PDA

View Full Version : P-51 make loop with 155miles per hour ?



Chanel505
05-14-2004, 04:19 PM
Hi!

Can anyone explain me wy the P-51 D-20-NA can make a loop on a low alitude with a initialspeed of 155 mile per hour?!, and wy i have with a FW-190 D9 no chance to fallow the P-51 in a loop? Was the FW-190 D9 a bad aircraft for this? please explain my that?!

Chanel505
05-14-2004, 04:19 PM
Hi!

Can anyone explain me wy the P-51 D-20-NA can make a loop on a low alitude with a initialspeed of 155 mile per hour?!, and wy i have with a FW-190 D9 no chance to fallow the P-51 in a loop? Was the FW-190 D9 a bad aircraft for this? please explain my that?!

faustnik
05-14-2004, 04:27 PM
Maybe because the P-51 has lower wing loading?

How much fuel did each a/c have?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Chanel505
05-14-2004, 04:29 PM
25 %, my question is: was a loop posible with a Mustang on 155 Miles per hour whit combat flaps?

[This message was edited by Chanel505 on Fri May 14 2004 at 03:39 PM.]

faustnik
05-14-2004, 04:40 PM
Well, both planes would have similar weights of around 9,000 lbs at 25% fuel. The P-51D has a wing area of 236sq. ft. and the Dora 197sq. ft.
That gives the Mustang about 20% better wing loading and would explain why the Mustang could complete a loop with a lower start speed. Right???

Oh, power loading was similar with the Dora having a very slight edge.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

[This message was edited by faustnik on Fri May 14 2004 at 03:53 PM.]

VW-IceFire
05-14-2004, 04:53 PM
No idea on the real aircraft but in the game the thing is that the Dora is still a plane designed for high speed just like all other FW190's (even moreso than the P-51). In a low speed regime the Dora feels more sluggish and heavy manuvering. I wouldn't do a Immelman in a Dora unless I had 400 kph and some room to work with.

The real question is why follow any fighter into a loop in a FW190 unless you have far superior energy.

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

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-14-2004, 04:53 PM
You said miles per hour so I assume you are going off of the gauge in the cockpit. It represents indicated airspeed not true airspeed.
=S=
vmf-214.net
(The Original BlackSheep of IL-2)

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

Chanel505
05-14-2004, 04:57 PM
Yes this is right but my question was can the real P-51 D 20 NA make a loop with initialspeed of 155 miles per hour? How was this posible? I have read some books that write the P-51 was difficult on low speed?

Chanel505
05-14-2004, 05:04 PM
I make the loop on crimera map. High 1000 Meter IAS 155 MPH. Is this posible with a real P-51? and what was the reason that the real P-51 make a loop with 155 Miles may be 165 Miles TAS?
Something wrong with the pony and laminar wings like a Spitfire?

[This message was edited by Chanel505 on Fri May 14 2004 at 06:26 PM.]

lbhskier37
05-15-2004, 02:16 AM
with what I know about laminar flow airfoils, it doesnt seem like the P51 should be able to loop at low speeds as well as a 190. A laminar flow section is great for high speeds/low AoA, but when the AoA increases you dont get as big of an increase in lift as a conventional airfoil, and the stall speed ends up usually being higher. This is just in general though, there are a lot more factors to affect it. But at first glance I would think that slow of a loop wouldn't be the best thing to do in real life.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Due to the unbelievable inadequacy of Oleg's .50s the Germans have a HUGE advantage.
All they do is dive from above and in one pass cripple your plane with three or four mk108 hits." Col_Tibbetts

LuftLuver
05-15-2004, 05:17 AM
Six posts, and complaining about such specifics?

http://www.the-reel-mccoy.com/movies/2002/images/AustinPowers_Mole.jpg

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

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-15-2004, 05:46 AM
Salute

The whines never stop.

How are the aircraft's wingloading?

At fully loaded weight of 10,208 lbs on a wing area of 233 Sq/ft, a Mustang has a wingloading of 43.8 lbs per Sq/ft. That compares very poorly to a Spitfire IX LF with a weight of 7400 lbs and a wing area of 242 Sq/ft for a wingloading of 30.6 lbs per Sq/ft. It's similar to a 109G10 with a wing area of 172 Sq/ft and a weight of 7400 lbs for a wing loading of 43 lbs per Sq/ft. It is superior to the 190A8 with a weight of 9750 lbs on a wing area of 197 Sq/ft for a wingloading of 49.5 lbs per Sq/ft. It is superior to the 190D9 which has a weight of 9480 lbs on a wing area of 197 Sq/ft for a wingloading of 48.1 lbs per Sq/ft.

The Mustang carried 269 gallons of internal fuel. That compares to 106 gallons for the 109G10, or 170 gallons for the 190A8, or 138 gallons for the 190D9.

As the P-51D carried more fuel, it could fly longer, and burn more, as it burned its larger fuel load, its wingloading improved proportionately more than its opponents.

At 50 % fuel remaining, the P-51D had a wingloading of 40.34 lbs per Sq/ft. It still had a radius of 225 miles.

At 50% fuel remaining, the 109G10 had a wingloading of 41.27 lbs per Sq/ft. It had a radius of 65 miles.

At 50% fuel remaining, the 190D9 had a wingloading of 46.3 lbs per Sq/ft, and a radius of 87.5 miles.

At 50% fuel remaining, the 190A8 had a wingloading of 47.0 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 82.5 miles.


At 25% fuel remaining, the P-51D had a wingloading of 38.6 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 112.5 miles. Notice that the P-51's radius with 25% fuel is nearly as good as the G10 at full fuel load.

At 25% fuel remaining, the 109G10 had a wingloading of 40.4 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 32.5 miles.

At 25% fuel remaining, the 190A8 had a wingloading of 45.8 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 40.1 miles.

At 25% fuel remaining, the 190D9 had a wingloading of 45 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 43.7 miles.

Kurfurst__
05-15-2004, 06:00 AM
I wunder how comes the G-10 has 65 miles radius at 50% fuel (as according to BSh), when a 109G on max. intenral load (400 lit/88imp gall) had a range of 700 miles. A bit irrevelant though.

Wingloading alone does not tell much upon stall characteristics, its an arficial number not taking into account airfoil characteristics. The P-51 laminar flow wing created less lift per area than the other, more conventional 'tubulent' airfoils.

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

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

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

Maple_Tiger
05-15-2004, 06:08 AM
With 25% fuel the P-51 has lower wing loading then the FW lol. Eve with 50% fuel i think P-51 has lower wing loading.

Also, by using Combat flaps you can creat more lift. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I just tride the FW-190D9 with 50% fuel. I was able to do the Vector roll using combat flaps also.


I went into a spin twice trying this in the P-51. Only once did i go into a spin while in the FW. Mayby the FW is over modeled 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.

Chanel505
05-15-2004, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
With 25% fuel the P-51 has lower wing loading then the FW lol. Eve with 50% fuel i think P-51 has lower wing loading.

Also, by using Combat flaps you can creat more lift. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I just tride the FW-190D9 with 50% fuel. I was able to do the Vector roll using combat flaps also.


I went into a spin twice trying this in the P-51. Only once did i go into a spin while in the FW. Mayby the FW is over modeled 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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maple_Tiger the P-51 D can make a loop with 75% fuel on 1000 meter with a initialspeed of 250 KM/H with combat flaps. This is not realistic.

LEXX_Luthor
05-15-2004, 07:49 AM
I forgot about this General Discussion thread too. teh history channel makes a P~51 TV show and flighty simmers go bananas



__________________
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

Maple_Tiger
05-15-2004, 07:51 AM
I tride the same thing with the FW 190.

This is not realistic.

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

Chanel505
05-15-2004, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
I tride the same thing with the FW 190.

This is not realistic.

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

Please post a track Maple_Tiger.

Maple_Tiger
05-15-2004, 08:48 AM
I would, but i do not know how.

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

Maple_Tiger
05-15-2004, 09:08 AM
I just did another test with the FW190-D9 1944. This time i used 100% fuel.

I went into a left turn at about 1000m, deployed combat flaps, and kept turning untill my speed reached 260km/h.

Once 260km/h was reached, i closed the rad, enabled MW50, and used 110% throttle.


I also saved a track this time 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.

Maple_Tiger
05-15-2004, 09:36 AM
I tride the same with the P-51D this time. I used 75% fuel.

Lets just say i stalled out more times wih the P-51D then i did with the FW190D9.

You would think with the lower wing loading that the P-51D would stall less then the FW190D9 lol


Seems to me that the FW190D9 is way over modeled, compared to the P-51D.

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

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
05-15-2004, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
(The Original BlackSheep of IL-2)

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe.

btw. where is my sig ?

ahh here she is.
btw: about the P51.
It's true in Game it has better slow speed handling than D9, and not much worse to 109G10

BBB_Hyperion
05-15-2004, 10:44 AM
The question was.
Does the real P51 B/C/D loop with 155 mph ias ?

Any answers on that ?

Regards,
Hyperion

Korolov
05-15-2004, 10:53 AM
OH NO! NOT ANOTHER P-51 THREAD!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

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

Tipo_Man
05-15-2004, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Seems to me that the FW190D9 is way over modeled, compared to the P-51D.

Club.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow its alway very funny to see how americans complain about their "undermodelled" P-51.

Hey boy just look in IL-2 compare program. You'll see that P-51DNA-20 has a turn time of 20sec which is very suspicious (D9 has a turn time of 24-25sec) and is comparable to that of Yak-9U for example, which was an exceptional turn figher...
P-51DNA-20 in this game boasts an exceptional climb rate of 24m/s !!! Which is simply a great achievement for a plane with relatively poor power to weight ratio. Obviosly Oleg has put in a great amount of efforts to please americans http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif...
I do not say that P-51 is overmodelled but at least it is modelled according to the best results some specimen could achieve...
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif
...and after that you see threads like P-51 performance in comparison or statements like the above... funny really

widgeon
05-15-2004, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tipo_Man:

Wow its alway very funny to see how americans complain about their "undermodelled" P-51.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Why do you generalize like this? Do you mean South Americans, North Americans or both. How about Canadians, they fall under the category of North Americans, yet probably don't have any special affinity for the Mustang.

So why to you generalize like that? Especially when we know that all Luftwhinners are not from Germany. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dont need an answer, just making a friendly point.

Widgeon

Tipo_Man
05-15-2004, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by widgeon:


Why do you generalize like this? Do you mean South Americans, North Americans or both. How about Canadians, they fall under the category of North Americans, yet probably don't have any special affinity for the Mustang.
Widgeon<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry , didn't want to sound rude or antiamerican. Simply got tired of kids coming here and discussing on performance without even being able to distinguish or name differnt BF-109 variants...
BTW my favourite plane is P-40. So I admire US citizens (only them! not all americans http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) for creating so capable fighter, and hate them when being shot down... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PzKpfw
05-15-2004, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tipo_Man:


Hey boy just look in IL-2 compare program. You'll see that P-51DNA-20 has a turn time of 20sec which is very suspicious (D9 has a turn time of 24-25sec) and is comparable to that of Yak-9U for example, which was an exceptional turn figher...

P-51DNA-20 in this game boasts an exceptional climb rate of 24m/s !!! Which is simply a great achievement for a plane with relatively poor power to weight ratio. Obviosly Oleg has put in a great amount of efforts to please americans http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif...
I do not say that P-51 is overmodelled but at least it is modelled according to the best results some specimen could achieve...
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif
...and after that you see threads like P-51 performance in comparison or statements like the above... funny really<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I dont know if the turn time is suspicious or not, I do know that in minimum turn radius compared to other US fighters the P-51D-15 ranked 5th.

Although I do believe to many ppl especially the FS crowd put way to much emphisis on turn radius, as well as one on one performance, but I degress, turn radius was not realy a critical factor in WW2 fighters.

Ie, Galland's comments concering the LWHQs position that 'manoeuvrability and banking' were the primary dertermining factors in air combat:

They could not or simply would not see that for modren fighter aircraft the tight turn as a form of aerial combat represented the exception.

Another veiw from RAF ace J.E. Johnson:

Tight turns were more a defensive than an offensive tactic and did not win air battles.

Power loading P-51D @ 10,176lbs @ MILITARY POWER was:

SL:
1490hp = 6.85lb/hp

10,000ft:
1500hp = 6.78lb/hp

20,000ft:
1360hp - 7.48lb/hp

30,000ft:
960hp - 10.60lb/hp

I dunno about IL-2 compare from posts here the data it generates seems suspect on many things, and not reliable, as an emperical means of determing AC performance.

As to the modeling why should it not be? all AC in IL-2 are modeled on factory data performance except for Soviet AC which are modeled on actual Soviet wartime test data.

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 Sat May 15 2004 at 11:53 AM.]

Maple_Tiger
05-15-2004, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Seems to me that the FW190D9 is way over modeled, compared to the P-51D.

Club.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow its alway very funny to see how americans complain about their "undermodelled" P-51.

Hey boy just look in IL-2 compare program. You'll see that P-51DNA-20 has a turn time of 20sec which is very suspicious (D9 has a turn time of 24-25sec) and is comparable to that of Yak-9U for example, which was an exceptional turn figher...
P-51DNA-20 in this game boasts an exceptional climb rate of 24m/s !!! Which is simply a great achievement for a plane with relatively poor power to weight ratio. Obviosly Oleg has put in a great amount of efforts to please americans http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif...
I do not say that P-51 is overmodelled but at least it is modelled according to the best results some specimen could achieve...
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif
...and after that you see threads like P-51 performance in comparison or statements like the above... funny really<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I actually do not mind the current flight model for the P-51.

If you were to actually read what i said, then you would know i didn't say anything about the P-51 being under modeled.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Seems to me that the FW190D9 is way over modeled, compared to the P-51D.

Club.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also the P-51D with 25% fuel Will climb better then what it says in IL2 compare. 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.

widgeon
05-15-2004, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tipo_Man:


Simply got tired of kids coming here and discussing on performance without even being able to distinguish or name differnt BF-109 variants...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Understood http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Widgeon

SkyChimp
05-15-2004, 07:04 PM
Sorry, but I've been trying to do this loop thing exactly as you state, and I can't do it. Keep stalling.

Maybe you're flying a Yak, they sort of look alike, you know.

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

WWMaxGunz
05-15-2004, 07:14 PM
I would never expect to be able to loop a P-51, any P-51, at ground level at 155mph. I've been waiting for a track to be posted just as was asked from MT about the FW. It would be interesting.

And Tipo -- when you say about P-51 turn time is that with how much fuel? Or should that not matter as much as different 109 models does? P-51 was like a camel when it came to fuel and from full to half full was a big enough difference in handling as some variants of planes are apart. Same with power to weight of P-51, that varies. And once you are going level, it is power to drag that counts the most. Once you have the speed it is highspeed handling. But when anyone wants to compare one plane to death with another, they pick the worst they can find numbers and acts like that's all there is.

I'm amazed that anyone can loop a P-51 at 155mph initial speed at SL. I'm wondering about realism settings used and still amazed. Is this more than a claim to start something? Please, not an ntrk, make it a trk file so ALL the settings and conditions are in there!


Neal

p1ngu666
05-15-2004, 07:42 PM
maple send me a pt if u need hosting
u just put in url of where u put track http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

VW-IceFire
05-15-2004, 08:17 PM
Crimea, 1000 meters, 12:00 noon.

I tried with 100% fuel and 25% fuel to get the P-51D-20 to loop at 155 mph IAS. If you call flying straight up and flipping on your back in a hammerhead stall a loop then yes it does...

I suppose trying combat flaps is in order but I doubt this would help enough.

...basically my feeling is that this specifically appears to be impossible. Either you stall the plane by pulling up on the stick too hard or the plane doesn't have enough speed by the time you are pointing at the sun to complete the rest of the manuver. Either way...its totally impractical in any sort of combat sense.

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

Maple_Tiger
05-15-2004, 09:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
maple send me a pt if u need hosting
u just put in url of where u put track http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sounds like a good idea p1ngu666.

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

Maple_Tiger
05-15-2004, 09:36 PM
I just sent you a pt with my e-mail address p1ngu.

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

WWMaxGunz
05-16-2004, 12:46 AM
S! Icefire!

I thought he wrote sea level so I expect it doesn't end in a crash and... this I just gotta see!


Neal

Skalgrim
05-16-2004, 04:41 AM
When you begin initial loop with low speed
(150 mph) ist powerloading (good accelerate) very important and low stall speed

p51d is not famous for good powerloading

is doubful, that p51d could make initial loops with 155mph ias (250km/h ias)



.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sun May 16 2004 at 05:36 AM.]

clint-ruin
05-16-2004, 05:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Crimea, 1000 meters, 12:00 noon.

I tried with 100% fuel and 25% fuel to get the P-51D-20 to loop at 155 mph IAS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've tried this now with similar results. If you can get the plane to tip back at the top you can sort of make it flop back on itself and "loop" but it's not really a controlled move at all.

Interested to see the tracks of it, using a gamepad here so maybe it can be done if there was more control.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

jurinko
05-16-2004, 05:55 AM
I flew online in P-51C against three Fw 109 D-9s ant the oponents were quite good. We were down low. Shot two of them and the third crashed. Doras were unmaneuvrable like pigs, could not follow me in any maneuver. The horrible turning ability, doesn´t matter whether tight or wide turns, is too emphasized for Fw 190s.

The track:
P-51C vs 3xD9 (http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/HL_P51Bshoots3x190D9.ntrk)

---------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

Chanel505
05-16-2004, 06:04 AM
Hi Icefire i can send you a track. I fly this loop with some negative trim.

VW-IceFire
05-16-2004, 07:22 AM
E-mail to: icefire@3dactionplanet.com.

I really want to see this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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

crazyivan1970
05-16-2004, 07:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
I flew online in P-51C against three Fw 109 D-9s ant the oponents were quite good. We were down low. Shot two of them and the third crashed. Doras were unmaneuvrable like pigs, could not follow me in any maneuver. The horrible turning ability, doesn´t matter whether tight or wide turns, is too emphasized for Fw 190s.

The track:
http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/HL_P51Bshoots3x190D9.ntrk

---------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect mate, "quiet good" pilots don`t fly Dora on the deck and don`t lose turnfights to 51C.. Well flown Dora is a quiet a treat. Level speed of that baby is fenomenal.
I`m not raining on your parade mate by all means.. but calling capable plane a pig because of lousy pilots is just not right 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.

jurinko
05-16-2004, 07:53 AM
with all respect to designers of both planes, I don´t think Tank would admit three Doras can not deal with single Pony down low.. even one-to-one down low, Dora should be better than P-51, not three-to-one. Level speed is good thing, just to get the target into the cross also some maneuver must be done. And here Fw series fail too much...

---------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

Chanel505
05-16-2004, 07:57 AM
Track is on the way.

clint-ruin
05-16-2004, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
with all respect to designers of both planes, I don´t think Tank would admit three Doras can not deal with single Pony down low.. even one-to-one down low, Dora should be better than P-51, not three-to-one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because better planes should always win! Obviously if 3 FW-190D9s cannot beat a P-51 in a low level dogfight, once, then there is obviously a bug in the game. Because we all know that Kurt Tanks greatest achievement was the complete removal of air combat tactics from fighter engagements - it was so good, all it had to do was arrive in the sky and planes would fall to earth if they looked at it sideways.

Similarly, Oleg Maddoxs' greatest achievement was simplifying air combat down to "rock paper scissors" - you better pick good ol' rock when you go online or else! Obviously there is some element of "game balance" in Forgotten Battles since rock does not seem to win automatically all the time -

AS WE ALL KNOW IT SHOULD.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

p1ngu666
05-16-2004, 08:05 AM
ive downed 2 fw190s in a i153 against some of the best 190 drivers around
your point? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Chanel505
05-16-2004, 08:06 AM
2 Mails i send, in the last mail is the loop "quick0008".

JtD
05-16-2004, 08:44 AM
I needed three tries to do something of like loop. Lost 60 meters in alt, but this is probably lack of pilot skill. I hardly fly P-51.

Look at

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/p51d5loop.TRK

You just have to pull hard initially, it won't stall but you'll go up quickly.

VW-IceFire
05-16-2004, 11:10 AM
Got the tracks...watched them. I'm not concerned. I managed to do a similar "loop" and while Chanel505's is smoother than mine its still more akin to a hammerhead stall than it is to a loop (its the child of both if you will http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

I can probably put it up on my FTP later if need be.

The first track I noticed you took quite a bit of time to try and coax the P-51 to settle at 150 mph...its very difficult and the plane doesn't like that speed much at all. I also noticed that you must have compensated for torque or something because when you went over it was fairly smooth. I didn't watch to see if the rudder was deflected or not.

The second track which is more of a snippet shows the loop. It was completed yes but at loss of altitude, speed, and in a dogfight you might as well stick out a sign and say "shoot me".

One thing if you could check please Chanel505...make sure that you have torque turned on. Double check. Because thats what I found myself fighting the most of...torque or loss of lift on one wing and not the other. I can, in a manner of speaking, replicate what you've done...but not as smoothly.

Crazyivan is right...anyone good in a Dora isn't going to fight down low on the deck against a P-51 or any plane really (except maybe the Storch http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). Also...FW190D-9 and "unmanuverable pig" are not descriptors I would associate with each other. The Dora when flown properly is one of the most responsive fighters in this game. What the people you were fighting against were probably doing was killing all of their speed and thus loosing their manuverability. In a FW190...speed is manuverability. The more you have the more manuverability you have. Its similar for the P-51 but much more pronounced.

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

Extreme_One
05-16-2004, 11:17 AM
I think quite a few of us are intrigued enough now to request seeing those tracks.

Can you try and host 'em please VW-IceFire?

S! Simon
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the USAAF & RAF campaign folders here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-10.html).

Download "North and South" including the Japanese speech-pack here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-12.html). *NEW*

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/simplysimon-Ex_1_sig.jpg

Eagle_361st
05-16-2004, 11:18 AM
Hey look who made it back the Uber twins, and as per usual they are whinning about US planes. Big F'in suprise there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

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

clint-ruin
05-16-2004, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
Hey look who made it back the Uber twins, and as per usual they are whinning about US planes. Big F'in suprise there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who's that?

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Eagle_361st
05-16-2004, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
Hey look who made it back the Uber twins, and as per usual they are whinning about US planes. Big F'in suprise there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who's that?



http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Huck and Issy, read the posts you will find them. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

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

Chanel505
05-16-2004, 11:31 AM
LOL Icefire the torque was on, in the first loops i only adjusted my negativ trim. Difficult settings was on full real.

clint-ruin
05-16-2004, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
Huck and Issy, read the posts you will find them. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who do you think they are in the thread, is what I'm asking.

Can't actually recall the last time either of them posted a track to show anything.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Eagle_361st
05-16-2004, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I wunder how comes the G-10 has 65 miles radius at 50% fuel (as according to BSh), when a 109G on max. intenral load (400 lit/88imp gall) had a range of 700 miles. A bit irrevelant though.

Wingloading alone does not tell much upon stall characteristics, its an arficial number not taking into account airfoil characteristics. The P-51 laminar flow wing created less lift per area than the other, more conventional 'tubulent' airfoils.

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

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

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

Here they are http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

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

clint-ruin
05-16-2004, 11:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
Here they are http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know this might come as a surprise - but just because Isegrim posts something does not automatically make it an incorrect observation. I would suggest that the reason there have been a few posts on this is because there seems to be something suspect with the P-51s low speed handling. Whether it really is off-base or not remains to be seen, but so far we have seen JtD posting 19 sec turn times at &lt;300kmh and loops at similar speeds.

Certainly sounds a bit optimistic - I have no idea if the real plane could do that - just that I haven't seen anything saying it could. Perhaps it is a global bug to do with all planes and not just the P-51. I don't know.

In the meantime it might be better to that find out rather than have a go at people who don't even seem to be posting to this thread.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Chanel505
05-16-2004, 11:50 AM
The second track was make from the first track, and in the first track can everyone see that torque was enabled.

Eagle_361st
05-16-2004, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
Here they are http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know this might come as a surprise - but just because Isegrim posts something does not automatically make it an incorrect observation. I would suggest that the reason there have been a few posts on this is because there seems to be something suspect with the P-51s low speed handling. Whether it really is off-base or not remains to be seen, but so far we have seen JtD posting 19 sec turn times at &lt;300kmh and loops at similar speeds.

Certainly sounds a bit optimistic - I have no idea if the real plane could do that - just that I haven't seen anything saying it could. Perhaps it is a global bug to do with all planes and not just the P-51. I don't know.

In the meantime it might be better to that find out rather than have a go at people who don't even seem to be posting to this thread.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to agree that low speed handling is a little off for many planes in FB. But it is amazing to me that the P-51 seems to be the one picked out for it. Besides this is the worst way to have it looked at, any real concerns should be submitted to Oleg and company with the proper tracks. I have tried the same thing with the P-51 and could not repeat the feat even with negative trim or flaps. I can repeat the "flop", but certainly not a true loop. As far as turn times are concerned, it would greatly depend on the model of P-51(B/C are quite agile in RL), fuel load, proper use of trim, flaps and throttle. I am more than sick and tired of US planes being dragged thru the mud, many of these whines are nothing more than pitiful attempts at getting Oleg and company to truely undermodel the US aircraft.

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

faustnik
05-16-2004, 11:58 AM
Here is a chart from Focke-Wulf Fw190 "Long Nose", Dietmar Hermann, illustrating one of the limitations of the Dora:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/DoraComp.gif

The Dora is very competative with the P-51 but, only through the use of it's limited duration Mw50 boost system.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

VW-IceFire
05-16-2004, 12:01 PM
Here we are:
http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/Loop1.TRK
http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/quick0008.ntrk

Only going to be for a short time then I'll have to remove them.

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

Eagle_361st
05-16-2004, 12:18 PM
Ok watched the track, couple of notes.
1) The loop was started at more like 175 Mph.
2) The loop was more of an outside loop, not a true over the top loop.
3) You had no or verrrrrrrrrry little control at the apex, you had stall buffeting and still flopped over.
4) Flaps were indeed used.

I encourage anyone to watch the track from the cockpit view and watch it several times. Even if this is "overmodeling" I don't see one bit of advantage here. The last thing I would want is my a$$ hangin on my prop like that. But I imagine that this is more of a global thing, than model specific.

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

Chanel505
05-16-2004, 12:32 PM
You measured the time, how many seconds the aircraft need to make a turn? Can a real P-51 B, C, D fly this figure?

Eagle_361st
05-16-2004, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chanel505:
You measured the time, how many seconds the aircraft need to make a turn? Can a real P-51 B, C, D fly this figure?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Specify the airframe, fuel, speed, flap setting and altitude. These all make a major difference in the testing. The P-51B/C were very agile as they were lighter, and had better lateral stability than the early D models. The P-51 in general had a better turn rate than most anything at higher speeds 300+ Mph. The P-51 could also drop 5 degrees of flaps or as they called it "Maneuver flaps" up to 400 Mph. The P-51 is not a stall fighter, but at higher speeds it is more than match for most anything, especially in the right hands.

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

NegativeGee
05-16-2004, 12:53 PM
Cheers for hosting the tracks IceFire http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
Ok watched the track, couple of notes.
1) The loop was started at more like 175 Mph.
2) The loop was more of an outside loop, not a true over the top loop.
3) You had no or verrrrrrrrrry little control at the apex, you had stall buffeting and still flopped over.
4) Flaps were indeed used.

I encourage anyone to watch the track from the cockpit view and watch it several times. Even if this is "overmodeling" I don't see one bit of advantage here. The last thing I would want is my a$$ hangin on my prop like that. But I imagine that this is more of a global thing, than model specific.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, in the loop track the plane stalls as it approaches the top of the loop, and in the quick track it very nearly does. On both occasions the airplane undergoes approximately 100 degrees of horizontal rotation through the course of the manouver. Not really a true loop, but a kinda halfway between that and a hammerhead.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

JtD
05-16-2004, 03:17 PM
I uploaded a new track, which is different from my earlier try in that I

1) didn't use flaps
2) enabled wing tip smoke
3) made it cleaner yet not perfect.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/p51d5loop.trk

It start's at 155mph=249kph, looses something like 50 meters in alt, goes over the top, I had full control all the time, didn't deploy flaps. Still, it's not a true loop as it is egg-shaped.

Funny thing is it flew well with as litte as 100kph, which is WAY BELOW any stall figures I have seen so far. The airfoil shouldn't be better than a brick wall at those speeds.

Anybody believing this is real has no idea about basic aerodynamics.

LEXX_Luthor
05-16-2004, 03:20 PM
It probably was not flying but falling gracefully and with little torque modded it don't flip out.

__________________
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

JtD
05-16-2004, 04:45 PM
Falling gracefully but reacting to aileron input? No sir.

WWMaxGunz
05-16-2004, 07:23 PM
Called zero G flight.

Me, I'm going to look for a way to throw in a static camera to the trk files. Appearances from inside can deceive.

Lexx, you know the text for that?


Neal

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-16-2004, 07:47 PM
Salute

The horsepower figures for the P-51 provided by several people are misleading.

Here is a chart which better shows the actual power produced:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66hpchart.jpg

As you can see, at +25 boost or 72 inches, the P-51 engine produces over 2000 hp.

LEXX_Luthor
05-16-2004, 09:47 PM
Gunz, I am not sure what you mean by text for static camera, but its a good idea. You can set altitude of static camera to be near predicted loop top.

There is an External View that is fixed in space and tracks your plane as it passes. I have it mapped as F12 but I don't think that is the default key for this.

jtd:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Falling gracefully but reacting to aileron input? No sir.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We have some aileron control during takeoff forward airspeeds.


__________________
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

VW-IceFire
05-16-2004, 10:02 PM
Keep in mind...this is simulated reality. The closer to the edge of the flight envelope the harder it is for a programmer to make a paired down physics engine to try and figure out what the heck its supposed to do.

Understanding of aerodynamics or not...I do know that this is such a small thing (and it probably exists on most fighters either too much or too little) that its barely worth a 4 page topic over.

My conclusion: It doesn't appear (in my limited perception) to have anything to do with any other envelope of flight that the P-51 would normally engage in and that the manuver, other than to show exceptional pilot skill and control (which I do not have - I can't replicate this nearly as well) and the ability to fly on the edge, this...whatever you want to call this...is not going to in any way bestow some kind of advantage on the P-51.

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

JtD
05-17-2004, 01:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
We have some aileron control during takeoff forward airspeeds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But there is a slight difference between rolling forward and falling downwards.

I can basically agree with VW-IceFire that this specific maneuvre doesn't really matter. But I don't like the exceptionally good low speed handling of the Mustang, which is shown in these tracks as well as in some others. 1st because it's shouldn't be there to that extend and 2nd because it takes away any charakter the plane could have.
So if ths thread opened some eyes and the next patch will make the P-51 a much more demanding plane to fly, it certainly was worth these 4 pages.

Fillmore
05-17-2004, 03:43 AM
Yet another thread with a decent test, but it only concearns one plane and makes it seem like this is a problem with only one plane. I am certain this problem is the same for all planes, I fly FW190s and can maintain too much control at too low speeds (higher speeds than this, yes, but lower than should be) with no really severe torque effects, I see every plane I fly against able to do the same thing, maintain control at very low speeds with no problems. It is a limitation of the physics engine and applies to all planes. If you practice alot with one plane you can get control almost like the AI has. I am sure BoB will be better, but still not perfect.

PzKpfw
05-17-2004, 06:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

The horsepower figures for the P-51 provided by several people are misleading.

Here is a chart which better shows the actual power produced:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66hpchart.jpg

As you can see, at +25 boost or 72 inches, the P-51 engine produces over 2000 hp.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buzz I have no idea what horsepower figures you are refering to. The powerloading hp/lb data I posted, for the P-51D was MILITARY POWER 61"hg only.

The Data I have on P-51D/K HP* states:

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

I have no data on P-51D/K @ 72"hg. But the data on the engine rateings on the P-51H's V-1650-9 shows a max of 80"hg Ie, *:

Take Off @ 61"hg:

1380hp @ 3000rpm @ SL - 2 Stage.2 Speed.

Normal Power @ 46"hg:
1110hp @ 2700rpm @ 17,400ft @ Low Blower
950hp @ 2700rpm @ @ High Blower

MILITARY POWER @ 61"hg:
1490hp @ 3000rpm @ 13,750ft @ Low Blower
1210hp @ 3000rpm @ 25,800ft @ High Blower

COMBAT POWER @ 80"hg:
1930hp @ 3000rpm @ 10,100ft @ Low Blower (wet)
1630hp @ 3000rpm @ 23,500ft @ High Blower (wet)


*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

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Mon May 17 2004 at 09:13 PM.]

PikeBishop
05-17-2004, 08:08 AM
Hi all,

Just thought that I would put this in for good measure.
The manuals that I have consulted about combat or aerobatic manoeuvres say that one enters a loop at a speed not less than 2.5 times the stall speed of the aircraft in question. So for the P51 it would be somewhere around 250mph but don't quote me on it.

Best regards,

SLP

Maple_Tiger
05-17-2004, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
We have some aileron control during takeoff forward airspeeds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But there is a slight difference between rolling forward and falling downwards.

I can basically agree with VW-IceFire that this specific maneuvre doesn't really matter. But I don't like the exceptionally good low speed handling of the Mustang, which is shown in these tracks as well as in some others. 1st because it's shouldn't be there to that extend and 2nd because it takes away any charakter the plane could have.
So if ths thread opened some eyes and the next patch will make the P-51 a much more demanding plane to fly, it certainly was worth these 4 pages.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



lol,

With 25% fuel the p-51 will exceed what it says in climb charts and most likly turn time.

I disagree with you.

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

JtD
05-17-2004, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Hi all,

Just thought that I would put this in for good measure.
The manuals that I have consulted about combat or aerobatic manoeuvres say that one enters a loop at a speed not less than 2.5 times the stall speed of the aircraft in question. So for the P51 it would be somewhere around 250mph<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read of 101 miles in clean cofiguration and about 89 with flaps down. Number would increase with a heavier plane to 115. Speed range would be from 220mph to 290mph.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> but don't quote me on it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No mercy. ;-)

[This message was edited by JtD on Mon May 17 2004 at 08:02 AM.]

JtD
05-17-2004, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:

I disagree with you.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you are saying a P-51 should loop at 155mph? Because it did in real life?
Can you show me the antigravitiy devices that must have been used in the P-51?
I always thought Roswell was after WW2.

Kwiatos
05-17-2004, 10:14 AM
I think not only P-51 could loop at so slow speed. In manuals for different planes there are different recomended speed for looping. For example:
- Spitfire V - 300 mph IAS but maby reduced to 220-250 mph when pilot is very experience. So minimal speed should be 350 km/h. In FB you could make loop at 300 km/h

- Mustang III - 300 mph IAS (ab. 480 km/h)

- Corsair - 260-280 knots ( ab. 480 km/h)

faustnik
05-17-2004, 10:36 AM
Back in the IL-2 days I flew the P-39 almost exclusively. I would watch my airspeed very carefully knowing that at 400kph I could perform a vertical loop and survive. Any less than that, and I knew the "Spin-o-death" might result from an attempt. In FB/Aces the critical "entering loop speed" is down to 300kph. I wonder why this was changed?

It is funny that the P-51 is being singled out here. The issue applies to ALL planes in FB.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Kwiatos
05-17-2004, 11:58 AM
Yes i confirm that in FB/AEP minimum speed for manouvers (loop, roll etc) is at low lewel. You could loop at 300 km/h in every plane. So its much easier(arcadish) to make manouvers. I wonder too why its not possible to make backspin in FB. I remebmer that in Il2 i can do it.

Chanel505
05-17-2004, 09:03 PM
Hi Icefire, yesterday i had more time to repeat the loop.

I put 75% fuel in the P-51D-20NA, radiators closed, combat flaps and the P-51 make this loop whitout problems,needet only 3 times, on the top of the loop the P-51 reached 70 KM/H with full controls of the aircraft. I dont used rudder or something else, it was a clean loop, the loop ends where the loop was begining. So its posible to fly this figure. And this with 75 % fuelload, a real P-51 dont have this characteristic becouse the position of his fueltanks.
A track is on the way.

[This message was edited by Chanel505 on Mon May 17 2004 at 08:21 PM.]

VW-IceFire
05-17-2004, 09:58 PM
I believe you. Not to worry http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My overall conclusion is fairly simple however: Its an overall symptom of an attempt to simulate reality on a computer system/physics engine/game engine that doesn't have enough raw power to compute all of the necessary variables to accomodate every single instance and possibility.

I'm sure that Oleg Maddox would agree http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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

Eagle_361st
05-17-2004, 10:11 PM
I tried it in the 109, 190, Yak3, and La7(First real time in that bird http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif), and I found they all re-acted in similar ways. That leads me to believe that this is more of a global game engine problem than a model problem. I think this is a limitation, not poor modeling. Again I will say that this really bears no real advantage for any of these aircraft, unles you just want to show off while getting the **** shot out of you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

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

PzKpfw
05-17-2004, 10:17 PM
I agree with Ice's conclusions. PC hp just isn't upto modeling all the variables etc.

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
05-17-2004, 11:17 PM
No wonder the patch is taking so long.

I hope they are starting back from if not square one then close enough, a step back from where the AEP tweaks got started. Often it's easier to make new than figure out old.


Neal

Matz0r
05-18-2004, 02:16 AM
P51D20 looping without end at FR settings: Track (http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/P-51weeeee.rar)

http://home.swipnet.se/hotascougar/pics/p51blamgreysmall.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-18-2004, 06:33 AM
Lexx, I tried to edit a static camera into the trk file just as it would for an mis file. No luck, there's a CRC or other check (set bits?) and it caught the change as tampering, wouldn't run it.

The whole idea was to get a stationary view of the loop(s) to see what was being flown. I should check because I don't know but is there and external view you can set from the side and make it stop following the plane long enough for a real look? What I kept seeing was the plane getting vertical and then the sky turns and the plane comes down, twisting back onto heading. from external I saw something that looked like a loop but when your POV frame is the plane it's just not good.

Cameras are easy to place. They like anything in a mission file can be edited as to position using notepad but the tracks, alas cannot.


Neal