PDA

View Full Version : P51B and C



Arm_slinger
01-23-2004, 07:19 PM
How do these things handle compared to the D version? I know they were faster, i'm just interested in low speed agility, turn rate, roll rates and all the agility sort of stuff

cheers
A/S

T4T recruitment officer

Sim lover?, want something new? Then look at "Target for Tonight the definitive night bombing simulation ever, featuring the RAF's Bomber Command.

Got you interested? Look for us here: www.nightbomber.com/forums (http://www.nightbomber.com/forums)

Arm_slinger
01-23-2004, 07:19 PM
How do these things handle compared to the D version? I know they were faster, i'm just interested in low speed agility, turn rate, roll rates and all the agility sort of stuff

cheers
A/S

T4T recruitment officer

Sim lover?, want something new? Then look at "Target for Tonight the definitive night bombing simulation ever, featuring the RAF's Bomber Command.

Got you interested? Look for us here: www.nightbomber.com/forums (http://www.nightbomber.com/forums)

JG7_Rall
01-23-2004, 08:06 PM
could someone also comment on the different armaments on the B and C variants of the P 51? I know it had more options than the 6x .50 calibre bullets but am not sure what they quite are..

Sturmvogel66
01-23-2004, 08:58 PM
I think they had the same armament...and they were slightly more agile, but not much of a noticeable difference...of course this is just from watchin the history channel and from books I have read...so I could be wrong.

A.K.Davis
01-23-2004, 09:23 PM
P-51B had 4 x .50 cal.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

Maple_Tiger
01-23-2004, 09:46 PM
Yes,

4 x .50's.

Litte more manuverable and a bit faster.

In real live the P-51D could acheave 703kmh TAS. But it over heats at 680kmh TAS with 25% fuel.

We will proubly find that the B/C will reach 695kmh TAS and then over heat.

Dont be surprised that the Spitfire will not be as it should, nor the P-38.

tagert
01-23-2004, 10:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
P-51B had 4 x .50 cal.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. but this is a case where less is more, in that they carried more ammo, and they had a higher ROF due to the electic motors they used to fix the ammo jamming problems.

TAGERT

Rajvosa
01-24-2004, 06:41 AM
P-51B/C carried less fuel, less armour and fewer guns, which makes them lighter and hence more maneuverable and easier to fly. Jamming problems were never fixed on B/C since the guns were mounted obliquely and ammo feed system was complicated causing frequent jams. Therefore the wing was redesigned on D. Basically D had greater (and more reliable) firepower for a shorter time.



Golf GTI Edition 2.0 16v

SkyChimp
01-24-2004, 06:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rajvosa:
P-51B/C carried less fuel, less armour and fewer guns, which makes them lighter and hence more maneuverable and easier to fly. Jamming problems were never fixed on B/C since the guns were mounted obliquely and ammo feed system was complicated causing frequent jams. Therefore the wing was redesigned on D. Basically D had greater (and more reliable) firepower for a shorter time.



Golf GTI Edition 2.0 16v<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The jamming problems were fixed with the introduction of small electric motors in the ammo feed tracks that assisted in feeding ammo to the guns.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Rajvosa
01-24-2004, 06:50 AM
Oh, OK! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Golf GTI Edition 2.0 16v

SkyChimp
01-24-2004, 07:06 AM
Will it perform better? It all depends on which P-51B and/or C we will be getting. But in general, yes.

Bs and Cs were lighter than Ds. Bs and Cs were generally faster than the Ds, and dove much better.

Early Bs and Cs had the V-1650-3 engines. These had MUCH better high altitude performance than the V-1650-7s of the D models. Bs and Cs with this engine did not climb as well at lower altitudes as did the Ds with the -7 engine, but climbed much better at higher altitudes than the D. In fact, P-51B/Cs with the this engine climbed as well -or better - than the Bf-109K-4 at higher altitudes.

Early Bs and Cs did not have the fuselage fuel tank, which meant they had much better stability characterisitics than the D with the full fuselage tank.

Later Bs and Cs had the V-1650-7 engine of the D models. Some also had the fuselage fuel tank.

Oleg hasn't said how he will be presenting the P-51B or C.

I recommended to him that he make the P-51B have the -3 engine and no fuselage tank, and the P-51C have the -3 engine and fuselage tank. This would give us the greatest diversity of P-51s possible.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Sat January 24 2004 at 04:04 PM.]

johann_thor
01-24-2004, 08:07 AM
somehow i always liked P51 b/c much more then the D

looking forward to flying it !

tagert
01-24-2004, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The jamming problems were fixed with the introduction of small electric motors in the ammo feed tracks that assisted in feeding ammo to the guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And there was a side effect of the electric motors... it boosted the ROF from the typical 600rpm of a 0.50 cal to around 950rpm... So yes.. as Rajvosa point out, less guns (4 vs 6) but with more ammo and a higher ROF... I dont know... I think I would take that over the 6... I just hope Oleg models that higher ROF into the game.. most likly they will miss this little fact.

TAGERT

tagert
01-24-2004, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rajvosa:
Jamming problems were never fixed on B/C since the guns were mounted obliquely and ammo feed system was complicated causing frequent jams. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Note True.

TAGERT

LeadSpitter_
01-24-2004, 11:05 AM
Maple_Tiger also the version we have is the NT, which has the wrong model, the NT did not have the extended peice by the tail

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p51s.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

tagert
01-24-2004, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Maple_Tiger also the version we have is the NT, which has the wrong model, the NT did not have the extended peice by the tail

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p51s.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wasnt that a field mod for the ones that didnt roll of the line with them? If so, I think that is why we have them, if not... I have no idea! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

A.K.Davis
01-24-2004, 11:14 AM
Since the model we have now lacks the stability issues that arose with the D series, I doubt the B/C will feel significantly different.

Another thing that compensated for the reduced number of guns was that the P-51B was a much more stable gun platform than the P-51D.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

JG7_Rall
01-24-2004, 11:35 AM
OOO, I can't wait!

Does the cockpit look as barbarious on the B's and C's as it does on the D? The plane looks so nice on the outside, but once you get inside it's rather...blah

tagert
01-24-2004, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
Since the model we have now lacks the stability issues that arose with the D series, I doubt the B/C will feel significantly different.

Another thing that compensated for the reduced number of guns was that the P-51B was a much more stable gun platform than the P-51D.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Weeeeell not really.. the stability problem in the P51D due to the addition of the fuselage tank was only temporary.. What they found is that when the take was FULL (87 gallons or something like that) the aircraft had stability issues... So, what the pilots would do on long missions is START OFF using the fuel in the fuselage tank... even before using fuel in the wing drop tanks!!!! Basically they would run off of fuselage tank to a point.. i forget the exact amount of gallons they would leave in there... but at some point they would than switch to the drop tanks. So, I think this little FACT is why Oleg didn't bother modeling the stability problem... because it was only temporary

TAGERT

horseback
01-24-2004, 02:00 PM
Some confusion out there, folks...

1. The lack of tail fillet on the D models was common to all D model Mustangs issued to combat units prior to around August 1944. By September ALL bubbletop Mustangs had this mod either upon issue or retrofitting. It was even applied to the few surviving razorback types, where possible. It had to do with lateral stability at speed,due to reduced 'keel' depth, not the fuselage tank.

2. The Fuselage tanks were added after the initial issue of Merlin engine Mustangs. These can be discerned by a white (or black, on NM finished ponies)cross painted just below the data block on the port fuselage side just ahead and below the windscreen. Because it held a lot of fuel, it affected the Center of Gravity, and because it wasn't baffled to limit the sloshing around of the fuel during maneauvering, it had a negative affect on handling. A number of experienced pilots were lost due to this fault, until the problem was recognized and standard operating procedure became filling the fuselage tank ONLY for long range missions , and burning its fuel off first, while climbing to altitude, forming up and on the way to the target/rendezvous area, before switching to the droptanks andgetting hom on the wing tanks.

3. If a differentiation is made between the B and C models, I for one hope that one of them is equipped with the Malcolm hood, the blown sliding canopy specified for the RAF models. Most exponents of the Mustang stated that it gave better visibility than the bubbletop, while retaining the razorback's advantages in speed and handling. It was certainly sought after by USAAF fighter pilots. Many RAF types agreeing to an 'arrangement' for a blown hood kit found themselves awash in Hershey bars, Lucky Strikes, and Betty Grable posters. It had to be worth something. Now that I think about it, maybe it was the Hershey bars that led the British rep for bad teeth...

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

tagert
01-24-2004, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Some confusion out there, folks...

1. The lack of tail fillet on the D models was common to all D model Mustangs issued to combat units prior to around August 1944. By September ALL bubbletop Mustangs had this mod either upon issue or retrofitting. It was even applied to the few surviving razorback types, where possible. It had to do with lateral stability at speed,due to reduced 'keel' depth, not the fuselage tank.

2. The Fuselage tanks were added after the initial issue of Merlin engine Mustangs. These can be discerned by a white (or black, on NM finished ponies)cross painted just below the data block on the port fuselage side just ahead and below the windscreen. Because it held a lot of fuel, it affected the Center of Gravity, and because it wasn't baffled to limit the sloshing around of the fuel during maneauvering, it had a negative affect on handling. A number of experienced pilots were lost due to this fault, until the problem was recognized and standard operating procedure became filling the fuselage tank ONLY for long range missions , and burning its fuel off first, while climbing to altitude, forming up and on the way to the target/rendezvous area, before switching to the droptanks andgetting hom on the wing tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think the confusion is minor and due to the general public use of the word stability vs. what it implys to the aero community. In general terms they both made the P51 a little squirrely to fly.. The addition and retrofitting of the fillets fixed one, and the procedure for the fuel fixed the other.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>by Leonard Kit Carson in his book PURSUE & DESTROY:
The 85 gallon fuselage tank represents about 500lbs. of weight aft of the C.G. and this can be awkward in maneuvering. After takeoff, you switched from a main wing tank to the fuselage tank and burned it down to about 30 gallons, then switched to and alternated between the external drop tanks, changing from one to the other about every 45 minutes or hour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TAGERT

A.K.Davis
01-24-2004, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
Since the model we have now lacks the stability issues that arose with the D series, I doubt the B/C will feel significantly different.

Another thing that compensated for the reduced number of guns was that the P-51B was a much more stable gun platform than the P-51D.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Weeeeell not really.. the stability problem in the P51D due to the addition of the fuselage tank was only temporary.. What they found is that when the take was FULL (87 gallons or something like that) the aircraft had stability issues... So, what the pilots would do on long missions is START OFF using the fuel in the fuselage tank... even before using fuel in the wing drop tanks!!!! Basically they would run off of fuselage tank to a point.. i forget the exact amount of gallons they would leave in there... but at some point they would than switch to the drop tanks. So, I think this little FACT is why Oleg didn't bother modeling the stability problem... because it was only temporary

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not just longitudinal stability, but directional stability (most important for gunnery). The tail fillet helped to correct this issue, but did not solve it. P-51D was a worse gunnery platform than the P-51B.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

Bull_dog_
01-24-2004, 04:58 PM
Earlier in the post there was discussion about the 4 .50 cal. machine guns...I have read in a few books that later B/C models were fitted with 6 .50 cal guns...I don't know if this was a factory modification or a field modification and I don't have any pictures...just memory of readings.

It would be nice if Oleg put 6 guns on the C model but I doubt it because the 4 gun configuration was much more prevelant.

I expect the B/C model to fly like a dream and shoot like a sissy. The B/C model was faster, more manueverable in many aspects and enjoyed a lighter construction so climbed a little better. Shorter range as well.

SkyChimp
01-24-2004, 05:03 PM
nt

tagert
01-24-2004, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
Not just longitudinal stability, but directional stability (most important for gunnery). The tail fillet helped to correct this issue, but did not solve it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Longitudial (up/dwn) stability was due to the fuel, as noted that was solved per procdure.. latitudinal (left/right you called it directional) stability was regained with the fillets... And as other pointed out was never perfect from the get go, in that they even retro fited some of the early razor backs... In light of that the D with fillets was on parr of a B without fillets

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
P-51D was a worse gunnery platform than the P-51B.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ennh!

TAGERT

tagert
01-24-2004, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
Earlier in the post there was discussion about the 4 .50 cal. machine guns...I have read in a few books that later B/C models were fitted with 6 .50 cal guns...I don't know if this was a factory modification or a field modification and I don't have any pictures...just memory of readings.

It would be nice if Oleg put 6 guns on the C model but I doubt it because the 4 gun configuration was much more prevelant.

I expect the B/C model to fly like a dream and shoot like a sissy. The B/C model was faster, more manueverable in many aspects and enjoyed a lighter construction so climbed a little better. Shorter range as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont know about that mod to six on the B/C's I think that would be a little hard in light of a major wing mod... As for sissy.. Not when you consider the ROF boost the B/C had 950rpm vs. 600rpm.. With more ammo and a higher ROF you would/could roughly put as many rounds down range as 6 would for the same amout of time.

TAGERT