PDA

View Full Version : P-51 D Performance, or lack there of



CPS_Shimano
05-28-2004, 03:36 PM
Oleg, please explain to me how the P-51 which was and still is a superb aircraft, has managed to degrade in performance in FB with each patch and release. If it was over modeled to start with, then naturally we would all want it as realistic as possible. But tell me how a 109
(any 109) flies, handles and performs better than the P-51 which blew it into extinction.

CPS_Shimano
05-28-2004, 03:36 PM
Oleg, please explain to me how the P-51 which was and still is a superb aircraft, has managed to degrade in performance in FB with each patch and release. If it was over modeled to start with, then naturally we would all want it as realistic as possible. But tell me how a 109
(any 109) flies, handles and performs better than the P-51 which blew it into extinction.

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CPS_Shimano:
Oleg, please explain to me how the P-51 which was and still is a superb aircraft, has managed to degrade in performance in FB with each patch and release. If it was over modeled to start with, then naturally we would all want it as realistic as possible. But tell me how a 109
(any 109) flies, handles and performs better than the P-51 which blew it into extinction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because this is how it was in real life, Bf-109 a superb dogfighter, P-51 the best escort fighter (at least until Ta-152H came). Do not expect to dogfight Bf-109 with and escort fighter, regardless of how OVERMODELLED P-51 gets. Keep in mind that P-51 is now faster with 20-30 km/h, it's climb rate is higher with 1000fpm and it completes at 360 degree turn with 1-2 seconds faster than in real life (data at sea level).

Be thankful for what you have because, from what I can read in your message, you will not enjoy a more realistic representation of P-51.

Chuck_Older
05-28-2004, 03:52 PM
The P-51 Mustang has a legitimate shot at being "the best fighter of WWII"


That does not mean, and should not be misconstrued as meaning, that "it was the best at everything in WWII"


And, as a side note, the Bf109 was never blown to extinction. It was license built for use by many countries after WWII and served in many national airforces...as the Hispano Buchon http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Ta-152 was supposed to be an escort, not a high altitude fighter? What would it be escorting- Germany's strategic airpower was based on defense by the time the 152 was available, wasn't it?

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

DaBallz
05-28-2004, 04:30 PM
Arguments about the P-51's true performance
against Axis aircraft will never end.

The truth is that the P-51 spelled the death knell
to the Luftwaffe day fighter forces.
It was a good dogfighter/turn fighter.
I suggest that the FM in FB is very good.
I also suggest that ALL the FM's have an
over modeled climb.
I suggest the FM's of Russian aircraft are the stuff
of childrens bed time stories.

What is very true is the Americans and British
both found the P-51 VERY effective against German
and Japanese fighters. Read US and British
combat reports, I have read hundreds over the years.
I have NEVER seen ONE account of a problem
turn fighting with a German fighter with a P-51.
Not so for the Japanese, turn fighting the Jap
fighters was foolish since you posessed a
50-150 mph edge at any altitude and they turned
very good.

Besides, most combat was hit and run ambush.
Hit em before they see you.
Once a P-51 was on your 6 it was time to bail.
Many German piots did just that.
it was not cowardly, it was pratical.
germany NEVER got in short supply of fighter
planes. But it was short on pilots and fuel.

I will end this with a note on Russian planes.
The first kills by US fighters in Korea was
by two US F-82 twin mustangs. It is variously
reported that the two communist fighters
were Yaks, some say La-9s. The truth is that
for the duration the F-82s NEVER lost a plane
to enemy aircraft. Although P-51s were used
only as fighter bombers, they enjoyed a 3:1
kill ratio in air to air combat against the
communist forces. (Russian planes).

Were the Russian planes better? NOT!
Were the American pilots better? I doubt it.
Superior tactics, better equipment, and better
organization lead to the success.

Da...

PS:, by the way, tha TA-152 as an escort fighter?
That's way to funny. Escort what?!?!?
The Luftrevisionists are scraping the bottom
of the barrel on that one!

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

Ta-152 was supposed to be an escort, not a high altitude fighter? What would it be escorting- Germany's strategic airpower was based on defense by the time the 152 was available, wasn't it?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Escort was one of the roles envisioned for Ta-152. Ta-152 carried a large cantity of fuel, beside the regular Fw-190 fuel tanks in fuselage, it also carried additional fuel tanks inside the wing (it was the only German fighter fitted with tanks inside the wings).

It's true that by the time Ta-152 came long range bombing was out of the question.

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:

PS:, by the way, tha TA-152 as an escort fighter?
That's way to funny. Escort what?!?!?
The Luftrevisionists are scraping the bottom
of the barrel on that one!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The usual bull from DaBallz (can you expect something else from someone with this nick?).
How about reading something (anything) about Ta-152 before spouting your bias?

CPS_Shimano
05-28-2004, 04:45 PM
According to Ludi:
Do not expect to dogfight Bf-109 with and escort fighter, regardless of how OVERMODELLED P-51 gets. Keep in mind that P-51 is now faster with 20-30 km/h, it's climb rate is higher with 1000fpm and it completes at 360 degree turn with 1-2 seconds faster than in real life (data at sea level).


So that DOESN'T make the 109 and 190 over modeled in FB?

As far as dogfights were concerned the Mustang was 50 mph faster than the Germans up to 28,000 ft., beyond which it was much faster than the FW-190 and still substantially faster than the Me-109. The Mustang had between 3000 and 4000 lbs. more weight, and so was able to outdive either German plane. The tightness of its turns was much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190.
Forget the TA. I want to know what Oleg (you know the guy who creates this sim)thinks about the modeling.

JG53Frankyboy
05-28-2004, 04:52 PM
well, after these given facts we have another problem - the 109s turns much better than a Fw190 in the game http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CPS_Shimano:
According to Ludi:
Do not expect to dogfight Bf-109 with and escort fighter, regardless of how OVERMODELLED P-51 gets. Keep in mind that P-51 is now faster with 20-30 km/h, it's climb rate is higher with 1000fpm and it completes at 360 degree turn with 1-2 seconds faster than in real life (data at sea level).


So that DOESN'T make the 109 and 190 over modeled in FB?

As far as dogfights were concerned the Mustang was 50 mph faster than the Germans up to 28,000 ft., beyond which it was much faster than the FW-190 and still substantially faster than the Me-109. The Mustang had between 3000 and 4000 lbs. more weight, and so was able to outdive either German plane. The tightness of its turns was much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190.
Forget the TA. I want to know what Oleg (you know the guy who creates this sim)thinks about the modeling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



109K4 had 610km/h at sea level compared with 570-580km/h for P-51D. Max speed for K-4 was 727km/h compared with 703km/h for P-51D. Bf-109 was always a very fast plane compared with the competing planes produced in the same year of war.

The rest of your opinions are formed from the British tests done on Bf-109, which are famous for their innacuracy. Keep in mind that Bf-109 always turned faster and tighter than both P-51 and Fw-190, regardless of model. Look for real specs, original documents. Look for the NUMBERS themselves, do not believe any comparison test that does not contain the performance numbers!

DaBallz
05-28-2004, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CPS_Shimano:
According to Ludi:
Do not expect to dogfight Bf-109 with and escort fighter, regardless of how OVERMODELLED P-51 gets. Keep in mind that P-51 is now faster with 20-30 km/h, it's climb rate is higher with 1000fpm and it completes at 360 degree turn with 1-2 seconds faster than in real life (data at sea level).


So that DOESN'T make the 109 and 190 over modeled in FB?

As far as dogfights were concerned the Mustang was 50 mph faster than the Germans up to 28,000 ft., beyond which it was much faster than the FW-190 and still substantially faster than the Me-109. The Mustang had between 3000 and 4000 lbs. more weight, and so was able to outdive either German plane. The tightness of its turns was much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190.
Forget the TA. I want to know what Oleg (you know the guy who creates this sim)thinks about the modeling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



109K4 had 610km/h at sea level compared with 570-580km/h for P-51D. Max speed for K-4 was 727km/h compared with 703km/h for P-51D. Bf-109 was always a very fast plane compared with the competing planes produced in the same year of war.

The rest of your opinions are formed from the British tests done on Bf-109, which are famous for their innacuracy. Keep in mind that Bf-109 always turned faster and tighter than both P-51 and Fw-190, regardless of model. Look for real specs, original documents. Look for the NUMBERS themselves, do not believe any comparison test that does not contain the performance numbers!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, look at the numbers.
The American tests also rate the Bf-109as largly obsolete by 1944.
And remember, the American fuel was of
higher PN/octane rating. Americans did not
have AV gas of such low grade by 1944.
I would guess The Bf-109 as tested
was fed 110-130 PN fuel.
By the way, if you are looking for a Tutonic Uberfighter
look at the Fw-109D and Ta-152. The Brits and
Americans liked both. They also liked the Me-262.

Da...

Da

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
05-28-2004, 05:07 PM
P51 is undermodelled.

i just can't take off and kill 3-5 enemy Planes and land with one load of ammo.

i can't even cut the wings of a 109 at range of 500m.

don't know but i read that the P51 and P38 could destroy planes at range till about 1000m !

Oleg please consider this we realy need this to be right.

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

Tetrapharmakoi
05-28-2004, 05:09 PM
simply not true.
actually the Dora was faster and the 109 was better in low speed tight turns and the K model climbed better .
Oleg has factory numbers more reliable than your statements based upon legends .
P-51 is one of the best if not the best overall fighter of WWII because this plane is very good at all altitudes , has a great range , and is highly reliable , very hard to down (tought except the engine), good fire power, the most produced US fighter etc ...
But speaking in pure performances , it was not the best , especially at low to medium altitude Yak-3 (low alt) LA-7 , 109 K4 , 190 Dora (med alt), Ta-152 (high alt) were not inferior
In the game it is one of my favorite plane to fly , this plane is awesome in FB, it has more speed than before , and handle surprisingly well in low speed turns ,probably the best plane of the Sim especially with 25% fuel

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:

I agree, look at the numbers.
The American tests also rate the Bf-109as largly obsolete by 1944.

Da...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Seriously? Name one comprehensive test done by USAAF on a late war Bf-109 (G-10, K-4).

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tetrapharmakoi:
simply not true.
actually the Dora was faster and the 109 was better in low speed tight turns and the K model climbed better .
Oleg has factory numbers more reliable than your statements based upon legends .
P-51 is one of the best if not the best overall fighter of WWII because this plane is very good at all altitudes , has a great range , and is highly reliable , very hard to down (tought except the engine), good fire power, the most produced US fighter etc ...
But speaking in pure performances , it was not the best , especially at low to medium altitude Yak-3 (low alt) LA-7 , 109 K4 , 190 Dora (med alt), Ta-152 (high alt) were not inferior<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Dora with MW-50 is faster than K-4 down low, but slower as the altitude increases.

CPS_Shimano
05-28-2004, 05:21 PM
That's my whole point http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif(((

ucanfly
05-28-2004, 05:28 PM
There are many accounts (first person) of P-51 pilots dogfighting very successfully with 109s and 190s. They are not the stuff of legend. The myth that some are perpetuated is that the P-51 was only a high altitude boom and zoom fighter. Hogwash!

Clarence E. (Bud) Anderson in his book had maintained that in the european theater dogfighting was of necessity many times, because there was not a huge disparity in aircraft speeds as there was in the pacific where Boom and Zoom was indoctrinated for survival. He made a comment that there was good mix of both Boom and zoom (although he didn't call it that) and maneuvering type dogfights that the mustang was very successful at performing.

Remember the older Mustangs were well thought of for their low altitude capability (with the allisons) before the merlins were used. Once they the merged with the merlin this enormously enhanced the performance especially at higher altitudes.

lrrp22
05-28-2004, 05:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

109K4 had 610km/h at sea level compared with 570-580km/h for P-51D. Max speed for K-4 was 727km/h compared with 703km/h for P-51D. Bf-109 was always a very fast plane compared with the competing planes produced in the same year of war.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simply wrong Huckebein.

By the time the K-4 made its debut, operational Mustangs in the ETO were capable of anywhere from 600 (72" MAP) to 640 kph (81" MAP) at sea level.

Where is your proof that operational 109K-4's were capable of 610 kph@SL? If you're going to cite the 1.98 ata speeds for the K-4 then you better count +25 lb Mustang III's and IV's with their 635-640+ kph sea level speeds, of which there were vastly greater numbers than 1.98 K-4's.

727 kph? 710 kph is more representative- even less with the tail wheel locked down as was the case with most operational K-4's. Besides, the P-51B-1-NA was capable of 725-729 kph at the end of 1943.

DaBallz
05-28-2004, 05:31 PM
Seriously? Name one comprehensive test done by USAAF on a late war Bf-109 (G-10, K-4).[/QUOTE]

Isegrim, I doubt any testing was done.
Those types were at best rare and obsoleted
totally by the P-80.
Testing was not worth the time.

Oh, we are not supposed to know you are Isegrim.

Da...

JG53Frankyboy
05-28-2004, 05:32 PM
" The tightness of its turns was much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190. "

for example - thats a point that cant be true - in reality ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

EVERY comparison betwen a 109 and a 190 came to the solution that in a horizontal turn the Bf109 was much superior over a Fw190.
the reports of a very manouverable Fw190 came from its vertical abilities and rolerate , realy not from its turnradius.
that is modelled in the game

so, something is wrong in your logic above.

VW-IceFire
05-28-2004, 05:39 PM
Bah...half of the community is convinced that the P-51D is undermodeled and the other half is convinced that its overmodeled.

I like it the way it is and I like flying it alot!

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

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
There are many accounts (first person) of P-51 pilots dogfighting very successfully with 109s and 190s. They are not the stuff of legend. The myth that some are perpetuated is that the P-51 was only a high altitude boom and zoom fighter. Hogwash!

Clarence E. (Bud) Anderson in his book had maintained that in the european theater dogfighting was of necessity many times, because there was not a huge disparity in aircraft speeds as there was in the pacific where Boom and Zoom was indoctrinated for survival. He made a comment that there was good mix of both Boom and zoom (although he didn't call it that) and maneuvering type dogfights that the mustang was very successful at performing.

Remember the older Mustangs were well thought of for their low altitude capability (with the allisons) before the merlins were used. Once they the merged with the merlin this enormously enhanced the performance especially at higher altitudes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Mustang has a much too weak engine for its weight to make a good dogfighter (Merlin -7 has only 1590HP at sea level, Merlin -3 is even worse with 1490HP at sea level). Sure in good position a Mustang pilot could outturn a 109 if the enemy pilot wasn't watching http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ucanfly
05-28-2004, 05:54 PM
SO that means:

A) A will respected ACE like Anderson doesn't know what he is talking about.
B) Aerodynamic efficiency doen't count for anything (it's all powerloading)
C) You dismiss all evidence (including 1st person) to the contrary if it does not fit into your myth.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
05-28-2004, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
Seriously? Name one comprehensive test done by USAAF on a late war Bf-109 (G-10, K-4).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Isegrim, I doubt any testing was done.
Those types were at best rare and obsoleted
totally by the P-80.
Testing was not worth the time.

Oh, we are not supposed to know you are Isegrim.

Da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


LW-Dayfighter-Forces for the WEST at the end of the War.

---------------
JG 1:
I, II Group: He 162A
III/Group - Bf 109 G14

JG 2:
I, II, III Group FW 190D9

Jg 3:
II Group : Bf 109 G10
III Group : Bf 109 K4

JG 4:
Stab: FW 190 D9
II Group: FW 190 A8 / D9
III Group: Bf 109 G14 / K4
IV Group: Bf 109 G14

Jg 5:
II Group: BF 109 G14
III Group: BF 109 G14 / FW 190 A8
IV Group: BF 109 G14

Jg 6:
II Group: Fw 190 A8 / D9
III Group: Bf 109 G14

Jg 7:
I, II, III Group: Me 262 A

Jg 11:
II Group: Bf 109 G10 / G14
III Group: FW 190A8

Jg 26:
I, II Group: FW 190 D9

Jg 27:
I Group: BF 109 G10 / K4
II Group: Bf 109 G14
II Group: Bf 109 K4

Jv 44: Me262A

JG 51:
Stab : FW 190 A8
III Group: BF 109 G14
IV Group: Bf 109 G14 / K4

Jg 52:
I Group: BF 109 G14/K4
II Group: Bf G10 / G14
III Group: BF 109 G14

Jg 53:
I Group: Bf 109 G10 / G14
II Group: Bf 109 G14
III Group: Bf 109 K4
IV Group: Bf 109 G14

Jg 54:
I Group : FW 190 A8 / A9
II Group: FW 190 A8

Jg 77:
I Group: Bf 109 K4

JG 300:
I Group: BF 109 G10 / G14
II Group: FW 190 A8 / A9
III Group: Bf 109 G10 / G14
IV Group: Bf 109 G14

Jg 301:
Stab: Ta152H
I Group: FW 190 A8 / A9 / D9
II Group: FW 190 D9
III Group: Fw 190 A8 / A9

JG 400: Me163B

-----------------
just my 2cents

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

Skalgrim
05-28-2004, 06:04 PM
how long can she use +25 lb ?

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

109K4 had 610km/h at sea level compared with 570-580km/h for P-51D. Max speed for K-4 was 727km/h compared with 703km/h for P-51D. Bf-109 was always a very fast plane compared with the competing planes produced in the same year of war.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simply wrong Huckebein.

By the time the K-4 made its debut, operational Mustangs in the ETO were capable of anywhere from 600 (72" MAP) to 640 kph (81" MAP) at sea level.

Where is your proof that operational 109K-4's were capable of 610 kph@SL? If you're going to cite the 1.98 ata speeds for the K-4 then you better count +25 lb Mustang III's and IV's with their 635-640+ kph sea level speeds, of which there were vastly greater numbers than 1.98 K-4's.

727 kph? 710 kph is more representative- even less with the tail wheel locked down as was the case with most operational K-4's. Besides, the P-51B-1-NA was capable of 725-729 kph at the end of 1943.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

109K4 had 610km/h at sea level compared with 570-580km/h for P-51D. Max speed for K-4 was 727km/h compared with 703km/h for P-51D. Bf-109 was always a very fast plane compared with the competing planes produced in the same year of war.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simply wrong Huckebein.

By the time the K-4 made its debut, operational Mustangs in the ETO were capable of anywhere from 600 (72" MAP) to 640 kph (81" MAP) at sea level.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was no such "operational" Mustang with USAAF. Oveboosted Mustang was in service only with British, specifically for V-1 interception. No higher boost Mustang was used for an escort job, or used on the continent as a fighter. The 150 grade imposed severe restriction on the use of the aircraft, this is why USAAF never tried such conversion. Overboosted Mustang was not a practical fighter and was not used in this role. The handling of 150 grade fuel was very difficult and the used of higher boost badly affected engine life and reliability. The use of 150 grade fuel was just a stop gap solution, its use was discontinued after the war for the reasons I mentioned above.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Where is your proof that operational 109K-4's were capable of 610 kph@SL? If you're going to cite the 1.98 ata speeds for the K-4 then you better count +25 lb Mustang III's and IV's with their 635-640+ kph sea level speeds, of which there were vastly greater numbers than 1.98 K-4's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is widely known data valid for production K-4. 1.98 ata was the boost for all K-4 fueled with C-3, from the moment of entering service. It is truth though that DB-605DC and ASC were not cleared to 1.98 ata boost from the beginning, but they were already cleared by the time 109K reached service (limitation was for G-10, but lifted afterwards).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
727 kph? 710 kph is more representative- even less with the tail wheel locked down as was the case with most operational K-4's. Besides, the P-51B-1-NA was capable of 725-729 kph at the end of 1943.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tail wheel was not locked down on K-4, you are in a confusion. 727 km/h was true for a factory fresh plane, after combat use this number decreases with 20-30 km/h. But this decrease was more marked for a P-51 because of its laminar flow wings, which needed great care to achive the factory performance. NACA noticed that even sand or dust could significantly affect the speed, not to mention the humps and bumps on the wing made while servicing the airplane (servincing the armament was done by a guy standing on the wing - imagine how much good this thai massage did for the airflow on a laminar wing + plus the oil and dirt the poor guy brings in there).

lrrp22
05-28-2004, 06:09 PM
Five minutes on 100/150 grade, just like +18 lb on 100/130.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
how long can she use +25 lb ?

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

109K4 had 610km/h at sea level compared with 570-580km/h for P-51D. Max speed for K-4 was 727km/h compared with 703km/h for P-51D. Bf-109 was always a very fast plane compared with the competing planes produced in the same year of war.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simply wrong Huckebein.

By the time the K-4 made its debut, operational Mustangs in the ETO were capable of anywhere from 600 (72" MAP) to 640 kph (81" MAP) at sea level.

Where is your proof that operational 109K-4's were capable of 610 kph@SL? If you're going to cite the 1.98 ata speeds for the K-4 then you better count +25 lb Mustang III's and IV's with their 635-640+ kph sea level speeds, of which there were vastly greater numbers than 1.98 K-4's.

727 kph? 710 kph is more representative- even less with the tail wheel locked down as was the case with most operational K-4's. Besides, the P-51B-1-NA was capable of 725-729 kph at the end of 1943.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
Isegrim, I doubt any testing was done.
Those types were at best rare and obsoleted
totally by the P-80.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh sure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif 109s were made obsolete by engine exploding airframe cracking P-80, not in service for the following 2 years (I have to remaind you that P-80A was not in service until summer of '46, when operational TRIALS were finished).

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Fri May 28 2004 at 05:34 PM.]

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 06:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Five minutes on 100/150 grade, just like +18 lb on 100/130.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Perhaps you can point to a document stating that for the operational overboosted Mustang?
I hope you won't say "I can't".

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
SO that means:

A) A will respected ACE like Anderson doesn't know what he is talking about.
B) Aerodynamic efficiency doen't count for anything (it's all powerloading)
C) You dismiss all evidence (including 1st person) to the contrary if it does not fit into your myth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A) Pilots in ww2 were not trained pilots, they were cooks, teachers, musicians and so on. Probably half of them did not have any technical background and 95% of them did not have any qualification on physics or aerodynamics. They said a lot of nonsense. The only correct accounts about performance are comming from tests properly made in a controled enviroment with people qualified to gather and analize the data. Combat is not such enviroment.

B) powerloading (but more specifically excess thrust / weight ratio) is the most important factor in acceleration, zoom climb, dive (up to max speed in level flight) and it's along with wing loading the most important factors in sustained turn rates.

Aerodynamic efficiency -- what does this mean? If you refer to flat plate area Mustang and Bf-109 had about the same value.

C) Evidence cannot come from anything else than a properly done test.

lrrp22
05-28-2004, 06:36 PM
Wrong again Huck.

By the end of '44 (and probably well before) *all* RAF Merlin Mustangs were running +25 lb boost and did so 'til EOW.

As early as July '44 ADGB and 2nd TAF Mustang III's were conducting escort missions as far away as Norway. Long-range escort was always a primary RAF Mustang mission.

By the end of August '44 *all* Eigth AAF Mustang were running at 72" MAP and 150 octane fuel.

That means that by the time the K-4 entered service, every Merlin Mustang in the ETO was running at between 1800 and 2020 HP at best altitude.

By the end of the war that means that well over a thousand USAAF Mustangs were running at 1800+ HP while over 400 RAF Mustang III/IV's were running at over 2000 HP.

And Yes Huckebein, locked down. If you study photos of in-service K-4's you will see that the tail wheel doors are are almost invariably closed. The way the retraction mechanism worked, closed doors with the tail wheel extended meant a locked-down tail wheel.

As far as wear and tear on the wings, the Mustang never achieved laminar flow to begin with so it wasn't effected by use any more than any other fighter. The Mustang's wing was very low drag built around a laminar profile but it did not ever achieve actual laminar flow.

BTW Huck, according to Butch2K only a couple of Gruppen from JG77 ever ran 1.98 ata for a few weeks during the Spring of '45. That's probably a couple dozen servicable K-4's running 1.98 ata.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

There was no such "operational" Mustang with USAAF. Oveboosted Mustang was in service only with British, specifically for V-1 interception. No higher boost Mustang was used for an escort job, or used on the continent as a fighter. The 150 grade imposed severe restriction on the use of the aircraft, this is why USAAF never tried such conversion. Overboosted Mustang was not a practical fighter and was not used in this role. The handling of 150 grade fuel was very difficult and the used of higher boost badly affected engine life and reliability. The use of 150 grade fuel was just a stop gap solution, its use was discontinued after the war for the reasons I mentioned above.


This is widely known data valid for production K-4. 1.98 ata was the boost for all K-4 fueled with C-3, from the moment of entering service. It is truth though that DB-605DC and ASC were not cleared to 1.98 ata boost from the beginning, but they were already cleared by the time 109K reached service (limitation was for G-10, but lifted afterwards).


Tail wheel was not locked down on K-4, you are in a confusion. 727 km/h was true for a factory fresh plane, after combat use this number decreases with 20-30 km/h. But this decrease was more marked for a P-51 because of its laminar flow wings, which needed great care to achive the factory performance. NACA noticed that even sand or dust could significantly affect the speed, not to mention the humps and bumps on the wing made while servicing the airplane (servincing the armament was done by a guy standing on the wing - imagine how much good this thai massage did for the airflow on a laminar wing + plus the oil and dirt the poor guy brings in there).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Fri May 28 2004 at 05:51 PM.]

lrrp22
05-28-2004, 06:38 PM
Due you have any proof that they were rated for less than 5 minutes? Not a single document that describes the implementation or use of +25 lb boost says anything about additional limitations.

Same old Huckebein- always quick to demand proof, yet never able to provide it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Five minutes on 100/150 grade, just like +18 lb on 100/130.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Perhaps you can point to a document stating that for the operational overboosted Mustang?
I hope you won't say "I can't".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Fri May 28 2004 at 05:55 PM.]

DaBallz
05-28-2004, 06:53 PM
Simply wrong Huckebein.

""""There was no such "operational" Mustang with USAAF. Oveboosted Mustang was in service only with British, specifically for V-1 interception. No higher boost Mustang was used for an escort job, or used on the continent as a fighter. The 150 grade imposed severe restriction on the use of the aircraft, this is why USAAF never tried such conversion. Overboosted Mustang was not a practical fighter and was not used in this role. The handling of 150 grade fuel was very difficult and the used of higher boost badly affected engine life and reliability. The use of 150 grade fuel was just a stop gap solution, its use was discontinued after the war for the reasons I mentioned above.""""

Err, you are as wrong as you can get.
Huckster, Issy, or which ever luftwhiner you are
you might want to get your facts straight. (That won't help your cause).
The use of 115-145 was continued till shortly
after the war????? Is 1979 "shortly"?
The Brits called 115-145 "150 grade". Same thing.

As to over boosting, back up your BS.
There is plenty of evidence that boost controls
were tweaked with the availability of 115-145
grade av gas.
Again the facts speak for themselves, and the
facts fail to get in your way.

Now for your comments about the P-80....
Sounds like a jealous rage to me, a Me-262 has an
engine life of under 40 hours, usually 10 hours.
You can't get too smug about that.
The P-80 was in squadron service before VJ day.
Seems to me that's the summer of 1945. Your
off a few days.

The whole idea here is to brow beat Oleg into
making the Bf-109s into Uber planes.

Issy/Huckster, your revisionism is getting old.
The P-51 finished off the Luftwaffe by VE day.
There is nothing you can do to change the facts.
By the way, VE day is an Allied victory.....
I thought you needed a reminder.

Da...

JG53Frankyboy
05-28-2004, 06:58 PM
the funny thing is:
in AEP eastern front the La7 is called überplane in comparison to the Bf109s from some people

in AEP western front the Bf109 (wich one ?) is called überplane in comparison to the P51 from some people
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

these flamewars are always funny to read, but fruitless http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 07:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Wrong again Huck.

By the end of '44 (and probably well before) *all* RAF Merlin Mustangs were running +25 lb boost and did so 'til EOW.

As early as July '44 ADGB and 2nd TAF Mustang III's were conducting escort missions as far away as Norway. Long-range escort was always a primary RAF Mustang mission. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Give me a single document stating that for an escort mission Mustangs used 150 grade fuel.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
By the end of August '44 *all* Eigth AAF Mustang were running at 72" MAP and 150 octane fuel.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is completely incorrect! USAAF tried the use of 115/145 fuel but found that it damages the spark plugs, and was dropped soon in ETO. In Pacific Theatre it was tried for a longer period, some aircrafts were actually certified for use of 115/145 fuel (F4U-4, P-47N). The rest of them were experiments. Show me one engine chart for B/C/D Mustang certified for the use of 115/145 grade fuel. I have most of those charts and beside F4U-4/5 and P-47N none of them are allowed to use 115/145 grade fuel.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
That means that by the time the K-4 entered service, every Merlin Mustang in the ETO was running at between 1800 and 2020 HP at best altitude.

By the end of the war that means that well over a thousand USAAF Mustangs were running at 1800+ HP while over 400 RAF Mustang III/IV's were running at over 2000 HP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're such a dreamer lrrp. How about some documents?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And Yes Huckebein, locked down. If you study photos of in-service K-4's you will see that the tail wheel doors are are almost invariably closed. The way the retraction mechanism worked, closed doors with the tail wheel extended meant a locked-down tail wheel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that you are able to make the difference between K-4 and G-10, so don't bother.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As far as wear and tear on the wings, the Mustang never achieved laminar flow to begin with so it wasn't effected by use any more than any other fighter. The Mustang's wing was very low drag built around a laminar profile but it did not ever achieve actual laminar flow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No wing profile achieves perfect laminar flow, especially as the AoA increases. Nevertheless Mustang wing indeed had a better airflow compared to the airfoils of the time. The max speed given in Mustang tests are for new models where this "laminar flow" effect is more pronounced. However after combat use, this qualities degrades a lot, for example British measured a Cd0 of 0.022 for Mustang, though it's factory fresh Cd0 is 0.017.

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 07:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Due you have any proof that they were rated for less than 5 minutes? Not a single document that describes the implementation or use of +25 lb boost says anything about additional limitations.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, but I don't needed it. You made a claim: "Mustang engine had the same limitation at 25lb boost as at 18lb boost". Now you also have to bring a proof to support your afirmation.

I did not made any claim. I do not say that your affirmation is true or not, I only say that is unsupported, therefore unacceptable. Besides, usually increasing the boost brought overheating, for example: though La5F was cleared for 5 min boost, when the boost increased on La5FN the limit became 2 min.

So do not forget the proofs for your claims.

DaBallz
05-28-2004, 07:47 PM
Huckster, you are spouting garbage.
I politely request your evidence as to the discontinuing
the use of 115-145 grade fuels and of the
charts proving that the fuel was not used
and engine boost was not tweaked.

I serviced KC-97's and other piston engined
USAF aircraft with 115-145 grade fuel in 1976-1980.
115-145 was in common use at that time.
again is 1979 "shortly" after WWII?
the last KC-97 was retired in 1978.....

Da...

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 07:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
Huckster, you are spouting garbage.
I politely request your evidence as to the discontinuing
the use of 115-145 grade fuels and of the
charts proving that the fuel was not used
and engine boost was not tweaked.


I serviced KC-97's and other piston engined
USAF aircraft with 115-145 grade fuel in 1976-1980.
115-145 was in common use at that time.
again is 1979 "shortly" after WWII?
the last KC-97 was retired in 1978.....

Da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


We are not talking about cargo planes DaBallz. In ww2 115/145 was used for fighters in Pacific Theatre only, but discontinued soon after. Later revived for Korean war, but abandoned after the jets become common sight.

Indeed highly leaded gasoline was banned in late '70s because it was highly toxic and polluting.

Chuck_Older
05-28-2004, 07:57 PM
Magister-

I agree with a lot of what you say, but your comment on the quality of US pilots and their qualifications:

"Pilots in ww2 were not trained pilots, they were cooks, teachers, musicians and so on. Probably half of them did not have any technical background and 95% of them did not have any qualification on physics or aerodynamics. They said a lot of nonsense. The only correct accounts about performance are comming from tests properly made in a controled enviroment with people qualified to gather and analize the data. Combat is not such enviroment"


is something that I cannot agree with. Even after 1942, when the armed forces in the US needed men in uniform doing complex tasks like pilot a fighter aircraft, there were very, very strict criteria to meet. In 1943, it took almost a full year to train a fighter pilot. I suggest you take a look at George Loving, Jr.'s book, "Woodbine Red Leader". It has an extensive narration on training that prospective fighter pilot went through.

In contrast to your statement that basically any able body was taught how to fly and shoot a fighter, Loving recounts all the technical courses he had to ace in ground school, the theory classes, the navigation classes, etc., that he was routinely expected to be more than proficient in, and this was in 1943.

Loving also reports that the best of the best became US fighter pilots- as the training process went along, pilot cadets who didn't meet the requirements became bomber pilots, navigators, and bombardiers.

When he shipped out to the MTO, the first thing he and his class of newly commisioned 2nd lieutenants- all just trained, qualified fighter pilots- did was to do some more training.


This is a stark contrast to your image of Joe Sixpack being told how to start a plane, take off, land, and pull a trigger. I think you vastly over-simplified what a fighter pilot, in particluar a U.S. fighter pilot, would and wouldn't know about his business- flying a fighter aircraft.

I find your posts to be in general very well thought out and intelligent, but this comment of yours about pilots and their knowledge is on very shaky ground, in my opinion. Certainly Bud Anderson knew more than how to plow a field and shoe a horse while he was on fighter ops in WWII.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

lrrp22
05-28-2004, 08:03 PM
Pathetic, Huck.

Do a little research. Mission accounts for ADGB and 2nd TAF Mustangs are easy to find.

115/145 was never used in the ETO but 100/150 grade was introduced beginning in the Spring of '44 (authorized for use on 10 March 44) and was universal in VIIIth Fighter Command and ADGB by September. 2nd TAF followed soon after.

Accept it Huckebein_FW, aka Magister_Ludi, 100/150 grade fuel and 72" to 81" WEP were *STANDARD* by the time your beloved K-4 arrived on the scene.

As far as 115/145 grade, Iwo Jima and Okinawa based VIIth Fighter Command Mustangs began using 115/145 and 80"/+25 lb boost in April of '45.


I have no problem distinguishing a K-4 from a G-10.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Wrong again Huck.

By the end of '44 (and probably well before) *all* RAF Merlin Mustangs were running +25 lb boost and did so 'til EOW.

As early as July '44 ADGB and 2nd TAF Mustang III's were conducting escort missions as far away as Norway. Long-range escort was always a primary RAF Mustang mission. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Give me a single document stating that for an escort mission Mustangs used 150 grade fuel.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
By the end of August '44 *all* Eigth AAF Mustang were running at 72" MAP and 150 octane fuel.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is completely incorrect! USAAF tried the use of 115/145 fuel but found that it damages the spark plugs, and was dropped soon in ETO. In Pacific Theatre it was tried for a longer period, some aircrafts were actually certified for use of 115/145 fuel (F4U-4, P-47N). The rest of them were experiments. Show me one engine chart for B/C/D Mustang certified for the use of 115/145 grade fuel. I have most of those charts and beside F4U-4/5 and P-47N none of them are allowed to use 115/145 grade fuel.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
That means that by the time the K-4 entered service, every Merlin Mustang in the ETO was running at between 1800 and 2020 HP at best altitude.

By the end of the war that means that well over a thousand USAAF Mustangs were running at 1800+ HP while over 400 RAF Mustang III/IV's were running at over 2000 HP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're such a dreamer lrrp. How about some documents?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And Yes Huckebein, locked down. If you study photos of in-service K-4's you will see that the tail wheel doors are are almost invariably closed. The way the retraction mechanism worked, closed doors with the tail wheel extended meant a locked-down tail wheel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that you are able to make the difference between K-4 and G-10, so don't bother.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As far as wear and tear on the wings, the Mustang never achieved laminar flow to begin with so it wasn't effected by use any more than any other fighter. The Mustang's wing was very low drag built around a laminar profile but it did not ever achieve actual laminar flow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No wing profile achieves perfect laminar flow, especially as the AoA increases. Nevertheless Mustang wing indeed had a better airflow compared to the airfoils of the time. The max speed given in Mustang tests are for new models where this "laminar flow" effect is more pronounced. However after combat use, this qualities degrades a lot, for example British measured a Cd0 of 0.022 for Mustang, though it's factory fresh Cd0 is 0.017.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SkyChimp
05-28-2004, 08:06 PM
Huck still on his "all things German are superior" kick? Some things never change http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

He's still fighting a war his favorite fighters lost 60 years ago.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Magister-

I agree with a lot of what you say, but your comment on the quality of US pilots and their qualifications:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think you misunderstood my argument. I'm not talking about US pilots only here, but for the pilots from all airforces, that saw a big increase in airforce personnel during the war years (like Luftwaffe for example). Some of them were indeed in the military before, but most of them were not (and left the army soon after the war ended).

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Pathetic, Huck.

Do a little research. Mission accounts for ADGB and 2nd TAF Mustangs are easy to find.

115/145 was never used in the ETO but 100/150 grade was introduced beginning in the Spring of '44 (authorized for use on 10 March 44) and was universal in VIIIth Fighter Command and ADGB by September. 2nd TAF followed soon after.

Accept it Huckebein_FW, aka Magister_Ludi, 100/150 grade fuel and 72" to 81" WEP were *STANDARD* by the time your beloved K-4 arrived on the scene.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


If it is that easy to find them why not post the sources directly? afraid of something? like you don't have any such source?

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Huck still on his "all things German are superior" kick? Some things never change http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

He's still fighting a war his favorite fighters lost 60 years ago.

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Yep, boring day at the lab. Always great fun to be with you guys http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Chuck_Older
05-28-2004, 08:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Magister-

I agree with a lot of what you say, but your comment on the quality of US pilots and their qualifications:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think you misunderstood my argument. I'm not talking about US pilots only here, but for the pilots from all airforces, that saw a big increase in airforce personnel during the war years (like Luftwaffe for example). Some of them were indeed in the military before, but most of them were not (and left the army soon after the war ended).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I may be misunderstanding, but to my way of thinking, the whole post was in response to Bud Anderson's statements, so I don't feel horribly out of line assuming you meant all airforces' personell in general, but the US forces in particular

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

PBNA-Boosher
05-28-2004, 08:20 PM
Put it this way:

without the skills that our pilots learned in their P-40's and P-39's, the P-51 would never have been a success. The P-51 was only good because its pilots had the experience, or training from expereinced pilots. Also, by the late war, Germany couldn't train its pilots well enough.

Personally, I think the P-51 sucked. It wasn't as much of an American standard plane. It had a glass jaw, something that you can't see normally in most American planes of WW2. It's a fireball waiting to happen. I prefer planes like the Wildcat and Hellcat. Had the Germans tried to mess with the Hellcats and Corsairs, they would have been sorely dissapointed in their own plane's performance. I think the Army would have been wiser to purchase versions of the Hellcat rather than the Mustang for fighter/interception. However, The mustang was perfect for it's role as a high alt escort fighter.

DaBallz
05-28-2004, 08:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
Huckster, you are spouting garbage.
I politely request your evidence as to the discontinuing
the use of 115-145 grade fuels and of the
charts proving that the fuel was not used
and engine boost was not tweaked.


I serviced KC-97's and other piston engined
USAF aircraft with 115-145 grade fuel in 1976-1980.
115-145 was in common use at that time.
again is 1979 "shortly" after WWII?
the last KC-97 was retired in 1978.....

Da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


We are not talking about cargo planes DaBallz. In ww2 115/145 was used for fighters in Pacific Theatre only, but discontinued soon after. Later revived for Korean war, but abandoned after the jets become common sight.

Indeed highly leaded gasoline was banned in late '70s because it was highly toxic and polluting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you have been proven WRONG again.
I got a kick out of the ecology thing.
I assure the .50 cal rounds chopping
your precious Bf-109's to bits
were a lot more lethal than the TEL in 115/145.
BTW, there were no piston fighters in
the USAF or USN after 1958.
115/145 was used in aircraft till long
after WWII......
The USN and USAF used it AT LEAST thru 1980.
I know, I was there, so I am a qualified source
for this information.

Da...

lrrp22
05-28-2004, 08:27 PM
Start here Huck.

http://www.geocities.com/skrzydla/

The rest is up to you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Pathetic, Huck.

Do a little research. Mission accounts for ADGB and 2nd TAF Mustangs are easy to find.

115/145 was never used in the ETO but 100/150 grade was introduced beginning in the Spring of '44 (authorized for use on 10 March 44) and was universal in VIIIth Fighter Command and ADGB by September. 2nd TAF followed soon after.

Accept it Huckebein_FW, aka Magister_Ludi, 100/150 grade fuel and 72" to 81" WEP were *STANDARD* by the time your beloved K-4 arrived on the scene.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


If it is that easy to find them why not post the sources directly? afraid of something? like you don't have any such source?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 08:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Start here Huck.

http://www.geocities.com/skrzydla/

The rest is up to you.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



My time is limited lrrp, point directly to the page with the document.

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 08:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

We are not talking about cargo planes DaBallz. In ww2 115/145 was used for fighters in Pacific Theatre only, but discontinued soon after. Later revived for Korean war, but abandoned after the jets become common sight.

Indeed highly leaded gasoline was banned in late '70s because it was highly toxic and polluting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you have been proven WRONG again.
I got a kick out of the ecology thing.
I assure the .50 cal rounds chopping
your precious Bf-109's to bits
were a lot more lethal than the TEL in 115/145.
BTW, there were no piston fighters in
the USAF or USN after 1958.
115/145 was used in aircraft till long
after WWII......
The USN and USAF used it AT LEAST thru 1980.
I know, I was there, so I am a qualified source
for this information.

Da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did I say that USAF or USN used piston fighters in the 60's?
And in your qualified opinion what was the reason for the ban on leaded gasoline?

Chuck_Older
05-28-2004, 08:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:


Personally, I think the P-51 sucked. It wasn't as much of an American standard plane. It had a glass jaw, something that you can't see normally in most American planes of WW2. It's a fireball waiting to happen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's one man's opinion, and you're entitled to it...but I never heard that the P-51 had a reputation for burning, or had a weakness any other liquid cooled aircraft didn't have.

I'm pretty sure the object was to never get shot in the first place. The bullet might hit a non-armored, extraneous flight system- like the pilot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

ucanfly
05-28-2004, 08:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Magister-

I agree with a lot of what you say, but your comment on the quality of US pilots and their qualifications:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you misunderstood my argument. I'm not talking about US pilots only here, but for the pilots from all airforces, that saw a big increase in airforce personnel during the war years (like Luftwaffe for example). Some of them were indeed in the military before, but most of them were not (and left the army soon after the war ended).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are obviously an educated fellow, but please don't continue on your shaky ground. When you make a generic statement after I mentioned Bud Anderson's name you in effect put him in a category of Hicks on a farm that were taught to fly. While it is true that many were citizen soldiers out of necessity, they were also very good at what they did. Some exceptionally so. Such "hick pilots" like Clarence Anderson, Robert Hoover, and Charles Yeager did go on to be Test Pilots and earned some considerable fame.

Throwing pilots such as Mr. Anderson in a less than flattering generalization does nothing to bolster your argument but shows that you are full of bias in this regard.

Chuck_Older
05-28-2004, 08:35 PM
this post was in reply to an editted and/or deleted post

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 08:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Ban? In the '60s?


I was legally buying leaded regular at gas stations in 1992. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif Tetraethyll lead is poisonous, but I always kinda thought it was a bad idea to drink it, myself

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh cmon, did I say ban in the 60s? I said in late 70s. But that depends from country to country. It's more like beginning with late 70s. Anyway, it has little relevance for the subject at hand.

Chuck_Older
05-28-2004, 08:42 PM
I had editted it, but


I had posted: "ban? In the '60s? I was buying it in the '90s. Tetraethyll lead is poisonous, but I thought drinking it was a bad idea"



But Magister, you are now choosing to take offense.

It was far from being an attack on you. Not everything here is aimed at taking a bite out of your @ss.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

DaBallz
05-28-2004, 08:43 PM
Did I say that USAF or USN used piston fighters in the 60's?
And in your qualified opinion what was the reason for the ban on leaded gasoline?[/QUOTE]

Nope, you never gave a date on the use of piston
engined fighters. It's best to avoid firm dates
as it is easier to slither out of a jam that way.
There is currently NO ban on leaded gas
in the US. Got that, your wrong again!
Leaded gas is currently used in avaitaion, racing
and marine uses.
And it's legal!

Darn Huckster, you are wrong so often this is
getting boring.

da...

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 08:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I had editted it, but


I had posted: "ban? In the '60s? I was buying it in the '90s. Tetraethyll lead is poisonous, but I thought drinking it was a bad idea"



But Magister, you are now choosing to take offense.

It was far from being an attack on you. Not everything here is aimed at taking a bite out of your @ss.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No offense taken http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm just replying at high speed, I'm preparing to go home.

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 08:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:

Nope, you never gave a date on the use of piston
engined fighters. It's best to avoid firm dates
as it is easier to slither out of a jam that way.
There is currently NO ban on leaded gas
in the US. Got that, your wrong again!
Leaded gas is currently used in avaitaion, racing
and marine uses.
And it's legal!

Darn Huckster, you are wrong so often this is
getting boring.

da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Leaded gasoline is banned in US for cars, you mean it is not?
Nevertheless HIGHLY (I guess now you can see the difference) leaded gasoline is banned for no matter what use, tell me what planes currently use 115/145 grade fuel.

DaBallz
05-28-2004, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:

Nope, you never gave a date on the use of piston
engined fighters. It's best to avoid firm dates
as it is easier to slither out of a jam that way.
There is currently NO ban on leaded gas
in the US. Got that, your wrong again!
Leaded gas is currently used in avaitaion, racing
and marine uses.
And it's legal!

Darn Huckster, you are wrong so often this is
getting boring.

da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Leaded gasoline is banned in US for cars, you mean it is not?
Nevertheless HIGHLY (I guess now you can see the difference) leaded gasoline is banned for no matter what use, tell me what planes currently use 115/145 grade fuel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no Federal ban on leaded gas for highway use.
It is banned in new passenger cars after 1975
and leaded gas is banned in some states.
For the most part leaded gas is unavailable
at the pump, but we got a gas station
in Epping NH USA selling leaded gas at the pump
and it's taxed (legal on the road). But it's
race gas and will set you back $6. per gallon.

Again, get your facts straight.......
But getting your facts straight means
you have no argument.

Da...

DaBallz
05-28-2004, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:

Nope, you never gave a date on the use of piston
engined fighters. It's best to avoid firm dates
as it is easier to slither out of a jam that way.
There is currently NO ban on leaded gas
in the US. Got that, your wrong again!
Leaded gas is currently used in avaitaion, racing
and marine uses.
And it's legal!

Darn Huckster, you are wrong so often this is
getting boring.

da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Leaded gasoline is banned in US for cars, you mean it is not?
Nevertheless HIGHLY (I guess now you can see the difference) leaded gasoline is banned for no matter what use, tell me what planes currently use 115/145 grade fuel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no Federal ban on leaded gas for highway use.
It is banned in new passenger cars after 1975
and leaded gas is banned in some states.
For the most part leaded gas is unavailable
at the pump, but we got a gas station
in Epping NH USA selling leaded gas at the pump
and it's taxed (legal on the road). But it's
race gas and will set you back $6. per gallon.

Again, get your facts straight.......
But getting your facts straight means
you have no argument.

Da...

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-28-2004, 10:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
Arguments about the P-51's true performance
against Axis aircraft will never end.

The truth is that the P-51 spelled the death knell
to the Luftwaffe day fighter forces.
It was a good dogfighter/turn fighter.
I suggest that the FM in FB is very good.
I also suggest that ALL the FM's have an
over modeled climb.
I suggest the FM's of Russian aircraft are the stuff
of childrens bed time stories.

What is very true is the Americans and British
both found the P-51 VERY effective against German
and Japanese fighters. Read US and British
combat reports, I have read hundreds over the years.
I have NEVER seen ONE account of a problem
turn fighting with a German fighter with a P-51.
Not so for the Japanese, turn fighting the Jap
fighters was foolish since you posessed a
50-150 mph edge at any altitude and they turned
very good.

Besides, most combat was hit and run ambush.
Hit em before they see you.
Once a P-51 was on your 6 it was time to bail.
Many German piots did just that.
it was not cowardly, it was pratical.
germany NEVER got in short supply of fighter
planes. But it was short on pilots and fuel.

I will end this with a note on Russian planes.
The first kills by US fighters in Korea was
by two US F-82 twin mustangs. It is variously
reported that the two communist fighters
were Yaks, some say La-9s. The truth is that
for the duration the F-82s NEVER lost a plane
to enemy aircraft. Although P-51s were used
only as fighter bombers, they enjoyed a 3:1
kill ratio in air to air combat against the
communist forces. (Russian planes).

Were the Russian planes better? NOT!
Were the American pilots better? I doubt it.
Superior tactics, better equipment, and better
organization lead to the success.

Da...

PS:, by the way, tha TA-152 as an escort fighter?
That's way to funny. Escort what?!?!?
The Luftrevisionists are scraping the bottom
of the barrel on that one!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said!

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

lrrp22
05-28-2004, 10:15 PM
Always trying to get someone else to do your research for you, aren't you Huck?

Since I have no interest in becoming your research assistant, I would advice you to search this forum for threads relating to the use of 150 octane and +25 lb boost pressure. You'll find that all your arguments regarding this subject have been soundly refuted even before you made them.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Start here Huck.

http://www.geocities.com/skrzydla/

The rest is up to you.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



My time is limited lrrp, point directly to the page with the document.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BlitzPig_DDT
05-28-2004, 10:23 PM
http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/YesNo.gif

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

lrrp22
05-28-2004, 11:20 PM
Alright Huckebein, out of the goodness of my heart :wink2, here's a wee taste:

This chart shows that the V-1650-7 achieves 1940 HP at SL on +25 lb boost:
http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v11/brentce/V-1650-7.jpg

This chart shows that the V-1650-7/Merlin 66's 1940 HP at SL increase to 2020 HP at ~4000 ft:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66hpchart.jpg


F/Lt Cwynar of 315 Sqn (Polish) regarding the use of increased boost:
"With knowledge that one day we might be chasing Buzz Bombs and the next escorting bombers to Norway, we were not keen on "hammering" our engines."


One example of typical 315 Squadron operations:

24 July 44: conducts anti-diver patrols.

30 July 44: Escort 48 Beaufighters to Norway. 10 315 Mustang III's shoot down 7 of 15 109/190's for no losses to themselves.

A photo taken around 10 July 44 after 315's reassignment to ADGB and Breznett airfield for anti-diver duties:

http://www.geocities.com/ratuszynski/44/315_Brenzett7.jpg

Do you really think 75 gal. drop tanks were necessary for chasing V-1's?

You'll find that the RAF's 2000 HP Mustang III/IV's regularly provided long range escorts to Coastal Command strikes to Norway and Bomber Command daylight raids over Germany.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Start here Huck.

http://www.geocities.com/skrzydla/

The rest is up to you.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



My time is limited lrrp, point directly to the page with the document.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LEXX_Luthor
05-28-2004, 11:42 PM
http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/YesNo.gif

lol DDT, somebody needs to modify that gif and have a Shoe stomp on both "simmers" with the words You is wrong be sure appearing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

pdog1
05-28-2004, 11:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CPS_Shimano:
Oleg, please explain to me how the P-51 which was and still is a superb aircraft, has managed to degrade in performance in FB with each patch and release. If it was over modeled to start with, then naturally we would all want it as realistic as possible. But tell me how a 109
(any 109) flies, handles and performs better than the P-51 which blew it into extinction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://www.x-plane.org/users/pdog109/stfu.jpg

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
05-29-2004, 01:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Wrong again Huck.
BTW Huck, according to Butch2K only a couple of Gruppen from JG77 ever ran 1.98 ata for a few weeks during the Spring of '45. That's probably a couple dozen servicable K-4's running 1.98 ata.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

This is widely known data valid for production K-4. 1.98 ata was the boost for all K-4 fueled with C-3, from the moment of entering service. It is truth though that DB-605DC and ASC were not cleared to 1.98 ata boost from the beginning, but they were already cleared by the time 109K reached service (limitation was for G-10, but lifted afterwards).

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Fri May 28 2004 at 05:51 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

interssting Stuff.

AFASIK there was only 1 Group left for Jg77:
Group I. wich flew K4.

and BTW: there were different Versions for the K4. Some had a new Optimized Propeller. Others had the more Powerful engine, and some had both.

i think Butch2K is the one with the knowlede we need.

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

Giganoni
05-29-2004, 01:30 AM
Hahahahaha...whether the P-51 was not as good as the later German planes doesn't matter. The Allies didn't win because of the P-51. They won because they had industrial might, Germany didn't. Had Germany put itself on a War Front that Speers did in 1943 in 1941, it could have been much longer war. Even with the massive bombing campaign of the Americans and British to eradicate the aircraft industry once Speers took over, aircraft production grew 3 times as much.

My gripe with the Worship of the P-51D is that when it came into battle it wasn't coming into a "fair fight". Russia had broke the German Wermacht and the bombing campaign was using up a lot of manpower and aircraft to defend against. There were less opposition and more importantly the pilots were of a less quality on average than the pilots of the P-51D. Would the Mustang pilots have wanted a fair fight? Of course not. You just have to it put in historical context. So if the P-51D isn't dominating online its probably because you don't enjoy the advantages the real P-51D pilots had when facing the LW.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
05-29-2004, 01:37 AM
that shurly is one point.

and for myself, a 10% P51 flyer.

I CAN DOMINATE the Fight in AIR.

Sometimes below 3k, but the higher the better for P51. I can kill a FW with ease they loose controlls, start to burn, kill the pilot, shredd the engine, or whatever.

Bf is a bit harder to get rid from, but u can BnZ them verry good or use a bit energy to get some speed and once you can turn into him, follow in a lag-pursiut, than deploy combat flaps turn into him, and kill him.

i usually start to shoot at ranges between 100 and 150m.

but maybe my squad-mates are all noobs and the 97'th too.

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

BigganD
05-29-2004, 01:22 PM
i dont see it as undermodeled, just learn to fly

"Get close .. when he fills the entire windscreen ... then you can't possibly miss." Erich Hartmann

BSS_Vidar
05-29-2004, 02:29 PM
I too am in agreement about the lack of performance with the P-51 "add-on" in FB/AEP with respect and comparison to German and Russian FM performances. I've talked to a German Ace that now resides here in Fla, and an American ace "Kit Carson" that also lives here about performances. By their accounts the P-51 was the best fighter to come out of WWII. And you know what, the special on the P-51 on Discovery Wings with commentraies from both sides said the exact same thing. I'm no P-51 bandwagon fan her guys, I love the Corsair. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
The P-51's weakest moments were ground attacks. It was terrible at strafing and surviving ground fire like the P-47 could.

No charts, no fuel specs... just two pilots recollections to me and a few of my friends...

Except fot the "K" version, the Mustang out classed all 109 models and matched very evenly with the FW190's. Carson said, "If the Germans had figured out that slightly scewing the wing cord on the 109 series and rivoting the slats closed would have made the performance of the 109 enormously better... it would have been a differnet ballgame... but they didn't."

As far as the basics of this game's flightmodel where ALL aircraft are concerned. I discovered that ailerons have a bit too much authority just taxiing around on the ground. It was an accident finding it, and it made me laugh like crazy. I oversped in a turn off the appron to get on the runway and my plane started to tip over. I reacted by pulling my joystick over the other way which should have been futile as a result. But the aileron input stopped me from tipping over. WHAT A HOOT!!! I have hunderes of hours in flight training simulators and a couple thousand hours of flight time from both my military and civilian flying career, and this really split my side open http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
So, I now consider this more a game than a Simulator.. Because what else is actually "basicly" wrong with the flight model other than comparisons of aircraft performances.

BSS_Vidar

Maple_Tiger
05-29-2004, 03:52 PM
Huckebein, you are funny lol.

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.

Kurfurst__
05-29-2004, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
Oh, we are not supposed to know you are Isegrim.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magister Ludi = Isegrim ? How did you find that out ?

Besides, this whole thread is silly except the first two posts. Especially that lrrp2 guy, who still keeps repeating the same misinformation he developed from god knows where from. He believes them like the Holy Bible. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lrrp22
05-29-2004, 06:31 PM
The truth hurts doesn't it Kurfurst (Isegrim)?

<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 DaBallz:
Oh, we are not supposed to know you are Isegrim.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magister Ludi = Isegrim ? How did you find that out ?

Besides, this whole thread is silly except the first two posts. Especially that lrrp2 guy, who still keeps repeating the same misinformation he developed from god knows where from. He believes them like the Holy Bible. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BSS_Vidar
05-29-2004, 09:14 PM
Beating a dead horse here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

CPS_Shimano
05-29-2004, 09:42 PM
So does anyone know the test results that show what speed the Mustang exploded in a dive? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif
I'll bet it was more than 600 KPH
This would lead me to believe it's modeling has some flaws.

I don't proclaim myself to be the Guru of WWII fighter plane performance test results. But I do know that with each patch and upgrade since they introduced the Mustang the plane's performance has been throttled back. It was never the easiest plane to fly, but when good tactics were applied it did some damage.
So, which version was accurate, or is Oleg still working that out?

I would also like to see the sim be as accurate as possible so we can have some appreciation of what those great planes were about.
Not to see the 'stang be the hottest one in the game, because it never was. But if they do again what was done with all the previous patches they might as well substitute a Cesna http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

CPS_Shimano
05-29-2004, 10:13 PM
I just saw this.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Pilots in ww2 were not trained pilots, they were cooks, teachers, musicians and so on. Probably half of them did not have any technical background and 95% of them did not have any qualification on physics or aerodynamics. They said a lot of nonsense. The only correct accounts about performance are comming from tests properly made in a controled enviroment with people qualified to gather and analize the data. Combat is not such enviroment"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement shows that for all your knowledge of airplanes, you have completely missed the point of my thread. I would wager if they did this to your uber 9er you would be screaming.
It has been my fortune to know a Hungarian gentleman who flew FW 190s against the Communists during the war ( not with Hitler).

He moved to Florida after the war and was the structural engineer of record who designed the original Tampa Stadium. Just a dumb plow boy I guess. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

Designed any football stadiums lately there Huck?

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2004, 11:08 PM
That was only about Americans who didn't have a lot of pre-trained military I suppose.
Yes of course the US had few or no actual pilots since we were still driving stagecoaches
and wagons. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Mr. Yaeger was indeed a young country man when he joined up but his mechanical aptitude was also very high. In fact there are many sources that state that the average US soldier was
more mechanically inclined than their average enemies and some average allies. The fighter
pilots were the best of the best with long schooling and plenty of resources used in the
training. But they did not start as teenagers training on gliders and being spoonfed
political dogma on their racial superiority so I guess that makes them dumb drones. Weird
then how when the LW pilots had local superiority in battle that those dumb, poorly trained
farmboys didn't get wiped from the skies in their very inferior planes isn't it? Oh, right
the good LW pilots were all wiped out by the time the US ever arrived. I am dumkopf!


Neal

Cragger
05-29-2004, 11:40 PM
For crying out loud would a moderator just lock this. At 25% fuel all models of the P-51 out do every german aircraft in the game right now. You can dive faster and hit a higher top speed than a 109K-4, climb with him once his engine is heated up and easily out handle him at speed. The only aircraft you can be concerned about in a 'fair' fight is the G2 because it can hold a sustained turn with the P-51 for a while but the P-51 is hella faster than it so don't slow down.

I never fly the P-51 anymore online because the only time I lose in it is when I get bounced and thats when I should lose. At 590kph the P-51 can make insane 180 turns at 25% fuel which is 30 minutes worth of WEP flight.

I find it amusing in all your quotes of Charles 'Chuck' Yeager and Bud Anderson. Funny that you don't quote from both their autobiographies that they both felt the FW190s they test flew after the war was the superior dogfighter down low where is could out handle the P-51 at equal energy.

Some of you people are so caught up in your own bias, nationalism, and naivity of TV and movies that its sad. In reality the P-51 handled like the P-63 both using a laminar flow wing, great wing for speed and range, a poor wing for sustained turns. The P-63 in game truely feels like a plane designed for maximum E efficiency and hard to get it to let go of that E. The P-51 just feels weird.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.jpg

karost
05-30-2004, 12:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cragger:
For crying out loud would a moderator just lock this. At 25% fuel all models of the P-51 out do every german aircraft in the game right now. You can dive faster and hit a higher top speed than a 109K-4, climb with him once his engine is heated up and easily out handle him at speed. The only aircraft you can be concerned about in a 'fair' fight is the G2 because it can hold a sustained turn with the P-51 for a while but the P-51 is hella faster than it so don't slow down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with Cragger

IF we need a 'FAIR' fight why not lock fuel comsumption at same level in DF server

in real history combat Did P-51 load fuel at 25% ? ... No

when I need a relax I like P-51 with fuel 25% to play with LW friends that have to load fuel 50-75% when shot him down I not feel happy coz it so easy.

but if I like challenging I'll back to 109G-10 and try more and more hard of tactic and skill to take P-51 down ... well that I call happy of challenging.


S!

[This message was edited by karost on Sat May 29 2004 at 11:37 PM.]

Vipez-
05-30-2004, 01:09 AM
Good post Cragger..

P-51-fans fail to realize, that when P-51D was introducted it was mostly facing 109 G-6s, which was pretty much outclassed in everything except low speed turning and climb to the Mustang.. G-6 simply could not catch the thing.. situation got better for germans with introduction of G-14 and G-10 (and esspecially K-4 later on the autumn), but Germany allready had problems of getting well trained pilots to fly those things while the US did not.. Now in the game G-6 looses everything for the P-51D.. climb, low speed turning.

P51 and FW190 was consired to be very well matched, infact the turn rates were very similar.. p51 about 22-23 sec and FW190 about 23 sec.. now that is a very slight advantage to the sting, still P51 can now outturn everything in its way: Spits, LA-7s, 109s - you name it..

Don't get this wrong, P-51 was damn good plane, but it was just not made for low speed turning with german planes.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif


__________________________


http://www.leosk.org/tiedostot/sig-pieni.jpg

Matz0r
05-30-2004, 04:20 AM
"P-51D under modelled...."

"FW190 over modelled...."

*chuckles*

BigKahuna_GS
05-30-2004, 04:31 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
Giganoni wrote--My gripe with the Worship of the P-51D is that when it came into battle it wasn't coming into a "fair fight".
__________________________________________________ __________________________


News Flash---who ever said war was fair ? You fight to win.

But I will dispell a myth for you that when the Mustang showed up it automaticaly had numerical superiority in the combat area. When the germans attacked the bombers, they would mass fighters in one area and enjoy local air superiority. Much like flooding a zone defense in basketball or football--more attackers in one area than there are avaiable defenders.

This from Bud Anderson on escort duty:

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/anderson/anderson.htm

Outnumbered P51s during Bomber Escort Duty


The Germans liked to roar through the bombers head-on, firing long bursts, and then roll and go down. They would circle around to get ahead of the bomber stream, groping for altitude, avoiding the escorts if possible, then reassemble and come through head-on again. When their fuel or ammunition was exhausted, they would land and refuel and take off again, flying mission after mission, for as long as there were bombers to shoot at. They seldom came after us. Normally, they would skirmish the escorts only out of necessity. We were an inconvenience, best avoided. It was the bombers they wanted, and the German pilots threw themselves at them smartly and bravely. It was our job to stop them.

****It seemed we were always outnumbered. We had more fighters than they did, but what mattered was how many they could put up in one area. They would concentrate in huge numbers, by the hundreds at times. They would assemble way up ahead, pick a section of the bomber formation, and then come in head-on, their guns blazing, sometimes biting the bombers below us before we knew what was happening. *****

In the distance, a red and black smear marked the spot where a B-17 and its 10 men had been. Planes still bearing their bomb loads erupted and fell, trailing flame, streaking the sky, leaving gaps in the bomber formation that were quickly closed up.


mhtml:mid://00000001/!http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg
"Bud" Anderson on wing of his "Old Crow" - the signed photo from collection of Martin Welsh .

Through our headsets we could hear the war, working its way back toward us, coming straight at us at hundreds of miles per hour. The adrenaline began gushing, and I scanned the sky frantically, trying to pick out the fly-speck against the horizon that might have been somebody coming to kill us, trying to see him before be saw me, looking, squinting, breathless . . .

Over the radio: "Here they come!"

They'd worked over the bombers up ahead and now it was our turn.

Things happen quickly. We get rid of our drop tanks, slam the power up, and make a sweeping left turn to engage. My flight of four Mustangs is on the outside of the turn, a wingman close behind to my left, my element leader and his wingman behind to my right, all in finger formation. Open your right hand, tuck the thumb under, put the fingers together, and check the fingernails. That's how we flew, and fought. Two shooters, and two men to cover their tails. The Luftwaffe flew that way, too. German ace Werner Molders is generally credited with inventing the tactic during the Spanish Civil War.

Being on the outside of the turn, we are vulnerable to attack from the rear. I look over my right shoulder and, sure enough, I see four dots above us, way back, no threat at the moment, but coming hard down the chute. I start to call out, but . . .

"Four bogeys, five o'clock high!" My element leader, Eddie Simpson, has already seen them. Bogeys are unknowns and bandits are hostile. Quickly, the dots close and take shape. They're hostile, all right. They're Messerschmitts.

We turn hard to the right, pulling up into a tight string formation, spoiling their angle, and we try to come around and go at them head on. The Me 109s change course, charge past, and continue on down, and we wheel and give chase. There are four of them, single-seat fighters, and they pull up, turn hard, and we begin turning with them. We are circling now, tighter and tighter, chasing each other's tails, and I'm sitting there wondering what the hell's happening. These guys want to hang around. Curious. I'm wondering why they aren't after the bombers, why they're messing with us, whether they're simply creating some kind of a diversion or what. I would fly 116 combat missions, engage the enemy perhaps 40 times, shoot down 16 fighters, share in the destruction of a bomber, destroy another fighter on the ground, have a couple of aerial probables, and over that span it would be us bouncing them far more often than not. This was a switch.

We're flying tighter circles, gaining a little each turn, our throttles wide open, 30,000 feet up. The Mustang is a wonderful airplane, 37 feet wingtip to wingtip, just a little faster than the smaller German fighters, and also just a little more nimble. Suddenly the 109s, sensing things are not going well, roll out and run, turning east, flying level. Then one lifts up his nose and climbs away from the rest.

We roll out and go after them. They're flying full power, the black smoke pouring out their exhaust stacks. I'm looking at the one who is climbing, wondering what he is up to, and I'm thinking that if we stay with the other three, this guy will wind up above us. I send Simpson up after him. He and his wingman break off. My wingman, John Skara, and I chase the other three fighters, throttles all the way forward, and I can see that we're gaining.

I close to within 250 yards of the nearest Messerschmitt--dead astern, 6 o'clock, no maneuvering, no nothing--and squeeze the trigger on the control stick between my knees gently. Bambambambambam! The sound is loud in the cockpit in spite of the wind shriek and engine roar. And the vibration of the Mustang's four. 50-caliber machine guns, two in each wing, weighing 60-odd pounds apiece, is pronounced. In fact, you had to be careful in dogfights when you were turning hard, flying on the brink of a stall, because the buck of the guns was enough to peel off a few critical miles per hour and make the Mustang simply stop flying. That could prove downright embarrassing.

But I'm going like hell now, and I can see the bullets tearing at the Messerschmitt's wing root and fuselage. The armor-piercing ammunition we used was also incendiary, and hits were easily visible, making a bright flash and puff. Now the 109's trailing smoke thickens, and it's something more than exhaust smoke. He slows, and then suddenly rolls over. But the plane doesn't fall. It continues on, upside down, straight and level! What the hell . . . ?

The pilot can't be dead. It takes considerable effort to fly one of these fighter planes upside down. You have to push hard on the controls. Flying upside down isn't easy. It isn't something that happens all by itself, or that you do accidentally. So what in the world is be doing?

Well. It's an academic question, because I haven't the time to wait and find out. I pour another burst into him, pieces start flying off, I see flame, and the 109 plummets and falls into a spin, belching smoke. My sixth kill.

The other two Messerschmitt pilots have pulled away now, and they're nervous. Their airplanes are twitching, the fliers obviously straining to look over their shoulders and see what is happening. As we take up the chase again, two against two now, the trailing 109 peels away and dives for home, and the leader pulls up into a sharp climbing turn to the left. This one can fly, and he obviously has no thought of running. I'm thinking this one could be trouble.

We turn inside him, my wingman and I, still at long range, and he pulls around harder, passing in front of us right-to-left at an impossible angle. I want to swing in behind him, but I'm going too fast, and figure I would only go skidding on past. A Mustang at speed simply can't make a square corner. And in a dogfight you don't want to surrender your airspeed. I decide to overshoot him and climb.

He reverses his turn, trying to fall in behind us. My wingman is vulnerable now. I tell Skara, "Break off!" and be peels away. The German goes after him, and I go after the German, closing on his tail before he can close on my wingman. He sees me coming and dives away with me after him, then makes a climbing left turn. I go screaming by, pull up, and he's reversing his turn--man, be can fly!--and be comes crawling right up behind me, close enough that I can see him distinctly. He's bringing his nose up for a shot, and I haul back on the stick and climb even harder. I keep going up, because I'm out of alternatives.

This is what I see all these years later. If I were the sort to be troubled with nightmares, this is what would shock me awake. I am in this steep climb, pulling the stick into my navel, making it steeper, steeper . . . and I am looking back down, over my shoulder, at this classic gray Me 109 with black crosses that is pulling up, too, steeper, steeper, the pilot trying to get his nose up just a little bit more and bring me into his sights.

There is nothing distinctive about the aircraft, no fancy markings, nothing to identify it as the plane of an ace, as one of the "dreaded yellow-noses" like you see in the movies. Some of them did that, I know, but I never saw one. And in any event, all of their aces weren't flamboyant types who splashed paint on their airplanes to show who they were. I suppose I could go look it up in the archives. There's the chance I could find him in some gruppe's log book, having flown on this particular day, in this particular place, a few miles northwest of the French town of Strasbourg that sits on the Rhine. There are fellows who've done that, gone back and looked up their opponents. I never have. I never saw any point.

He was someone who was trying to kill me, is all.

So I'm looking back, almost straight down now, and I can see this 20-millimeter cannon sticking through the middle of the fighter's propeller hub. In the theater of my memory, it is enormous. An elephant gun. And that isn't far wrong. It is a gun designed to bring down a bomber, one that fires shells as long as your hand, shells that explode and tear big holes in metal. It is the single most frightening thing I have seen in my life, then and now.

But I'm too busy to be frightened. Later on, you might sit back and perspire about it, maybe 40-50 years later, say, sitting on your porch 7,000 miles away, but while it is happening you are just too damn busy. And I am extremely busy up here, hanging by my propeller, going almost straight up, full emergency power, which a Mustang could do for only so long before losing speed, shuddering, stalling, and falling back down; and I am thinking that if the Mustang stalls before the Messerschmitt stalls, I have had it.

I look back, and I can see that he's shuddering, on the verge of a stall. He hasn't been able to get his nose up enough, hasn't been able to bring that big gun to bear. Almost, but not quite. I'm a fallen-down-dead man almost, but not quite. His nose begins dropping just as my airplane, too, begins shuddering. He stalls a second or two before I stall, drops away before I do.

Good old Mustang.

He is falling away now, and I flop the nose over and go after him hard. We are very high by this time, six miles and then some, and falling very, very fast. The Messerschmitt had a head start, plummeting out of my range, but I'm closing up quickly. Then he flattens out and comes around hard to the left and starts climbing again, as if he wants to come at me head on. Suddenly we're right back where we started.

A lot of this is just instinct now. Things are happening too fast to think everything out. You steer with your right hand and feet. The right hand also triggers the guns. With your left, you work the throttle, and keep the airplane in trim, which is easier to do than describe.

Any airplane with a single propeller produces torque. The more horsepower you have, the more the prop will pull you off to one side. The Mustangs I flew used a 12-cylinder Packard Merlin engine that displaced 1,649 cubic inches. That is 10 times the size of the engine that powers an Indy car. It developed power enough that you never applied full power sitting still on the ground because it would pull the plane's tail up off the runway and the propeller would chew up the concrete. With so much power, you were continually making minor adjustments on the controls to keep the Mustang and its wing-mounted guns pointed straight.

There were three little palm-sized wheels you had to keep fiddling with. They trimmed you up for hands-off level flight. One was for the little trim tab on the tail's rudder, the vertical slab which moves the plane left or right. Another adjusted the tab on the tail's horizontal elevators that raise or lower the nose and help reduce the force you had to apply for hard turning. The third was for aileron trim, to keep your wings level, although you didn't have to fuss much with that one. Your left hand was down there a lot if you were changing speeds, as in combat . . . while at the same time you were making minor adjustments with your feet on the rudder pedals and your hand on the stick. At first it was awkward. But, with experience, it was something you did without thinking, like driving a car and twirling the radio dial.

It's a little unnerving to think about how many things you have to deal with all at once to fly combat.

So the Messerschmitt is coming around again, climbing hard to his left, and I've had about enough of this. My angle is a little bit better this time. So I roll the dice. Instead of cobbing it like before and sailing on by him, I decide to turn hard left inside him, knowing that if I lose speed and don't make it I probably won't get home. I pull back on the throttle slightly, put down 10 degrees of flaps, and haul back on the stick just as hard as I can. And the nose begins coming up and around, slowly, slowly. . .

Hot damn! I'm going to make it! I'm inside him, pulling my sights up to him. And the German pilot can see this. This time, it's the Messerschmitt that breaks away and goes zooming straight up, engine at maximum power, without much alternative. I come in with full power and follow him up, and the gap narrows swiftly. He is hanging by his prop, not quite vertically, and I am right there behind him, and it is terribly clear, having tested the theory less than a minute ago, that he is going to stall and fall away before I do.

I have him. He must know that I have him.

I bring my nose up, he comes into my sights, and from less than 300 yards I trigger a long, merciless burst from my Brownings. Every fifth bullet or so is a tracer, leaving a thin trail of smoke, marking the path of the bullet stream. The tracers race upward and find him. The bullets chew at the wing root, the cockpit, the engine, making bright little flashes. I hose the Messerschmitt down the way you'd hose down a campfire, methodically, from one end to the other, not wanting to make a mistake here. The 109 shakes like a retriever coming out of the water, throwing off pieces. He slows, almost stops, as if parked in the sky, his propeller just windmilling, and he begins smoking heavily.

My momentum carries me to him. I throttle back to ease my plane alongside, just off his right wing. Have I killed him? I do not particularly want to fight this man again. I am coming up even with the cockpit, and although I figure the less I know about him the better, I find myself looking in spite of myself. There is smoke in the cockpit. I can see that, nothing more. Another few feet. . . .

And then he falls away suddenly, left wing down, right wing rising up, obscuring my view. I am looking at the 109's sky blue belly, the wheel wells, twin radiators, grease marks, streaks from the guns, the black crosses. I am close enough to make out the rivets. The Messerschmitt is right there and then it is gone, just like that, rolling away and dropping its nose and falling (flying?) almost straight down, leaking coolant and trailing flame and smoke so black and thick that it has to be oil smoke. It simply plunges, heading straight for the deck. No spin, not even a wobble, no parachute, and now I am wondering. His ship seems a death ship--but is it?

Undecided, I peel off and begin chasing him down. Did I squander a chance here? Have I let him escape? He is diving hard enough to be shedding his wings, harder than anyone designed those airplanes to dive, 500 miles an hour and more, and if 109s will stall sooner than Mustangs going straight up, now I am worrying that maybe their wings stay on longer. At 25,000 feet I begin to grow nervous. I pull back on the throttle, ease out of the dive, and watch him go down. I have no more stomach for this kind of thing, not right now, not with this guy. Enough. Let him go and to hell with him.

Straight down be plunges, from as high as 35,000 feet, through this beautiful, crystal clear May morning toward the green-on-green checkerboard fields, leaving a wake of black smoke. From four miles straight up I watch as the Messerschmitt and the shadow it makes on the ground rush toward one another . . .

. . . and then, finally, silently, merge.

Eddie Simpson joins up with me. Both wingmen, too. Simpson, my old wingman and friend, had gotten the one who'd climbed out. We'd bagged three of the four. We were very excited. It had been a good day.

I had lived and my opponent had died. But it was a near thing. It could have been the other way around just as easily, and what probably made the difference was the airplane I flew. Made in America. I would live to see the day when people would try to tell me the United States can't make cars like some other folks do. What a laugh. ..."

Note: The above article is excerpted from the book To Fly and Fight: Memoirs of a Triple Ace by Col C. E. "Bud" Anderson with Joseph P. Hamelin.

For more details about "Bud" Anderson and his book, check here: http://www.cebudanderson.com/


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

"Bud" Anderson explains mystery of P-51 personal name - 'Old Crow': "I tell my Baptist friends that it is named after the smartest bird that flies in the sky, the Crow, but my drinking buddies all know that it was named after that good old Kentucky straight bourbon whiskey of the same name. Now, my wife Ellie, of 54 plus years likes to kid around at times and will say 'Most guys name their plane after their wife or sweet heart, what must people thinks is going on here?'"

mhtml:mid://00000001/!http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

_____

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"

BigKahuna_GS
05-30-2004, 05:04 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
karost wrote-- IF we need a 'FAIR' fight why not lock fuel comsumption at same level in DF server

in real history combat Did P-51 load fuel at 25% ? ... No
__________________________________________________ ___________________________



I think you meant fuel load.

Ok well lock the fuel load at 25% and see how far Luftwaffe planes get--probably to the end of the runway if their lucky http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Or we can lock it at 100% fuel load and make the Luftwaffe planes fly for 4 hours before they get to the target area. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Why is choosing fuel loads a problem now in a DF server ?

You take the amount of fuel necessary for the mission--for a Mustang a 25-50% fuel load is all you need for FB missions. A Mustang at a 25% fuel load has almost as much fuel as a 109 with a 100% fuel load. So running around with a 100% fuel load would be very inefficient and unnecessary for Mustangs.

What do think the fuel load of a real P51 was over the target area and on it's way back?

Do you think it was always 100% full fuel load no matter where the mission was and with all that flying nothing burned off to lighten the plane ?

That is just one of the more silly statements I have seen so far.



___________________

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"

CV8_Dudeness
05-30-2004, 05:58 AM
i cant believe the American Fanboys are complaining about the Mustangs in FB

the D models ...... for laminar Flow wings sure do the slow speed stuff pretty well

& the B & C are Hella fast

seriously you Mustang Fans are a joke

Chuck_Older
05-30-2004, 07:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CV8_Dudeness:
i cant believe the American Fanboys are complaining about the Mustangs in FB

the D models ...... for laminar Flow wings sure do the slow speed stuff pretty well

& the B & C are Hella fast

seriously you Mustang Fans are a joke<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

You backed up your Serious Big Boy post with a technical term like "laminar flow". Want to hear a bigger joke? People who drop buzzword terms to 'prove' their rubbish posts and toss in insults to top it off. Know anyone like that, duderino? What a pathetic troll your post is! Catch anyone yet?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Chuck_Older
05-30-2004, 07:30 AM
I read with interest several comments about how unrealistic a 25% fuel load for a P-51 would be.

To give an idea of the fuel load on an escort mission over Berlin, which was a five and a half hour mission for a Mustang pilot, here's some things that Walter Konantz reports about fuel use, from his base at Wormingford, on his way to Berlin:


0830 hours:
...I switch the fuel selector to the 85 gallon aft fuselage tank to burn it down to 40 gallons

0900 hours:
...I have switched the fuel selector to the left external tank.

1135 hours:
...Since we did not have to drop our external tanks early in anticipation of a dogfight, we have enough fuel to do a little strafing...I exhausted my drop tanks a short while ago.



25% fuel load may seem unrealistic in a dogfight server, perhaps 50% would be more accurate. But these P-51 pilots would burn off internal fuel before even reaching enemy territory! And if they had seen combat early in the mission, they would have dropped tanks. 25% fuel is roughly 500 miles for a P-51, right? They easily could have engaged the Luftwaffe on 25% fuel in real life. In fact, the Germans employed tactics designed to make escorts drop tanks early, so that the escorts would have to turn for home prior to the target.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

karost
05-30-2004, 09:57 AM
Lawrence Thompson
=============
".... this was my first major dogfight I had in the war, in January 1945. I was flying a P-51D and we were supposed to meet with bombers over Romania. Well, the bombers never showed up! And we kept circling and wasting our fuel. When we were low on fuel the squadron leader orders us back to base, with the top group at 24,000 feet and the four bait Mustangs ordered to 15,000 feet. Now you might not really think about it, but the difference in altitude, 9,000 feet, is almost two miles, and assuming that the top flight could dive and rescue the 'bait' airplanes, it might take a full sixty seconds or more for the top group to come to the rescue. A heck of alot can happen in sixty seconds. Earlier, I requested to fly in the bait section believing that I'd have a better chance to get some scores (at that time I had no victories either) and this was my seventh mission. I have to say now that I grew up in Kansas City, Kansas, and my older brother flew a Jenny biplane in the late 1930s, so I learned the basics of flying even before joining the Army.

So we're all heading back to Italy when, all of a sudden, a dozen or so Me109's bounce us. From one moment it's a clear blue sky, next moment there are dozens' of tracers passing my cockpit. I'm hit several times and I roll over to the right, and below me is an P-51, heading for the deck, with an Me109 chasing him. I begin to chase the Me109. All this time I believe there was another Me109 chasing me! It was a racetrack, all four of us were racing for the finish line! Eventually I caught up with the first Me109 and I fired a long burst at about 1,000 yards, to no effect. Then I waited until about 600 yards, I fired two very long bursts, probably five seconds each (P-51 has ammo for about 18 seconds of continuous bursts for four machine guns, the remaining two machine guns will shoot for about 24 seconds). I noticed that part of his engine cowling flew off and he immediately broke off his attack on the lead P-51. I check my rear view mirrors and there's nothing behind me now; somehow, I have managed to lose the Me109 following me, probably because the diving speed of the P-51 is sixty mph faster than the Me109. So I pull up on the yoke and level out; suddenly a Me109 loomes about as large as a barn door right in front of me! And he fires his guns at me, and he rolls to the right, in a Lufberry circle. I peel off, following this Me109. I can see silver P-51s and black nosed camouflaged painted Me109s everywhere I look, there's Me109 or P-51 everywhere! At this time I cannot get on the transmitter and talk, everyone else in the squadron is yelling and talking, and there's nothing but yelling, screaming, and incoherent interference as everyone presses their mike buttons at the same time. I can smell something in the cockpit. Hydraulic fluid! I knew I got hit earlier.

.... I'm still following this Me109. I just got my first confirmed kill of my tour, and now I'm really hot. I believe that I am the hottest pilot in the USAAF! And now I'm thinking to myself: am I going to shoot this Me109 down too?! He rolls and we turn, and turn; somehow, I cannot catch up with him in the Lufberry circle, we just keep circling. About the third 360 degree turn he and I must have spotted two Mustangs flying below us, about 2,000 feet below, and he dives for the two P-51s.

Now I'm about 150 yards from him, and I get my gunsight on his tail, but I cannot shoot, because if I shoot wide, or my bullets pass through him, I might shoot down one or both P-51s, so I get a front seat, watching, fearful that this guy will shoot down a P-51 we're approaching at about 390 mph. There's so much interference on the R/T I cannot warn the two Mustangs, I fire one very long burst of about seven or eight seconds purposely wide, so it misses the Mustangs, and the Me109 pilot can see the tracers. None of the Mustang pilots see the tracers either! I was half hoping expecting that they'd see my tracers and turn out of the way of the diving Me109. But no such luck. I quit firing. The Me109 still dives, and as he approaches the two P-51s he holds his fire, and as the gap closes, two hundred yards, one hundred yards, fifty yards the Hun does not fire a shot. No tracers, nothing! At less than ten yards, it looks like he's going to ram the lead P-51 and the Hun fires one single shot from his 20mm cannon! And Bang! Engine parts, white smoke, glycol, whatnot from the lead P-51 is everywhere, and that unfortunate Mustang begins a gentle roll to the right.

I try to watch the Mustang down, but cannot, Now my full attention is on the Hun! Zoom. We fly through the two Mustangs (he was taken POW). Now the advantage of the P-51 is really apparent, as in a dive I am catching up to the Me109 faster than a runaway freight train. I press the trigger for only a second then I let up on the trigger, I believe at that time I was about 250 yards distant, but the Hun was really pulling lots' of negative and positive g's and pulling up to the horizon. He levels out and then does a vertical tail stand! And next thing I know, he's using his built up velocity from the dive to make a vertical ninety degree climb. This guy is really an experienced pilot. I'm in a vertical climb, and my P-51 begins to roll clockwise violently, only by pushing my left rudder almost through the floor can I stop my P-51 from turning. We climb for altitude; in the straight climb that Me109 begins to out distance me, though my built up diving speed makes us about equal in the climb. We climb one thousand fifteen hundred feet, and at eighteen hundred feet, the hun levels his aircraft out. A vertical climb of 1,800 feet! I've never heard of a piston aircraft climbing more than 1,000 feet in a tail stand. At this time we're both down to stall speed, and he levels out. My airspeed indicator reads less than 90 mph! So we level out. I'm really close now to the Me109, less than twenty five yards! Now if I can get my guns on him.........

At this range, the gunsight is more of nuisance than a help. Next thing, he dumps his flaps fast and I begin to overshoot him! That's not what I want to do, because then he can bear his guns on me. The P-51 has good armor, but not good enough to stop 20mm cannon hits. This Luftwaffe pilot must be one heck of a marksman, I just witnessed him shooting down a P-51 with a single 20mm cannon shot! So I do the same thing, I dump my flaps, and as I start to overshoot him, I pull my nose up, this really slows me down; S-T-A-L-L warning comes on! and I can't see anything ahead of me nor in the rear view mirror. Now I'm sweating everywhere. My eyes are burning because salty sweat keeps blinding me: 'Where is He!?!' I shout to myself. I level out to prevent from stalling. And there he is. Flying on my right side. We are flying side to side, less than twenty feet separates our wingtips. He's smiling and laughing at himself. I notice that he has a red heart painted on his aircraft, just below the cockpit. The nose and spinner are painted black. It's my guess that he's a very experienced ace from the Russian front. His tail has a number painted on it: "200". I wonder: what the "two hundred" means!? Now I began to examine his airplane for any bullet hits, afterall, I estimate that I just fired 1,600 rounds at the hun. I cannot see a single bullet hole in his aircraft! I could swear that I must have gotten at least a dozen hits! I keep inspecting his aircraft for any damage. One time, he even lifts his left wing about 15 degrees, to let me see the underside, still no hits! That's impossible I tell myself. Totally impossible. Then I turn my attention back to the "200" which is painted on the tail rudder. German aces normally paint a marker for each victory on their tail. It dawns on me that quick: TWO HUNDRED KILLS !! We fly side by side for five minutes. Those five minutes take centuries to pass. Less than twenty five feet away from me is a Luftwaffe ace, with over two hundred kills. We had been in a slow gradual dive now, my altitude indicates 8,000 feet. I'm panicking now, even my socks are soaked in sweat. The German pilot points at his tail, obviously meaning the "200" victories, and then very slowly and dramatically makes a knife-cutting motion across his throat, and points at me. He's telling me in sign language that I'm going to be his 201 kill! Panic! I'm breathing so hard, it sounds like a wind tunnel with my mask on. My heart rate must have doubled to 170 beats per minute; I can feel my chest, thump-thump and so.

This goes on for centuries, and centuries. The two of us flying at stall speed, wingtip to wingtip. I think more than once of simply ramming him. He keeps watching my ailerons, maybe that's what he expects me to do. We had heard of desperate pilots who, after running out of ammunition, would commit suicide by ramming an enemy plane. Then I decide that I can Immelmann out of the situation, and I began to climb, but because my flaps are down, my Mustang only climbs about one hundred feet, pitches over violently to the right and stalls. The next instant I'm dangerously spinning, heading ninety degrees vertically down! And the IAS reads 300 mph! My P-51 just falls like a rock to the earth! I hold the yoke in the lower left corner and sit on the left rudder, flaps up, and apply FULL POWER! I pull out of the dive at about 500 feet, level out, (I began to black out so with my left hand I pinch my veins in my neck to stop blackout). I scan the sky for anything! There's not a plane in the sky, I dive to about fifty feet elevation, heading towards Italy. I fly at maximum power for about ten minutes, and then reduce my rpm (to save gasoline), otherwise the P-51 has very limited range at full power. I fly like this for maybe an hour, no planes in the vicinity; all the time I scan the sky, check my rear view mirrors.

I never saw the Me109 with the red heart again. At the mess I mention the Me109 with the red heart and "200" written on the tail. That's when the whole room, I mean everybody, gets instantly quiet. Like you could hear a pin drop. Two weeks later the base commander shows me a telex: "....according to intelligence, the German pilot with a red heart is Eric Hartmann who has downed 250 aircraft and there is a reward of fifty thousand dollars offered by Stalin for shooting him down. I've never before heard of a cash reward for shooting down an enemy ace ... "


please visit original source here
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2History-ErichHartmann.html



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Do you think it was always 100% full fuel load no matter where the mission was and with all that flying nothing burned off to lighten the plane ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kahuna , it would be nice if you can show me any history documents or any history books that P-51D take off with 25% fuel load and with out drop tank to make combat in WWII .....

S!

Chuck_Older
05-30-2004, 10:14 AM
karost-
I don't think he means that a Mustang took off with less than full tanks; he means that the tanks didn't stay full for the whole mission. On the return trip from Germany, say, over Holland, the tanks should be about 25% full, because 75% of the fuel was burned off.

If you read the quote you provided again, you'll see Kahuna mentions 'burning off' fuel. This means: normal consumption in the course of the mission

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Bearcat99
05-30-2004, 12:58 PM
I think all the planes in FB are now modeled pretty well. A lkot of us forget that tweaking your stick settings will also help in tweaking some of these FMs. Some people cry about wanting user modifyable FMs but IMHO the ability to modify stick settings with hard coded basic FMs is even better. It levels the playing field and compensates for different FMs. Even though the P-47 in FB 1.0 was not a great FM I was able to get better performance out of the Jug by fiddling with my stick settigs. Also IMO for better or worse the FMs in FB are the best there are in a comercial sim.. which is the only venue for Warbirds in the first place.. the comercial sim arena... and I will trust Olegs judgement over anyone on this or any other sim forum when it comes to accuracy of the FMs. There are a handfull of people here who actually KNOW what they are talking about anyway (on the forums I mean not necessarily this thread)and even they have limitations.
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

USE THAT X45 STICK AS A BUTTON BAY!

Aaron_GT
05-30-2004, 04:26 PM
"I too am in agreement about the lack of performance with the P-51 "add-on" in FB/AEP with respect and comparison to German and Russian FM performances. I've talked to a German Ace that now resides here in Fla, and an American ace "Kit Carson" that also lives here about performances. By their accounts the P-51 was the best fighter to come out of WWII"

Mind you, pick a dozen WW2 pilots and you might easily get half a dozen answers to that. I am sure some British pilots would pick the Spitfire or Tempest, and some ex Luftwaffe pilots might say the 190D or 109, possibly. Different planes also fit with different pilots and their style of flying better.

I think some of the issues with the P51 might be that some may find the P51 doesn't fit with their flying style and they get disappointed, perhaps? I've not had chance to get much online stick time since the patch came out, but for example I prefer the Spit IX to the V. The V turns well, but the IX is a bit peppier. Some might prefer the V. I also find the P51 to be a really nice plane to fly in FB - fast cruise, really rather maneouverable. If only it had cannon! One thing I do notice is that most sims (bar Janes WW2F) model it with a LOT more torque, especially on take off.

With regard to US pilot selection, one of my wife's grandfathers flew B17s. The other, a trained civilian pilot with his own plane of the same type as used by army air cooperation, ended up in the infantry. Seems surprising. Mind you, being in the infantry was probably statistically safer, even though he did get wounded.

WWMaxGunz
05-30-2004, 04:31 PM
P-51's able to fly to Berlin and back from Britain, would they fill the same
load which until the big fuselage tank burned down unbalanced the plane, when
they were flying from bases inside France after the Liberation? Fuel load
depends on mission and not all missions were long range ones.

You want a document saying they didn't always? Find something that says they
always did.


Neal

DarthBane_
05-30-2004, 05:34 PM
Let me give you an example, if 5 stinky gang members attack 1 man, no matter how good he is it is likely he wont come out as winner. Story of americans and their numbers in WW2. There was too many of them. Fleet conditions. Stories of mustang come from events where numbers wasnt equal. True performance is a different thing. 5 p51 vs 5 bf109 with same hight and we have a problem for worlds policemans. Here in Serbia we thought: come down to dirt to see how good you are, americans bombed us to submision, never thought of trying to met us on equal terms. They solved everything with numbers, stop crying for performance there was none(in ww2 concerning tanks and rest of equipment). Me262 and Ta152 were the way best performers but numbers were low. What about laws of democrasy 6 imbecils can outwote 5 genious. That dont make imbecils nothing else but what they are: strong in numbers.

Chuck_Older
05-30-2004, 06:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
Let me give you an example, if 5 stinky gang members attack 1 man, no matter how good he is it is likely he wont come out as winner. Story of americans and their numbers in WW2. There was too many of them. Fleet conditions. Stories of mustang come from events where numbers wasnt equal. True performance is a different thing. 5 p51 vs 5 bf109 with same hight and we have a problem for worlds policemans. Here in Serbia we thought: come down to dirt to see how good you are, americans bombed us to submision, never thought of trying to met us on equal terms. They solved everything with numbers, stop crying for performance there was none(in ww2 concerning tanks and rest of equipment). Me262 and Ta152 were the way best performers but numbers were low. What about laws of democrasy 6 imbecils can outwote 5 genious. That dont make imbecils nothing else but what they are: strong in numbers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Your post would bear much more weight if you left the political drivel out. As it is I cannot take your arguments seriously as you obviously have many issues with the United States of America.

If you want to make a point, do it without coloring your reply with your dislike of the USA, and then I'll pay attention to it. Until then, it's a bunch of nonsense. Comparing the US to a bunch of bullies and the self appointed policemen of the world is not the best way to get your point across, and I won't even lend the rest of your post credibility by repling to your "points".


PS

Political comments such as yours are prohibited on these forums

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

SkyChimp
05-30-2004, 07:08 PM
I'm not even sure what point DarthBane was trying to make. I stopped reading after the first sentence.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/dauntless.jpg

Maple_Tiger
05-30-2004, 08:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
Giganoni wrote--My gripe with the Worship of the P-51D is that when it came into battle it wasn't coming into a "fair fight".
__________________________________________________ __________________________


News Flash---who ever said war was fair ? You fight to win.

But I will dispell a myth for you that when the Mustang showed up it automaticaly had numerical superiority in the combat area. When the germans attacked the bombers, they would mass fighters in one area and enjoy local air superiority. Much like flooding a zone defense in basketball or football--more attackers in one area than there are avaiable defenders.

This from Bud Anderson on escort duty:

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/anderson/anderson.htm

Outnumbered P51s during Bomber Escort Duty


The Germans liked to roar through the bombers head-on, firing long bursts, and then roll and go down. They would circle around to get ahead of the bomber stream, groping for altitude, avoiding the escorts if possible, then reassemble and come through head-on again. When their fuel or ammunition was exhausted, they would land and refuel and take off again, flying mission after mission, for as long as there were bombers to shoot at. They seldom came after us. Normally, they would skirmish the escorts only out of necessity. We were an inconvenience, best avoided. It was the bombers they wanted, and the German pilots threw themselves at them smartly and bravely. It was our job to stop them.

****It seemed we were always outnumbered. We had more fighters than they did, but what mattered was how many they could put up in one area. They would concentrate in huge numbers, by the hundreds at times. They would assemble way up ahead, pick a section of the bomber formation, and then come in head-on, their guns blazing, sometimes biting the bombers below us before we knew what was happening. *****

In the distance, a red and black smear marked the spot where a B-17 and its 10 men had been. Planes still bearing their bomb loads erupted and fell, trailing flame, streaking the sky, leaving gaps in the bomber formation that were quickly closed up.


mhtml:mid://00000001/!http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg
"Bud" Anderson on wing of his "Old Crow" - the signed photo from collection of Martin Welsh .

Through our headsets we could hear the war, working its way back toward us, coming straight at us at hundreds of miles per hour. The adrenaline began gushing, and I scanned the sky frantically, trying to pick out the fly-speck against the horizon that might have been somebody coming to kill us, trying to see him before be saw me, looking, squinting, breathless . . .

Over the radio: "Here they come!"

They'd worked over the bombers up ahead and now it was our turn.

Things happen quickly. We get rid of our drop tanks, slam the power up, and make a sweeping left turn to engage. My flight of four Mustangs is on the outside of the turn, a wingman close behind to my left, my element leader and his wingman behind to my right, all in finger formation. Open your right hand, tuck the thumb under, put the fingers together, and check the fingernails. That's how we flew, and fought. Two shooters, and two men to cover their tails. The Luftwaffe flew that way, too. German ace Werner Molders is generally credited with inventing the tactic during the Spanish Civil War.

Being on the outside of the turn, we are vulnerable to attack from the rear. I look over my right shoulder and, sure enough, I see four dots above us, way back, no threat at the moment, but coming hard down the chute. I start to call out, but . . .

"Four bogeys, five o'clock high!" My element leader, Eddie Simpson, has already seen them. Bogeys are unknowns and bandits are hostile. Quickly, the dots close and take shape. They're hostile, all right. They're Messerschmitts.

We turn hard to the right, pulling up into a tight string formation, spoiling their angle, and we try to come around and go at them head on. The Me 109s change course, charge past, and continue on down, and we wheel and give chase. There are four of them, single-seat fighters, and they pull up, turn hard, and we begin turning with them. We are circling now, tighter and tighter, chasing each other's tails, and I'm sitting there wondering what the hell's happening. These guys want to hang around. Curious. I'm wondering why they aren't after the bombers, why they're messing with us, whether they're simply creating some kind of a diversion or what. I would fly 116 combat missions, engage the enemy perhaps 40 times, shoot down 16 fighters, share in the destruction of a bomber, destroy another fighter on the ground, have a couple of aerial probables, and over that span it would be us bouncing them far more often than not. This was a switch.

We're flying tighter circles, gaining a little each turn, our throttles wide open, 30,000 feet up. The Mustang is a wonderful airplane, 37 feet wingtip to wingtip, just a little faster than the smaller German fighters, and also just a little more nimble. Suddenly the 109s, sensing things are not going well, roll out and run, turning east, flying level. Then one lifts up his nose and climbs away from the rest.

We roll out and go after them. They're flying full power, the black smoke pouring out their exhaust stacks. I'm looking at the one who is climbing, wondering what he is up to, and I'm thinking that if we stay with the other three, this guy will wind up above us. I send Simpson up after him. He and his wingman break off. My wingman, John Skara, and I chase the other three fighters, throttles all the way forward, and I can see that we're gaining.

I close to within 250 yards of the nearest Messerschmitt--dead astern, 6 o'clock, no maneuvering, no nothing--and squeeze the trigger on the control stick between my knees gently. Bambambambambam! The sound is loud in the cockpit in spite of the wind shriek and engine roar. And the vibration of the Mustang's four. 50-caliber machine guns, two in each wing, weighing 60-odd pounds apiece, is pronounced. In fact, you had to be careful in dogfights when you were turning hard, flying on the brink of a stall, because the buck of the guns was enough to peel off a few critical miles per hour and make the Mustang simply stop flying. That could prove downright embarrassing.

But I'm going like hell now, and I can see the bullets tearing at the Messerschmitt's wing root and fuselage. The armor-piercing ammunition we used was also incendiary, and hits were easily visible, making a bright flash and puff. Now the 109's trailing smoke thickens, and it's something more than exhaust smoke. He slows, and then suddenly rolls over. But the plane doesn't fall. It continues on, upside down, straight and level! What the hell . . . ?

The pilot can't be dead. It takes considerable effort to fly one of these fighter planes upside down. You have to push hard on the controls. Flying upside down isn't easy. It isn't something that happens all by itself, or that you do accidentally. So what in the world is be doing?

Well. It's an academic question, because I haven't the time to wait and find out. I pour another burst into him, pieces start flying off, I see flame, and the 109 plummets and falls into a spin, belching smoke. My sixth kill.

The other two Messerschmitt pilots have pulled away now, and they're nervous. Their airplanes are twitching, the fliers obviously straining to look over their shoulders and see what is happening. As we take up the chase again, two against two now, the trailing 109 peels away and dives for home, and the leader pulls up into a sharp climbing turn to the left. This one can fly, and he obviously has no thought of running. I'm thinking this one could be trouble.

We turn inside him, my wingman and I, still at long range, and he pulls around harder, passing in front of us right-to-left at an impossible angle. I want to swing in behind him, but I'm going too fast, and figure I would only go skidding on past. A Mustang at speed simply can't make a square corner. And in a dogfight you don't want to surrender your airspeed. I decide to overshoot him and climb.

He reverses his turn, trying to fall in behind us. My wingman is vulnerable now. I tell Skara, "Break off!" and be peels away. The German goes after him, and I go after the German, closing on his tail before he can close on my wingman. He sees me coming and dives away with me after him, then makes a climbing left turn. I go screaming by, pull up, and he's reversing his turn--man, be can fly!--and be comes crawling right up behind me, close enough that I can see him distinctly. He's bringing his nose up for a shot, and I haul back on the stick and climb even harder. I keep going up, because I'm out of alternatives.

This is what I see all these years later. If I were the sort to be troubled with nightmares, this is what would shock me awake. I am in this steep climb, pulling the stick into my navel, making it steeper, steeper . . . and I am looking back down, over my shoulder, at this classic gray Me 109 with black crosses that is pulling up, too, steeper, steeper, the pilot trying to get his nose up just a little bit more and bring me into his sights.

There is nothing distinctive about the aircraft, no fancy markings, nothing to identify it as the plane of an ace, as one of the "dreaded yellow-noses" like you see in the movies. Some of them did that, I know, but I never saw one. And in any event, all of their aces weren't flamboyant types who splashed paint on their airplanes to show who they were. I suppose I could go look it up in the archives. There's the chance I could find him in some gruppe's log book, having flown on this particular day, in this particular place, a few miles northwest of the French town of Strasbourg that sits on the Rhine. There are fellows who've done that, gone back and looked up their opponents. I never have. I never saw any point.

He was someone who was trying to kill me, is all.

So I'm looking back, almost straight down now, and I can see this 20-millimeter cannon sticking through the middle of the fighter's propeller hub. In the theater of my memory, it is enormous. An elephant gun. And that isn't far wrong. It is a gun designed to bring down a bomber, one that fires shells as long as your hand, shells that explode and tear big holes in metal. It is the single most frightening thing I have seen in my life, then and now.

But I'm too busy to be frightened. Later on, you might sit back and perspire about it, maybe 40-50 years later, say, sitting on your porch 7,000 miles away, but while it is happening you are just too damn busy. And I am extremely busy up here, hanging by my propeller, going almost straight up, full emergency power, which a Mustang could do for only so long before losing speed, shuddering, stalling, and falling back down; and I am thinking that if the Mustang stalls before the Messerschmitt stalls, I have had it.

I look back, and I can see that he's shuddering, on the verge of a stall. He hasn't been able to get his nose up enough, hasn't been able to bring that big gun to bear. Almost, but not quite. I'm a fallen-down-dead man almost, but not quite. His nose begins dropping just as my airplane, too, begins shuddering. He stalls a second or two before I stall, drops away before I do.

Good old Mustang.

He is falling away now, and I flop the nose over and go after him hard. We are very high by this time, six miles and then some, and falling very, very fast. The Messerschmitt had a head start, plummeting out of my range, but I'm closing up quickly. Then he flattens out and comes around hard to the left and starts climbing again, as if he wants to come at me head on. Suddenly we're right back where we started.

A lot of this is just instinct now. Things are happening too fast to think everything out. You steer with your right hand and feet. The right hand also triggers the guns. With your left, you work the throttle, and keep the airplane in trim, which is easier to do than describe.

Any airplane with a single propeller produces torque. The more horsepower you have, the more the prop will pull you off to one side. The Mustangs I flew used a 12-cylinder Packard Merlin engine that displaced 1,649 cubic inches. That is 10 times the size of the engine that powers an Indy car. It developed power enough that you never applied full power sitting still on the ground because it would pull the plane's tail up off the runway and the propeller would chew up the concrete. With so much power, you were continually making minor adjustments on the controls to keep the Mustang and its wing-mounted guns pointed straight.

There were three little palm-sized wheels you had to keep fiddling with. They trimmed you up for hands-off level flight. One was for the little trim tab on the tail's rudder, the vertical slab which moves the plane left or right. Another adjusted the tab on the tail's horizontal elevators that raise or lower the nose and help reduce the force you had to apply for hard turning. The third was for aileron trim, to keep your wings level, although you didn't have to fuss much with that one. Your left hand was down there a lot if you were changing speeds, as in combat . . . while at the same time you were making minor adjustments with your feet on the rudder pedals and your hand on the stick. At first it was awkward. But, with experience, it was something you did without thinking, like driving a car and twirling the radio dial.

It's a little unnerving to think about how many things you have to deal with all at once to fly combat.

So the Messerschmitt is coming around again, climbing hard to his left, and I've had about enough of this. My angle is a little bit better this time. So I roll the dice. Instead of cobbing it like before and sailing on by him, I decide to turn hard left inside him, knowing that if I lose speed and don't make it I probably won't get home. I pull back on the throttle slightly, put down 10 degrees of flaps, and haul back on the stick just as hard as I can. And the nose begins coming up and around, slowly, slowly. . .

Hot damn! I'm going to make it! I'm inside him, pulling my sights up to him. And the German pilot can see this. This time, it's the Messerschmitt that breaks away and goes zooming straight up, engine at maximum power, without much alternative. I come in with full power and follow him up, and the gap narrows swiftly. He is hanging by his prop, not quite vertically, and I am right there behind him, and it is terribly clear, having tested the theory less than a minute ago, that he is going to stall and fall away before I do.

I have him. He must know that I have him.

I bring my nose up, he comes into my sights, and from less than 300 yards I trigger a long, merciless burst from my Brownings. Every fifth bullet or so is a tracer, leaving a thin trail of smoke, marking the path of the bullet stream. The tracers race upward and find him. The bullets chew at the wing root, the cockpit, the engine, making bright little flashes. I hose the Messerschmitt down the way you'd hose down a campfire, methodically, from one end to the other, not wanting to make a mistake here. The 109 shakes like a retriever coming out of the water, throwing off pieces. He slows, almost stops, as if parked in the sky, his propeller just windmilling, and he begins smoking heavily.

My momentum carries me to him. I throttle back to ease my plane alongside, just off his right wing. Have I killed him? I do not particularly want to fight this man again. I am coming up even with the cockpit, and although I figure the less I know about him the better, I find myself looking in spite of myself. There is smoke in the cockpit. I can see that, nothing more. Another few feet. . . .

And then he falls away suddenly, left wing down, right wing rising up, obscuring my view. I am looking at the 109's sky blue belly, the wheel wells, twin radiators, grease marks, streaks from the guns, the black crosses. I am close enough to make out the rivets. The Messerschmitt is right there and then it is gone, just like that, rolling away and dropping its nose and falling (flying?) almost straight down, leaking coolant and trailing flame and smoke so black and thick that it has to be oil smoke. It simply plunges, heading straight for the deck. No spin, not even a wobble, no parachute, and now I am wondering. His ship seems a death ship--but is it?

Undecided, I peel off and begin chasing him down. Did I squander a chance here? Have I let him escape? He is diving hard enough to be shedding his wings, harder than anyone designed those airplanes to dive, 500 miles an hour and more, and if 109s will stall sooner than Mustangs going straight up, now I am worrying that maybe their wings stay on longer. At 25,000 feet I begin to grow nervous. I pull back on the throttle, ease out of the dive, and watch him go down. I have no more stomach for this kind of thing, not right now, not with this guy. Enough. Let him go and to hell with him.

Straight down be plunges, from as high as 35,000 feet, through this beautiful, crystal clear May morning toward the green-on-green checkerboard fields, leaving a wake of black smoke. From four miles straight up I watch as the Messerschmitt and the shadow it makes on the ground rush toward one another . . .

. . . and then, finally, silently, merge.

Eddie Simpson joins up with me. Both wingmen, too. Simpson, my old wingman and friend, had gotten the one who'd climbed out. We'd bagged three of the four. We were very excited. It had been a good day.

I had lived and my opponent had died. But it was a near thing. It could have been the other way around just as easily, and what probably made the difference was the airplane I flew. Made in America. I would live to see the day when people would try to tell me the United States can't make cars like some other folks do. What a laugh. ..."

Note: The above article is excerpted from the book To Fly and Fight: Memoirs of a Triple Ace by Col C. E. "Bud" Anderson with Joseph P. Hamelin.

For more details about "Bud" Anderson and his book, check here: http://www.cebudanderson.com/


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

"Bud" Anderson explains mystery of P-51 personal name - 'Old Crow': "I tell my Baptist friends that it is named after the smartest bird that flies in the sky, the Crow, but my drinking buddies all know that it was named after that good old Kentucky straight bourbon whiskey of the same name. Now, my wife Ellie, of 54 plus years likes to kid around at times and will say 'Most guys name their plane after their wife or sweet heart, what must people thinks is going on here?'"

mhtml:mid://00000001/!http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

_____

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"





<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Wicked story Kahuna... Just awsome!

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

DaBallz
05-30-2004, 08:58 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DarthBane_:
Let me give you an example, if 5 stinky gang members attack 1 man, no matter how good he is it is likely he wont come out as winner. Story of americans and their numbers in WW2. There was too many of them.


Darth, do a little reading instead of accepting propaganda
at face value.It was a VERY rare thing for there to be a numerical
advantage for the US fighters! P-51s were universally out numbered!
But there were usally a few hundred bombers.
So the Germans were out numbered, but NOT by P-51s!
NOW, if the war had lasted into late 1945, and if
nukes were not used, Germany would have faced
THOUSANDS of P-51s. The numbers would have been staggering.
But germany never saw those planes, and the facts are that
most P-51s produced never left the US. In fact rougly 30%
were sitting there brand new, un used new at VJ day!

I won't address the NATO bombings except to say the Bosnians
were being handed a bit of bullying before the Serbs got
their asses handed to them. Turnabout is fair play.

Da...

FA_Maddog
05-30-2004, 09:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
Let me give you an example, if 5 stinky gang members attack 1 man, no matter how good he is it is likely he wont come out as winner. Story of americans and their numbers in WW2. There was too many of them. Fleet conditions. Stories of mustang come from events where numbers wasnt equal. True performance is a different thing. 5 p51 vs 5 bf109 with same hight and we have a problem for worlds policemans. Here in Serbia we thought: come down to dirt to see how good you are, americans bombed us to submision, never thought of trying to met us on equal terms. They solved everything with numbers, stop crying for performance there was none(in ww2 concerning tanks and rest of equipment). Me262 and Ta152 were the way best performers but numbers were low. What about laws of democrasy 6 imbecils can outwote 5 genious. That dont make imbecils nothing else but what they are: strong in numbers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this thread has lived past it's usefullness. Someone, please close the curtains and turn off the lights.

DaBallz
05-30-2004, 09:20 PM
I think this thread has lived past it's usefullness. Someone, please close the curtains and turn off the lights.[/QUOTE]

Yup, I agree.
Between the post by darthbane
and the appearance of the
essential mile long posts
this thread needs to be euthanised.

Remember, use the isegrim method
of post assasination....
Post way more information
than ANYONE will ever read
then call it a victory.
A few bogus confusing charts
thrown in are a help.

Da...

LuftLuver
05-30-2004, 10:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karost:
Lawrence Thompson
I hold the yoke in the lower left corner and sit on the left rudder, flaps up, and apply FULL POWER! I pull out of the dive at about 500 feet, level out, (I began to black out so with my left hand I pinch my veins in my neck to stop blackout). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have some serious reservations about the authenticity of this text. It just reads "funny". When I got to the quote above, I knew something was shifty. Sounds like the fabrication of some luftwaffle fan boy to me.

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

VFA-195 Snacky
05-31-2004, 12:05 AM
Here is my problem with the P51D and I would like a straight answer on this one.
The P51D has a 85gal aux tank behind the pilot which drastically changes the COG (Center of Gravity) in the P51D. It was procedure to burn this aux tank off first to make the Mustang battle ready and stable. In AEP when you select a fuel load the aux tank is filled first and then anything over 85gal is put into the wing tanks. This should be reversed in AEP. Wing tanks should always be filled first and then aux tanks/wing tanks after that. Obviousely fuel weight is a big factor in AEP and contributes to aircraft performance, but how can fuel weight be calculated and COG not??
If someone in the know has a definant answer to this COG question it could play a big part in the P51D. If Fuel weight shifts COG then the P51D in AEP is seriouely hurt by having fuel in the aux tank instead of the wings. If COG is not modelled in AEP then so much for the aux tank debate, but why isn't it?? Especially when Fuel weight is.

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**

Cragger
05-31-2004, 12:47 AM
Based on the discussion long ago of how a single fuel leak on the P-47 could drain all tanks dry I think you can safetly reach the conclusion that there is only one real 'tank' for each flight model. Up until 2.01 if you took 25% fuel and drop tanks your internal stores would be filled with the drop tanks and you'd be carrying empty drop tanks.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.jpg

Aaron_GT
05-31-2004, 05:02 AM
"Darth, do a little reading instead of
accepting propaganda at face value.It was a
VERY rare thing for there to be a numerical
advantage for the US fighters! P-51s were universally out numbered!"

It all depends how you measure things, and what point in the bombing campaign you are talking about, and in what context.

In early 1944 then the numbers of P51s employed may have been less than the number of attacking fighters in an engagement. By the end of 1944 this was no longer the case.

Also from mid 1944 the escort was no longer always close but included roaming packs of P51s acting as attackers not defenders. In these circumstances it was quite likely that a group of P51s could achieve local superiority over a LW group still climbing to form up into one of the large attacking groups, or landing.

Of course even if the total number of P51s in the air was larger than the number of attackers by late 1944 in the locality of an attack numbers could be balanced in either direction. However the LW forces were at least partially tasked with attacking the bombers, which meant that they were potentially easier targets, so how many of the attacking force of LW planes do you count compared to the number of P51s? It's not an easy call.

About the only way you can really settle the numbers question is to do computer simulations using different numbers, tactics, etc. If the changes in numbers don't really affect the outcome then you can probably surmise that numerical superiority is not the issue. But there are so many factors involved it would be hard to argue either way from just the gross numbers involved.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
05-31-2004, 05:49 AM
the following has nothing to do with the P51, it just showing the numerical disadvantage the germans had.

--

Date: Thursday 2nd November 1944

Situation:

325 4-Engined Bombers on the way to Gelsenkirchen and Castrop-Rauxel, attacking fuel plants.

2nd swarm of Bombers, 650 (683 US data) on the way to the Leuna Werk.

There are 600 P51's of the 8th Air fleet and a "few" P38 from the 9th Air fleet ecorting them.

At this time there are about 500 German A/Cs ready for take off. There Target is the 2nd Bomber swarm heading for leuna.

The Sky over the Target area is coverd in Clouds by 9/10, view around 3 to 5 kilometers, the clound-border is about 500 to 1000m.
Not the best conditions for fight.

The bad weather prevents the Jg2 to find the Target. Therefore only 300 Luftwaffe will have contact with the US-Forces.

Briefly befor noon the 3rd US - Air division reaches target area.
The 55th Figher Group of Major Ryan is the first US-Unit which will have combat with the german defenders.
They manage to down 19 german fighters by the loos of 1 P51.
Now the 352 Fighter Group enters combat it's about 12:21 o'clock.
They down 38 luftwaffe planes.
20th Fighter Group downs 28 Luftwaffe planes.

The US fighers destroy 134 german A/C in total.
The US Figher Comand admits 8 P51 as lost.

The most effective german units were IV./JG3 & II./JG4. the 61 FW 190A8/R2 & A8/R6 (Sturmb¶cke) manage to down 30 Bombers, but lost 30 planes.

As the IV./JG3 returnes from combat there 15 Pilots missing, 4 Bailed 11 were killed.
Stab & II.Sturm/JG3 take off. The fly to the orderd coordinates and reach them after 20 minutes flight. They have contect with the US-Forces.
While the III. + IV. / JG4 were attacking the P51's (with 109G14) the Sturmgruppe manage to attack the Bombers.
Two B17 were downed. The Wing Commander of the 5. Squad and 3 members of the 7. Squad one of them the 20 jear old Oberf¤hnrich (Cw2) Girbig...
The US could defeat most of the LW-Fighers by now.
Anyway now the first machines from 3rd Air-division are on the way back others are just opening their bomb pits.
Now the 14nd FLAK-Division opens fire on the bombers and manage to down 32 further B17.

And the fight continues.

This day was be the black day for the again united JG27, ordered to defend mid-germany.
The I. Group was surprised by plenty of US - Fighters befor they could reach their main target, the Bombers.
The 19 G14 of I. Group were outnumbered and forced into heavy A2A combat.
The fate of Group III and IV is simular.
They were attacked over leuna.
The comander of the 10. Staffel was shot down in his K4 he and 4 other Pilots of 10. and 9. Staffel died.
At the end of 2nd November 25 Pilots of Jg27 were killed. One Pilot is missed. Out of the 12 wounded Pilots one died the next day.
So Jg27 lost 38 Pilots (KIA, MIA, WIA) seven shot down P51 can be confirmed.

According to the I. Jagdkorps the LW lost 120 Aircraft and 98 Pilots this day.

US information say about 134 enemy Aircraft downed.

About 80 Bombers were shot down (fighters + FLAK)

Just to clarify:
the Jg27 had more looses this day than in 20 months the unit was serving in Afrika!

--

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

Magister__Ludi
05-31-2004, 12:27 PM
Alright lrrp, time's up. You had enough of to present any decent proof you could find that overboosted Mustang served with USAAF in ETO. Unfortunatelly, though predictably, you brought none.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Alright Huckebein, out of the goodness of my heart :wink2, here's a wee taste:

This chart shows that the V-1650-7 achieves 1940 HP at SL on +25 lb boost:
http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v11/brentce/V-1650-7.jpg

This chart shows that the V-1650-7/Merlin 66's 1940 HP at SL increase to 2020 HP at ~4000 ft:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66hpchart.jpg<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Those are not proofs that overboosted Mustang served with USAAF. They are charts made during the testing which I do not contest. However, when tried to put in service the 150 grade fuel those engines failed: V-1650 ran very rough, the spark plugs were damaged, and in general the pilots felt the engine very disconcerting, all the time at the point of breaking up. This is why overboosting was not adopted in USAAF. British however desperately needed something to counter the threat of V-1. This was the reason for the use of 150 grade fuel. The British, just like USAAF, did not use this fuel for usual fighter or escort job.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
F/Lt Cwynar of 315 Sqn (Polish) regarding the use of increased boost:
"With knowledge that one day we might be chasing Buzz Bombs and the next escorting bombers to Norway, we were not keen on "hammering" our engines."


One example of typical 315 Squadron operations:

24 July 44: conducts anti-diver patrols.

30 July 44: Escort 48 Beaufighters to Norway. 10 315 Mustang III's shoot down 7 of 15 109/190's for no losses to themselves.

A photo taken around 10 July 44 after 315's reassignment to ADGB and Breznett airfield for anti-diver duties:

http://www.geocities.com/ratuszynski/44/315_Brenzett7.jpg

Do you really think 75 gal. drop tanks were necessary for chasing V-1's?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Different jobs done with different fuel.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
You'll find that the RAF's 2000 HP Mustang III/IV's regularly provided long range escorts to Coastal Command strikes to Norway and Bomber Command daylight raids over Germany.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are no documents to attest such use. Merlin did not run reliably with 150 grade fuel to conduct any other type of job except fast low alt chase of V-1. Long range escort missions over enemy teritory were impossible. Indeed 150 grade fuel was tried but abandoned in ETO (as I said in PTO at the end of the war there were some engines, R-2800 types, that could run reliably with 150 grade fuel).

Magister__Ludi
05-31-2004, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
karost wrote-- IF we need a 'FAIR' fight why not lock fuel comsumption at same level in DF server

in real history combat Did P-51 load fuel at 25% ? ... No
__________________________________________________ ___________________________



I think you meant fuel load.

Ok well lock the fuel load at 25% and see how far Luftwaffe planes get--probably to the end of the runway if their lucky http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Or we can lock it at 100% fuel load and make the Luftwaffe planes fly for 4 hours before they get to the target area. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Why is choosing fuel loads a problem now in a DF server ?

You take the amount of fuel necessary for the mission--for a Mustang a 25-50% fuel load is all you need for FB missions. A Mustang at a 25% fuel load has almost as much fuel as a 109 with a 100% fuel load. So running around with a 100% fuel load would be very inefficient and unnecessary for Mustangs.

What do think the fuel load of a real P51 was over the target area and on it's way back?

Do you think it was always 100% full fuel load no matter where the mission was and with all that flying nothing burned off to lighten the plane ?

That is just one of the more silly statements I have seen so far.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Your conclusion is wrong because you assume that German and American planes have the same fuel consumption, which is not true (is not true even today http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). If at cruise the fuel consumption is comparable, at max power a less powerful Merlin (V-1650-7 1620HP@sea level) burns 50% more fuel than a DB605ASB (1800HP@sea level). Since online you're not crusing, realistic fuel consumption will severely handicap most Allied planes, like Spitfire, P-39s, Las and Yaks (Mustang is less affected because it has roughly twice the internal fuel load of a Bf-109).

Magister__Ludi
05-31-2004, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DarthBane_:
Let me give you an example, if 5 stinky gang members attack 1 man, no matter how good he is it is likely he wont come out as winner. Story of americans and their numbers in WW2. There was too many of them.


Darth, do a little reading instead of accepting propaganda
at face value.It was a VERY rare thing for there to be a numerical
advantage for the US fighters! P-51s were universally out numbered!
But there were usally a few hundred bombers.
So the Germans were out numbered, but NOT by P-51s!
NOW, if the war had lasted into late 1945, and if
nukes were not used, Germany would have faced
THOUSANDS of P-51s. The numbers would have been staggering.
But germany never saw those planes, and the facts are that
most P-51s produced never left the US. In fact rougly 30%
were sitting there brand new, un used new at VJ day!

Da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


"P-51s were universally out numbered!" Oh boy, this has gone really far!

Comparing the number of planes is fruitless, because it ignores how many of those planes were serviceable, how many pilots were fit to fly, how much fuel was available. The only reasonable comparison is for the number of sorties. USAAF did in ETO 61,000 sorties in December '44 from which 35,000 were made by fighters. LW did 10,000 fighter sorties in the same month on all fronts. Compute yourself how many times the Germans were outnumbered. Consider that at that time (Dec '44) they fought alone not only against USAAF, but also Russians, British and other nations. How can someone think that LW fighters outnumbered P-51s I don't understand (and of course LW fighters fought bombers not P-51s).

Aaron_GT
05-31-2004, 03:25 PM
"The British, just like USAAF, did not use this fuel for usual fighter or escort job."

Well they seemed to be producing a lot of 130/150 octane fuel for use in defeating V1 sites even after there were no V1s being used (1945). Sort of implies that it was being used by fighters for usual or escort jobs.

Aaron_GT
05-31-2004, 03:28 PM
"Comparing the number of planes is fruitless, because it ignores how many of those planes were serviceable, how many pilots were fit to fly, how much fuel was available. The only reasonable comparison is for the number of sorties. USAAF did in ETO 61,000 sorties in December '44 from which 35,000 were made by fighters. LW did 10,000 fighter sorties in the same month on all fronts. Compute yourself how many times the Germans were outnumbered. Consider that at that time (Dec '44) they fought alone not only against USAAF, but also Russians, British and other nations. How can someone think that LW fighters outnumbered P-51s I don't understand (and of course LW fighters fought bombers not P-51s)."

Seems a reasonable analysis for late 1944. In early 1944 things may have been different.

In any case there are all sorts of instances of temporary local superiority going in both directions.

For example if you look at the Battle of Britain the RAF had more fighters in total, but less in the south east, and they were committed in penny packets so often they were outnumbered when deployed. But then if they were lucky and they caught bombers without escorts at that moment, the tables were turned in the other direction. Complex stuff.

k5054
05-31-2004, 03:39 PM
"
Just to clarify:
the Jg27 had more looses this day than in 20 months the unit was serving in Afrika! "

JG27 was out-numbered every day of the 20 months. By a factor of, what, 5 or more in fighters. For them, it was a target-rich environment, an opportunity to score. What changed by November 44? In 1942 the german fighters were better than the allied, in 1944 they were not. If they had been the LW could have turned the tables. And Luftwaffe tactics of course, became unable to cope with bombers which had to be engaged.
In the Nov 2 44 example it seems that 3 mustang groups did the damage, typically 50+ aircraft each, which happened to be the ones that found the LW fighters. The out-numbered argument will not fly on its own. Out-numbering only works locally, it matters not how many sorties were flown (picking Dec 44 as an example when the LW were being held back for Bodenplatte) only what happened at the point of contact. The crucial time to look at this is spring 44, when the mustangs were locally outnumbered, but had the best of the fight.

I wonder how the JGs could get lost finding the bombers in an area of german radar coverage? Poor show.

DaBallz
05-31-2004, 06:24 PM
"P-51s were universally out numbered!" Oh boy, this has gone really far!

Huckster/isegrim, not till late 1944 were the
Lufftwaffe planes out numbered.

But you have failed to back up your BS.
You claim falsehoods, such as the BS
you print about 150 grade fuel
with no documentation!
P-51s did indeed use 115/145...150 grade.
I know an ANG mechanic who says only
115/145 was used.

Your all BS and hyperbole.

For instance you mouth off about there
being a ban on leaded gasoline, pure and utter nonsense!
Go to any American airport and buy 100LL grade.
Some marina's, truck stops and the odd gas station
still carry leaded fuel.

You have no credability Huckster/Isegrim.
You are always trumpeting the AXIS cause.
If those German planes were so darn good,
then tell me why the Luftwaffe got it's butt
handed to it by mid 1944?

Again a reminder,
VE day is the day GERMANY surrendered.
VJ day is the day Japan surrendered.

Both surrendered UNCONDITIONALY.
Both surrendered to the Allies.

Again, just to remind you.

Da...

HellToupee
05-31-2004, 07:20 PM
whats winning or losing have to to with how good the planes are, the m262 was unmatched yet they lost, I think ull find even when outnumbering the escorts most were still going for the bombers.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

PzKpfw
05-31-2004, 08:21 PM
British records on 100/130 & 100/150 AV Fuel production from Febuary 1944 - March 1945
show production of *100/150 ammounted to 369,385 tons.

100/130 production over the same time period was 293,963 tons. Combined 100/130 & 100/150 production from Feb 44 thru March 45 was 663,348 tons of which 55.7% produced was 100/150.

*See: POWE 33/1363: Report of actual production 100/130 and 100/150 gasolines and componets.

Another document provided by Neil S. from Deputy Commanding General ASC USSTAF Director of Supply 23/11/44 concerning 100/150 fuel supply & demand. Shows as of 23.11.44 100/150 production was distributed as follows:

= USAAF 8th Fighter Command 20,000 tons.
= RAF Fighter Command 2,000tons
= Engine Manufactures 1,000tons

And this doesnt include the 100/150 reqirements for 2nd TAF, which was expected to require 15,000 tons per month, operateing on the continent.

As to the availability of 115/145 grade it became available in the ETO in June 1944, just prior to D-day.

Now one can try to disregard the production totals etc. But then one also has to ask
themselves, a couple of questions, Ie:


Why was 8th AF FC recieveing 20,000 tons of 100/150 a month if, it was not useing any 100/150?.

Why if 100/150 was only used for Diver missions, then why did British production of 100/150 not cease after the capture of the German V1 sites that were in range of England?.


Why did 100/150 production increase to exceed standard 100/130 production by March 1945, when as data shows 55.7% of fuel produced during this time period was 100/150.

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
05-31-2004, 09:57 PM
Huckebein,

Are you really trying to attest that tens of thousands of tons of 100/150 grade were being shipped to the RAF and VIIIth Fighter Command for no other reason than to chase V-1's? Even though VIIIth FC never chased Doodlebugs? Even after the V-1 threat had abated?

Your argument is patently ridiculous. I am not going to spend days debating what is obvious to all but the most disengenuos and dishonest.

The undebatable fact is that 8th Air Force P-51's *ALL* flew with 100/150 grade fuel and 72" WEP manifold pressure by the end of Summer, 1944. Check Roger Freeman's 'Eigth Air Force War Manual' for a succint description of 100/150 grade's implementation (and subsequent challenges) into VIIIth Fighter Command. Check various pilot references to the use of 72" WEP. Even your buddy Isegrim admits that 72" WEP was standard.

Further, UK-based Air Defense of Great Britain and 2nd Tactical Air Force Mustang squadrons all converted to 100/150 grade fuel and 81"/+25 lb boost during the summer of '44, as well. Continent-based squadrons followed sometime after November '44, by which time all 2nd TAF Mustang III squadrons had redeployed to English and Scottish airfields.

As usual, you have decided to demand evidence that doesn't exist in a form that you will accept. In inimitable Huckebein_FW/Magister_Ludi style, you are not about to let overwhelming evidence of fact sway you from your child-like obsession with proving that all US and UK aircraft were also-rans compared to your exalted Bf 109.

You won't accept pilot accounts nor orders authorizing and requiring the use of higher octane fuel and increased boost. You won't accept production and delivery numbers that unequivically indicate that 100/150 grade was the primary fuel used by tactical and fighter units.

Every time you post on this subject (and most others) you do nothing but further demonstrate your unfathomable bias, pig-headedness, and general lack of specific knowledge on the subject at hand.

Hop2002's comment to Isegrim couldn't be more appropriate to your case as well: Their are none so blind as those that will not see.


BTW, I'd be willing to bet that even at +25 lb boost and 2020 HP the Merlin 66/V-1650-7 exceeded by orders of magnitude the DB605AS's and DB605D's respective 12.5 and 25 hour engine overhaul requirements.

Did you see Hop's and SkyChimp's posts referring to the overheating properties and WEP limits for Spitfires and Mustang? I'll bet that has really upended your apple cart...



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Alright lrrp, time's up. You had enough of to present any decent proof you could find that overboosted Mustang served with USAAF in ETO. Unfortunatelly, though predictably, you brought none.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Alright Huckebein, out of the goodness of my heart :wink2, here's a wee taste:

This chart shows that the V-1650-7 achieves 1940 HP at SL on +25 lb boost:
http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v11/brentce/V-1650-7.jpg

This chart shows that the V-1650-7/Merlin 66's 1940 HP at SL increase to 2020 HP at ~4000 ft:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66hpchart.jpg<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Those are not proofs that overboosted Mustang served with USAAF. They are charts made during the testing which I do not contest. However, when tried to put in service the 150 grade fuel those engines failed: V-1650 ran very rough, the spark plugs were damaged, and in general the pilots felt the engine very disconcerting, all the time at the point of breaking up. This is why overboosting was not adopted in USAAF. British however desperately needed something to counter the threat of V-1. This was the reason for the use of 150 grade fuel. The British, just like USAAF, did not use this fuel for usual fighter or escort job.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
F/Lt Cwynar of 315 Sqn (Polish) regarding the use of increased boost:
"With knowledge that one day we might be chasing Buzz Bombs and the next escorting bombers to Norway, we were not keen on "hammering" our engines."


One example of typical 315 Squadron operations:

24 July 44: conducts anti-diver patrols.

30 July 44: Escort 48 Beaufighters to Norway. 10 315 Mustang III's shoot down 7 of 15 109/190's for no losses to themselves.

A photo taken around 10 July 44 after 315's reassignment to ADGB and Breznett airfield for anti-diver duties:

http://www.geocities.com/ratuszynski/44/315_Brenzett7.jpg

Do you really think 75 gal. drop tanks were necessary for chasing V-1's?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Different jobs done with different fuel.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
You'll find that the RAF's 2000 HP Mustang III/IV's regularly provided long range escorts to Coastal Command strikes to Norway and Bomber Command daylight raids over Germany.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are no documents to attest such use. Merlin did not run reliably with 150 grade fuel to conduct any other type of job except fast low alt chase of V-1. Long range escort missions over enemy teritory were impossible. Indeed 150 grade fuel was tried but abandoned in ETO (as I said in PTO at the end of the war there were some engines, R-2800 types, that could run reliably with 150 grade fuel).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VFA-195 Snacky
06-01-2004, 02:28 AM
Watched a really good memorial day program on the Discovery Wings channel last night about the P51 in WWII and they intervied a few of the P51 Aces including Chuck Yeager. Of course any pilot will feel his airplane is the best, but these guys had some pretty interesting things to say about the P51. First was it's speed in a dive, Yeager said that if you got in trouble with the mustang and had altitude you could just point the nose down and escape. Other planes could not chase it in a dive because they lose authority on the control surfaces whereas the Mustang's aerodynamic airframe allowed it to dive at much higher speeds. On the other hand though the Mustang could not climb as fast as the Spits because of the laminar wings. They mentioned that at altitudes around the bombers the mustang could handle the 109s and 190s very well, problem was the Germans did not want to engage the fighters. They only wanted the bombers then turn for home. The German fighters would mass in big groups and then zoom through bomber formations totally ignoring the fighters. The Mustangs had to fly back behind the bombers so that when 190s would zoom through the formation the Stangs could jump them on the backside.
One of the more interesting things they talked about was the ,50 ammunition they used in the P51. They called it API and it was a special magnesium tipped round that had a incindiary explosive in the tip. These rounds would penetrate the skin of the plane, explode, and burn (magnesium burns metal like fire burns paper and water only accelerates it) the metal. One of the Mustang pilots said with a couple of short bursts he could totally destroy a 109 and it wasn't uncommon for planes to explode once the magnesium burned through to the fuel tank. Could you imagine the whines if this was modelled in AEP? lol
None the less it was a very cool program and I learned a lot about the mustang. In all fairness the Mustang in AEP is not that far off if flown within it's intended perameters. The way these guys explained the API rounds makes the .50 in AEP look like BB guns, but it is just a game after all.lol

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**

Kwiatos
06-01-2004, 04:15 AM
Hmm interesting these opinion is very close to Mark Hanna. P-51 performed very good at high speed and high alt but should be worse in climb rate and slow speed dogfight than BF 109. Unfortunately in FB P-51 have good climb rate and is good in slow speed dogfiht comparing to BF's. I miss P-51 FM from version 1.21 FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Chuck_Older
06-01-2004, 07:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snacky1:

One of the more interesting things they talked about was the ,50 ammunition they used in the P51. They called it API <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It stands for

Armor Peircing, Incendiary http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I thought that Mongo was only pawn in game of life http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

FA_Whisky
06-01-2004, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Hmm interesting these opinion is very close to Mark Hanna. P-51 performed very good at high speed and high alt but should be worse in climb rate and slow speed dogfight than BF 109. Unfortunately in FB P-51 have good climb rate and is good in slow speed dogfiht comparing to BF's. I miss P-51 FM from version 1.21 FB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BF109 climbs mutch better than the P51d with 100% fuel. Most people fly the 109 with 50% fuel and the P51d with 25% fuel. This gives the P51d a real boost in performance and thus in slow speed dogfighting and climb. Also the wingloading is not that mutch better for the 109 than anymore so its only BIG adventage is the massive engine power(2000+ hp vs 1700)

Don't remember what post is was explained in exact numbers, but is around here somewhere.

Aaron_GT
06-01-2004, 10:57 AM
" On the other hand though the Mustang could not climb as fast as the Spits because of the laminar wings"

The Spitfire also has a bit better powerloading.
(Relatively similar power output from similar engines, but fully loaded the P-51 is around 2000lbs heavier than the Spitfire IX).

Blutarski2004
06-01-2004, 11:27 AM
Magister Ludi(crous) ..... he he he!

BLUTARSKI

Chuck_Older
06-01-2004, 12:40 PM
Do I correctly recall that the Luftwaffe had air superiority in the fall of 1943? Or am I making that up?? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Also I recall reading that local air superiority was possible and in fact acheived by the Luftwaffe from 43 on, because they picked their battles. Many times the bomber streams were unopposed, somethimes they were lightly opposed, and some times they were very strongly opposed, and in numbers superior to that of US escorts...I do recall that correctly, right? Or am I reading the wrong books (Clash of Wings, and the Mustang Story)?



I would of course take the late Mark Hanna's comments on the P-51 as very close to Gospel, by the way http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

BSS_Vidar
06-01-2004, 02:38 PM
API or 20mm in the Pony instead of dumb slugs? The outcry would be nastier than the tidal wave I saw in the movie "The Day after Tomarrow"! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Snack, That's the show I saw as well, and Kit Carson said alot of the same things Yeager did.

BSS_Vidar

BigKahuna_GS
06-01-2004, 02:58 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ ______________________
karost wrote-- Kahuna , it would be nice if you can show me any history documents or any history books that P-51D take off with 25% fuel load and with out drop tank to make combat in WWII .....
__________________________________________________ ________________________


You dont get karost. When a P51 leaves England with a 100% fuel load + drop tanks the fuel burns off on the way to the target area. Once the 51 arrives on station it has anywhere from a 25-50% fuel load depending upon how events unfolded.

That is how most people fly the Mustang around with a 25-50% fuel load in a DF type server. If I fly high altitudes fighter sweeps, I take a 50% fuel load.

There is nowhere in a DF server to fly to for 4 hours and it is absurd that you suggest that Mustangs must fly around with a 100% fuel load just so you can have a chance a shooting one down.



__________________________________________________ _________________________
ToP_BlackSheep

. posted 31-05-04 04:49 Mon May 31 2004 04:49 AM
the following has nothing to do with the P51, it just showing the numerical disadvantage the germans had.
__________________________________________________ __________________________



USAAF Pilot Bud Anderson on P51D Escort Missions:

****It seemed we were always outnumbered. We had more fighters than they did, but what mattered was how many they could put up in one area. They would concentrate in huge numbers, by the hundreds at times. They would assemble way up ahead, pick a section of the bomber formation, and then come in head-on, their guns blazing, sometimes biting the bombers below us before we knew what was happening. *****


Do you see what really matters in numerical superiority ?

Anderson--"but what mattered was how many they could put up in one area."

When your escorting a bomber stream of 1000 B-17s and you have 600 escort fighters they are going to be streched mighty thin trying to cover all possible attack areas. Especially if some of the escorts are doing relay coverage such as P47's that didnt have the range to go all the way to the target.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by karost:
Lawrence Thompson
I hold the yoke in the lower left corner and sit on the left rudder, flaps up, and apply FULL POWER! I pull out of the dive at about 500 feet, level out, (I began to black out so with my left hand I pinch my veins in my neck to stop blackout).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LuftLuver :
I have some serious reservations about the authenticity of this text. It just reads "funny". When I got to the quote above, I knew something was shifty. Sounds like the fabrication of some luftwaffle fan boy to me.



---Luft, I totally agree with you. I have medical training and pinching the viens in your neck could cause you to blackout not prevent it. The viens and arteries run side by side and while pinching the jugulars could prevent blood leaving the head, pinching the carotids would prevent blood getting to the brain--seems like a no win situation. Also squeezing the viens in your throat while grunting from a max G manuever could induce a vaso-vagel respone causing you to pass out. High school kids sometimes do this to each other for kicks.

And to think someone could discern their jugular viens from their carotid arteries in their neck with flight gloves on and flying a fighter while trying not to auger in during a high G manuever sounds a little far fetched.


Reminds me of Full Metal Jacket---"choke yourself"



___

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"

LuftLuver
06-01-2004, 03:56 PM
Yep, someone's trying to feed us a jelly doughnut.
http://adorocinema.cidadeinternet.com.br/filmes/nascido-para-matar/nascido-para-matar10.jpg

Mustangs don't seem to have a yoke, and I've never heard a Pony pilot refer to the stick as such. One last item on my agenda: It is well documented that the main fuselage tank was burned off FIRST. First, as in not last. Somewhere along the line the aux and drop tanks were burned. But when the caca hit the fan and the drop tanks were away, the fuse tank had been emptied enough for proper fighting trim.

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

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
06-01-2004, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
"
Just to clarify:
the Jg27 had more looses this day than in 20 months the unit was serving in Afrika! "

JG27 was out-numbered every day of the 20 months. By a factor of, what, 5 or more in fighters. For them, it was a target-rich environment, an opportunity to score. What changed by November 44? In 1942 the german fighters were better than the allied, in 1944 they were not. If they had been the LW could have turned the tables. And Luftwaffe tactics of course, became unable to cope with bombers which had to be engaged.
In the Nov 2 44 example it seems that 3 mustang groups did the damage, typically 50+ aircraft each, which happened to be the ones that found the LW fighters. The out-numbered argument will not fly on its own. Out-numbering only works locally, it matters not how many sorties were flown (picking Dec 44 as an example when the LW were being held back for Bodenplatte) only what happened at the point of contact. The crucial time to look at this is spring 44, when the mustangs were locally outnumbered, but had the best of the fight.

I wonder how the JGs could get lost finding the bombers in an area of german radar coverage? Poor show.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They couldn't, problem is just that the J¤gerleitstelle(n) wer not able to coordinate the attacks, so u get say 300 Fighters in the Air but they will encounter the enemy (USAF this case) in Groups of 12 or something.
Don't ask me why but that was one of the major problems, some of the "high" Guys were just unable to coordinate the attacks.
One reason: there was no central "Radar - Comand Station"...a small thing there and a small thing here...and so on.
Once the fight started those "j¤gerleitstellen" were not able to coordinate it so help often was sent to the wrong places and so on...
Another thing (i think it was already noted) the primary target were the Bombers!
and a few Sturmbirds were easy pray for P51's (since heavy and most of the time undefended)
A few is relative, see some1 quoted that they were attackin in huge numbers. So can u explain me, how the "huge" numbers could not do some damage to the big formations ("only" 30 downed in my example).
The LW was outnumberd (as the RAF was during BoB) they had to fight BOMBERS.
Both bombers (~650) and fighters(600) counted 1250 Planes. Sure they were over a wide area.
But the LW had 300 Fighters, not able to attack at once, only in small groups.
Add that the UASF / RAF Simply had the better trained pilots in average than the LW.
Alsow add that because of the short range of 109 a quite big part of the LW fighters only had a verry short endurance at combat zone, or / and not much time to climb to combat altitude (not even talking about gaining an energy Advantage).


well thats all for now (i guess).
But we are getting of topic...


http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

[This message was edited by ToP_BlackSheep on Tue June 01 2004 at 04:20 PM.]

WWMaxGunz
06-01-2004, 05:20 PM
And yet Bud Anderson describes the LW using coordinated attacks of large
numbers of interceptors. But he was only there.
12 planes in one group followed by 12, etc, as opposed to 2's and 4's is
about as big a unit as might be held together in a sweeping attack. Even
that is a mark of strong leadership and skill. It don't mean that 12 was
all they had, just 12 was a unit.

German fliers had developed local superiority tactics in WWI when they went
out in larger groups. The Allies had more fighters and everything else but
they didn't concentrate groups at first at least until after the Germans
did. If you are being attacked on a narrow front by enemies who are
streaming in then you can have fewer units and still outnumber them in
the area of conflict.


Neal

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
06-01-2004, 05:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And yet Bud Anderson describes the LW using coordinated attacks of large
numbers of interceptors. But he was only there.
12 planes in one group followed by 12, etc, as opposed to 2's and 4's is
about as big a unit as might be held together in a sweeping attack. Even
that is a mark of strong leadership and skill. It don't mean that 12 was
all they had, just 12 was a unit.
Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

can u please explain this paragraph a bit more.
My english is not native...sorry but can't understand. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Maybe the taktics of some Squads was good at the beginning (they still had some good pilots) but the level dropped more and more the longer the ware continued.
BTW have u ever heared about the "schießfiebel"(Book which decribes the way of shooting / Aiming) it was introduced by Adolf Galland just to show the new "fighter" Pilots how to aim.
So maybe we should go away from the Outnumbered in terms of Planes instead take a closer look the the Pilots of these...

BTW: i can alsow choose another sortie. I have info from the 2nd November 44 to 17th April 1945 (only dayfighters at the western front)

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

PzKpfw
06-01-2004, 05:39 PM
*IGerman Tactical Air Sorties over the Ardennes Dec. 16 1944 - Jan. 1, 1944:

Dec 16. - 170
17 - 650*
18 - 849*
19 - 290
20 - 2
21 - 0
22 - 100
23 - 800
24 - 1,088
25 - 600
26 - 404
27 - 415
28 - 15
29 - 340
30 - 150
31 - 613

Jan 1. 1945 - 1,0357

Thats over 7,500 sorties alone for the time period.

*Doesn't include the additional 100 - 250 sorties flown during the nights of Dec. 17 - 18.

*See: Parker Danny S. To Win the Winter Sky. p.515


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

k5054
06-02-2004, 05:02 AM
It has now become evident to me that both sides were seriously out-numbered.

WWMaxGunz
06-02-2004, 05:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToP_BlackSheep:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And yet Bud Anderson describes the LW using coordinated attacks of large
numbers of interceptors. But he was only there.
12 planes in one group followed by 12, etc, as opposed to 2's and 4's is
about as big a unit as might be held together in a sweeping attack. Even
that is a mark of strong leadership and skill. It don't mean that 12 was
all they had, just 12 was a unit.
Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

can u please explain this paragraph a bit more.
My english is not native...sorry but can't understand. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Maybe the taktics of some Squads was good at the beginning (they still had some good pilots) but the level dropped more and more the longer the ware continued.
BTW have u ever heared about the "schießfiebel"(Book which decribes the way of shooting / Aiming) it was introduced by Adolf Galland just to show the new "fighter" Pilots how to aim.
So maybe we should go away from the Outnumbered in terms of Planes instead take a closer look the the Pilots of these...

BTW: i can alsow choose another sortie. I have info from the 2nd November 44 to 17th April 1945 (only dayfighters at the western front)

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When one side puts 100's or more than 1000 planes in the air at once they take up many
kilometers of space. They can't all fly in one giant formation. So if 12 fighters are
together in 1 formation, 1 unit, and can stay and fight as a unit then that's pretty good.
A lot of the time the air fighting unit is 4 planes and may be or break to 2 planes. There
were 3 plane groups but I don't think that worked for so long.
Anyway, if you read of 12 planes forming up it doesn't mean that's all there were. It
means that 12 was the size of an attack unit.
As Bud Anderson wrote that there were 100's of LW planes that attacked... yes but they
couldn't all fly into the bombers at once. Not enough room. And you can't have fighters
even 1000m behind others because their shots may hit the ones in front. They have to make
units and the units themselves must coordinate to hit one after the other.
Think of the scene at LW airports as the bomber groups were picked up on radar and tracked,
every fighter possible scrambled and coordinated to break and turn the attack, to force the
escorts to drop fuel pods (bet that was smaller groups of fighters) and try to get less or
none to make the whole trip. And at the target, the LW fighters had to be kept back to let
the AAA have a clear field of fire and then back on the bombers so fewer can return later.
The idea of less than 40 fighters attacking a bomber box and escorts when the LW had so much
more? To throw interceptors in piecemeal when only a concentrated frontal attack could get
the defensive guns split up much at all? Sorry, I don't think so. Different pilots of the
time didn't think so either. Anderson wasn't the only one. But I do remember that Galland
said that Hitler and Goebels did not go far enough for the fighters and that led to the
defeat of the LW. He said that after the war, maybe before but not so loud as to get shot.


Neal

Chuck_Older
06-02-2004, 07:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
It has now become evident to me that both sides were seriously out-numbered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Seriously, consider local air superiority verus general air superiority. Which is easier to acheive?

The Luftwaffe has been described as a blanket that was a little too small. It could cover certain areas, but not all areas at once. The upper echelons of the Luftwaffe at times disliked each other very much, but still found professional common ground, and the lower ranks of the Luftwaffe worked together with other LW units, and the Wehrmacht with astonishing efficiency.

for example:
Ground attack co-ordination was used to great effect by one of the Luftwaffe's least known leaders: von Richtofen (yes a relative of Manfred and Lothar's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) he used ideas and tactics that improved air/ground coordination tactics that had been developed during the Spanish Civil War, and was a pioneer of Forward Air Control. During the Polish campaign, his use of tactical air power stopped the Poles when they threatened to break the German line. He personally flew air to ground co-ordination missions in an unarmed plane, to ensure success, returning to base with a plane riddled with bullets- but his tactics worked.

The Luftwaffe did some very impressive things and it's good that Germany was virtually on a peacetime production cycle for most of the war.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

[This message was edited by Chuck_Older on Wed June 02 2004 at 06:50 AM.]

Jippo01
06-02-2004, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
API or 20mm in the Pony instead of dumb slugs? The outcry would be nastier than the tidal wave I saw in the movie "The Day after Tomarrow"! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


In FB .50 has API ammunition, and there is no outcry, is there.

API rounds are nothing miraculous. They were used in all nations during WW2. IIRC .50 BMG API round has about 1 gram of burning substance, and it's effect is still miniscule compared to high explosive or incendiary cannon rounds.

You shouldn't believe everything they say in TV.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

BSS_Vidar
06-02-2004, 04:09 PM
Soooo, you think I watched this program on PBS and the Electric Company or something? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Discovery Wings is as un-biased as you can get in the modern media. They cover everything no matter what fin flash was on it and have reliable sources from all aspects of aviation. i.e. Pilots, maintenence, engineers. Next you'll be sayin' the Smithsonian is a crock! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Besides, if this API in the FB Pony is supposable there, where's the effects/results in the game discribed by these very credible eye-witnesses who pulled the trigger?

Anyhow, Mustangs were fitted with 6 X 20mm cannon well before wars end. I hope the next patch includes it. That is before PF comes out...

After that I won't be worring about it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

BSS_Vidar

PzKpfw
06-02-2004, 07:22 PM
Actualy ammunition loadout is dependant on your enemies AC capability or lack of. Ie, many USN & Marine Sqadrons in the PTO, carried nothing but .50 API, because, Japanese planes were very vulnerable to API, as Japanese AC had lil or no armor, self sealing tanks etc, and it only took a 'few' hits of API to set them on fire, .50 API became the prefered round. .50 API demand in the PTO was so high that it caused an API shortage in 1944 at one time. .

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

Jippo01
06-02-2004, 10:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Anyhow, Mustangs were fitted with 6 X 20mm cannon well before wars end. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh boy!


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

WWMaxGunz
06-03-2004, 12:02 AM
Did any OPERATIONAL P-51's carry 20mm? I don't think so!

And WINGS as a resource???

I have a WINGS episode on the LW and while they weren't biased they were also very mistaken very often. The people they get 'facts' from... well the sources vary with some being totally sloppy and the program makers taking it all in equally. I literally sat and watched just counting errors from small to large. I shoulda made a chart. Count half the program as useless due to disinformation rendering other good information into ****. But... I keep it because the film segments of planes are so good to have.


Neal

BigKahuna_GS
06-03-2004, 12:12 AM
S!



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by k5054:
It has now become evident to me that both sides were seriously out-numbered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Seriously, consider local air superiority verus general air superiority. Which is easier to acheive?

Chuck_Older




Well said Chuck --Kahuna

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"

Giganoni
06-03-2004, 12:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:



Seriously, consider local air superiority verus general air superiority. Which is easier to acheive?

Chuck_Older




Well said Chuck --Kahuna

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seriously, consider local air superiority versus general air superiority. Which is more important to achieve?

This message has been brought to you by the good people of the PWBHPWB Organization

People With Brains Helping People Without Brains.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif I'm just having some fun, but obviously the debate is silly, when general air superiority is far more important to winning a war.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
06-03-2004, 01:38 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
Giganoni wrote-Seriously, consider local air superiority versus general air superiority. Which is more important to achieve?
This message has been brought to you by the good people of the PWBHPWB Organization
People With Brains Helping People Without Brains.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
Giganoni wrote--My gripe with the Worship of the P-51D is that when it came into battle it wasn't coming into a "fair fight".
__________________________________________________ __________________________


News Flash---who ever said war was fair ? You fight to win.

But I will dispell a myth for you that when the Mustang showed up it automaticaly had numerical superiority in the combat area. When the germans attacked the bombers, they would mass fighters in one area and enjoy local air superiority. Much like flooding a zone defense in basketball or football--more attackers in one area than there are avaiable defenders.


***I think your question about Air Supremacy was already answered,
you (Giganoni) broke it down to a tactical level and you were provided with the tactical level answer.

This answer provided for those who are totally clueless http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif



"The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of those types obviously exceeded all Bf109 variants in performance, including the 'K'. The Mustang was unmatched in altitude performance, while the Yak-9U was champion in rate of climb and maneuverability."

- Walter Wolfrum (137 victories)


_____

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"

Giganoni
06-03-2004, 03:05 AM
Gee Kahuna again you take my quote out of context. Lets look at the rest of my quote where I say.

"There were less opposition and more importantly the pilots were of a less quality on average than the pilots of the P-51D. Would the Mustang pilots have wanted a fair fight? Of course not."

I never said war should be fair..I said the P-51D came at a time when general air superiority was well into the Allies hands. Therefore I feel it has an inflated reputation. Oh the Germans had aircraft, but what they lacked was the pilots to replace their losses.

By the way.. I never broke anything to the tactical level. I actually was talking about air supremacy at a strategic level. General air superiority is strategic, local is tactical. For example the battle of the Coral Sea can be seen as a tactical defeat for the Allies, based on ships lost, or damage done. However, and more importantly to many people of Austrailia, it was a strategic victory which prevented a sea invasion of Port Moresby.

Regardless if the LW had local air superiority sometimes, it was futile against strategic air superiority.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
06-03-2004, 03:36 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
Giganoni wrote--- I never said war should be fair..I said the P-51D came at a time when general air superiority was well into the Allies hands. Therefore I feel it has an inflated reputation. Oh the Germans had aircraft, but what they lacked was the pilots to replace their losses.
__________________________________________________ __________________________


Giganoni, I completely understand you point and you are completely wrong.

Why dont you try reading USAAF Pilot Bud Anderson's account again from somebody who was actually there:


USAAF Pilot Bud Anderson on P51D Escort Missions:

****It seemed we were always outnumbered. We had more fighters than they did, but what mattered was how many they could put up in one area. They would concentrate in huge numbers, by the hundreds at times. They would assemble way up ahead, pick a section of the bomber formation, and then come in head-on, their guns blazing, sometimes biting the bombers below us before we knew what was happening. *****


Do you see what really matters in numerical superiority ?

Anderson--"but what mattered was how many they could put up in one area."

When your escorting a bomber stream of 1000 B-17s and you have 600 escort fighters they are going to be streched mighty thin trying to cover all possible attack areas. Especially if some of the escorts are doing relay coverage such as P47's that didnt have the range to go all the way to the target.

I'm sure Bud Anderson looked up from his P51 canopy at 300+ german fighters and said, "but we have general air superiority". When the P51 arrived on scene there was still plenty of fight from the Luftwaffe, and the situation you describe of green pilots getting shot down did not occur until way late in the war.



"The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of those types obviously exceeded all Bf109 variants in performance, including the 'K'. The Mustang was unmatched in altitude performance, while the Yak-9U was champion in rate of climb and maneuverability."

- Walter Wolfrum (137 victories)



______

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"

Giganoni
06-03-2004, 05:42 AM
Lets see, how late would Air superiority be attained..Oh Feburary 20 1944 it started.

"The Eighth put up sixteen combat wings, a battle formation comprised of sixty three heavies, a thousand bombers in all, and seventeen fighter groups, most equipped with the P-47 Thunderbolts and P-38 Lightnings whose range had been extended with belly and wing tanks. These had varying combat ranges, but two groups were flying Mustangs and could go most, and soon all, of the distance to target. In addition, the RAF's fighter command threw in sixteen squadrons of Spitfires and Mustangs.(311)"

Well, impressive numbers but of course according to Bud Anderson the germans would throw up hundreds of aircraft in one area so bomber losses were probably high that day. Oh...

" The targets of this immense force were aircraft and ball bearing factories in the Reich most of which were struck at the cost of twenty-five American bombers and four fighters, the bomber lost rate being just 2.5 percent-a far cry indeed from the attacks on Schweinfurt. Fighter-bomber attacks on German airfields were highly effective as well.(311)"

Gee, guess the Germans didn't feel like throwing up hundreds of fighters up against those bombers that day. Or maybe they were just a little bit busy by many fighter-bombers taking out their parked aircraft.

Those attacks were highly successful for in that week of Februrary

"the German fighter force suffered a blow from which it never recovered, losing 600 aircraft and perhaps half that many pilots. The planes were easily replaced but not the men. By March the Luftwaffe was usually avoiding escorted bombers altogether.(312)"

Well, three months into 1944 and Germany is already hurting and losing valuable pilots. That is not "very late in the war". General air superiority was already achieved and

"By this time the problem was no longer how to win the air battle, but how best to use the freedom of action that victory had produced.(312)"

Now, getting close to mid 44, June

"USSTAF then began attacking targets in the Ruhr and around Ploesti in Rumania. These targets were fiercely defended and thus had the virtue, so to speak of putting more pressure on the German fighter force, which was now desperately short of Pilots.(314)"

All above quotes from O'Neill, William L. A Democracy at War: America's Fight at Home & Abroad In World War II. Harvard University Press, 1993. 480.

Now lets look at a semi local semi strategic theater of ops, northern France during D-day.

"On 6 June, against over twelve thousand Allied aircraft, including 5,600 fighters, the 3rd air fleet in northern France could muster only 170 serviceable aircraft.(162)"

above quote taken from Overy, Richard. Why the Allies Won. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1995. 396.

Since the P-51D doesn't really arrive in large numbers until March 1944 they were fighting in a war which air superiority on the whole had already been established with the clean up being in preparation to Overlord. If Bud had to face "300+" fighters on a mission or two, that was his problem because if the Allies lost some, or even a lot of pilots (which sometimes they did) they could afford it, Germany could not. Not even in February 1944 before the P-51D could have a large impact.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Chuck_Older
06-03-2004, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
If Bud had to face "300+" fighters on a mission or two, that was his problem because if the Allies lost some, or even a lot of pilots (which sometimes they did) they could afford it, Germany could not. Not even in February 1944 before the P-51D could have a large impact.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does this mean? Really, it is very confusing. You make it sound like it was Anderson's "fault" this happened. Saying that "it was his problem" lends an air of scorn to your statement, which implies that somehow he deserved it, or that the situation was of his making.

How was it Anderson's problem? You list the reason as:
" because if the Allies lost some, or even a lot of pilots (which sometimes they did) they could afford it, Germany could not. Not even in February 1944 before the P-51D could have a large impact."

That has nothing to do with Anderson's statement that I can see. It is a reason for something else entirely. How can this be a reason that it was somehow Anderson's problem that he faced hundreds of fighters in certain missions? He didn't make that happen...I really am bewildered by this.

Also, the fact that Anderson faced many fighters on certain missions says nothing about the reserve of planes the US had back at base- it is not an indication of total strength at all. Example: If you and I are running opposing airforces and are at war, let's say you have 1000 fighters and I have 10,000. If you fly 20 fighters in a sortie, and I fly 10, and they fight, I am outnumbered: you may have local air superiority. On paper, my forces are stronger. In the air in this encounter, your forces are stronger even though you have 1/10th the forces I have total. This is local vs. general air superiority.

I really can't see your logic, I'm afraid. I am misunderstanding you, or something. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

PzKpfw
06-03-2004, 10:58 AM
Gig's point from this post, & past ones IIRC is that the war in Europe war was over, long before the P-51B/C/D ever saw service, their was no need for strategic bombing or an escort fighter, as the LW was already defeated at the start of 1944, and the P-51 got an undeserved reputation as an fighter because when it took the sky's it had easy pickings, numerical superiority etc.

Basicly any contribution or sacrafice made by US personell, in the ETO was moot, as their was no need for the US to enter the war in the ETO as the Soviets had already defeated Nazi Germany & her satalites.

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

Chuck_Older
06-03-2004, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Gig's point from this post, & past ones IIRC is that the war in Europe war was over, long before the P-51B/C/D ever saw service, their was no need for strategic bombing or an escort fighter, as the LW was already defeated at the start of 1944, and the P-51 got an undeserved reputation as an fighter because when it took the sky's it had easy pickings, numerical superiority etc.

Basicly any contribution or sacrafice made by US personell, in the ETO was moot, as their was no need for the US to enter the war in the ETO as the Soviets had already defeated Nazi Germany & her satalites.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. That is an interesting interpretation of how the war unfolded, to be sure.

If I were to respond to him, if he acknowledged your take on his opinion as correct, I would say that it had been obvious for some time, during 1944, that air power and land power were not only inextricably mixed together, but also that one was not inferior to the other and both needed to have the same importance on the battlefield...a practice which had it's roots in the Spanish Civil War. A war of attrition was the tactic actually used, and to this end, Big Week was born- a battle in the air in which the bombers were not really used for strategic bombing, but rather as bait. A German fighter shot down in the defense of Berlin was a fighter that could not also be strafing and bombing Allied ground troops, or escorting JU-88s at the same time...so the need for bombing missions was there, even if the real aim wasn't to actually destroy ground targets. If all the Allies did was to mount massive fighter sweeps, the Germans could elect not to respond...which they historically did, sometimes, anyway. Strafing an airfield was very dicey, the standard tactic was a single pass. I could then mention names like Kammhuber, Milch, and others, and what they did and how they made things happen...but I might be wasting my breath at that point.

Also again I would make my small blanket analogy, and point out that German production actually went up rather than down.

Then I would ask if he really thought that Hitler would just send a postcard to the Big Three saying "I give up" if the strategic bombing campaign had been abandoned in 1944. I mean, since the war was already lost... Germany blew at least two chances to win WWII, and even after the game was up, they kept on fighting...the joke was, "Enjoy the War, the Peace will be terrible".

I would close my response to him by mentioning that the prefered tactic for surrendering Germans was to surrender to the Americans, since the Soviets French and British had been at war so long, partly because of the German refusal to halt warlike actions...but these are the same People who would just turn turtle and give up in 1944? So basically we could have had Curtiss Owls flying recon over Berlin, and that would have sufficed?

I seriously doubt that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

BigKahuna_GS
06-03-2004, 01:48 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ _____________________
Chuck---Also again I would make my small blanket analogy, and point out that German production actually went up rather than down.

Then I would ask if he really thought that Hitler would just send a postcard to the Big Three saying "I give up" if the strategic bombing campaign had been abandoned in 1944. I mean, since the war was already lost... Germany blew at least two chances to win WWII, and even after the game was up, they kept on fighting...the joke was, "Enjoy the War, the Peace will be terrible".

So basically we could have had Curtiss Owls flying recon over Berlin, and that would have sufficed?_________________________________________ ___________________________________



Well said again Chuck. In a Stienhoff interview he said he knew the war was lost when the US entered WW2.

So why didn't Germany just give up then on December 31st 1941 ?

"sarcasm for those who cant tell"


______

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"

Giganoni
06-03-2004, 02:02 PM
Boy Mr. Waters, really grabbing with my post there.

Do I ever talk about the Mustang B or C in that post? Nope.

Do I ever say the ground war was won? Nope.

Did I say the Air war was won by 1943? No, but you seem to think I said that because according to you I said the "Europe war was over, long before the 51B/C/D ever saw service"

Hmm, never said that. I said beginning in Feburary 1944 and then by April general air superiority was achieved. By June at the latest Germany was scrapping the barrel for pilots.

Did I say the LW gave up? No, I even gave quotes talking about the fierce fighting over the Rhur and Ploesti. However, it is obvious from those sources that When the P-51D came about Air superiority was just being achieved and already the quality of the LW pilots was rapidly degrading.

Chuck, what I said about Bud Anderson is that it was his problem in dealing with it, if he had to face such an amount of fighters (certainly a rare occurence). He says most were going for the bombers anyway and tried to avoid his escort fighters. Also what does it matter? Even if the LW sent up 100 fighters in mid or even late 44 to deal with bombers on one bombing run, it doesn't change the course of the war. In the larger scheme of things those bombers and Bud Andersons escort fighters can afford to take losses, if Germany loses 10 or 20 pilots it hurts them a whole lot more. Thats called winning a war of attrition.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Giganoni
06-03-2004, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:



Also again I would make my small blanket analogy, and point out that German production actually went up rather than down.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course, Speers finally put German economy on a War Front in 43, fixing much of the decentralization, factionalism within the industry and streamlining production. He didn't produce a miracle, he just fixed the problems.

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

Then I would ask if he really thought that Hitler would just send a postcard to the Big Three saying "I give up" if the strategic bombing campaign had been abandoned in 1944. I mean, since the war was already lost...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No Hitler actually felt that Britain and later on America would join him to fight Communism. Also just because Hitler didn't want to give up (He perfered the extinction of the "German race" before surrender), doesn't mean some people in Germany didn't want to. Or are we forgetting the time German officer's put a bomb in Hitler's plane in 43? Or the most famous bomb attempt in 44?

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

I would close my response to him by mentioning that the prefered tactic for surrendering Germans was to surrender to the Americans, since the Soviets French and British had been at war so long, partly because of the German refusal to halt warlike actions...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually any western ally would do. You know why, because the Soviets tended to treat German soldiers how the Germans treated their soldiers, by shooting them or giving them some good hard labor.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Chuck_Older
06-03-2004, 03:32 PM
Gig-

Firstly, bear in mind that my reply was a purely "what if" type of reply, based on whether JW's interpretation of your standpoint was accurate.

Your first reply I cannot argue with much. I would argue a small point to the effect that Milch did a good job at getting what the Luftwaffe needed from German production. I am pointing out German aircraft production, I know I wasn't clear on that, which is my fault.

On the second point, I am not forgetting anything, or rather, "we" have not forgotten the attampts on Hitler's life, both by private citizens and the German military. But I do question the 'fact' that Hitler really beleived that England would join HIM to fight Communism. Now, I do realise that Great Britain was in an atmosphere prior to WWII that could have put them at war with the Soviets. That does not, however, tell me that they would have been allied with Hitler. A stronger, more bitter pill for me to swallow is that Hitler actaully intended the USA to join him. It may have been said and expounded on by Herr Moustache, but he was History's most gifted Liar, remember? Consider: In a rare act of living up to a treaty, Hitler declared war on the US in December, 1941...something that he did not want to do...yet. If Hitler had not done that, the call for attacking Japan immediately would have been answered, US might would not have gone as directly to Europe (although we were in fact fighting an undeclared war at Sea with Germany at the time), and Hitler could have stood off England for a while...maybe even had enough troops to save face from the Italian debacle so that Barbarossa was not delayed? Who knows. But Hitler wanted to have war with the US- he just wanted to pick his own time. Japan attacked, and he actually honored his treaty with them...but yet you argue he thought the US would eventually join him fighting the Soviets. An odd way to treat a potential ally, don't you think? Declaring war on them, which he didn't need to do at the time?

As for your third point, it is general concensus according to any book on WWII I have read that surrendering to the US was preferred. Now you can take that at face value, but my logic on the subject is as follows:

Soviet Union- very very bad to surrender to. The prisoners weren't put to "good hard labor". They were brutalised and starved, and then kept in prison for years past the end of the war. In short: Stalin treated them as badly as some of his own countrymen who displeased him, with the caveat that shooting them would at least have been a kind of mercy. Hitler was no better, but you see my point.

Great Britain- many of the English and Germans considered England and Germany to be almost natural enemies. Plus, Hitler made Chamberlain a toy.

France- humiliating to surrender to

USA- best bet. Internment away from Europe, in a country free from the ravages of war. US GIs state that they liked the Germans better than the French in many cases. Also internment in the US meant an atmosphere less stained than Europe's because nazi depredations were not close to home. No German occupation in the US, so no deep seated resentment, or long memories of nazi occupation. Plus, a potential place to live after the war, where a German name might not be remarked upon very much.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Maple_Tiger
06-03-2004, 04:01 PM
Come now guys, we all know the P-47 won the war.

or was it the C-47?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Ya, it was the C-47, flown by crazy Canadians that won the war.



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

Chuck_Older
06-03-2004, 04:05 PM
Actually I would very much argue that the C-47 allowed many of the victories for the allies in WWII to be acheived. The Liberty ship, the US built duece and a half Cargo truck, and the C-47 were all key, and were just as mighty 'weapons' as an M-1 or .50 machine gun.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Maple_Tiger
06-03-2004, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Actually I would very much argue that the C-47 allowed many of the victories for the allies in WWII to be acheived. The Liberty ship, the US built duece and a half Cargo truck, and the C-47 were all key, and were just as mighty 'weapons' as an M-1 or .50 machine gun.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


and not to mention, that the C-47 could out dive, out roll, out run, and out turn any plane in WW2. This was with a full cargo wheight.

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

Chuck_Older
06-03-2004, 04:43 PM
You're thinking of the C-47N-25MW, the lightweight Skytrain with aileron assist, two rudders, three sets of elevators, GE-90 engines with Methanol injection, and the 12 30mm chaingun nose. Sorry, but it entered service a day after V-J Day http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Giganoni
06-03-2004, 05:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
On the second point, I am not forgetting anything, or rather, "we" have not forgotten the attampts on Hitler's life, both by private citizens and the German military. But I do question the 'fact' that Hitler _really_ beleived that England would join HIM to fight Communism. Now, I do realise that Great Britain was in an atmosphere prior to WWII that could have put them at war with the Soviets. That does not, however, tell me that they would have been allied with Hitler. A stronger, more bitter pill for me to swallow is that Hitler actaully intended the USA to join him. It may have been said and expounded on by Herr Moustache, but he was History's most gifted Liar, remember? Consider: In a rare act of living up to a treaty, Hitler declared war on the US in December, 1941...something that_ he did not want to do...yet._ If Hitler had not done that, the call for attacking Japan immediately would have been answered, US might would not have gone as directly to Europe (although we were in fact fighting an undeclared war at Sea with Germany at the time), and Hitler could have stood off England for a while...maybe even had enough troops to save face from the Italian debacle so that Barbarossa was not delayed? Who knows. But Hitler wanted to have war with the US- he just wanted to pick his own time. Japan attacked, and he actually honored his treaty with them...but yet you argue he thought the US would eventually join him fighting the Soviets. An odd way to treat a potential ally, don't you think? Declaring war on them, which he didn't need to do at the time?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say that Hitler after the failed attempt of BoB always figured he could force GB into some sort treaty and either enlist their support against Russia or at least break their backs. Would they have ever accepted a treaty? Highly doubtful, but this is just Hitler's blind stupidity thinking this.As for the US joining Germany? He did not start thinking that until Germany was well on her way to being defeated. Here.

"'The War isn't lost', he told Speer. 'Roosevelt is dead!' For weeks beforehand Hitler had been repeating the story of Frederick the Great, whose imminent defeat in the Seven Years War was suddenly averted at the last momnet by the death of the Tsarina Elizabeth, and a switch in Russian allegiance. For some months Nazi propaganda had been making much of alleged divisions between the western Allies and the Soviet Union. Hitler and Gobbels were gambling on persuading the west to join Germany in a crusade against Bolshevism. Goebbels hurried back to Berlin from a visit to the front where he heard the news from America. He was convinced that the new President, Truman, unlike the 'Jewish' Roosevelt, feared communism more than Nazism.(280)"

again taken from Richard Overy's Why The Allies Won

Hehe, pretty delusional of Hitler I'd say.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Ironman69
06-05-2004, 04:21 AM
Here's an Article from FLIGHT JOURNAL magazine dated Dec. 1999 regarding a Bf-109G10 vs. a P51D Mustang.
This article was written by Mark Hanna, a respected pilot and vintage WWII fighters owner. This G10 was the famous restored D-FEHD of The Old Flying Machine Co. musuem. Here's an excerpt from the article regarding a dogfight he had with a mustang called Big Beautiful Doll:
"First, let me say that all my comments are based on operations below 10,000ft and at power settings not exceeding 40 inches and 2,600rpm. I like the airplane, and with familiarity, I think it will give most of the Allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard-turning , low-speed dogfight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of fight because the roll rate and slow-speed characteristics are much better. The Spitfire, on the other hand, is more of a problem for the 109, and I feel it is a superior close-in fighter. Having said that, the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot ability would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds, the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept its energy up and refused to dogfight, it would be relatively safe against the 109."

Chuck_Older
06-05-2004, 07:09 AM
The late Mark Hanna was almost certainly the most experienced warbird pilot in the world, and as I have indicated before, I will take his opinion as near Gospel. In this case, I would like to call attention to this:

"First, let me say that all my comments are based on operations below 10,000ft and at power settings not exceeding 40 inches and 2,600rpm"

This is key to all his comments. I am not saying this proves or disproves anything, I just wish to ask that everyone bears it in mind. Mr. Hanna was a remarkably unbiased source of input on these airplanes, a combat vet from the Falklands, and warbird pilot without peer, and I take it without reservation that his observations were precisely right, given the parameters listed, which he was careful to mention.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Blutarski2004
06-05-2004, 11:09 AM
Force ratios must be examined at different levels - strategic, operational, and tactical. At the strategic and operational levels, Germany was hopelessly outnumbered in the air. At the tactical level this was not always the case.

By late 1944 through early 1945, the LW exercised "big wing" tactics, choosing to concentrate a very large number of fighters (50-100) against specific bomber formations, while leaving others to proceed unopposed. Since the Allies were unable to divine which of their bomber formations might receive attention and which would be ignored, they were forced to spread their fighter escort assets. This gave the Germans a high likelihood of achieving tactical superiority in numbers.

The truth of the matter in the actual air was not that forlorn handfuls of German fighters were everywhere opposed by countless numbers of Allied fighters. They tactically concentrated their assets and were often able to achieve numerical superiority against opposing Allied fighter escorts. This is precisely the same technique as was employed by the Wehrmacht on the ground - concentration at the point of attack.

BLUTARSKI

fritzthefox
06-05-2004, 12:54 PM
I think the P-51 is flying OK. I think it's the 109 that needs to be nuetered. So far, since the patch, I've seen it regularly out-turn Spitfires and outrun/outdive Mustangs.

Maple_Tiger
06-05-2004, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fritzthefox:
I think the P-51 is flying OK. I think it's the 109 that needs to be nuetered. So far, since the patch, I've seen it regularly out-turn Spitfires and outrun/outdive Mustangs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



This is normal.

They got what they wanted" Better turning BF109's" and there still not happy. Like i said, this is normal Luft whinning.

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

PzKpfw
06-05-2004, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:


Do I ever talk about the Mustang B or C in that post? Nope. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, in fact re-reading some of your old posts on the P-51 they all seem to be soley on the P-51D, for some reason.

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

Do I ever say the ground war was won? Nope.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Did I say the Air war was won by 1943? No, but you seem to think I said that because according to you I said the "Europe war was over, long before the 51B/C/D ever saw service"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You did not have to say it, your posts strongly
imply it, you have stated in the past, that when P-51D entered service the LW was already defeated etc Ie, :

Originally posted by Giganoni:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In 44/45 when the P51-D came to dominance, the LW was already beaten. 70% of its fighters were already failing to cope with the bombing campaigns of the 8th AF and Bomber Command. Air superiority is everything, and the Allies had it by then. P-51 D was to escort bombers, did that fine, but the pilots it faced were usually outnumbered and had little training. Hardly earns the reputation it has in my mind then. Oh there were exceptions. Jagdverband 44 with Me 262s come to mind. There is a group that had a superior plane, and had good expericence yet I doubt they delayed the fall of Germany for even a day.

The point is that, other than protecting bombers (which some have argued had little impact on the war, but it probably had a decent impact.) the P-51 D was superfluous. It came out at a time when its enemies were already destined to lose. Its a good plane and should be respected for saving the lives of many bomber crews, but it should not be this "God among Men" in the aviation world that some people attribute it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-51B entered service in the ETO in December 1943, P-51B/C were the major P-51 model until after June 1944, yet you never mention these models, only the spam can.

The P-51's contribution to the air war was it allowed the bombers to go anywhere in Germany they wanted establishing AS wherever it appeared.

The LW literly had no where to hide as they had, vs P-38 & P-47s German tactics had to change over night Ie, prior to the arrival of the P-51B, the LW fighters would generaly attempt to wait outside of P-47 escort range, then when the P-47s broke for home, they would attack the bombers unoposed, this kept losses low etc. And this would have continued to have if not for the srrival of the P-51.

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

Hmm, never said that. I said beginning in Feburary 1944 and then by April general air superiority was achieved. By June at the latest Germany was scrapping the barrel for pilots.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes the LW conceded AS in in April 1944, Ie, they stopped oposing every 8th AF incursion into German airspace. Instead they chose to concentrate their forces on defending certian targets Ie, production facilities & oil targets.

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

WWMaxGunz
06-05-2004, 11:56 PM
Whether Germany was destined to lose on one date or another it was not beaten till the
end. Soldiers did not stop dieing in combat till soon afterwards (how soon I dunno).
So I don't think that the US effort was anywhere near moot. With the buildup of troops
in Britain, Germany had to pull more troops from other areas. With the taking of Italy
by Allied forces, Germany had to do the same. With the introduction of US troops to
North Africa... ditto. Yes, must have been moot.

Joe Stalin rightly pushed very hard for the other Allies to open fronts against Germany
even as they were already fighting the Axis. I meant a lot. Rooseveldt and US staff
pushed to attack in West Europe even in 1943 and it took major efforts by the British
to get them to understand that going in with anything less than major forces was a big
mistake. Look at the losses of D-Day and imagine what 1/2 or less that effort would have
achieved. Certainly blood and equipment lost on both sides but also no foothold in France
or Holland. So the ETO didn't open till late in the war if I count start in 9/39.

The US came up with Torch just to open a front and relieve some pressure from Russia as
per promises made to Stalin. I am sure it was very welcome but Stalin really wanted the
action in the ETO ASAP. Russia came very close to being defeated more than once. Had
the Axis not been harried elsewhere, would Russia have been taken or effectively out?

And the bombing campaign ineffective? Would Germany have been less able to support their
war effort had the bombers not attacked? The higher production numbers were because of
the bombers or because production was on a huge increase and the bombing did not stop the
total effect? I think the latter. Maybe something about German materials, fuel and oil
shortages have gotten me confused.

I am sure that in any case a lot of Russian lives were not lost with every effort that
the other Allies made. Could they have made much bigger efforts? Perhaps so if the US
had geared up at least a year before it did but then material support of Russia in the
way of 100's and 100's of tons of metals, fuel, etc would have been less as well. As it
was the Allies could have launched a series of Dieppes or stronger efforts with major
losses and the resulting drain on East Front of German forces might have... well in some
cases and times not noticed and at others disasterous for Germany. Opening up the Med
and esp with the taking of Italy was probably the best way for the US to go.

And really... Germany couldn't meet every bomber attack with huge numbers of fighters so
does that mean they never or even usually could not? John Waters posted numbers of
sorties and they weren't small but even there it can be seen that the total response was
not enough. That is strategic. The other side is tactic. Tactics wins battles and
strategy wins wars, if the tactics are not too badly done.

I don't believe you can judge any plane by kill counts. But I do think that if the P-51's
and pilots had not been at least on a level footing with the opposition then they would
not have come through in the times when they were outnumbered in battle. That is my
answer to the people who call the P-51 a sub-par plane and myth of LW superiority. The
LW did achieve local AS in battles against P-51B's and C's prior to 1944 didn't it?


Neal

JG5_UnKle
06-06-2004, 02:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fritzthefox:
I think the P-51 is flying OK. I think it's the 109 that needs to be nuetered. So far, since the patch, I've seen it regularly out-turn Spitfires and outrun/outdive Mustangs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No you have not - that's complete rubbish.
Check my tracks here : Spit Turns (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/spit_turn.htm)

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

Ugly_Kid
06-06-2004, 04:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fritzthefox:
I think the P-51 is flying OK. I think it's the 109 that needs to be nuetered. So far, since the patch, I've seen it regularly out-turn Spitfires and outrun/outdive Mustangs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is normal.

They got what they wanted" Better turning BF109's" and there still not happy. Like i said, this is normal Luft whinning.

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

That's simply stupid. Popularly whined G-2 has been the same ever since the first patch. If you flew it you might know this. In 1000 m it turns 19.5 s 360? turn which is quite correct. Thx, to well informed posters like this only F has changed with the time, due to an allegation from 1.1b that it outturned I-16 it won't even outturn G-2 anymore - nice fix.

If you have a beef with spitfire or mustang performance, document this and send it to an appropriate email address with a suggestion what should be correct. Nowadays thx to several device link based flight recorders this kind of testing is even quite easy - this will help much more than inflammatory whiney comments like that. If you want to do something good for mustang issue, you should study that particular aircraft and present your case in a proper manner, needling on the adversaries from which you don't know a jack is not going to help you nor the game nor the community.

LuftLuver
06-06-2004, 04:22 AM
Nine pages and going nowhere, carry on. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.petwebsite.com/images/wheel1.jpg

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

Maple_Tiger
06-06-2004, 05:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fritzthefox:
I think the P-51 is flying OK. I think it's the 109 that needs to be nuetered. So far, since the patch, I've seen it regularly out-turn Spitfires and outrun/outdive Mustangs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is normal.

They got what they wanted" Better turning BF109's" and there still not happy. Like i said, this is normal Luft whinning.

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

That's simply stupid. Popularly whined G-2 has been the same ever since the first patch. If you flew it you might know this. In 1000 m it turns 19.5 s 360? turn which is quite correct. Thx, to well informed posters like this only F has changed with the time, due to an allegation from 1.1b that it outturned I-16 it won't even outturn G-2 anymore - nice fix.

If you have a beef with spitfire or mustang performance, document this and send it to an appropriate email address with a suggestion what should be correct. Nowadays thx to several device link based flight recorders this kind of testing is even quite easy - this will help much more than inflammatory whiney comments like that. If you want to do something good for mustang issue, you should study that particular aircraft and present your case in a proper manner, needling on the adversaries from which you don't know a jack is not going to help you nor the game nor the community.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Even if you made the BF109 turn with a Zero and dive like a P-47, the luftwhiners would still be whining.

Only way to make them happy would be to have two versions of FB. One version for the Luft and one for the rest of the community.

I do not realy care if, in the next patch, they reduce the P-51's turning ability. I normaly use the P-51's great anergy fighting ability. I'll still shoot guys down in there BF109's lol.


Who said i have a beef with the P-51 or Spitfire? I like the P-51 and i fly it 50% of the time. I fly the
P-47 and P-38 the rest of the time.

Hey, im not the one whinning about how this plane or that plane is too good or this or that and bla bla bla. If the whinners would lurn to fly, then they wouldn't be here whinning.

I suppose i should get ready for another flame by a Luftwhinner 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.

Ugly_Kid
06-06-2004, 05:27 AM
...yeah sure. Now that's even more vain. Guys flying for LW have been doing it a bit longer against always historically or unhistorically better turning soviet aircraft. To quite a few of us the turning is quite secondary. It is just that the FM change in respect to turning screws up a larger spectrum of performance and some people have spent considerable time testing these things. Still the damn FM changes from patch to patch because of some nitty witty turnburner from icons DF server being unhappy with the opposite fighters and his own inabilities.

Maple_Tiger
06-06-2004, 05:46 AM
Vain?

I was being sarcastic to a point. If you think my posts are bad, mayby you should go back a read from the beginning.

I just about choked on my beer from reading the second post for this thread, written by Magister_Ludi or the famous Huck, the most saught after luftwhiner in UBI history.

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

Chuck_Older
06-06-2004, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The
LW did achieve local AS in battles against P-51B's and C's prior to 1944 didn't it?


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. And not just local. For a short period in '43, it was the Allies who couldn't make local air superiority. Good post, Neal http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


The problem is, no matter how many facts are introduced, folks who beleive that the Mustang is all myth will beleive that no matter what you post. Personally, I beleive this stems from a complete misunderstanding and disillusionment people who have less than a perfect understanding of some written histories about the air war in WWII have. They have, in my opinion, read that the Mustang was the "best plane of WWII", and they made a mistake in assuming that meant that the P-51 was "best at everything in WWII". When they found out it wasn't specifically the best at everything, I feel that a lot of people then turned 180* with their opinions and decided it was a bad plane.

It's so difficult to dissuade them, because to these people, it has been 'proven' by their own logic and findings that the Mustang is not "the best at everything", so the statement that the Mustang was "the best plane in WWII" is a lie, and worse, propaganda or a desire for a certain group of people to be the best.

In actuality, it's because they decided what "the best" meant, before they found out what it really was, and their assumptions cannot live up to reality.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

WWMaxGunz
06-06-2004, 09:46 AM
It certainly wasn't the best at anything. From what I understand it was in the
top runners at many criteria and not bad at anything. Only when the factor of
range is considered do many put it at the top of the 'overall best' list.
Before I knew much about Soviet planes I would have considered the late 190's
as best because I favor firepower more than range and the Doras are also very
good at everything that counts to me. Perhaps best has more to do with personal
likes and yet ***sigh*** some people insist on opinion making reality rather
than the other way around.

Funny but with all the changes and lack of data, I no longer have much of a feel
about Russian warplanes in WWII. It's all become about the sim and whiners instead.
Oleg can fix it, I hope, or cause it to be fixed. Maybe there will be a Great
Patriotic War addon for BoB at some point and no plane by plane adjustments (109F's
no longer outturn 109G-2's because of 190F vs I-16's?) that leave the overall field
scattered and in doubt. And there is a lot of that.


Neal

Zen--
06-06-2004, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The
LW did achieve local AS in battles against P-51B's and C's prior to 1944 didn't it?


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. And not just local. For a short period in '43, it was the Allies who couldn't make local air superiority. Good post, Neal http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


The problem is, no matter how many facts are introduced, folks who beleive that the Mustang is all myth will beleive that no matter what you post. Personally, I beleive this stems from a complete misunderstanding and disillusionment people who have less than a perfect understanding of some written histories about the air war in WWII have. They have, in my opinion, read that the Mustang was the "best plane of WWII", and they made a mistake in assuming that meant that the P-51 was "best at everything in WWII". When they found out it _wasn't_ specifically the best at everything, I feel that a lot of people then turned 180* with their opinions and decided it was a bad plane.

It's so difficult to dissuade them, because to these people, it has been 'proven' by their own logic and findings that the Mustang is not "the best at everything", so the statement that the Mustang was "the best plane in WWII" is a lie, and worse, propaganda or a desire for a certain group of people to be the best.

In actuality, it's because they decided what "the best" meant, before they found out what it really was, and their assumptions cannot live up to reality.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You keep talking common sense like that Chuck, spreading wisdom and truth and all my proganda beliefs are going to come tumbling down!

Then what will I have to believe in? Leave me to my illusions!

(excellent points as always, nice to see someone throw some perspective out there)

-Zen-

Oak_Groove
06-06-2004, 02:14 PM
If several competing thesis about the performance of an aircraft exist, they can't be all true-, but of coarse can be all wrong at the same time. As there is still a scent of mystery surrounding the sources and methods Oleg &Team used to research data for later conversion into the game, all discussion about FM is futile imo, as each and everyone appears to have his own fail-safe sources. As it's unlikely the ingame data has been gathered from a single source or method, the result is a middle of the road FM for a particular A/C, a compromise consisting of hardware-, gameengine- and research limitations.

XP2500 OC'ed 11x200
768MB TWINMOS DDR 400 3-3-2.5-11
A7N8X-D Rev. 2.0/Bios 1.7
SAPPHIRE R9700 Atlantis
2 x IBM IC35040 40GB
Syncmaster 957P
Win XP Pro SP1
DirectX 9.0b
nForce UDP 2.45 w/3.75 Audio
Catalyst 3.7

Giganoni
06-06-2004, 02:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:


Do I ever talk about the Mustang B or C in that post? Nope. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, in fact re-reading some of your old posts on the P-51 they all seem to be soley on the P-51D, for some reason. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because this thread is about the P-51D.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>By Giganoni
Did I say the Air war was won by 1943? No, but you seem to think I said that because according to you I said the "Europe war was over, long before the 51B/C/D ever saw service"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> By PzKpfw

You did not have to say it, your posts strongly
imply it, you have stated in the past, that when P-51D entered service the LW was already defeated etc Ie, :

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I did, as far as general air superiority was concerned over most of western europe the LW was. You also say it too

Here is what I said

"Hmm, never said that. I said beginning in Feburary 1944 and then by April general air superiority was achieved. By June at the latest Germany was scrapping the barrel for pilots."

And you said
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Yes the LW conceded AS in in April 1944, Ie, they stopped oposing every 8th AF incursion into German airspace. Instead they chose to concentrate their forces on defending certian targets Ie, production facilities & oil targets.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and you also said

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

The P-51B entered service in the ETO in December 1943, P-51B/C were the major P-51 model until after June 1944.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you don't consider the P-51D the major mustang till after June 44? Well thats after april when you say the LW gave up AS. Although my sources that I posted say the LW gave up with bombers as early as March. What matters is that I posted my sources showing that before June AS was achieved (before you say the Mustang D was the major model in action) and you criticize me for saying that yet in the same post you agree with me.

The P51D is obviously the best prop long range escort fighter ever to be built in large numbers (P-51H in small numbers). There were obviously times even when AS was well achieved that the LW would outnumber the P-51Ds on a certain engagement (although much of the evidence on this thread talks about the LW mainly focusing on bombers). However, my sources have shown that AS was already achieved just as the P-51D was coming in large numbers and that the LW was short on experienced or well trained pilots. Are those not advantages for the brave pilots of the P51D?

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

heywooood
06-06-2004, 03:19 PM
I guess you must always think of a thing in context. The P51D was good at doing what it was designed to do... escort bombers at high altitude over long distances. It was adapted to ground attack after the Luftwaffe had been decimated. The earlier P51 variants were unsuitable at higher altitudes whilts they were engined with Allison V12's, so they were used in ground attack roles primarily.

As a T&B airplane, the P51 was not the best.. but it could manoever well enough to bring guns to bear in the B&Z tactic. That being said, many many American fighter pilots have claimed that it was very responsive, powerful, and highly manoeverable in all flight regimes.
We have, in this country been spoonfed only that it was the best fighter plane of WWII period. It is only National pride and the indesputable fact that the Allies won the conflict that allows these things to go unchallenged for the most part, in this country.
But, to get past this claim and really look at all of the fighter planes of the era is to begin to look at context. We in the States naturally love the Pony, we owe much to the men that learned to fight in it to its best advantage, but the layman only believes in the P51 as being the best fighter plane because the layman hasn't LOOKED for himself and understood all of the nuances and various TYPES of fighter planes and their various roles. Only after careful consideration can you begin to make distinctions within the catagory of 'fighter plane'. So lets all be friends and toast to them all, Yaks, Spits, Hurri's, Mustangs, Jugs, Fw190's, Me109's, Mitsubishis' Kawasakis' etc.... and especially to the young men who flew them. Desperately struggling against the odds in a horrific environment day in and day out in a terrible war.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/3tbm_avenger.jpg
Goin'fishin'

lrrp22
06-06-2004, 03:59 PM
*Excellent* post, Chuck!! I think you nailed it...

The Mustang's somewhat overblown reputation as the end-all and be-all of piston-engined fighters has led to a backlash that has swung the pendulum to the opposite extreme.

It may well have been the best production prop fighter of the war- *if* it was, it was by the skin off its teeth. On the same token, if it *wasn't* then it was right there with whatever was.

My opinion is that several late war fighters were so close that none can be awarded the 'Best Fighter' title. That is, until you factor in range! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The
LW did achieve local AS in battles against P-51B's and C's prior to 1944 didn't it?


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. And not just local. For a short period in '43, it was the Allies who couldn't make local air superiority. Good post, Neal http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


The problem is, no matter how many facts are introduced, folks who beleive that the Mustang is all myth will beleive that no matter what you post. Personally, I beleive this stems from a complete misunderstanding and disillusionment people who have less than a perfect understanding of some written histories about the air war in WWII have. They have, in my opinion, read that the Mustang was the "best plane of WWII", and they made a mistake in assuming that meant that the P-51 was "best at everything in WWII". When they found out it _wasn't_ specifically the best at everything, I feel that a lot of people then turned 180* with their opinions and decided it was a bad plane.

It's so difficult to dissuade them, because to these people, it has been 'proven' by their own logic and findings that the Mustang is not "the best at everything", so the statement that the Mustang was "the best plane in WWII" is a lie, and worse, propaganda or a desire for a certain group of people to be the best.

In actuality, it's because they decided what "the best" meant, before they found out what it really was, and their assumptions cannot live up to reality.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaron_GT
06-06-2004, 04:16 PM
The P51 was one of the best prop planes in WW2, but there were others that were competitive with it, and it wasn't master of every situation. But it was a superb all round performer, with excellent range flown by well provided for and well trained crews with good tactics. With all those things combined it was unbeatable.

If the war had carried on and jets had not been invented we might well have seen the P51 go on to greater things with the battle for best fighter being between the Tempest/Fury, 190D/Ta152, and Mustang lines. But this was not to be.

Maple_Tiger
06-06-2004, 07:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The
LW did achieve local AS in battles against P-51B's and C's prior to 1944 didn't it?


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. And not just local. For a short period in '43, it was the Allies who couldn't make local air superiority. Good post, Neal http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


The problem is, no matter how many facts are introduced, folks who beleive that the Mustang is all myth will beleive that no matter what you post. Personally, I beleive this stems from a complete misunderstanding and disillusionment people who have less than a perfect understanding of some written histories about the air war in WWII have. They have, in my opinion, read that the Mustang was the "best plane of WWII", and they made a mistake in assuming that meant that the P-51 was "best at everything in WWII". When they found out it _wasn't_ specifically the best at everything, I feel that a lot of people then turned 180* with their opinions and decided it was a bad plane.

It's so difficult to dissuade them, because to these people, it has been 'proven' by their own logic and findings that the Mustang is not "the best at everything", so the statement that the Mustang was "the best plane in WWII" is a lie, and worse, propaganda or a desire for a certain group of people to be the best.

In actuality, it's because they decided what "the best" meant, before they found out what it really was, and their assumptions cannot live up to reality.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You keep talking common sense like that Chuck, spreading wisdom and truth and all my proganda beliefs are going to come tumbling down!

Then what will I have to believe in? Leave me to my illusions!

(excellent points as always, nice to see someone throw some perspective out there)

-Zen-
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I agree with. There are some who beleave the P-51 was the best plane in WW2, and that it won the war. Most of us know that is a joke.

Then you have some poeple who beleave that the P-51 was not a very good plane at all.

The peformace specs and some pilot acounts basicaly say, in my opinion, that the P-51 was a good aircraft, not the best.

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

PzKpfw
06-07-2004, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:

[quote]
So you don't consider the P-51D the major mustang till after June 44? Well thats after april when you say the LW gave up AS. Although my sources that I posted say the LW gave up with bombers as early as March. What matters is that I posted my sources showing that before June AS was achieved (before you say the Mustang D was the major model in action) and you criticize me for saying that yet in the same post you agree with me.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Their were no P-51Ds recieved by 8th AF FGs till June 1944*, when 4 FG's:, 4th, 339th, 352nd, & 361st recieved P-51Ds. By July 1944 6 more FGs recieved P-51Ds:, 20th, 55th, 355th, 357th, 359th & 364th. The 479th recieved P-51Ds in Sept, 335th in Oct, & 356th in Nov. P-51B/C did the majority of the work thru D-day.

*See: Scutts Jerry. Mustang Aces of the Eighth Air Force. pp. 29-30

The P-47 FGs did the lions share of establishing A/S but the arrival of the P-51 was the nail in the coffin. If you look at the claims after the P-51s arrival you see the P-51 FGs start claiming more & more of the arial victories, while P-47 claims go down.

In April when most concede A/S was established, 8th AF fighter claims were 825 enemy AC* with with P-51B's claiming 75% of the claims filed. 163 US fighters were lost to E/A in this time period, includeing 67 P-51. the 8th AF was loseing 1, P-51 per 100 escort sorties vs 3, P-51 per 100 strafeing sorties vs airfields.

*See: Ibid. p.25

Where we dont agree on is the importance of the P-51 & the immidiate effect it had on the air war over Europe.

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
06-07-2004, 09:00 AM
Caution- pedantic nit-picking follows...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hey John,

Actually, the 352nd and 354th FG's had been flying a handfull of P-51D's on missions as early as 28 May and likely before.*

Also Tommy Hayes, CO of the 357th FG's 364th FS, flew a P-51D on D-Day.

*'Mission 376' Ivo de Jong, Hikoki Pubs.

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


Their were no P-51Ds recieved by 8th AF FGs till June 1944*, when 4 FG's:, 4th, 339th, 352nd, & 361st recieved P-51Ds. By July 1944 6 more FGs recieved P-51Ds:, 20th, 55th, 355th, 357th, 359th & 364th. The 479th recieved P-51Ds in Sept, 335th in Oct, & 356th in Nov. P-51B/C did the majority of the work thru D-day.

*See: Scutts Jerry. _Mustang Aces of the Eighth Air Force._ pp. 29-30

The P-47 FGs did the lions share of establishing A/S but the arrival of the P-51 was the nail in the coffin. If you look at the claims after the P-51s arrival you see the P-51 FGs start claiming more & more of the arial victories, while P-47 claims go down.

In April when most concede A/S was established, 8th AF fighter claims were 825 enemy AC* with with P-51B's claiming 75% of the claims filed. 163 US fighters were lost to E/A in this time period, includeing 67 P-51. the 8th AF was loseing 1, P-51 per 100 escort sorties vs 3, P-51 per 100 strafeing sorties vs airfields.

*See: Ibid. p.25

Where we dont agree on is the importance of the P-51 & the immidiate effect it had on the air war over Europe.

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
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

crazyivan1970
06-07-2004, 10:51 AM
I wonder, what are we talking about here? Still lack of performance? Post patch pony is fenomenal in all areas, so why is this topic is still around http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Kwiatos
06-07-2004, 12:13 PM
Maby beacuse to not create new topic how P-51 is overmodelled in FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PzKpfw
06-07-2004, 10:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Caution- pedantic nit-picking follows...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hey John,

Actually, the 352nd and 354th FG's had been flying a handfull of P-51D's on missions as early as 28 May and likely before.*

Also Tommy Hayes, CO of the 357th FG's 364th FS, flew a P-51D on D-Day.

*'Mission 376' Ivo de Jong, Hikoki Pubs.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi lrrp http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Concerning Normandy initialy even allowing for an odd P-51D http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. P-51B were the main P-51 model well into june, Ie,*:

D-Day, and all the missions flown in its immiediate wake, were handled by the P-51B, along with P-47s and P-38s.

*See: Scutts Jerry. Mustang Aces of the Eighth Air Force. p.30

I cant find any data on P-51D introduction dates other then what I gave from Scutts, as listed last post. He makes no mention of the 352nd recieving or converting to Ds until June 1944. He does go on to say the FGs did fly mixed formations of B/D later on.

Concerning the 354th Scutts did not list the P-51D conversion as they were removed from 8th AF FC, and assigned to Weylands XIX TAC, 100th Fighter Wing: on June 13, 1944. Eisenhower took his now famous July 4th, St. Lo tour in an 354th P-51B 2 seat conversion, escorted by the 356th FS in a mixed gaggle of P-51B/D.

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

CV8_Dudeness
06-07-2004, 10:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Even if you made the BF109 turn with a Zero and dive like a P-47, the luftwhiners would still be whining.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


same for the american plane fans pal

they got a rediculously overmoddeled fantastic turning Pony with awesome fifty cals & look what happens


a new thread at ORR about how undermoddelled it is

seems to me its low alt performance was boosted sky high at the expense of high alt domination

when will the myth of the mustang ever be broken if games keep having unbelieveable ponys in them

lrrp22
06-07-2004, 11:01 PM
What myth? Do you mean the revisionist myth that wants us to believe that Mustang was nothing more than a clumsy gas truck whose only advantage was range and sheer numbers?

Yeah, I agree. By all means, lets break that myth...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CV8_Dudeness:

same for the american plane fans pal

they got a rediculously overmoddeled fantastic turning Pony with awesome fifty cals & look what happens


a new thread at ORR about how undermoddelled it is

seems to me its low alt performance was boosted sky high at the expense of high alt domination

when will the myth of the mustang ever be broken if games keep having unbelieveable ponys in them<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

csThor
06-07-2004, 11:08 PM
lrrp22 - If you leave the tactical environment out of the equation you'll get falsified results. The P51 was the right plane for the job it had to do, but if the tactical environment had been a different one (say low-alt tactical war vs VVS Il-2 [a drastic example]) it might have not been as successfull as in the escort role.

______________________________

<A HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=csThor" TARGET=_blank>
http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg </A>

csThor's skins @ Il2skins.com

Tetrapharmakoi
06-08-2004, 12:24 AM
P-51 is overmodelled in handling at low speed turns and i seriously doubt that it climbed like it does in the game , but the myth and the US whining on ORR for months have given their results ...
While we have a BF 109 K4 who turns in 32 seconds at 7500 m badly undermodelled in high speed (Kurfurst sent a post to IL2beta.ru but Oleg said it was a Joy driver problem while everybody can experiment this bug) , let's hope oleg will accept that it is buggy and will fix it in the future .

JG5_UnKle
06-08-2004, 01:38 AM
Well said Tetrapharmakoi, the P-51 in FB 2.01 is a laugh a minute http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif and turns better than a Spit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

We fly all the allied and VVS kit in our squad (who wouldn't? know thy enemy and all that) so we carefully examine the opposition. I quite liked the original Mustang when it first came out as it was a handful to fly but a great energy fighter.

Now unfortunately many of the aircraft seem to have been dumbed down http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif for the masses.

At the end of the day, ask yourself this old hoary chestnut of a question:
If the FM is correct - why does it change sop much http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

WWMaxGunz
06-08-2004, 02:08 AM
It changes in turns because of people whining their favorite plane don't turn well
enough. And funny thing is, that favorite plane is the FW's almost every time. So
all the planes turn a bit easier with new FM change that lets the FW's turn better.
This was true in IL2, it was more evident in FB1.0 (and look what the change there
did to climbs across the board) and it's happen again.

I don't remember a big cry for P-51's to turn better, not like the many FW turn
threads I have seen. There's also the 109 turn threads which at times I've seen it
argued directly that 109's should outturn Spitfires on very flimsy, if-so must-be
grounds.

Yes there is US whiners. And VVS whiners, fewer on this board but if I could read
Russian I am sure I could find a bunch somewhere. But I still see the biggest pack
of experten coming with LW stamped all over themselves.

Only ask 1C to check the turning. They have data they are matching. All sides
should ask if something is right, not say and demand changes -- and then some come
back around and say changes prove wrongness!

Right now there is people saying the 109K turns too slow. 1C provided tracks with
turns in the right time to show it can be done but everyone who cannot match that,
which is most everyone does not ask if they are doing something wrong but only that
the model is wrong because they can't get it right. So maybe another change and all
the planes turn easier so that anyone can turn the K to match 24 seconds at 6km alt.
And that will prove the FM's are screwy because for sure it will screw up the FM's.

F-ing babies wants more sugar and now it's all too sweet! Thanks whining babies!

P-51 should not be able to outturn a P-40 in P-40 combat speed or less. If that is
a garbage truck then someone is flying the P-51 too slow and should fly turn fight
planes instead.

All planes seem to climb too well. Thank you whining babies.

I wish Oleg would take all FM's back to original IL2 1.0 basis and screw whiners.


Neal

Fehler
06-08-2004, 03:35 AM
Neal, Cmon man give me a break.

The number one whine thread of all time was about the P-38's guns and the 50 cals.

No one cried about the FW turnrate. At least no legitimate person. They just wondered why the thing stalled in sustained turns way above stall speeds, yet the famous laminar winged pony never suffers the same effect that is was prone to.

The only sustained "Luftwhiner" thread I have ever read here about a 190 has been about the forward visibility.

"Luftwhiner". The term itself is catchy, it has a certain jingle to it, but it has been over-used and quite frankly, is very boring now.

190 crybabies, what a joke. What in the 190 makes it such a great bird for any layman to fly? Give me a list please... The only thing I can come up with is that it is fast and has fairly impressive firepower. But if you touch the joystick, or try shooting at a P-38 or P-63, both of those advantages are soon dismissed. I promise you I know this plane in the game better than you do, and I can tell you that dogfighting in it is not easy. It is perhaps the hardest Axis plane to fly. One mistake and you are dead meat. Oh, it's not the target drone it once was in the original IL2, but I would love to know why you think it has been noobie-fied by popular demand.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

KGr.HH-Sunburst
06-08-2004, 04:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It changes in turns because of people whining their favorite plane don't turn well
enough. And funny thing is, that favorite plane is the FW's almost every time. So
all the planes turn a bit easier with new FM change that lets the FW's turn better.
This was true in IL2, it was more evident in FB1.0 (and look what the change there
did to climbs across the board) and it's happen again.

I don't remember a big cry for P-51's to turn better, not like the many FW turn
threads I have seen. There's also the 109 turn threads which at times I've seen it
argued directly that 109's should outturn Spitfires on very flimsy, if-so must-be
grounds.

Yes there is US whiners. And VVS whiners, fewer on this board but if I could read
Russian I am sure I could find a bunch somewhere. But I still see the biggest pack
of experten coming with LW stamped all over themselves.

Only ask 1C to check the turning. They have data they are matching. All sides
should ask if something is right, not say and demand changes -- and then some come
back around and say changes prove wrongness!

Right now there is people saying the 109K turns too slow. 1C provided tracks with
turns in the right time to show it can be done but everyone who cannot match that,
which is most everyone does not ask if they are doing something wrong but only that
the model is wrong because they can't get it right. So maybe another change and all
the planes turn easier so that anyone can turn the K to match 24 seconds at 6km alt.
And that will prove the FM's are screwy because for sure it will screw up the FM's.

F-ing babies wants more sugar and now it's all too sweet! Thanks whining babies!

P-51 should not be able to outturn a P-40 in P-40 combat speed or less. If that is
a garbage truck then someone is flying the P-51 too slow and should fly turn fight
planes instead.

All planes seem to climb too well. Thank you whining babies.

I wish Oleg would take all FM's back to original IL2 1.0 basis and screw whiners.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


blame the luftwhiner
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

provide me 1 thread with a huge amount of serieus luftwhining wich doesnt makes sence

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sigp51-D9.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

Maple_Tiger
06-08-2004, 04:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Well said Tetrapharmakoi, the P-51 in FB 2.01 is a laugh a minute http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif and turns better than a Spit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

We fly all the allied and VVS kit in our squad (who wouldn't? know thy enemy and all that) so we carefully examine the opposition. I quite liked the original Mustang when it first came out as it was a handful to fly but a great energy fighter.

Now unfortunately many of the aircraft seem to have been dumbed down http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif for the masses.

At the end of the day, ask yourself this old hoary chestnut of a question:
If the FM is correct - why does it change sop much http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)



Actually, all planes turn better in 2.01. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The BF109 seems to have gotten the bigest boost in turn rate.


Even if you Luftwhiners whined for Jet engines for the BF, you would still be here whining. If you guys can't fly what you have now, then there is no hope for ya 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.

WUAF_Badsight
06-08-2004, 05:04 AM
you are kidding arnt you Mapel Tiger ?

i mean that pot is a joke right ?

first the Mustang gets boosted will way overmoddeled performance then this thread pops up ...........

i mean this whole thread is a joke so that post must be one too ......

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG5_UnKle
06-08-2004, 05:13 AM
He must be joking...... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

JG5_UnKle
06-08-2004, 05:14 AM
Oh and check the G-2

19.5 seconds turn rate, hasn't changed since FB v1, so I guess he is joking http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

KGr.HH-Sunburst
06-08-2004, 07:19 AM
No maple tiger is our number one amiwhiner and he makes post like that all the time
so he isnt joking


hes just depressed he get his a$$ handed somany times online http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sigp51-D9.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

[This message was edited by Sunburst-97th on Tue June 08 2004 at 08:18 AM.]

JG5_UnKle
06-08-2004, 08:36 AM
LOL Sunburst......

I was trying to avoid saying all that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

lrrp22
06-08-2004, 09:01 AM
If the Mustang in FB now turns as well as the Spit IX, which I doubt, then you have certain members of the Luftwaffe crowd to thank for it.

Those 'members' instigated a campaign (apparently a successful one) to insure that the late 109G's turned as well as the Mk IX. Why aren't you complaining about that little inconsistancy?

The only thing that the 'Ameriwhiners' have complained about, myself included, is the Mustang's undermodeled low atltitude speeds. v2.01 has addressed this to a point- the P-51D's sea level speed is now within range of actual speeds for the lower boost settings. The P-51C is still much too slow. The P-51B with the V-1650-3 engine is just about right at sea level.

The climbing issue is a non-starter. At 25% fuel the Mustang should easily climb at ~4000 ft/min. Besides, most aircraft in-game climb too well, the K-4 being one of the more egregious examples.


All the Mustang hating in the world isn't going to change the fact that a historically modeled P-51 is going to be an extremely effective fighter in nearly all flight regimes.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tetrapharmakoi:
P-51 is overmodelled in handling at low speed turns and i seriously doubt that it climbed like it does in the game , but the myth and the US whining on ORR for months have given their results ...
While we have a BF 109 K4 who turns in 32 seconds at 7500 m badly undermodelled in high speed (Kurfurst sent a post to IL2beta.ru but Oleg said it was a Joy driver problem while everybody can experiment this bug) , let's hope oleg will accept that it is buggy and will fix it in the future .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JG5_UnKle
06-08-2004, 09:13 AM
Cobblers....


How can so-called luftwhiners (idiot phrase btw my friend) have anything to do with the FM of a new aircraft?

Quit with the luftwhining BS, the Mustang is overmodelled in low speed turns and if you can't be bothered to test it yourself then don't post about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

[This message was edited by JG5_UnKle on Tue June 08 2004 at 09:49 AM.]

KGr.HH-Sunburst
06-08-2004, 09:29 AM
im telling you all ,no one else did it except the luftwhiners its all their fault http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

No allied pilot will ever whine and is never wrong and they got always good data to back it up *cough* Irrp22 *cough* http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

allieds should pwns anything cus they won the war http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sigp51-D9.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

JG5_UnKle
06-08-2004, 09:56 AM
Aaah that explains it, he's one of those http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif no point having a discussion then http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm one of the "Luftwhiners" that actually asked for a reduction in climbrates amongst other things. I don't understand how people take sides on this? Unless you are on your own with some sort of nationalistic agenda? Last time I checked we were playing a computer game..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

Stanger_361st
06-08-2004, 10:11 AM
Only thing good out of this thread are the different smileys. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/354.gif

lrrp22
06-08-2004, 10:13 AM
There's plenty of whining coming from both sides but I am not exactly sure what your complaint is. Is it just low-speed turning or is it the Mustang's competitiveness in general?

You say the Mustang turns too well at low speed, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

My experience is that at low speed with combat and even take-off flaps the Mustang will hold a fairly tight turn but that the handling is *very* touchy with a hard stall occuring at the slightest misstep. Sounds about right to me.

Do you have proof that this is incorrect? Are you disputing the use of flaps in the turn? Can you show me a single account that indicates a Mustang pilot was afraid to turn with a 109? I've read hundreds that indicate full confidence in the Mustang's ability to turn with any 109.

Should a P-51 turn with or outturn a Spitfire IX? Definitely not until speeds approach 400 mph indicated.

Should a 109G/K outturn a Spit IX? Not under any co-energy circumstances.

By the way, which data would you like 'backed-up'?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sunburst-97th:
im telling you all ,no one else did it except the luftwhiners its all their fault http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

No allied pilot will ever whine and is never wrong and they got always good data to back it up *cough* Irrp22 *cough* http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

allieds should pwns anything cus they won the war http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sigp51-D9.jpg
_''All your Mustangs are belong to us''_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NorrisMcWhirter
06-08-2004, 10:26 AM
Hi,

I can't believe the LW pilots do the most whining remark..By far the most posts in this place are about some US plane not fitting some data that someone dug up from somewhere and has passed off as being correct. Let's face it, victors write history and they don't always make a decent job of it.

Most annoying of all, though, is when some US aircraft doesn't match the anecdotal evidence taken from some biased historical channel chaff; this causes people to really go beserk.

The comment that the game has been dumbed down for the masses is what I've been hinting at all along....especially as there seems to have been a big push for a certain market (mentioning no names) with the introduction of certain aircraft. I hope this doesn't go the way of many niche products (which are extremely good purely because they are delivered into a niche market) converted into some jelly-headed mass-market consumer fest.

It's enough to make you go back to the original Il-2! Oh, I already did - thanks to the host in the Il-2 server last night..!

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

Bewolf
06-08-2004, 10:29 AM
Interesting thread.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Chuck_Older
06-08-2004, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Cobblers....

Take a P-51 and try it, when you finish laughing come back here and post <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are starting to troll, it seems to me. You could make your points just as effectively without the jabs, I should think, if you gave reasons other than "try it, it's a joke".

Since this has become a purely online-play commentary on the P-51's performance, let me ask you this: have you ever considered that FB is not an online only game?

In offline play, enemy planes as completely AI, and have a simplified flight model.

It has been stated time and again that weapon efficiency, for example, is sometimes different online and offline. How come nobody ever compares on- and off-line performance for an aircraft, and whether or not it seems suitable against AI, but not against HI?
It is very interesting to me that it is just accepted that some things might be screwy online, but flight modelling is assumed to be an absolute, and uneffected by circumstances that effect any other aspect of the game online. I also wonder very much just what is the percentage of players
who only consider their statements based on the online aspects of play. It seems to be about 50-75% to me. Have you considered that the very reason the P-51 seems like a 'joke' to you is
1) you clearly have an issue with the subject of it's performance, right or wrong, it seems to be your pet peeve
and
2) if the flight model were 'undermodelled' to the point at which it is 'correct' to suit your taste, that the offline playability of the aircraft would suffer? Or is the FB flight model so perfect this cannot be a concern?

Now before you label me an Ameriwhiner, I ask you to find one post by me that complains that any American aircraft is undermodelled. My whole point is that you are a less than impartial party in this context, not that the P-51 is over- or under-modelled.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

JG5_UnKle
06-08-2004, 10:47 AM
Fair enough - shouldn't let people annoy me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The P-51 is not really my pet peeve, just idiot posters, and I let that get the better of me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif I really enjoyed the P-51 at first in FB and (as I like energy fighters) found that it performed well when used correctly.

The current FM is completely different with it's rock solid stability and excellent low speed handling to the point where it outshines the 109 and spit at low speed. No problem at high speed - the P-51 should really come into its own - but not neccesarily at low speed where high AoA doesn't really suit the design.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

JG5_UnKle
06-08-2004, 10:54 AM
As for offline testing I do a fair bit, but more like climb and speed tests. Fighting AI isn't my favoutite passtime and for testing I like to fly against human opponents that I can talk to.

Flying with a squad mate on voice comms makes a big difference. You can swap a/c afterwards and complete a really thorough analysis by fighting each other.

So yes I'm biased towards online fighting, but no I wouldn't call you an "Amiwhiner" - no more than I like to be labelled a "Luftwhiner" both terms are little more than insults and border (imho) on breaking the board rules.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

PzKpfw
06-08-2004, 10:55 AM
Actualy Neal is right, I remember those Fw 190 threads & they were huge. Oleg responded all thru them, on why the Fw 190 model was the way it was.

Recently their was another campaign to have the Bf 109K outturn the Spitfire IX, etc. Concerning the .50 dispersion from reading that thread their does appear to be a model problem & its not just with the .50 IMHO.

As for the P-51 it is always going to cause controversey because its American, it'
s performance record is very, good, & some ppl need to find excuses for that success, rather then admit it was a great WW2 fighter, with areas it was not the best in, just like anyother WW2 fighter.

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 Tue June 08 2004 at 10:05 AM.]

Aaron_GT
06-08-2004, 10:59 AM
"If the Mustang in FB now turns as well as the Spit IX, which I doubt, then you have certain members of the Luftwaffe crowd to thank for it."

Easily tested.

Two pilots, two planes, online. Swap the planes again and again, note the results.

However I am bemused as how the P51 possibly turning more tightly is the fault of the LW wanting the 190 to turn more tightly. If the planes have been globally made to turn more tightly, then you would expect the Spit IX to also turn more tightly and the relative turns (Spit IX outturning the P51) to be preserved.

JG5_UnKle
06-08-2004, 11:12 AM
OK Here we go :
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/spitstangturn.gif

Now this was taken from IL-2 compare so it cannot be taken literally, but if anyone wants a track I will happily make one. There is a discussion about Spit vs 109 turnrates over on SimHQ qhich is going a similar way.

Many people seem to think that the 109 is out-turning the spit but it is actually just bleeding more e and turning inside - gaining angles. Sustained turns for Spits are better than 109's.

Problem is, Mustang is even better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

crazyivan1970
06-08-2004, 11:44 AM
I think this thread is going to its end.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

lrrp22
06-08-2004, 11:58 AM
Who, me? I never called you a Luftwhiner and I also agree that climb rates should be reduced.

But, to this point I've seen the issue of the Mustang's climb rate raised repeatedly while the 109K' extremely over-modeled climb rate is passed without comment.

I find it interesting that you've decided to focus on my posts. Please, let me know which data points you believe are not legitimate.

It appears to me that you are far more of a Luftwaffe partisan than I am biased to the U.S. side. You seem to want to discredit information that has been very well documented many times on this site with regard to USAAF/RAF boost levels yet are chomping at the bit to implement 109 boost levels that were implemented only in the last weeks of the war and were extremely rare even then.

I have no problem with the 109K-4 recieving a boost to 1.98 ata/2000 HP. If that change is made then I think it is more than reasonable to assume that FB's Mustang's and Spitfires should recieve increased boost as well.

After all, unless you are being completely obtuse it should be obvious that +18 lb boost currently modeled for the Spitifre and Mustang does not represent the kind of aircraft that the late 109's and 190's were facing in the skies of Northern Europe. By the beginning of '45 the were dozens and dozens of squadrons flying hundreds and hundreds of Mustangs and Spitfires at +25 lb boost. VIIIth Fighter Command had fourteen Mustang groups of more than 100 planes each by Jan '45, all flying at 72" MAP on 150 octane fuel. You seem to have a problem with that.

On the other hand you, seem to have no problem with upgrading the 109K to a boost level that was implemented on a few dozen airframes, at most, for no more than 6-8 weeks at best. Still, I don't have problem that. What I do have a problem with fighting clouds of 1.98 ata K-4's on HyperLobby while having nothing but 67"/+18 lb boosted Spitfires and Mustangs to counter them.


If you, like Huckebein/Magister_Ludi, want to ignore the weight of evidence verifying these power settings for Allied aircraft, while fixating on a rare and exceptional power setting for the K-4 then, by all means, have at it. However, if that *is* your position then I would be wary of tossing around the 'Whiner' epithet.

BTW, I am fully onboard with the campaign to correct the FW-190's forward view and overrall twitchiness as well as the A-9's climb rate. I was also glad to see the increased hitting power of Luftwaffe weapons.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Aaah that explains it, he's one of those http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif no point having a discussion then http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm one of the "Luftwhiners" that actually asked for a reduction in climbrates amongst other things. I don't understand how people take sides on this? Unless you are on your own with some sort of nationalistic agenda? Last time I checked we were playing a computer game..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
06-08-2004, 12:02 PM
Aaron,

I don't believe that the others were made to turn tighter, I believe that the Spit IX's turning ability is somewhat neutered thanks to the campaign of a certain Luftwaffe enthusiast.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"If the Mustang in FB now turns as well as the Spit IX, which I doubt, then you have certain members of the Luftwaffe crowd to thank for it."

Easily tested.

Two pilots, two planes, online. Swap the planes again and again, note the results.

However I am bemused as how the P51 possibly turning more tightly is the fault of the LW wanting the 190 to turn more tightly. If the planes have been globally made to turn more tightly, then you would expect the Spit IX to also turn more tightly and the relative turns (Spit IX outturning the P51) to be preserved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
06-08-2004, 12:26 PM
JG5_Unkle,

If your 'idiot poster' comment was directed at me then I think you need to take a very large step back and reread the various posts in this thread.

What have I posted that strikes you as idiotic? If you peruse this and other threads you will find that my claims have been thouroughly backed-up by myself and others. So far I have seen virtually nothing from you that could be counted as 'proof' of anything.

With regards to the low-speed handling of the Mustang- you may or may not be right. My experience seems to be different than yours. I find that with the use of flaps the Mustang does turn pretty well at lower speeds *IF* you are very careful.

If you want to discuss this issue reasonably then I am more than happy to do so. As I have stated in the past, I am open to the possibility that the Mustang's low-speed handling may be too good. Still I don't think it should be nearly as bad as some here seem to believe.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Fair enough - shouldn't let people annoy me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The P-51 is not really my pet peeve, just idiot posters, and I let that get the better of me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif I really enjoyed the P-51 at first in FB and (as I like energy fighters) found that it performed well when used correctly.

The current FM is completely different with it's rock solid stability and excellent low speed handling to the point where it outshines the 109 and spit at low speed. No problem at high speed - the P-51 should really come into its own - but not neccesarily at low speed where high AoA doesn't really suit the design.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jippo01
06-08-2004, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Aaron,

I don't believe that the others were made to turn tighter, I believe that the Spit IX's turning ability is somewhat neutered thanks to the campaign of a certain Luftwaffe enthusiast.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are a fool if you think FM's are made based on these discussions. Especially so if you think they are based on one person's opinion in these discussions. I don't think you really mean what you say.

I suggest we all get back on topic of P-51 and forget about 190's, 109's, IX's, etc... I haven't much knowledge on P-51 performance, and I would like to learn. Now there is talk about climb and turn performance of P-51 being overmodelled. Is it possible that the knowledgeable people who have studied P-51 performance would post the best confirmed figures they have on P-51 performance in these areas. Then we can test it in same conditions in game and see what happens. If you post your best figures, and P-51 performs above those specs it is overmodelled, if not then not.

I think that should make a good ending to this discussion. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

lrrp22
06-08-2004, 12:32 PM
If this is correct then something needs to be done. Is that 100% fuel for both?

Either the Mustang is turning too well at lower speeds or the Spitfire is not turning well enough.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
OK Here we go :
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/spitstangturn.gif

Now this was taken from IL-2 compare so it cannot be taken literally, but if anyone wants a track I will happily make one. There is a discussion about Spit vs 109 turnrates over on SimHQ qhich is going a similar way.

Many people seem to think that the 109 is out-turning the spit but it is actually just bleeding more e and turning inside - gaining angles. Sustained turns for Spits are better than 109's.

Problem is, Mustang is even better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
06-08-2004, 12:39 PM
Jippo,

I don't think these discussions really affect the FM but I think that certain data presented without context could.

I'm not sure were you fall on this, but I simply don't believe that Mustangs or later 109's should be turning with the Spitfire IX, period. One way or another though, it appears that this is the case in 2.01.

FB's Yak-3's and La-7's shouldn't dive and zoom climb with 109's, 190's, Mustangs and Thunderbolts either- but they do...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Aaron,

I don't believe that the others were made to turn tighter, I believe that the Spit IX's turning ability is somewhat neutered thanks to the campaign of a certain Luftwaffe enthusiast.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are a fool if you think FM's are made based on these discussions. Especially so if you think they are based on one person's opinion in these discussions. I don't think you really mean what you say.

I suggest we all get back on topic of P-51 and forget about 190's, 109's, IX's, etc... I haven't much knowledge on P-51 performance, and I would like to learn. Now there is talk about climb and turn performance of P-51 being overmodelled. Is it possible that the knowledgeable people who have studied P-51 performance would post the best confirmed figures they have on P-51 performance in these areas. Then we can test it in same conditions in game and see what happens. If you post your best figures, and P-51 performs above those specs it is overmodelled, if not then not.

I think that should make a good ending to this discussion. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
http://www.ju88.de.tf&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://www.ju88.de.tf<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)

Jippo01
06-08-2004, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Jippo,

I don't think these discussions really affect the FM but I think that certain data presented without context could.

I'm not sure were you fall on this, but I simply don't believe that Mustangs or later 109's should be turning with the Spitfire IX, period. One way or another though, it appears that this is the case in 2.01.

FB's Yak-3's and La-7's shouldn't dive and zoom climb with 109's, 190's, Mustangs and Thunderbolts either- but they do...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So are you saying that P-51 is overmodelled, and exceeds specifications, but that is ok because all planes do? Do I read you right?

I think it is important to get the performance right nevermind how the competition performs. At least if you know some plane is correct , it gives a solid set of reference to judge the others. I would like to mention 109 G-2 which matches the specs pretty damn perfect (and I'm very happy about that). Now it is quite nice to see how other planes perform in relation to it.

All planes should be as accurate as G-2, and why not start with the P-51? What was the real performance?


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

lrrp22
06-08-2004, 01:09 PM
Jippo,

If the P-51 is out-turning the Spitfire IX at all but the highest speeds and the Spitfire's turn is modeled correctly, then the P-51's turn is certainly overmodeled.

As far as climb, the P-51 should have an initial climb rate of ~3500 ft/min at 67" WEP and 100% fuel. However, these numbers represent the Mustang's worst possible configuration, save adding drop tanks.

At 25% fuel the Mustang loses a tremendous 1210 pounds of weight yet still has more than enough fuel for any online mission.

Besides that, 67" manifold pressure WEP is simply not representative of the vast majority of real-world ETO Mustangs.

The thought of an 1840 to 2020 HP Mustang at well under 9000 lbs weight seems to raise the ire of a large number of people on this board. It just doesn't fit their comforting image of a high-altitude only, lethargic gastruck.

That doesn't change the fact that such a Mustang is very historically relevant, far more so than a 10,100 pound P-51D running 67" WEP vs K-4's running at 1.98, or even 1.8, ata.


I think you will agree that FB's G-2 is modeled to what can only be considered 'best-case', but still generally accurate numbers. I don't think that that kind of FM should be limited to Luftwaffe, VVS and Japanese planes exclusively.

In short, I don't think that the resistance we see here to increased boost for RAF and USAAF planes is based on a desire for historically accurate modeling. If that was the case, I think there has been overwhelming evidence to support it. I think it is based on some notions that are very deeply held by some here that go beyond simple flight modeling.

One of those notions is that the P-51 should be easy prey for any late-war Luftwaffe fighter, regardless of what empirical data and historical context tell us. Certain people are going to cling to that notion no matter what.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Jippo,

I don't think these discussions really affect the FM but I think that certain data presented without context could.

I'm not sure were you fall on this, but I simply don't believe that Mustangs or later 109's should be turning with the Spitfire IX, period. One way or another though, it appears that this is the case in 2.01.

FB's Yak-3's and La-7's shouldn't dive and zoom climb with 109's, 190's, Mustangs and Thunderbolts either- but they do...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So are you saying that P-51 is overmodelled, and exceeds specifications, but that is ok because all planes do? Do I read you right?

I think it is important to get the performance right nevermind how the competition performs. At least if you know some plane is correct , it gives a solid set of reference to judge the others. I would like to mention 109 G-2 which matches the specs pretty damn perfect (and I'm very happy about that). Now it is quite nice to see how other planes perform in relation to it.

All planes should be as accurate as G-2, and why not start with the P-51? What was the real performance?


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
http://www.ju88.de.tf&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://www.ju88.de.tf<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Tue June 08 2004 at 01:00 PM.]

KGr.HH-Sunburst
06-08-2004, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
There's plenty of whining coming from both sides but I am not exactly sure what your complaint is. Is it just low-speed turning or is it the Mustang's competitiveness in general?

You say the Mustang turns too well at low speed, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

My experience is that at low speed with combat and even take-off flaps the Mustang will hold a fairly tight turn but that the handling is *very* touchy with a hard stall occuring at the slightest misstep. Sounds about right to me.

Do you have proof that this is incorrect? Are you disputing the use of flaps in the turn? Can you show me a single account that indicates a Mustang pilot was afraid to turn with a 109? I've read hundreds that indicate full confidence in the Mustang's ability to turn with any 109.

Should a P-51 turn with or outturn a Spitfire IX? Definitely not until speeds approach 400 mph indicated.

Should a 109G/K outturn a Spit IX? Not under any co-energy circumstances.

By the way, which data would you like 'backed-up'?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sunburst-97th:
im telling you all ,no one else did it except the luftwhiners its all their fault http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No Irrp i think you dont understand me

im just getting a little sick of all the Amiwhine fanboys who are looking for a confrontation with the luftguys
like maple tiger hes a good example and the original whine poster

yes im a luftguy but that doesnt make me a luftwhiner infact i love the P47 and fly it alot
and not in any of my replys you'll see me saying that the spit/P51 and all others are over/undermoddeld
i dont know enough about RL a/c performance so ill keep it shut but i will give my opinion about a certain aircraft
and yes the P51 is outturning the spit and 109G6 and up but im not saying its wrong or overmodeld

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sigp51-D9.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

lrrp22
06-08-2004, 02:23 PM
I am passionate about the aircraft of both sides.

My perspective is that there was an amazing level of parity in the West when the war ended, with tactical advantage and pilot skill being the deciding factor in virtually every engagement. I think my perspective is shared by most Allied and Luftwaffe fans alike.

However, there does appears to be a large number of Luftwaffe fans here that don't see things that way. Many seem firmly wedded to the belief that the Luftwaffe was defeated by nothing more than numerical superiority, and that in a 'fair' fight USAAF fighters should be meat on the table for the Luftwaffe's valiant Knights of the Sky in their viceless Teutonic wunder-machinen. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Personnally, I think I am as frustrated by the Fw 190's ridiculous forward view as I am with the fact that USAAF and RAF fighters are limited to +18 lb boost. Actually, my biggest gripe is with the seemingly porked dive and zoom modeling. This is a co-equal problem for both the USAAF and the Luftwaffe.

BTW, I find your SIG to be kind of ironic. 'Lou IV' was shot down by flak during August of '44 while JG26's 'Black 8' was shot down by Mustangs of the 339th FG in March of '45. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sunburst-97th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
There's plenty of whining coming from both sides but I am not exactly sure what your complaint is. Is it just low-speed turning or is it the Mustang's competitiveness in general?

You say the Mustang turns too well at low speed, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

My experience is that at low speed with combat and even take-off flaps the Mustang will hold a fairly tight turn but that the handling is *very* touchy with a hard stall occuring at the slightest misstep. Sounds about right to me.

Do you have proof that this is incorrect? Are you disputing the use of flaps in the turn? Can you show me a single account that indicates a Mustang pilot was afraid to turn with a 109? I've read hundreds that indicate full confidence in the Mustang's ability to turn with any 109.

Should a P-51 turn with or outturn a Spitfire IX? Definitely not until speeds approach 400 mph indicated.

Should a 109G/K outturn a Spit IX? Not under any co-energy circumstances.

By the way, which data would you like 'backed-up'?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sunburst-97th:
im telling you all ,no one else did it except the luftwhiners its all their fault http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No Irrp i think you dont understand me

im just getting a little sick of all the Amiwhine fanboys who are looking for a confrontation with the luftguys
like maple tiger hes a good example and the original whine poster

yes im a luftguy but that doesnt make me a luftwhiner infact i love the P47 and fly it alot
and not in any of my replys you'll see me saying that the spit/P51 and all others are over/undermoddeld
i dont know enough about RL a/c performance so ill keep it shut but i will give my opinion about a certain aircraft
and yes the P51 is outturning the spit and 109G6 and up but im not saying its wrong or overmodeld

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sigp51-D9.jpg
_''All your Mustangs are belong to us''_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Tue June 08 2004 at 01:35 PM.]

Maple_Tiger
06-08-2004, 02:32 PM
If you where to actualy read the read me, then you might notice... that there was no FM improvment for the P-51. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Infact, all planes seem to turn a little better.

Then you have people saying stuf like this...

Qout:
WUAF_Badsight...
first the Mustang gets boosted will way overmoddeled performance then this thread pops up ...........


Of course, there are other Luftwhiners that seemed to have forgotten to read the read me file.

an no i was no kidding 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.

KGr.HH-Sunburst
06-08-2004, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW, I find your SIG to be kind of ironic. 'Lou IV' was shot down by flak during August of '44 while JG26's 'Black 8' was shot down by Mustangs of the 339th FG in March of '45. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL heheh i didnt know that
my historical knowledge is undermodeld http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
but i liked the skins so thats why

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sigp51-D9.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

Maple_Tiger
06-08-2004, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sunburst-97th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
There's plenty of whining coming from both sides but I am not exactly sure what your complaint is. Is it just low-speed turning or is it the Mustang's competitiveness in general?

You say the Mustang turns too well at low speed, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

My experience is that at low speed with combat and even take-off flaps the Mustang will hold a fairly tight turn but that the handling is *very* touchy with a hard stall occuring at the slightest misstep. Sounds about right to me.

Do you have proof that this is incorrect? Are you disputing the use of flaps in the turn? Can you show me a single account that indicates a Mustang pilot was afraid to turn with a 109? I've read hundreds that indicate full confidence in the Mustang's ability to turn with any 109.

Should a P-51 turn with or outturn a Spitfire IX? Definitely not until speeds approach 400 mph indicated.

Should a 109G/K outturn a Spit IX? Not under any co-energy circumstances.

By the way, which data would you like 'backed-up'?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sunburst-97th:
im telling you all ,no one else did it except the luftwhiners its all their fault http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No Irrp i think you dont understand me

im just getting a little sick of all the Amiwhine fanboys who are looking for a confrontation with the luftguys
like maple tiger hes a good example and the original whine poster

yes im a luftguy but that doesnt make me a luftwhiner infact i love the P47 and fly it alot
and not in any of my replys you'll see me saying that the spit/P51 and all others are over/undermoddeld
i dont know enough about RL a/c performance so ill keep it shut but i will give my opinion about a certain aircraft
and yes the P51 is outturning the spit and 109G6 and up but im not saying its wrong or overmodeld

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sigp51-D9.jpg
_''All your Mustangs are belong to us''_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Quoute:

No Irrp i think you dont understand me

im just getting a little sick of all the Amiwhine fanboys who are looking for a confrontation with the luftguys
like maple tiger hes a good example and the original whine poster.


That makes alot of sence. Look at who is doing all the whining? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Only thing i don't like about the FB AEP so far is the Wing coming off the P-51. I think i made a comment about that last week.

I guess im a Mager Amiwhiner http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif lol



I engoy the game. I'm just getting tired of all the pointless whining.

If some of you would lurn to fly before you post, then there would be less whiner threads.


Any way, i leave you guys alone. I have more improtant things to do, like shooten German planes down. 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.

FA_Maddog
06-08-2004, 04:05 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Quit with the luftwhining BS, the Mustang is overmodelled in low speed turns and if you can't be bothered to test it yourself then don't post about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

Hey JG5_UnKle,

How about your squad coming to the Fallen Angels server on HL this weekend and we will do some "testing".

Your squad fly the P-51 and our squad will fly the Bf-109. Low level under 1000m with no B & Z ing just turning dogfight. Lets see how good you are in the P-51. Then we can set up a game with us flying the Spitfire and you flying the P-51. You 97th boys can be getting ready too.

BTW here is our web site, contact us to set it up. http://www.fallenangels.dynu.com/

[This message was edited by FA_Maddog on Tue June 08 2004 at 03:27 PM.]

Chuck_Older
06-08-2004, 04:08 PM
Ivan-

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I hope this thread doesn't annoy you too much, because there is some (In my opinion) good information being swapped around, and the folks who are disagreeing are tending to act like adults

Sunburst-

Colonel Thomas Christian named his Mustangs after his daughter, Lou Christain. Odd name, eh? I don't know that story http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. But he never got to see his daughter.

Colonel Christain was shot down on August 12, 1944, after a strafing attack. Personally, his story interested me because I was born on August 12 1971, and my favorite aircraft model as a child was the P-51D named "Detroit Miss", coded E2*D, a plane that was in Col. Christain's sqaudron.

In 1988, the site of the 361st fighter group's field in Bottisham was developed into housing. A road there is named Thomas Christian Way (he was the CO and highly regarded as possible General material). His daughter, now Lou Christain Wilson Fleming went to the dedication, and a P-51D marked as "Lou IV" made a low flyby during the ceremony.

Pretty good story, all based on one of the planes in your sig http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I don't know Black 8's story, maybe someone else does?

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

KGr.HH-Sunburst
06-08-2004, 04:25 PM
chuck thanks for the story http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

its nice to know more about the background of my own hand made sig http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Black 8 anyone ?

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sigp51-D9.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

LuftLuver
06-08-2004, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
All planes should be as accurate as G-2, and why not start with the P-51? What was the real performance?

-jippo
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unbelievably pathetic and typical luftwhiner. If we are going to be this transparent sir, then why not start with correcting the follow-up 109G and K models. Seems logical now, doesn't it? Make them fly like actual aircraft instead of U-turn pivoting, insta-power chopping klownwagons. Finishing up this series once we have corrected the overblown K4 climb.

Now, we can get started on the US Pursuit aircraft. First make the P38 into some kind of fighter instead of a disguised Bf110. Compressability at 500 meters? Laughable. Continue to follow this logic and we come to the P47. Again, it was a fighter so let's make it one. Following through we get to the P51. Sure, make it accurate. Give it the real boost and octane it commonly had in 44-45. Be sure.

Round it out and make the Spitfire out-turn the 109s, and we got ourselves a SIM. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

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

crazyivan1970
06-08-2004, 04:53 PM
LuftLuver.
This thread is not bothering me at all, but posts like yours do. You know why? I hate labels and i don`t really like people giving labels to other people. Besides, complaining about allied aircraft after last patch is just lame. They are as deadly as they could be in the right hands. There is an issue with Spitfire - some models of it, which will be corrected... but that just that. Everything else is great, not perfect but great. You`v been given great virtual war machines and at this point... it`s a pilot, really http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Aaron_GT
06-08-2004, 04:57 PM
"First make the P38 into some kind of fighter instead of a disguised Bf110."

I fly allied 95% of the time and have been flying the P38 quite a bit. Trying the 110 I found it handled like a truck compared to the P38. The 110 is moderately ok when slow, and then the gunner helps. At speed it's good for straight lines and verticals only. The P38 is far more manoeverable. The potential heavy cannon armament of the 110 does allow it to BnZ.

lrrp: I understand what you mean now - maybe the Spit IX was neutered, but it must have happened in beta. Whichever (or both) is wrong needs to be adjusted as the key is to get planes as close to real life performance as possible within the limits of the sim engine.

WUAF_Badsight
06-08-2004, 10:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
If you where to actualy read the read me, then you might notice... that there was no FM improvment for the P-51. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Infact, all planes seem to turn a little better.

Then you have people saying stuf like this...

Of course, there are other Luftwhiners that seemed to have forgotten to read the read me file.

an no i was not kidding http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes mapel ..... you are trying to kidd us

there are a ton of changes made in FB that are not in the read-me

do you think we are stupid enough to believe your statement

the Mustang has been Drastically changed

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
06-08-2004, 11:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:

Besides that, 67" manifold pressure WEP is simply not representative of the vast majority of real-world ETO Mustangs.

The thought of an 1840 to 2020 HP Mustang <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the D mustang had LESS than 1600 Hp

you keep on about feild mod mustangs .... even the H model which isnt in FB

but the Mustang in FB is Factory standard ....... ....Like ALL German planes

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Matz0r
06-09-2004, 12:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>First make the P38 into some kind of fighter instead of a disguised Bf110.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to in-game data, the P38 weigh more and has less horse powers than the Bf110g2. After you fly both in the game this statement becomes even more funny http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/fw3.jpg

JG5_UnKle
06-09-2004, 12:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If your 'idiot poster' comment was directed at me then I think you need to take a very large step back and reread the various posts in this thread. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really I was thinking of a couple of other people who have made asshats of themselves in this thread. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

This is getting boring now anyway, all I said was that I felt the turn rate of the P-51 was overmodelled, and posted a lovely chart to show what I meant. Didn't mean to ruffle anyones feathers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif so I will leave it at that.

I suppose I shouldn't post here if the responses are going to bug me, crazyivan is right and this thread is going south. There is too much conflict over here (compared to SimHQ) and you have to wade through BS to get to the good stuff which is a shame.

The chart was from IL2C v2.4 and AFAIK is for 100% fuel with turns at 1000M.

WRT The 109 out-turning the spit, well, it doesn't, if you want some tracks to view then take a look here : Spit vs 109 turn (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/spit_turn.htm)

So apologies if I annoyed anyone or caused upset, remember its a game and have fun everyone S!

[This message was edited by JG5_UnKle on Tue June 08 2004 at 11:56 PM.]

PzKpfw
06-09-2004, 01:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:

the D mustang had LESS than 1600 Hp

you keep on about feild mod mustangs .... even the H model which isnt in FB

but the Mustang in FB is Factory standard ....... ...._Like ALL German planes_

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


P-51D/K *:

Take Off @ 61"hg:

1490hp @ 3000rpm @ SL: 2 Stage.2 Speed

Normal Power @ 46"hg:
1180hp @ 2700rpm @ 11,300ft @ Low Blower
1065hp @ 2700rpm @ 23,400ft @ High Blower

MILITARY POWER @ 61"hg:
1590hp @ 3000rpm @ 8,500ft @ Low Blower
1370hp @ 3000rpm @ 21,400ft @ High Blower

COMBAT POWER @ 67"hg:
1720hp @ 3000rpm @ 6,250ft @ Low Blower
1505hp @ 3000rpm @ 19,250ft @ High Blower


*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand. p.325

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

Flydutch
06-09-2004, 02:30 AM
Most comments here are dealing with performance on paper!

Real life is not papersheet facts!

The P-51 is claimed to be the best fighter of WWII

By whom?

Maby the Americans who after winning WWII became the country to dictate other countries beside former Ally Russia?
I think the Russians would claim the Yak to be the best WWII aircaft and from their viewpoint they are 'right'!

The Brits will be right to claim the Spitfire to be the best aircraft,Their Aircraft (Tough in fact the ugly step child the Hurricane won the BoB!)

And the Ungainly predescecor to the good looking Mustang the P-47 shot down more enemy a/c and was much tougher and better at doing the job that was needed atthe end of the war:
Shooting up ground targets keeping the heads of the retreating Germans down, killing their suplielines and pin the remaining Luftwaffe to the ground!
When the P-51 became ruler of the skies the P-47 had cleaned the air before it!
The chance of meeting a enemy a/c was so small that only the most gifted and fast pilots where able to build up some kill marks, and most of those kill marks would be Introcdunated, untrained, Hitler Youths!

By letting the vetrans fly untill they died the Luftwaffe build up high scoring indivuduals, good for propaganda but it does not train the next generation!
The USAAF used to turn experienced pilots into usefull instructors, it turned out to be the lasting method don't you think!

Any way the truth is far from papersheet facts to me at least!
To claim such and such a/c to be 'best' is very incomplete

Was the P-51 the best long range Piston-escort fighter? probaly Yes!

Was it the best dogfighter?
I would not dog fight the much lighter and better turning Zero, Me109, Yak, Lavv 7, Gladiator or a Spitfire unless i am playing a pc game!

Wasn't it the highest scorers from the AAF who flew the P-38?

Wasn't the most aces in the US Navy who flew the Hellcat?

By the way I love fliying the P-51 with the K-14 deflection reflector sight you can shootdown planes from long distances with this device!



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CPS_Shimano:
Oleg, please explain to me how the P-51 which was and still is a superb aircraft, has managed to degrade in performance in FB with each patch and release. If it was over modeled to start with, then naturally we would all want it as realistic as possible. But tell me how a 109
(any 109) flies, handles and performs better than the P-51 which blew it into extinction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maple_Tiger
06-09-2004, 04:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
If you where to actualy read the read me, then you might notice... that there was no FM improvment for the P-51. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Infact, all planes seem to turn a little better.

Then you have people saying stuf like this...

Of course, there are other Luftwhiners that seemed to have forgotten to read the read me file.

an no i was not kidding http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes mapel ..... you are trying to kidd us

there are a ton of changes made in FB that are not in the read-me

do you think we are stupid enough to believe your statement

the Mustang has been _Drastically_ changed

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



All planes turn a little.

But the P-51 was drastically changed? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Sorry, but i drastcally disagree.

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

Maple_Tiger
06-09-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:

Besides that, 67" manifold pressure WEP is simply not representative of the vast majority of real-world ETO Mustangs.

The thought of an 1840 to 2020 HP Mustang <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the D mustang had LESS than 1600 Hp

you keep on about feild mod mustangs .... even the H model which isnt in FB

but the Mustang in FB is Factory standard ....... ...._Like ALL German planes_

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Lol,

with WEP it has like 1649 HP, some sights even Qoute 1720 HP.

Like this sight here:

http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/p51specs.shtml


1490 HP Normal Take off. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

1720 HP War Emergency. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Don't even start with the H.

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

WWMaxGunz
06-09-2004, 05:27 AM
S! Fehler!

You were here 2 years ago, weren't you? The inabilty to turn the 190's was a constant
complaint of many posters. It got thrown in regularly even when OT. The most often
'evidence' was that 190's stayed to fight with Spitfires in the Channel fights with the
'I can't believe' comments as the other big mainstay and of course the 'technical
discussions' that never had any actual direct turn data.

If you remember then go back a bit, load IL2 original and fly the 190A-4, 109F-2, LaGG-3,
P-39 and Yak-3, all with attention to ease of turning and sharpest turn before tip stalls.
Then patch to 1.2 and try the same. If you can't say it is easier for all then just stop.
Otherwise go back to FB and try once more.

I really liked the original FM most. I didn't expect the 190 to turn with almost anything.
It was hard to turn and I needed finesse to get the most out of it, but I did get it to
chenge direction without much trouble as long as I never pushed for more than it should
have done. I didn't let it get slow, under 300kph, except at the top of wingover or when
there was no enemies around. I didn't flat dogfight. And I did see piles of comments
that any move would bleed speed, etc, while I was able to keep speed up with it easily by
not pushing it past the edge unnoticing everything but the speed. It was great as it was
and once you knew what it could do and should not then the tactics set themselves up and
were historic for the plane. But people B&M'd long and loud, we got the changes in patches
clear through to 1.2 and with 1.2 it was ==easier== to turn every plane which included the
190's but IMHO the already easy turners nudged into arcade-land. I would not have flown
the patch except for the many other good changes and the extra planes.

I keep seeing the flying made easier for all in general. I don't believe that harder is
always better but the trend I've seen is not really good. The original flight was to me
the best feel and the most real, the takeoffs and landings made me work and feel closer
to real than any other desktop sim I've played. Not saying the sim has gone arcade but I
feel that it has been watered down a good bit.

Yeah I know about the 190 view threads. I participated. I still feel the bar is too much
in the way and I base that entirely on in game data of the angle made by the reticle (10m
wide at 200m range has a definite angle), where the bar blocks off the view (just over 2.5
degrees down from center) and Olegs words that German data says 3.3 and he gives over 4.
It will not change. All I say is that was my point and I understand the view as an issue,
it does not change how much ease of turn was discussed or just cried about.

I believe that almost all of the planes are too --easy-- to turn. That's not the same as
how well they can be turned but just that bank and yank alone should not get results and
in many cases does. Too many cases for my liking. IMO the sim has been made easier for
more sales when the answer should have been a realism toggle that let us keep the sharper
edge possible. But that is just me.

And the Mustang? Yes too easy and maybe too good. That clipped wing Spit may be under-
modelled and if so then a poor compare. Was clipped wing normal for the Spits we get the
data about great turners? Clipped wings says not gonna turn as well to me, but I am not
an AE. Even so, I doubt very much the Mustang should at all speeds even come near the
Spit on turns even with low fuel. I wish I knew just how close it shouldn't.


Neal

alarmer
06-09-2004, 05:28 AM
Can you be anymore troll than mapple?

Answer = NO

LuftLuver
06-09-2004, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you Ivan. I will repent and change my life. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

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

dadada1
06-09-2004, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:

Besides that, 67" manifold pressure WEP is simply not representative of the vast majority of real-world ETO Mustangs.

The thought of an 1840 to 2020 HP Mustang <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the D mustang had LESS than 1600 Hp

you keep on about feild mod mustangs .... even the H model which isnt in FB

but the Mustang in FB is Factory standard ....... ...._Like ALL German planes_

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Lol,

with WEP it has like 1649 HP, some sights even Qoute 1720 HP.

Like this sight here:

http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/p51specs.shtml


1490 HP Normal Take off. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

1720 HP War Emergency. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Don't even start with the H.

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

Its on the internet so it must be gospel! I trust very little of in terms of stats from the net, there's no guarantee of the accuracy of the authors research, or the credibility of the author.

Jippo01
06-09-2004, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
All planes should be as accurate as G-2, and why not start with the P-51? What was the real performance?

-jippo
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unbelievably pathetic and typical luftwhiner. If we are going to be this transparent sir, then why not start with correcting the follow-up 109G and K models. Seems logical now, doesn't it? Make them fly like actual aircraft instead of U-turn pivoting, insta-power chopping klownwagons. Finishing up this series once we have corrected the overblown K4 climb.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pathetical luftwhuiner is something I find quite offensive, so please don't use it again when you are talking to me if you want to have a conversation.

I can talk about 109 G-2 being representative because I have quite a few pages of G-2 flight tests(copies from originals) here in my archives. I don't have any of that material about G-10, G-14 and K's, so I don't make any claims about them. And because of this I'm a "Luftwhiner"???

Term reasonable comes to my mind instead of whiner. Don't make a fool out of yourself. You don't know me nor what do I think. Any way, stop the name calling.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Jippo01
06-09-2004, 12:27 PM
Can somebody post some P-51 test documents so we can run few tests?


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

BBB_Hyperion
06-10-2004, 03:17 AM
I have only same Datas.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/p51.jpg
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/p51D.jpg

This one was posted here a while ago. As you see its not from the Plane from FB(can only be a indication).
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/p51g.jpg

Regards,
Hyperion

BBB_Hyperion
06-10-2004, 03:44 AM
Have found a naca divetest where a p51b was tested for max dive speed WITHOUT PROP to calculate drag values Mach 0.755 was obtained.It was towed to a Test alt of 28000 feet. Mach 0.710 0.730 0.755 before each test the surface was cleaned up. The differences on the top dives came from dust that was catched on takeoff on the laminar wings.

Wind Tunnel tests did show 0.8 Mach and higher with a 1/3 scale Model.

NACA ACR No 4k02

Regards,
Hyperion

Takata_
06-11-2004, 05:11 AM
I won't go into any FM debate.

However that may be, I'm very pleased with in game P-51 overall performance...

S~
Takata