PDA

View Full Version : P51 B and C



JG7_Rall
02-09-2004, 08:05 PM
S!

I've posted about these planes numberous times, asking differnt questions, but I was wondering if we have any info about how it's being modelled in the game. For instance, I've learned that the electric motors used to cure jamming problems in the fifty calibres also increased it's ROF...this would be a good trade off for having 2 less brownings (right???) Also, will it be more maneuverable and a bit better at low alts?

Also, what will the armor/cockpit be like? (pictures welcome http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Thanks! Can't wait for the addon.

JG7_Rall
02-09-2004, 08:05 PM
S!

I've posted about these planes numberous times, asking differnt questions, but I was wondering if we have any info about how it's being modelled in the game. For instance, I've learned that the electric motors used to cure jamming problems in the fifty calibres also increased it's ROF...this would be a good trade off for having 2 less brownings (right???) Also, will it be more maneuverable and a bit better at low alts?

Also, what will the armor/cockpit be like? (pictures welcome http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Thanks! Can't wait for the addon.

A.K.Davis
02-09-2004, 08:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
S!

I've posted about these planes numberous times, asking differnt questions, but I was wondering if we have any info about how it's being modelled in the game. For instance, I've learned that the electric motors used to cure jamming problems in the fifty calibres also increased it's ROF...this would be a good trade off for having 2 less brownings (right???) Also, will it be more maneuverable and a bit better at low alts?

Also, what will the armor/cockpit be like? (pictures welcome http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Thanks! Can't wait for the addon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true. We went through this a few weeks ago, and the electric motors did not increase RoF. Should be more maneuverable because of lighter weight.

--AKD

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

Korolov
02-09-2004, 09:12 PM
The only way to increase the M2's ROF would be to put lighter barrels on it, and that's not necessarily a smart thing when you consider how hot a .50 cal gets.

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

tagert
02-09-2004, 09:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
The only way to increase the M2's ROF would be to put lighter barrels on it, and that's not necessarily a smart thing when you consider how hot a .50 cal gets.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not the only way to increase the M2's ROF. As tennmike noted, the installation of MUZZLE BOOSTERS increased the ROF from the 650rpm to the 950rpm

Here is a pic of one
http://www.biggerhammer.net/anm2/pictorial/anm2_booster.jpg

from
http://www.biggerhammer.net/anm2/pictorial/

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

ZG77_Nagual
02-10-2004, 08:14 AM
I believe the b/c also had a thinner wing and was widely regarded as the a superior dogfighter to the D.

lrrp22
02-10-2004, 09:07 AM
The B's wing was slightly narrower in chord at the wing root (less crank) but was otherwise the same thickness as the D's.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
I believe the b/c also had a thinner wing and was widely regarded as the a superior dogfighter to the D.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lbhskier37
02-10-2004, 09:19 AM
Wouldn't a thinner wing be detrimental to dogfighting ability? A thin wing works better at high speed I thought, where as a thicker wing would be better for turning.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

JG7_Rall
02-10-2004, 03:09 PM
Oh, my mistake about the motors http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

So will the B/C just be a better dogfighter with p*ssy guns? I know those .50's are strong, but is 4 enough?

lbhskier37
02-10-2004, 03:36 PM
4 is plenty in the Brewster.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

VW-IceFire
02-10-2004, 04:35 PM
Brewster's guns are slightly modified than the normal Browning .50 cal that and the plane is slow enough and its opponents are slow enough to have more time on target than a P-51 is normally. Even so...even the P-39Q-1 has enough firepower to take out most opponents with just MG fire and two of the four are syncronized so 4 unsyncronized machine guns against earlier fighters should do just fine. Correct me if I'm wrong but the B and C have more ammo per gun anyways...

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

Korolov
02-10-2004, 06:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
Not the only way to increase the M2's ROF. As tennmike noted, the installation of MUZZLE BOOSTERS increased the ROF from the 650rpm to the 950rpm

Here is a pic of one
http://www.biggerhammer.net/anm2/pictorial/anm2_booster.jpg

from
http://www.biggerhammer.net/anm2/pictorial/
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incorrect. The weight of the barrel, due to the design of the "floating" barrel system, directly controls the rate of fire to the weapon. The lighter the barrel is, the less weight there is to move around, and the faster fire rate you get. Muzzle boosters have nothing to do with it, because that's not what the gun uses for operation.

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

WhiskeyRiver
02-11-2004, 12:41 AM
wouldn't diverting more of the firing gasses and increasing the tension of the recoil spring increase ROF at the expense of M/V?

Lightening the barrel is not the only way to increase ROF on a gas operated MG

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

Aaron_GT
02-11-2004, 06:30 AM
AFAIK the M2 uses a fairly simple blowback
mechanism, not a floating barrel. Muzzle
boosters should boost ROF. Not that I am sure
you want to have a boosted ROF in a P51B that
is already prone to jamming at 750rpm. In
a P51D (less prone to jamming) then perhaps.

Were the muzzle boosters used on P51s?

Willey
02-11-2004, 07:00 AM
What's the sense in having both B and C BTW??? I heard the only difference is the production location (California vs Texas)...
Looking at the dev ups, the B will have a normal razorback cockpit, and the C will get a malcom hood... but else?? Different engines maybe...

JG53Frankyboy
02-11-2004, 07:38 AM
perhaps these two variants

Specification of P-51B-1-NA:

One 1620 hp Packard Merlin V-1650-3 twelve cylinder Vee liquid-cooled engine. Maximum speed was 388 mph at 5000 feet, 406 mph at 10,000 feet, 427 mph at 20,000 feet, 430 mph at 25,000 feet, 440 mph at 30,000 feet. Range on internal fuel was 550 miles at 343 mph at 25,000 feet, 810 miles at 253 mph at 10,000 feet. With maximum external fuel, maximum range was 2200 miles at 244 mph. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 1.8 minutes, 10,000 feet in 3.6 minutes, 20,000 feet in 7 minutes. Service ceiling was 42,000 feet. Weights were 6840 lbs empty, 9200 lbs normal loaded, 11,200 lbs maximum loaded. Wingspan was 37 feet 0 1/4 inches, length was 32 feet 3 inches, height 8 feet 8 inches, and wing area was 233 square feet.

Specification of P-51C-10-NT:

One 1695 hp Packard Merlin V-1650-7 twelve cylinder Vee liquid-cooled engine. Maximum speed was 395 mph at 5000 feet, 417 mph at 10,000 feet, 426 mph at 20,000 feet, 439 mph at 25,000 feet, 435 mph at 30,000 feet. Range on internal fuel was 955 miles at 397 mph at 25,000 feet, 1300 miles at 260 mph at 10,000 feet. With maximum external fuel, maximum range was 2440 miles at 249 mph. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 1.6 minutes, 10,000 feet in 3.1 minutes, 20,000 feet in 6.9 minutes. Service ceiling was 41,900 feet. Weights were 6985 lbs empty, 9800 lbs normal loaded, 11,800 lbs maximum loaded. Wingspan was 37 feet 0 1/4 inches, length was 32 feet 3 inches, height 8 feet 8 inches, and wing area was 233 square feet.


the C with malcom hood ,the additonal fuselage fueltank and the more powerfull engine

we will see

ZG77_Nagual
02-11-2004, 12:58 PM
We are getting the malcom on one of them.

Aaron_GT
02-11-2004, 02:58 PM
Given the fixed head swivel will the Malcolm
hood actually give any advantages?

JG7_Rall
02-11-2004, 03:28 PM
Less bars and stuff to get in your way...

The C model had the fuselage tank? Will this cut back on the maneuverability?

kyrule2
02-11-2004, 07:15 PM
I thought the Malcolm hood being fitted to the Mustang was in '44. If so, will anyone fly the "C" over the "D"?

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

ZG77_Nagual
02-11-2004, 07:46 PM
The malcom will look cool http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and I believe it was a brit modification - in '43

Korolov
02-11-2004, 09:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiskeyRiver:
wouldn't diverting more of the firing gasses and increasing the tension of the recoil spring increase ROF at the expense of M/V?

Lightening the barrel is not the only way to increase ROF on a gas operated MG
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Browning M2 is recoil operated.

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

Korolov
02-11-2004, 09:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
AFAIK the M2 uses a fairly simple blowback
mechanism, not a floating barrel. Muzzle
boosters should boost ROF. Not that I am sure
you want to have a boosted ROF in a P51B that
is already prone to jamming at 750rpm. In
a P51D (less prone to jamming) then perhaps.

Were the muzzle boosters used on P51s?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See above post. M2 is recoil operated, and the barrel (similar to all Browning automatic designs) has a "floating" system, where the barrel is sort of loosely fitted to allow freedom of movement for better feeding.

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

kyrule2
02-12-2004, 01:06 AM
Nagual, I'm not trying to argue, and its no big deal but I'm pretty sure the Malcolm hood Mustang wasn't active until '44.

I hope the P-51B & C will be '44 planes, it operated less than a month in '43 and they didn't record their first kill until two weeks before the year ended IIRC. I'm betting the full real/hard type servers (the ones I prefer) will have the P-51B & C as '44 planes either way.

The Mustang was an awesome plane, put it on '43 servers and it will get ugly fast IMHO.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

JG7_Rall
02-12-2004, 06:16 PM
Oh well, at least we're getting them!

And now I'm all excited about the corsair...

ElAurens
02-12-2004, 10:15 PM
IIRC, the fuselage tank was seen on both B and C models. Just a function of when they were produced, and those that did not get them at time of manufacture often had them fitted in the field. Not just only on C models...

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

ASH_HOUSE_WARES
02-13-2004, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
I hope the P-51B & C will be '44 planes, it operated less than a month in '43<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>GROOVY!
But, the 9th Air Force units recived deliveries starting on 11th of November of 1943.

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/army/store.jpg

kyrule2
02-13-2004, 02:43 PM
Ash-house-wares, because the P-51B/C didn't see combat until two weeks before the end of the year I still don't think they belong in the '43 planeset. Look at it this way, with 2 & 1/2 weeks left in the year the P-51B/C didn't have a single kill. Like I said, I'm sure that servers who strive for historical accuracy will place the P-51B/C in the '44 planeset so no worries.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

ASH_HOUSE_WARES
02-13-2004, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
Ash-house-wares, because the P-51B/C didn't see combat until two weeks before the end of the year I still don't think they belong in the '43 planeset. Look at it this way, with 2 & 1/2 weeks left in the year the P-51B/C didn't have a single kill. Like I said, I'm sure that servers who strive for historical accuracy will place the P-51B/C in the '44 planeset so no worries.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. well I *think* that same argument could be applied to some late-in-the year LW aircraft in 44 too.. But they dont! I have never seen the time line depended on USEAGE.. it has allways been on when the aircraft came ONLINE... So kind of a double standard.. LW aircraft in the year they rolled off the assembly line.. and US aircraft post assembly line, post delevery, post training, post first confirmed kill?

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/army/store.jpg

ElAurens
02-13-2004, 05:29 PM
ASH, are you that surpised that the LW side wants to supress the B and C?

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

ASH_HOUSE_WARES
02-13-2004, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
ASH, are you that surpised that the LW side wants to supress the B and C?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I hope not! But it sure seems to be a doulbe standard here.. I hope it is just a miss understanding! The P51B should be usable in 43 like the 109K is in 44

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/army/store.jpg

A.K.Davis
02-13-2004, 05:38 PM
Actually, it should be the other way around, otherwise I don't see the point of limiting a planeset for historical gameplay. Just have all planes if that's your attitude. P-51 should be '44. K-4 should be '45. There are others also.

--AKD

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

ASH_HOUSE_WARES
02-13-2004, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
Actually, it should be the other way around, otherwise I don't see the point of limiting a planeset for historical gameplay. Just have all planes if that's your attitude. P-51 should be '44. K-4 should be '45. There are others also.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You hit it on the nose! All Im pointing out is the double standard, I dont care eitherway, as long as the same rule is applied to both sides

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/army/store.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
02-13-2004, 06:09 PM
g6 and a5 are fine with the mustang - but we'll see.

A.K.Davis
02-13-2004, 07:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_HOUSE_WARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
Actually, it should be the other way around, otherwise I don't see the point of limiting a planeset for historical gameplay. Just have all planes if that's your attitude. P-51 should be '44. K-4 should be '45. There are others also.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You hit it on the nose! All Im pointing out is the double standard, I dont care eitherway, as long as the same rule is applied to both sides
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's only a double-standard if Kyrule thinks the K-4 should be in '44 planesets. You don't know that he does...

--AKD

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

kyrule2
02-13-2004, 08:23 PM
Thanks AKD for sticking up for me. In fact I think the K-4 should be a '45 airplane. In fact I don't fly the K-4 for that reason as I prefer the G-14 and G-10. I am very much into historical accuracy so there is no double-standard here, believe me.

Hey AKD, remember when we were called "luftwhiners" when we said the 190 needed a complex DM?! Remember how so many people swore that the 190 DID have a complex DM, we just didn't fly it enough http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif? Looks like we were right after all. I wish I had a dollar for every time I was wrongly accused of being a luftwhiner. Actually it looks like I just made another couple bucks in this thread.

And I'm not trying to supress the P-51B/C, I just think a plane should have a kill longer than two weeks before the end of the year to be included in that plane-set, no matter if its German, US, or VVS.

This is just my opinion, others are free to disagree. But please try to do it without the finger-pointing, there is enough of that already.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

ASH_HOUSE_WARES
02-13-2004, 08:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
But please try to do it without the finger-pointing, there is enough of that already.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, AKD and You are correct.. I assumed that you had the late 1944 LW thing.. My bad! It just that so many of the HL servers have late 1944 LW aircraft aval in 1944.. But no excuse, I shouldnt have assumed you were of the same breed! Sorry!

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/army/store.jpg

Bravo96
02-13-2004, 09:25 PM
For general info, according to Roger Freeman's "Mustang At War", Doubleday, New York, 1974, the blown Malcolm hoods were first installed on Brit Mustang III's (P51C's) at 19 and 65 Sqns at Gravesend in Feb 1944 (page 119). There is also plenty of information within this book regarding all the major and minor variations between models of the P51.

kyrule2
02-14-2004, 12:12 AM
Bravo, thanks for confirming what I said about the Malcolm hood Mustangs being in '44.

Ash-House-Wares, no problem and good on you. And I agree there needs to be more early/mid war servers, too many '44 servers around.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

MandMs
02-14-2004, 01:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
Thanks AKD for sticking up for me. In fact I think the K-4 should be a '45 airplane. In fact I don't fly the K-4 for that reason as I prefer the G-14 and G-10. I am very much into historical accuracy so there is no double-standard here, believe me.

Hey AKD, remember when we were called "luftwhiners" when we said the 190 needed a complex DM?! Remember how so many people swore that the 190 DID have a complex DM, we just didn't fly it enough http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif? Looks like we were right after all. I wish I had a dollar for every time I was wrongly accused of being a luftwhiner. Actually it looks like I just made another couple bucks in this thread.

And I'm not trying to supress the P-51B/C, I just think a plane should have a kill longer than two weeks before the end of the year to be included in that plane-set, no matter if its German, US, or VVS.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The G-10 and K-4 began reaching units at the same time, Oct '44.

kyrule2
02-14-2004, 01:39 AM
MandMs, I'm not as well versed in the 109 so I would be interested to know when the different variants first saw combat (achieved a kill(s)), especially the G-6A/S, G-14, G-10, and K-4.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

MandMs
02-14-2004, 02:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
MandMs, I'm not as well versed in the 109 so I would be interested to know when the different variants first saw combat (achieved a kill(s)), especially the G-6A/S, G-14, G-10, and K-4.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://www.jg51.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)

G-6/AS - to III./JG1 and II./JG11 late spring '44 followed by I./JG3 and II./JG27. First loss, May 8 1944. Oesau was flying an /AS when he was killed(11.5.44).

G-14 - production began in July 1944

Can't give you when first used, but if the introduction of previous models can be used, with-in a month of production start.

[This message was edited by MandMs on Mon February 16 2004 at 08:24 AM.]

JG7_Rall
02-14-2004, 11:33 AM
G14 was produced before the G10 due to engine manufacturing troubles.

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/sig.jpg

Maple_Tiger
02-16-2004, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
Nagual, I'm not trying to argue, and its no big deal but I'm pretty sure the Malcolm hood Mustang wasn't active until '44.

I hope the P-51B & C will be '44 planes, it operated less than a month in '43 and they didn't record their first kill until two weeks before the year ended IIRC. I'm betting the full real/hard type servers (the ones I prefer) will have the P-51B & C as '44 planes either way.

The Mustang was an awesome plane, put it on '43 servers and it will get ugly fast IMHO.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://www.jg51.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)


The first combat unit equipped with Merlin-powered Mustangs was the 354th Fighter Group, which reached England in October of 1943. The 354th FG consisted of the 353rd, 355th and 356th Fighter Squadrons, and was part of the 9th Air Force which had the responsibility of air-to-ground attacks in support of the upcoming invasion of Europe. However, they were immediately ordered to support the bomber operations of the 8th Air Force. The 354th flew their first cross-Channel sweep mission on December 1, 1943, and scored their first victory on a mission to Bremen on December 16. However, inexperienced pilots and ground crews and numerous technical problems limited operations with the P-51B/C until about eight weeks into 1944. From the early spring of 1944, the Merlin-powered Mustang became an important fighter in the ETO.

By looking at historical data then we can all agree that they are a 1943 plane set, except of course the melcome hood.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_8.html


1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

[This message was edited by Maple_Tiger on Mon February 16 2004 at 08:21 AM.]

[This message was edited by Maple_Tiger on Mon February 16 2004 at 08:25 AM.]

[This message was edited by Maple_Tiger on Mon February 16 2004 at 08:32 AM.]

ASH at S-MART
02-16-2004, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
The first combat unit equipped with Merlin-powered Mustangs was the 354th Fighter Group, which reached England in October of 1943. The 354th FG consisted of the 353rd, 355th and 356th Fighter Squadrons, and was part of the 9th Air Force which had the responsibility of air-to-ground attacks in support of the upcoming invasion of Europe. However, they were immediately ordered to support the bomber operations of the 8th Air Force. The 354th flew their first cross-Channel sweep mission on December 1, 1943, and scored their first victory on a mission to Bremen on December 16. However, inexperienced pilots and ground crews and numerous technical problems limited operations with the P-51B/C until about eight weeks into 1944. From the early spring of 1944, the Merlin-powered Mustang became an important fighter in the ETO.

By looking at historical data then we can all agree that they are a 1943 plane set, except of course the melcome hood.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_8.html

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>GROOVY!

Hey Maple! What is your sorce for that October thing? Reason I ask is mine said...

The 9th Air Force units recived deliveries starting on 11th of November of 1943

Not saying right or wrong here.. just asking.. In that I hope your right and Im wrong! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Would love to put the early stang aginst some late 109s in 1943!

Ah.. DOH! That link is your source! Just finished reading it!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

kyrule2
02-16-2004, 12:51 PM
"The first combat unit equipped with Merlin-powered Mustangs was the 354th Fighter Group, which reached England in October of 1943. The 354th FG consisted of the 353rd, 355th and 356th Fighter Squadrons, and was part of the 9th Air Force which had the responsibility of air-to-ground attacks in support of the upcoming invasion of Europe. However, they were immediately ordered to support the bomber operations of the 8th Air Force. The 354th flew their first cross-Channel sweep mission on December 1, 1943, and scored their first victory on a mission to Bremen on December 16. However, inexperienced pilots and ground crews and numerous technical problems limited operations with the P-51B/C until about eight weeks into 1944. From the early spring of 1944, the Merlin-powered Mustang became an important fighter in the ETO.

By looking at historical data then we can all agree that they are a 1943 plane set, except of course the melcome hood."



Ummm, Maple Tiger you are just confirming what I said earlier, even moreso. No kills until two weeks before the end of the year, and not a real factor until early '44 due to technical problems. So we can all agree that P-51B/C should be a '44 plane?

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

ASH at S-MART
02-16-2004, 01:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
Ummm, Maple Tiger you are just confirming what I said earlier, even moreso. No kills until two weeks before the end of the year, and not a real factor until early '44 due to technical problems. So we can all agree that P-51B/C should be a '44 plane?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey Kyrule!
Depends who you talk to really.. But I have never seen anyone base it off of the 1st kill recorded. More so on the potential to get a kill.. and by potential I mean active duty.. flying sorties..

Which is very different then most of the sever settings on HL! They tend to use the day it rolled off of the assembly line.. And to me that is wrong! I drawn the line at when it was issued to the pilots and flown in sorties.. ie the POTENTIAL to get a kill.. Which is why I dont have a big problem with the P-80 being added! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I know you and I agree, that, real late stuff in the year.. like the 109K in 1944 should not make it aval for the whole year.. but when the resolution of the game is at 1 year increments.. There is not much one can do.. I have also noticed that just about every realistic server on HL includes the 109K in the 1944 plane set.. So, if they are consistant, then they will most likly included the P51B and C in the 1943.. But that will be left to be seen! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I summary.. if it was issued to units and used in sorties for at least a few months.. Im ok with it.. Which is why Im ok with the 109K in 44

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Magister__Ludi
02-16-2004, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_HOUSE_WARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
But please try to do it without the finger-pointing, there is enough of that already.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, AKD and You are correct.. I assumed that you had the late 1944 LW thing.. My bad! It just that so many of the HL servers have late 1944 LW aircraft aval in 1944.. But no excuse, I shouldnt have assumed you were of the same breed! Sorry!

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/army/store.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

K4 saw combat with many JG beginning with November 1944, many reached JGs in October 44. I think we can agree that planes that saw action only in the last month of a year does not belong to that year plane set. K4 is not in this situation.

Strange_361st
02-16-2004, 01:17 PM
"Ummm, Maple Tiger you are just confirming what I said earlier, even moreso. No kills until two weeks before the end of the year, and not a real factor until early '44 due to technical problems. So we can all agree that P-51B/C should be a '44 plane?"

Kyrule,

I have to disagree.. I hope to see these planes as 1943 as they should be. As these were setup for opertional units in 43'.

Also heres some more history..The Merlin-powered Mustang entered service in the China-Burma-India (CBI) theatre in September 1943. These aircraft were assigned to the 23rd and 51st Fighter Groups of the 5th Air Force.

Early in 1944, the 311th Fighter Group of the 10th Air Force saw action in Burma with its Mustangs, flying in support of airborne troops attacking Japanese lines of communication. The top Mustang ace of the CBI theatre was Major John C. "Pappy" Herbst, with 18 kills.

"Strange"
XO of the 376th vFS, 361st vFG
http://www.361stvfg.com

Magister__Ludi
02-16-2004, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Strange_361st:
"Ummm, Maple Tiger you are just confirming what I said earlier, even moreso. No kills until two weeks before the end of the year, and not a real factor until early '44 due to technical problems. So we can all agree that P-51B/C should be a '44 plane?"

Kyrule,

I have to disagree.. I hope to see these planes as 1943 as they should be. As these were setup for opertional units in 43'.

Also heres some more history..The Merlin-powered Mustang entered service in the China-Burma-India (CBI) theatre in September 1943. These aircraft were assigned to the 23rd and 51st Fighter Groups of the 5th Air Force.

Early in 1944, the 311th Fighter Group of the 10th Air Force saw action in Burma with its Mustangs, flying in support of airborne troops attacking Japanese lines of communication. The top Mustang ace of the CBI theatre was Major John C. "Pappy" Herbst, with 18 kills.

"Strange"
XO of the 376th vFS, 361st vFG
http://www.361stvfg.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Though China-Burma is hardly a conflict to deserve attention in FB my question is how many combat sorties got Mustangs there before December 1944.

ASH at S-MART
02-16-2004, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
K4 saw combat with many JG beginning with November 1944, many reached JGs in October 44. I think we can agree that planes that saw action only in the last month of a year does not belong to that year plane set. K4 is not in this situation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you! Even if it didnt see action I would agree with you! I was mearly pointing out that most of the realistic servers include the 109K in the 1944 plane set and that the situation is very simulart to that of the P51b in 1943.. Therefore it should be included into the 1943 plane set. As long as it was delivered to units and flying sorties.. that is where I draw the line

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Maple_Tiger
02-16-2004, 01:35 PM
Whats the big deal,


If that is how you two feel, then the FWD9 and BF109K4 should be listed as a 1945 plane. I cant see this that happening.

I am sorry guys but you will see the P-51C\B in the 1943 plane set. Its not realy up to you lol.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

A.K.Davis
02-16-2004, 01:35 PM
I think Kyrule's (and my point) is that if you are going to limit the planeset to a particular year, you should try and make that planeset representative of combat during that year, otherwise, why limit the planeset?

When I think '43 ETO, I think razorback P-47s, olive-drab B17s, P-38F/Hs flying long-range escort, Spitfire IXs over France, Fw-190A5s and 109G6s intercepting daylight bombers and German twins still having an opportunity to fulfill their destroyer role against unescorted bombers.

When I think '44 ETO, I think Mustangs over Berlin, P-47s and Typhoons tearing up the countryside, Sturmjager's desperate attempts to stop daylight bombing, the first appearance of jets over the skies of Germany, etc.

--AKD

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

ASH at S-MART
02-16-2004, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
I think Kyrule's (and my point) is that if you are going to limit the planeset to a particular year, you should try and make that planeset representative of combat during that year, otherwise, why limit the planeset?

When I think '43 ETO, I think razorback P-47s, olive-drab B17s, P-38F/Hs flying long-range escort, Spitfire IXs over France, Fw-190A5s and 109G6s intercepting daylight bombers and German twins still having an opportunity to fulfill their destroyer role against unescorted bombers.

When I think '44 ETO, I think Mustangs over Berlin, P-47s and Typhoons tearing up the countryside, Sturmjager's desperate attempts to stop daylight bombing, the first appearance of jets over the skies of Germany, etc.

--AKD<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmmm 95% of what you say seems to be based on the BULK of what was going on.. ie the work horses of the airforces.. the aircraft that existed in great numbers doing the bulk of the work.. And I agree with that.. But you blew it when you tacked on the Me262! You cant have it both ways! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

kyrule2
02-16-2004, 01:43 PM
Like I said, not getting a kill until two weeks before the end of the year, and the fact that they operated in the European theater less than a month before the end of '43 definitely makes the P-51B/C a '44 plane.

Still, this is just my opinion and others are free to disagree. I respect both points of view on the matter. I guess we'll just have to wait and see though I have a feeling the P-51B will be '43 and the Malcolm hood Mustang a '44 plane (which means there won't be many people flying it). Like I said, no worries either way and I think the P-51B/C will be a great addition to FB.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

Magister__Ludi
02-16-2004, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
K4 saw combat with many JG beginning with November 1944, many reached JGs in October 44. I think we can agree that planes that saw action only in the last month of a year does not belong to that year plane set. K4 is not in this situation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you! Even if it didnt see action I would agree with you! I was mearly pointing out that most of the realistic servers include the 109K in the 1944 plane set and that the situation is very simulart to that of the P51b in 1943.. Therefore it should be included into the 1943 plane set. As long as it was delivered to units and flying sorties.. that is where I draw the line

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASH, unfortunatelly I cannot agree with you. Deliveries to an unit does not necessarely mean an operational aircraft. For example some sources say that La-5FN was in combat trials at Kursk, but if you look at production stats you'll see that only 200 were produced until the end of 1944, from a which a few saw operational squadron service from December 1943. That means that La-5FN is also a 1944 plane (we have anyway the '44 version in this game). It's important to mention that in 1943 I-16 was still in service! there were not many high performance planes in VVS service before 1944.

A simple rule would be to agree that any plane that did not see operational combat (not operational trials) before the last month of a certain year, does not belong to that year plane set. We cannot put a plane with combat service in the last week of a particular year to compete with planes that flew the whole year. It is not correct.

kyrule2
02-16-2004, 01:47 PM
And AKD also expressed what I am trying to say. I think of Mustangs (B/C/ or D) vs. FW-190A-8's, not FW-190A-5's. A planeset should be representative of the combatants, putting the P-51B/C in '43 goes against this IMO (as far as the 190 goes, 109 is a different story). I just think a plane should operate more than a month to be included in a planeset. But again, its no big deal.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

ASH at S-MART
02-16-2004, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
ASH, unfortunatelly I cannot agree with you. Deliveries to an unit does not necessarely mean an operational aircraft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Read it again.. I said delivered to units AND FLYING SORTIES.. For at least a few months within said year.. That is where I draw the line... Which is VERY different from drawing the line at first recorded kill!!

Being there.. Being used.. means POTENTIAL to get a kill.. Is all Im saying!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Magister__Ludi
02-16-2004, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
ASH, unfortunatelly I cannot agree with you. Deliveries to an unit does not necessarely mean an operational aircraft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Read it again.. I said delivered to units AND FLYING SORTIES.. For at least a few months within said year.. That is where I draw the line... Which is VERY different from drawing the line at first recorded kill!!

Being there.. Being used.. means POTENTIAL to get a kill.. Is all Im saying!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Common ASH, P-51B/C crossed the Channel for the first time in December 1944. What more should I say?

Maple_Tiger
02-16-2004, 02:15 PM
Umm, Magister_Ludi

I dont realy like it when you take stuff from the Link and twist the truth to your liking.

Not good practice. Also after a while people will proubly not beleave anything you say.

Now back on topic. I think you ment to say.

"The 354th flew their first cross-Channel sweep mission on December 1, 1943, and scored their first victory on a mission to Bremen on December 16."

Notice in the link it says Dec 43 and not Dec 44?

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

Magister__Ludi
02-16-2004, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Umm, Magister_Ludi

I dont realy like it when you take stuff from the Link and twist the truth to your liking.

Not good practice. Also after a while people will proubly not beleave anything you say.

Now back on topic. I think you ment to say.

"The 354th flew their first cross-Channel sweep mission on December 1, 1943, and scored their first victory on a mission to Bremen on December 16."

Notice in the link it says Dec 43 and not Dec 44?

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

Sorry, spelling error, it should have been:
"Common ASH, P-51B/C crossed the Channel for the first time in December 1943. What more should I say?"

But I'm sure everybody understood what I wanted to say.

Maple_Tiger
02-16-2004, 02:22 PM
Well for starts Magister_Ludi

You could say,

Lets take a look at some of the German planes in the 43 and 44 plane sets before we continue on with the P-51b\c topic.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

Korolov
02-16-2004, 02:47 PM
Who needs the pony in '43, we get the Lightning in 43 and 42!

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

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

Maple_Tiger
02-16-2004, 03:04 PM
Stop Korlov you making me druel. Where's my napkin?

Actualy i am wasting my time looking for information on the BF109G-6.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

Maple_Tiger
02-16-2004, 03:10 PM
lol, the BF109K4 didnt' arive untill Oct of 44. But it did arive. Did it get any kills before the end of 44? I havent found out yet.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

MandMs
02-16-2004, 03:25 PM
What were those 534 K-4s that were produced by the end of Nov '44 doing? Looking purty all lined up on the airfields for inspection by Allied fighters? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Maple_Tiger
02-16-2004, 03:35 PM
Ah Ge MandMs

What where thoughs P-51b\c's doing in late 43?

Where they looking purty also? Atleast we know they actualy saw combat lol.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

MandMs
02-16-2004, 03:40 PM
Considering all of Germany was a combat zone........

Nov 2 194,4 5 K-4 pilots KIA/MIA with 4 WIA from III./JG27 around Leune.

Nov.21 1944,

G-14/K-4s of III./JG4. 1 pilot KIA/MIA 3 WIA in the Osterhausen, Querfurt area.

G-14/K-4s of II./JG27. 4 pilots KIA/MIA 1 WIA in the Cologne, Monchen-Gladbach, Nuess area.

You want more, read Six Months to Oblivion

[This message was edited by MandMs on Mon February 16 2004 at 02:50 PM.]

Maple_Tiger
02-16-2004, 03:55 PM
Ah, i see there is no link.

Do you have a link that i may look and verify what you just said?

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

ASH at S-MART
02-16-2004, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Common ASH, P-51B/C crossed the Channel for the first time in December 1944. What more should I say?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You didnt have to say anything.. I was simply pointing out that you miss-quoted me. I went on to point out my take on all this.. It is simple.. THE POTENTIAL to be used, defined BY ME.. Is the aircraft is delivered to a unit and was used by the unit.. ie flew sorties.. That's all.. Others want to draw the line at the first kill.. Or the first paint job, or the first scratch in the paint, or the first crash.. etc.. As for me, and the game, when could I have got it in my VIRTUAL hands and got a kill.. Dont limit my virtual hands because someone in RL didnt get a RL kill.

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

MandMs
02-16-2004, 03:58 PM
Plug the name into Google.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ISBN 0-88740-348-4
Library of Congress 91-67054

Maple_Tiger
02-16-2004, 04:01 PM
Um Kyrule2,

would you not agree then that the BF109K4, G-10, G-14, G-6/as and the FWD9 should then also be 1945 plane sets?

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

ASH at S-MART
02-16-2004, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Um Kyrule2,

would you not agree then that the BF109K4, G-10, G-14, G-6/as and the FWD9 should then also be 1945 plane sets?

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He does agree! He allready said so! Problem is HE does not run most of the realistic servers on HL! And most if not all of them include the 109K in the 1944 senarios.. Good thing is they are typically not biased, therefore I expect they will include the P51B and C in the 1943 senarios! So.. all this fuss if may be for not! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Maple_Tiger
02-16-2004, 04:17 PM
Finaly i see reason, yes i see the light.

ASH_SMART, you right. Im also tired of looking for information on the net. Cant find what im looking for half the time anyway lol.

All in all atleast i lurned a few things. My spelling still stinks but thats nothing new anyway.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

kyrule2
02-16-2004, 04:38 PM
Maple Tiger I'm not sure what your problem is here, or why you are so defensive. I have already said the K-4 should probably be a '45, not sure about G-10. G-14 was used earlier so it should be a '44 plane. The Dora was also used in combat for more than a month before the end of '44. It was used in large numbers during the Jan. 1st Bodenplatte operation and saw action months earlier. I have also said that we simply disagree and that I respect both sides opinions and that I was looking forward to the P-51B/C.

And before people jump on me again I am simply of the opinion that planesets should be representative of the combatants. I don't put much into production dates and delivery dates, only combat dates. The Lancaster for example was produced in October of '41, delivered in September of '41, but didn't fly combat operations until March of '42. That is a 6-month time period and I wouldn't want to see Lancasters in '41. This delay from production time to combat service was not uncommon. And even if a plane saw limited use in one year, I think it should be placed where it saw the bulk of its use. They could put the Dora in '45 for all I care, this is just my opinion and nobody has to agree with me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect both views.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

Maple_Tiger
02-16-2004, 04:46 PM
Sorry Kyrule.

I missed the part where you said the K4 should proubly be in a 45 plane set and mayby even the Dora.

Oops.

In that case what if we had more historicaly set DF servers. Like missions, plane sets and so forth. That would be cool.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

kyrule2
02-16-2004, 05:19 PM
No problem Maple Tiger. I try play on historical type servers online though sometimes I see some oddities. Thats the nice thing about offline, the research has been done so you can trust the planes involved are accurate and the dates can be much more specific. Online coops can be good for this reason as well.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

A.K.Davis
02-16-2004, 05:58 PM
As far as German aircraft go, the Fw-190A4 should probably not be a '42 aircraft for the Eastern Front (However, it is almost the same as A3, so not really a problem).

A9 and Dora both saw significant operational use beginning in Oct. '44. The game already separates the later Dora model into '45 for this reason (even though there were some Doras with MW-50 in use in late '44, afaik).

I can't speak for late model 109s, as I don't know much about them. Certainly the G6 is accurate as a '43 aircraft, and I believe the G6/AS saw significant operational use beginning in summer '44.

The Me-262 saw significant operational use beginning in Oct. '44, but I don't know why I got criticized for that one considering that most servers remove it from the planeset regardless of date.

There are likely many conversions for aircraft available in the German planeset that were not introduced in the same year as the plane type's introduction, but there is no way to limit this.

I don't know about the Ju-87D-3 and He-111H-6, but I doubt anyone cares. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Personally, I think servers should move away from the emphasis on whole year operational dates and look more towards representative periods of combat. For example, first half of '44 as a planeset (climax of strategic bombing campaign and invasion), late '44-early '45 as a planeset (last large-scale operations by the Luftwaffe) and spring '45 (last days of the Reich). If historical gameplay is the rationale for limiting the planeset, this approach just makes more sense.

--AKD

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

[This message was edited by A.K.Davis on Mon February 16 2004 at 09:21 PM.]

Magister__Ludi
02-16-2004, 10:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Well for starts Magister_Ludi

You could say,

Lets take a look at some of the German planes in the 43 and 44 plane sets before we continue on with the P-51b\c topic.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

I'm not sure what you want to say with this. That some planes got the '43, were in fact from '44? That might happen. What planes are you interested in?

Magister__Ludi
02-16-2004, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Ah, i see there is no link.

Do you have a link that i may look and verify what you just said?

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

you can look for example here:

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg27.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg4.html

There were plenty of K4 losses due to enemy action (therefore combat missions also) before December '44.

For example you can see in the above links that III./JG27 flew K4 exclusively from November '44, and lost half of them due to enemy action http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Mon February 16 2004 at 09:40 PM.]

Magister__Ludi
02-16-2004, 10:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Um Kyrule2,

would you not agree then that the BF109K4, G-10, G-14, G-6/as and the FWD9 should then also be 1945 plane sets?

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

G6/AS was in service in June '44, G14/10, D9/A9 from autumn '44.

Look on this site, it's a great resource:

http://www.ww2.dk (look at air units)

Korolov
02-16-2004, 11:45 PM
Didn't they use a lot of G-10s in the Ardennes?

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

Maple_Tiger
02-17-2004, 10:26 AM
Thank you Magister for the links.


I checked out all three links but could not sea any usefull inforamtion.


It may help when you give a link that it will be from a page that your quoting.

For example:


The first combat unit equipped with Merlin-powered Mustangs was the 354th Fighter Group, which reached England in October of 1943. The 354th FG consisted of the 353rd, 355th and 356th Fighter Squadrons, and was part of the 9th Air Force which had the responsibility of air-to-ground attacks in support of the upcoming invasion of Europe. However, they were immediately ordered to support the bomber operations of the 8th Air Force. The 354th flew their first cross-Channel sweep mission on December 1, 1943, and scored their first victory on a mission to Bremen on December 16. However, inexperienced pilots and ground crews and numerous technical problems limited operations with the P-51B/C until about eight weeks into 1944. From the early spring of 1944, the Merlin-powered Mustang became an important fighter in the ETO.

Also about 100 P-51Bs and C's where supplied to the chinese Air Force in 1943-44.

here's a link.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_8.html

The information i quoted is right on this page.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

Bremspropeller
02-18-2004, 07:51 AM
*knock**knock*

Is there anybody ?


Again: The A-9's from december'44 not from autumn...


And for A-4s not being '42 a/c:
Well, the first unit to convert to the 190s was the JG51 which actually got A-3s, but the JG54 (which also got their first 190s in very late '42) already got the A-4 version. Since there's no difference between those aircraft (just the radio's a different one), the A-4 could be regarded as a late'42 a/c.


"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Magister__Ludi
02-18-2004, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
*knock**knock*

Is there anybody ?


Again: The A-9's from december'44 not from autumn...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is incorrect: some of the Gruppen had almost half their fleet replaced with A9 by the end of autumn '44. Check those for example:

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg26.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg26.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg2.html

Most Gruppen had between 5-10 A9s before the autumn's end. Also almost all JG Stabs previously fitted with Fw-190 got A9s before the end of the autumn. Check on the same website. Please note that those tables are right from real JG documents, not from some obscure book or website.

Maple_Tiger
02-18-2004, 10:37 AM
Lol, i just clicked on all three links Magister_Ludi.


Its not even in english.

Yet again im suppose to take your word for it?

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

Magister__Ludi
02-18-2004, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Lol, i just clicked on all three links Magister_Ludi.


Its not even in english.

Yet again im suppose to take your word for it?

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

I can't believe this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Can't you translate a table header??
Put the page in an online translator or take a dictionary.
Do I have to tell you the language in which the table is written too?

MandMs
02-18-2004, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Lol, i just clicked on all three links Magister_Ludi.


Its not even in english.

Yet again im suppose to take your word for it?

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

I can't believe this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Can't you translate a table header??
Put the page in an online translator or take a dictionary.
Do I have to tell you the language in which the table is written too?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since he is too lazy I will translate for him. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

istbestand monatserster - total strength at the first of the month

anzahl - number

muster - type

zugang - recieved

insgesamt - sum total

neufertgung - newly completed
reparatur - in repair

von andere verbande - from other units

abgang - sent out

insgesamt - sum total

durch feindeinw - (loss) due to enamy action

ohne feindeinw - (loss) not due to enemy action

uberholung - overhaul

von andere verbande - from other units

istbestand monatserster - total strength at the end of the month

I eat the red ones last.

Magister__Ludi
02-18-2004, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:

Since he is too lazy I will translate for him. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

istbestand monatserster - total strength at the first of the month

anzahl - number

muster - type

zugang - recieved

insgesamt - sum total

neufertgung - newly completed
reparatur - in repair

von andere verbande - from other units

abgang - sent out

insgesamt - sum total

durch feindeinw - (loss) due to enamy action

ohne feindeinw - (loss) not due to enemy action

uberholung - overhaul

von andere verbande - from other units

istbestand monatserster - total strength at the end of the month

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

Thanks MandMs, but somehow I doubt that Maple_Tiger really wants to read the table. Now he can clearly see the A9 there, together with the number of units entered and lost in a particular month. Unless he was trolling he should now aknowledge the use of A9 in autumn of 1944.

Korolov
02-18-2004, 12:41 PM
Except the A-9 will never beat the A-8 in production numbers. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

Maple_Tiger
02-18-2004, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:

Since he is too lazy I will translate for him. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

istbestand monatserster - total strength at the first of the month

anzahl - number

muster - type

zugang - recieved

insgesamt - sum total

neufertgung - newly completed
reparatur - in repair

von andere verbande - from other units

abgang - sent out

insgesamt - sum total

durch feindeinw - (loss) due to enamy action

ohne feindeinw - (loss) not due to enemy action

uberholung - overhaul

von andere verbande - from other units

istbestand monatserster - total strength at the end of the month

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

Thanks MandMs, but somehow I doubt that Maple_Tiger really wants to read the table. Now he can clearly see the A9 there, together with the number of units entered and lost in a particular month. Unless he was trolling he should now aknowledge the use of A9 in autumn of 1944.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thank you for posting this.

ALso why should i use a dictionary or an online translater?

Did you have to use a any of the above for my link?


You qouted:

Thanks MandMs, but somehow I doubt that Maple_Tiger really wants to read the table. Now he can clearly see the A9 there, together with the number of units entered and lost in a particular month. Unless he was trolling he should now aknowledge the use of A9 in autumn of 1944.

Yes i clearly sea the A9 there. Actualy i see it listed fours times for god knows what for.

But you stated Automn of 1944?

I dont see any date here at all. Atleast explain where you see a date or how you can see it.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

FW190fan
02-18-2004, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
I can't believe this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Can't you translate a table header??
Put the page in an online translator or take a dictionary.
Do I have to tell you the language in which the table is written too?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

SkyChimp
02-18-2004, 07:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Didn't they use a lot of G-10s in the Ardennes?

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

They were generally used over the Ardennes. But given the number found lying on the ground in and around the Ardennes, I see why you might have assumed that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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

MandMs
02-18-2004, 09:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Thanks MandMs, but somehow I doubt that Maple_Tiger really wants to read the table. Now he can clearly see the A9 there, together with the number of units entered and lost in a particular month. Unless he was trolling he should now aknowledge the use of A9 in autumn of 1944.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


From his reply, he seems to be some baby that still needs to be spoon fed.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

"ALso why should i use a dictionary or an online translater? "

Even after translation, he has trouble understanding the tables.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

"Yes i clearly sea the A9 there. Actualy i see it listed fours times for god knows what for."

I eat the red ones last.

JG7_Rall
02-18-2004, 09:50 PM
lol, amazing how off-track some threads get.

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/sig.jpg

Maple_Tiger
02-19-2004, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Thanks MandMs, but somehow I doubt that Maple_Tiger really wants to read the table. Now he can clearly see the A9 there, together with the number of units entered and lost in a particular month. Unless he was trolling he should now aknowledge the use of A9 in autumn of 1944.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


From his reply, he seems to be some baby that still needs to be _spoon fed_.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

"_ALso why should i use a dictionary or an online translater? _"

Even after translation, he has trouble understanding the tables.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

"_Yes i clearly sea the A9 there. Actualy i see it listed fours times for god knows what for._"

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




You qouted:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Thanks MandMs, but somehow I doubt that Maple_Tiger really wants to read the table. Now he can clearly see the A9 there, together with the number of units entered and lost in a particular month. Unless he was trolling he should now aknowledge the use of A9 in autumn of 1944.
-----------------------------------------------


Instead of insulting a member of UBI you could help this member understand. I want to understand where this date of Autom of 44 came from, i didn't see it at the sight.

Im not saying your full of sht, but i would like to see the date for myself.



Also this whole thing would not have been started in the first place if some would have not said "the P-51B\c is 1944 plane, it should not be in a 1943 server".

I mean the same can be said for the BF109K4 or mayby the D9. But you dont here me complaining about it.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

MandMs
02-19-2004, 10:40 AM
Magister__Ludi, what are the dates for autumn? It is my understanding is from Sept. 21 to Dec. 21. In this case 21-9-1944 to 21-12-1944.

The date can be clearly seen in the left column as 9.44, 10.44, 11.44 and 12.44, can it not?


The P-51B/C was barely operationally functional in Dec. 1943, while the D-9, A-9, G-10 and K-4 were operationally functional for at least 1/4 of the year.



I eat the red ones last.

Magister__Ludi
02-19-2004, 11:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:

From his reply, he seems to be some baby that still needs to be _spoon fed_.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

"_ALso why should i use a dictionary or an online translater? _"

Even after translation, he has trouble understanding the tables.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

"_Yes i clearly sea the A9 there. Actualy i see it listed fours times for god knows what for._"

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



Instead of insulting a member of UBI you could help this member understand. I want to understand where this date of Autom of 44 came from, i didn't see it at the sight.

Im not saying your full of sht, but i would like to see the date for myself.



Also this whole thing would not have been started in the first place if some would have not said "the P-51B\c is 1944 plane, it should not be in a 1943 server".

I mean the same can be said for the BF109K4 or mayby the D9. But you dont here me complaining about it.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, Mapletiger, let's suppose you want to learn something.
Click here for example:

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg2.html

What you see there is a table with the planes available to the I./JG2 fighter group. The time span is from 03.42 (March 1942) to 12.44 (December 1944), you should look for a particular month in the first column of the table.

Now let's look at data corresponding to the row containing 10.44 - data from this row are the planes available to I./JG2 in October 1944. Is this clear until now?

Columns 2 and 3 give you the number available and fighter type at the beginning of one particular month. You can see that for each plane available in a particular month there is a distinct row dealing with it. In our case in 10.44 they received 14 Fw-190A-9/R6 from which they lost 4 in combat and 1 in an accident, hence the total at the end of the month of 9 planes. In 11.44 they had already 9 planes from October and received another one, from which they lost 2 in combat and 1 in an accident. The rest of 7 A9s were sent to other squadrons so at the end of November there are no A9s left in this fighter group. They were replaced with D9 according to the table.

In conclusion according to the links I provided A9 was used in October and November 1944 with many squadrons, so it is a 1944 plane. And so was D9 and K4. For K4 I already provided links, for D9 you can look on the same site. Don't tell me you can't, navigation on this site is in English.

Now if you can provide information from original documents stating that P-51B/C saw combat before December 1944 I can agree that it belongs to 1943 plane set. But all you have showed me until now proves the precisely the opposite.

Maple_Tiger
02-19-2004, 11:57 AM
Umm, Magister_Ludi.

I already have posted a link that proves my point.

Its right here:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_8.html

Qoute from the link again.

The first combat unit equipped with Merlin-powered Mustangs was the 354th Fighter Group, which reached England in October of 1943. The 354th FG consisted of the 353rd, 355th and 356th Fighter Squadrons, and was part of the 9th Air Force which had the responsibility of air-to-ground attacks in support of the upcoming invasion of Europe. However, they were immediately ordered to support the bomber operations of the 8th Air Force. The 354th flew their first cross-Channel sweep mission on December 1, 1943, and scored their first victory on a mission to Bremen on December 16. However, inexperienced pilots and ground crews and numerous technical problems limited operations with the P-51B/C until about eight weeks into 1944. From the early spring of 1944, the Merlin-powered Mustang became an important fighter in the ETO.

Also about 100 P-51Bs and C's where supplied to the chinese Air Force in 1943-44.


Notice the 354FG recieved them in October of 1943?

Notice this?

The 354th flew their first cross-Channel sweep mission on December 1, 1943, and scored their first victory on a mission to Bremen on December 16.


So yes they did see combat before Dec of 44. They saw combat in Dec 16 1943.


Now i have already posted this before. The case is closed. Unless you can prove me wronge?

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

Maple_Tiger
02-19-2004, 12:10 PM
Now about the FWD9.

Date: 12.44

Anzahl=Munber... 0

insgesamt=Sum total... Only 54?

Durch Feindeinw=Loss due to enemy action 3.

and the sight in your post is not in enlgish.

any way, i might be reading it wronge but how did they recieve 54 D9's in Dec of 44 and have then up in combat before the end of 44.


I would also like to see info on the BF109K4's

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

ZG77_Nagual
02-19-2004, 12:25 PM
first combat in 12/43 does make the b/c marginal for '43 - more marginal that the a9 is for 44 - having seen combat losses in october according to the charts - but really we'd have to come up with some kind of rule - like a plane has to have been on active duty for what? Maybe two months of a given year in order to qualify for that year? Currently the setup is pretty generous but we have the flexibility to exclude planes for specific maps so I don't see much problem.

MandMs
02-19-2004, 12:35 PM
"The first combat unit equipped with Merlin-powered Mustangs was the 354th Fighter Group, which reached England in October of 1943. The 354th FG consisted of the 353rd, 355th and 356th Fighter Squadrons, and was part of the 9th Air Force which had the responsibility of air-to-ground attacks in support of the upcoming invasion of Europe. However, they were immediately ordered to support the bomber operations of the 8th Air Force. The 354th flew their first cross-Channel sweep mission on December 1, 1943, and scored their first victory on a mission to Bremen on December 16. However, inexperienced pilots and ground crews and numerous technical problems limited operations with the P-51B/C until about eight weeks into 1944. From the early spring of 1944, the Merlin-powered Mustang became an important fighter in the ETO."

Notice this part "However, inexperienced pilots and ground crews and numerous technical problems limited operations with the P-51B/C until about eight weeks into 1944." That would be the end of Febuary.

The P-51 were barely a force to that could be considered to be operational in the ETO. The CBI is another scenario, for the plane set date in FB.

You want other LW units, here

http://www.ww2.dk/

fighter, bomber, recon, night fighter, maritime, 2 engine fighter, ground attack, transport, etc, etc, etc



I eat the red ones last.

MandMs
02-19-2004, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Now about the FWD9.

Date: 12.44

Anzahl=Munber... 0

insgesamt=Sum total... Only 54?

Durch Feindeinw=Loss due to enemy action 3.

and the sight in your post is not in enlgish.

any way, i might be reading it wronge but how did they recieve 54 D9's in Dec of 44 and have then up in combat before the end of 44.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well 1st Lt. they could have arrived on Dec. 2 1944.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



I eat the red ones last.

ZG77_Nagual
02-19-2004, 12:46 PM
contrary to popular belief http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the p51 had some pretty serious teething problems.

Obviously the a9 and dora went right to work when they arrived.

Magister__Ludi
02-19-2004, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
first combat in 12/43 does make the b/c marginal for '43 - more marginal that the a9 is for 44 - having seen combat losses in october according to the charts - but really we'd have to come up with some kind of rule - like a plane has to have been on active duty for what? Maybe two months of a given year in order to qualify for that year? Currently the setup is pretty generous but we have the flexibility to exclude planes for specific maps so I don't see much problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think a reasonable rule is that a plane should have kills or combat losses before the end of November in order to be included in that particular year plane set. What do you think?

Magister__Ludi
02-19-2004, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
contrary to popular belief http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the p51 had some pretty serious teething problems.

Obviously the a9 and dora went right to work when they arrived.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's very interesting is that confidence was even higher in A9 than in D9. Stabs were requipped with A9 as soon as they become available. This did not happen for D9, even though D9 were available before A9 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Of course FW had much more experience with BMWs than with Jumos, this might be a reason.

Dora fans will slap me for this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Thu February 19 2004 at 12:05 PM.]

Maple_Tiger
02-19-2004, 01:30 PM
Well its looks like you might have read it.

Notice however that they did see combat in Dec 16 1943? Thats why at every sight the P51B/C is listed as a 1943-44 plane.

Now, if you still disagree but think that the D9 and BF109K4 should be a 1944 plane, then your thinking one sided.

There is no winner in this argument. We might as well just drop it and stop wasting band with lol.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

Bremspropeller
02-19-2004, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
*knock**knock*

Is there anybody ?


Again: The A-9's from december'44 not from autumn...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is incorrect: some of the Gruppen had almost half their fleet replaced with A9 by the end of autumn '44. Check those for example:

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg26.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg26.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg2.html

Most Gruppen had between 5-10 A9s before the autumn's end. Also almost all JG Stabs previously fitted with Fw-190 got A9s before the end of the autumn. Check on the same website. Please note that those tables are right from real JG documents, not from some obscure book or website.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


They had converted A-8s to the A-9s BMW 801TS/TH engines which were the ones of the A-9. Since this was the only major change, many A-8 got named A-9.

The first A-9s came out of factories in december '44.


"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

kyrule2
02-19-2004, 03:02 PM
The only change in the A-9 was the engine and the high efficiency propeller. Time of propeller fittings would be useful (though they don't seem to do anything at all in FB). The production A-9's often also had blown canopies with headrest support pylon. Still the converted A-8's would perform the same as the production A-9's except in climb, and that depends on when the props were fitted.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

MandMs
02-19-2004, 03:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:

There is no winner in this argument. We might as well just drop it and stop wasting band with lol.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is a waste of bandwidth is most of your posts.

The P-51 saw only 1/12 of a year of combat in 1943 while the D-9, K-4 saw 3/12 of a year of combat in 1944. It was not even a effective a/c until 2/12 into 1944.



I eat the red ones last.

Maple_Tiger
02-19-2004, 04:59 PM
I have to disagree.

You see, they recieved it in Oct of 43 and saw combat in Dec of 43.

I dont know about you, but when i read Dec of 43 it sounds like Dec of 43 and not Dec of 44.

but thats just me.


Also you have ignored that the D9 did not even show up until Dec of 44. At least thats what it said at the sight. Now your saying that it showed up in 3/12?.

Same with the BF109K4, from what i read they are a 1945 plane.

Mayby you should quit insulting people and actualy explain to me or who ever how the D9 actualy saw combat 3/12 of a year when from what i saw it didn't show up untill Dec of 44.


We can go on and on and on and on if you realy like, realy up to you. I dont realy mind when you insult me. Kind of feel sorry for you.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

MandMs
02-19-2004, 05:26 PM
Well you deserve any insults thrown your way because you are certainly lacking some grey cells between the ears or at least how to use those grey cells, really. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If you you knew what units used the Dora you could have checked on the link given. No, you have to be spoon fed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif LOL, why supply any links when you won't even look through the sites.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

III./JG54 was the first LW unit to receive the Dora and it became operational with the type in October 1944.



I eat the red ones last.

Magister__Ludi
02-19-2004, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

They had converted A-8s to the A-9s BMW 801TS/TH engines which were the ones of the A-9. Since this was the only major change, many A-8 got named A-9.

The first A-9s came out of factories in december '44.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are some important errors in your post.
First, an BMW 801 TS/TH in an A8 airframe is an A9 (with different propellers). No A8 got TS/TH engines, not even as a retrofit. TS/TH engines were specifically built for A9, and no other engines were used for A9. A8 had a similar fuel boost system beginning with BMW 801 Q, used serially from June 1944, or optionally delivered as kit for 801 D-2, but for a lower manifold pressure compared with TS/TH engines.

Second, the fighter group tables from www.ww2.dk (http://www.ww2.dk) contain only the names of the planes as they leaved the factory, no retrofits are mentioned (this was done probably to track more easily the service life of the planes). This can be easily verified with any squadron retrofit you know for sure. Factory modifications appear in the name only if they were mounted on directly at the time of the fabrication, before they leaved the factory as factory fresh planes. So there was no way in which old A8 with A9 engines to appear listed as A9, they would have been listed as A8. Also if you look in the list, A9 from autumn of 1944 are factory fresh, they do not enter in fighters group as retrofits, so they are new A9 (fitted with TS/TH engines).

Such errors are common though, not long ago many said that A9 never existed. Later they adjusted this obvious error to a more reasonable 200 planes produced, now many historians seem to agree that around 700 A9 were built. This happens because important documents concerning the time span between the beginning of autumn 1944 and the end of war are lost. Especially difficult to reconstruct from documents is the 1945 year, most of the information published concerning it are simply agreements between historians, with thin documentary support to confirm/infirm their theories.

Maple_Tiger
02-19-2004, 06:50 PM
Qoute by MandMs:

Well you deserve any insults thrown your way because you are certainly lacking some grey cells between the ears or at least how to use those grey cells, really.

If you you knew what units used the Dora you could have checked on the link given. No, you have to be spoon fed. LOL, why supply any links when you won't even look through the sites.

III./JG54 was the first LW unit to receive the Dora and it became operational with the type in October 1944. :



Thank you MandMs for thoughs kind words.

You are actualy going to give me a hint(JG54) so that i might actualy not have to spend half the day looking through a sight?

It would be common curtisy though for you to have a link that would take someone to the very page that has this info.

But if it please's you ill try and find any information regarding JG54.


Thanks again and have good day.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

MandMs
02-20-2004, 01:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:

Thank you MandMs for thoughs kind words.

You are actualy going to give me a hint(JG54) so that i might actualy not have to spend half the day looking through a sight?

It would be common curtisy though for you to have a link that would take someone to the very page that has this info.

But if it please's you ill try and find any information regarding JG54.

Thanks again and have good day.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said, you have to be spoon fed. See my post at the top of the page for the link to the web site. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Is it really that hard to navigate through that web site? For some it seems.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif



I eat the red ones last.

Ankanor
02-20-2004, 05:35 AM
In the end of August, the first Doras were given to the III/JG54 based in Oldenburg.As Heinz Nowarra states the pilots were not very passionate about the new bird. The Jumo 213 should give 1850hp but would give only 1750.

This is a quote from a book about the late FW 190/Ta152. Maple, I cannot provide you with the link, it is written in Bulgarian, I dont think you can read it yourself http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://server4.uploadit.org/files2/101203-delphinche.jpg
Some things are worth fighting for.

Maple_Tiger
02-20-2004, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:

Thank you MandMs for thoughs kind words.

You are actualy going to give me a hint(JG54) so that i might actualy not have to spend half the day looking through a sight?

It would be common curtisy though for you to have a link that would take someone to the very page that has this info.

But if it please's you ill try and find any information regarding JG54.

Thanks again and have good day.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said, you have to be spoon fed. See my post at the top of the page for the link to the web site. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Is it _really_ that hard to navigate through that web _site_? For some it seems.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif



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

Actualy it seems you made a boo boo MandMS.
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg54.html

They received the D9 in Sept of 44 not Oct 44. They did see action in Oct of 44 though. They lost 6 planes.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

Maple_Tiger
02-20-2004, 09:02 AM
So now we have looked at the.

P-51b\c. Saw action in Dec 43.

D9. it saw action in Oct of 44.

What about the BF109K4?

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

Maple_Tiger
02-20-2004, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ankanor:
In the end of August, the first Doras were given to the III/JG54 based in Oldenburg.As Heinz Nowarra states the pilots were not very passionate about the new bird. The Jumo 213 should give 1850hp but would give only 1750.

This is a quote from a book about the late FW 190/Ta152. Maple, I cannot provide you with the link, it is written in Bulgarian, I dont think you can read it yourself http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://server4.uploadit.org/files2/101203-delphinche.jpg
Some things are worth fighting for.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


lol, Ankanor.

Ya im stuck arguing with ManMS, he just wont give uphttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

You know anything about when the BF109K4? Like when it was first received and saw comabt?

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

MandMs
02-20-2004, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:

Actualy it seems you made a boo boo MandMS.
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg54.html

They received the D9 in Sept of 44 not Oct 44. They did see action in Oct of 44 though. They lost 6 planes.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No boo-boo on my part as I stated:

"III./JG54 was the first LW unit to receive the Dora and it became operational with the type in October 1944."

As for the K-4, as posted in a previous post(pg4)http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif :

"Nov 2 1944, 5 K-4 pilots KIA/MIA with 4 WIA from III./JG27 around Leune."

At the end of October 1944, III./JG27 had 65.

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



I eat the red ones last.

Panelboy
02-20-2004, 10:07 AM
Let me guess. Those K4s were probably destroyed while the unit was transitioning to the new type. I've heard the first operational mission for K4 was Bodenplatte, Jan 1 1945.

Just as someone mentioned earlier that units transitioning to Merlin engined P51s needed a few months of sorting, you could expect the same from German units - only German units were attacked regardless of their readiness status and were vulnerable everywhere.

MandMs
02-20-2004, 11:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panelboy:
Let me guess. Those K4s were probably destroyed while the unit was transitioning to the new type. I've heard the first operational mission for K4 was Bodenplatte, Jan 1 1945.

Just as someone mentioned earlier that units transitioning to Merlin engined P51s needed a few months of sorting, you could expect the same from German units - only German units were attacked regardless of their readiness status and were vulnerable everywhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luena was one of the targets on Nov. 2

THURSDAY, 2 NOVEMBER 1944

AIRBORNE OPERATIONS (IX Troop Carrier Command): In France, HQ 440th Troop Carrier Group moves from Le Mans to Orleans; the 302d Troop Carrier Squadron, 441st Troop Carrier Group, moves from St Marceau to Dreux with C-47s.

STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): HQ Eighth AF is ordered to increase the size of the 406th Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), VIII Fighter Command, the night leaflet squadron, as the liberation of Europe and the conquest of Germany accelerate.

2 missions are flown.

1. Mission 698: 1,174 bombers and 968 fighters in 5 forces are dispatched to hit synthetic oil installations in C Germany and rail targets at Bielefeld, Germany

1. 460 B-17s are dispatched to the Leuna oil installation at Merseburg (383) using PFF; targets of opportunity are Halle (23), Wolfenbuttel (13) and other (17)

2. 223 B-17s are dispatched to the Leuna oil installation at Merseburg (210) using PFF; 5 others hit targets of opportunity

3. 208 B-24s are dispatched to hit Bielefeld; 172 hit the primary, a bridge, 10 hit the secondary, the marshalling yard, and 9 hit the town

4. 131 of 146 B-24s hit the Rauxel oil installations at Castrop using GH

5. 137 B-17s are dispatched to hit an oil installation at Sterkrade (107); 20 others hit the secondary, the Rheine marshalling yard

2. Mission 699: 3 B-17s and 5 B-24s drop leaflets during the night over the Netherlands and Germany.



I eat the red ones last.

ASH at S-MART
02-20-2004, 11:30 AM
If you like the P51B and hope to fly it online in a realistic senario in 1943.. Then dont worrie.. It most likly will be included. In that most of the guys who run the servers include the 109K in 1944.. Reason being is they know that it does not mater when the first kill was recorded.. but when the aircraft was deliverd to a unit and flown in sorties..

We can argue all day and night about where that line is drawn.. And the argument about inexperienced pilots, ground crews and numerous technical problems just doesnt mater.. Because it is true for every new aircraft! That and the game does not model such things.. Nor does the game model logistics!! Which if it did would ground most of the Lw aircraft most of the time!

Anyways.. like I said, not up to us, up to the guys who run the servers.. And they for the most part are a pretty unbiased level headed bunch that tend to draw the line at "WHEN WAS THE AIRCRAFT DELIVERD AND USED IN SORTIES"

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Bremspropeller
02-20-2004, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
There are some important errors in your post.
First, an BMW 801 TS/TH in an A8 airframe is an A9 (with different propellers). No A8 got TS/TH engines, not even as a retrofit. TS/TH engines were specifically built for A9, and no other engines were used for A9. A8 had a similar fuel boost system beginning with BMW 801 Q, used serially from June 1944, or optionally delivered as kit for 801 D-2, but for a lower manifold pressure compared with TS/TH engines.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not fully correct:

Many A-9s left the factory with the "old" and narrow VDM-prop, like some A-8s got the wider wooden prop. Many A-8s got the TH/TS engines in autum '44 when were in a major overhaul (following a belly landing a.s.o.).
For the same reason, many A-8s got the bubbeled canopy with the "Furchenzieher".


There are some other ocassions where A-2s were called "A-3" after getting a new engine (built as A-2, but lost as A-3 some time later).

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

kyrule2
02-20-2004, 10:02 PM
"Anyways.. like I said, not up to us, up to the guys who run the servers.. And they for the most part are a pretty unbiased level headed bunch that tend to draw the line at "WHEN WAS THE AIRCRAFT DELIVERD AND USED IN SORTIES."



Ash_Smart, this debate is still going? The fact is there are two sides to this story. One believes sorties and deliveries are important, one feels when the plane first saw combat or when it saw the bulk of its combat is more important. Neither is right or wrong per-se, just 2 different opinions.

And in my experience the guys who run the historic servers use pretty accurate planesets based on historic combatants and dates so I don't expect to see any P-51B/C's taking on A-5's. The proper planeset would look something like this IMO, being in early '44.

-P-47D-27
-P-51B/C
-P-38J
-Spitfire Mk.IX

-Bf-109G-6 Late
-FW-190A-8

Looks pretty good for the Allies IMO.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

MandMs
02-20-2004, 10:21 PM
If, and when, they are added to the plane set the Spitfire XIV and the Fw190A-6, -7 can be included in the early '44 scenarios.



I eat the red ones last.

Hunde_3.JG51
02-20-2004, 10:32 PM
I agree MandMs, but I don't think a FW-190A-6 or A-7 will ever come, but there is a good chance the Spitfire Mk.XIV will be introduced to FB with the Mk.IX.

Man, Spit XIV's against A-8's and G-6's, talk about ugly. Not a good time to be blue.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

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

MandMs
02-20-2004, 10:55 PM
Cheer up, it is only till the fall of '44 when the A-9, D-9, G-10 and K-4 show up.

Things will be a lot better then.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



I eat the red ones last.

Cokol_88IAP
02-21-2004, 09:40 AM
For authentic gameplay a G-6/AS without MW-50 is also needed.

Also I would prefer P-47/51 not performing the factory numbers of 437 mph. The britisch teste numers should be usesd instead: 405-415mph at 23000ft

Would make a "total airwar over germany" campaign much more realistic without inflated advertising numbers.

S!

MandMs
02-21-2004, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
For authentic gameplay a G-6/AS without MW-50 is also needed.

Also I would prefer P-47/51 not performing the factory numbers of 437 mph. The britisch teste numers should be usesd instead: 405-415mph at 23000ft

Would make a "total airwar over germany" campaign much more realistic without inflated advertising numbers.

S!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


"Would make a "total airwar over germany" campaign much more realistic without inflated advertising numbers."

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Is that like the inflated numbers we see and observe for VVS fighters?



I eat the red ones last.

Maple_Tiger
02-21-2004, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
For authentic gameplay a G-6/AS without MW-50 is also needed.

Also I would prefer P-47/51 not performing the factory numbers of 437 mph. The britisch teste numers should be usesd instead: 405-415mph at 23000ft

Would make a "total airwar over germany" campaign much more realistic without inflated advertising numbers.

S!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Same can be said about the BF109K4 or D9. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

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

SkyChimp
02-21-2004, 10:48 AM
Will we get a P-51B capable of 450mph?

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/p51bspeed.jpg

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

Maple_Tiger
02-21-2004, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Will we get a P-51B capable of 450mph?

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/p51bspeed.jpg

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Answer is no.


Are current P-51D over heats at about 680kmh TAS with 50% fuel and amo. Over heats about 684kmh TAS with 25% fuel and amo.

We can thus expect that the P-51B\C to be about 25kmh TAS too slow.

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 10:38 AM.]

Skalgrim
02-21-2004, 11:32 AM
early 44 was g2 too use,

a5 with erh√¬∂hten ladededuck 1,65ata was too use 44,

a5 with 1,65 ata 2050ps, with same powerloading like dora,

could reach 595km/h sealevel, had willaume say, according to opinion oleg 190 expert.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sun February 22 2004 at 09:07 AM.]

lrrp22
02-21-2004, 04:20 PM
Fat chance.

I expect we will get the -3 engine's sea level performance and something less than the -7's high altitude numbers.

An 81"/+25 lb boost Mustang III from one of the numerous RAF squadrons that used them? Inconceivable! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Will we get a P-51B capable of 450mph?

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/p51bspeed.jpg

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ElAurens
02-21-2004, 08:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Will we get a P-51B capable of 450mph?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wish...

Hell, we still don't have a P47 that has the proper roll rate.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Cokol_88IAP
02-22-2004, 06:43 AM
Forget this numbers, they are calculated.

20 October 1944, over Henden RAF base, England. Following RAF complaints that the P-51 perfomance it was found out:
Fastest was: 416 mph a P-51B (s/n 36799 "Carolina Hustler") 25000


P-51 D: 405 mph for 55 seconds by a brand new P-51D at 23,000 ft. (s/n 472484)

I suppose factory tests forgot: Armament, armor.. ;-)

Same with La-7:
Best reaches 595@ SL, 555 nominal, 613 was flwon in late 45.

Fw-190 A: ~600 km/h is only possible by the seldom TS engine, wich would not have made requirements in terms of reliability half a year before ;-)

hop2002
02-22-2004, 07:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Forget this numbers, they are calculated.

20 October 1944, over Henden RAF base, England. Following RAF complaints that the P-51 perfomance it was found out:
Fastest was: 416 mph a P-51B (s/n 36799 "Carolina Hustler") 25000


P-51 D: 405 mph for 55 seconds by a brand new P-51D at 23,000 ft. (s/n 472484)

I suppose factory tests forgot: Armament, armor.. ;-)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has anybody actually seen these tests?

I've got a copy of a test carried out by Boscombe Down (British testing establishment) on one of the first batch of P-51Ds to arrive in Britain.

It wasn't a performance test, they were testing other aspects of the plane, but the report notes:

"Although measurement of level speeds was not requested by MAP (ministry of aircraft production) on this plane, an opportunity arose to make such tests at low altitude in MS gear." (MS gear is the low speed gear of the supercharger, used at lower altitudes)

The tests found a maximum performance of 396 mph in low gear at 10,300 ft.

The Spit LF IX, with similar engine, gained 25 mph at FS gear at critical altitude over it's speed in MS gear at critical alt, so the Mustang should do at least the same, probably slightly more.

That means this particular Mustang, taken from a production batch, would have had a top speed of around 425 mph at critical alt, maybe as high as 430 mph.

The aircraft was bare metal, faired bomb racks on the wings, no fuel in the rear fuselage tank.

A post war RAF test of the P-51B/C, V-1650-7 engine, against a Meteor, Hornet and Spit XIV found the P-51 did 438 mph at 27,000ft at military power (ie no WEP). Wep would have lowered the critical alt, so the speed would have increased only marginally, but should still be 440 mph or slightly above.

SkyChimp
02-22-2004, 02:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
Forget this numbers, they are calculated...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing calculated about the speed graph I posted. It's from the Navy comparison tests between the F4U-1 and P-51B.

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

Cokol_88IAP
02-23-2004, 05:20 AM
It is a graph comparison...

TAS is always calculated, as long as you dont use theodolites or radar.

I doubt they coorected airspeed due compression, like the germans do, would be ~15mph less.

Do you have any test with IAS?

The britisch test was done in October, 20th 1944, I guess not without a reason.

lrrp22
02-23-2004, 09:16 AM
Of course! How could we have been so STUPID? It's so obvious when you think about it! Since U.S. aircraft are inherently inferior to all things German, our testing methods must be suspect as well! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

In the interests of fairness, I submit that all U.S. performance numbers should be reduced by 10-15% due to American engineering/mathematical incompetence.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
It is a graph comparison...

TAS is always calculated, as long as you dont use theodolites or radar.

I doubt they coorected airspeed due compression, like the germans do, would be ~15mph less.

Do you have any test with IAS?

The britisch test was done in October, 20th 1944, I guess not without a reason.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASH at S-MART
02-23-2004, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Of course! How could we have been so STUPID? It's so obvious when you think about it! Since U.S. aircraft are inherently inferior to all things German, our testing methods must be suspect as well! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

In the interests of fairness, I submit that all U.S. performance numbers should be reduced by 10-15% due to American engineering/mathematical incompetence.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
It is a graph comparison...

TAS is always calculated, as long as you dont use theodolites or radar.

I doubt they coorected airspeed due compression, like the germans do, would be ~15mph less.

Do you have any test with IAS?

The britisch test was done in October, 20th 1944, I guess not without a reason.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Cokol_88IAP
02-23-2004, 02:52 PM
Well, I am not talking obout incompetence.

Check british numbers! They always use compression correction as well as corrected altimeter, and they can not confirm factory data in some cases.

If you trust some german calculated numbers, Bf-109 G would fly ~730 and F-4 ~670

So always try to judge the circumstances and do NOT ignore other FACTS not confirming your personal oppinions.

Thx, and PLEASE provide sources to discuss / compare, I will dio the same.

lrrp22
02-23-2004, 03:36 PM
You have not provided the 'british' numbers.

You've made a claim that the RAF was never able to reach factory spec's in the P-51 yet you have provided no proof. Numerous examples have been provided, including RAF tests, of the P-51 meeting or exceeding factory specs.

Further, you go on on to insinuate that NAA (and by implication- USAAF, USN and RAF results) committed rather basic conversion errors that invalidate their test results. The burden lies with you provide the specifics of this 'british' test as you are the one contesting the existing data.

The NAA, USAAF and USN results were not *calculated* any more than any other test that converts IAS to TAS.


Edit: ...and yes, you are implying either incompetence, or, intentional inflation of performance numbers. Your obvious assertion is that the P-51 was much slower than is commonly accepted and that test results were "sexed-up" relative to other nations' test data conversion procedures.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
Well, I am not talking obout incompetence.

Check british numbers! They always use compression correction as well as corrected altimeter, and they can not confirm factory data in some cases.

If you trust some german calculated numbers, Bf-109 G would fly ~730 and F-4 ~670

So always try to judge the circumstances and do NOT ignore other FACTS not confirming your personal oppinions.

Thx, and PLEASE provide sources to discuss / compare, I will dio the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gunner_361st
02-23-2004, 04:05 PM
You got that right Irrp22.

Cokol, It does not strike you as odd (or should I say, ridiculous) to think that one British test out of MANY American and British tests on the P51's top speed is the ultimate authority on the aircraft?

Considering all the things that can affect a Speed test (Altitude, Weather Conditions, Quality of Fuel, Pilot Error, Engine Issues) the very notion that one test out of many SHOULD be what the P51's top speed should be modeled after in Forgotten Battles is in sheer defiance of logic itself.

It is just remarkable. I'd be more careful, I think your agenda is showing.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

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

ASH at S-MART
02-23-2004, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
It is just remarkable. I'd be more careful, I think your agenda is showing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was just thinking the same thing.. Funny.. not in a ha ha way.. more in a pitty way..

Funny how some can take ONE DATA POINT and ignor all the other DATA POINTS.. That process is also how some belive the Me262 broke the sound barrier! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg