PDA

View Full Version : What was the P-51 in fact?



Sergio_101
08-27-2006, 01:35 PM
P-51 was:

fast

very fast sustained cruise speed (for a piston plane)

Very maneuverable, better than most Luftwhiners believe.

VERY inexpensive.

Very good range.

Good if not excellent weapons platform.

Excellent vsability in D models and later.

Maybe the best high speed maneuverability of any piston plane of WWII.

At least on a par with any in dive.

At true combat weights it also posessed reasonably good climb and turn rates.

As the combat reports at Spitfireperformance.com indicate, it was truly
a world beater in it's day.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports.html

Sergio

LStarosta
08-27-2006, 01:43 PM
You forgot that it won the war.

HuninMunin
08-27-2006, 01:47 PM
One could easely argue that

1. The Dora is better in every point you mentioned above ( except low speed maneuverability, wich is equaled by roll rate)

2. In the time the D series flow, the Luftwaffe had their first Jet combat ready.

Xiolablu3
08-27-2006, 01:55 PM
Great plane

Although it aLso had bad points

1: Not very manouvrable at lower speeds , certainly worse than 109 at lower speed dogfights

2: Poor armament compared to most other fighters of its day

3: Quite unstable, DIrectional Stability not so good

4. Needed lots of trimming for speed changes

5: Poor climb rate

Many planes of the era had very good high speed manouvrability FW190, Me262, Tempest, Gloster Meteor.

Test pilots thoughts on P51 :-

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P51_Chracteristics.gif

I am sure if we had lists and lists of Luftwaffe combat reports, we would see that their planes were also world beaters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I love the P51, its great fun to fly and master in the sim.

Xiolablu3
08-27-2006, 02:03 PM
Sorry, I didnt really answer the question.

Was the P51 a goat?

No, it was maybe a Skateboard?

My final answer, the P51 was in fact, a *****.

'P51 6 inch Anal Intruder' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Sorry http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

MEGILE
08-27-2006, 02:04 PM
10 pager

HuninMunin
08-27-2006, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
10 pager

At least http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

danjama
08-27-2006, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
You forgot that it won the war.

Let the party begin http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

carguy_
08-27-2006, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
10 pager

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Rebel_Yell_21
08-27-2006, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
One could easely argue that

1. The Dora is better in every point you mentioned above ( except low speed maneuverability, wich is equaled by roll rate)



One could even more easily argue the Dora isn't.

Sergio_101
08-27-2006, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Rebel_Yell_21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
One could easely argue that

1. The Dora is better in every point you mentioned above ( except low speed maneuverability, wich is equaled by roll rate)




Agreed, the Dora was no better and lacked range.
The only clear advantage for the Dora was firepower.

Sergio

One could even more easily argue the Dora isn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xiolablu3
08-27-2006, 02:33 PM
Surely the Dora had a far better climb, roll and firepower?

BfHeFwMe
08-27-2006, 02:34 PM
What, Focke Wulf ragging already on the first page? Bit early me thinks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

Daiichidoku
08-27-2006, 02:44 PM
P 51?

cheaper than the far more capable P38, and less demanding of pilot training

longer legs than the far more reliable and survivable P47 (until the 47N, of course)

production already established far too soon to abandon it to the P63

a fighter that was adequate for demands at the time, while allowing for huge and cheap production, to flood the skies with overwhelming numerical superiority

mind you, its does look good, and makes for a great sport/recreational ship

Haigotron
08-27-2006, 02:47 PM
Let the party begin

i called crowd control, but they said they dont do p51 threads anymore...

danjama
08-27-2006, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Haigotron:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Let the party begin

i called crowd control, but they said they dont do p51 threads anymore... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, it just isnt what it used to be round here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
08-27-2006, 03:10 PM
P-51?

Best Anglo-American act since Laurel & Hardy.

Abbuzze
08-27-2006, 03:12 PM
The P51 was of course a very good plane with some exceptional attributes. But it wasnÔ┬┤t the ├┼ôberplane some people believe...

BoCfuss
08-27-2006, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
The P51 was of course a very good plane with some exceptional attributes. But it wasnÔ┬┤t the ├┼ôberplane some people believe...

Nor was it the goat some people believe....

horseback
08-27-2006, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
P 51?

cheaper than the far more capable P38, and less demanding of pilot training What exactly, was the P-38 more capable of? While it had great potential right from the day the US entered the war, Lockheed was very slow to ramp up production to useful levels, and the cockpit layout was atrocious, from an ergonomic standpoint. The P-38 was harder to fly to its combat potential, much more difficult to maintain, and was not available in the necessary numbers when it was most needed.

Those qualities are not exactly force multipliers. Had it not been so, the Mustang line would have ended with the Allison engined P-51A.

longer legs than the far more reliable and survivable P47 (until the 47N, of course) Reliability for a worker that can't get to the 'job site' isn't reliability. The Mustang was able to get to central Europe at a time when the P-47 couldn't, and it was perceived by its pilots (many of whom had flown the P-47 in combat) at least, to be more air combat capable at all altitudes. Ground attack is another issue.

production already established far too soon to abandon it to the P63 The P-63 was appraised and found wanting in performance compared to the already in full production Mustang, just as the quite able bubbletopped P-40Q was. Too little, too late.

a fighter that was adequate for demands at the time, while allowing for huge and cheap production, to flood the skies with overwhelming numerical superiority So you're another who thinks that the Mustang appeared over Germany in January 1944 in overwhelming numbers, instead of slowly building that strength while at the same time steadily subtracting from German fighter strength & pilot experience from Jan-May of 1944? Please, read something that isn't all pictures...

mind you, its does look good, and makes for a great sport/recreational ship Agreed, but that does little to explain the relative absence from the sport/recreational arena of other contemporary fighters which were just as numerous at the end of the war...

cheers

horseback

Sergio_101
08-27-2006, 03:31 PM
Numerical superiority was achieved AFTER
there were few skilled German pilots.

Truth is the number of P-51s in Europe before D-day
were small and they were out numbered.

Yet they still managed to give the Luftwaffe a bad time.

The overwhelming numbers thing is a cheap Luftcrutch.

The overwhelming numbers did in fact happen in late 1944.

But history already documents the fact that Allied fighters
were better by early 1944 and in superior numbers by late 1944.
All the luftwhining can't change the facts.

Sergio

Abbuzze
08-27-2006, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:

But history already documents the fact that Allied fighters
were better by early 1944 and in superior numbers by late 1944.
All the luftwhining can't change the facts.

Sergio

Who doubt that the P51 was better than a clean G6 in spring/summer 44?

BaronUnderpants
08-27-2006, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:

But history already documents the fact that Allied fighters
were better by early 1944 and in superior numbers by late 1944.
All the luftwhining can't change the facts.

Sergio

Who doubt that the P51 was better than a clean G6 in spring/summer 44? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Both pros and cons are getting real old. Unless we can turn back time and find out how P-51 would have managed german fighters that WASNT preoccupied with blasting BOMBERS out of the sky we will never truly know if P-51 is/was indeed the best fighter ever.

German fighters PRIME objective was shooting down bombers, not chasing fighters. If that was the case, maby the story would have been completly differant.

Maby we could leave the "Icon of the free world" approach out of the debate for once.

It did its job...but so did a s**t load of other ac to.

carguy_
08-27-2006, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Numerical superiority was achieved AFTER
there were few skilled German pilots.


What?



Truth is the number of P-51s in Europe before D-day
were small and they were out numbered.


100% agree.Small numbers outnumbered by P38/P47 in service.



Yet they still managed to give the Luftwaffe a bad time.


Indisputable over 8000m.



The overwhelming numbers thing is a cheap Luftcrutch.


The Mustang won teh war thing is just cheapt Tom Cruise fanboism.



The overwhelming numbers did in fact happen in late 1944.


100% agree provided a figure of one("1") is substracted from the last figure of presented date number.



But history already documents the fact that Allied fighters
were better by early 1944 and in superior numbers by late 1944.

5:1 = better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif



All the luftwhining can't change the facts.


Oh well,at least we can make the History Channel folks change their mind.

HuninMunin
08-27-2006, 03:59 PM
The Dora is 10 km/h faster, increasing with altitude.
They have the same Power to Weight ratio.
The Dora has better powerloading, whilst the P-51 has slightly lower wingloading.

The dora has better climb,better armament, better gauges, better controlls and looks waaaayyyyy more sexy.
Case closed.

@ carguy
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

p1ngu666
08-27-2006, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
The Dora is 10 km/h faster, increasing with altitude.
They have the same Power to Weight ratio.
The Dora has better powerloading, whilst the P-51 has slightly lower wingloading.

The dora has better climb,better armament, better gauges, better controlls and looks waaaayyyyy more sexy.
Case closed.

@ carguy
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

hmm the dora does have the performance edge in sim.

irl the mustangs best attributes where long range, and not being pants.

DuxCorvan
08-27-2006, 04:52 PM
Mustangs had US body and British heart. If they were women they would be fatty and disdainful. Was I a LW plane I wouldn't like to 'dance' with them, either. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Jaws2002
08-27-2006, 06:06 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

already at page two? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/popcorn1.gif

Brain32
08-27-2006, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

already at page two? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/popcorn1.gif
I'm dissapointed I expected page 4 atleast http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

rcocean
08-27-2006, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Numerical superiority was achieved AFTER
there were few skilled German pilots.

Truth is the number of P-51s in Europe before D-day
were small and they were out numbered.

Yet they still managed to give the Luftwaffe a bad time.

The overwhelming numbers thing is a cheap Luftcrutch.

The overwhelming numbers did in fact happen in late 1944.

But history already documents the fact that Allied fighters
were better by early 1944 and in superior numbers by late 1944.
All the luftwhining can't change the facts.

Sergio

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Numbers for 8th airforce P-51/Total fighters dispatched:

Jan 22, 1944 - 40/632
Feb 20 1944 - 68/679
March 18, 1944 - 214/925
April 22, 1944 - 249/859
May 24, 1944 - 304/824
June 29, 1944 231/638
July 31 1944 508/701
Aug 27, 1944 500/871
Sept 28 1944 502/724
Oct 26, 1944 600/674
Nov 21, 1944 800/954

VW-IceFire
08-27-2006, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Mustangs had US body and British heart. If they were women they would be fatty and disdainful. Was I a LW plane I wouldn't like to 'dance' with them, either. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
MAN THAT IS GOLD! Thats quotable!

Fork-N-spoon
08-27-2006, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
You forgot that it won the war.

I believe us Yanks spell it "won teh war."

Jaws2002
08-27-2006, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by rcocean:

Numbers for 8th airforce P-51/Total fighters dispatched:

Jan 22, 1944 - 40/632
Feb 20 1944 - 68/679
March 18, 1944 - 214/925
April 22, 1944 - 249/859
May 24, 1944 - 304/824
June 29, 1944 231/638
July 31 1944 508/701
Aug 27, 1944 500/871
Sept 28 1944 502/724
Oct 26, 1944 600/674
Nov 21, 1944 800/954

Now Add to that the number of bombers they had ( You know, those things had guns too and had to be engaged), plus the 9-th, all the british fighters, jabos, night fighters, night bombers...There was also a very strong allied force in Italy going into Germany from there.



Yeah. Those poor p-51's were so outnumbered.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-27-2006, 10:00 PM
P-40 on steroids after a diet.
For 'only' $51,000+ 1944 dollars.
Calculate the inflation in 2005 dollars at $550,000 in VERY LARGE QUANTITY ONLY.

Just for detractors:
--------------------------------------------------------

Really there never were any P-51's in the war.
Just 1,000,000 P-40's painted to look like them and 200+:1 odds every fight.
It was all propaganda to make Germany quit the war.
And to fool the Russians.
And the British who only thought they were there.

Those planes that escorted the bombers was just movies projected on the sky.
Pure propaganda still disbelieved by all true Euros but never totally figured out.
Nothing by German planes could fly so good for half that far, only propaganda.
It is just cheap hollywood movies and lies, all lies.
Just go back to sleep, there was never anything there.

Oh no, the white vans just pulled up outside!
I have given the secret away and will be tortured in Iraq!
Hope you are all happy and secure now!

Xiolablu3
08-27-2006, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:


The overwhelming numbers thing is a cheap Luftcrutch.



I think Heinz Knocke was obviously imagining those 10 P51 chasing him after he attacked the bombers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I guess Allied pilots were also outnumbered sometimes too tho.

Sergio_101
08-28-2006, 02:28 AM
The increasing numbers of escorting fighters
was clear and obvious.

The real crushing blow for the Luftwaffe in the west
was the bombers. The Allies had a massive advantage
in bombers. Germany's largest squadron of 4 engined
bombers was probibly all B-17s it captured!

By mid 1944 the P-51s began to overwhelm the
luftwaffe day fighters, by Dec 1944 there were
so many Allied day fighters that it was suicide
for a German to fly anything but a jet.

Total defeat of the Luftwaffe was achieved by "Dresden day"
in Feb 1945.

Sergio

Friendly_flyer
08-28-2006, 02:49 AM
What was the P-51 in fact?

An aeroplane that was allmost (but not quite) as good a fighter as the contemporary Spitfire.

96th_Nightshifter
08-28-2006, 02:56 AM
Spitfire won the war!!! from start to finish http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BigKahuna_GS
08-28-2006, 03:30 AM
HuninMunin--The Dora is 10 km/h faster, increasing with altitude.
They have the same Power to Weight ratio.
The Dora has better powerloading, whilst the P-51 has slightly lower wingloading.

The dora has better climb,better armament, better gauges, better controlls and looks waaaayyyyy more sexy.
Case closed.



You are not comparing the correct performance of the P51D in the USAAF 8th AF on 150 grade fuel and 75+ MAP that would have been engaging the 190D9. While the USAAF P51D performance would have slightly less than the Mustang Mark III, it would have been very comperable to the RAF Mustang Mark IV between 18lb to 25lb boost levels while operating on grade 150 fuel.

The IL2 P51D is not representative of the way the USAAF operated the P51D on grade 150 fuel and high boost levels.

Now the Mustang Mark III (P51-C) on 150 grade fuel and 25lbs boost had some really hot specs :
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/fx858.html
Maximum rate of climb--------------4500fpm
Maximum speed at 5200ft------------419mph
maximum speed at 17,800ft----------455mph
I'm not sure but I doubt the Mark III has a climb rate at 4000--4500fpm in IL2.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustang-fig4.jpg

The Dora was an excellent fighter but there is no reason to believe that it was superior to the
late model P51D in the 8th AF running on 150 grade fuel and 75"+ MAP. These 2 planes were very closely matched in performance. Many of the P51D pilots felt they held an edge in turning performance with combat flap that could be quickly deployed all the way up to very high speeds. (500mph IAS) Also add a superior lead computing gunsight and the benifit of being able to pull more G's with a G suit and you have a very competative aircraft in the P51.

The 8th AF P51-D on 150 grade fuel/75" MAP would be compareble in performance to the RAF Mustang Mark IV between 18lb & 25lbs boost. That is not reflected in this Sim and it should be. Looking at how much climb rates improved with 150 grade fuel and higher boost levels, this would also indicate faster acceleration times.
Scroll down to the P51D/Mustang Mark IV specs at 18lbs, 75" & 25Lbs boost levels.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html


_

ICDP
08-28-2006, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">HuninMunin--The Dora is 10 km/h faster, increasing with altitude.
They have the same Power to Weight ratio.
The Dora has better powerloading, whilst the P-51 has slightly lower wingloading.

The dora has better climb,better armament, better gauges, better controlls and looks waaaayyyyy more sexy.
Case closed.



You are not comparing the correct performance of the P51D in the USAAF 8th AF on 150 grade fuel and 75+ MAP that would have been engaging the 190D9. While the USAAF P51D performance would have slightly less than the Mustang Mark III, it would have been very comperable to the RAF Mustang Mark IV between 18lb to 25lb boost levels while operating on grade 150 fuel.

The IL2 P51D is not representative of the way the USAAF operated the P51D on grade 150 fuel and high boost levels.

Now the Mustang Mark III (P51-C) on 150 grade fuel and 25lbs boost had some really hot specs :
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/fx858.html
Maximum rate of climb--------------4500fpm
Maximum speed at 5200ft------------419mph
maximum speed at 17,800ft----------455mph
I'm not sure but I doubt the Mark III has a climb rate at 4000--4500fpm in IL2.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustang-fig4.jpg

The Dora was an excellent fighter but there is no reason to believe that it was superior to the
late model P51D in the 8th AF running on 150 grade fuel and 75"+ MAP. These 2 planes were very closely matched in performance. Many of the P51D pilots felt they held an edge in turning performance with combat flap that could be quickly deployed all the way up to very high speeds. (500mph IAS) Also add a superior lead computing gunsight and the benifit of being able to pull more G's with a G suit and you have a very competative aircraft in the P51.

The 8th AF P51-D on 150 grade fuel/75" MAP would be compareble in performance to the RAF Mustang Mark IV between 18lb & 25lbs boost. That is not reflected in this Sim and it should be. Looking at how much climb rates improved with 150 grade fuel and higher boost levels, this would also indicate faster acceleration times.
Scroll down to the P51D/Mustang Mark IV specs at 18lbs, 75" & 25Lbs boost levels.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html


_ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with Kahuna. We have got two versions of the Fw190D9 and also a Ta152H that barely saw service. We also have the very late war Bf109K4 qwith 1.98ATA. For some reason the USAAF is left with early 1944 P51's that were not representative of the mid-late 1944 higher boosted P51's. I know about the MkIII and the P38L but some late 1944 standard boost P51D's would be nice. Also bear in mind that the Mustang MkIII was actually introduced prior to the 109K4 and the 190D.

Despite being forced to fly an early P51D against the latewar Doras and 109K's I still more than hold my own in it. If the devs were to give the P51D-20 a more realistic boost level it would create a correct and representative late 1944 USAAF planeset.

Imagine the outcry if online map designers pitted the P51's and SpitIX 25lb against only 1943 109G6's and Fw190A8's. That is the reverse scenario of what P51D flyers have been putting up with since the release of PF. Flying around in their early 1944 boost level P51D's against the late 1944 and early 1945 LW fighters.

Kahuna I assume all this information has alreadt been sent to the devs? I would dearly love to see a proper boosted late 1944 P51D before the sim is wrapped up for good.

WOLFMondo
08-28-2006, 04:35 AM
Cry me a river.

tomtheyak
08-28-2006, 04:51 AM
The numbers game that is being thrown around here is of such little relevance in tactical terms its ridiculous even bringing it up.

A MAXIMUM of two USAAF Fighter Groups (and usually just ONE) were ever concentrated in one area on escort, and even then their sub-divisioned squadrons were positioned at quite seperate intervals along the stream covering the whole.

It was quite possible for one squadron to engage the enemy and for no other squadron to be involved.

When you look at the figures then:

USAAF Fighter Squadron : 12-16 a/c
USAAF Fighter Group : (16x3=) 48 a/c

A Luftwaffe formation could consist of anything from a Rotte (2) to Gruppe (12-24) a whole (or understrength) Jagdgeshwader (52-96)!

Strategically, yes, the numbers game is a wineer but dont ever try and use it as a mark for comparing the tactical attributes of fighter aircraft.

Manu-6S
08-28-2006, 04:53 AM
Oh no... again... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Irish_Rogues
08-28-2006, 06:02 AM
So what fighter "won teh war" then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

carguy_
08-28-2006, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
Despite being forced to fly an early P51D against the latewar Doras and 109K's I still more than hold my own in it. If the devs were to give the P51D-20 a more realistic boost level it would create a correct and representative late 1944 USAAF planeset.


That being one more reason why Mustang doesn`t perform how the accounts state.I imagine the more powerful engine could make a good fighter out of even an average efficient airframe.Brightest example being the P47late which is easily on par with Me109G10 and the FW190A9 which has about enough power to hold on against P63 even at low altitude.Mustang IV and boosted `45 P51D versions would have been much more dangerous.



Imagine the outcry if online map designers pitted the P51's and SpitIX 25lb against only 1943 109G6's and Fw190A8's. That is the reverse scenario of what P51D flyers have been putting up with since the release of PF. Flying around in their early 1944 boost level P51D's against the late 1944 and early 1945 LW fighters.

Well the Luftwaffles only have one 1.98AtA plane don`t they http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
It is not as dramatic as you say,it is just the FM that has a big part in it.One might only imagine what would the P51D aces be doing with a balanced FM.

Other than that virtual Luftwaffe crowd already had that time.
Porked G6`43early vs. Yak3 and 109G6late vs. La5FN(1944)/La7 coupled by the primitive FM matchups were daily stuff in online IL2 days.
The question why we got G10,G14/FW190D9 and K4 in FB is purely rhetorical.

luftluuver
08-28-2006, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
A Luftwaffe formation could consist of anything from a Rotte (2) to Gruppe (12-24) a whole (or understrength) Jagdgeshwader (52-96)!

Gruppe = 3 staffels (12 a/c(min)) + Stab (4 a/c) = 40 a/c (min.)

Jagdgeshwader = 3 or 4 Gruppen = 120 or 160 a/c.

WWMaxGunz
08-28-2006, 07:43 AM
We know one major reason why no new USAAF planes. US corporations want big bucks to allow
the use of them, copyright law.

I don't think this will change in the next few years either.

HayateAce
08-28-2006, 09:24 AM
Luftcrutch.

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

Bearcat99
08-28-2006, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
When you look at the figures then:
USAAF Fighter Squadron : 12-16 a/c
USAAF Fighter Group : (16x3=) 48 a/c


Somne US Groups had 4 squadrons... like the 332nd.

I_KG100_Prien
08-28-2006, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Irish_Rogues:
So what fighter "won teh war" then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

The JU-88. Wikipedia told me so.

Haigotron
08-28-2006, 02:13 PM
The JU-88. Wikipedia told me so.

it won the war on the server i was on last night...

Sergio_101
09-03-2006, 05:44 PM
it won the war on the server i was on last night...[/QUOTE]


First rule of luftwhining.
"it won the war" is the proper responce when faced with facts.

Another fact, it did not loose the war..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
That was left to Luftwaffe planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Sergio

CRSutton
09-03-2006, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
The P51 was of course a very good plane with some exceptional attributes. But it wasnÔ┬┤t the ├┼ôberplane some people believe...

Your absolutely right, of course.

However, wars are won by projecting airpower deep into enemy territory. The mustang for its faults could do just that. Better than any other production aircraft of the war. That is why it was the best. All other arguments about performance and firepower are of a lesser importance.

Viper2005_
09-03-2006, 06:43 PM
In answer to the question posed in the title of this thread, I have it on good authority that the P-51 was an aeroplane.

MrMojok
09-03-2006, 07:54 PM
Sorry old chap, we are going to need a couple three-thousand charts before your statement will be accepted.

BigKahuna_GS
09-03-2006, 08:03 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ ________________________
ICDP--I agree with Kahuna. We have got two versions of the Fw190D9 and also a Ta152H that barely saw service. We also have the very late war Bf109K4 qwith 1.98ATA. For some reason the USAAF is left with early 1944 P51's that were not representative of the mid-late 1944 higher boosted P51's. I know about the MkIII and the P38L but some late 1944 standard boost P51D's would be nice. Also bear in mind that the Mustang MkIII was actually introduced prior to the 109K4 and the 190D.

Despite being forced to fly an early P51D against the latewar Doras and 109K's I still more than hold my own in it. If the devs were to give the P51D-20 a more realistic boost level it would create a correct and representative late 1944 USAAF planeset.

Imagine the outcry if online map designers pitted the P51's and SpitIX 25lb against only 1943 109G6's and Fw190A8's. That is the reverse scenario of what P51D flyers have been putting up with since the release of PF. Flying around in their early 1944 boost level P51D's against the late 1944 and early 1945 LW fighters.

Kahuna I assume all this information has alreadt been sent to the devs? I would dearly love to see a proper boosted late 1944 P51D before the sim is wrapped up for good.
__________________________________________________ ________________________


Thank you for understanding my point ICDP http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
The late model 190D9 & 109K4(both models) have the higher boost levels over factory specs. Why should the P51D-20NA be left out of the known specifications operating on 150 grade fuel by the summer or fall of 44' ?

The RAF Mustang Mark IV specifications at 18lb & 25Lb boost levels are listed and could be used as a refrence guide. At 75+ MAP that would be closer too but not quite the 25lb boost level. The Mustangs flying off Iwo Jima in the Pacific operated at 81" MAP or the equivelent of 25lb boost levels. All these boost levels are significantly over the 67" MAP factory standard that is presently modeled in IL2.

Since the WarClouds server has the Spitfire @ 25lb boost banned it would be nice have an uprated D Mustang with 6 .50cal, better visibility and the ability to match speeds with late model german fighters. This information has been sent into 1C and several of the (blue) beta testers are in favor of it to add equality to the plane set. It's up to the big guy now and it's not a copyright issue.

Also if the rear fuel tank is the issue causing the instability problems with P51D in IL2 it would be good to have the rear fuel tank dry until over a 75% fuel load is choosen by the virtual pilot. The P51 had almost triple the internal fuel load of the 109 or 190 so it is not neccesary to have the rear fuselage tank have any fuel until maximum fuel loads are needed. And when are they ever needed on DF servers ?

_

_