PDA

View Full Version : Why P-51D had inferior performance over Mustang MkIII(P-51B)?



TooCooL34
12-22-2005, 12:48 AM
Just question about history. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Why?
Due to enlarged wing fuel tank and added .50cals?
Although P-51D got greater range, P-51D performs poor in climb and maximum medium-low level speed compared to Mustang MkIII. It's not marginal.

In game max speed
Mustang MkIII - 650 at sealevel, 710 at 7900m
P-51D - 605 at sealevel, 700 at 6900m

In game climb from 500m to 3000m at 25% fuel, climb speed about 260km/h.
(I know P-51D has more fuel in same 25% fuel)
Mustang MkIII - about 1min 31sec
P-51D - about 2mins.

How could they call it 'improvement' if it really was at 1940s?

Performance aside,
If only Mustang MkIII had the elegant cockpit of P-51D. Malcolm hood is better than bird cage but no match for bubble cap. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
When I feel myself flying in Mustang is only when I look out those laminar wings. Of course it's not a game problem but real pilots' whining in P-51B/C.

TooCooL34
12-22-2005, 12:48 AM
Just question about history. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Why?
Due to enlarged wing fuel tank and added .50cals?
Although P-51D got greater range, P-51D performs poor in climb and maximum medium-low level speed compared to Mustang MkIII. It's not marginal.

In game max speed
Mustang MkIII - 650 at sealevel, 710 at 7900m
P-51D - 605 at sealevel, 700 at 6900m

In game climb from 500m to 3000m at 25% fuel, climb speed about 260km/h.
(I know P-51D has more fuel in same 25% fuel)
Mustang MkIII - about 1min 31sec
P-51D - about 2mins.

How could they call it 'improvement' if it really was at 1940s?

Performance aside,
If only Mustang MkIII had the elegant cockpit of P-51D. Malcolm hood is better than bird cage but no match for bubble cap. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
When I feel myself flying in Mustang is only when I look out those laminar wings. Of course it's not a game problem but real pilots' whining in P-51B/C.

WOLFMondo
12-22-2005, 12:58 AM
The Mustang MK III is much lighter and has over 200HP more than the D model.

HellToupee
12-22-2005, 12:59 AM
the mustang III is a boosted version, the power difference is quite signficant

TooCooL34
12-22-2005, 01:06 AM
Looking upon some history sites myself, it was due to increased weight.
Aha, didn't know it has boost. 200HP more? wow, that is huge difference. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

FatBoyHK
12-22-2005, 01:24 AM
you should compare P-51B/C to P-51D.

MustangIII is a special boosted verison of P-51C. There is also a special boosted verison of P-51D, MustangIV.

RAF used these Mustangs for hunting V1 bombs. That is why they were all boosted for speed performance.

luftluuver
12-22-2005, 01:39 AM
Initially, the P-51B and C had the Packard V-1560-3 engine rated at 1400 hp for takeoff and 1450 hp at 19,800 feet. Later the Mustang III(P-51C) used a Packard V-1560-7 of 1450 hp for take off and a war emergency rating of 1695 hp at 10,300 feet.

The P-51D-Mustang IV used the same 1650-7 engine.

Also depends on which motor the Mustang III(P-51B,C) has in game.

The wing tanks on all Mustangs carried the same amount of fuel. The extra fuel came from the fuselage tank which was also installed in some of the P-51Cs.

The bubble canopy added some drag.

WOLFMondo
12-22-2005, 02:11 AM
I thought the C had a better aerodynamic profile than the D?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
RAF used these Mustangs for hunting V1 bombs. That is why they were all boosted for speed performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The main reason for the extra boost was for low altitude fighter sweeps, armed reccy and pure PRU work doing low level 400mph fly by's of suspected LW airbases. Very few were actually used and successful at V1 hunting. I think the top scoring Tempest V1 ace had more individual V1 kills than every single Mustang V1 kill put together.

JG53Frankyboy
12-22-2005, 02:43 AM
as far i remember all 4 Mustangs in game has the same fuel load - so close to same weight ?!

WOLFMondo
12-22-2005, 03:09 AM
Don't know if the Mustang MkIII has the rear fuel tank but its the actual empty weight of the plane is lighter than the D.

Never done a fuel comparison but I can burn through a 50% fuel load on the Mustang MkIII very quickly.

MEGILE
12-22-2005, 04:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I thought the C had a better aerodynamic profile than the D?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, hence the term Fastback. Also, IIRC the P-51D had yaw stability issues in a dive, hence the fin.
Looking at the data on spitfireperformance.com, the Mustang III was faster than the Mustang IV, both @ +25 boost.
Never the less, the Mustang IV was still Sierra Hotel.
That's, very good for all you nubs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Badsight.
12-22-2005, 04:29 AM
i dont care Megile , they one & all still envied the Griffon boys

MEGILE
12-22-2005, 04:39 AM
Indeed Badsight. A Mustang + Griffon combo would be uber, even by 1945 terms.

If the Griffon could make the Spitfire outpace the Mustang at high altitude.. then imagine what it could do for the Mustang. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

WOLFMondo
12-22-2005, 05:07 AM
Get rid of its girly lines for one thing! :P

Sod the Griffon, imagine a P51 with a 13lbs boosted Sabre IIC.

MEGILE
12-22-2005, 05:12 AM
5 props look so damm uber though.

LStarosta
12-22-2005, 06:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:

That's, very good for all you nubs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a polite way of translating it.

p1ngu666
12-22-2005, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Get rid of its girly lines for one thing! :P

Sod the Griffon, imagine a P51 with a 13lbs boosted Sabre IIC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh just fly a tempest instead and then ull look like ur gonna pwn, aswell as pwning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

MEGILE
12-22-2005, 09:22 AM
I think Leadspitter put it best..

The Tempest will be just as crapp as the P47, but faster at low altitude.

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

WOLFMondo
12-22-2005, 09:36 AM
If a P47 was actually faster than a snail at sea level then it would be nice to fly there.

BTW the empty weight of the Tempest V is 2000lbs less than the P47D and all up combat weight is 4000lbs less than the '47. Given the Tempest V series II could have 11lbs boost = around 2400HP and the Jug doesn't develop its full 2300HP until around 20,000ft, I say the Tempest V should be nothing like the Jug...more like a Dora but faster and better armed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Airmail109
12-22-2005, 09:42 AM
I reckon a Griffon engine would rip a Mustang apart......still it would be sweet!

MEGILE
12-22-2005, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
more like a Dora but faster and better armed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

bwuhahahah

you living in a dream world Mondo

Tempest is gonna suck, big time

Airmail109
12-22-2005, 09:51 AM
And anyway the Aussies built a griffon powered aircraft somewhat based on the mustang http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/fot/fot399.jpg

The CA-15

WOLFMondo
12-22-2005, 09:52 AM
Maggy, probably. I have 0 faith that it will be represented as the plane it was.

Probably some super secret russian data will be used to model it, using a 2 blade wooden prop from a I153.

Airmail109
12-22-2005, 09:58 AM
Also

"One of the more bizarre proposals considered by Rolls-Royce was the possible installation of a 2400 hp Rolls-Royce Griffon 63 engine mounted amidships in a Mustang airframe a la P-39 Airacobra, driving a contrarotating propeller via an extension shaft. The cockpit was to be moved forward to a position well ahead of the wing. It was anticipated that this modification would make it possible to achieve speeds as high as 500 mph. A mockup of this configuration was carefully prepared, but the concept was abandoned before work could proceed any farther."

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

horseback
12-22-2005, 10:07 AM
Comparing Tempest to Jug performance is apples to oranges. The Jug was originally designed as high altitude fighter, and the Tempest as a medium altitude fighter.

Back to the Mustang: remember that the original Mustangs were designed for the less-powerful early war Allison engines & that little modification of the wings or tail were made to compensate for the greater power of the Merlin engine. Almost every time an aircraft is given a more powerful piston engine, some compensation for the greater weight and torque is in order, usually in the form of a larger tail or rudder. Hence, the larger pointed rudders on late-Mark Spits, the tall wooden tail of the 109G-10 & Ks, the extended rudders/tails of the P-40K/L/M/N, Griffon Spits and the FW 190D series, and the fin fillets on the Tempest, Merlin Mustangs and the bubbletop P-47s.

The Merlin Mustangs were notably less capable below 15,000 ft, not only in performance, but in handling. Most operators of both flavors of Merlin Pony felt that the razorback handled better than the bubbletop, although the extra firepower, slightly better medium alt performance and all-around vision made up the difference. Pilots who flew razorbacks with the Malcolm blown canopy, however, generally still preferred the razorback. In some respects, the blown hood gave the pilot a better range of vision than the teardrop bubble canopy (unfortunately, not modelled in FB/AEP/PF).

Adding the fin fillet helped not only the D model, but also the many razorbacks still operational (Aug '44) at the time the fin fillet kits were issued. The ultimate fix didn't come until the H model, with its taller tail.

cheers

horseback

Badsight.
12-22-2005, 01:19 PM
yeah the CA-15 would have been the fastest Ever piston/prop fighter if it had been put into service , such a beast<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Also

"One of the more bizarre proposals considered by Rolls-Royce was the possible installation of a 2400 hp Rolls-Royce Griffon 63 engine mounted amidships in a Mustang airframe a la P-39 Airacobra, driving a contrarotating propeller via an extension shaft. The cockpit was to be moved forward to a position well ahead of the wing. It was anticipated that this modification would make it possible to achieve speeds as high as 500 mph. A mockup of this configuration was carefully prepared, but the concept was abandoned before work could proceed any farther" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>that would have been incredible!

would soo love to have seen that thing fly :O

faustnik
12-22-2005, 01:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:

would soo love to have seen that thing fly :O </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw two Mustangs fly out of a crappy airfield in the Sierras when I was a kid. They left quite an impression. Really loud and really fast! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Slickun
12-22-2005, 01:56 PM
More weight on the D.

Mustangs operated at 4 different levels of boost:
67", which all the early Mustangs, -3 and -7 engined models, all models, used. B/C/III versions did 450 mph at 28,000 feet in the -3, 442 in the -7, 440 in the D (all had the -7). The engines had different blower settings, the -7 generally better at low levels, the -3 better up high. These flew until VE day, 1/3 of all Mustangs were the "Razorback" type when the war in Europe ended. P-51D's were faster at some levels than the B/C, depending on when the supercharger hit.

72", which the 8th AF went to in the summer of 1944, when 150 octane fuel became available. It gave all the models and engine types another 100+ horsepower, significant in such a low drag airframe.

80", which Mustangs on Iwo Jima flew at, using 145 octane fuel. It put the -7 engine well over 2000 hp, significantly raising the low level top speed, climb, sustained turn, dive and acceleration rates.

81 " hg (25 pounds boost). A large % of RAF Mustangs, of all type and model, operated at these boost levels. Some RAF Mustang III had the fuselage tank, some did not, some were retro fitted. RAF Mustangs flew escort missions just like their AAF brethern, and had aces in their ranks. Mustang IV's had performance boosts like their PAF brethern in the AAF.

Mustang III got to 405 on the deck with easy and simple mods, like rubbing down the paint and smoothing the paint on the wings. Mustang IV was almost as fast, at 25 pounds boost.

Simply looking at Mustang performance at 67", then comparing it to later A/C, doesn't tell the whole story.

All this available at :http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html

A most interesting site.

danjama
12-22-2005, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Also

"One of the more bizarre proposals considered by Rolls-Royce was the possible installation of a 2400 hp Rolls-Royce Griffon 63 engine mounted amidships in a Mustang airframe a la P-39 Airacobra, driving a contrarotating propeller via an extension shaft. The cockpit was to be moved forward to a position well ahead of the wing. It was anticipated that this modification would make it possible to achieve speeds as high as 500 mph. A mockup of this configuration was carefully prepared, but the concept was abandoned before work could proceed any farther."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whats your source kid?

berg417448
12-22-2005, 02:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
yeah the CA-15 would have been the fastest Ever piston/prop fighter if it had been put into service , such a beast:O </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The info I found on the CA-15 says 448 mph top speed. The 502 mph speed often quoted was after a dive, not level flight. P-51H did 487 mph. De Havilland Hornet did 485. I've seen 483 and 494 mph for the Supermarine Spiteful. XP-47J did 507 mph.

Or were you referring to a proposed CA-15 version that never got built?

Viper2005_
12-22-2005, 02:57 PM
The "Griffon Mustang" grew out of the Miles M.46 and really intended as a Flying Test Bed for the mighty Crecy.

RR Hucknall then decided to make a Griffon engined fighter along similar lines using the flying surfaces of the Mustang to save time.

This was intended to have a cannon armament, possibly with a 20 mm firing through the prop shaft.

It was cancelled on the 28th of February 1945.

The ultimate Merlin Mustang was the XP-51G fitted with a Merlin of the RM.14.SM rating (~2000 bhp) which was capable of 495 mph.

Had this airframe been fitted with the V-1650-9 (which used water injection to provide ~ 2200 bhp) then it would have been a very fast aeroplane indeed - 510 mph would be a pretty sensible estimate.

See "Rolls-Royce and the Mustang" by David Birch, published by the Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust.

Badsight.
12-22-2005, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
The 502 mph speed often quoted was after a dive, not level flight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>if thats the case then im totally wrong , seems that it should have the goods tho considering what the Griffon Spitful was capable of

im sure tho that the top speed of the H mustang was only 474 Mph at either 7100 or 7400m

berg417448
12-22-2005, 04:20 PM
These are the specs I've found for P-51H-5-NA:

Maximum speed:
444 mph at 5000 feet.
463 mph at 15,000 feet.
487 mph at 25,000 feet.

Slickun
12-22-2005, 04:26 PM
I've seen 487 mph in every publication I've ever read about the P-51H, and that's quite a few. Astonishingly high speeds at lower altitudes as well. 445 mph @ 5,000 feet!

Literally, probably, days away from seeing combat. There are still claims it did see combat, including one book I have that claims it was in combat for several months.

Then there are reports none ever left the US.

berg417448
12-22-2005, 04:31 PM
I've always read that P-51Hs had been issued to some operational units but those units were only in the process of "working up" to operational status when the war ended. I have no idea if those units were stateside or elsewhere.

jimDG
12-22-2005, 04:44 PM
the stang3 has a much lighter structure, the RAF specificaly required it as they thought the p-51 structure had too much redundancy (and weight) into it (compared to standards set by the Spit). The USAF maintained they wanted sturdier planes that can take much higher g-loads and aerodinamic loads (i.e. in dives) and more damage. therefore they stuck to the p-51D. the p-51 H (or was it K? I always get post war p-51s mixed up) that also has the same light structure didnt quite catch on in post-war years - for the same reason.

Badsight.
12-22-2005, 04:58 PM
joe baugher , his website is the one i trust the most about US aircraft & yes indeed does he also say 487 Mph @ 25k feet

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_13.html

he says there :<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">These units were in the process of working up to operational status when the war in the Pacific ended with the Japanese surrender. None had the opportunity to see any combat. At the time of V-J Day, 555 P-51Hs had rolled off the Inglewood production lines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>only 5 still exist today in a working condition , which i find really odd

MEGILE
12-22-2005, 05:03 PM
First I've ever heard of a P-51L...

I know the Germans were making some fantastic planes.. but these new super Mustangs would have been uncatchable by German piston fighters.

berg417448
12-22-2005, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
joe baugher , his website is the one i trust the most about US aircraft & yes indeed does he also say 487 Mph @ 25k feet

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_13.html

he says there :<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">These units were in the process of working up to operational status when the war in the Pacific ended with the Japanese surrender. None had the opportunity to see any combat. At the time of V-J Day, 555 P-51Hs had rolled off the Inglewood production lines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>only 5 still exist today in a working condition , which i find really odd </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read somewhere that it is hard to restore and keep up the H model P-51 because most of the parts are different from the D models and are hard to find or non-existent.

Some pilots didn't like the H model as well as the D either. I've read a comment or two like that in some books by US pilots.

TooCooL34
12-22-2005, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
And anyway the Aussies built a griffon powered aircraft somewhat based on the mustang http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/fot/fot399.jpg

The CA-15 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That looks so... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

The-Pizza-Man
12-22-2005, 07:08 PM
The CA-15 wasn't actually based on the Mustang, but it did incorporate a lot of the features that made the Mustang such a good plane. Thats why it ended up looking like a Mustang on steroids.

hobnail
12-22-2005, 07:53 PM
There was never really any real performance testing of the CA-15 before she was scrapped, it was the one pilot who decided to bend the rules and break the wire on the throttle. the 502mph was supposedly sustained for a period after the level-out, the 448mph wasn't done at critical alt nor with full boost or clean radiator profile.

It's a real what-if machine, no doubt. Imagine if it had gotten it's intended powerplant, the P-47M's R-2800-57w, in 1944 as intended....ahhh well.
http://users.on.net/apoulos/RAAF_CA-15_MK1_76Sqn.jpg

Seriously, that looks quicker than a Bolt.

Badsight.
12-22-2005, 07:57 PM
thx for the info Hobnail

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/7460/ca15prototype11fl.th.jpg (http://img507.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ca15prototype11fl.jpg)

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/3632/ca15prototype26qb.th.jpg (http://img507.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ca15prototype26qb.jpg)

http://img436.imageshack.us/img436/7127/ca15inflight6zo.jpg

Slickun
12-22-2005, 07:59 PM
555 P-51H's were made, but at VJ day there weren't that many. A couple hundred were made after the war.

luftluuver
12-22-2005, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
the stang3 has a much lighter structure, the RAF specificaly required it as they thought the p-51 structure had too much redundancy (and weight) into it (compared to standards set by the Spit). The USAF maintained they wanted sturdier planes that can take much higher g-loads and aerodinamic loads (i.e. in dives) and more damage. therefore they stuck to the p-51D. the p-51 H (or was it K? I always get post war p-51s mixed up) that also has the same light structure didnt quite catch on in post-war years - for the same reason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Where did you get that story from?

All these were Mustang IIIs came from American stock: Serial numbers SR406/438 and SR440 were a mixed bag of P-51Bs and Cs delivered to the RAF from the USAAF--US serial numbers were respectively 43-12162, 43-12407, 43-12412, 43-12473, 43-12484, 43-12427, 43-70114(?), 43-12189, 43-12177, 43-7039, 43-6831, 43-12155, 43-12188, 43-12456, 43-12480, 43-12399, 42-10663(?), 42-106683, 42-106630, 42-106687, 43-7071, 43-7144, 43-5595, 43-7171, 43-6829, 43-12420, 43-7152, 43-7135, 42-103209, 42-106478, 42-106431, 43-7007, 43-12420, 43-7159.

WOLFMondo
12-23-2005, 01:20 AM
Another great that never was:

http://www.aafo.com/gallery/week/01-08-01.jpg

Badsight.
12-23-2005, 06:08 AM
my experience with british vehicles is . . . . .

you guys have ZERO idea on how to make something serviceable

i dont know how your mechanics keep from going postal

(btw , that is a pic of the MB-5 right ?)

Airmail109
12-23-2005, 10:19 AM
Danjama ill find the source when i can be bothered, but im also inclined to believe that Rolls Royce would try something daft like that.

luftluuver
12-23-2005, 12:26 PM
Your not making up the 'story' Aimail about a mid-engined P-51 derivative. NAA was looking at such an a/c.

Xiolablu3
12-23-2005, 01:30 PM
I have a suspicion that the P51 in game is nerfed a bit in this sim, I know this may start an argument but compare the p51D with all other late war planes, FW190D, La7B20, Ki84,Spit14

Is it really likely that the US were this far behind in aircraft performance?

Maybe I am wrong and P51D fighter jocks can dogfight with the best of them on late war servers?

If you can, then I salute you, it takes far more skill to dogfight in a p51D in game than any other late war planes in my opinion. OR is it just that I havent flown it much and I need to 'get used to it'?

Respect to you, P51 pilots, I find htis bird in game very very hard to fight well in.

pourshot
12-23-2005, 02:14 PM
Some more CA-15 pics

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA15mockup1943_2.jpg
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA15model_1943_1d.jpg
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA15profile_1943.jpg

danjama
12-23-2005, 02:14 PM
I wasnt suggesting you made it up, i heard about it too from some book or website or other, just curious....

Tator_Totts
12-23-2005, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I have a suspicion that the P51 in game is nerfed a bit in this sim, I know this may start an argument but compare the p51D with all other late war planes, FW190D, La7B20, Ki84,Spit14

Is it really likely that the US were this far behind in aircraft performance?

Maybe I am wrong and P51D fighter jocks can dogfight with the best of them on late war servers?

If you can, then I salute you, it takes far more skill to dogfight in a p51D in game than any other late war planes in my opinion. OR is it just that I havent flown it much and I need to 'get used to it'?

Respect to you, P51 pilots, I find htis bird in game very very hard to fight well in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Take the 51 at medium speed and try to do a right turn or a little yoyo and a little pull on stick and your spinning. 109 same speed and turn you can pull back all the way and no spin.

if this was the way it was in real life, the should have fired some plane designers.

Badsight.
12-23-2005, 03:25 PM
the CA-15 looks way more awesome with the Griffon installed , what a humgous plane it would have been with the P&W in there

the XP-72 had the huge R-4360 , most powerfull ever at that time , the FG2 super Corsair also used it

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7145/pwr43603px.jpg

your plane certinaly wouldnt have been much of a knife fighter with this thing hanging on the nose

DrHerb
12-23-2005, 03:30 PM
aah yes, the corncob motor, they use them in airracing, very rare and expensive engine, but powerful as all hell

horseback
12-23-2005, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I have a suspicion that the P51 in game is nerfed a bit in this sim, I know this may start an argument but compare the p51D with all other late war planes, FW190D, La7B20, Ki84,Spit14

Is it really likely that the US were this far behind in aircraft performance?

Maybe I am wrong and P51D fighter jocks can dogfight with the best of them on late war servers?

If you can, then I salute you, it takes far more skill to dogfight in a p51D in game than any other late war planes in my opinion. OR is it just that I havent flown it much and I need to 'get used to it'?

Respect to you, P51 pilots, I find htis bird in game very very hard to fight well in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Take the 51 at medium speed and try to do a right turn or a little yoyo and a little pull on stick and your spinning. 109 same speed and turn you can pull back all the way and no spin.

if this was the way it was in real life, the should have fired some plane designers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You guys need to get a little perspective here. First of all, the P-51B/C/D/K(a D with an Aeroproducts prop) were all flown primarily as high altitude fighters, that is, above 7000m. At those altitudes, and at higher speeds, the Mustang was more than a match for most models of 109 & 190 as they were actually built. As I am primarily an off-liner, I don't play much at those heights due to the lack of decent campaigns, but those who play online and have some skill and patience mostly insist that the advantage is there in-game. Some may feel that the .50s don't do the damage they should, but that's not flight performance.

By mid-late 1944, German Quality Assurance standards were not what they had been a few months before, what with forced labor and the necessary dispersal of factories led to a notable deterioration in the quality of their aircraft, and, coupled with the even greater deterioration in pilot quality and training, even if the 109s and 190s of the late-war were capable of performing with the Allies' best fighters, their pilot no longer had the skills to fly these planes to the edges of their performance envelopes.

That meant that the Western Allies did not need to rush their best, most improved fighters into combat; what they were fielding in the summer of 1944 was what you generally saw to war's end, although the P-47M trickled in, along with the Griffon Spits and Tempest V (both of which had been operational in early 1944, albeit in limited numbers).

Bear in mind also that both the Commonwealth and US Air Forces had thousands of skilled aircraft maintenance people, tech reps, and engineers working with frontline units to squeeze often much better than official factory spec performance out of their aircraft, something offically ignored, and unofficially encouraged. This, factored in with the much greater availibility of replacement parts, also led to much higher availability rates for Allied ETO units vs the LW units facing them, something like 90% vs progressively farther under 70% as the war ground on.

FB/AEP/PF models aircraft as if they were fresh off the production line with no production flaws. Therefore early LaGGs and MiGs have canopies you can see through and can fly at official performance numbers rather than what the average operational types did, due to poor finish and severe overheating problems, and late-war 109s enjoy similar advantages over the operational record. Conversely, the Western Allied fighters are not modelled 'souped up' and in significantly better repair than their Axis contemporaries.

And unfortunately, Oleg & Co cannot provide you with the much higher training, experience, and teamwork levels enjoyed by latewar Allied pilots. Online, the majority of the really experienced and dedicated virtual pilots have been flying the LW fighters from the original Il-2 days. Many of them have the teamwork & skills that the real-life experten only dreamed of.

Offline, the AI cheats.

cheers

horseback

faustnik
12-23-2005, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
the Western Allied fighters are not modelled 'souped up' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would you call the Mustang III, P-38L Late and P-47 D (Late)?

horseback
12-23-2005, 05:27 PM
<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 horseback:
the Western Allied fighters are not modelled 'souped up' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would you call the Mustang III, P-38L Late and P-47 D (Late)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Since I'm of the belief that Oleg 'low-balled' the base versions of these fighters originally (for instance, the P-38L (late) still doesn't approach USAAF climb and performance figures), I'd call them "a gesture". The Mark III, at least, is boosted to an official RAF standard.

At best, the glass is half full.

cheers

horseback

VW-IceFire
12-23-2005, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
more like a Dora but faster and better armed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

bwuhahahah

you living in a dream world Mondo

Tempest is gonna suck, big time </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If its done right its going to be a very good plane at medium and low altitudes. Something to be reckoned with. But thats a IF...

faustnik
12-23-2005, 05:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:Since I'm of the belief that Oleg 'low-balled' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I won't argue with your belief system. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Your post about production quality sure makes sense to me. You are also correct about the historic advantage of the Allied planes at high altitude being modeled in PF.