PDA

View Full Version : P-51D-5NT Performance.



Maple_Tiger
02-20-2004, 11:36 AM
The issue's i have with this plane is its top speeds.

I know Oleg said that he would use the best data when it came to its FM. Did he?

Specifications:

Wheights:

Empty. 7,635
Normal Take off. 10,100

Max. Gross Weight. 12,100

Powerplant:

Packard V-1650-7

CID: 1649
Normal T.O. HP: 1490
War Emergency HP: 1720


Ok wate, i just found some new info very cool.

Her is a link:
http://www.geocities.com/copeab/Vehicles/P51D_Mustang.htm

Fuel: 269 gallons aviation gasoline (fire chance: 14) in 3 self-sealing fuel tanks (85 gallons body, 92 gallons each wing), 4.5 hours endurance (1640 miles @80% top speed)

Does this mean it could reach 437mph at altitude=7600m with 80% fuel?

How fast could it go with only 25% fuel.



Ok, before i go. This is not an arguing thread.

I do not want to see peopls opions.

What i do want to see is some new info. So i need some of you guys to help me out with data and links. please , thanks.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Maple_Tiger
02-20-2004, 11:36 AM
The issue's i have with this plane is its top speeds.

I know Oleg said that he would use the best data when it came to its FM. Did he?

Specifications:

Wheights:

Empty. 7,635
Normal Take off. 10,100

Max. Gross Weight. 12,100

Powerplant:

Packard V-1650-7

CID: 1649
Normal T.O. HP: 1490
War Emergency HP: 1720


Ok wate, i just found some new info very cool.

Her is a link:
http://www.geocities.com/copeab/Vehicles/P51D_Mustang.htm

Fuel: 269 gallons aviation gasoline (fire chance: 14) in 3 self-sealing fuel tanks (85 gallons body, 92 gallons each wing), 4.5 hours endurance (1640 miles @80% top speed)

Does this mean it could reach 437mph at altitude=7600m with 80% fuel?

How fast could it go with only 25% fuel.



Ok, before i go. This is not an arguing thread.

I do not want to see peopls opions.

What i do want to see is some new info. So i need some of you guys to help me out with data and links. please , thanks.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

CARBONFREEZE
02-20-2004, 11:52 AM
The information we need is the conditions used for the test (fuel, engine settings, radiator settings, climb speeds) to duplicate an accurate test to compare FB to the results.

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

If guns are responsible for crime, my keyboard must be responsible for my spelling!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

http://www.pbase.com/image/25987401/medium.jpg
P-38 "Little Butch" Shemya, Alaska

MandMs
02-20-2004, 12:13 PM
America's 100,000 should have the info. Maybe someone is willing to post some data.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



I eat the red ones last.

lrrp22
02-20-2004, 12:15 PM
"Does this mean it could reach 437mph at altitude=7600m with 80% fuel?"

No, this means that flying at 80% of its top speed (350 mph), the Mustang had 1640 miles range and 4.5 hours endurance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
The issue's i have with this plane is its top speeds.

I know Oleg said that he would use the best data when it came to its FM. Did he?

Specifications:

Wheights:

Empty. 7,635
Normal Take off. 10,100

Max. Gross Weight. 12,100

Powerplant:

Packard V-1650-7

CID: 1649
Normal T.O. HP: 1490
War Emergency HP: 1720


Ok wate, i just found some new info very cool.

Her is a link:
http://www.geocities.com/copeab/Vehicles/P51D_Mustang.htm

Fuel: 269 gallons aviation gasoline (fire chance: 14) in 3 self-sealing fuel tanks (85 gallons body, 92 gallons each wing), 4.5 hours endurance (1640 miles @80% top speed)

Does this mean it could reach 437mph at altitude=7600m with 80% fuel?

How fast could it go with only 25% fuel.



Ok, before i go. This is not an arguing thread.

I do not want to see peopls opions.

What i do want to see is some new info. So i need some of you guys to help me out with data and links. please , thanks.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maple_Tiger
02-20-2004, 12:30 PM
Your right Irrp22

Thanks for opening my eyes lol.


Hey Thanks MandMs, i
Im very pleased that you want to help out. I will go to America's 100,000 and read and read and read. Ill post a link to this sight also.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Maple_Tiger
02-20-2004, 12:39 PM
Lmao, lol

America's 100,000 is a book by Francis H. Dean.

I guess i won't be posting a link for this sight then lol, lmao. I feel like a tard

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Maple_Tiger
02-20-2004, 01:22 PM
Check this out.
http://www.geocities.com/koala51d/jbaughers.html

The first Mustang I operational sortie was on July 27, 1942. Mustang Is participated in the disastrous Dieppe landings by British commandos on August 19, 1942, where it saw the first air-to-air action. During this operation, pilots of No 414 Squadron of the RCAF were attacked by Fw 190s. An American RCAF volunteer, F/O H. H. Hills, shot down one of the enemy, which was first blood for the Mustang.


Numerous RAF Mustang IIIs were diverted to the interception of V-1 "buzz-bombs". Some of them were "souped up" by using a special high-octane fuel and internal engine adjustments in order to increase the intake manifold pressure and made it possible to achieve a speed of 420 mph at 2000 feet. Since the typical V-1 flew at 370 mph, this made the "souped-up" Mustang very useful against these weapons.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

MandMs
02-20-2004, 01:42 PM
You do know that the Mustang I was a P-51(no sub letter) which used an Allison V-1710 engine while the P-51B/Cs used Packard Merlins.



I eat the red ones last.

Maple_Tiger
02-20-2004, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
You do know that the Mustang I was a P-51(no sub letter) which used an Allison V-1710 engine while the P-51B/Cs used Packard Merlins.



I eat the red ones last.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh yes, sorry i was reading like a madman and found it interesting. I myself didn't know that there where P-51s in service before the P-51B/C.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Maple_Tiger
02-20-2004, 01:56 PM
Ok, here are some Specs for the P-51D again but from a differant sight. Max top speed is the same but in this sight it lists top speeds for differant altitudes.

http://www.geocities.com/koala51d/jbaughers.html

One 1695 hp Packard Merlin V-1650-7 twelve-cylinder Vee liquid-cooled engine. Maximum speed: 395 mph at 5000 feet, 416 mph at 10,000 feet, 424 mph at 20,000 feet, 437 mph at 25,000 feet. Range was 950 miles at 395 mph at 25,000 feet (clean), 2300 miles with maximum fuel (including drop tanks) of 489 US gallons under most economical cruise conditions. Initial climb rate was 3475 feet per minute. An altitude of 5000 feet could be reached in 1l7 minutes, 10,000 feet in 3.3 minutes, 20,000 feet in 7.3 minutes. Service ceiling was 41,900 feet. Weights were 7125 pounds empty, 10,100 pounds normal loaded, 12,100 pounds maximum. Wingspan was 37 feet 0 1/4 inches, length was 32 feet 3 inches, height was 8 feet 8 inches, and wing area was 233 square feet.



But what i want to found out is if these top speeds where reached with default amo and 100% fuel.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

DangerForward
02-21-2004, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But what i want to found out is if these top speeds where reached with default amo and 100% fuel.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well America's Hundred Thousand has 10100 lbs. as the weight for their speed tests(graph 40). Since you know the fuel capacity. You could come pretty close to know how much fuel and ammo was in the plane. Estimate that fuel weighs similar to water. Probably somewhere is the weight of the ammo. You could work backwards from there and have your answer.

DangerForward

Diablo310th
02-21-2004, 10:24 AM
water weighs about 8 lbs per gallon....gas about 5 lbs per gallon.

http://www.wellspringmarketing.biz/310th/Diablos20Sig.jpg

Maple_Tiger
02-21-2004, 10:45 AM
Thanks DangerForward.


Normal take is 10,100.
Emtpy is 7,125.

269gallons of fuel.

130 grade = 6 pound per gallon of fuel.

269gallons = 1,614lb of fuel.

Total of 6 Browning machine guns with 300 rounds each.

Total rounds = 1,800 rounds.


Ill qoute something here, from this sight.
http://www.geocities.com/copeab/Vehicles/P51D_Mustang.htm

=Statistics Size: 14'x37'x32' Payload: 2,500 lbs (exc. bombs) Lwt: 10,745 lbs (5.37 tons)
Volume: 278.8 cf (Size Mod: +3) Maint.: 49 hours Price: $169,500=


Does this mean that 1,800 rounds would be 2,500 pounds?

If so:

Empty 7,125
Normal take off weight 10,100

Fuel 269gallons = 1,614
Amo = 2,500
Total = 4,114

Empty 7,125lb
amo=fuel 4,114lb
Total 11,239lb

Ok i messed up or i do not have the correct whieght for 1,800 rounds of 50cal amo. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Someone help me lol ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

[This message was edited by Maple_Tiger on Sat February 21 2004 at 09:54 AM.]

Maple_Tiger
02-21-2004, 11:22 AM
wate a min.

Weaponry
3*.50-cal Browning machine guns [RWing:F] (300 rounds each)
3*.50-cal Browning machine guns [LWing:F] (300 rounds each)
1000 lb hardpoint [LWi]
1000 lb hardpoint [RWi]

Mayby then the amo is 2000lb? lol

Fuel 269gallons = 1,614lb's of fuel. Round off to 1,600lb.

1,600lb of fuel+ 2000lb of amo = 3,600lb.

Empty is 7,125lb + 3,600lb = 10,725bl.


But Normal take of whieght is 10,100lb.

something is still off.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

DangerForward
02-21-2004, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Mayby then the amo is 2000lb? lol
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, from searching through America's Hundred Thousand they have the weight of 400 rds of 50 Cal ammo at 129 lbs(table 27 - the P39). So the weight of ammo is roughly 580.5 lbs. What a book. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WUAF_Badsight
02-21-2004, 12:32 PM
the fact is the Mustang in FB will not rech its object viewer speed

it just wont & thats wrong

its too slow

you CAN achieve 700km/h but you need : . . .

1)overheat OFF

2) 25% fuel & no ammo

is this the way you should be able to reach a planes top speed ?

i have been lead to believe that you should test planes in FB with 100% fuel loaded & ammo for them to be correct

well the mustang has a LOT of fuel so try testing it with 50% fuel

still not possible

the last 50 Km/H is very , VERY hard to get (takes forever to slowly gain the last 50 Km/H)

& it overheats during the last 50 Km/h


it should be faster than it is now in FB , its undermoddeled

thats for certian

Maple_Tiger
02-21-2004, 02:46 PM
I thought you didn't even like the P-51?

Well, its not the only plane that off thats for shure

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

[This message was edited by Maple_Tiger on Sat February 21 2004 at 02:01 PM.]

Maple_Tiger
02-21-2004, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the _fact_ is the Mustang in FB will not rech its object viewer speed

it just wont & thats wrong

its too slow

you _CAN_ achieve 700km/h but you need : . . .

1)overheat OFF

2) 25% fuel & no ammo

is this the way you should be able to reach a planes top speed ?

i have been lead to believe that you should test planes in FB with 100% fuel loaded & ammo for them to be correct

well the mustang has a _LOT_ of fuel so try testing it with 50% fuel

still not possible

the last 50 Km/H is very , _VERY_ hard to get (takes forever to slowly gain the last 50 Km/H)

& it overheats during the last 50 Km/h


it should be faster than it is now in FB , its undermoddeled

thats for certian<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thats what im trying to find out. How much fuel did it have when top speeds where tested.

We kind of know that a whieght of 10,100lb may have been used. It is normal take off whieght.

We kind of know that 269 gallons of fuel = 1,600 pounds.

But for amo? i think it might be 2,000lb.

If we had them bough up they equal 3,600lbs.

Then you take 3,600lbs and add it to the empty whieght of 7,125lbs.

But i get 10,725lbs.

So 10,100 - 10,725 = 625lbs

Im out by 625lbs

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Gunner_361st
02-21-2004, 03:12 PM
Hey Maple, put down the calculator and get your mind off your Mustang for a moment to check out my new thread. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

LuckyBoy1
02-21-2004, 03:50 PM
Maple Tiger, bless his soul wants to get some justice for the Western Allied crates. Fair enough, but I think this will never happen. They want to make a "game" of this IL-2 Forgotten Battles and I still believe they will always give the edge to the Kraut planes to encourage people to play that side in the game. After all, who wants to be associated with the Nazis? With that said and as a favor to Maple Tiger, I'm going to waste the web space to explain this once and only once.

I'm a pilot who grew up on a wheat and cattle operation on the high plains of the United States. My log book shows 1,182.5 hours and over 1,100 in a tail modified P-51-D. The "tail modified" P-51's were mostly used in Vietnam in a ground pounding role. They had a larger tail that did pull more drag so that they would be more manuverable at slow speeds. We used the plane as a crop duster and we also had propeller and engines for pylon racing and lond distance speed trail racing. We could easily pull off the S.T.O.L. kit and compete in a couple of days of working on the plane. I'm not going to go into slight engine differences and extra octane fuel or anything like that. I'm going to keep it simple here. If you want an argument, I'll give you my brother's ex-wife's e-mail address so you can complain your life away. I'm not here today to argue. However, here are the basic facts.

Out of the box so to speak from North American aircraft, they warrantied that it would do 437 miles per hour at 25,000 feet. This is a minimum figure and most did another 10-15 miles per hour faster than that figure. However, let us keep to the basic warranty. 437 miles per hour converts to 704 kilometers per hour at 7,620 meters. This is not an "emergency" type speed. This is what the plane was rated to do out of the box at 99.9% throttle, period, end of discussion! I challenge any of you to duplicate this in IL-2 Forgotten Battles. If you say you have, you'd better come with the complete, takeoff to landing video or I'll just laugh! The plane is just all around slower than the real thing. Fix it or well, you can just call it a game I guess.

Yes, the Widowmaker had a tendency to dip its left wing in a stall. This was due to the rather low tech solution they used to counter the enormous torque the P-51's engine produced. An assembly line worker came up with the fix. They would build the basic fuselage frame and then as they were adding cross bracicing, they would give the frame a slight twist. Go to like, a real P-51 and give it a close gander and you'll see the wings don't attack the air at the same angle. Even so, this game has the anomoly way porked beyond reality. Yes, it dipped on stall, but not nearly that bad! How do I know this? 1,800 hours plus in the bird using payloads way in excess of what the WWII crowd dealt with when considering 25% fuel and standard gun only ammo load.

Fix these two things and I'll be happy with the P-51 (as if Oleg gives a hoot about my being happy or sad!). I'm not going to get into all the turn rate and climb rate crap that is also porked. I realize that in order to make this "flight simulation" run on anything other than a liquid cooled mainframe, they have to take a few shortcuts in the calculations and therefore, the modelling will never be perfect. However, time and time again, when they cut the cake, they overmodel the kraut planes on speed and stall characteristics and short change the U.S. birds. Funny thing is, the P-51 isn't even a U.S. design!

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

[This message was edited by LuckyBoy1 on Sat February 21 2004 at 09:34 PM.]

Maple_Tiger
02-21-2004, 04:03 PM
So Luckyboy1,

You meen that i should try a speed test without using Web?

ill try that and see what i get.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Aaron_GT
02-21-2004, 06:48 PM
I just tried some tests on the Smolensk map,
25,000 feet (7600m)

25% fuel, full MG armament.

99% throttle - 650km/h
110% throttle (with WEP) - 680km/h

So that is 40-60km/h undermodelled.

For comparasion, the 109K4 does 630 km/h in FB
at 25,000 feet (7600m) at 110% throttle, no
MW50, and almost exactly the same with MW50.
At 6000m it does about 660km/h, whereas the
factory figure is 727 km/h.

So that looks like the 109K4 is also undermodelled,
and by around the same margin, at least based on the
most commonly quoted speeds for each plane.

Korolov
02-21-2004, 07:09 PM
What I find ironic is that lots of LW pilots I know, if they're flying allied, prefer the P-51 over all other planes availible. These guys can really make those ponies move, too!

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

Maple_Tiger
02-21-2004, 07:48 PM
i beet you Aaron,

100% fuel and amo i managed an average of 685kmh TAS at 7624m with 100% combat RPM=3200, 99% power and rad closed.

But then i do alot of speed tests. It also took me a very long time lol.

It also dosent seem to make any real differance in top speed when you use 100% fuel or 50% and not much differance with only 25% fuel.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Maple_Tiger
02-21-2004, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
What I find ironic is that lots of LW pilots I know, if they're flying allied, prefer the P-51 over all other planes availible. These guys can really make those ponies move, too!

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I would do the same if i was in there shoes.

I bet to some people the P-47 is just a big pig that dosent climb or manuver well. But i myself will mostly take the P-47 over the P-51 any day in a Df server. My favorit is the D27, i just love thoughs 8 50cal's lol

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Awake74
02-21-2004, 10:33 PM
Maple_Tiger:
for your question of P51Dperformance in FB SIM, I show you some ideas.
I don't know this could be helping,
but this may be easy to understand realP51D.
see following LINK found recently.

There are real speed and climerate comparison graphs of P51D and 1945some planes.
(by Sweden fighterJ22-A plane group).

I strongly hope no comparison with other FB planes(forcus P51D only),
if not discussion will be difficult maybe, and dont say not your b...LOL

http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/comp1945.htm

Maple_Tiger
02-21-2004, 10:56 PM
Thanks Awake74

Yes this is just a P-51D Thread. Checking out performance specs and stuff. Thanks again, ill check out that link right now.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Maple_Tiger
02-21-2004, 11:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Awake74:
Maple_Tiger:
for your question of P51Dperformance in FB SIM, I show you some ideas.
I don't know this could be helping,
but this may be easy to understand realP51D.
see following LINK found recently.

There are real speed and climerate comparison graphs of P51D and 1945some planes.
(by Sweden fighterJ22-A plane group).

I strongly hope no comparison with other FB planes(forcus P51D only),
if not discussion will be difficult maybe, and dont say not your b...LOL

http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/comp1945.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Oh man i love the speed charts bro. Thanks again.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Maple_Tiger
02-21-2004, 11:26 PM
Well, even this sight goes with what Luckyboy said about the P-51D being able to reach 437mph TAS using just combat power = 3200RPM.

http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/comp1945.htm

Wonder how fast it could go using WEB = War Emergency Power at 7624m altitude? Or even just 25% fuel?

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Aaron_GT
02-22-2004, 02:46 AM
Looking at the 109K4, though, it would seem
that the P51 is not the only plane that is
a bit slow at medium to high altitude. Now it
could be that the 109 is modelled to Russian
test data, and the P51 to manufacturer's specs,
(which is what Oleg said, and would tend to
give an advantage to US aircraft) which
undermines the contention that there is some
deliberate pro-LW policy, at least in that it
doesn't seem to extend to overmodelling of the
109K4.

I didn't pick the 109K4 after testing to show
a LW plane that was undermodelled, I simply
picked the the first 109 that came to hand that
was a near contemporary of the P51D. For testing
I used the Wonder Woman view for TAS.

What would be interesting would be to test a
number of planes from various nations at around
6000-8000m (it would have to be different for
each plane, based on what altitude quoted speed
data is available for). I wouldn't be at all
surprised if most planes are a bit slower
than quoted specs at these altitudes, in the
same way that most also seem a bit overmodelled
in climb. It's probably a function of the
balancing of various tuning parameters in the
physics models and the tuning parameters in the
individual FMs relative to it.

If I get sufficiently bored I'll test some
more planes!

Skalgrim
02-22-2004, 08:40 AM
k4 fly 25km/h slower sealevel as russia have test the k4

sealevel speed is very important fb too,

russia have test k4 over 610km/h sealevel and

730km/h 6000m

690km/h 8000m

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sun February 22 2004 at 07:55 AM.]

p1ngu666
02-22-2004, 08:41 AM
thought german planes didnt reach max speed with units anyway?
wonder if oleg modeled the drag of the paint?

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Skalgrim
02-22-2004, 08:50 AM
seem so bad was quality from k4 not, was k√¬∂nigsberg capture, had not so many bombing get.

Maple_Tiger
02-22-2004, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Looking at the 109K4, though, it would seem
that the P51 is not the only plane that is
a bit slow at medium to high altitude. Now it
could be that the 109 is modelled to Russian
test data, and the P51 to manufacturer's specs,
(which is what Oleg said, and would tend to
give an advantage to US aircraft) which
undermines the contention that there is some
deliberate pro-LW policy, at least in that it
doesn't seem to extend to overmodelling of the
109K4.

I didn't pick the 109K4 after testing to show
a LW plane that was undermodelled, I simply
picked the the first 109 that came to hand that
was a near contemporary of the P51D. For testing
I used the Wonder Woman view for TAS.

What would be interesting would be to test a
number of planes from various nations at around
6000-8000m (it would have to be different for
each plane, based on what altitude quoted speed
data is available for). I wouldn't be at all
surprised if most planes are a bit slower
than quoted specs at these altitudes, in the
same way that most also seem a bit overmodelled
in climb. It's probably a function of the
balancing of various tuning parameters in the
physics models and the tuning parameters in the
individual FMs relative to it.

If I get sufficiently bored I'll test some
more planes!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Good point, but for now this is just a P-51D thread and i will not comment on any other aircraft.

Also the manufacturers specs say that the P-51D should reach 703kmh TAS at 7624m altitud. Using Combat RPM. Now we cant even get that with NO amo and just 25% fuel.

That dose not sound like Oleg is using U.S. data.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

[This message was edited by Maple_Tiger on Sun February 22 2004 at 08:46 AM.]

[This message was edited by Maple_Tiger on Sun February 22 2004 at 08:48 AM.]

Maple_Tiger
02-22-2004, 09:34 AM
This is the second thread i have seen that has an Empty wheight of 7,635lb's instead of 7,125lb's. For my next calculation i will use 7,635lb's.

Instead of using 6lb's = 1 gallon ill will use 5.8lb's instead.

What i am trying to do is add up the Amo=50cal and the fuel then add the total to the Empty wheight of 7,635lb's. Hopefully it will match the normal take of wheight of 10,100lb's.

Fuel: 269 gallons. 5.8lb's per gallon.
Total: 1560.2lb's round of to 1,560lb's

1880 rounds of amo. 1 round = 1.12lb's Total: 2105.6lb's round of to 2,105lb's

Fuel: 1,560lb's
Amo: 2,105lb's
Total 3,665lb's

Empty: 7,635lb's
Normal Load: 3,665lb's
Toatal 11,300lb's

or

Empty: 7,125lb's
Normal Load: 3,665lb's
Total 10,790lb's

Even if i gust used 2000lb's of amo = 1800 rounds.

Empty: 7,125lb's
Amo: 2,000lb's
Fuel: 1,560lb's
Total: 10,685lb's.

Normal take of weight is 10,100lbs.

I tink i need some help lol.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Bull_dog_
02-22-2004, 10:39 AM
I find the technical discussion fascinating, however I am under the belief that the flight modelling isn't precise enough to really take all this into account...

I fly mostly allied aircraft and I find the US versions to be slow in most cases. The P-47 and P-51 were very fast...faster than all their contemporary enemies...not 109K's...but certainly much faster than 109G's and Fw A models in real life.

The "big 3" ...mustang, jug and lightning were all very good in the dive and only the lightning had a really good climb rate at all altitudes...my understanding was that the Mustang could outclimb contemporary aircraft above 20,000 ft. I don't feel like I have these advantages when I play FB on line or off line so I am apt to think that the Mustang and Jug are too slow and don't have the dive advantage enjoyed in real life.

I recently read an article where a P-47 pilot and his wingman engaged 8 Fw's at about 15,000 ft. The Jug had the initial advantage and scored a kill, but what was interesting about the story is how confident he was in diving to the deck and losing his opponents once the tide turned on him...he was fought until the Fw's managed to get the advantage and he dove and lost them...doesn't happen in FB...at least in my experience. The 51 had the same advantage although to a lesser degree...the Mustang's advantage was its low drag...once it leveled out, it would retain its speed for much longer than other planes and simply fly away.

I think there is another myth that pervades is allied planes poor performance at low altitudes...the Jug produced 2000 hp at sea level and at 30,000 ft so this gave it a reputation as a high altitude fighter...the only real issue with the Jug is it couldn't turn fight and if it was low, there was nowhere to dive to...same with the mustang. Some aircraft optimized for low altitude were faster or could climb better at low altitude, but it didn't make the stang useless at 5000 ft.

My hope is that Oleg will continue to fine tune the aircraft and that 1) the stang and jug will become a little faster in level flight and much faster in dives (or lighter aircraft be slower) and 2) the P-38 is accurately modelled...I get worried when I read stuff from Oleg indicating the Jug was not a good fighter or that since no first hand accounts of the lightning chopping its throttle exist...it must not have happened.

I expect to be outrun by a Fw-190 at sea level, out climbed by a 109, out turned by a Yak or La so why not out dive an opponent in a stang or jug?

Aaron_GT
02-22-2004, 10:48 AM
maple tiger wrote:
"Good point, but for now this is just a P-51D thread and i will not comment on any other aircraft."

Other people have already suggested that
LW planes are overmodelled, and USA ones
undermodelled. I think it's relevant to
note that the first LW plane I picked almost
at random is also two slow and medium-high
altitudes, apparently. It really does
undermine the idea of some pro LW bias, and
sheds light on something possibly systematic.

"Also the manufacturers specs say that the P-51D should reach 703kmh TAS at 7624m altitud. Using Combat RPM. Now we cant even get that with NO amo and just 25% fuel."

I agree with you there, and confirm it from
the tests I did.

"That dose not sound like Oleg is using U.S. data."

Well given that the 109K4 is also undermodelled
I think it is entirely possible that Oleg is,
as he has suggested, using US factory data, but
there there is a systematic flaw in the
interaction between the physics model and the
FMs meaning that a number of planes might
suffer at around 6000 to 8000m. If everyone
takes a plane each we can have this hypothesis
tested relatively quickly.

MandMs
02-22-2004, 10:48 AM
One (1) .50 M2HB round weighed 10.2oz not 1.12lb.

Do not forget to include the link weights.



I eat the red ones last.

Aaron_GT
02-22-2004, 10:56 AM
I think the disparities in
modelling are probably due in at least
some part to the complexity of the physics
model, the code of which needs to be tailored
also to run quickly enough on relatively low
powered hardware. I wouldn't be surprised if
by now there are all sorts of fixes in the code
that make it a bit messy (this is not to impugn
Oleg's team - I work in software development - I
know how things can be even with the best of
intentions after a few iterations under time
pressure). For example we have a lack of torque
which seems to be a consequence of some of the
coding, and hard to change.

Hopefully the performance of the P51 can
be improved, but with a lot of interacting
parameters tuned for PC performance, and a lot
of planes to test, I suspect it is hard to
get all planes behaving exactly as required.
The more planes there are, the harder it gets.
It's probably a huge balancing act with
conflicting parameters that may not relate
to exact aerodynamic quantities in order to
reduce the CPU load required. I suppose a
comparasion of what effort it might be required
to get a plane correct is to determine how many
person-hours are required to create a CFS2 or
CFS3 1% plane. If we assume that in IL2/FB it
takes the same, we can scale up by the number
of flyable variants of all types and work out
how long it would take to get to the same level
of detail in IL2/FB.

This is why I suspect Oleg is going back to
the drawing board with BoB. He has experience
of the software management and relevant issues,
and has the IL2/FB experience as a prototype,
and can develop things cleanly to perhaps make
the system easier to tune. Also he can afford
to make BoB use up a little more CPU power per
plane as PCs are more powerful on average than
when IL2 was first coded.

MandMs
02-22-2004, 11:02 AM
I would not trust any data from the game that was obtained at an altitude over 5-6000m.



I eat the red ones last.

Maple_Tiger
02-22-2004, 11:43 AM
Come on guys, it is better not to mention any other aircraft.

Reason is becasue it may start an argument in wich case this thread will turn into a complete joke.

You guys think i realy care if the P-51D does or does not get a bit of a performance boast?

Answer is not realy, i usualy fly the P-47 in a DF server anyway but it would be nice to see a plane that i like be able to reach it's max speed. Im just trying to find out if Maddox team has or has not prouperly given the P-51D its correct FM.


There are two issues now i am working on.

1: Trying to find out how pounds of amo and fuel the P-51D had when it had Normal take off Weight of 10,100lb's

2: Another issue has popped up. That is that the P-51D very well could have reached it max speeds without WEP or War Emergency Power.

Not one sight so far that i have been to has said it needed WEB to reach its max speed. Two sights so far have only stated Combat power, meaning 3200RPM.

Please guy's lets keep this a P-51D Performance thread only.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

[This message was edited by Maple_Tiger on Sun February 22 2004 at 10:55 AM.]

Maple_Tiger
02-22-2004, 11:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
I find the technical discussion fascinating, however I am under the belief that the flight modelling isn't precise enough to really take all this into account...

I fly mostly allied aircraft and I find the US versions to be slow in most cases. The P-47 and P-51 were very fast...faster than all their contemporary enemies...not 109K's...but certainly much faster than 109G's and Fw A models in real life.

The "big 3" ...mustang, jug and lightning were all very good in the dive and only the lightning had a really good climb rate at all altitudes...my understanding was that the Mustang could outclimb contemporary aircraft above 20,000 ft. I don't feel like I have these advantages when I play FB on line or off line so I am apt to think that the Mustang and Jug are too slow and don't have the dive advantage enjoyed in real life.

I recently read an article where a P-47 pilot and his wingman engaged 8 Fw's at about 15,000 ft. The Jug had the initial advantage and scored a kill, but what was interesting about the story is how confident he was in diving to the deck and losing his opponents once the tide turned on him...he was fought until the Fw's managed to get the advantage and he dove and lost them...doesn't happen in FB...at least in my experience. The 51 had the same advantage although to a lesser degree...the Mustang's advantage was its low drag...once it leveled out, it would retain its speed for much longer than other planes and simply fly away.

I think there is another myth that pervades is allied planes poor performance at low altitudes...the Jug produced 2000 hp at sea level and at 30,000 ft so this gave it a reputation as a high altitude fighter...the only real issue with the Jug is it couldn't turn fight and if it was low, there was nowhere to dive to...same with the mustang. Some aircraft optimized for low altitude were faster or could climb better at low altitude, but it didn't make the stang useless at 5000 ft.

My hope is that Oleg will continue to fine tune the aircraft and that 1) the stang and jug will become a little faster in level flight and much faster in dives (or lighter aircraft be slower) and 2) the P-38 is accurately modelled...I get worried when I read stuff from Oleg indicating the Jug was not a good fighter or that since no first hand accounts of the lightning chopping its throttle exist...it must not have happened.

I expect to be outrun by a Fw-190 at sea level, out climbed by a 109, out turned by a Yak or La so why not out dive an opponent in a stang or jug?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We share some of the same points of veiw Bull_dog_ but this not the thread realy for opinions.

Tell you what though, why dont you help me found out wether or not the P-51 could reach 437MPH(703KMH) TAS without WEP= War Emergency Power.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Maple_Tiger
02-22-2004, 12:08 PM
Ok im getting some where.

I think some you will find this a little interesting.

In game when you go to the View Objects and click on aircraft. Scroll down to the P-51D.

Notice it says?

Speed at WEP

Sea level 578kmh TAS
7,600m 703kmh TAS

Well i havent found one sight that said it needed WEP to reach its MAX speeds.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

AaronGT
02-22-2004, 01:56 PM
.I think it is worth looking briefly at
other planes to see if there is a
consistent divergence between
expected and observed speeds
around 6-8000m. If there is a
systematic difference then making
a special case of the P51 is a
highway to nowhere as then the
discussion will degenerate into
a "P51 whiner" versus "109
whiner" flame war.

To keep this thread clear to a new
thread to ask about testing and
comparing all planes around
6-8000m
respect its origin I'll start

FA_Whisky
02-26-2004, 05:58 AM
will the 20NT be faster than the 5NT?

Maple_Tiger
02-26-2004, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FA_Whisky:
will the 20NT be faster than the 5NT?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No.

They bough have the same engine(1650-7).

I also think that Oleg and team are right. SkyChimp has mentioned that actualy when your up at 7600m the WEP is not realy being used. It has to do with the MP.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

PzKpfw
02-26-2004, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
There are two issues now i am working on.

1: Trying to find out how pounds of amo and fuel the P-51D had when it had Normal take off Weight of 10,100lb's

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The charts in AHT for the P-51D show 9,611 & 10028lb takeoff weights. P-51D depending on loadout etc could weigh anywhere from 9600 - 12400lbs. 50Cal ammunition weighed 564lbs.
Fuel weight was 1,590lb (internal tanks)



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

2: Another issue has popped up. That is that the P-51D very well could have reached it max speeds without WEP or War Emergency Power.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaphs someone can re-post the P-51D speed/climb chart(40) from AHT, which shows combat power performance with weights of 10,100, & 10,176lbs.

Regards, John Waters

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

------
"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.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu February 26 2004 at 11:37 AM.]

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu February 26 2004 at 11:52 PM.]

WUAF_Badsight
02-27-2004, 12:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
but this not the thread realy for opinions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what is to opinionate about lol

its just too slow

685 Km/H TAS @ 7600m as is now in FB .... ammo & 50% fuel

& that last 50 Km/H sure builds up slowly while your overheating warning is glaring : (

robban75
02-28-2004, 03:13 AM
This is strange, I managed to reach 703km/h at 7460m in the P-51, with 100% fuel. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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

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

VF-10_Snacky
02-28-2004, 11:23 AM
From everything I read and watch about the P51D it all says the P51D was a great dogfighter and probably the best fighter of WWII, but in FB when I fly the P51D I feel like I am at such a disadvantage to the other aircraft. I cant out turn anything so that plane is out, I cant outrun anything so thats out, I cant outclimb anything so thats out, so whats left? bail out I guess.
Seriously I dont want any plane to be an Uber plane by any means, but the P51D was such a special plane and did so well it's a shame its not reflected in FB right now. Thats just my opinion of course.lol

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/Dambusters.jpg

Aaron_GT
02-28-2004, 12:20 PM
It's not a turn fighter. If you keep to
straight lines and only turn when absolutely
necessary it's not at all bad. I am assured
it is like the 190 in this respect, but I
rarely fly LW planes except sometimes bombers
as there aren't any med VVS bombers so far.

Aaron_GT
02-28-2004, 12:20 PM
P.S. The other advantage is a high cruise speed
so you can stay high and fast with little
effort and swoop down.

Maple_Tiger
02-28-2004, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
This is strange, I managed to reach 703km/h at 7460m in the P-51, with 100% fuel. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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

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


I can to.

If i turn engine over heat off lol.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

robban75
02-28-2004, 02:15 PM
Yes it will show the engine overheat warning long before 703km/h is reached, but this true for many other planes aswell.

Try the La-5, it wont overheat at all. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

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

Snoop_Baron
02-28-2004, 11:07 PM
I can't get it to 703 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Could you post a track showing how with engine heat + CEM?

Thanks

:FI:Snoop Baron
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

FA_Whisky
03-01-2004, 03:30 AM
703kmph,

Yess pls tell us how to do it without engine overheat.

robban75
03-01-2004, 04:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FA_Whisky:
703kmph,

Yess pls tell us how to do it without engine overheat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not possible, the engine will give you the overheat warning before you reach this speed. You will however be able to reach the topspeed before the engine is damaged. But his isn't anything unique for just the P-51. The same applies to the Fw 190 among others. The main fault here is that the low temperature at these high altitudes isn't modelled properly. AFAIK an engine shouldn't overheat at all at 7600m, it's more the other way around. I know that Swedish Mustang pilots never flew with their coolers open during winter seasons and especailly at high altitude. The engine would become too cold.

Make these topspeed tests in the QMB over crimea, this is where I can reach posted topspeeds for the P-51, Fw 190D-9 and La-7. On the online map Nr:11 I'm unable to reach max speeds for these planes, lacking some 15-20km/h.

And I don't use CEM reaching these speeds, it's all on auto, with closed radiator. 7500m = 703km/h, 50m = 583km/h. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

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

[This message was edited by robban75 on Mon March 01 2004 at 03:36 AM.]

JG26Red
03-01-2004, 04:45 PM
do a test on russian planes and see what you get, i bet you reach the speeds or even exceed them...

robban75
03-02-2004, 01:50 AM
See my topspeed numbers for the La-7 and Yak-3 in the "yak3 wk107a + la9?" thread. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

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

r0xtilux
03-02-2004, 01:58 AM
Hey, I just have to ask. If any plane can reach "maximum" speed without WEP, what do you call the speed it reaches *with* WEP? "Double-Maximum?" "Super-Maximum?" "Maxtastic?"

Come on - help a guy out here.

Maple_Tiger
03-02-2004, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by r0xtilux:
Hey, I just have to ask. If any plane can reach "maximum" speed without WEP, what do you call the speed it reaches *with* WEP? "Double-Maximum?" "Super-Maximum?" "Maxtastic?"

Come on - help a guy out here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I beleave now that the Max speed means with WEP or 110% power.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Oleg_Maddox
03-02-2004, 09:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
The issue's i have with this plane is its top speeds.

I know Oleg said that he would use the best data when it came to its FM. Did he?

Specifications:

Wheights:

Empty. 7,635
Normal Take off. 10,100

Max. Gross Weight. 12,100

Powerplant:

Packard V-1650-7

CID: 1649
Normal T.O. HP: 1490
War Emergency HP: 1720


Ok wate, i just found some new info very cool.

Her is a link:
http://www.geocities.com/copeab/Vehicles/P51D_Mustang.htm

Fuel: 269 gallons aviation gasoline (fire chance: 14) in 3 self-sealing fuel tanks (85 gallons body, 92 gallons each wing), 4.5 hours endurance (1640 miles @80% top speed)

Does this mean it could reach 437mph at altitude=7600m with 80% fuel?

How fast could it go with only 25% fuel.



Ok, before i go. This is not an arguing thread.

I do not want to see peopls opions.

What i do want to see is some new info. So i need some of you guys to help me out with data and links. please , thanks.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry tom say but fule load usually doesn't have any real effect on a top speed.
Suvh differenced in in weight are not so critical for a speed in level flight.
The fuel load plays role for climb and accelerations. Its a fact. Also it play role for vertical maneuverability, roll rate a bit, tunrs performance.
But on top speed - almost nothing.

Snoop_Baron
03-02-2004, 10:22 AM
Thanks robban,

Just for the record I was able to confirm max speed at sea level and at 7.62k. It did overheat and I had to use closed radiator for max speed. You have to be really careful to get to that max speed at alt.


I thought there was a thread earlier that the radiator had to be partialy open for max speed as it help compensate for some of the radiator drag? What was the conclusion on this? Should I get max speed with closed radiator like with most planes or in auto or some particular position like number 2?

I'd also like to know from Oleg if it is normal for planes to overheat that easily at this high alt? Should FB model over cooling in certain scenarios (or maybe inf future sim). I don't know what is correct just like to hear Oleg's thoughts on engine heating and high alts.

Thanks for the feedback on weight and top speed Oleg, I had heard about that before.

s!

:FI:Snoop Baron
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

Maple_Tiger
03-02-2004, 01:01 PM
Thanks for your reply Oleg, sorry for questioning your FM on aircraft.


So the fuel load does not play much of a role on Max speed? Someone els has mentioned this also.

I used the Crimea map this time for a speed test at 7600m.

Default amo, 50% fuel. I managed to reach 700kmh TAS.

I used rad on 4 and 90% power and 90% RPM setting. Once i reached 675kmh TAS i used 95% power, 95% RPM setting and rad on 2. When i reached 685kmh TAS i closed rad and used 100% RPM setting = combat RPM, 110% power.

I did reach 700kmh TAS but i also may have damaged the engine do to engine over heat being on for about 2 min.

Was it normal to over heat the engine this much to reach 700kmh TAS in the P-51D? I dont think to many people will realy know this but its just a thought.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

WUAF_Badsight
03-02-2004, 11:16 PM
ok im bummed out now

thats not really a useable top speed is it MapelTiger

im wrong & FB is right ..... but thats not the real top speed of the mustang if we are discussing useability

Aaron_GT
03-03-2004, 01:44 AM
You are complaining that the top speed
is 700km/h? That's basically spot on.
It's just not easy to get there, it seems.

I'm not sure
what procedures North American used to get
to the top quoted speed, though. It would be
nice to have an idea of what procedures were
followed as then we can compare speeds between
game and reality that much better.

clint-ruin
03-03-2004, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I'm not sure
what procedures North American used to get
to the top quoted speed, though. It would be
nice to have an idea of what procedures were
followed as then we can compare speeds between
game and reality that much better.

Exactly!

Trying to replicate a tests end result without having any idea of its methodology is .. well, the polite term would be unproductive, I guess :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Maple_Tiger
03-03-2004, 06:10 AM
Well the trick in the game is to keep the P-51's enginee as cool as possible before you close the rad and use 110% throttle.

It is the first time i have gotton 700kmh TAS. Last test i got was 694kmh TAS.. but that was on another map.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

LLv34_Flanker
03-03-2004, 06:20 AM
S!

I see the point of wanting actual published speeds for planes, but who actually uses them in the game? Maybe at low altitude fights when trying to extend away, but otherwise not.

IMHO usual fight goes like this: climb to x altitude and cruise around at 80-95% throttle for prey, dive on the enemy & fire then pull up..rinse and repeat. Hardly no need for a few km/h(or mph for that matter) more in the gauge.

Question is that does these missing few km/h(or mph) make the P51D-5NT a pig in the game? Not at all, it is one of the very best planes if the pilot uses B&Z and gentle control inputs. Been there and done that, nothing can touch it!

If Ya guys want accurate climb speeds and level speeds etc. then the FM should be table based and planes wouldn't do anything over their "tabled" performance. Would that be better? ;) FM in FB has flaws but for sure at most parts does the trick and gives somewhat believeable sense of flying...

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

Flanker
1.Lentue p√¬§√¬§llikk√¬∂ / TO
Lentolaivue 34

"Let Chaos entvine on defenseless soil!"
~Dimmu Borgir~