PDA

View Full Version : Mustang Mk III



uhoh7
06-18-2005, 12:48 AM
I just flew the mk3 for about 2 hours on warcloudsWF.

Its the safest prop there is. You can engage and disengage at will. You are only really in danger when you slow down to hammer a 109 or 190.

It seems to turn easliy with any late LW prop.

But the zoom climb is something else. Nothing comes close to the mk 3 at speed between the deck and 5000 mts. When you have the steam up it feels like a jet.

But shouldn't the K4 109 be right with this meteor? Or the D9? at least in climbing?

As far as top speed in a dive, the mk 3 does 830 with ease.

Was this thing really the hotest prop fighter in the war?

I'd love to see some climb tests in 4.01m to see if the mk3 really does out climb the k4 to 5000. And for those who know the history, what was really the case?

all the best,

uhoh7

uhoh7
06-18-2005, 12:48 AM
I just flew the mk3 for about 2 hours on warcloudsWF.

Its the safest prop there is. You can engage and disengage at will. You are only really in danger when you slow down to hammer a 109 or 190.

It seems to turn easliy with any late LW prop.

But the zoom climb is something else. Nothing comes close to the mk 3 at speed between the deck and 5000 mts. When you have the steam up it feels like a jet.

But shouldn't the K4 109 be right with this meteor? Or the D9? at least in climbing?

As far as top speed in a dive, the mk 3 does 830 with ease.

Was this thing really the hotest prop fighter in the war?

I'd love to see some climb tests in 4.01m to see if the mk3 really does out climb the k4 to 5000. And for those who know the history, what was really the case?

all the best,

uhoh7

ImpStarDuece
06-18-2005, 01:02 AM
The +25lbs boosted Merlin gave serious benefit to the Mustang III below about 20,000 feet. It's not like the normal US P-51B/C or D, it gains a serious amount of performance.

For example, the Merlin 66 in the Spitfire IX (which is very similar to the Packard-1650-7 in the Mustang III) was boosted to recieve +25lbs in mid 1944. At standard (+18lbs boost) the Merlin produced 1575 hp at sea level, 1,675 hp at 9,500 feet and 1,550 hp at 20,000. The +25lbs boosted Merlin produced 1,975 hp at sea level, 2,025 hp at 4,000 feet, 1,875 hp at 14,000 feet and 1,550 hp at 20,000.

So the Merlin III offers a 400 hp increase in power at sea level. Essentially, at peak throttle outputs the Mustang III produes about 25% more power, falling off to after peak 'S' stage supercharger output at 14,000 feet and equalising at 20,000 lbs.

There is a really good Hp chart for the Merlin here (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin66hpchart.jpg)

Kwiatos
06-18-2005, 07:12 AM
Mustang MK III is just only very fast at the deck. Faster then bfs and fw190s. Still have worse climb and turn below 400 km/h then bf109 and have no chance in dogfight with bf109. Only succesfull tactic vs bf109 is B&Z with alt adventage but still its 4x0,50 are so weak arnament to do right job.

Kurfurst__
06-18-2005, 12:00 PM
The new Mustang III was modelled by Oleg by the request of LRRP2; it`s a little of use special variant, a 'V-1 sprinter' the RAF used with reduced equipment (no radio, aerials, wing racks like the standard) and improved finish to cathc the v1s.

The speed model is also based on one such test of a stripped example. It`s very fast, but only at low altitudes, but still not much of a climber.

hop2002
06-18-2005, 12:28 PM
Isegrim is of course wrong, the test he refers to was of a fully equipped plane, it just doesn't have wing racks.

The idea that the radio and aerials were removed is an invention of Isegrim's.

Kurfurst__
06-18-2005, 03:19 PM
Who`s 'isegrim', hop? A friend of yours?

Now as for the Mustang test, it did have it`s wingracks removed. This was standard fitting on all Mustangs, british or american, except the few the British modified for V-1 chasing. According to their reports, the removal of wingracks boosted speed by 12 mph, or about 19 km/h.

Mounting of bombs or droptanks without the racks was, of course, impossible. So it`s a rare, stripped down version of the most aerodynamic Mustang - possibly never used in air to air combat btw, just during the V-1 raids in the summer of 1944.

p1ngu666
06-18-2005, 06:27 PM
only a few aircraft carry wing or hard points all the time.

p47, fw190A9 and 8?

such fitments where common on all fighters of the time.

imo if u choose to go clean with no bombs etc the racks etc shouldnt be modeled.

SeaNorris
06-18-2005, 06:30 PM
I agree.

But Pingu, your sig is so big you soon will fill a page with it. Please size it down http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Willey
06-18-2005, 06:37 PM
^^OK taffer, 2 more lines in his sig - including mine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

ImpStarDuece
06-18-2005, 10:16 PM
The Mustang III equipped 30 squadrons from December 1943 onwards. Initail service was with No. 65 squadron and then with No. 19 squadron in march 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.

Most of the Merlin engined Spitfire and Mustang units transferred to +25lbs boost and 150 octane aviation spirit in the late 1944/early 1945 period, even though the transition began in April of 1944. There was a fair bit of inertia in the change over.

I think that the Mustange III we have represents the most common variant; the +25lbs cleared Mustang designed for escort and over the continet duties, not VI intercepts.

The only figures that I have seen for the 'stripped' Mustangs were for V-1650-7 equipped Mustang IIIs that were trialed at 25 and 28 lbs. I believe that one test pushed a Mustange up to 420 Mph at 2000 feet, just to see how fast they could push the airframe/engine combination.

While the III might be blazing, its still not in that class yet.

ImpStarDuece
06-18-2005, 10:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> About mid-June a crash programme was initated to improve the low-level performance of the Spitfire, Tempest V, and Mustang III by using a specially developed 150 octane aromatic fuel to give abnormally high power for strictly short bursts. The engine attrition rate would of course be high, but the urgency of the situation demanded drastic measures.
I was very involved in these exhilarating trials requiring high speed runs at ground level, during which the Spitfire XIV with its Griffon boosted to +19 lb reached 365 mph, the Tempest V with its Sabre boosted to +10 1/2 lb hit 405 mph, and the Mustang with its Merlin boosted to +25 lb actually attained 420 mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is taken from the excellent Hawker Tempest page. and is a quote from Eric Brown, the noted RAF test pilot. It seems that on low speed trials the Mustang III really did hit 420 mph!

Aaron_GT
06-19-2005, 03:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is taken from the excellent Hawker Tempest page. and is a quote from Eric Brown, the noted RAF test pilot. It seems that on low speed trials the Mustang III really did hit 420 mph! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read Eric Brown quotes before and they said the +25 Mustang III attained 405mph at sea level. Would 420 really be possible at 2000ft? I am just concerned that the quotes seem a bit different to what I have read and I hope the page hasn't got garbled.

Oops - I see that you are referring to a stripped plane, whereas the 405 at sea level is for one with full equipment.

ImpStarDuece
06-19-2005, 03:49 AM
Yep http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif its a stripped Mustang,

The Eric Brown quote is about the testing of British fighters at low level to see which was the most appropriate for V1 intercept.

The 420 mph figure for the Mustang is assuredly for a 'stripped and fixed' Mustang III. In all likelyhood it would of been stripped of camoflage and repainted, had all the gaps and cracks sealed and had either the wing leading edge or the entire fuselage waxed and/or polished. Similarly the supercharger impellers would of been further altered to provide even more ram effect with the rich air at low altitude. The bomb racks would of been removed as Kurfurst noted and the ejector chutes and any airflow disturbances would of been trimmed. Most likely the mirrors would of been removed as well. I'll bet that the engine got some special attention from the ground crews as well. No pilot likes things going "pop" when he is doing over 400 mph on the deck!

At low level every little bit counts. During 1943 the RAF did some speed trials with a clipped wing L.F. Vb. They managed to boost maximum speed from 357 mph to 385 mph at 5300 feet by removing the carburettor ice guard, swapping out the fishtail type exhausts, fitting improved mirror fairings, replacing the mast type aerial with a whip type, resealing, repainting and repolishing the leading edge, waxing the rest of the airplane and cutting the link ejectors and case chutes flush with the wing. Thats a 28 mph improvement! Pretty staggering and definantely needed if you are going up agains FWs at low altitude.


There are actually some wierd figures from his reports though. The Tempest operated at 11 lbs boost from the second serise, so I guess that the Tempest trialed was a Serise I from the first production batch, with the Sabre IIA. At 10 & 1/2 lbs the Sabre produced about another 175 hp and the sea level speed climbed up to about 390 mph. The Sabre IIb at 11lbs did about 395 at sea-level but I have never seen reports of the Sabre used operationally at 10 &1/2 boost.

Similarly, 19lbs is a strange figure for a Griffon engined Spitfire. Most of the testing was done at the standard 18 lbs, but 21 lbs and 25 lbs were tested for V1 intercept. As it stands the Spitfire XIV only pulled about 368-370 mph at 21 lbs, far short of the Tempest and Mustang figures. Even at 25 lbs the XIV was struggling to get above 390 mph at sea-level.

Kurfurst__
06-19-2005, 06:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
The Mustang III equipped 30 squadrons from December 1943 onwards. Initail service was with No. 65 squadron and then with No. 19 squadron in march 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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt that 30 sqaudrons. It`s probably post-war ones, too.
There were 12 sqns of MustangIII deployed up to dec 1944, 5 more in the next year, including IV Squdrons.

Some of these run on 150 grade fuel, but it`s isn`t clear how many. 3 units are certain.
One thing to note, Mustang IIIs were built with both V-1650-3 and V-7 engines, ca 50%-50%. But only the latter was cleared for boosts higher than +18 lbs.


RAF Mustang III/IV Squadrons in ETO Service

65 Squadron (YT)- December, 1943 (Transitioned to Mustang IV- February, 1945)
122 Squadron (MT)- January, 1944
19 Squadron (QV)- March, 1944 (Transitioned to Mustang IV- March, 1945)
306 Squadron (Polish)(UZ)- March, 1944
315 Squadron (Polish)(PK)- March, 1944
129 Squadron (DV)- April, 1944
316 Squadron (Polish)(SZ)- April, 1944
541 Squadron- June, 1944- 541 flew a mix of Spitfire PR XI's, XIX€s and Mustang III's
234 Squadron (AZ)- September, 1944 (Transitioned to Mustang IV- March, 1945)
309 Squadron (Polish)(WC)- October, 1944
64 Squadron (SH)- November, 1944
126 Squadron (5J)- December, 1944
165 Squadron (SK)- January, 1945
118 Squadron (NK)- February, 1945
611 Squadron (FY)- March, 1945 (Mustang IV)
303 Squadron (Polish)(RF/PD)- April, 1945 (Mustang IV)
441 Squadron RCAF (9G)- April, 1945
442 Squadron RCAF (Y2)- April, 1945 (Mustang IV)


In ETO, the six more RAF squadrons (3 Sqn RAAF, 5 Sqn SAAF, 112 Sqn, 213 Sqn, 249 Sqn and 260 Sqn) operating the Mustang III and IV, but they did not receive 150 grade and improved boost.

Most of the Merlin engined Spitfire and Mustang units transferred to +25lbs boost and 150 octane aviation spirit in the late 1944/early 1945 period, even though the transition began in April of 1944. There was a fair bit of inertia in the change over.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I think that the Mustange III we have represents the most common variant; the +25lbs cleared Mustang designed for escort and over the continet duties, not VI intercepts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It really doesn`t. It`s doing ca 640+ kph at SL, which is as fast as the LA-7.

It`s performance is based on +25 lbs Mustang III tested in mid-1944 against V-1s.
It had V-1650-7 engine to allow +25lbs, but only half of the MkIIIs had this engine.
Bombracks and aerial bases were removed for the purpose of tests, but on Mustangs it was standard equipment (even the tested plane arrived with those fitted). Finally, the plane received some restoration of the wing painting that was in poor condition.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The only figures that I have seen for the 'stripped' Mustangs were for V-1650-7 equipped Mustang IIIs that were trialed at 25 and 28 lbs. I believe that one test pushed a Mustange up to 420 Mph at 2000 feet, just to see how fast they could push the airframe/engine combination. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14+25lbs.jpg

This is the figure, done on FB 377, the same one that was used as a basis of the 'new' Mustang III performance.

The report notes the modifications on this test plane, which meant +22.5 mph speed increase above what it achieved 'as received from Squadron' ie. it`s typical performance.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1119184469_fb377pg4.jpg


None of the other RAF Mustang tests yielded such performance, ie. :



Avia 18/732.

AAEE Boscombe Down.
Mustang IV T.K 589 (Packard MerlinV.1650-7)
Posistion error of static vent and brief level speed trials.
July 1944.
Aircraft flown with faired bomb racks.

Speed at 0 ft using 67"hg 354mph
Speed at 10300ft using 67"hg 396mph
Speed at 0ft using 81"hg 379mph
Speed at 4300ft using 81"hg 398mph.



AVIA 6/10618

August 1944

Mustang III FB 377
Wing racks fitted. +25Lbs boost

383mph at 0ft 391mph at 3900ft.



INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDOM.

Army Air Force
Material Command
ENG-57-531-306
13 May 1044.

Performance tests on P38J,P47D and P51B airplanes tested with 44-1 fuel (150 grade)

P51B 43-24777

Wing racks fitted.

61"hg 352mph at 0ft, 405mph at 13100ft, 422mph at 26600ft
67"hg 364mph at 0ft, 408mph at 10400ft, 426mph at 23800ft.
75"hg 380mph at 0ft, 410mph at 7200ft, 431mph at 20500ft.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=...page=50&pagenumber=3 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&amp;threadid=136037&amp;perpage=50&amp;pagen umber=3)


Mustang speed and climb at low altitude test results from Boscombe Down
All within AVIA 18/732 held at the National Archive.

Report. Level speed performance with and without RP installation.
Mk 1
AG. 357
F-3-R 55€hg.
July 1943
Without, 357mph at 2000ft/381mph at 7,300ft. .

Report. Climb and level speed performance.
Mk II
FR 893.
F-20-R 60€hg./57€hg on the climb.
Aug 43 to Feb 44.
374mph at 4000ft/409mph at 10,000ft.
3,800ft/min at 6,000ft.
Note aircraft also tested with F-4-R.

Report. Position error, climb and level speed performance trials.
Mk III.
FX.953.
V-1650-3 67€hg.
Feb to May 44.
369mph at 2,000ft/424mph at 15,500ft/450mph at 28,000ft.
3610ft/min at 10,600ft/2690ft/min at 23,400ft.

Report. Position error of static vent and brief level speed trials.
Mk IV.
TK.589.
V-1650-7 80€hg.
July 44.
379mph at 0ft/398mph at 4,300ft.
Aircraft fitted with wing racks.
RAF Mustangs fitted with V-1650-7 cleared for 80€hg with 100/150 grade fuel.



So I think it`s hardly typical, but definietely used to some extent.

ImpStarDuece
06-19-2005, 08:53 AM
What I meant to say was what we had was typical of a boosted Mustang III, not typical of a general service Mustang III. Just got lazy with my typing.

You can add No. 213 Squadron, No. 249 Squadron, No. 260 Squadron and No. 450 Squadron to that list of Mustang III squadrons as well. 213 transferred in March 1944, 249 transferred over in September 1944 and 260 transferred in April. 450 transferred in November of 1944.

I've come to the conclusion that Baugher is wrong when he states 30 squadrons used the Mustang III. Its closer to 20. Unfortunately I think that he counts several Mustang II equipped squadrons in this total, and maybe even adds some Mustang I squadrons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kurfurst__
06-19-2005, 09:05 AM
Yeah, I agree. You are right in boost, it is probably fairly typical from summer 1944 onwards for the RAF. The USAAF, however, had used somewhat less boost (71.5"Hg) on its own Mustangs, probably because of the greater reliability required over the Reich.

SkyChimp
06-19-2005, 08:36 PM
A Mustang without wingracks qualifies as a "rare, stripped down" Mustang? The things you learn on this site.

And by the way, antenna masts were removed from malcom hooded Mustangs for obvious reasons.

Buzzsaw-
06-19-2005, 09:09 PM
Salute

Oh yes, can't have an allied plane which is faster than the German aircraft. That would be heresy.

Good thing we don't have a Tempest, (of course we'll never get one) then the whining would hit aircraft decibel levels....

CUJO_1970
06-19-2005, 11:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

Good thing we don't have a Tempest, (of course we'll never get one) then the whining would hit aircraft decibel levels.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


With you around here, whining has already reached that level http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WOLFMondo
06-20-2005, 12:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
The Tempest operated at 11 lbs boost from the second serise, so I guess that the Tempest trialed was a Serise I from the first production batch, with the Sabre IIA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

on the raf tempest dvd an engine fitter is interviewed, tempest v series 1's according to him used 11lbs boost and 150 octane from the outset.

ImpStarDuece
06-20-2005, 12:49 AM
I didn't know that. Very interesting indeed.

I thought that the Tempest Serise I (Batch I) generally ran at 9 lbs boost because of worries with about the ability of the Sabre IIA to handle the increased RPM that 11 lbs boost would require.

Then again, the first Tempest Vs were trialed in July 1943 and Napier were still working a few kinks out of the engine (still). MAybe the information I have is based around the 1943 peroid. I'm currently at work so I'll have to check my sources tonight.

If they operated at 11 lbs from the outset then the performance that we hjave is REALLY too slow. Going of some of charts that Kurfurst posted 1l bs boost should put the Tempest at 405 on the deck and about 417 at 2750 feet. The Tempest would be about the only thing that could coax me down from 6000 m in my P-47.

Heliopause
06-20-2005, 12:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is taken from the excellent Hawker Tempest page. and is a quote from Eric Brown, the noted RAF test pilot. It seems that on low speed trials the Mustang III really did hit 420 mph! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eric Brown was a Royal Navy test pilot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
(i am not saying he didn't test other planes than Navy ones....)

WOLFMondo
06-20-2005, 02:55 AM
eric brown tested just about everything naval or ground bases.

ImpStarDuece, the tempest model is of a series 2, not a series 1 so why would oleg try to model a series 1's performance.

p1ngu666
06-20-2005, 07:55 AM
if u read the stuff i posted in the huge tempest thread u will see that the sabre could take alot more power..
5500hp, and with reliabilty. extra revs and boost would have pushed it too the limit, and over 6000hp probably http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

gonna order some napier bits in a moment, hopefully http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Willey
06-22-2005, 07:06 PM
Hey p1ngu, don't forget to add those lines on page 1 to your sig http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
06-22-2005, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Willey:
^^OK taffer, 2 more lines in his sig - including mine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what 2 lines? will your 2 lines appear in 2 weeks?
if there worthy of teh sig, they will be inserted in teh sig http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Vipez-
06-23-2005, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Oh yes, can't have an allied plane which is faster than the German aircraft. That would be heresy.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you have forgotten planes like LA-7 and Spit 9HF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif nothing (until arrival of Mustang MK3 could catch la7 at sealevel, and nothing could catch Spit9HF over 7000-8000m (not even TA-152 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

lrrp22
06-23-2005, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Who`s 'isegrim', hop? A friend of yours? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's you Kurfurst, before you were banned from this forum.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Now as for the Mustang test, it did have it`s wingracks removed. This was standard fitting on all Mustangs, british or american, except the few the British modified for V-1 chasing. According to their reports, the removal of wingracks boosted speed by 12 mph, or about 19 km/h.

Mounting of bombs or droptanks without the racks was, of course, impossible. So it`s a rare, stripped down version of the most aerodynamic Mustang - possibly never used in air to air combat btw, just during the V-1 raids in the summer of 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Mustang III is modeled without wing racks, like pretty much every other fighter in this game. The R.A.E. clearly states that the wing racks cost 8 mph at low level- right in the scan you posted.

The tested Mustang III was very well-used- a new one would have been faster.


.

lrrp22
06-23-2005, 01:10 PM
Isegrim,

Around half of P-51B/C's were equipped with the V-1650-3, not Mustang III's. A strong majority of Mustang III's were equipped with the V-1650-7, only the initial batches from the FX and FZ serial range, and probably some of the first FB's were fitted with the V-1650-3. Most of those which survived would likely have the -3's replaced with -7's at some point.

No other Mustang III tested by the RAF was as fast as FB377 because the RAF didn't test any other Mustang III's at +25 lbs boost. The Roll- Royce data for the Mustang III (probably FB356) was 7 mph slower than FB377 at sea level but much faster above 3,500 ft. Oddly, FB377's speed curve drops of much quicker than any other Merlin Mustang speed graph- probably because of a somewhat tired engine.

BTW, *you're welcome*...for all of Neil and my data and scans you're posting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

Some of these run on 150 grade fuel, but it`s isn`t clear how many. 3 units are certain.
One thing to note, Mustang IIIs were built with both V-1650-3 and V-7 engines, ca 50%-50%. But only the latter was cleared for boosts higher than +18 lbs.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I think that the Mustange III we have represents the most common variant; the +25lbs cleared Mustang designed for escort and over the continet duties, not VI intercepts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It really doesn`t. It`s doing ca 640+ kph at SL, which is as fast as the LA-7.

It`s performance is based on +25 lbs Mustang III tested in mid-1944 against V-1s.
It had V-1650-7 engine to allow +25lbs, but only half of the MkIIIs had this engine.
Bombracks and aerial bases were removed for the purpose of tests, but on Mustangs it was standard equipment (even the tested plane arrived with those fitted). Finally, the plane received some restoration of the wing painting that was in poor condition.


This is the figure, done on FB 377, the same one that was used as a basis of the 'new' Mustang III performance.

The report notes the modifications on this test plane, which meant +22.5 mph speed increase above what it achieved 'as received from Squadron' ie. it`s typical performance.



None of the other RAF Mustang tests yielded such performance...



</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
06-23-2005, 01:12 PM
Hey lrrp22,

I've beem flying the Mustang III online and just have to say thank you again for your hard work. That thing is an sbsolute B&Z monster, I love it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Finally, a fast Mustang in PF.

lrrp22
06-23-2005, 01:31 PM
Hey faustnik,

I'm glad you like it! Don't thank me though, thank Oleg! Thanks are also due to Neil Stirling- he was a huge help.

I've only been able to do a little Mustang III flying due to work and family committments http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif, but I hope to get on HL this weekend.