PDA

View Full Version : if a boosted p51 comes along, which one do u want?



thefruitbat
07-05-2006, 12:52 PM
I only ask, because i much prefer the N9 gunsight to the K14, purely for the slip indicator below the sight.

I personally find that the 51 is lovely to fly as long as you keep the ball centered. I think its a rudder trim intensive plane if that makes sense, and i find that even small changes in speed will put it out of trim. Obviously this happens alot in combat. Having the slip indicator in view when you are using the gunsight is damn handy in getting the best out of the 51 imo.

I only write this in a sort of vain hope that oleg will give us a '45 mustang for the US. I really enjoy flying the RAF boosted mustang, but would really love the cockpit visability that the D model gives, not to mention the 2 extra 50's so i can take out more tigers.

All in all, not that important i know, just wondering if anyone else has an opinion on this

cheers fruitbat

thefruitbat
07-05-2006, 12:52 PM
I only ask, because i much prefer the N9 gunsight to the K14, purely for the slip indicator below the sight.

I personally find that the 51 is lovely to fly as long as you keep the ball centered. I think its a rudder trim intensive plane if that makes sense, and i find that even small changes in speed will put it out of trim. Obviously this happens alot in combat. Having the slip indicator in view when you are using the gunsight is damn handy in getting the best out of the 51 imo.

I only write this in a sort of vain hope that oleg will give us a '45 mustang for the US. I really enjoy flying the RAF boosted mustang, but would really love the cockpit visability that the D model gives, not to mention the 2 extra 50's so i can take out more tigers.

All in all, not that important i know, just wondering if anyone else has an opinion on this

cheers fruitbat

justflyin
07-05-2006, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
If a boosted p51 comes along, which one do u want? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To quote young John Connor from T2, when asked how many police were outside:

"Um, all of them, I think." ;^)

JG52Karaya-X
07-05-2006, 01:04 PM
Mustang Mk.IV?

Just to stop the wh1ning... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

lbhskier37
07-05-2006, 01:05 PM
I like the one we've got personally. The razorback's were faster than the bubble canopy version, and they just plain look sexier. I'd also think a boosted P47 D10 would be pretty cool too, becuase just like in the P51, the razorback jug just looks way sexier. There is something about those bubble canopies that I just never liked, it kinda destroys the classic lines of the original design.

JG52Karaya-X
07-05-2006, 01:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
There is something about those bubble canopies that I just never liked, it kinda destroys the classic lines of the original design. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Xiolablu3
07-05-2006, 01:07 PM
Isnt the mustang III a boosted P51?

Its at the highest boost they ran at +25lbs, I thought and its a non-bubble top Mustang which means its airframe is faster than the later P51D's with their draggier bubble top.

I dont think there is a faster wartime Mustang than the Mustang MkIII is there?

EDIT: sorry, I just read your post again, you want it for the bubble top and extra guns I see, not the speed.

JG52Karaya-X
07-05-2006, 01:11 PM
Yes, we already have a boosted Mustang (Mk.III)

Fastest thing on the deck after the jets (640km/h).
As I see it the thread starter is asking more or less for a Mustang Mk.IV...

Yes, no, maybe? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Xiolablu3
07-05-2006, 01:18 PM
Interesting you should say that its the fastest thing on the deck, Karaya.

The other day I took a Mustang III with 2x1000lbs bombs and thought I can drop these on the targets, run back towards our lines if I get chased after I am low from the drop, and outrun anything which chases. 'Its the ideal plane for this!'

So off I go, I get to the targets and as I dive, a 109G14 starts to chase, I drop the bombs and start to run, expecting to outrun him and then gain some height and come back to cover the other bombers incoming ot the target area.

He chased and after about 1 minute on a sea level chase, he quite easily caught me, tho and shot me down as I didnt want to manouvre as it would lesson my speed. Therefore I got a mk108 in the ***.

Can anyone tell me why this might have occured? Do the bomb racks slow you down even after dropping your ordance? Or is htere another reason he caught me easy, such as poor acceleration by the Mustang III. Its not a plane I fly often so any tips would be appreciated as to what went wrong here?

thefruitbat
07-05-2006, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
Yes, we already have a boosted Mustang (Mk.III)

Fastest thing on the deck after the jets (640km/h).
As I see it the thread starter is asking more or less for a Mustang Mk.IV...

Yes, no, maybe? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No not really. It seems to me most likely that if a boosted p51d arrived in the game it would be a boosted D5 or D20. Then there would not need to be a new model or cockpit etc...

Yes there is a boosted verison of the mustang, but as xiolablu3 says its a c version. I think a boosted D version would be usefull for '45 scenarios thats all. Its no diff from having a 44 dora and a 45 dora yes/no?

I also agree that the razorbacks look better, but asthetics is not normally my first priority. Visabilty comes ahead http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

thefruitbat
07-05-2006, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Interesting you should say that its the fastest thing on the deck, Karaya.

The other day I took a Mustang III with 2x1000lbs bombs and thought I can drop these on the targets, run back towards our lines if I get chased after I am low from the drop, and outrun anything which chases. 'Its the ideal plane for this!'

So off I go, I get to the targets and as I dive, a 109G14 starts to chase, I drop the bombs and start to run, expecting to outrun him and then gain some height and come back to cover the other bombers incoming ot the target area.

He chased and after about 1 minute on a sea level chase, he quite easily caught me, tho and shot me down as I didnt want to manouvre as it would lesson my speed. Therefore I got a mk108 in the ***.

Can anyone tell me why this might have occured? Do the bomb racks slow you down even after dropping your ordance? Or is htere another reason he caught me easy, such as poor acceleration by the Mustang III. Its not a plane I fly often so any tips would be appreciated as to what went wrong here? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its the bomb racks be sure

JG52Karaya-X
07-05-2006, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
Its no diff from having a 44 dora and a 45 dora yes/no? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well performance-wise the two Doras are very very close together, the difference being negligible. With the P51D - Mk.IV it's a difference of 40-50km/h on the deck plus a much better climb.

JtD
07-05-2006, 01:32 PM
It's because the 44 Dora is a December 31st 44 Dora.

For me, I don't care about the cockpit, but about the boost level of the 51. I'd love to see a 6 guns version. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So far the only decent late war plane is the Tempest.

Jaws2002
07-05-2006, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
I only ask, because i much prefer the N9 gunsight to the K14, purely for the slip indicator below the sight.

cheers fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You can use the K14 gyroscopic reticle instead of "the ball". Even better if you have both fixed and gyro activated.

JG53Frankyboy
07-05-2006, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Interesting you should say that its the fastest thing on the deck, Karaya.

The other day I took a Mustang III with 2x1000lbs bombs and thought I can drop these on the targets, run back towards our lines if I get chased after I am low from the drop, and outrun anything which chases. 'Its the ideal plane for this!'

So off I go, I get to the targets and as I dive, a 109G14 starts to chase, I drop the bombs and start to run, expecting to outrun him and then gain some height and come back to cover the other bombers incoming ot the target area.

He chased and after about 1 minute on a sea level chase, he quite easily caught me, tho and shot me down as I didnt want to manouvre as it would lesson my speed. Therefore I got a mk108 in the ***.

Can anyone tell me why this might have occured? Do the bomb racks slow you down even after dropping your ordance? Or is htere another reason he caught me easy, such as poor acceleration by the Mustang III. Its not a plane I fly often so any tips would be appreciated as to what went wrong here? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its the bomb racks be sure </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, its racks have a huge drag in game.
pls also keep that in mind if aou think" i will take 25%fuel and droptanks" . very baaaad idea !

thefruitbat
07-05-2006, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
Its no diff from having a 44 dora and a 45 dora yes/no? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well performance-wise the two Doras are very very close together, the difference being negligible. With the P51D - Mk.IV it's a difference of 40-50km/h on the deck plus a much better climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, its a bad example i used. 109k4 and 109k4c3 would of been better.

Thats not really the point though, to me its like a missing peice in the jigsaw. Theres a 45 version for most planes in each various airforce, execpt a 45 mustang for us and a 45 tempest for the raf. These were the planes that were flying agsinst doras, k4's and 262's yes/no?

I also think it would fit in nicely with the 46 addon as well

cheers fruitbat

JG53Frankyboy
07-05-2006, 01:52 PM
and not ot forgett the USAAF used higher boosted P-51Ds over Japan 1945 !

we had this sometimes in the past.........

my choice would have been to boost the already existing P-51D-20NA to a higher level. no need for a new model in game.
and so the difference between the -5NT and -20NA wouldnt only be the Revi-sight..........

thefruitbat
07-05-2006, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Isnt the mustang III a boosted P51?

Its at the highest boost they ran at +25lbs, I thought and its a non-bubble top Mustang which means its airframe is faster than the later P51D's with their draggier bubble top.

I dont think there is a faster wartime Mustang than the Mustang MkIII is there?

EDIT: sorry, I just read your post again, you want it for the bubble top and extra guns I see, not the speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, i think the mustang III would still be the top performing mustang, as it's the razorback version.

carguy_
07-05-2006, 01:56 PM
Quadruple 20mm Hispano Mustang please.Very much needed.

thefruitbat
07-05-2006, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
and not ot forgett the USAAF used higher boosted P-51Ds over Japan 1945 !

we had this sometimes in the past.........

my choice would have been to boost the already existing P-51D-20NA to a higher level. no need for a new model in game.
and so the difference between the -5NT and -20NA wouldnt only be the Revi-sight.......... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that would make sense to me, although i would have to learn how to use k14 sight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif I have to admit to having never played around with the k14 sight, but am more interested after Jaws2002 post about being able to use the sight reticle itself as 'the ball'

cheers fruitbat

justflyin
07-05-2006, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Quadruple 20mm Hispano Mustang please.Very much needed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be called a Mustang 1A, IIRC.

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/4577/p5159te.jpg

Not sure if they ever put 4 hispanos on later Mustangs, but then again, I'm no Mustang expert.

justflyin
07-05-2006, 02:19 PM
A good Mustang page FYI:

Mustangs (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/p51.htm)

Flakwalker
07-05-2006, 02:30 PM
A P-51K, is not a boosted version but one very easy to add http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG52Karaya-X
07-05-2006, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Flakwalker:
A P-51K, is not a boosted version but one very easy to add http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what kind of addition would that be? As far as I know the only difference between the P51D and K was the production plant...

thefruitbat
07-05-2006, 02:36 PM
Interesting page justflying, thanks.

One thing i noticed on there, it says the weps on A and B versions 4 50's, and that 'typical C onwards 6 50's. I thought the B and the C were the same plane, built in diff locations, with the C having the malcom hood, although i know this was not exclusive to either. I didnt think it was till the D models redisgned wing that 6 50's were introduced. Am i mistaken?

cheers fruitbat

Kocur_
07-05-2006, 02:36 PM
Which one? Man, thats easy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
The second XP-51B, 41-37421, i.e. the only Merlin Mustang with 4 x 20mm Hispano http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

But seriously, like previous posters I would like to see P-51D-20 uprated to 150oct fuel performance, while leaving D-5 as it is now.

Not that I would oppose adding P-51H in '46 add on... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Flakwalker
07-05-2006, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Flakwalker:
A P-51K, is not a boosted version but one very easy to add http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what kind of addition would that be? As far as I know the only difference between the P51D and K was the production plant... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For that reason http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kocur_
07-05-2006, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Flakwalker:
A P-51K, is not a boosted version but one very easy to add http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what kind of addition would that be? As far as I know the only difference between the P51D and K was the production plant... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The main difference was prop type: Hamilton Standard in D and Aeroproducts in K. The 'new' version was introduced because of shortages of Hamilton Standard props only. The other difference was in shape of canopy. But performance-wise D and K were the same AFAIK, so adding K would be pointless

Kocur_
07-05-2006, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
Interesting page justflying, thanks.

One thing i noticed on there, it says the weps on A and B versions 4 50's, and that 'typical C onwards 6 50's. I thought the B and the C were the same plane, built in diff locations, with the C having the malcom hood, although i know this was not exclusive to either. I didnt think it was till the D models redisgned wing that 6 50's were introduced. Am i mistaken?

cheers fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

4 x .50s in B/C for sure, 6 in wings in D.
It seems that the main difference between B and C was the engine: V-1650-3 with higher rated alt in B and V-1650-7 with lower in C (about like Merln 66 in Spitfire LF Mk.IX?).


EDIT: the page has more errors: A-36 had 4 x .50s in wings and 2 more in engine cowling, not all six in wings...

Rjel
07-05-2006, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
Interesting page justflying, thanks.

One thing i noticed on there, it says the weps on A and B versions 4 50's, and that 'typical C onwards 6 50's. I thought the B and the C were the same plane, built in diff locations, with the C having the malcom hood, although i know this was not exclusive to either. I didnt think it was till the D models redisgned wing that 6 50's were introduced. Am i mistaken?

cheers fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think any P-51s were ever manufactured with Malcolm hoods as these were locally made in England.

lrrp22
07-05-2006, 04:38 PM
Xiolablu3,

The speed difference between the razorback and bubbletop with the same engine was only 1-2 mph without wing racks. With wing racks, the D was a few mph faster due to a more efficient rack design: -12 mph for the B vs. -4 mph for the D at maximum speed.

Obviously, the V-1650-3 P-51B was faster than the -7 B/D at some altitudes, but slower at others.

LRRP



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Isnt the mustang III a boosted P51?

Its at the highest boost they ran at +25lbs, I thought and its a non-bubble top Mustang which means its airframe is faster than the later P51D's with their draggier bubble top.

I dont think there is a faster wartime Mustang than the Mustang MkIII is there?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

VW-IceFire
07-05-2006, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Flakwalker:
A P-51K, is not a boosted version but one very easy to add http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what kind of addition would that be? As far as I know the only difference between the P51D and K was the production plant... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just the aformentioned propeller and the canopy was a different shape.

http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery/7prg/p-51k.jpg
You'll barely notice it in this picture but right at the very back of the canopy its a bit more angled than on the regular D. Its so minor its barely noticeable.

Hilarious to ask for one really http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
07-06-2006, 04:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Xiolablu3,

The speed difference between the razorback and bubbletop with the same engine was only 1-2 mph without wing racks. With wing racks, the D was a few mph faster due to a more efficient rack design: -12 mph for the B vs. -4 mph for the D at maximum speed.

Obviously, the V-1650-3 P-51B was faster than the -7 B/D at some altitudes, but slower at others.

LRRP

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>[/QUOTE]


Thanks for that info Lrrp

danjama
07-06-2006, 04:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
There is something about those bubble canopies that I just never liked, it kinda destroys the classic lines of the original design. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

IL2-chuter
07-06-2006, 04:48 AM
Canopies were standardised on the Dallas style for both factories for optical reasons, the original Inglwood being more aerodynamic.

The Aeroproducts propeller (on the K) was fifty pounds lighter than the Hamilton Standard giving ever so slightly better (maybe) performance (not enough to officially recognize) but noticeably worsening the aft CG problem (weight off wrong end). Dallas Mustangs with Hamilton Standards were Ds.

The six-fifty wing for the D was in production slightly ahead of the D fuselages in Dallas and there were a very few fitted to the last of the C fuselages, definitely non-standard.

The V1650-7 engine was the only one available as of late '44 and all -3 powered aircraft after that point would have been given the -7 for routine replacement.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


PS. "Razorbacks" were P-47s. It had to do with the razor-like spine they had.

MEGILE
07-06-2006, 06:54 AM
A P-51D 150 octane wouldn't run as fast as the Mustang III if Oleg used USAAF official boost ratings.
IIRC, the US only cleared 75" for operational use in europe.

But still it would be pretty sierra hotel.

justflyin
07-06-2006, 08:27 AM
BTW - Even with only 4 - .50s, she'll still take down or disable most fighters with dem tiger tank-killing .50s, as long as you can shoot straight and hit at your set convergence of 200m or less. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Mustang III for hte win!!!11!!1!!

Slickun
07-06-2006, 08:33 AM
Good posts, all!

Not much to add, except that there were a lot more versions of the P-51 around than what one originally thinks. I admit, at one point I thought there was the Allisons, then the B/C, and then the D. Three versions. Period.

Well, no. Throw in the -3 and -7, 67", 75", 80" and 81" of MAP, the K with the lighter prop, C versions with 6 wing guns, Malcolm vs standard canopies, fuselage tank or not, cloth or metal covered control surfaces, filet added to the D or not, lead computing gunsight or not, g-suit....there were a LOT of different Mustangs, and most of the above named beasts flew differently. At VE day, still 1/3 of the Mustangs in Europe were B/C versions, with Allisons still represented as well.

I would LOVE to have either a 75" D version for Europe, or an 80" version in the Pacific. Both enjoyed significant performance advantages at lower levels over their 67" brethern. Added HP made a big difference on the clean design of the Pony.

Oh yeah. Same wings on the B, C, and D. Apparently the gun installation was changed, not wing thickness.

luftluuver
07-06-2006, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
Oh yeah. Same wings on the B, C, and D. Apparently the gun installation was changed, not wing thickness. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not quite, for the Dog Pony had a little wing crank added on the leading edge on the inner wing.

Frequent_Flyer
07-06-2006, 10:40 AM
The Pony you want is the "H" version. Some say it never was operational in WW II. Although I have sources that say it was. Irregardless, this sim has many that never saw service or even lifted off the ground. P-51H Speed at 25,000 ft.= 487mph- (the fastest piston engined aircraft of all combatants to see service ) Even at 5,000ft = 444mph it out ran everthing!

IL2-chuter
07-06-2006, 01:08 PM
100/150 fuel was standard fighter fuel by March '45. Within a week or two some groups requested a return to 100/130 because of the increase in valve train maintainance required.

lrrp22
07-06-2006, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
100/150 fuel was standard fighter fuel by March '45. Within a week or two some groups requested a return to 100/130 because of the increase in valve train maintainance required. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chuter,

100/150 grade was standard by July of '44 and was used exclusively until after VE-Day. It was the non-plug fouling 'PEP' variation of 100/150 grade used in February/March '45 that caused valve problems. 8th AAF returned to standard 1.0 TEL 100/150 grade in April, although it appears that some 100/130 grade fuel may have been used in fuselage and drop tanks in April and May of '45.

LRRP

Slickun
07-07-2006, 09:47 AM
My Dad and I talked about flying a lot. I was interested in performance, turning etc, he was more interested in talking about technical stuff. He often talked about prop pitch, fuel richness settings, boost settings etc, and my eyes rolled back and I didn't pay much attention. I remember him once talking, very technically, about how they bore sighted the guns on a P-47.

This discussion about 150 grade fuel recently reminded me of a story he often told.

Most of us realize that after a while it was realized that running the Merlin (and other) engines flat out for a few seconds every 15 or 30 minutes aided in preventing spark plug fouling whilst running 150 octane fuel.

We also don't appear to have, in our little community here at least, a LOT of solid evidence that 80" of MAP was used by the Mustang Groups on Iwo Jima. Some anecdotal, a few photos, some flight reports.

Anyway. Dad flew Mustangs immediately post war from Japan. He was stationed there right after the war, and he got his flight hours in with a Mustang unit. He was very happy about it, because he'd always wanted to fly the Pony, and was "stuck" in a P-47N unit until the war ended. Make no mistake, he loved and revered the toughness of his Jug, but he'd always wanted to fly the Mustang, because it was the "glamor" plane while he was in training etc.

He learned to fly a Douglas A-26 (soon to be B-26) that was lying around the base, and used as a liason plane. The aft turrets were removed, along with the guns in the wings, and the holes faired over. A lot of weight and drag removed. The plane was used by a general to fly around in, his personal transport.

On one flight, escorted by several Mustangs, the Pony pilots called to Pop that it was time to "blow out their engines". The Mustangs opened everything up, and so did Pop. According to Dad, he actually pulled slightly ahead of the Mustangs as the lightened Invader showed its stuff.

Needless to say the Mustang pilots were astonished, asking "what was under the hood" etc.

Silly little story I kind of wanted to get out, illustrating one veterans rememberances of an incident, illustrating that 150 octane was almost certainly used by Mustangs, at least immediately post war, and that the A-26 had some serious power to weight ratios in its recon versions.

Slickun
07-07-2006, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
Oh yeah. Same wings on the B, C, and D. Apparently the gun installation was changed, not wing thickness. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not quite, for the Dog Pony had a little wing crank added on the leading edge on the inner wing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. There was a pretty lengthy discussion here recently about all this, some thinking the D had a thicker wing because the guns weren't canted. Someone put up some pretty convinving data that the mounts were moved forward, IIRC, in the wing to get the breechs into a thicker part, removing the need to lay the guns over 45 degrees.

Nothing said about the wing crank. Very interesting.

luftluuver
07-07-2006, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
Interesting. There was a pretty lengthy discussion here recently about all this, some thinking the D had a thicker wing because the guns weren't canted. Someone put up some pretty convinving data that the mounts were moved forward, IIRC, in the wing to get the breechs into a thicker part, removing the need to lay the guns over 45 degrees.

Nothing said about the wing crank. Very interesting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Slickun look at some plan views of the B/C and D and you will see that the D had a bent/cranked leading edge much more pronounced than the B/C.

Another visible change introduced by the P-51D was in the increase of the wing root chord. The main landing gear was strengthened in order to accommodate the additional weight, but the wheels maintained the same diameter of 27 inches. However, the wheel bays and doors were modified and the "kink" in the wing leading edge was made much more pronounced. The "kink" in the wing of the P-51B was barely noticeable, but it was much more pronounced in the P-51D. Baugher

lrrp22
07-07-2006, 11:07 AM
This shot shows the difference in leading edge crank...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0946296/L/

LRRP

Kuna_
07-07-2006, 02:36 PM
Mustang Mk.IV and one with cannons.

Kocur_
07-07-2006, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna_:
Mustang Mk.IV and one with cannons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem is the one with cannons - produced serially was P-51 (no letter) aka Mustang Mk. IA and was powered by Allison V-1710, i.e. new outside model would be needed (btw. Allison Mustangs were wonderfully fast down low, especially in 1942, how I wish we had them now!).
Of Merlin powered Mustangs there was exactly ONE example with Hispanos http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif Somehow I dont think its gonna be added, even if there are precedents equally or more odd...

AFJ_Locust
07-07-2006, 05:38 PM
wichever is the fastest plain & simple

Slickun
07-07-2006, 08:38 PM
Thanks, guys. Learn something new everyday.

faustnik
07-07-2006, 08:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
A P-51D 150 octane wouldn't run as fast as the Mustang III if Oleg used USAAF official boost ratings.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then RAF ratings would be fine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I'll take a Mustang IV please.

justflyin
07-13-2006, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
Interesting. There was a pretty lengthy discussion here recently about all this, some thinking the D had a thicker wing because the guns weren't canted. Someone put up some pretty convinving data that the mounts were moved forward, IIRC, in the wing to get the breechs into a thicker part, removing the need to lay the guns over 45 degrees.

Nothing said about the wing crank. Very interesting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Slickun look at some plan views of the B/C and D and you will see that the D had a bent/cranked leading edge much more pronounced than the B/C.

Another visible change introduced by the P-51D was in the increase of the wing root chord. The main landing gear was strengthened in order to accommodate the additional weight, but the wheels maintained the same diameter of 27 inches. However, the wheel bays and doors were modified and the "kink" in the wing leading edge was made much more pronounced. The "kink" in the wing of the P-51B was barely noticeable, but it was much more pronounced in the P-51D. Baugher </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/8896/009104600693co.jpg

lbhskier37
07-13-2006, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Megile:
A P-51D 150 octane wouldn't run as fast as the Mustang III if Oleg used USAAF official boost ratings.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then RAF ratings would be fine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I'll take a Mustang IV please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still would be slower than the mkIII. Who needs a rear view when you are that fast http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lrrp22
07-13-2006, 11:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by justflyin:

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/8896/009104600693co.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

justflyin,

That pic is a P-51H. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The H-model did away with the leading edge crank completely.

LRRP

danjama
07-13-2006, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Megile:
A P-51D 150 octane wouldn't run as fast as the Mustang III if Oleg used USAAF official boost ratings.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then RAF ratings would be fine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I'll take a Mustang IV please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still would be slower than the mkIII. Who needs a rear view when you are that fast http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

best signature quote EVER!

Aaron_GT
07-13-2006, 11:29 AM
It's a shame the Spiteful was cancelled due to the war ending (although it flew before it did). 494mph max speed in its XVI configuration, although the XIV (which was the only version that saw a limited production run) was 20mph slower.

lrrp22
07-13-2006, 11:38 AM
If we're talking 1945 boosted Mustangs- why *not* the P-51H? We're getting a Ta 152C along with several other barely post-war aircraft. The H-model went into full-scale production in February 1945.

A few P-51H numbers:

682 kph at sea level http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /784 kph at 7,500 meters

27 to 29 M/S climb rate.

Yeah, I think we need one of those... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LRRP

Brain32
07-13-2006, 11:43 AM
What is this about then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/p-51h-64161.html

edgflyer
07-13-2006, 11:52 AM
How about the flight characteristics get corrected first

justflyin
07-13-2006, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
justflyin,

That pic is a P-51H. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The H-model did away with the leading edge crank completely.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good, thank you for clearing that up. I hate being confused. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

luftluuver
07-13-2006, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
justflyin,

That pic is a P-51H. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The H-model did away with the leading edge crank completely.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Besides the serialnumber says it is a P-51H-1-NA or -5-NA.

Other hints that it is not a Dog Pony is the exhaust stubs and the access panel on the fuselage side below the rear of the canopy. It is a bit hard to tell but the fairing for the ventral rad scoop seems to far back as well. On the Dog Pony this ended on a vertical line where the fin fillet started while on the H it is at the line of the leading edge of the stab.

lrrp22
07-13-2006, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
What is this about then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/p-51h-64161.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That test is for 67" Hg. WEP for the P-51H was 90" Hg with water injection. 90" Hg gave an additional 600 HP or so over 67".

LRRP

justflyin
07-13-2006, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Besides the serialnumber says it is a P-51H-1-NA or -5-NA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I wasn't THAT interested to search out the plane's registry info. Thanks, for the information though.

Kurfurst__
07-13-2006, 01:00 PM
<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 was standard by July of '44 and was used exclusively until after VE-Day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least in the 8th AAF, but the others don't appear to use it - the 15th AAF in Italy never used 150 grade as far as I know. That's why we have the standard 100 octane P-51D in the first place, it was released for Balkans/EF purposes (ie. 15th AAF).

A 8th AAF 71-72" P-51D would be definietely nice, I don't think there would be capacity because of BoB, though.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
A few P-51H numbers:

682 kph at sea level /784 kph at 7,500 meters

27 to 29 M/S climb rate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Curious numbers. I wonder, since in the above Flight Tests on the P-51H Airplane, AAF No. 44-64161, resulted 358 mph at SL w. 67"/1480bhp, how on earth can an additional 600 HP or so over 67" boost that to no less than 424mph at SL... some 66 mph.

The P-51D went ca. 25mph up when going from 67" to 81".
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/tk589-level.jpg

The only way I can imagine is to strip the wing bomb racks from it...

lrrp22
07-13-2006, 04:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<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 was standard by July of '44 and was used exclusively until after VE-Day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least in the 8th AAF, but the others don't appear to use it - the 15th AAF in Italy never used 150 grade as far as I know. That's why we have the standard 100 octane P-51D in the first place, it was released for Balkans/EF purposes (ie. 15th AAF).

A 8th AAF 71-72" P-51D would be definietely nice, I don't think there would be capacity because of BoB, though.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, it definitely was only the 8th AAF. But from the end of 1944 to VE-Day, the 8th AAF had 14 Mustang Fighter Groups vs. 4 Groups in the 15th AAF/MTO and 1-2 (counting recon groups) in the 9th AAF. Two of the 8th€s Mustang FG€s were in France/Belgium from late Dec €44 to early April €45 and did not use 150 grade.

An 8th AAF P-51D at 75€ Hg would be even nicer. As I€m sure you€ve seen, it appears that 75€ was used in 8th AAF. Not suprising considering that it was definitely cleared as such for both the V-1650-3 and -7 by the AAF. Then again, a 81€ Hg Mustang IV would be entirely fair as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
A few P-51H numbers:

682 kph at sea level /784 kph at 7,500 meters

27 to 29 M/S climb rate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Curious numbers. I wonder, since in the above Flight Tests on the P-51H Airplane, AAF No. 44-64161, resulted 358 mph at SL w. 67"/1480bhp, how on earth can an additional 600 HP or so over 67" boost that to no less than 424mph at SL... some 66 mph.

The P-51D went ca. 25mph up when going from 67" to 81".
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/tk589-level.jpg

The only way I can imagine is to strip the wing bomb racks from it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It€s actually around a 660 HP difference (rammed), and you are correct- wing racks were not fitted for the 424 mph figure. However, the H€s racks were much cleaner than the P-51B€s and, like the P-51D€s racks, probably only accounted for a 3-5 mph speed loss vs. the B-type rack€s 8-12 mph penalty. Also, the P-51H was a bit slicker than the P-51D, so that extra horsepower should go a bit further speed-wise.


LRRP

Kocur_
07-13-2006, 10:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
What is this about then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/p-51h-64161.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As they wrote, the water injection didnt work, so this rather low performance is what you would get without extra power available from fully operational V-1650-9.
With the engine going right, it would be like that:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/p-51h-altperf-91444.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Meshsmoother
07-14-2006, 05:47 AM
Only boost needed in P51 is on it's pop-corn launcher machineguns... otherwise it's a kickarse plane. Not as good as FW190 D9-A9, but certainly my second preferred ride after the FW190A series.

=S=

T.

JtD
07-14-2006, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:

With the engine going right, it would be like that:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/p-51h-altperf-91444.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Factory data. Take it with a grain of salt or explain me what they did exactly to improve high altitude performance that much.

Kurfurst__
07-14-2006, 09:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Factory data. Take it with a grain of salt or explain me what they did exactly to improve high altitude performance that much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bit more juice in the engine at high altitudes perhaps, as shown by power curves...?

Regardless, it's a bit of an academic debate. The H did not saw action in WW2, and jet age was coming.

JtD
07-14-2006, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Bit more juice in the engine at high altitudes perhaps, as shown by power curves...? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that would be an argument. 20% more is a lot.

Wonder how they did it without changing the engine, though.

luftluuver
07-14-2006, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
[Factory data. Take it with a grain of salt or explain me what they did exactly to improve high altitude performance that much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Can we use this statement for German, Soviet, Russian, French, Italian, etc a/c as well?

JtD
07-14-2006, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Can we use this statement for German, Soviet, Russian, French, Italian, etc a/c as well? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno, where there German, Soviet, Russian, French, Italian, etc a/c that improved high altitude that much? If so, sure. Go on explain me.

TgD Thunderbolt56
07-14-2006, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">if a boosted p51 comes along, which one do u want? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The one that the wings don't fall off of when I pull out of a 650kph dive with minor elevator input. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Kocur_
07-14-2006, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Bit more juice in the engine at high altitudes perhaps, as shown by power curves...? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that would be an argument. 20% more is a lot.

Wonder how they did it without changing the engine, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess the answer is in the following graph:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/p-51h-powercurve.jpg

Quite a bit more power in the "high speed" curve compared to "static"! About 1440hp of static power at 30.000ft and like 1640hp of high speed power, which makes about 14% difference.
I wonder if the latter curve has both ram effect (as it says) and exhaust thrust? Anyway AFAIK both effects become the more meaningful the higher is the speed.

But I wouldnt fight any war to make everyone belive the above P-51H performance graph is 100% valid for production planes. OTOH it couldn't be too far away from reality.

Brain32
07-14-2006, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">if a boosted p51 comes along, which one do u want? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The one that the wings don't fall off of when I pull out of a 650kph dive with minor elevator input. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You still have that one? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I can sell you mine which pulls out at 800, no problems http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

JtD
07-14-2006, 10:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
I guess the answer is in the following graph:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/p-51h-powercurve.jpg
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That xhart is the problem. Take the figure for 35000ft and climb:

@61": 49.4" - 1012hp
@67": 49.4" - 1012hp
@90": ????" - 1200hp

35000 ft is above the critical alt for the engine. Therefore there should be little difference, i.e. the P-47 gained like 4mph at critical 52" alt if you compare 52" figures with 70" + H2O. The P-51H gains 40mph from 67" to 90" + H2O.

Well, besides this, the water injection did boost high altitude performance somewhat. I did not know this. How come?

Siwarrior
07-15-2006, 02:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Quadruple 20mm Hispano Mustang please.Very much needed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
LMAO!!!!!!!

but do you really want to fly with an allison engine? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Siwarrior
07-15-2006, 02:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
There is something about those bubble canopies that I just never liked, it kinda destroys the classic lines of the original design. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+another http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif