes large amounts of damage. If you add an angle, damage is normal. This explains why you still get shot down when attacking bombers, because you get hits from other than dead 12.

Other things are messed up with the Fw190 DM, including the fuel bug, lift loss bug and fuel tank fire bug. So, the Fw190 DM is both overmodeled and undermodeled, or basically, a total mess. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

****************************

Oh, back to the Mustang III, it's going to be great, both to fight in and against! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Thanks to Irp and others for getting the needed info to 1C.

CUJO_1970
05-31-2005, 11:45 AM
Ole Pingyu won't be be trying many head-ons with FW-190s after 4.0 hehe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
05-31-2005, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
What P1ngyu said about the Fw190 direct is entirely true. From a true 12 o'clock the Fw190A engine takes large amounts of damage. If you add an angle, damage is normal. This explains why you still get shot down when attacking bombers, because you get hits from other than dead 12.

Other things are messed up with the Fw190 DM, including the fuel bug, lift loss bug and fuel tank fire bug. So, the Fw190 DM is both overmodeled and undermodeled, or basically, a total mess. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

****************************

Oh, back to the Mustang III, it's going to be great, both to fight in and against! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Thanks to Irp and others for getting the needed info to 1C.

thanks faustnik, imo all the armour or similer has be places on the front of the dm model.

the engine damage is important because the wings are too small a target to hit from head on, yes i can hit them but im aiming for the engine.

if anyone wants to test this, just do what i said in my previous post, i can run the test on HL also if u poke me on there.

also, arcade 1 doesnt work on my online tracks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

CUJO_1970
05-31-2005, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:

I thought the 8th rejected the 150 grade fuel because of engine problems?


The 8th AF had a lot of problems with 150 grade fuel.

In the Autumn of 1944 there was "an alarming increase in P-51 takeoff crashes due to engine failure" according to 8th AF historian Roger Freeman.

Persistent spark plug fouling appears to have been cured by the addition of "ethyiline dibromide fluid" (even though the British maintained it caused engine damage in their fighters), and 150 grade had the benefit of cleaner plugs, increased range, and higher power output.

British concerns with the ethyiline dibromide additive were confirmed when it was found to seperate from the fuel and form acid which attacked the valves, causing valve seats to burn out and fail, often leading to power loss or complete engine failure.

According to Freeman, many units in the 8th AF tried to switch back to 130 grade fuel, but it was hard to get, due to replacement by 150 grade.

Apparently it was decided that fouled plugs were less of a problem than complete valve/ engine failure and so 150 grade fuel was supplied either without ethyiline dibromide or with smaller quantities of it.

OldMan____
05-31-2005, 12:48 PM
I read that also somewhere. But this is no reason to not have this plane. I just don't like theperspective of all NOMAL mustang disapearing to be replaced by RAF ones from day to night in online servers.



Again about the FW... My experience as a FW driver is that engine is not that tought to ve safe to attack any plane. I never counted more than 3 or maybe 5 hits before start loosing power. Since I can guess a > 60% chance that bullet will hit armor. Not very starnge again. This head on strenght is almost for sure due to armor. Since from side attacks on engine you can loose it fairly easily. American planes rear armor is same toughtness... so I see no double standard here.


My assumption is that the engine is not THAT tought ( only reasonably tought for an radial engine). I think all the bullets that are not damaging the engine are being treated as hitting ARMOR in game.

I erally used to think plaen armor should not make that difference.. but after I implemented an termional ballistics simmulator I see armor is even underestimated in this game.

p1ngu666
05-31-2005, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Ole Pingyu won't be be trying many head-ons with FW-190s after 4.0 hehe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

im talking about flying bombers liek b25, its probably more dangerous to dodge about than to sit still and fire back. its worse than chucking a 190 about at slow speed, its very edgy :\

SeaNorris
05-31-2005, 01:04 PM
tt
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Ole Pingyu won't be be trying many head-ons with FW-190s after 4.0 hehe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

im talking about flying bombers liek b25, its probably more dangerous to dodge about than to sit still and fire back. its worse than chucking a 190 about at slow speed, its very edgy :\ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah it is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Sir_Zerg
05-31-2005, 01:48 PM
Wall im looking forad for the Mustang III, i wunder if its likley that the Mustang I or P-51 A will be added some day, as i would quite like a new plan to play with that is not from 1944/45 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Slickun
05-31-2005, 05:02 PM
I think that at 81 inches of hg, or 25 lbs boost, the 'ol Merlin developed something like 2000 hp.

The Mustang III mostly didn't have fuselage tanks, so we're talking about a lighter, much more powerful plane, with great vis.

Someone else can work out the climb rates, acceleration, dive acceleration, sustained turn etc, but at low to mid levels we are talking about a different Mustang than the 8th AF variety.

They were present in mumbers up until VE day, as others have posted, as well as 8th AF planes running higher boosts than what shows on most charts we are familiar with.

Mustangs in the Pacific operated at 81 inches of HG as well. High boost Mustangs were not as rare as some suggest.

Allison and all types of Merlin Mustangs, B,C, III, IV, and D's, operating at many levels of boost, were present in numbers in Europe until VE day.

The stats we often use to compare the Mustangs to other types with usually are the numbers that the types displayed at their lowest boost levels.

lrrp22
05-31-2005, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:

Someone else can work out the climb rates...



Should be well over 4,500 fpm... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


.