PDA

View Full Version : P-51 vs. others, sea- level speed test.



Hunde_3.JG51
05-21-2004, 10:06 PM
Did a speed test with P-51D, FW-190A-9, FW-190D-9, Ta-152 at SL under Oleg's conditions (Crimea, 12:00pm, over water, etc.) and got the following (all with 50% fuel, radiators closed, manual-pitch for A-9):

FW-190A-9: 603km/h
FW-190D-9: 604km/h
Ta-152H: 598km/h
P-51D: 598km/h

At 3,000m:

FW-190A-9: 619km/h
P-51D: 670km/h

At 5,500m

FW-190A-9: 693km/h
P-51D: 671km/h

*On auto-pitch FW-190A-9 was slower than P-51D at SL

I think the boost for Ta-152H was intentional (maybe not), I don't know about P-51D though. The Mustang is now almost just as fast as A-9 and D-9 at sea-level and quickly leaves the A-9 in the dust as altitude increases until about 5,000+m. The A-9 and Ta-152 barely increase at all in speed and then do so rapidly up higher. The Ta-152 was a high altitude aircraft so this is more understandable, but the A-9 has a very narrow altitude range where it is actually fast, this doesn't seem right for a plane that sported a 2,400hp engine which traditionally performed better at low-medium altitudes. At 3,000m the Mustang simply walks away from the A-9, but its speed does not really improve until much higher altitudes.

I'm not saying anything is wrong here but the A-9 used to have a decent speed advantage over the P-51D at SL but that is gone now. I am just wondering if it is/was intentional or not. I still believe the A-9 should increase in speed much faster than it does as altitude increases, it had amazing power without significant increase in weight. It is really only fast between around 5,000 & 6,500m approximately. I looked at the speed curve in Il-2 compare thing, and it looks a bit silly how sharp and narrow the speed curve is. I tested this in-game and confirmed it.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Fri May 21 2004 at 09:16 PM.]

Hunde_3.JG51
05-21-2004, 10:06 PM
Did a speed test with P-51D, FW-190A-9, FW-190D-9, Ta-152 at SL under Oleg's conditions (Crimea, 12:00pm, over water, etc.) and got the following (all with 50% fuel, radiators closed, manual-pitch for A-9):

FW-190A-9: 603km/h
FW-190D-9: 604km/h
Ta-152H: 598km/h
P-51D: 598km/h

At 3,000m:

FW-190A-9: 619km/h
P-51D: 670km/h

At 5,500m

FW-190A-9: 693km/h
P-51D: 671km/h

*On auto-pitch FW-190A-9 was slower than P-51D at SL

I think the boost for Ta-152H was intentional (maybe not), I don't know about P-51D though. The Mustang is now almost just as fast as A-9 and D-9 at sea-level and quickly leaves the A-9 in the dust as altitude increases until about 5,000+m. The A-9 and Ta-152 barely increase at all in speed and then do so rapidly up higher. The Ta-152 was a high altitude aircraft so this is more understandable, but the A-9 has a very narrow altitude range where it is actually fast, this doesn't seem right for a plane that sported a 2,400hp engine which traditionally performed better at low-medium altitudes. At 3,000m the Mustang simply walks away from the A-9, but its speed does not really improve until much higher altitudes.

I'm not saying anything is wrong here but the A-9 used to have a decent speed advantage over the P-51D at SL but that is gone now. I am just wondering if it is/was intentional or not. I still believe the A-9 should increase in speed much faster than it does as altitude increases, it had amazing power without significant increase in weight. It is really only fast between around 5,000 & 6,500m approximately. I looked at the speed curve in Il-2 compare thing, and it looks a bit silly how sharp and narrow the speed curve is. I tested this in-game and confirmed it.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Fri May 21 2004 at 09:16 PM.]

Zen--
05-21-2004, 10:13 PM
I'm curious about why the mustang got a boost in speed as well. I never thought it was a particularly fast plane on the deck, but then I'm not the expert on it either

Seems like a hotrod now though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-Zen-

patch_adams
05-21-2004, 11:07 PM
curious to know how fast the p51 would be with 25% fuel as that is the norm in online play.

Korolov
05-21-2004, 11:15 PM
What do you get out of the P-51B&C?

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
05-22-2004, 01:24 AM
Korolov, I believe I got 570+km/h for P-51C and 576km/h for P-51B at SL. I'll try again tomorrow with 25% fuel. I got 520km/h for P-39N & I think 583km/h for P-38J which is almost the same as FW-190A-5 & A-6 using manual pitch. In general speeds are 10-15km/h over what is indicated in object viewer for most planes, the P-39N and P-51D are 20km/h over.

By object viewer FW-190A-9 reaches 575 unboosted and P-51D reaches 578 max. Boost should add a good bit to speed at low altitudes (it adds 30km/h to A-8 in object viewer) so the 5km/h advantage the A-9 has using manual pitch at SL seems wrong to me unless they purposely boosted P-51D.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Sat May 22 2004 at 12:38 AM.]

Aaron_GT
05-22-2004, 01:43 AM
Before the patch I was getting about 343 mph from the P51B at sea level (67" boost). 570 km/h is about 356 mph, so it's closer to what it should be now.

Hunde_3.JG51
05-22-2004, 01:55 AM
In object viewer it says 560km/h for both B & C, but as I said most planes are 10-15km/h over so my results are pretty close to being on. Though I am surprised the B was a little faster than C. But as I said in my original post and those following it, my question is about the boost to the P-51D and the relation to the FW-190A-9 mentioned in my last post. P-39N could always do 520km/h (500 in object viewer), I just never felt like mentioning it. But it is off IMO.

The very narrow speed envelope I mentioned concerning the A-9 really bothers me though. It's fast up to say 500m and between about 5,300m and 6,500m, everywhere else it is simply average or slow.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Kurfurst__
05-22-2004, 04:12 AM
Yep, the P-51D got quite a boost. Il-2Comp v2.4 gives it`s SL speed at 585 kph, which can be argued to some extent (it would refer to a plane w/o it`s standard wingracks), however the most disturbing factor is the laughalby overmodelled climb rate at no less than 22.6 m/sec, or 4450 fpm.. real life spec was 3300-400 fpm...

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Aaron_GT
05-22-2004, 06:41 AM
Quite a lot of planes seem to have overmodelled climb rates.

Zen--
05-22-2004, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Quite a lot of planes seem to have overmodelled climb rates.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats pretty normal for the history of the game and it's not limited to the Germans http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

-Zen-

Maple_Tiger
05-22-2004, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Did a speed test with P-51D, FW-190A-9, FW-190D-9, Ta-152 at SL under Oleg's conditions (Crimea, 12:00pm, over water, etc.) and got the following (all with 50% fuel, radiators closed, manual-pitch for A-9):

FW-190A-9: 603km/h
FW-190D-9: 604km/h
Ta-152H: 598km/h
P-51D: 598km/h

At 3,000m:

FW-190A-9: 619km/h
P-51D: 670km/h

At 5,500m

FW-190A-9: 693km/h
P-51D: 671km/h

*On auto-pitch FW-190A-9 was slower than P-51D at SL

I think the boost for Ta-152H was intentional (maybe not), I don't know about P-51D though. The Mustang is now almost just as fast as A-9 and D-9 at sea-level and quickly leaves the A-9 in the dust as altitude increases until about 5,000+m. The A-9 and Ta-152 barely increase at all in speed and then do so rapidly up higher. The Ta-152 was a high altitude aircraft so this is more understandable, but the A-9 has a very narrow altitude range where it is actually fast, this doesn't seem right for a plane that sported a 2,400hp engine which traditionally performed better at low-medium altitudes. At 3,000m the Mustang simply walks away from the A-9, but its speed does not really improve until much higher altitudes.

I'm not saying anything is wrong here but the A-9 used to have a decent speed advantage over the P-51D at SL but that is gone now. I am just wondering if it is/was intentional or not. I still believe the A-9 should increase in speed much faster than it does as altitude increases, it had amazing power without significant increase in weight. It is really only fast between around 5,000 & 6,500m approximately. I looked at the speed curve in Il-2 compare thing, and it looks a bit silly how sharp and narrow the speed curve is. I tested this in-game and confirmed it.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Fri May 21 2004 at 09:16 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



The top speeds for the P-51's have Not been changed.



Also, in all the time i have flown the P-51D i have alwasy been able to reach 578 to 580km/h TAS on the deck, wich is correct.

I just tested it again and i reached 581km/h TAS.

I also tested it at 7600m and i could not reach 703km/h TAS.

But 598km/h TAS at sea level? Give me a break.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Skalgrim
05-22-2004, 06:54 AM
a8 and a9 could use erh¶hten ladedruch 10min, say willaume from lemb forum

but not in fb, important advantage that is not modell in fb

most plane has overmodel climb, but 190a climb is not overmodel, so climb most plane compare 190a to good

robban75
05-22-2004, 07:01 AM
My climbtests shows that planes in general climb relatively correct.

http://members.chello.se/unni/chart.html

The La-5FN, La-7, K-4 were amongst the few climbers that "stuck out" pre patch. Having overmodelled to severly overmodelled climbrates. The La's climbs much too fast at high alts. With the La-7 outclimbing the D-9 from 5000m to 8000m.

Undermodelled machines(as usual) was the Fw 190 family. With the A-9 lacking some 3m/sec in climb. Even the D-9 which might still be considered a good climber also lacks 1.5m/sec in climb. But at 3000m it climbs too fast. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

I don't know if climbs has changed in the patch, well see. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

[This message was edited by robban75 on Sat May 22 2004 at 06:12 AM.]

robban75
05-22-2004, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
But 598km/h TAS at sea level? Give me a break.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try it again. And make sure it's on the Crimea map. 598km/h is very much possible. With 25% fuel, 600km/h shouldn't be impossible. Just give it some time.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Maple_Tiger
05-22-2004, 07:43 AM
I tride it on the Crimea map.

D20NA- 592km/h TAS.

BF109K4- 594km/h TAS.

Actual historical sea level speeds where.

D20NA- 587km/h TAS.
BF109K4- 580km/h TAS.



Both of them are about 5 km/h too fast. The FWD9 is also too fast.

D944- 605km/h TAS. Suppose to be 585 to 595 with bost. Seems to be about 10km/h TAS too fast on the deck. This should be corrected.


Seeing how you guys are Luftwhinners, your speed test values will be biased. Also, all the German planes are too fast and i think should be corrected.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

robban75
05-22-2004, 07:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>D944- 605km/h TAS. Suppose to be 585 to 595 with bost. Seems to be about 10km/h TAS too fast on the deck. This should be corrected.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I know the '44 D-9 is too slow, by 16km/h.

Klick on link below to see more.

http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/horizontalgeschwindigkeiten.htm

B4 fuel was used on the later D-9's with MW50. The MW50 allowed it to have similar performance to the '44 D-9's with C3 fuel, which was more avaliable in 1944. So by all means, the earlier D-9 with C3 fuel was a slightly better performer than the MW50 boosted variant.

This is why the '44 version performs better than the '45 version in FB, well, appart from the topspeed thing!

If I'm wrong about this, please let me know. Thanks!http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

VW-IceFire
05-22-2004, 08:04 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but one of the improvements in the D model was a higher speed at sea level. So this looks to be modeled fairly well.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Maple_Tiger
05-22-2004, 08:16 AM
That was the FWA9 i was looking at.

The FWD9 i think should reach 600km/h TAS with Erhte Notlestung/ i think this would be MW50 boost?

Any way, it's also about 5 km/h too fast.


All four of the planes that i have tested so far are about 5km/h TAS too fast. So it's not only the P-51 that is 5km/h too fast, but German planes as well.


This is a very lame and biased thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Kurfurst__
05-22-2004, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Quite a lot of planes seem to have overmodelled climb rates.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s true in absolute sense, but not disturbing until they are OK relative to each other. It`s not disturbing that the 109K climbs somewhere like 29 m/sec (RL: 24.5) and the La-7 something like 28 m/sec (RL 24,1), because you get what your would expect, ie. 109K slightly outclimbing the LA-7, the latter`s ROC falls off rapidly with altitude, while the 109K keeps it better..

Trouble starts when the ROC is totally off relative to each other. A RL life Mustang had no hope climbing with a 109G or Spit IX in RL, but it does in the game, in fact, it outclimbs the G-6 a bit... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Even least would one expect the Spit Mk V being able to match the high altitude Mk IX or late 109G/K in ROC, but it DOES in the game... yes, the Mk V climbs EXACTLY the same as the Mk IX above 6500m, in fact it even manages to outclimb it.... which destroys every RL tactics!

Which pretty much ruins the historical value. Why the heck would the British develop the two staged Merlins at all then?! Why would 109 pilots doing spiral climbs to loose their foe ?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Hunde_3.JG51
05-22-2004, 12:36 PM
Maple, what the &*^% is your problem? I am not a luftwhiner, just pointing out a change and asking if it was intentional. "Give me a break." It is very easy, and possible to get 598km/h at SL as I have posted with the P-51D even with 50% fuel, maybe you need to try again. "Lame and biased thread." Coming from you that really means nothing to me. Sometimes you are a good guy but sometimes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif.

And I am taking numbers straight from object viewer or is that too hard for you to do? 578km/h for P-51D, and 585-595 for FW-190A-9. The game is supposed to be based on Oleg's in-game data, not yours. I'm sure we could all find documents where the speed for our favorite fighters are higher than in-game. Maybe this is what happened and that is why I am asking, maybe the boost at sea-level was intentional which is fine, I'm just wondering if it was. Note that I said that nothing may be wrong in my first post. And my results are not biased and can easily be replicated by anyone with half of a brain, so I suggest you find someone to do the test for you.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Korolov
05-22-2004, 01:13 PM
I *think* the reason the P-51B is faster than the C is because the B's canopy doesn't seem to "stick out" as much as the C's.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
05-22-2004, 01:21 PM
Possibly, I always wondered if the Malcolm hood caused any stability problems on P-51 because when it recieved bubble canopy it needed a fillet stabilizer, the P-47 later recieved something similar. The Typhoon and late Spitifres had changes made to rudder to accomodate for bubble canopy I believe. I doubt the Malcolm caused any problems though, but it may be the cause of 6km/h less speed. P-51B is still the best looking Mustang IMO, though the D was definitely an improvement.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

PzKpfw
05-22-2004, 01:59 PM
Concerning ROC Ie, the Bf 109G-14 ROC @ Steig u. Kampf, (Climb and Combat), was 16m/s. Steig u. Kampf allowed 30 mins running time @ 100% rating.

The G-14 could increase its ROC to 24m/s by useing Sonder-Notleistung (Special Power), WEP in this case; MW-50 injection. This increased G-14 engine hp to around 500hp. MW-50 could be used for 10 minutes at a time, with breaks of 5 minutes between each useage, basicly 26 - 30 minutes max MW-50 time.

ROC is not as important to an escort fighter Ie, P-51 as, it is, to an interceptor Ie, Bf 109G/K, as Interceptors must be able to climb quickly as possible to get to incomeing hostile aircraft altitudes.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Sun May 23 2004 at 12:54 PM.]

Cyrano
05-22-2004, 03:27 PM
BSS Vidar made a strong case a couple of weeks back stating that the mustang was too slow at SL. Perhaps Oleg took note and increased the speed as a result of his and others references brought to him.

Skalgrim
05-23-2004, 01:54 AM
spain g10 3150kg with 1680ps initial climb 1750m/min, was use until 1970

that are 28m/sec,

g10 1800ps in fb has little better powerloding


the only reason that g6 has trouble 43, is she use 87 oktan and all west opponent use 100 octan

the differ between b4 87oktan and c3 96octan fuel is very great,

with b4 fuel 87 octan is only 1300ps 30min possible but with c3 fuel 96 oktan 1550-1600ps 30min possible without mw50


.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sun May 23 2004 at 03:27 AM.]

VF-10_Snacky
05-23-2004, 02:54 AM
God forbid the Mustang have any sort of fighting chance. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Uber stands for "I got spanked so now Im going to cry about it."

"Son of a B**ch! that's gonna hurt!"

Hunde_3.JG51
05-23-2004, 03:11 AM
There is no crying here, just asking if the boost to P-51D was intentional (as with Ta-152) or not. I'm fine with it either way I'm just curious.

Take a look at Cyrano's reply to see what an appropriate response looks like.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Sun May 23 2004 at 01:37 PM.]

LuftLuver
05-23-2004, 05:40 AM
Yes, this 24/7 LW Mustang whining is getting quite stale really. You guys can attempt to put a dress on your whining and say "I'm just curious" all you like, but it's still whining in a dress. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

BM357_Hawki
05-23-2004, 07:02 AM
It all boils down to tactics, I had no problems shooting down 109's before or after the patch.
A 10 - 20 or mph difference in spec means nothing if you rely on your speed to get you out of trouble, or your best turn rate speed.Its your head not your machine that gets you into and out of trouble! I enjoy having a 109 and a 190 on my tail, puting me through some rough flying and have no problem shaking them off my tail or setting up a trap with a wingman.

The point is to have some type of balance when we play online, when you use voice comms and fly with a squad member who know each others tactics you will take down any plane out there.

Not to say that being as close to accurate is a bad thing, I agree the planes should come close to being as accurate as possible, however given the limitations of the time to program the flight models any small percentage of your planes being off spec is reasonable. We all want a fair fight not a perfect flight as we all know will never happen.

When everyone is on voice comms and is flying "full real" like a real squad then the accuracy of plane models would play a more important part in the equation but until then its just another shooter game in dogfight mode.

Happy flying
BM357_Hawki

Maple_Tiger
05-23-2004, 07:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
"D***head" stands for people who assume to know how others fly. If you didn't have a fighting chance in the Mustang before, then it is you that must really suck. And there is no crying here, just asking if the boost to P-51D was intentional (as with Ta-152) or not. I'm fine with it either way I'm just curious.

Take a look at Cyrano's reply to see what an appropriate response looks like.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



From my speeds tests at Sea level and at altitude, i notice only a 5km/h increase in top speed.


Also, the FW190D9, BF109K4, and G10 also about 5 km/h TAS too fast.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Hunde_3.JG51
05-23-2004, 12:00 PM
I love how when you ask a question about sea-level speed all of the sudden people are saying learn to fly (btw you can find me mentioned in the "best online pilots by plane type" thread for the 190 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I completely disagree with this but at least it shows I know what I am doing).

Forget it, this board has become a joke. I just asked a simple question and got jumped on by a bunch of defensive P-51 fans. It was a simple question in which I said "nothing may be off" and "I'm fine with it either way," (I like how you left that part out) yet I still get criticized. I never even asked for anything to be changed. Luftuver, you call that "dressing it up," I call that being appropriate, respectful, and fair. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference. Over-reactive responses like the ones from Maple, Seawolf, and yourself are the typical of the boards nowadays, you post something about a particular aircraft and the defensive, nationalistic BS starts to fly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif.

Maple, just to clarify once more:

By object viewer FW-190A-9 reaches 575 unboosted and P-51D reaches 578 max. Boost should add a good bit to speed at low altitudes (it adds 30km/h to A-8 in object viewer) so the 5km/h advantage the A-9 has using manual pitch and boost at SL seems off to me unless they purposely boosted P-51D. Which is fine.

But like I said I just want to drop it because a civilized, mature discussion has become impossible these days.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Sun May 23 2004 at 11:20 AM.]

VFA-195 Snacky
05-23-2004, 01:12 PM
Basically this board is a joke because you are finding out that not everyone agrees with you. How about just enjoy the sim for what is and except the fact that no FM in FB will ever be "Perfect" and that goes for any of the flyable aircraft.

btw- When you reduce yourself to name calling and personal attacks you reduce the chances of anyone ever taking you seriously.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."


**Opinions expressed are not those of UbiSoft or Eagle Dynamics**

[This message was edited by Snacky1 on Sun May 23 2004 at 12:20 PM.]

609IAP_Recon
05-23-2004, 01:38 PM
I'd have to agree with Hunde.

It's difficult to bring up items on this board without getting attacked.

Salute!

IV/JG51_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/jg51sig2.jpg

PzKpfw
05-23-2004, 01:49 PM
Below are the speeds attained by the P-51B/C/D in multiple tests:

P-51B/C V-1650-3 SL @ COMBAT POWER:


Eglin tests @ 9690lbs:
348-349mph. (560km/h)

Patuxent River tests @ 9423lbs:
359-360mph. (578 - 579km/h)

USAAF data: EE-393 9/1/44 @ 9200lbs:
370-371mph. (595 - 596km/h)


P-51D V-1650-7 @ SL @ COMBAT POWER:
NAA Data: @ 10176lbs:
366-367mph (588 - 589km/h)

USAAF Data @ 10100lbs:
372-373mph. (598 - 599km/h)


Regards John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

Hunde_3.JG51
05-23-2004, 02:29 PM
Snacky,

I enjoy the sim immensely, never said I didn't. I wasn't complaining, I was asking a question. The whole point is that people can't tell the difference anymore because they are so defensive. It's no big deal just felt like discussing it with others, I should have know this would be the result.

And I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say that I am upset because nobody agrees with me. You can get 598km/h with P-51D easily under Oleg's conditions, so not much to argue about there. I was just wondering if this was intended, or if someone had made a case to Oleg and this was the result. As I said Cryano's resonse would be the appropriate one and I'm fine with it. Some people are posting data, which is also appreciated. There is no argument, or anything to agree with, it is a QUESTION. People are making it into an argument, its ridiculous. And the statement that I made a couple of times that "I am fine with it either way" eludes you? Or that "nothing may be wrong." Does this sound like I am angry or not enjoying the sim?

And I don't consider me pointing out the obvious in this thread as a personal attack. As for name-calling it was in response to an ignorant post but it was immature on my part (and it is fixed). I apologize for that, sorry.

Thanks for test data PzKpfw.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Sun May 23 2004 at 01:41 PM.]

siroff
05-23-2004, 03:04 PM
Homo homini lupus

BuzzU
05-23-2004, 05:12 PM
When did the object viewer become accurate?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
05-23-2004, 07:42 PM
BuzzU, that is my point. What we have is much different than what is in object viewer at SL, I was just wondering if someone had made a pitch to, or presented Oleg with new data that would account for P-51D boost at SL. Ta-152 doesn't even come close to what is in object viewer (much higher at low altitude due to evidence submitted). No big deal, just wondering if something similar had happened with P-51D. It seems there are some real-life tests which would support this and that is what I was curious about. Unfortunately it turned into something much different.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

LeadSpitter_
05-24-2004, 02:33 AM
can you post tracks im certainly not getting those speeds for the mustang, is the speed TAS or IAS

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

Maple_Tiger
05-24-2004, 07:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
I love how when you ask a question about sea-level speed all of the sudden people are saying learn to fly (btw you can find me mentioned in the "best online pilots by plane type" thread for the 190 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I completely disagree with this but at least it shows I know what I am doing).

Forget it, this board has become a joke. I just asked a simple question and got jumped on by a bunch of defensive P-51 fans. It was a simple question in which I said "nothing may be off" and "I'm fine with it either way," (I like how you left that part out) yet I still get criticized. I never even asked for anything to be changed. Luftuver, you call that "dressing it up," I call that being appropriate, respectful, and fair. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference. Over-reactive responses like the ones from Maple, Seawolf, and yourself are the typical of the boards nowadays, you post something about a particular aircraft and the defensive, nationalistic BS starts to fly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif.

Maple, just to clarify once more:

By object viewer FW-190A-9 reaches 575 unboosted and P-51D reaches 578 max. Boost should add a good bit to speed at low altitudes (it adds 30km/h to A-8 in object viewer) so the 5km/h advantage the A-9 has using manual pitch and boost at SL seems off to me unless they purposely boosted P-51D. Which is fine.

But like I said I just want to drop it because a civilized, mature discussion has become impossible these days.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Sun May 23 2004 at 11:20 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I used Auto for the FWD9, and i was able to reach 605km/h TAS.

BF109k4 was also about 5 or 6 km/h too fast.

I found the same results when i tested the P-51D, only 5 km/h too fast.

Then you have some idiots who clame that the P-51D is 25km/h too fast. lol


The P-51D did not get a boost.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Gunner_361st
05-24-2004, 08:52 AM
I think the boost for Ta-152H was intentional (maybe not), I don't know about P-51D though. The Mustang is now almost just as fast as A-9 and D-9 at sea-level and quickly leaves the A-9 in the dust as altitude increases until about 5,000+m. The A-9 and Ta-152 barely increase at all in speed and then do so rapidly up higher. The Ta-152 was a high altitude aircraft so this is more understandable, but the A-9 has a very narrow altitude range where it is actually fast, this doesn't seem right for a plane that sported a 2,400hp engine which traditionally performed better at low-medium altitudes. At 3,000m the Mustang simply walks away from the A-9, but its speed does not really improve until much higher altitudes.

I'm not saying anything is wrong here but the A-9 used to have a decent speed advantage over the P-51D at SL but that is gone now. I am just wondering if it is/was intentional or not. I still believe the A-9 should increase in speed much faster than it does as altitude increases, it had amazing power without significant increase in weight. It is really only fast between around 5,000 & 6,500m approximately. I looked at the speed curve in Il-2 compare thing, and it looks a bit silly how sharp and narrow the speed curve is. I tested this in-game and confirmed it.

----------------------------------------------

Responses to threads like these is why I rarely read or respond to any threads on the UBI boards anymore.

Hunde did some tests in the game and then asked whether they were changes or not. He didn't say that the changes were wrong. Read carefully.

"I'm not saying anything is wrong here but the A-9 used to have a decent speed advantage over the P-51D at SL but that is gone now. I am just wondering if it is/was intentional or not."

To have certain individuals respond and call him a Luftwhiner, or a Luftwhiner is disguise is extremely inappropriate. Offended, he did throw an insult back, but apologized for it later.

It is my understanding that speed performance in FB for airplanes is calculated by factors that are inserted in, such as horsepower, weight, drag coefficient, etc, etc. This allows aircraft, when handled well, to *slightly* exceed their maximum tested speed. 5 km/h is 3.1 mph. Next to nothing, when it comes to planes that fly at 400+ miles per hour and are being handled roughly in combat manuevering.

Whether a change was made to any aircraft I am uncertain of. If you check the version 2.01 readme it says this...

"9: Reworked flight models of the following aircraft: LaGG-3 IT, LaGG-3 of 1943, P-38s, P-40E, A6M2, A6M5a, BF-110G-2"

So, according to the readme that came with, it 'would seem' as if no changes have been made to any of the planes listed in this thread.

People also forget this thread has nothing to do about actual combat flying, this thread is about speed performance values. "Learn to fly" in response to "Is this speed change correct" is ridiculous.

I'd like to apologize Hunde, on behalf of the 361st for Maple's postings. Throwing out Luftwhiner insults to people who ask *polite* questions about speed changes, or whether they occured or not in the first place, is below us. You should know better than that, Maple.

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1087.jpg

Maple_Tiger
05-24-2004, 12:39 PM
Qoute:
I'd like to apologize Hunde, on behalf of the 361st for Maple's postings. Throwing out Luftwhiner insults to people who ask *polite* questions about speed changes, or whether they occured or not in the first place, is below us. You should know better than that, Maple.


Apologize for what?

There where a couple of posts made by surtane people, that the P-51 is 25 to 30 km/h TAS too fast.

Lets get real folks. This is getting ridiculous.

I know Hunde never said anything about the P-51D being 25 to 30km/h TAS too fast, but some have.



I have run alot of speeds tests before the patch, and some after the patch.

If you don't use the Crimea map, the P-51D will bairly reach 575km/h TAS SL. This was no different then before the patch. At 6700m, i have seen no difference in top speed.


This thread is BS.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Hunde_3.JG51
05-24-2004, 02:08 PM
Thank you very much for the support Gunner, a very classy move that is much appreciated. I'm sure the 361st is a great group of guys.

Maple, then why did you say my thread is biased and call me a luftwhiner when, as you said, I never claimed that the P-51D speed was wrong or that it was 25km/h too fast? Don't lump me in with others, or tie my name in with those who are making claims different than mine. This thread is not "BS", it can easily be replicated and I was curious as to whether or not it was intended. Again, I'm fine with it either way but there was a change.

Maple, and Leadspitter, the P-51D did get a boost in speed at SL (and I use cockpit off to get TAS). The A-9 and D-9 used to have about a 13-15km/h advantage over the P-51D at SL (this was under Oleg's conditions, see below). I do alot of speed testing, and under Oleg's conditions (Crimea, 12:00pm, over water) the P-51D did get a boost in speed, at least at SL. As for other maps I can't say but the speeds on Crimea map are usually higher than in object viewer. I used to test on multiplayer map 1 and fly off the edge of the map, this would result in very consistent numbers that match the object viewer almost exactly (578km/h for P-51D for example). I'll try this with P-51D for fun, but as I said its no big deal. Others have shown that the P-51D could possibly reach near 600km/h at SL in RL and that is what I was wondering about, or if someone had made this case to Oleg and it was known.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Mon May 24 2004 at 01:39 PM.]

BigKahuna_GS
05-24-2004, 05:33 PM
S!


I think you may be right Hunde but at a slightly slower speed. I have the original speed tests Oleg sent me before the patch. The sea level speed was 580kph. I ran 4 speed tests using Oleg specs & the P51D-20NA (110% throttle + Wep, 100% fuel load, radiator closed & crimea map.

While I could spike the SL speed higher by momentarily dipping the nose the average maintainable SL speed was 595kph. This speed took a very long time to attain and the engine hit overheating.

SPEED CONVERSION
595 Kilometers per hour equals 369.716 Miles (statute) per hour

This seems to be the low end average of the P51 at sea level. It actualy should be around:

SPEED CONVERSION
605 Kilometers per hour equals 375.93 Miles (statute) per hour


The RAF Mustang III's were hitting well over 400mph and were as fast or faster than the Tempest at sea level. I am glad to see Oleg listend to all the docementation even though he chose the low end of the scale.

As for the climb being overmodeled, try this -using a 25%fuel load add 2 500lb bombs and see how well the 51 climbs. I think this will give you a rough idea with and without the extra bomb load how using only the 25% fuel load gives the P51 a performance boost.


______________________

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

Hunde_3.JG51
05-24-2004, 06:33 PM
Kahuna, thanks for the reply and for the info. Like I said, I have no problem if the Mustang was boosted a little in speed at SL on purpose, from what I am seeing it may be more accurate. Even though I was attacked in this thread, I just want to say that I like the Mustang alot and I find myself flying it alot more than any other allied plane, though for pure "coolness" factor the P-38 beats all (allied or axis)others IMO. But I love my FW-190 for its characteristics, many of which the P-51 and 190 share. The reason I like the FW-190 so much is that it displayed these characteristics in August 1941. Though it was outclassed handily in very late '43, and midway through '44.

Just to clarify though (if you were speaking to me), I never said climb was overmodelled.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

BigKahuna_GS
05-24-2004, 07:33 PM
S! Hunde,

Yes mate you should be able to speak your mind here in a reasonable format without getting attacked--sorry that happened to you. I wish others would not turn this into their own posting to push their own agendas.

The overmodeled climb response was not directed at you Hunde--there are many arrows being slung at the 51 right now. Some here are not happy that the P51 is a competative aircraft and wish to see it castrated again. Why do they want this? You would have to ask them, but generally speaking they are not a reasonable or objective sort.

Disclaimer--I have no idea if Oleg intended this sea level speed increase in the P51D--although very warrented. I did hear he might consider it.

Someone made the comment they thought the 51 was a "hot rod" now. The Pony was built to run fast--Look at the speeds the Brits got out of their Mustang III's--impressive. Out of all the piston aircraft in the world to race, which planes dominated International Air Races after WW2-The British Sea Fury, Mustang, Corsair and Bearcat. German a/c were tried but their airframes did not hold up well.

____________________

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

PzKpfw
05-24-2004, 07:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

SPEED CONVERSION
595 Kilometers per hour equals 369.716 Miles (statute) per hour

This seems to be the low end average of the P51 at sea level. It actualy should be around:

SPEED CONVERSION
605 Kilometers per hour equals 375.93 Miles (statute) per hour

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the P-51D ACE speed @ SL comes out pretty close to the actual P-51D test results, Ie, NAA test @ SL results @ 10,176lbs was 366-367mph. USAAF test @ SL results @ 10,100lbs was 372-373mph.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

BigKahuna_GS
05-24-2004, 07:57 PM
S!

Hey John what do you think would happen if Oleg modeled in the British Mustang III specs--whooa doggy. Faster than the Tempest at sea level and still able to escort bombers to Holland.

I think we are close at 595kph. I have also seen Oleg take the best case scenarios for F/M (like the K4), 375mph at sea level for the 51 would be a reasonable sea level speed according to tests.


______________

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

PzKpfw
05-24-2004, 10:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

Hey John what do you think would happen if Oleg modeled in the British Mustang III specs--whooa doggy. Faster than the Tempest at sea level and still able to escort bombers to Holland.

I think we are close at 595kph. I have also seen Oleg take the best case scenarios for F/M (like the K4), 375mph at sea level for the 51 would be a reasonable sea level speed according to tests.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kahuna, all I'm saying, is that your ACE result @ SL are better then the real NAA results, Ie, your ACE results show 369mph @ SL vs 366-367mph from NAA tests & your estimated 375mph is beter then USAAF results @ SL of 372-373mph.

AHT states the P-63 was the fastest US production fighter below 14000ft Ie, 375mph @ SL. As to RAF Mustang III performance, I am commenting on US tests.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

Maple_Tiger
05-25-2004, 04:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Thank you very much for the support Gunner, a very classy move that is much appreciated. I'm sure the 361st is a great group of guys.

Maple, then why did you say my thread is biased and call me a luftwhiner when, as you said, I never claimed that the P-51D speed was wrong or that it was 25km/h too fast? Don't lump me in with others, or tie my name in with those who are making claims different than mine. This thread is not "BS", it can easily be replicated and I was curious as to whether or not it was intended. Again, I'm fine with it either way but there was a change.

Maple, and Leadspitter, the P-51D did get a boost in speed at SL (and I use cockpit off to get TAS). The A-9 and D-9 used to have about a 13-15km/h advantage over the P-51D at SL (this was under Oleg's conditions, see below). I do alot of speed testing, and under Oleg's conditions (Crimea, 12:00pm, over water) the P-51D did get a boost in speed, at least at SL. As for other maps I can't say but the speeds on Crimea map are usually higher than in object viewer. I used to test on multiplayer map 1 and fly off the edge of the map, this would result in very consistent numbers that match the object viewer almost exactly (578km/h for P-51D for example). I'll try this with P-51D for fun, but as I said its no big deal. Others have shown that the P-51D could possibly reach near 600km/h at SL in RL and that is what I was wondering about, or if someone had made this case to Oleg and it was known.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Mon May 24 2004 at 01:39 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Qoute:
Maple, and Leadspitter, the P-51D did get a boost in speed at SL.

I disagree. I fly the Pony most of the time. My tests only show a 5km/h TAS increase in speed, on the chrimea map. lol, thats no different then before.

You to talk about a boost in speed? Try the Ta-152 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I think i reached 600km/h TAS at SL. That = 40km/h TAS too fast.
This is not even using the chrimea map.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

robban75
05-25-2004, 06:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Qoute:
Maple, and Leadspitter, the P-51D did get a boost in speed at SL.

I disagree. I fly the Pony most of the time. My tests only show a 5km/h TAS increase in speed, on the chrimea map. lol, thats no different then before.

You to talk about a boost in speed? Try the Ta-152 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I think i reached 600km/h TAS at SL. That = 40km/h TAS too fast.
This is not even using the chrimea map.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree, the P-51's SL topspeed pre patch was 586km/h(Crimea map), and now it's 598km/h. That's an increase of 12km/h.

And for the Ta 152 being 40km/h too fast. The chart in the link below was mailed to Oleg, and appearantly he approved it.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/page154chart.jpg

According to this chart, the Ta is now ~6km/h too fast. This is I think is better than it being some 30km/h too slow, like it was pre patch.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Hunde_3.JG51
05-25-2004, 07:02 AM
My numbers match Robban's exactly, pre-patch I was getting 586, now I get 598km/h.

And I know about the Ta-152, I mentioned it several times already and I was wondering if the P-51D's boost was intentional as well. I assume it was, and it seems that it may be accurate. But despite what you say, it is different, there IS about a 12km/h increase in new patch. Again, no big deal.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Eagle_361st
05-25-2004, 08:34 AM
I tend to stay away from threads where FM get's debated as it rarely accomplishes anything anymore. It all too often becomes a pi$$ing contest, to see who can flame who better. However Hunde you posed a good question, and sadly like Kahuna said some other regulars have made this their soapbox for thier own agendas. I achieved a max speed in the P-51D20NA, with 50% fuel,Crimea, 1200 hours, over the sea, the following speeds.
594 Kph w/110% WEP close rad (This took nearly 10 minutes to do though)
560 Kph w/100% and rad on auto
I used trim for level flight first, and only adjusted it when needed, keeping my hands off the stick other than to steady the aircraft.

My take on this is most aircraft in the game got a "boost" in SL speed, some slight, some higher. And some aircraft such as the Ta-152 needed to be done. However as long as these "boosts" are across the board, I feel gameplay is even. We are talking about a few Kph here and there, I don't feel that is overmodelling in any form. No matter what this sim will never be 100% accurate, and I think Oleg and Company have done a bang up job giving us what we have and I am extremely happy with their work. Aircraft in RL are alot like cars, with right pilot and the right "tweaking" to this and that a plane or car can exceed testing standards and people should keep this in mind.

Now I like the P-51, but I am a P-47 pilot by trade and preference. So I can honestly say I am in no way biased, and I don't want to see any aircraft have a unhistoric advantage over other aircraft no matter what plane it is. I do not feel this is the case here, the numbers are close to historic tests, not perfect but close. And that is good for me, because that leaves pilot skill as a major factor here.

Now, I can say with absolute certainty that the P-51 does not climb at 4400 Fpm or anything even near that. So those of you seeking only to castrate the P-51 for your personal gains or agenda's make your own thread. Or better yet, give it up because nobody takes you seriously. This forum is not about how you feel the FM's should be, because anything with stars and bars would be nothing more than a barely flying target drone if it were left to you. And that is not historic.

Hunde, good question, good form and I hope I have answered it for you appropriately.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maple, please refrain from name calling especially when it is not warranted. At the very least be specific and direct your comments to the fellows who made the comments you are debating. But you will not get and answer from them, and you should know that by now.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1079.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
05-25-2004, 08:50 AM
Eagle, I don't think speeds were boosted at SL for all planes, only a couple. But in the Ta-152's and P-51D's case it was probably warranted. I only say this because as a 190A-9 driver I used to know that I could run to the deck if need be and pull away from the Mustang, that won't happen anymore. None of the 190's or any of the other planes I have tested (P-38, P-47, P-39, etc.) are any faster at SL than before and that is probably correct.

And I want to say thanks for your comments, I agree 100% with everything else that you said. Very well done as usual.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

BigKahuna_GS
05-25-2004, 10:27 AM
S!
__________________________________________________ _____________________
Hunde wrote---My numbers match Robban's exactly, pre-patch I was getting 586, now I get 598km/h.
__________________________________________________ ______________________

I am not sure how you guys are conducting your tests, but 1 thing I did notice is that your only using 50% fuel load. Oleg's criteria is : Full throttle + WEP, radiator fully closed, 100% fuel load & crimea map.

I have the pre-patch P51D speed tracks directly from Oleg. Sea Level speed was 580kph not 586kph. If you momentarily dip your nose and your speed increases that does not count as top sea level speed.

It is the speed that is maintainable at sea level---the key word being "level" not momentarily dipping the nose to attain higher values.



__________________________________________________ _________________________
AHT states the P-63 was the fastest US production fighter below 14000ft Ie, 375mph @ SL. As to RAF Mustang III performance, I am commenting on US tests.

Regards, John Waters
__________________________________________________ __________________________

Rgr that John. I have AHT & Joint Fighter Confrence books also. I was refering to US tests. I have 2 P51 books books that gave the SL speed @ 375mph. I am trying to find where I put them-doh. These speeds are so very close anyways 2-3mph differenace.

If I was to refer to RAF Tests of the Mustang III, the sea level speeds would of been well over 400mph with the final Mustang III being faster than the Tempest at sea level.

What I was jesting about was that if Oleg had decided to use the RAF Mustang III specs for modeling the P51D--how bad would the complaining be then ?



______________________

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

robban75
05-25-2004, 02:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!
__________________________________________________ _____________________
Hunde wrote---My numbers match Robban's exactly, pre-patch I was getting 586, now I get 598km/h.
__________________________________________________ ______________________

I am not sure how you guys are conducting your tests, but 1 thing I did notice is that your only using 50% fuel load. Oleg's criteria is : Full throttle + WEP, radiator fully closed, 100% fuel load & crimea map.

I have the pre-patch P51D speed tracks directly from Oleg. Sea Level speed was 580kph not 586kph. If you momentarily dip your nose and your speed increases that does not count as top sea level speed.

It is the speed that is maintainable at sea level---the key word being "level" not momentarily dipping the nose to attain higher values.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

S! Kahuna

Most of my tests are with 100% fuel, 110% throttle(if avaliable) with WEP and rads closed. But sometimes I use 50% fuel or less when testing climbrates for planes that carry big internal fuel loads, such as the P-51 and Ta 152. When doing speed tests I always use full fuel. 598km/h(pre-patch 586km/h) is a maintainable speed for the P-51D. It sure takes a looong time getting there, but she will eventually, and she will keep that speed. I tried the '45 D-9 once with 25% fuel. The increase in topspeed was 1km/h. Not a huge speed increase, but an increase nonetheless. The difference in acceleration was huge though! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

FA_Whisky
05-25-2004, 03:05 PM
Just wondering, do you guys turn overheat off?
I still overheat my P51d trying to reach that top speed.

Hunde_3.JG51
05-25-2004, 03:10 PM
I usually do tests with 50% fuel because many people use it online for numerous planes. In short I try to use what is used online for my own knowledge, not to prove a point. It's just this time I was messing around and had it on 50% fuel, normally I would test the P-51 with 25% fuel, and the the 109 with 75% fuel for example. I'll just use 100% from now on or in tracks sent to Oleg. But I stand by my speed of 598km/h, that is not dipping the nose either. If I do dip the nose ever so slightly and it holds it without going back after an extended period of time then I count it, but this goes for all planes and the difference is usually only 1km/h. As Robban said it takes a long time but the P-51 will get to 598. It takes all planes a long time to get to very max speed.

But as I said this is no big deal, and I'm not really setting any numbers in stone. I'm fine with it, and I believe it is probably accurate so there really isn't much more to say.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

lrrp22
05-25-2004, 10:42 PM
Hey Robban,

The chart you posted lists 2.02 ata boost for the D-9 and 2.03 ata for the Ta 152H-1. Weren't both limited to 1.8 ata operationally?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:

I disagree, the P-51's SL topspeed pre patch was 586km/h(Crimea map), and now it's 598km/h. That's an increase of 12km/h.

And for the Ta 152 being 40km/h too fast. The chart in the link below was mailed to Oleg, and appearantly he approved it.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/page154chart.jpg

According to this chart, the Ta is now ~6km/h too fast. This is I think is better than it being some 30km/h too slow, like it was pre patch.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Skalgrim
05-27-2004, 08:35 AM
ata from some plane are strange,

with DeviceLink k4 ata

k4 has with 100% 1,5ata

but fly only 500km/h tas sealevel, db605d have 1550ps sealevel with 1,5ata

k4 with 1,5ata should be faster as g6 with 1,42ata sealevel,

already because it has better aerodynamic and retractable tail wheel

.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Thu May 27 2004 at 08:53 AM.]

robban75
05-28-2004, 06:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Hey Robban,

The chart you posted lists 2.02 ata boost for the D-9 and 2.03 ata for the Ta 152H-1. Weren't both limited to 1.8 ata operationally?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi lrrp, sorry for the late reply!
I've read through the books that I have on the Fw 190D and Ta 152H, but I haven't been able to find any information regarding a 1.8 ata limit for the Jumo's. Do you have any more info on this? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

lrrp22
05-28-2004, 09:39 AM
Robban,

The Jaghund Dora site lists 2100-2240 PS as being achieved at 1.8 ata with Sonder-Notleistung and MW-50.

BTW, have you seen this yet today? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/fw190d13reffw_5.jpg

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/yellow10fw_1.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Hey Robban,

The chart you posted lists 2.02 ata boost for the D-9 and 2.03 ata for the Ta 152H-1. Weren't both limited to 1.8 ata operationally?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi lrrp, sorry for the late reply!
I've read through the books that I have on the Fw 190D and Ta 152H, but I haven't been able to find any information regarding a 1.8 ata limit for the Jumo's. Do you have any more info on this? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PzKpfw
05-28-2004, 10:06 AM
Heres the data from the site:

Sonder - Notleistung mit Ladedruckerhoehung mit MW50 u. 1.8 ata.


Special Emergency Power (with MW50) 2100PS at 3,250rpm, MW-50 at 150 l/h and B4 at 800 l/h.

Maximum power with MW50 was 2,100 hp at 3,250 rpm and was not to be used above 16,500ft. (around 5000 meters). In any case, the RAE tested the Jumo 213 A-1 with MW50, and at 21,000ft the engine produced 1680 hp instead of the 1600 hp.

At that altitude the output is the same whether you are using Takeoff & Emergency or Special Emergency power. This power setting was to be used for 10 minutes then 5 minutes at normal power before used again. The Jumo 213A engine power chart also shows a dashed line at 2,240PS.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

robban75
05-28-2004, 06:23 PM
The MW50 boosted D-9 has a topspeed of 612km/h at SL with 1.8 ata and 2100PS, this matches what we get in FB very well. The D-9 using Sonder Notleistung (C3) was capable of reaching 621km/h at SL, probably with 2240PS, but at what ata? The '44 D-9 in FB matches this performance quite well at 5500m reaching 615km/h, but speed at SL doesn't match at all, lacking some 12-15km/h.

As for the Ta 152H-1, I have no idea. The Jumo 213E was a better engine than the 213A, but I can only speculate on the ata limit.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

PzKpfw
05-29-2004, 05:49 AM
Fw 190D-9 Performance @ SL:

Start -u. Notleistung(B4)

568km/h (353mph)

Sonder - Notleistung:

615km/h (382mph)

Sonder - Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmotor:

640km/h (390mph)

Sonder - Notleistung mit Ladedruckerhoehung mit MW50 u. 1.8 ata:

606km/h (377mph)

Steig - u Kampfleistung (B4)

549km/h (341mph)


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

robban75
05-29-2004, 05:59 AM
Remember that those numbers are with the ETC 504 rack. Add ~6km/h below critical engine and ~10km/h above(6.5km).

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

PzKpfw
05-29-2004, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Remember that those numbers are with the ETC 504 rack. Add ~6km/h below critical engine and ~10km/h above(6.5km).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Robban, yes I realise the performance effects w/o an ETC 501/504 Ie.:

w/o ETC 501: - add 8 km/h (5 mph) below and 12 km/h (7.5 mph) above critical engine (6.5km).

Estimated: ETC 504 - 6km/h (3.7mph)to 10km/h(6.2mph).


It's interesting the Dora's ETC 501/504 was not modeled in FB.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

lrrp22
05-29-2004, 10:56 PM
Robban,

From what I can tell, with the exception of the four (or five?) Dora's assigned to the Sachsenberg Schwarm, all in-service D-9's carried the ETC 504 rack.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Remember that those numbers are with the ETC 504 rack. Add ~6km/h below critical engine and ~10km/h above(6.5km).

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
05-30-2004, 03:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Robban,

From what I can tell, with the exception of the four (or five?) Dora's assigned to the Sachsenberg Schwarm, all in-service D-9's carried the ETC 504 rack.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, from what I can see in my books the ETC 504 rack was fitted most of the time, the D-9's flew alot with an external fuel tank fitted. Even bombs were carried. It would be cool to have this in FB aswell. Making the D-9 alot more versatile. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

robban75
05-30-2004, 03:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
BTW, have you seen this yet today? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.clubhyper.com/fw190d13reffw_1.jpg

Oh, I forgot to thank you lrrp! I hadn't seen this! She's so beautiful!

Thx! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

lrrp22
05-30-2004, 09:57 AM
Yep, she looks wonderful, even if the painter did go a little heavy on the RLM 82/83.

The Museum of Flight's new collection opens to the public on June 6th with Your's Truly attending soon after!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
BTW, have you seen this yet today? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.clubhyper.com/fw190d13reffw_1.jpg

Oh, I forgot to thank you lrrp! I hadn't seen this! She's so beautiful!

Thx! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Skalgrim
05-31-2004, 10:36 AM
k4 db605dc has with 1,5ata 1550-1600ps 30min

the famouse 24,5m/sec for k4,
is probable with 1,5ata


look of the finns or rechlin climbtest for g2 with 1,3ata 1300ps,

so it seem 24,5m/sec possible with 1,5ata for k4,

k4 has with 1,5ata 20-23% more power as g2,
but only 10% more weigh



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Quite a lot of planes seem to have overmodelled climb rates.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s true in absolute sense, but not disturbing until they are OK relative to each other. It`s not disturbing that the 109K climbs somewhere like 29 m/sec (RL: 24.5) and the La-7 something like 28 m/sec (RL 24,1), because you get what your would expect, ie. 109K slightly outclimbing the LA-7, the latter`s ROC falls off rapidly with altitude, while the 109K keeps it better..

Trouble starts when the ROC is totally off relative to each other. A RL life Mustang had no hope climbing with a 109G or Spit IX in RL, but it does in the game, in fact, it outclimbs the G-6 a bit... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Even least would one expect the Spit Mk V being able to match the high altitude Mk IX or late 109G/K in ROC, but it DOES in the game... yes, the Mk V climbs EXACTLY the same as the Mk IX above 6500m, in fact it even manages to outclimb it.... which destroys every RL tactics!

Which pretty much ruins the historical value. Why the heck would the British develop the two staged Merlins at all then?! Why would 109 pilots doing spiral climbs to loose their foe ?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Thu June 03 2004 at 08:39 AM.]

PzKpfw
06-01-2004, 12:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:


Yeah, from what I can see in my books the ETC 504 rack was fitted most of the time, the D-9's flew alot with an external fuel tank fitted. Even bombs were carried. It would be cool to have this in FB aswell. Making the D-9 alot more versatile. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya me to I had a GA mission today in my D-9 45 & it was against tanks. I was like WTH am I suposed to do with just 20mm cannon LOL.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

Willey
06-01-2004, 07:30 AM
I'd really like to know what the devs modelled here with the B and C 51s. The best (in terms of details) P-51 data I could find on the net is: http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/p51specs.shtml

According to it, the main difference between B and C is actually nothing performace wise, so it comes down to the canopy type. And here the C doesn't give me a higher seat, just less bars http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif. Also keep in mind, there's one "early" and one "late" each. The early ones obviously have no fuselage tank (180gals) and the -3 engine with 1380/1620hp. The late ones then have the fuselage tanks (269gals) and the -7 engine with 1490/1720hp, like the D. Due to the tank, it's heavier.
Now in FB, both have the fuel gauge on the left side of the seat, and both have almost the same performance, with the B beeing a tad better. Comparing it to the D, I just can come to this conclusion:

B & C have the tank and the -3 engine. Nice mixture http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif. I must admit, I haven't done any further checks for the fuel thingy (DeviceLink can give out fuel amount in kg), but I think it's like this.

What I'd like to see is:
B without the tank and -3 engine
C with the tank and -7 engine
So we would have the B with better low speed performance, and the faster C with worse low speed performace, but still better than the D. There would be more differences between them, which would make more sense.

Not to forget some loadouts http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif. If I'm not wrong, they could all carry those Bazooka tubes, and the D-20 even 5" HVARS. Where are they?? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif