PDA

View Full Version : P-51 performance in comparison too...



Pages : [1] 2

BSS_Vidar
04-30-2004, 01:24 AM
I've tested the P-51 flight model and compared it to the real parameters given in the "P-51 in Action" series based on information from the Smithsonian. I found them to be pretty good with a few nicks and tucks needed here and there. I also have the "In Action" books series of the 109, 190, 110, Yak, and La's to compare performance envolopes. $$$$ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif As an AvHistory Buff, retired Navy flyer (for 2 years now), and Commercial pilot, my findings were quite disturbing.

The P-51 is the only prop fighter to break the 300 mph barrier at sea level (306 mph)during the war period. It's top speed at 30K is 448 MPH and nothing short of a jet touches it in between. The closest is the Yak-9 at 434 mph then the 190 at 418 mph. It even comes in a respectable third place behind the Yak 3, and 9 with a 3,440 ft/min climb rate where the Yaks were almost 5,000 ft/min. But time-n-time again I get behind a 109 or 190 in a flat run (No dive) and get left behind holding my joystick. I flew a converted 2 seated P-51D "Sizzelin' Liz" 2 months ago and the owner said he ran down 109's and 190's at will in the war.(9 kills to his credit.)

Why does this game not reflect the actual parameters? Everything else seems to show exquisit detail, why not performance envolopes? The German planes apear to all be over-modeled in the speed and climb regimes, as well as the La-7. The La-7, though a little slower has the same climb performance as a P-51. Can we get this fixed in an upcomming patch please?

Please don't go into which model of such-n-such a plane because airframe restrictions don't allow for big differences in performance from one modification to the next. The P-51B is faster than the D model by 7 mph! Top German commanders wanted to stop 109 production in late 43 and just build 190's and 262's but Hitler wouldn't have it.The tactic was to use 190's as a CAP to allow 262's to take off.

The Blacksheep will more that likely not fly FB very much after Pacific Fighters comes out. I certainly hope the flight Model evelopes will reflect more realisitc expectations in the new sim.

BSS_Vidar
CO Blacksheep Squadron
www.Blacksheep214.com (http://www.Blacksheep214.com)

BSS_Vidar
04-30-2004, 01:24 AM
I've tested the P-51 flight model and compared it to the real parameters given in the "P-51 in Action" series based on information from the Smithsonian. I found them to be pretty good with a few nicks and tucks needed here and there. I also have the "In Action" books series of the 109, 190, 110, Yak, and La's to compare performance envolopes. $$$$ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif As an AvHistory Buff, retired Navy flyer (for 2 years now), and Commercial pilot, my findings were quite disturbing.

The P-51 is the only prop fighter to break the 300 mph barrier at sea level (306 mph)during the war period. It's top speed at 30K is 448 MPH and nothing short of a jet touches it in between. The closest is the Yak-9 at 434 mph then the 190 at 418 mph. It even comes in a respectable third place behind the Yak 3, and 9 with a 3,440 ft/min climb rate where the Yaks were almost 5,000 ft/min. But time-n-time again I get behind a 109 or 190 in a flat run (No dive) and get left behind holding my joystick. I flew a converted 2 seated P-51D "Sizzelin' Liz" 2 months ago and the owner said he ran down 109's and 190's at will in the war.(9 kills to his credit.)

Why does this game not reflect the actual parameters? Everything else seems to show exquisit detail, why not performance envolopes? The German planes apear to all be over-modeled in the speed and climb regimes, as well as the La-7. The La-7, though a little slower has the same climb performance as a P-51. Can we get this fixed in an upcomming patch please?

Please don't go into which model of such-n-such a plane because airframe restrictions don't allow for big differences in performance from one modification to the next. The P-51B is faster than the D model by 7 mph! Top German commanders wanted to stop 109 production in late 43 and just build 190's and 262's but Hitler wouldn't have it.The tactic was to use 190's as a CAP to allow 262's to take off.

The Blacksheep will more that likely not fly FB very much after Pacific Fighters comes out. I certainly hope the flight Model evelopes will reflect more realisitc expectations in the new sim.

BSS_Vidar
CO Blacksheep Squadron
www.Blacksheep214.com (http://www.Blacksheep214.com)

Kwiatos
04-30-2004, 01:57 AM
You are wrong. I think P-51 is overmodeled in slow speed turn performance and climb rate. Now P-51 climb and turn like BF 109.

JtD
04-30-2004, 02:18 AM
In fact the Bf 109 models changed a lot with each model. The earliest B models had nothing in common with E and they again had nothing in common with K.

Afaik there were quite some planes to go faster than 300 on the deck.

A P-51 does easyly outrun FW 190 A-4,-5,-8 and Bf 109 G-6,-10,-14. This were the major types the Luftwaffe had when the P-51 fought over Europe.

The climb on the P-51 wasn't great, it was okay but not the best.

Just out of curiosity: Which planes did you fly as a real pilot?

Skalgrim
04-30-2004, 03:00 AM
when p51 is to slow for you, please use server before late 44

g6/as with mw50 is not same as g6

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Fri April 30 2004 at 02:13 AM.]

WOLFMondo
04-30-2004, 03:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
The P-51 is the only prop fighter to break the 300 mph barrier at sea level (306 mph)during the war period. It's top speed at 30K is 448 MPH and nothing short of a jet touches it in between. The closest is the Yak-9 at 434 mph then the 190 at 418 mph. It even comes in a respectable third place behind the Yak 3, and 9 with a 3,440 ft/min climb rate where the Yaks were almost 5,000 ft/min. But time-n-time again I get behind a 109 or 190 in a flat run (No dive) and get left behind holding my joystick. I flew a converted 2 seated P-51D "Sizzelin' Liz" 2 months ago and the owner said he ran down 109's and 190's at will in the war.(9 kills to his credit.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire XIV could do 363mph at sea level (446mph at 30,000ft) and had a climb at sea level of 5110ft per minute, at 10,000ft its 3600 per minute all the way up to 21,000ft.

At sea level nothing beats the Tempest II at 406Mph. Not sure about the Tempest V but its probably not far behind.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

Aaron_GT
04-30-2004, 03:02 AM
"The P-51 is the only prop fighter to break the 300 mph barrier at sea level (306 mph)during the war period. It's top speed at 30K is 448 MPH and nothing short of a jet touches it in between. The closest is the Yak-9 at 434 mph then the 190 at 418 mph. It even comes in a respectable third place behind the Yak 3, and 9 with a 3,440 ft/min climb rate where the Yaks were almost 5,000 ft/min. But time-n-time again I get behind a 109 or 190 in a flat run (No dive) and get left behind holding my joystick. I flew a converted 2 seated P-51D "Sizzelin' Liz" 2 months ago and the owner said he ran down 109's and 190's at will in the war.(9 kills to his credit.)"

Do you mean nothing in WW2 exceeded 300mph
at sea level, or nothing in the game?

DaBallz
04-30-2004, 03:13 AM
The performance of the Russian fighters is OBVIOUSLY
gilded a bit, but this is a Russian flight sim.
The P-51 flight models are quite good. It's the
other flight models that are suspect.
The P-63C should be the fastest fighter with a prop
at sea level, and it appears to be so.
The Luftwhiners will never accept a P-51
that can turn, let alone dogfight.

The only gripe I have to do with speed
is that the P-51C should be a bit faster
than the P-51D at all altitudes.

the Spitfire turning is aparrently over modeled
or the A6M2 Zero is under modeled.

You can forget fixing the Russian planes.
They are the heros of the great patriotic war
and the west (notably the Americans) must
be shown that nothing could out perform
the product of the Bolshivek revolution.

Note, no Russian/Soviet was powered by home brewed
powerplants. Those radial engines
powering the La's were pirated Curtiss Wright R-2600s.

Pirating American, French and British designs
was the norm for Russia in those days. Take
a look at a TU4, it is an EXACT copy of a
Boeing B-29. Do you think Boeing got royalty payments? (NOT!)

Da...

JtD
04-30-2004, 04:36 AM
So the Wright had direct fuel injection and was turbocharged?

Maple_Tiger
04-30-2004, 04:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
In fact the Bf 109 models changed a lot with each model. The earliest B models had nothing in common with E and they again had nothing in common with K.

Afaik there were quite some planes to go faster than 300 on the deck.

A P-51 does easyly outrun FW 190 A-4,-5,-8 and Bf 109 G-6,-10,-14. This were the major types the Luftwaffe had when the P-51 fought over Europe.

The climb on the P-51 wasn't great, it was okay but not the best.

Just out of curiosity: Which planes did you fly as a real pilot?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually the G-10, in FB, will out run and out turn the P-51 at any altitude, its way over modleded lol.

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

Fehler
04-30-2004, 05:20 AM
Oh yeah? Well my dad can beat up your dad, and when I post it on a web site everyone will believe it. When I write a book about it, it will become gospel!

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

Red_Storm
04-30-2004, 06:15 AM
At the moment the P-51 outturns most everything in the game, it outruns almost everything and it outclimbs almost everything too. I don't see how you guys can still whine about it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

---
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/RedStorm-sig.JPG

Kurfurst__
04-30-2004, 07:02 AM
Speed of P-51D vs. various 109 and 190 models of 1944 at SL.

P-51D : 359 mph

Bf 109s:

G-6 : 329 mph
G-14 : 353 mph
K-4 : 371 mph

FW 190s

A-8 : 352 mph
D-9 : 382 mph

If you expect being able to outrun these in level flight, you are up to a nasty surprise.
LA-7 was even faster, almost 400 mph at SL. Second, the P-51Ds top speed at altitude was no better than 109s, in fact it was worser than the high altitude G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10 and K-4 versions. Lastly, the P-51D was no-where near the jets performance in speed.. you really expect WAAY too much.

FYI, Bf 109F already exceeded 300mph at SL in 1940 (320 mph@SL).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Actually the G-10, in FB, will out run and out turn the P-51 at any altitude, its way over modleded lol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If so, its modelled correctly, as the G-10 outrun (not at all altitudes, though) and outturned the P-51 in real life as well.


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

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

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

KGr.HH-Sunburst
04-30-2004, 07:11 AM
what the.....the stang is on one the best fighter in the game i can turn with a G10/K4 with ease and DOES climb with a G14 on 25% fuel

dunno about you but i seem to outrun G10s at will,dunno about the K4 never had the situation occured.
i never had a 109 catching up on me with same amount of E/speed

besides all this the P51 got the K14 sight wich makes it a sniper plus it got fly by wire

stupid whine posts
for some ppl its never enough i guess

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/

Kwiatos
04-30-2004, 07:16 AM
But p-51 shouldn't climb ant turn at slow speed like bf http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Tetrapharmakoi
04-30-2004, 07:21 AM
Kurfurst and Sunburst are absolutely right .
U should take a look on "IL-2 Compare" before posting wrong informations :
P-51 outruns everything above 1500 meters ....except maybe the Dora and Ta-152 at high alt and La7 at ground level , not very far from reality .

[This message was edited by Tetrapharmakoi on Fri April 30 2004 at 06:32 AM.]

KGr.HH-Sunburst
04-30-2004, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger

Actually the G-10, in FB, will out run and out turn the P-51 at any altitude, its way over modleded lol.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


BS i had the perfect example of this yesterday
on our squad server
i was in a G10 @ 50% fuel MW50 enabled with manual pitch ,got in a furball low on the deck with a stang he was aprox 400m behind me as i was disengaging the fight and got away but he followed and was not gaining on me after a few miles he was still 400m behind me so i diceded to get in a tight turn.
the following happend i engaged combat flaps+trim and made a sharp turn and after a few circles he was still on my six slowly but surly he gained on me and turned inside me and shot me down.
and i know how to turn in a 109 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif
and it was a low speed sustained turn about 280/290kph
im no history FM expert but didnt the 109 had better low speed turn and handling ?

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/

Kwiatos
04-30-2004, 07:58 AM
Yes bfs should have better low speed turn rate than P-51. But in FB diffrence in slow speed turning between BF and P-51 is marginal.

Korolov
04-30-2004, 08:16 AM
The guys who are loosing turn fights in Bf's to P-51s are obviously doing something wrong... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Topic starter - need to get your facts straight, mate. Pony wasn't the ONLY plane to reach and exceed 300mph at sea level, nor the first. Before the Pony appeared, the P-47 was already speeding well beyond 300mph at SL. Same goes for the P-38. The MiG-3 was capable of 314MPH at sea level, amoung others. Tempest V was capable of a whopping 392mph at sea level.

If you meant it as the P-51 was the first to break the 300mph barrier at sea level - wrong.

If you meant the P-51 was the ONLY plane to break the 300mph barrier at sea level - VERY wrong! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

So, are you just trolling or are you really serious? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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

VW-IceFire
04-30-2004, 08:38 AM
P-51 in this game is plenty fast...but while its top speed is one of the highest in the war (there are many others with similar or better) that was achieved at higher altitudes and in general it isn't so very superior that it couldn't be caught by a 109 or a 190. There are many factors for speed in a fight so its hard to say...

The guy who reported running down 109's during the war likely did...but we don't know (and he may not even) which types of 109's they were or if their pilots were restricted to certain throttle settings.

The only thing the 51 is overmodeled in however is slow speed turn performance. I've heard time and time again that its a bit too good there...thats fine, but aside from that its a very good plane and very well modeled for what they can do with the limits of PC simulation.

Its one of the best fighters in the sim and one of the best of the war but it has some serious competition (the FW190D-9, the La-7, and later hopefully the Tempest V and the Spitfire XIV)

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

geetarman
04-30-2004, 09:16 AM
I just started flying the Stang online again after a few months with the P-38. I can't see the reason to complain about it's performance. I had no problem dueling with La-7's and Ki-84's (as well as 109's) as long as my speed was up. It matters little that it's a bit slower or turns slightly worse than the competion. Fly it fast and you'll get kills.

Harder to do so in the 38.

lrrp22
04-30-2004, 09:31 AM
359 mph is the top sea level speed for a V-1650-3-equipped P-51B at 67" WEP, not a -7-equipped P-51B/C/D at 67" and definitely not at 72", 75" or 81" WEP. In other words, FB's 359 mph is the Merlin Mustang's worst possible SL speed while top speed at altitude *almost* equals the -7's worst speed. The worst of both worlds, hmm...

Real SL speeds for -7 Mustangs is between 375 and 395 mph.

Your claims for top speeds at altitude are highly debatable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Speed of P-51D vs. various 109 and 190 models of 1944 at SL.

P-51D : 359 mph

Bf 109s:

G-6 : 329 mph
G-14 : 353 mph
K-4 : 371 mph

FW 190s

A-8 : 352 mph
D-9 : 382 mph

If you expect being able to outrun these in level flight, you are up to a nasty surprise.
LA-7 was even faster, almost 400 mph at SL. Second, the P-51Ds top speed at altitude was no better than 109s, in fact it was worser than the high altitude G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10 and K-4 versions. Lastly, the P-51D was no-where near the jets performance in speed.. you really expect WAAY too much.

FYI, Bf 109F already exceeded 300mph at SL in 1940 (320 mph@SL).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Actually the G-10, in FB, will out run and out turn the P-51 at any altitude, its way over modleded lol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If so, its modelled correctly, as the G-10 outrun (not at all altitudes, though) and outturned the P-51 in real life as well.


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

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

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

Kurfurst__
04-30-2004, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
359 mph is the top sea level speed for a V-1650-3-equipped P-51B at 67" WEP, not a -7-equipped P-51B/C/D at 67" and definitely not at 72", 75" or 81" WEP. In other words, FB's 359 mph is the Merlin Mustang's worst possible SL speed while top speed at altitude *almost* equals the -7's worst speed. The worst of both worlds, hmm...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

354 (srry, not 359..) mph is from real life flight test of a standard, cleaned up P-51D with V-1650-7 at 67" Hg (max on 100 octane fuel), aircraft desination TK 519. On max boost of 81 Hg mm it reached 379mph, but only RAF Mustang used such high boost.

USAAF Mustangs did not run on higher than 72 Hgmm because of service troubles, and this required 150 grade fuel, ie. "only" the 8th AAF Mustangs, but not the ones in Italy or other places etc..

So a typical US Mustang D would have a max. speed of 354 mph w. 100 octane, and about 370mph on 150 octane. Hardly faster than the 190A/D and 109G/K it faced in 1944.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Real SL speeds for -7 Mustangs is between 375 and 395 mph
Your claims for top speeds at altitude are highly debatable..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was good - for a joke. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I haven`t seen not even a P-51B w. -7 at max 25lbs boost doing more than ~380mph on the deck, not to mention a considerably slower 51D exceeding that by 15mph..

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

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

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

lrrp22
04-30-2004, 10:11 AM
"That was good - for a joke. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I haven`t seen not even a P-51B w. -7 at max 25lbs boost doing more than ~380mph on the deck, not to mention a considerably slower 51D exceeding that by 15mph.."

I've got the entire RAE report for low altitude testing of the Mustang III/Tempest V/Spit XIV, and you couldn't be more wrong.

FB377, pulled from squadron service with 316 Sqn (Polish), did 382 mph on +25 lb/150 octane as received from the squadron. Condition of FB 377's paintwork was "very poor" with no less than *nine* coats of paint having been applied, indicating a considerable time in service.

Repainting the leading 2 ft of the wing and "rubbing down" the rest, nothing more, yielded a 12 mph increase in speed. That's 394 mph (634 kph) for a well-used Mustang III is less than new condition. Removing the wing racks and a small bracket at the base of the FM aerial yielded 403 mph; with slightly larger Spitfire exhaust stacks speed was 405. I wonder what a fresh airframe and engine at +25 lb/81" was capable of?

BTW, you're "much slower 51D" was only two or three mph slower than the -7-equipped B/C at any altitude.

Also at least four P-51D groups of VIIth Fighter Command on Iwo Jima flew their entire tour at 80" HG WEP on 115/145 grade.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
359 mph is the top sea level speed for a V-1650-3-equipped P-51B at 67" WEP, not a -7-equipped P-51B/C/D at 67" and definitely not at 72", 75" or 81" WEP. In other words, FB's 359 mph is the Merlin Mustang's worst possible SL speed while top speed at altitude *almost* equals the -7's worst speed. The worst of both worlds, hmm...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

354 (srry, not 359..) mph is from real life flight test of a standard, cleaned up P-51D with V-1650-7 at 67" Hg (max on 100 octane fuel), aircraft desination TK 519. On max boost of 81 Hg mm it reached 379mph, but only RAF Mustang used such high boost.

USAAF Mustangs did not run on higher than 72 Hgmm because of service troubles, and this required 150 grade fuel, ie. "only" the 8th AAF Mustangs, but not the ones in Italy or other places etc..

So a typical US Mustang D would have a max. speed of 354 mph w. 100 octane, and about 370mph on 150 octane. Hardly faster than the 190A/D and 109G/K it faced in 1944.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Real SL speeds for -7 Mustangs is between 375 and 395 mph
Your claims for top speeds at altitude are highly debatable..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was good - for a joke. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I haven`t seen not even a P-51B w. -7 at max 25lbs boost doing more than ~380mph on the deck, not to mention a considerably slower 51D exceeding that by 15mph..

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

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

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

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Fri April 30 2004 at 09:57 AM.]

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Fri April 30 2004 at 11:22 AM.]

BSS_Vidar
04-30-2004, 12:32 PM
My bad, Typo. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1072.gif It was 400 mph at sea level (406 mph). I didn't catch that, sorry. Guess the 3 is too close to the 4 with my fat fingers. It lost engine cowling panels in those runs which was resolved by making the inlets smaller.

I'm not even a 'Stang fan folks. I'm a Corsair buff. I used it as a reference point. Great number crunching out there though. It just doesn't jive with the info I have.

My list of sources:

Smithsonian Institute
U.S. Air Force Nat'l Museum
Imperial War Museum FWF-Fokker
North American Aviation
In Action Series Books -(each book breaks down specifications of each model)

Authors & Pilots:
Jeff Ethel
Merle Olmsted - 357th FG
Hans Obert
Hans Redeman
Albert Arnold - 359th FG
Col. Richard "****" Turner - 354th FG
Zdenek Titz
Karl Ries
Bundesarchiv

S!
BSS_Vidar

Maple_Tiger
04-30-2004, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sunburst-97th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger

Actually the G-10, in FB, will out run and out turn the P-51 at any altitude, its way over modleded lol.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


BS i had the perfect example of this yesterday
on our squad server
i was in a G10 @ 50% fuel MW50 enabled with manual pitch ,got in a furball low on the deck with a stang he was aprox 400m behind me as i was disengaging the fight and got away but he followed and was not gaining on me after a few miles he was still 400m behind me so i diceded to get in a tight turn.
the following happend i engaged combat flaps+trim and made a sharp turn and after a few circles he was still on my six slowly but surly he gained on me and turned inside me and shot me down.
and i know how to turn in a 109 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif
and it was a low speed sustained turn about 280/290kph
im no history FM expert but didnt the 109 had better low speed turn and handling ?

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


He most likly had about 20% fuel, while you had 50% . Thus, he very well could have turned with you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have run Sea level speed tests on quit a few planes. The G10 is faster, by about 5km/h TAS.

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

RAF74_Buzzsaw
04-30-2004, 01:33 PM
Salute

Actually the original poster is somewhat correct.

And of course Issy/Kurfy is providing misleading data once again. But no surprise there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Here's a chart showing speeds at sea level of a low altitude tuned RAF P-51C:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14+25lbs.jpg

You can see that the P-51 is faster than the Tempest, although the Tempest does break 400 mph as well.

This version of the P-51c was used in the anti 'diver' Squadrons, ie. versus V1's, and equipped several Groups of RAF P-51's based in Britain in the Spring of 1944. (multiple Squadrons) After the V1 sites in the Pas de Calais were captured, the Groups were moved to Europe and continued in this role versus the V1's directed at Antwerp. They also did standard combat patrols.

I would request Issy/Kurfy provides original documents showing a speed of 371mph at sea level for the K4.

By the way, the K4 as it exists now, is an amalgam of two different models. Oleg has given it the best of both, ie. the best speed at sea level from one engine, and the best speed at altitude from another engine.

BSS_Vidar
04-30-2004, 01:46 PM
I meant to point out that the Bearcat was the fastest piston/prop driven aircraft in the war, along with the P-51 and the Yak-9. I have yet to see 109's or 190's in the vintage WWII formula-1 air races in Reno Nev. Know why? Their airframes can't take it.Yeah I know, they're formula engines, My point is the restrictions of airspeed were NOT powerplant releated rather than airframe.

One gent said he had no problems running down German planes as long as he kept his speed way up. That's precisly the point I'm trying to make. You shouldn't have to drill around at high speed to out perform these German flight models. The P-51 had a climb rate in excess of 200 ft/min over the 109's and a tad over 100 ft/min over the 190's. This is NOT reflected in the game. A fellow BSS member and I did flat out run tests vs the 51 and the German flight models left it standing by itself. The climb rates was even worse.

BSS_Vidar

lrrp22
04-30-2004, 01:56 PM
Buzzsaw,

Those anti-diver Mustang III's frequently performed Coastal Command escorts to Norway as well during the summer/fall of '44.

I'm not suprised that Isegrim is perfectly satisfied with the best-of-both-worlds amalgam K-4 (he wants more actually). He's also pretty happy with the worst-of-all-worlds Mustang speed modeling.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

Actually the original poster is somewhat correct.

And of course Issy/Kurfy is providing misleading data once again. But no surprise there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Here's a chart showing speeds at sea level of a low altitude tuned RAF P-51C:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14+25lbs.jpg

You can see that the P-51 is faster than the Tempest, although the Tempest does break 400 mph as well.

This version of the P-51c was used in the anti 'diver' Squadrons, ie. versus V1's, and equipped several Groups of RAF P-51's based in Britain in the Spring of 1944. (multiple Squadrons) After the V1 sites in the Pas de Calais were captured, the Groups were moved to Europe and continued in this role versus the V1's directed at Antwerp. They also did standard combat patrols.

I would request Issy/Kurfy provides original documents showing a speed of 371mph at sea level for the K4.

By the way, the K4 as it exists now, is an amalgam of two different models. Oleg has given it the best of both, ie. the best speed at sea level from one engine, and the best speed at altitude from another engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
04-30-2004, 02:12 PM
hee cool to know RAF had the best stangs http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
and the p47m http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
stang didnt climb well, pilots told not to fight below 400km/h i think
might have been 400mph i cant remmber, or if thats tas/ias

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

JethroT
04-30-2004, 03:11 PM
WOW!!!
So much b!!!!it in one single post.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
I meant to point out that the Bearcat was the fastest piston/prop driven aircraft in the war, along with the P-51 and the Yak-9. I have yet to see 109's or 190's in the vintage WWII formula-1 air races in Reno Nev. Know why? Their airframes can't take it.Yeah I know, they're formula engines, My point is the restrictions of airspeed were NOT powerplant releated rather than airframe.

One gent said he had no problems running down German planes as long as he kept his speed way up. That's precisly the point I'm trying to make. You shouldn't have to drill around at high speed to out perform these German flight models. The P-51 had a climb rate in excess of 200 ft/min over the 109's and a tad over 100 ft/min over the 190's. This is NOT reflected in the game. A fellow BSS member and I did flat out run tests vs the 51 and the German flight models left it standing by itself. The climb rates was even worse.

BSS_Vidar<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LEXX_Luthor
04-30-2004, 03:26 PM
P~51 could not climb, as told by pilots who flew P~38 first. But they liked the new P~51 for other reasons.

The thread maker advertised he did FM testing but posted no data lol so there's nothing to do here but watch simmers trade speed numbers with 3 significant digits (a few simmers/simmerettes will know what I mean).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Note, no Russian/Soviet was powered by home brewed powerplants. Those radial engines
powering the La's were pirated Curtiss Wright R-2600s.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>er...MiG. Anyway USA engines logically means uber USSR planes. We don't see a problem here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif



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


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

BigKahuna_GS
04-30-2004, 04:28 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Red Storm--At the moment the P-51 outturns most everything in the game, it outruns almost everything and it outclimbs almost everything too.
__________________________________________________ ___________________


Your kidding right http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



__________________________________________________ _______________
Korolov--The guys who are loosing turn fights in Bf's to P-51s are obviously doing something wrong... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
______________________________________________


That is probaly more like it. I have been flying PC Ponys since EAW and the Mustang rides a very very thin line stall fighting with full flaps. I got jumped just after taking off, saw the bandit hit full WEP and closed the radiator got to a speed of 350-400kph before I had to break turn.

With really no other alternative but to slug it out low with the 109, I enterned no man's land and popped full flaps trying to hang with the 109 in a slow speed turn. I was riding the edge and since I had a slight advantage entering the turn fight by being on his tail, I watched that advantage fade away when he popped full flaps and started hard turning. The 109 started gaining degrees and it was either stall out trying to pull harder or stay put turning all the time the 109 gaining towards a firing solution. Fortunatley help arrived being at my own airfield and bailed me out. The 51 does not out stall/slow speed fight the 109.

Now the P38 is supposed to have about 4 more degrees over the 109 before stalling, well try stall fighting a 109 with full flaps on the deck turning;-hard to see those 4 more degrees in an advantage. You might barely gain some angles in an all out full flap stall fight. Then again you might not.

Maybe RAF Buzzsaw can post this again--there is a cross over point when the P51D has 25-35% fuel and the 109/190 has 50% fuel resulting in the P51 having better wing loading.

Remember the P51,P47 and P38 were strategic fighters that carried enormous amounts of fuel. As the fuel burned off, performance increased at a ratio faster than the 109/190.

As for Sea Level speed, Americas Hundred Thousand has the P51D Mustang doing 370-375mph on the deck. Oleg does not accept this, even though it hit over 400mph with a minor boost increase from the Brits.


________________________



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

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

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

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



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

"Angels of Okinawa"

BigKahuna_GS
04-30-2004, 05:02 PM
S!

Where US aircraft (P51, P47 & P38) really get shorted is in superior dive acceleration and the subsequent energy transfer into a zoom climb.



______________

From a JG26 Pilot :


Fw 190D pilot Lt Karl Heinz Ossenkop of JG 26 comparing their crate to the opposition.

Spitfire: the D-9 was better in level flight, climb and dive. It was slightly inferior in turns.

Tempest: almost equal in level flight, a lengthy pursuit was usually fruitless. The D-9 climbed and turned better, but was inferior in a dive.

Mustang: the two aircraft were about equal in normal combat maneuvers, which was an advantage to us compared to the A-8. The Mustang was rather faster in a dive.

Thunderbolt: with the Dora-9 we had advantages in level flight, climb and turn. We were hopelessly inferior in a dive.

Note: this pilot does not discuss speed during the turns or altitudes of these maneuvers.

__________________


A simple test to try in FB. Record the speed attained of both a 1943 190 & P47D10 diving from 10,000ft when both planes hit 3,000ft. The 190 is faster almost everytime. This real life test showed the P47D-10 passing the 190 at 3,000ft with a much greater speed.



Real life test between a captured 190 and an early 1943 P47D:


3) Diving

(a) 10,000-3,000ft, starting at 250mph diving at an angle of 65 degrees with constant throttle setting. The Fw190 pulled away rapidly at the beginning, but the P-47 passed it at 3,000ft with a much greater speed and had a decidedly better angle of pull out.

However it was found the P-47 could get on the tail of the Fw190 by making a figure 8 in a vertical plane. In this maneuver, the P-47 , which was being pursued by the Fw190 in level flight attempted to execute as series of climbs, slow turns, and dives which would end up with the positions reversed and the P-47 on the tail of the FW190. The maneuver started with a a steep climbing turn to near stalling point, followed by a falloff and fast dive which ended in a pullout and fast climbing sweep whch again carried the plane up to the stall and fall off point.

The P-47 built up more speed in the dive than the FW190 with the result that the Thunderbolt also climbed faster than the FW190 and also higher. The P-47 pilot merely waited for the FW190 to reach its stalling point below him and turned very neatly on the tail of the falling away FW190. With its much greater diving acceleration, the P-47 soon caught the FW190 in the second dive of his maneuver.

___________________



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

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

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

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



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

"Angels of Okinawa"

lrrp22
04-30-2004, 05:50 PM
Here you go Kahuna,

I posted this last week:

Full fuel weights for the Mustangs are P-51D/10100 lbs; P-51B-15/9800; P-51B-1/9200. Fuel weight is calculated at 6 lbs/gallon.

Weights for the K-4 are from the Object Viewer and weights for the D-9 (9442 lbs) come from the Jagdhund Dora sight.

wingloading (lbs/sq. ft):

Bf 109K-4@100%-----42.27---106 gal
Bf 109K-4@ 50%-----40.46---53
Bf 109K-4@ 25%-----39.56---26.5

Fw 190A-9@100%-----49.25---168?

Fw 190D-9@100%-----47.93---168 gal
Fw 190D-9@ 50%-----45.37---84
Fw 190D-9@ 25%-----44.09---42

P-51D@100%---------43.35---269 gal
P-51D@ 25%---------38.15---67.25

P-51B-15NA@100%----42.06---269 gal
P-51B-15NA@ 25%----36.87---67.25

P-51B-1NA@100%-----39.48---184 gal
P-51B-1NA@ 25%-----35.93---46

Be warned: the 109 fans have determined that 'wingloading' is now meaningless and that only 'liftloading' has any impact on turn performance. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif Apparently they believe the 109's wing has an advantage over other wings in this regard.


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

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Red Storm--At the moment the P-51 outturns most everything in the game, it outruns almost everything and it outclimbs almost everything too.
__________________________________________________ ___________________


Your kidding right http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



__________________________________________________ _______________
Korolov--The guys who are loosing turn fights in Bf's to P-51s are obviously doing something wrong... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
______________________________________________


That is probaly more like it. I have been flying PC Ponys since EAW and the Mustang rides a very very thin line stall fighting with full flaps. I got jumped just after taking off, saw the bandit hit full WEP and closed the radiator got to a speed of 350-400kph before I had to break turn.

With really no other alternative but to slug it out low with the 109, I enterned no man's land and popped full flaps trying to hang with the 109 in a slow speed turn. I was riding the edge and since I had a slight advantage entering the turn fight by being on his tail, I watched that advantage fade away when he popped full flaps and started hard turning. The 109 started gaining degrees and it was either stall out trying to pull harder or stay put turning all the time the 109 gaining towards a firing solution. Fortunatley help arrived being at my own airfield and bailed me out. The 51 does not out stall/slow speed fight the 109.

Now the P38 is supposed to have about 4 more degrees over the 109 before stalling, well try stall fighting a 109 with full flaps on the deck turning;-hard to see those 4 more degrees in an advantage. You might barely gain some angles in an all out full flap stall fight. Then again you might not.

Maybe RAF Buzzsaw can post this again--there is a cross over point when the P51D has 25-35% fuel and the 109/190 has 50% fuel resulting in the P51 having better wing loading.

Remember the P51,P47 and P38 were strategic fighters that carried enormous amounts of fuel. As the fuel burned off, performance increased at a ratio faster than the 109/190.

As for Sea Level speed, Americas Hundred Thousand has the P51D Mustang doing 370-375mph on the deck. Oleg does not accept this, even though it hit over 400mph with a minor boost increase from the Brits.


________________________



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

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

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

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



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

"Angels of Okinawa"





<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DaBallz
05-01-2004, 04:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
So the Wright had direct fuel injection and was turbocharged?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was powered by 4 Curtiss Wright R-3350s
that were direct fuel injected and turbocharged, two turbochargers per engine.

I know of NO Soviet/Russian aircraft that was turbocharged during the Great Patriotic War.

Da...

JtD
05-01-2004, 05:01 AM
How is the R-3350 related to the R-2600, which is the one the Russians did only copy and paste to their La's (according to you)?

Afaik later ASh-82 were turbocharged, not during WW2.

DaBallz
05-01-2004, 07:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
How is the R-3350 related to the R-2600, which is the one the Russians did only copy and paste to their La's (according to you)?

Afaik later ASh-82 were turbocharged, not during WW2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The R-3350 was meerly a R-2600 with 4 more cylinders.
Same bore, same stroke, and 75% parts interchangability.
I know, I made parts for some of the last Wright
radials on active duty for the US Navy.

BTW the Wright R-1820 also shares the bore size and
other parts of the R-2600. The R-1820 was
also pirated by the Soviets.

Most US radial engines used in combat were fuel injected
by a bendix or Chandler Groves injection carb.

The difference is a direct injection is a "Dry manifold"
and a injection carb is a "Wet manifold".
Both have their advantages.


Da...

Kwiatos
05-01-2004, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Here you go Kahuna,

I posted this last week:

Full fuel weights for the Mustangs are P-51D/10100 lbs; P-51B-15/9800; P-51B-1/9200. Fuel weight is calculated at 6 lbs/gallon.

Weights for the K-4 are from the Object Viewer and weights for the D-9 (9442 lbs) come from the Jagdhund Dora sight.

wingloading (lbs/sq. ft):

Bf 109K-4@100%-----42.27---106 gal
Bf 109K-4@ 50%-----40.46---53
Bf 109K-4@ 25%-----39.56---26.5

Fw 190A-9@100%-----49.25---168?

Fw 190D-9@100%-----47.93---168 gal
Fw 190D-9@ 50%-----45.37---84
Fw 190D-9@ 25%-----44.09---42

P-51D@100%---------43.35---269 gal
P-51D@ 25%---------38.15---67.25

P-51B-15NA@100%----42.06---269 gal
P-51B-15NA@ 25%----36.87---67.25

P-51B-1NA@100%-----39.48---184 gal
P-51B-1NA@ 25%-----35.93---46

Be warned: the 109 fans have determined that 'wingloading' is now meaningless and that only 'liftloading' has any impact on turn performance. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif Apparently they believe the 109's wing has an advantage over other wings in this regard.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

About weight to wing are:

Bf G-6 100% fuel - 195 kg/m2
Bf G-10 100% fuel - 204 kg/m2
Bf K-4 100% fuel - 209 kg/m2

P-51 B 100% fuel - 191 kg/m2
P-51 C 100% fuel - 204 kg/m2
P-51 D 100% fuel 210 kg/m2

Dont forget that P-51 had laminar profil in wings which was good at high speed handling but much worse in slow speed.

k5054
05-01-2004, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
How is the R-3350 related to the R-2600, which is the one the Russians did only copy and paste to their La's (according to you)?


What happened was that the russian made the M-25/M-63 engines which were copies of the Wright engine which powered the B-239, CW-21, somew Hawk 75s and some Wildcats, as well as the B-17 in turbo form. This was a 9 cyl engine. Russia made a 14 cyl version using the same manufacturing techniques, the M-82/ASh82. And later the ASh-71 an 18cyl version the same as R3350, which was already around before the B-29 was copied for the Tu-4.
The VK-105 engines were derived from Hispano-Suiza 12Y, the M-88 (Su-2) from the Gnome-Rhone 14 (bloch 152, Hs-129, Me-323)
The AM35 of the MiG and the AM38 of the Il-2 were much developed from, IIRC, the BMW VI, pretty much original work on a german basis.

While I'm perfectly sure that all marks of 109 could out-perform any Mustang in every way, I'm a little bemused by how dumb and useless those LW pilots must have been to lose so badly to the USAAF in early 1944 when only two groups of mustangs were in the ETO. They can't have been outnumbered by two groups, can they?

JtD
05-01-2004, 08:29 AM
Okay, switching back from smartass questions to statements. Thx for the answers though. :-)

The Russian might have taken other countries designs as a base, nonetheless the did engineer and built their very own interpretation of everything they "copied". The engines use different fuel, had different injection and/or cooling systems (the ASh injection system is roughly related to the BMW801) and so on. It is just incorrect to say "they copied/pirated" it.
I'd say "they were inspired" by it. (Which might be a bit to gentle. ;-)
If you just look who copied whom you'll eventually find back to the Wright Brothers or even Otto Lilienthal and Nicolaus August Otto. Engeneers rarely invent, they mostly evolve. (If you get what I want to say.)

CTO88
05-01-2004, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:



It's top speed at 30K is 448 MPH and nothing short of a jet touches it in between. The closest is the Yak-9 at 434 mph then the 190 at 418 mph. It even comes in a respectable third place behind the Yak 3, and 9 with a 3,440 ft/min climb rate where the Yaks were almost 5,000 ft/min. But time-n-time again I get behind a 109 or 190 in a flat run (No dive) and get left behind holding my joystick. I flew a converted 2 seated P-51D "Sizzelin' Liz" 2 months ago and the owner said he ran down 109's and 190's at will in the war.(9 kills to his credit.)



http://www.Blacksheep214.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


the owner maybe right and game also does. look at this page: www.ww2.dk (http://www.ww2.dk) and you'll see that luftwaffe mainly used 109g6 and fw190a till 11/44. these models were slower than p51d.
your failure is not to devide the 109 and 190 variants. 190d9 has up to 2100PS @ 0m, 109g10,g14,k4 up to 2000PS @ 0m. their weights are ~4,2 and 3,3 metric tons. P-51-D15NA i. e. weights 9500LBS (4,7 metric tons) and has only maximum 1490HP @ 0m without! hull fuel-tank, but only wing fuel. with internal hull-tank is ought have had ~5 metric tons gross weight.
as you can see, late 190er and 109er has more power and are less heavier than p51 all variants. a 100% fuel p51d is as fast and "turny" as 190a, but should have better handling abilities.

till final the germans used wrong tactics and dived away from us-fighters to evade, mostly due numerical superiority of air force and poor german pilot skills in 1944/45. stangs and bolts were better divers than 190,109. so there is a "legend" about the fast p-51, much kills where done in dives. as johnson said (p47), they never learned it,they always dived. if the germans had climbed or turned against the p-47 it would be bad for it. but mostly the air force was superior in numbers so these dogfights weren't also well for luftwaffe.

clint-ruin
05-01-2004, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
I'd say "they were inspired" by it. (Which might be a bit to gentle. ;-)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.feldgrau.com/ger-sov.html

IIRC both the I-16s [and subsequent derivatives] Wright Cyclone engine and the SB2s Hispano-Suiza HS12Y [Klimov] were both properly license built.

Lots of technology sharing went on before the war. The Germans would have had a pretty hard time of invading a neighbourhood park without raw materials or mass production expertise provided by countries that were to become their sworn enemies just a little later on.

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

lrrp22
05-01-2004, 09:16 AM
Kwiatos,

Note that the K-4 and P-51D have very similar wingloading at 100% fuel, the difference being the Mustang's 269 gal's vs. the K-4's 106. As thing stand in FB, The Mustang is almost always going to have lower wingloading than the K-4.

I think the Mustang wing's "poor handling" at lower speeds is exaggerated on this board. The Laminar Flow profile had some sharp departure characteristics at the stall but I don't believe that it lost all lift efficiency below 300 kph like many seem to believe.

Again, the historical record just doesn't support the belief that Mustangs couldn't turn with 109's at lower speeds. Remember that Mark Hanna's oft-cited account of the 109's docile low-speed handling relates to a lighter example (a Buchon IIRC) flown at much reduced power settings- a very different beast than a combat-loaded K-4 flying at full combat power.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Here you go Kahuna,

I posted this last week:

Full fuel weights for the Mustangs are P-51D/10100 lbs; P-51B-15/9800; P-51B-1/9200. Fuel weight is calculated at 6 lbs/gallon.

Weights for the K-4 are from the Object Viewer and weights for the D-9 (9442 lbs) come from the Jagdhund Dora sight.

wingloading (lbs/sq. ft):

Bf 109K-4@100%-----42.27---106 gal
Bf 109K-4@ 50%-----40.46---53
Bf 109K-4@ 25%-----39.56---26.5

Fw 190A-9@100%-----49.25---168?

Fw 190D-9@100%-----47.93---168 gal
Fw 190D-9@ 50%-----45.37---84
Fw 190D-9@ 25%-----44.09---42

P-51D@100%---------43.35---269 gal
P-51D@ 25%---------38.15---67.25

P-51B-15NA@100%----42.06---269 gal
P-51B-15NA@ 25%----36.87---67.25

P-51B-1NA@100%-----39.48---184 gal
P-51B-1NA@ 25%-----35.93---46

Be warned: the 109 fans have determined that 'wingloading' is now meaningless and that only 'liftloading' has any impact on turn performance. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif Apparently they believe the 109's wing has an advantage over other wings in this regard.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

About weight to wing are:

Bf G-6 100% fuel - 195 kg/m2
Bf G-10 100% fuel - 204 kg/m2
Bf K-4 100% fuel - 209 kg/m2

P-51 B 100% fuel - 191 kg/m2
P-51 C 100% fuel - 204 kg/m2
P-51 D 100% fuel 210 kg/m2

Dont forget that P-51 had laminar profil in wings which was good at high speed handling but much worse in slow speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DaBallz
05-01-2004, 09:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
Okay, switching back from smartass questions to statements. Thx for the answers though. :-)

The Russian might have taken other countries designs as a base, nonetheless the did engineer and built their very own interpretation of everything they "copied". The engines use different fuel, had different injection and/or cooling systems (the ASh injection system is roughly related to the BMW801) and so on. It is just incorrect to say "they copied/pirated" it.
I'd say "they were inspired" by it. (Which might be a bit to gentle. ;-)
If you just look who copied whom you'll eventually find back to the Wright Brothers or even Otto Lilienthal and Nicolaus August Otto. Engeneers rarely invent, they mostly evolve. (If you get what I want to say.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The TU-4 is hardly an evolutionary step from the B-29.
The radial piston engines of WWII were all based
on Bristol, Gnome-Rhone, Wright and Pratt&Whitney
designs, the Japanese and Germans built P&W
and Wrights as well, I doubt royalties were payd.

Propellers and their controls were also copied.
Hamilton Standard was the standard for the Japanese Empire.

The Russian pirated Wrights were so close as to
interchange parts with Wrights, just ask the Finns!
They kept their Wright R-1820 powered Buffalos
in the air on Soviet parts!

da...

lrrp22
05-01-2004, 09:25 AM
CTO88,

Your Horsepower numbers for the Mustang are way too low. The V-1650-7 developed 1720 HP at 67" Hg manifold pressure and 2020 HP at 81".

The D-9 was every bit as heavy as all but the most heavily fueled P-51D. The Mustang also had a dramatic drag advantage over either type.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:



It's top speed at 30K is 448 MPH and nothing short of a jet touches it in between. The closest is the Yak-9 at 434 mph then the 190 at 418 mph. It even comes in a respectable third place behind the Yak 3, and 9 with a 3,440 ft/min climb rate where the Yaks were almost 5,000 ft/min. But time-n-time again I get behind a 109 or 190 in a flat run (No dive) and get left behind holding my joystick. I flew a converted 2 seated P-51D "Sizzelin' Liz" 2 months ago and the owner said he ran down 109's and 190's at will in the war.(9 kills to his credit.)



http://www.Blacksheep214.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


the owner maybe right and game also does. look at this page: http://www.ww2.dk and you'll see that luftwaffe mainly used 109g6 and fw190a till 11/44. these models were slower than p51d.
your failure is not to devide the 109 and 190 variants. 190d9 has up to 2100PS @ 0m, 109g10,g14,k4 up to 2000PS @ 0m. their weights are ~4,2 and 3,3 metric tons. P-51-D15NA i. e. weights 9500LBS (4,7 metric tons) and has only maximum 1490HP @ 0m without! hull fuel-tank, but only wing fuel. with internal hull-tank is ought have had ~5 metric tons gross weight.
as you can see, late 190er and 109er has more power and are less heavier than p51 all variants. a 100% fuel p51d is as fast and "turny" as 190a, but should have better handling abilities.

till final the germans used wrong tactics and dived away from us-fighters to evade, mostly due numerical superiority of air force and poor german pilot skills in 1944/45. stangs and bolts were better divers than 190,109. so there is a "legend" about the fast p-51, much kills where done in dives. as johnson said (p47), they never learned it,they always dived. if the germans had climbed or turned against the p-47 it would be bad for it. but mostly the air force was superior in numbers so these dogfights weren't also well for luftwaffe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ugly_Kid
05-01-2004, 09:26 AM
Laminar profile does not have to be necessary edgy on the stalls, allthough laminar flow separates easier than turbulent. However, laminar profiles have typically considerably higher drag with hihg lift coeffcient. Powerloading is not exactly one of the P-51s strong areas...why not in Reno? yeah there is one single G-6 flying at the moment and no FWs http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JtD
05-01-2004, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:

Your Horsepower numbers for the Mustang are way too low. The V-1650-7 developed 1720 HP at 67" Hg manifold pressure and 2020 HP at 81".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at zero alt.

DaBallz
05-01-2004, 09:48 AM
Powerloading is not exactly one of the P-51s strong areas...why not in Reno? yeah there is one single G-6 flying at the moment and no FWs http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/QUOTE]


When the National Air Races were renewed in 1946
at Cleveland there were plenty of surplus aircraft
of all types, including German machines.
Some teams concidered flying a "Bad Guy" race
plane, but Bf-109s and Fw-190s were not capable
of compeating in low level air racing.
A Griffon Spit XIV was raced, and managed a third
at Cleveland in 1947, but Spits were soon discarded
as not being competative.

As a paralell today NEW Yak3s and Yak9s are available
and are raced, and are not even close to being
competative.
one Yak trainer re-engined with a C series
P&W R-2800 manages to qualify for the gold race
every year, but it is never really competative.

The moral of this story is, if it aint a Laminar
flow wing, it will never be competative at RENO.
Bearcats, Mustangs and Seafurys and the odd Corsair
are the winners. Today it's Mustangs that are
the top of the pile.

A few years ago someone figured that late model
Allison V1710 connecting rods were far more
reliable and could be adapted to the Merlin.
The weak link had been solved and power levels
soared to over 3,500hp!
Now even the rare bear with it's Wright R3350
at over 4,000hp is unlikely to beat the Mustangs.
The race seems now to be for third place or
hope the two top P-51's throw a rod.

da...

lrrp22
05-01-2004, 10:33 AM
"Not at zero alt."

So? the Merlin developed max horsepower above sea level, how is that a disadvantage?

1650-1690 hp at 67" and 1980 hp at 81" are the sea level numbers.

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

Your Horsepower numbers for the Mustang are way too low. The V-1650-7 developed 1720 HP at 67" Hg manifold pressure and 2020 HP at 81".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at zero alt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst__
05-01-2004, 11:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
And of course Issy/Kurfy is providing misleading data once again. But no surprise there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure-sure, Buzz, keep boxing the air with this boring **** about "misleading data"! 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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Here's a chart showing speeds at sea level of a low altitude tuned RAF P-51C:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14+25lbs.jpg

You can see that the P-51 is faster than the Tempest, although the Tempest does break 400 mph as well.

This version of the P-51c was used in the anti 'diver' Squadrons, ie. versus V1's, and equipped several Groups of RAF P-51's based in Britain in the Spring of 1944. (multiple Squadrons) After the V1 sites in the Pas de Calais were captured, the Groups were moved to Europe and continued in this role versus the V1's directed at Antwerp. They also did standard combat patrols.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots of wishful thinking here. The test shows one of the planes that were stripped of equipment, ie. no bombrack = no droptanks. I wonder how many Mustangs went over Germany w/o a droptank mounted...

But, to cut the long story short, here`s a quote from Neil Stirling, the guy who actually dug up these documents you manipulate with, and his comments were:

"The Americans limited their P51's fitted with the V-1650-7 to 72"hg when using 100/150 grade fuel the British 81"hg. Mustangs usually were fitted with wing racks, these reduced the maximum speed by 8mph to 12mph.
8th Mustangs typically would have been able to do about 370mph low down and RAF mustangs about 380mph.

Neil "



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I would request Issy/Kurfy provides original documents showing a speed of 371mph at sea level for the K4.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I provided those to Oleg, he had to see those, he had seen it, you dont have to, so you won`t. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
By the way, the K4 as it exists now, is an amalgam of two different models. Oleg has given it the best of both, ie. the best speed at sea level from one engine, and the best speed at altitude from another engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a ****... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif The K-4 right now has 583 km/h at SL, ie. the worst version, the best would do 607 km/h.
And altitude performance was the same on all models - it`s obvious you don`t know nothing about what you speak.

That`s nothing to be surprised of, though. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

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

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

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

Korolov
05-01-2004, 12:30 PM
Fortunately for the Allies, by the time these oh-so-super great axis planes arrived, they only had incompetent green pilots in the cockpit. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I think everyone has proven the point here - the Pony wasn't the only plane to exceed 300 or 400mph at sea level.

My advice: learn to fly the plane as it is. Thats how us P-47 jocks had to do it.

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

lrrp22
05-01-2004, 01:57 PM
Give it up Isegrim! I HAVE the report, directly from the Public Records Office.

A well-used, in-squadron-service Mustang III running +25 lbs boost did 395 mph (636 kph) at sea level WITH wingracks- PERIOD. That's *39 KPH* better than your "best" K-4 speed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Removing the wingracks (+8 mph)and a small bracket at the base of the aerial (+1 mph) and replacing the exhaust stacks (+1.5 mph) yielded a phenominal top speed of 405 mph (652 kph) at sea level.

FB 377 did 383 mph (616 kph) at sea level *as received* from 316 Sqn. Even in rough condition the Mustang III was *19 KPH* better than your "best" K-4. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

From AVIA 6/1061B, August 1944:

"The paintwork was in very poor condition. The paint on the leading edge and inboard surfaces of the wings was badly chipped. This is most serious in the case of the Mustang due to the thickness of the paint layer. At least six seperate coats of paint had been applied (not nine, as I posted previously).

In the cleaning up tests, the leading 2ft. of the wing surfaces had to be stripped of paint and repainted. The rest of the aircraft was rubbed down only."

Simply repainting the leading 2 ft of the wing allowed FB 377 to reach 395 mph.

An RAF Mustang III or IV would *smoke* any K-4 at sea level- deal with it.

Twenty+ squadrons were equipped with the Mustang III/IV in ADGB/2nd TAF alone.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
And of course Issy/Kurfy is providing misleading data once again. But no surprise there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure-sure, Buzz, keep boxing the air with this boring **** about "misleading data"! 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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Here's a chart showing speeds at sea level of a low altitude tuned RAF P-51C:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14+25lbs.jpg

You can see that the P-51 is faster than the Tempest, although the Tempest does break 400 mph as well.

This version of the P-51c was used in the anti 'diver' Squadrons, ie. versus V1's, and equipped several Groups of RAF P-51's based in Britain in the Spring of 1944. (multiple Squadrons) After the V1 sites in the Pas de Calais were captured, the Groups were moved to Europe and continued in this role versus the V1's directed at Antwerp. They also did standard combat patrols.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots of wishful thinking here. The test shows one of the planes that were stripped of equipment, ie. no bombrack = no droptanks. I wonder how many Mustangs went over Germany w/o a droptank mounted...

But, to cut the long story short, here`s a quote from Neil Stirling, the guy who actually dug up these documents you manipulate with, and his comments were:

"The Americans limited their P51's fitted with the V-1650-7 to 72"hg when using 100/150 grade fuel the British 81"hg. Mustangs usually were fitted with wing racks, these reduced the maximum speed by 8mph to 12mph.
8th Mustangs typically would have been able to do about 370mph low down and RAF mustangs about 380mph.

Neil "



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I would request Issy/Kurfy provides original documents showing a speed of 371mph at sea level for the K4.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I provided those to Oleg, he had to see those, he had seen it, you dont have to, so you won`t. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
By the way, the K4 as it exists now, is an amalgam of two different models. Oleg has given it the best of both, ie. the best speed at sea level from one engine, and the best speed at altitude from another engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a ****... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif The K-4 right now has 583 km/h at SL, ie. the worst version, the best would do 607 km/h.
And altitude performance was the same on all models - it`s obvious you don`t know nothing about what you speak.

That`s nothing to be surprised of, though. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

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

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

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

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Sat May 01 2004 at 01:05 PM.]

Kurfurst__
05-01-2004, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Give it up Isegrim! I HAVE the report, directly from the Public Records Office.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what, Mr hysterica ? You have a report of a stripped and repainted Mustang III? So? The vast majority of Mustang didn`t reach those speeds, ie. :

Avia 18/732.

AAEE Boscombe Down.
Mustang IV T.K 589 (Packard MerlinV.1650-7)
Posistion error of static vent and brief level speed trials.
July 1944.
Aircraft flown with faired bomb racks.

Speed at 0 ft using 67"hg 354mph
Speed at 0ft using 81"hg 379mph



AVIA 6/10618
August 1944

Mustang III FB 377
Wing racks fitted. +25Lbs boost

383mph at 0ft



Army Air Force
Material Command
ENG-57-531-306
13 May 1044.
Performance tests on P38J,P47D and P51B airplanes tested with 44-1 fuel (150 grade)

P51B 43-24777

Wing racks fitted.

61"hg 352mph at 0ft
67"hg 364mph at 0ft
75"hg 380mph at 0ft,


You have a report? I have many - none shows the 400+mph dream figure.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
A well-used, in-squadron-service Mustang III running +25 lbs boost did 395 mph (636 kph) at sea level WITH wingracks- PERIOD. That's *39 KPH* better than your "best" K-4 speed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

636-607 = 39... at least according to lrpp, LOL. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

AVIA 6/10618, dated August 1944, states it made 383 mph at +25lbs as received from Squadron. You ain`t telling the truth, Mister.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Removing the wingracks (+8 mph)and a small bracket at the base of the aerial (+1 mph) and replacing the exhaust stacks (+1.5 mph) yielded a phenominal top speed of 405 mph (652 kph) at sea level.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bravo, too bad it wasn`t used this way in the service this way at any time. BTW, what`s so phenomenal about 405 mph for a stripped a/c ?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
FB 377 did 383 mph (616 kph) at sea level *as received* from 316 Sqn. Even in rough condition the Mustang III was *19 KPH* better than your "best" K-4. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

616-607 = 19... at least in Lrrpp2 world.

Everywhere else it`s a whole 9 km/h. I must say, WOW. 9 kph... that`s really a decisive edge, almost as fast as a joggin 45-year old man.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>An RAF Mustang III or IV would *smoke* any K-4 at sea level- deal with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. A K-4 rips apart a Mustang, whatever combination. A few km/h extra top speed, great, after flying straight and level right in front of an MK 108 for a minute or two, to reach top speed, you will start to extend from him. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif Of course this required rare combination, ie. only in the case of RAF Mustangs, only in the case of Mk IIIs, only in the case if it`s equipped with V-1650-7 (most MkIIIs did not), only if the case it received 150 grade fuel (there`s no mentioning of this for Mustang Squadrons, only Spitfires and Mosquitoes)..


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Twenty+ squadrons were equipped with the Mustang III/IV in ADGB/2nd TAF alone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

List them, by type, date of receval.. the 2nd TAF certainly had very few, employed mainly in recce roles.

I suggest the following Mustang to be added to AEP :

P-51 C (1944, lrrp22`s favourite, not P-51D, but V-1650-7, Repainted, Stripped of bombrack, aerial base, 150 grade, +25lbs) - It would look nice next to those six Mig-3Us. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

I guess he would be outraged and his brain would simply boil after he would still find that the K-4 outturned him in a single turn, got on his six, took advantage of having TWICE the acceleration, and closed on, and then pumped a single MK 108 shell into the fusalge which breaks into two..

Keep it on, keep telling everybody the Mustang does everything better than anything else, keep telling it does outturn 109s because it`s weight relative to wing area is lower in certain circumstances, leaving alone all unimportant matters like airfoil type or design aspects. The more intelligent members already acknowlaged it has strenghts and weaknesses, and try to exploit the strenghts. You are one of those who are being the easy meat on DF servers, trying to beat 109s in their own field.

Carry on, it won`t change anything. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

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

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

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

lrrp22
05-01-2004, 03:17 PM
You're doing it again. Isegrim, Attorney-at-Law strikes again.

With nothing more than the first 2 ft of the wings' "very poor" paintwork being repainted, a fully combat-equipped but far from 'factory fresh' FB 377 was capable of 395 mph. No matter how much you want to believe otherwise, that is a fact.


What condition was KT 589 in when tested? Wasn't KT 589 (P-51D-5-NA 44-13332, one of the very first D's) a USAAF hand me down? New condition or not, 610 kph is still pretty d*mn good.


I'll repost it so that you don't have to scroll up:

"A well-used, in-squadron-service Mustang III running +25 lbs boost did 395 mph (636 kph) at sea level WITH wingracks- PERIOD. That's *39 KPH* better than your "best" K-4 speed.

Removing the wingracks (+8 mph)and a small bracket at the base of the aerial (+1 mph) and replacing the exhaust stacks (+1.5 mph) yielded a phenominal top speed of 405 mph (652 kph) at sea level.

FB 377 did 383 mph (616 kph) at sea level *as received* from 316 Sqn. Even in rough condition the Mustang III was *19 KPH* better than your "best" K-4.

From AVIA 6/1061B, August 1944:

"The paintwork was in very poor condition. The paint on the leading edge and inboard surfaces of the wings was badly chipped. This is most serious in the case of the Mustang due to the thickness of the paint layer. At least six seperate coats of paint had been applied (not nine, as I posted previously).

In the cleaning up tests, the leading 2ft. of the wing surfaces had to be stripped of paint and repainted. The rest of the aircraft was rubbed down only."

Simply repainting the leading 2 ft of the wing allowed FB 377 to reach 395 mph."



As far as the 'best' K-4 sea level speed, you were the one that claimed you had a chart showing 371 mph for the K-4. What are the Spec's on your 597/607 kph K-4? I'll bet it wasn't pulled from weeks or months of squadron service with 'very poor' paintwork.

371 mph * 1.609344 = 597.066624 kph

quote (Buzzsaw):
"I would request Issy/Kurfy provides original documents showing a speed of 371mph at sea level for the K4."


quote: (Isegrim/Kurfurst)
"I provided those to Oleg, he had to see those, he had seen it, you dont have to, so you won`t."

As far as strengths and weaknesses, it is the height of hypocrisy for you to accuse anyone of failing to acknowledge a certain airframe's limits as well abilities.

I'm objective enough to realize that a fight between a K-4 and a P-51, RAF or AAF, would come down to which was better flown. You, obviously, are not. The Mustang was no Spitfire in a low speed turn fight, but then again neither was the K-4.



Also, 2nd TAF didn't use Mustang III's in recce roles, those were Allison-engined Mustang I's, IA's, and II's.

Finally, I'd be willing to bet there were a lot more RAF Mustang III/IV's in-service on a given day in 1945 than there were K-4's.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Give it up Isegrim! I HAVE the report, directly from the Public Records Office.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what, Mr hysterica ? You have a report of a stripped and repainted Mustang III? So? The vast majority of Mustang didn`t reach those speeds, ie. :

Avia 18/732.

AAEE Boscombe Down.
Mustang IV T.K 589 (Packard MerlinV.1650-7)
Posistion error of static vent and brief level speed trials.
July 1944.
Aircraft flown with faired bomb racks.

Speed at 0 ft using 67"hg 354mph
Speed at 0ft using 81"hg 379mph



AVIA 6/10618
August 1944

Mustang III FB 377
Wing racks fitted. +25Lbs boost

383mph at 0ft



Army Air Force
Material Command
ENG-57-531-306
13 May 1044.
Performance tests on P38J,P47D and P51B airplanes tested with 44-1 fuel (150 grade)

P51B 43-24777

Wing racks fitted.

61"hg 352mph at 0ft
67"hg 364mph at 0ft
75"hg 380mph at 0ft,


You have a report? I have many - none shows the 400+mph dream figure.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
A well-used, in-squadron-service Mustang III running +25 lbs boost did 395 mph (636 kph) at sea level WITH wingracks- PERIOD. That's *39 KPH* better than your "best" K-4 speed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

636-607 = 39... at least according to lrpp, LOL. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

AVIA 6/10618, dated August 1944, states it made 383 mph at +25lbs as received from Squadron. You ain`t telling the truth, Mister.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Removing the wingracks (+8 mph)and a small bracket at the base of the aerial (+1 mph) and replacing the exhaust stacks (+1.5 mph) yielded a phenominal top speed of 405 mph (652 kph) at sea level.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bravo, too bad it wasn`t used this way in the service this way at any time. BTW, what`s so phenomenal about 405 mph for a stripped a/c ?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
FB 377 did 383 mph (616 kph) at sea level *as received* from 316 Sqn. Even in rough condition the Mustang III was *19 KPH* better than your "best" K-4. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

616-607 = 19... at least in Lrrpp2 world.

Everywhere else it`s a whole 9 km/h. I must say, WOW. 9 kph... that`s really a decisive edge, almost as fast as a joggin 45-year old man.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>An RAF Mustang III or IV would *smoke* any K-4 at sea level- deal with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. A K-4 rips apart a Mustang, whatever combination. A few km/h extra top speed, great, after flying straight and level right in front of an MK 108 for a minute or two, to reach top speed, you will start to extend from him. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif Of course this required rare combination, ie. only in the case of RAF Mustangs, only in the case of Mk IIIs, only in the case if it`s equipped with V-1650-7 (most MkIIIs did not), only if the case it received 150 grade fuel (there`s no mentioning of this for Mustang Squadrons, only Spitfires and Mosquitoes)..


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Twenty+ squadrons were equipped with the Mustang III/IV in ADGB/2nd TAF alone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

List them, by type, date of receval.. the 2nd TAF certainly had very few, employed mainly in recce roles.

I suggest the following Mustang to be added to AEP :

P-51 C (1944, lrrp22`s favourite, not P-51D, but V-1650-7, Repainted, Stripped of bombrack, aerial base, 150 grade, +25lbs) - It would look nice next to those six Mig-3Us. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

I guess he would be outraged and his brain would simply boil after he would still find that the K-4 outturned him in a single turn, got on his six, took advantage of having TWICE the acceleration, and closed on, and then pumped a single MK 108 shell into the fusalge which breaks into two..

Keep it on, keep telling everybody the Mustang does everything better than anything else, keep telling it does outturn 109s because it`s weight relative to wing area is lower in certain circumstances, leaving alone all unimportant matters like airfoil type or design aspects. The more intelligent members already acknowlaged it has strenghts and weaknesses, and try to exploit the strenghts. You are one of those who are being the easy meat on DF servers, trying to beat 109s in their own field.

Carry on, it won`t change anything. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

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

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

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

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Sat May 01 2004 at 03:34 PM.]

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Sat May 01 2004 at 03:58 PM.]

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Sat May 01 2004 at 04:05 PM.]

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Sat May 01 2004 at 04:16 PM.]

Aaron_GT
05-01-2004, 03:21 PM
Interesting - I'd have to look at the
original documents you are all quoting to
take any sort of sides on this,

Anyway...

Isegrim - juding by the URL you play x-plane?
What is the general opinion of the P51 model
in that (I have X-plane 6.51).

JtD
05-01-2004, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So? the Merlin developed max horsepower above sea level, how is that a disadvantage?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CTO was referring to zero alt, taking the numbers from TSGAI testing. 1490 hp at 0 are correct for a typical V-1650-7. (Tchresvuitchainui regim, (execeptional power) whatever that is in hg ".)

lrrp22
05-01-2004, 03:59 PM
1490 HP is for a V-1650-7 at military power (61" Hg) not WEP/combat power (67")

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So? the Merlin developed max horsepower above sea level, how is that a disadvantage?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CTO was referring to zero alt, taking the numbers from TSGAI testing. 1490 hp at 0 are correct for a typical V-1650-7. (Tchresvuitchainui regim, (execeptional power) whatever that is in hg ".)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hop2002
05-01-2004, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A well-used, in-squadron-service Mustang III running +25 lbs boost did 395 mph (636 kph) at sea level WITH wingracks- PERIOD. That's *39 KPH* better than your "best" K-4 speed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



636-607 = 39... at least according to lrpp, LOL.

AVIA 6/10618, dated August 1944, states it made 383 mph at +25lbs as received from Squadron. You ain`t telling the truth, Mister.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He is.

The Mustang III did 383 mph as recieved from squadron, with very poor paintwork, wing racks, aerial bracket.

The paintwork was cleaned up, the aerial bracket removed, the wing racks removed, and the speed increased to 404 mph.

The test estimates the gains to be 8 mph from removing the bomb racks, 1 mph from removing the aerial bracket, 12 mph from cleaning up the paintwork.

So a Mutang III, with wing racks and small projecting aerial bracket, and paintwork "to a standard that could be maintained in squadron service" would have a speed of 395 mph at sea level.



The V-1650-7 chart shows just under 1600 hp at sea level at 18 lbs (67"). That's the rammed figure, which is slightly below the unrammed figure.

Unrammed reduces critical altitude because of less air pressure in the intake, but increases power below critical altitude, because rammed air compresses the air in the intake, causing extra heat.

So the V-1650-7 should be slightly over 1600 hp at sea level unrammed (most German and US charts are unrammed).

IVJG51_Swine
05-01-2004, 05:38 PM
All I know is that I can jump in a P-51 and win under any circumstances. To me thats a little off. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kurfurst__
05-01-2004, 05:42 PM
As per Res. Eng. /4696/RDE1(a)/PLS - Packard V-1650 Engine Performance data

V-1650-7 : (maximum outputs)

+25 lbs :
1940 BHP at SL, MS rated altitude.
1810 BHP at 12k ft, FS rated altitue

+67 Hg (max. on 100 octane fuel)

1630 BHP at SL
1700 BHP at 5750ft, MS rated altitude.
1555 BHP at 17.750 ft, FS rated altitue

All unrammed figures.
With the maximum boost the USAAF allowed with 150 octane fuel, 72 Hg, the SL boost is apprx. 1730 BHP (my estimation) at SL.

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

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

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

Kurfurst__
05-01-2004, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
So a Mutang III, with wing racks and small projecting aerial bracket, and paintwork "to a standard that could be maintained in squadron service" would have a speed of 395 mph at sea level.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is your own wishful think, Hop.

Neil Stirling, who did research these documents originally, commented that :

"The Americans limited their P51's fitted with the V-1650-7 to 72"hg when using 100/150 grade fuel the British 81"hg. Mustangs usually were fitted with wing racks, these reduced the maximum speed by 8mph to 12mph.
8th Mustangs typically would have been able to do about 370mph low down and RAF mustangs about 380mph.

Neil "


Add to that that there`s no single Mustang III drawn from Squadrons service that would manage to do anywhere near 400 mph. The laminar profile woul require *perfect*, constant polishing of the surface to work, which was simply not a possibility in the field. In fact, US reports show that not even _brand new_ planes from the factory did possess such perfect wing surface.

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

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

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

lrrp22
05-01-2004, 08:11 PM
"This is your own wishful think, Hop."

No Isegrim, that is AVIA 6/10618. I've got all 13 pages of the report on my desk as I type.

A Mustang III in squadron service, with very poor paint work flew 383 mph at sea level. That same Mustang III, with 2ft of the wings leading edges' repainted and the rest rubbed down- nothing more, was capable of 395 mph.

There is no room for argument here Isegrim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
So a Mutang III, with wing racks and small projecting aerial bracket, and paintwork "to a standard that could be maintained in squadron service" would have a speed of 395 mph at sea level.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is your own wishful think, Hop.

Neil Stirling, who did research these documents originally, commented that :

"The Americans limited their P51's fitted with the V-1650-7 to 72"hg when using 100/150 grade fuel the British 81"hg. Mustangs usually were fitted with wing racks, these reduced the maximum speed by 8mph to 12mph.
8th Mustangs typically would have been able to do about 370mph low down and RAF mustangs about 380mph.

Neil "


Add to that that there`s no single Mustang III drawn from Squadrons service that would manage to do anywhere near 400 mph. The laminar profile woul require *perfect*, constant polishing of the surface to work, which was simply not a possibility in the field. In fact, US reports show that not even _brand new_ planes from the factory did possess such perfect wing surface.

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

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

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

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-01-2004, 09:43 PM
Salute

Well it is nice that Issy/Kurfy is backpedalling faster than a trained circus bear on a unicycle...

Hey Issy: What was that you were claiming about 354mph for a P-51????

A little disinformation perhaps???

Now you are holding on with your fingernails to the figure of 383mph... Hmmm... Guess that says something about your credibility.

Since you are so convinced of the 383mph figure, I'm sure you will be happy to start a new post urging Oleg to provide us with a RAF Mustang III with the +25 boost engine and the aforementioned speed at sea level.... Hmmm???

I'll accept the 383mph figure. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So go to it... Make the post. Show us you are truly a man of the facts...

Not.

Some how I think the likelyhood of the historical K4 maneuvering well at high speeds is greater than Issy actually posting some facts untainted by bias. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

BigKahuna_GS
05-02-2004, 08:14 AM
S!


__________________________________________________ _______________________
IVJG51_Swine

posted 01-05-04 16:38
All I know is that I can jump in a P-51 and win under any circumstances. To me thats a little off.
__________________________________________________ __________________________


Win under any circumstances ?

Another ridiculus statement award winner here ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif



_



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

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

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

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



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

"Angels of Okinawa"

MOH_Cocktail
05-02-2004, 09:26 AM
It really seems to me after flying most of the allied and axis planes in the game, that all the American planes are dumbed down. I'm sure that the developers at least subconsciously wanted to slight the Ameerican flight models as a negative statement to our superiority on the battlefield. Even if all the flight models are correct, it is very frustrating trying to compete online in my favorite US planes when ubers like the Ki84 are allowed to fly. I've had to revert back to flying Russian planes just to stay alive online. Oh well, I know that no one gives a rat's a$$ about my opionions or comments. At least I got it off my chest again, and thats what matters to me so flame away.

IVJG51_Swine
05-02-2004, 09:33 AM
HEHE, insults, looks like another internet coward here. Hey Kahuna, I'll challenge you anytime anywhere buddy. I'll give you an altitude advantage. I'll take a P-51 and you can use any other ac and we will see what happens...

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


__________________________________________________ _______________________
IVJG51_Swine

posted 01-05-04 16:38
All I know is that I can jump in a P-51 and win under any circumstances. To me thats a little off.
__________________________________________________ __________________________


Win under any circumstances ?

Another ridiculus statement award winner here ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif



_



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

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

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

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



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

"Angels of Okinawa"





<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ZG77_Nagual
05-02-2004, 11:47 AM
Put me down for a ringside seat for that one - I've flown with and against BigK. Come to think of it I'll give you a run in the P39 myself. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CTO88
05-02-2004, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
CTO88,

Your Horsepower numbers for the Mustang are way too low. The V-1650-7 developed 1720 HP at 67" Hg manifold pressure and 2020 HP at 81".

The D-9 was every bit as heavy as all but the most heavily fueled P-51D. The Mustang also had a dramatic drag advantage over either type.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sorry, but i think your figures are wrong. you are talking about p51H! V-1650-9 V-12 is the engine reaches 2018HP.
http://home.insightbb.com/~p51h/p51h.htm
in game as in second world war, are only flying p51b,c,d. my source is the book: "report of joint strike fighter conference. 16-23 october 1944" (us-book).
as i wrote, you have to divide between the variants, it's very important for comparing fighters. an 109g2 i.e. will run 635km/h, an 109g10 690km/h. so pls look carfully.. you are also not right about combat power of 1650-7. the max is 1595HP at 3000ft. at 28800ft it powers with 1295HP.
in the fighter conference 1944 us-fighter commanders (navy and air force) claimed some disapointing climb perfomances of p51d. p51d was ok for hit and run, strong in speed and range but not in classical aircombat.

BigKahuna_GS
05-02-2004, 01:07 PM
S!


__________________________________________________ _________________
IVJG51_Swine

posted 02-05-04 08:33
HEHE, insults, looks like another internet coward here. Hey Kahuna, I'll challenge you anytime anywhere buddy. I'll give you an altitude advantage. I'll take a P-51 and you can use any other ac and we will see what happens...
__________________________________________________ ______________________


Sorry, but I did not insult you in anyway. There was no name calling on my part--I could have called you pig-headed or a Swine--but that is already your name http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

A little humor there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

When you make complaints about an aircraft be more specific with your gripes; ie too fast/slow, climb rate, guns, turn, roll rate, DM, etc.

Making blanket statements like:
__________________________________________________ ______________
Swine-"All I know is that I can jump in a P-51 and win under any circumstances. To me thats a little off. "
______________________________________________


Makes me say:

Win under any circumstances ?

Another ridiculus statement award winner here ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif



__________________________________________________ ________________________
Swine-I'll challenge you anytime anywhere buddy. I'll give you an altitude advantage. I'll take a P-51 and you can use any other ac and we will see what happens..
__________________________________________________ ________________________



Pistols at Dawn !!!!

As long as you dont choose arcade mode to fly with, I would be more than happy to meet you in aerial combat and I will not need an altitude advantge to win over a Mustang in a low altitude fight. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

______________



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

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

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

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



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

"Angels of Okinawa"

BigKahuna_GS
05-02-2004, 01:15 PM
S!

This talk about the P51D being overmodeled is absurd. It is fairly well modeled now, but if you look closely it is actually undermodeled in several areas.

I have both sea level and high alt speed tracks from Oleg for the P51D.

Currently modeled FB/AEP speed at Sea Level:
SPEED CONVERSION
580 Kilometers per hour equals 360.395 Miles (statute) per hour


In Americas Hundred Thousand at Sea Level the P51D did 370-375mph.
So the Mustang should actually do(on the low side)
SPEED CONVERSION
596 Kilometers per hour equals 370.337 Miles (statute) per hour


So the Mustang is actually under modeled at Sea Level:
SPEED CONVERSION
10 Miles (statute) per hour equals 16.0934 Kilometers per hour

___________


US aircraft had complete dive superiority over axis a/c and that has not been faithfully reproduced in FB/AEP :


From a JG26 Pilot :

Fw 190D pilot Lt Karl Heinz Ossenkop of JG 26 comparing their crate to the opposition.

Spitfire: the D-9 was better in level flight, climb and dive. It was slightly inferior in turns.

Tempest: almost equal in level flight, a lengthy pursuit was usually fruitless. The D-9 climbed and turned better, but was inferior in a dive.

Mustang: the two aircraft were about equal in normal combat maneuvers, which was an advantage to us compared to the A-8. The Mustang was rather faster in a dive.

Thunderbolt: with the Dora-9 we had advantages in level flight, climb and turn. We were hopelessly inferior in a dive.

__


You'll notice the german pilot saying the P51D was "rather faster in a dive"
over a 190D-9 and "hopelessly inferior in a dive" against the P47D. The only dive adavantage for US fighters in FB/AEP is a slight speed advantage near the deck from power diving at 25,000ft/7500m.

Dive acceleration and speed advantages for US aircraft over german aircraft should be from dives as little as 10,000ft/3000m according to test data.

This resulting speed and energy advantage can be converted into a superior zoom climb over the axis aircraft,if they followed the dive.

"However it was found the P-47 could get on the tail of the Fw190 by making a figure 8 in a vertical plane. In this maneuver, the P-47 , which was being pursued by the Fw190 in level flight attempted to execute as series of climbs, slow turns, and dives which would end up with the positions reversed and the P-47 on the tail of the FW190. The maneuver started with a a steep climbing turn to near stalling point, followed by a falloff and fast dive which ended in a pullout and fast climbing sweep whch again carried the plane up to the stall and fall off point. The P-47 built up more speed in the dive than the FW190 with the result that the Thunderbolt also climbed faster than the FW190 and also higher. The P-47 pilot merely waited for the FW190 to reach its stalling point below him and turned very neatly on the tail of the falling away FW190. With its much greater diving acceleration, the P-47 soon caught the FW190 in the second dive of his maneuver."


_



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

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

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

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



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

"Angels of Okinawa"

IVJG51_Swine
05-02-2004, 01:31 PM
Sometimes saying a little says a lot. I tend not to debate on forums since it usually ends up with people making statements that they would never make in person.

I do question the accuracy of the performance of many of the ac in IL-2 including the P-51. How can you justify the dramatic changes in ac performance from one patch to the next? Some say tweaking but in many cases it isn't tweaking, its huge changes.

I'm not hard to find, you can find me in HL. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BigKahuna_GS
05-02-2004, 01:41 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ __________________________
lrrp22

posted 30-04-04 16:50
Here you go Kahuna,

I posted this last week:

Full fuel weights for the Mustangs are P-51D/10100 lbs; P-51B-15/9800; P-51B-1/9200. Fuel weight is calculated at 6 lbs/gallon.

Weights for the K-4 are from the Object Viewer and weights for the D-9 (9442 lbs) come from the Jagdhund Dora sight.

wingloading (lbs/sq. ft):

Bf 109K-4@100%-----42.27---106 gal
Bf 109K-4@ 50%-----40.46---53
Bf 109K-4@ 25%-----39.56---26.5

Fw 190A-9@100%-----49.25---168?

Fw 190D-9@100%-----47.93---168 gal
Fw 190D-9@ 50%-----45.37---84
Fw 190D-9@ 25%-----44.09---42

P-51D@100%---------43.35---269 gal
P-51D@ 25%---------38.15---67.25

P-51B-15NA@100%----42.06---269 gal
P-51B-15NA@ 25%----36.87---67.25

P-51B-1NA@100%-----39.48---184 gal
P-51B-1NA@ 25%-----35.93---46
__________________________________________________ __________________________


Thanks lrrp22 !

Very interesting information. Do you have that info for the P38 & P47 also?

A dogfight is such a dynamic enviorment with so many variables: wing loading, power loading, control surfaces, fuel state, energy state, altitude, situational awareness and most important pilot experience.

It's a total package to consider the outcome.



___________



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

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

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

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



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

"Angels of Okinawa"

IVJG51_Swine
05-02-2004, 01:51 PM
The P-51 was fast and could dive extremely well. Thats why the tactic they employed was a strike and extension(simliar to the boom and zoom). It was a lethal machine.

The P-51's only real fault was in the slow speed turn. Thats common knowledge. However, its not that way in the sim currently. It was in the previous patches but not now. You can post tons of data all day but you can't change this basic fact.

BigKahuna_GS
05-02-2004, 02:03 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ___________
IVJG51_Swine

posted 02-05-04 12:31
Sometimes saying a little says a lot. I tend not to debate on forums since it usually ends up with people making statements that they would never make in person.
__________________________________________________ _______________



I totally agree with you. I apologize if I offended you in any way, I was not trying to do that-- just a little humor http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
It is not my style to insult people and I dont believe I said anything insulting in the first place. I would rather debate an issue with reason and reliable sources.

Like I previously stated, if you have a gripe with an a/c nail the problem down and be more specific. Dont shoot from the hip--it looks bad when it's done that way.


The Pony in v1.22 beta was a little too good, it's wings got clipped too hard in the following patch. Now the Mustang is about where it should be overall with exception to sea level speed & dive acceleration.

Things could change again for the next patch, who knows ?


Remember-a dogfight is such a dynamic enviorment with so many variables: wing loading, power loading, control surfaces, fuel state, energy state, altitude, situational awareness and most important pilot experience.

The outcome of a fight is a summation of all these factors with a little luck thrown in.


________



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

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

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

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



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

"Angels of Okinawa"

JG14_Josf
05-02-2004, 03:50 PM
IVJG51_Swine wrote:

"...I can jumpin a P-51 and win under any circumstances"

BigKahuna_CS replies:

"Another ridiculus statement award winner here!"

IVJG51_Swine:

"...I'll challenge you anytime anywhere..."

If you guys do manage to work out a contest to see who has a more accurate perspective on the present situation then please record it and I think you can post the track file here:

http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/tracks.htm

Perhaps the possible track titles could be:

"P-51 dominates"
or
"A Dynamic Enviorment"

Kwiatos
05-02-2004, 04:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IVJG51_Swine:
The P-51 was fast and could dive extremely well. Thats why the tactic they employed was a strike and extension(simliar to the boom and zoom). It was a lethal machine.

The P-51's only real fault was in the slow speed turn. Thats common knowledge. However, its not that way in the sim currently. It was in the previous patches but not now. You can post tons of data all day but you can't change this basic fact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately you right here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Why 1C changed P-51 flight characteristic? I think before AEP P-51 handling expecially low speed performance was more acurrate. P-51 was between Fw190 and 109 in slowe turn rate. Now slow speed handling in P-51 is too good. Other hand FM of Ki-84 (expecially roll rate, high alt performance) is very strange. The same turn rate of Bf G-2, climb rate Spitfire, Lagg 3 43, P-40 etc.
BTW FB/IL still are the best sims http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bolt40
05-02-2004, 06:40 PM
IL2 is the only flight sim Ive flown & and Ive flown plenty others where the P51 FM is severly undermodled , no way you'll ever convince me that any 109G variant or above could outrun or out turn a P51 , too many tests & too many accounts of actual dogfights back my statement up , the P51 could drop flaps @ 300mph & outturn any 109 or FW for that matter ( watch some guncamera footage sometime ) simple fact is its undermodeled along with the .50 cal MG's
in IL2 you practically empty your guns before you down a BF or FW . Utter BS ! U.S. planes are fekked in IL2 for out of pure bias , I won't be buying PacWar until they address & fix these issues . whine all you want, P51 was the best all around fighter of WW2 ..Facts don't lie
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Tetrapharmakoi
05-02-2004, 09:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> no way you'll ever convince me that any 109G variant or above could outrun or out turn a P51 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

it does under 350km/h

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>in IL2 you practically empty your guns before you down a BF or FW . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL , learn to shoot , whith one single burst of 1 second , you set a 109 on fire

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>P51 was the best all around fighter of WW2 ..Facts don't lie
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is not true at all , facts says that Mustangs were in numerical superiority sometimes from 20/1 in 1944 against pilots with less than 60 hours of flight.
Mustang was an oustanding plane at high alt , and had a very good autonomy , but it's far from being the best fighter of WWII .

BSS_CUDA
05-02-2004, 11:10 PM
I am a little disapointed with the 51's dive rate it should be faster, but overall I'm relativly happy with the FM the 2 things I dont like about it are 1 the explosion bug WTF with that no warning and BOOM, and its not at any set speed had it happen from 500kph on up,and it doesnt mater how hard you pull on the stick. if you touch it blewy. I have yet to see any Luft planes blow up when they reach speed, also the 50's to say learn to aim is pure and utter BS. I got within .15 of a TA152 yesterday unloaded my whole clip into him, he was sideslipping trying to make me miss but I stayed with him, aiming on the cockpit and engine area, i saw shot after shot hit him and the most I got out of him was a fuel leak and he flew off after I went winchester. 6 50's with the rate of fire that the 51 has should have cut him in half. should the 51 be better? ppl with more knowledge than me will have to argue that matter. but I feel that it is a well balanced plane, with a few serious bugs that need corrected, just a word for you luft guys, if the patch corrects the 50's like they say it will, then we wont have to stay on your 6 as long to get a kill and you wont have your buddies with thier MK108's to bail your A$$ out, so I'll be keeping my ear out for the whinning about how overmodled the 51 and the 50cals are after the patch

*****************************
BSS_CUDA
Co-Founder of my family
Black Sheep Tactical Officer
USN retired

http://img42.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/CUDA_.jpg
blacksheep214.com (http://blacksheep214.com)
That was some of the best flying I've seen yet! right up to the part where you got killed.
you NEVER NEVER leave your wingman.

Jester : TopGun

LuftLuver
05-03-2004, 01:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
I am a little disapointed with the 51's dive rate it should be faster, but overall I'm relativly happy with the FM the 2 things I dont like about it are 1 the explosion bug WTF with that no warning and BOOM, and its not at any set speed had it happen from 500kph on up,and it doesnt mater how hard you pull on the stick. if you touch it blewy. I have yet to see any Luft planes blow up when they reach speed, also the 50's to say learn to aim is pure and utter BS. I got within .15 of a TA152 yesterday unloaded my whole clip into him, he was sideslipping trying to make me miss but I stayed with him, aiming on the cockpit and engine area, i saw shot after shot hit him and the most I got out of him was a fuel leak and he flew off after I went winchester. 6 50's with the rate of fire that the 51 has should have cut him in half. should the 51 be better? ppl with more knowledge than me will have to argue that matter. but I feel that it is a well balanced plane, with a few serious bugs that need corrected, just a word for you luft guys, if the patch corrects the 50's like they say it will, then we wont have to stay on your 6 as long to get a kill and you wont have your buddies with thier MK108's to bail your A$$ out, so I'll be keeping my ear out for the whinning about how overmodled the 51 and the 50cals are after the patch
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BINGO BINGO BINGO!

This is so right on, exactly my thoughts. In 2.0 you have to follow lufties for so long to down them, your chances of getting hit by his buddy are very high. I flew a mk108 G A/S out of curiousity and was blasting poor US planes out of the sky left and right. I rarely fly the 109s but got 3 kills on my first mission. Got sprayed by several US planes but came home with busted glass and light engine smoke.

So, fix the dive explosion and the .50s and we should be competitive at that point. For the lufters that think the P51 is so uber, consider that some of us just might be learning our craft. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif By the way, Mustangs handling poor at low alt / slow speeds is a wive's tale - pass it on.

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

Aaron_GT
05-03-2004, 02:02 AM
"but overall I'm relativly happy with the FM the 2 things I dont like about it are 1 the explosion bug WTF"

It's affected other planes in the past. It's
some sort of endemic bug that just happens to
be affecting the P51 at the moment.

Hopefully the .50 dispersion issue should
be fixed in the patch. Oleg said the dispersion
should be the same as the UB. It isn't, so it
should be fixed (I hope so). Hopefully the 20mm
cannon will also get fixed as currently the
20mm cannon isn't much more effective, which
is rather off.

Lastly somehow I doubt that Oleg has
deliberately hampered US planes. The USA is a
big market and I don't think he would hamper his
ability to sell the game in such a large market
by deliberately messing up US planes. It's a
bit unlikely. At various points various US
planes have exceeded real life performance in
various aspects. As time goes on they are
becoming more accurately model (if subject to
the odd blip that all FMs seem to suffer
between patches, that is probably due to the
way the underlying physics engine gets changed).

robban75
05-03-2004, 06:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
I am a little disapointed with the 51's dive rate it should be faster, but overall I'm relativly happy with the FM the 2 things I dont like about it are 1 the explosion bug WTF with that no warning and BOOM, and its not at any set speed had it happen from 500kph on up,and it doesnt mater how hard you pull on the stick. if you touch it blewy. I have yet to see any Luft planes blow up when they reach speed,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All planes basically have the same dive acceleration. The super lightweight Yak-3 can easily keep up with the P-51 aswell as other planes.

I've noticed that the P-51 explodes during high G pull-ups, this also happens to the Ta 152. If I remember it correctly Oleg said that the aircrafts G-limit was reached and this is why the plane blows up.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>also the 50's to say learn to aim is pure and utter BS. I got within .15 of a TA152 yesterday unloaded my whole clip into him, he was sideslipping trying to make me miss but I stayed with him, aiming on the cockpit and engine area, i saw shot after shot hit him and the most I got out of him was a fuel leak and he flew off after I went winchester. 6 50's with the rate of fire that the 51 has should have cut him in half. should the 51 be better? ppl with more knowledge than me will have to argue that matter. but I feel that it is a well balanced plane, with a few serious bugs that need corrected, just a word for you luft guys, if the patch corrects the 50's like they say it will, then we wont have to stay on your 6 as long to get a kill and you wont have your buddies with thier MK108's to bail your A$$ out, so I'll be keeping my ear out for the whinning about how overmodled the 51 and the 50cals are after the patch
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is nothing unique for the 50 cals, I believe virtually all planes have been made too tough in AEP. I've pumped 4 or 5 30mm rounds into a P-63 and it was virtually unharmed. This will be corrected in the patch.

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

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

JG5_UnKle
05-03-2004, 07:48 AM
You can argue about top speeds all day, they don't make much difference if you have to wait 5 mins with closed radiator and no overheat to attain them http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

The issue with the P-51 and many other types is energy bleed. The energy bleed model is whacked in FB and has been for a good long time. Take a P-51 up to 7000M and fight with it, then try and argue it's undermodelled.

Better still, take one up with a friend online in say a 109 - don't shoot at each other just fly around at different altitudes and test it. If you can't shoot down pretty much everything barring a Ki-84 or a 262 in a Co-E fight then you really are doing something wrong. The P-51 is a world class aircraft in FB and not much can come close IMHO.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

p1ngu666
05-03-2004, 09:34 AM
so we need a few RAF versions of american planes
i want my uber(relitivly to other stangs) pony, and my p47m http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif
i figure the per round damage will be less, cos u miss most of the time atm http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

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

BSS_Vidar
05-03-2004, 02:46 PM
My good friend and Tactics Office, BSS_Cuda has made some great observations to the FB P-51 problems. My original post was based on the performance envolope of the P-51 compared to German flight models in reality... and how they exisit in FB. So I'll stick to that subject. Some great research that has shown up (which has references to support them - thnx guys) has raised a concensus that the P-51 is lacking in some aspects of realistic Mustang performances.
As stated by other posters, the P-51 should well exceed 300mph at sea level. I've made several runs "with out diving" and can barely get the speed over 300 mph on the airspeed indicator. This is probably one reason 109's have been running 'Stangs down without taking a second breath. Manitulating prop pitch, manifold pressure, and mixture just slowed it down below the 300 mark.
Secondly, the P-51 has a best rate of climb of 3,440 ft/min, which isn't the greatest by any means, but... it is in excess of 200 ft/min better than the 109's and a tad over 100 ft/min better than the 190's. That is not reflected in FB due to a radical energy state envolope of the German flight models. I have flown the 109's and 190's in combat and dominate with them - Too well. If I just HAVE to win ALL the time, I would only fly the German fighters.

Fixes needed:
1) P-51 dive speed improvement. (Explosion bug fixed)
2) Flat run speed perfomance brought up to meet expectations.(around 340 - 370 mph)
3) .50 cal fix. (For now I call the P-51 the big paintball machine)

4) This probably won't happen but... Take the bite out of the excessive energy state and speed envolopes of the 109's, 190's, and the 110's. 110's in no way should outrun a Mustang in level flight. I have not seen the numbers on a 110's dive performance, so I will not speculate on it.

5) Uber explosive ammo... Loose'em.

I am really looking forward to Pacific Fighters. I'm sure things will be incoorporated there that have been Lessons-Learned in the original IL-2 and the Forgottn Battlas stand-alone.

S!

Vidar

JG52_Meyer
05-03-2004, 02:55 PM
LOL http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Kurfurst__
05-03-2004, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:

Secondly, the P-51 has a best rate of climb of 3,440 ft/min, which isn't the greatest by any means, but... it is in excess of 200 ft/min better than the 109's and a tad over 100 ft/min better than the 190's. That is not reflected in FB due to a radical energy state envolope of the German flight models.

Vidar<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vidar, I suppose you should do some serious research on German plane performances first... The 190s werent the best climbers around, but the minimum they could do is to climb with a Mustang.. As for 109s, they were famed for being climbing champins, 4000+ fpm climb rate was rather typical for any 109 version the Mustang D would meet. The 109Ks you probably meet the most often on DF servers had a peak climb rate of 4920 fpm. .. you really shouldn`t expect to climb with them.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/K-4%20vs%20P-51clmb.jpg

Same goes for speed, the late 109s and 190s will DEFINIETELY outrun the Mustangs at least at some altitudes. But in my experience, they are close in speed specs in the game enviroment at low altitudes. I am sure you are doing something wrong, or just start with E disadvantage when u r being outrunned by them.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/K-4%20vs%20P-51speed.jpg



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

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

Aaron_GT
05-03-2004, 03:48 PM
On the crimea map I get the following at sea
level. (25% fuel, radiator closed, flown
until engine overheat).

P51B - 550 km/h (about 340 mph)
109G10 - 510 km/h (about 320 mph),
109G10 (with MW50) - 560 km/h

So whilst the P51B is about 20 mph under the
official figure with low octane fuel before
higher boosts were introduced, the assertion
that it doesn't reach 300mph at sea level
in AEP is incorrect for the P51B at least.

Actually the 109G10 is pretty much on the
mark (assuming that the rated low altitude
speed is with MW50, if not the 109G10 is
too slow at sea level as well), but the P51
is a tad slow.

Perhaps we can petition for additional sub
marks of P51 (and Spitfire when the IX and
XIV come out) representing improved fuel/boost
situations, with these being available as
dictated by scenario or DF host, etc?

Kurfurst__
05-03-2004, 04:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
On the crimea map I get the following at sea
level. (25% fuel, radiator closed, flown
until engine overheat).

P51B - 550 km/h (about 340 mph)
109G10 - 510 km/h (about 320 mph),
109G10 (with MW50) - 560 km/h

So whilst the P51B is about 20 mph under the
official figure with low octane fuel before
higher boosts were introduced, the assertion
that it doesn't reach 300mph at sea level
in AEP is incorrect for the P51B at least.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually 340 mph for a P-51B doesn`t seem to be bad, if it`s modelled with it`s typical V-1650-3 engine at 67".. There`s a speed curve at the 4thFightergrouop website that shows a Mustang III w. V-1650-7 at 61",which is a rather similiar power output as the other (higher altitude) engine at 67" near SL. This curves gives apprx. 345 mph for the Mustang.

G-10s max. speed at SL was indeed 562 km/h, and about 580 km/h if a more powerful engine type is modelled.

What is appearent however, is that a Mustang B can keep pace with late 109s in the game.

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

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

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

lrrp22
05-03-2004, 04:32 PM
A fully loaded P-51B-1-NA with V-1650-3 at 67" WEP:

http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v11/brentce/9e784a6f.jpg

"The P-51B, as flown, was in a drag condition slightly improved over that of a production airplane, by reason of minor changes in the external radio installation and smooth sanding of the wing."

Note, Isegrim, that this says 'slightly'.

All P-51B-1's came from the factory in flat Olive Drab/Neutral Grey paint so it is likely that this 'improved' drag condition was no better than a production Natural Metal finish. Every Mustang left the factory with puttied, sealed, and lacquered wings (in other words, NM aircraft were delivered with polished wings).

Also, 2138 B/C's were equipped with the V-1650-7 and 1602 with the V-1650-3 so the -3 was hardly "typical".


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
On the crimea map I get the following at sea
level. (25% fuel, radiator closed, flown
until engine overheat).

P51B - 550 km/h (about 340 mph)
109G10 - 510 km/h (about 320 mph),
109G10 (with MW50) - 560 km/h

So whilst the P51B is about 20 mph under the
official figure with low octane fuel before
higher boosts were introduced, the assertion
that it doesn't reach 300mph at sea level
in AEP is incorrect for the P51B at least.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually 340 mph for a P-51B doesn`t seem to be bad, if it`s modelled with it`s typical V-1650-3 engine at 67".. There`s a speed curve at the 4thFightergrouop website that shows a Mustang III w. V-1650-7 at 61",which is a rather similiar power output as the other (higher altitude) engine at 67" near SL. This curves gives apprx. 345 mph for the Mustang.

G-10s max. speed at SL was indeed 562 km/h, and about 580 km/h if a more powerful engine type is modelled.

What is appearent however, is that a Mustang B can keep pace with late 109s in the game.

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

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

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

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Mon May 03 2004 at 03:43 PM.]

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Mon May 03 2004 at 03:51 PM.]

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Mon May 03 2004 at 04:30 PM.]

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Mon May 03 2004 at 07:06 PM.]

PzKpfw
05-03-2004, 09:27 PM
The P-51D @ 10,100lbs according to USAF data* useing COMBAT POWER (67"HG) did 350mph - 360mph TAS @ S/L. 402mph TAS @ 5000ft - 10000ft to 435mph TAS @ 25000ft.

The P-51B useing COMBAT POWER did 350 - 370mph TAS @ S/L, 415mph TAS @ 15000ft, 430 - 450mph TAS @ 30000ft.


P-51D ROC useing COMBAT POWER was 3200 - 3300fpm, dropping off to around 2000fpm @ 25000ft. Basicly useing COMBAT POWER 3:min to 10000ft, 7: min to 20000ft, & 13:min to 30000ft.

*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand. p.326.


*1988 P-51B were produced, includeing 71 B-10-NA converted to F6C-NA. Early versions powered with V-1650-3, (-1, -5, -10) 4 x .50 in wing. Later versions used the V-1650-7 (-15).
550 B-5 coverted to B-7 with addition of fuselage fuel tank. In all 240 P-51B - 15 series, were produced with the V-1650-7 powerplant & 6 x .50 in wings.

1750 P-51C were produced @ Dallas, includeing 20 converted to F-6-NT.C1 powered with the V-1650-3 (-1). The remaining 1400 used the more powerful V-1650-7 (-5, -10, -11).

*See: O'leary Michael. NAA P-51 Mustang Production Line to Frontline. p.136



Regards, John Waters

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Tue May 04 2004 at 08:24 AM.]

Aaron_GT
05-04-2004, 01:44 AM
pzkpfw wrote:
"The P-51D @ 10,100lbs according to USAF data* useing COMBAT POWER (67"HG) did about 415mph TAS @ S/L"

I've never heard of any figure anywhere near
this at this manifold pressure at sea level. I
think you must have got this wrong.

Aaron_GT
05-04-2004, 01:45 AM
"Actually 340 mph for a P-51B doesn`t seem to be bad"

Seems about 20 mph too slow for most models, to
be honest. (Not the originally suggested inabilty
to reach 300, though).

Reol86
05-04-2004, 04:45 AM
I think this A/C performs as it should.

PzKpfw
05-04-2004, 06:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

I've never heard of any figure anywhere near
this at this manifold pressure at sea level. I
think you must have got this wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Aaron, my mistake, followed wrong line, off the P-51D speed & Climb Performance graph, thanks for pointing it out, & Its corrected now.



Regards, John Waters

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Tue May 04 2004 at 08:16 AM.]

Aaron_GT
05-04-2004, 10:15 AM
Thanks pzpfw

I suppose the next question is what manifold
pressure the P51B is running at when on WEP
(which is what I used for my test) and how that
compares with the Combat Power setting.

PzKpfw
05-04-2004, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Thanks pzpfw

I suppose the next question is what manifold
pressure the P51B is running at when on WEP
(which is what I used for my test) and how that
compares with the Combat Power setting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Aaron, no problem i hate trying to read these graphs http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

COMBAT POWER = WEP. From reading the text in AHT & following the P-51B/C speed & Climb Performance graph for the V-1650-3, with uses the data from the Englin tests @ 9690lbs, Patuxent River, @ 9423lbs, & USAAF EE-393 9/1/44 V-1650-3 with no fuselage tank @ 9200lbs. It appears to be @ 67"HG.

Anyway if you want I can scan the graphs and email them to you if can get an email adress, perhaphs you can get a better take on them then I.


Regards, John Waters

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kurfurst__
05-04-2004, 12:02 PM
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14speedchart.jpg

Mustang III, at 61 Hgmm of boost with V-1650-7.Does approx. 345 mph at SL.

This is similiar power output as the weaker - and far more typical V-1650-3 (88% of P-51Bs had this engine, using JW`s figures, which also agrees with other sources I have) at Combat power, ie. 67 Hgmm. I am not exactly sure however when was 67" cleared for them, several flight manuals and engine power curves indicate 61" was a maximum for a time being.

It appears that the P-51B of AEP agrees well with measure flight tests, except for lrrp22`s carefully picked plane with special surface finish, and removal of wing bombracks (8-12mph speed loss), standard item on all US Mustangs to mount droptanks.

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

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

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

lrrp22
05-04-2004, 01:02 PM
Wrong on every count Isegrim. Your only proof for 345 mph is a chart for a post-war Mustang using a different engine running at a reduced power setting?

Nobody but you is buying your disengenuous 'carefully picked plane' 'without wing racks' argument Isegrim.

Your 88% figure is a typical Issy misrepresentation. You are conveniently and purposefully ignoring the entire P-51C production run (and part of the B run as well) in that figure, aren't you?

quote:
"It appears that the P-51B of AEP agrees well with measure flight tests..."

What flight tests, Issy? Certainly you aren't claiming that your posted chart represents a -3 Mustang at 67" WEP are you?

quote:
"I am not exactly sure however when was 67" cleared for them..."

No operational Merlin Mustang was ever limited to 61" HG WEP, but you knew that didn't you?

It's obvious that, as usual, you have already made up your mind and you aren't about to let facts (multiple and documented facts) get in the way of your opinion.

"A comparison of the Me 109 and a Mustang is said to have been devastating..."
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14speedchart.jpg

Mustang III, at 61 Hgmm of boost with V-1650-7.Does approx. 345 mph at SL.

This is similiar power output as the weaker - and far more typical V-1650-3 (88% of P-51Bs had this engine, using JW`s figures, which also agrees with other sources I have) at Combat power, ie. 67 Hgmm. I am not exactly sure however when was 67" cleared for them, several flight manuals and engine power curves indicate 61" was a maximum for a time being.

It appears that the P-51B of AEP agrees well with measure flight tests, except for lrrp22`s carefully picked plane with special surface finish, and removal of wing bombracks (8-12mph speed loss), standard item on all US Mustangs to mount droptanks.

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

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

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

Aaron_GT
05-04-2004, 01:05 PM
Thanks, Pzkfw.

I didn't really express
myself well, though. What I
really meant to ask was what
the manifold pressure
modelled in AEP is. I'll
take a look at the P51
gauges, but who knows if the
visuals reflect what is
modelled in the game engine.

I'll fire up the D-5 and
D-20 too. If the B is
modelled with a lower power
engine and not the later
high pressures with higher
octane fuel then the D
versions should at least
have later engine versions,
and be faster even despite
the teardrop canopy?

DarthBane_
05-04-2004, 01:36 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lrrp22:
Wrong on every count Isegrim. Your only proof for 345 mph is a chart for a post-war Mustang using a different engine running at a reduced power setting?

Nobody but you is buying your disengenuous 'carefully picked plane' 'without wing racks' argument Isegrim.

____________

Come your self, you will suffer nervous breakdown for comming in heat like that.
It does seem like you picked charts for a specific plane that doesnt reflect the whole series production types. It looks more like you are wrong on all accounts.

PzKpfw
05-04-2004, 01:44 PM
Here are the P-51B/C/D Speed and Climb Performance Charts from AHT*

http://209.163.146.67:8080/pzk/P51Data.tif

*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred Thousand p. 326.

Regards, John Waters

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Tue May 04 2004 at 01:02 PM.]

Zen--
05-04-2004, 01:58 PM
...

-Zen-

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-04-2004, 02:01 PM
Salute

Another wonderful example of how Issy/Kurfy completely skews the facts to back up his claims.

He provides a chart, showing a Mustang tested at +15 boost, a level of supercharging that no Mustang III was limited to, and claims the results of this test at far less than the +25 the engine was rated for, represents an accurate measurement of the top speed of the aircraft.

Kinda pathetic actually, except that of course, he also provides this same type of data to Oleg with the claim that it represents the 'facts'.

Really a sad commentary on how far certain individuals will go to satisfy their prejudices.

lrrp22
05-04-2004, 02:22 PM
Whatever, Darth.

If you or anyone else can post evidence that shows the P-51B was limited to 340-345 mph at sea level running at 67" manifold pressure then be my guest. Isegrim/Kurfurst's chart most certainly does not.

For my part, I (and others) have posted information for a +25 lb/81"-boosted Mustang III/P-51C (FB377) which was pulled from operational service with 316 Sqn and, as received from said squadron, was capable of 383 mph at sea level. After having its six coats-worth of "very poor condition" paintwork restored to what was still less-than-new condition, this same Mustang III was capable of 395 mph at sea level.

Both the 383 and 395 mph speeds represent a full-combat load WITH wingracks and all other operational equipment, the only difference being that the lower speed represented an airframe that was in rough shape. WITHOUT the wingracks you can raise that speed to 402-403 mph.


Issy's claim that this example represents a specially selected and specially prepared example with most of its combat equipment removed is an intentional misrepresentation.

What FB377 does represent is a well-used Mustang III in certainly less than factory fresh condition in full combat configuration achieving 395 mph at sea level.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lrrp22:
Wrong on every count Isegrim. Your only proof for 345 mph is a chart for a post-war Mustang using a different engine running at a reduced power setting?

Nobody but you is buying your disengenuous 'carefully picked plane' 'without wing racks' argument Isegrim.

____________

Come your self, you will suffer nervous breakdown for comming in heat like that.
It does seem like you picked charts for a specific plane that doesnt reflect the whole series production types. It looks more like you are wrong on all accounts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PzKpfw
05-04-2004, 03:56 PM
Link to an chart on Comparison of top level speed performance, for Spitfire XIV, Tempest V, and Mustang III (V-1650-7). The III data is @ 25lbs boost @ 3000rpm.

http://209.163.146.67:8080/pzk/spitXIV-25lbs.jpg



Regards, John Waters

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Tue May 04 2004 at 08:27 PM.]

kondor999
05-04-2004, 08:48 PM
Re: the paucity of data out there about turning circles:

Simply put, nobody was "dogfighting" by war's end and therefore turning circles became something nobody really cared about. The only reason we care is that we engage in these ridiculous 1 on 1 low alt duels which are totally ahistorical.

Anyway, the 109 had by far the worst turning performance of the period due to its automatic leading edge slats which would bang open suddenly near stall speed and render the a/c nearly uncontrollable right when a pilot needed all the "feel" he could get. Consequently, the 109 was never able to exploit its decent wing loading due to these ridiculous slats (which were on the 262 as well).

This "feature" comes up a lot if you read actual pilot biographies. The Aces knew how to "ride out" the sudden buffeting caused by the slats, but most German pilots preferred not to get that close to the edge. If you want references, I can provide them...

BTW...my economics professor in college was an ex-109 and 262 pilot; still had pics of himself from the war in his office! What a privilege to talk to that guy. He gave me a lot of 1st hand insight into those 2 planes...priceless.

Abbuzze
05-05-2004, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kondor999:
Re: the paucity of data out there about turning circles:


Anyway, the 109 had by far the worst turning performance of the period due to its automatic leading edge slats which would bang open suddenly near stall speed and render the a/c nearly uncontrollable right when a pilot needed all the "feel" he could get. Consequently, the 109 was never able to exploit its decent wing loading due to these ridiculous slats (which were on the 262 as well).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends to your personal preferences as a pilot,... and this slats did not bang out! there is no spring or something that can cause a bang... they where simply suck out by the airstream over the wing... and the asymetric function avoid a flip over in a tight turn... the slat will open and give you an extra lift at the wing which is lower in this turn... so the plane will "fall out" of the turn, but no flip over- no stall.
Also the slats gave you a real good warning when you close to a stall, you just have to look at the wing, when they came out (the slats) you were allready at the edge.

Hmm and if slats making a plane turn bad... take a look at the La http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ilegalsig.gif
couldn´t restist http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
05-05-2004, 03:15 AM
pzkpfw:
Interesting 25lb boost figures. Seems like
that up to 4000 ft the Tempest V would
be a total monster. I can see people complaining
about it being too good if we ever got a 25lb
boost Tempest V!

Anyway, back to 'ordinary' fuels and boosts, it
seems that around 365mph would be a supportable
speed for the P51B,C,and D at sea level. It
would seem that the 109G-10 is, according even
to Isegrim/Kurfurst is ok, but the P51 may
be around 20mph too slow.

As I said before, perhaps for a future patch
we might campaign for versions of planes with
different fuel types and available boosts,
selectable as a different version (P51B +18lb,
P51B +25lb, etc).

LuftLuver
05-05-2004, 03:39 AM
Anyway, the 109 had by far the worst turning performance of the period due to its automatic leading edge slats which would bang open suddenly near stall speed and render the a/c nearly uncontrollable right when a pilot needed all the "feel" he could get. Consequently, the 109 was never able to exploit its decent wing loading due to these ridiculous slats (which were on the 262 as well).

Very interesting indeed kondor, yet another thing the lufties do not want brought to the light. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

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

Kurfurst__
05-05-2004, 09:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Wrong on every count Isegrim. Your only proof for 345 mph is a chart for a post-war Mustang using a different engine running at a reduced power setting? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I bet you don0t like it, but it0s time for you to face the facts. Its 345mph, no more, very close to the game results.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Nobody but you is buying your disengenuous 'carefully picked plane' 'without wing racks' argument Isegrim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its the truth. The test you choosen is for a plane that was polished with the standard wingracks removed.

You tried to mislead the people here with it, but it failed miserably.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your 88% figure is a typical Issy misrepresentation. You are conveniently and purposefully ignoring the entire P-51C production run (and part of the B run as well) in that figure, aren't you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apart from your typical immature ranting, I do agree with you John often misrepresents things. Not in this case, though. Its his figure, but also agrees with others... We have P-51B and C modelled in the game. The question is about the B version, which agrees with actual flight test results.

Speaking of misrepresntation, you gave wrong information about the number of V-1650-7. It is another example of (deliberate?) manipulation on your part. A taste of the things to come.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What flight tests, Issy? Certainly you aren't claiming that your posted chart represents a -3 Mustang at 67" WEP are you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do. The V-1650-7 even produced slighltly MORE power at 61" than the V-1650-3, according the 'P-51 Power vs. altitude', Graph no. 37 of AHT, shows about 1500 HP developed by the -7 at 61", and about 1480 HP by the -3 at 67" at SL.

In fact 345 ph is a bit TOO GOOD for a typical P-51B with V-1650-3 and 67" boost, as it had less power than with -7 at 61" Hgmm.

Now of course you dont even know that, you only try desperately here to sell the P-51B as according to your own wishful thinking, misrepresenting the engien type it used, misrepresenting the boost it used, misrepresenting flight tests with a/c that were cleaned up and stripped down instead of operational a/c.

I wouldn`t say its all a deliberate, ignorance plays an important part, too. You are simply grossly unfamiliar with the subject.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No operational Merlin Mustang was ever limited to 61" HG WEP, but you knew that didn't you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course they were limited to that, Lrrp. There are flight manuals, engine cards, plane operating instruction etc. etc. that all show that. It does not change it even slightly if you repeat to opposite like a machine. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Of course you never heard of them, but why would that be neccesary, since the agenda is clearly to make the Mustang look better than it really was.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's obvious that, as usual, you have already made up your mind and you aren't about to let facts (multiple and documented facts) get in the way of your opinion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like you are introducing yourself. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"A comparison of the Me 109 and a Mustang is said to have been devastating..." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, ie. the Bf 109 was faster, turned better, climbed better, accelerated much better, had better handling characteristics, rolled faster at dogfight speeds, etc. etc. History shows us that even the "inferior" G-6 could and did shot down P-51s in hundreds. The more intelligent members like Blutarski, admitted this already, you belong to the minority with this partisan-like attitude, but I am sure Oleg has a special place for your type - his Junk Mail folder! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

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

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

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

Kurfurst__
05-05-2004, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Here are the P-51B/C/D Speed and Climb Performance Charts from AHT*

http://209.163.146.67:8080/pzk/P51Data.tif

*See: Dean Francis H. _America's Hundred Thousand_ p. 326. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. It appears the Eglin P-51B with -3 engien and combat power did about 340-350 mph at SL with the Combat (MAX) boost, just as the other example in the postwar UK test I showed, ie. 345mph. on similiar power output.

The result agree closely with the in-game performance of P-51B, as per Aarons testing, about 340 mph.

More in-life testing of P-51D :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Avia 18/732.

AAEE Boscombe Down.
Mustang IV T.K 589 (Packard Merlin V.1650-7)
Posistion error of static vent and brief level speed trials.
July 1944.
Aircraft flown with faired bomb racks. Bare metal surfaces, in good condition, wing rubbed down before tests.

Speed at 0 ft using 67"hg 354mph
Speed at 10300ft using 67"hg 396mph

Speed at 0ft using 81"hg 379mph
Speed at 4300ft using 81"hg 398mph.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It appears a P-51B should do 345 mph at SL, and a P-51D about 354mph under normal boosted conditons w/o special grade fuel.

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

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

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

Gunner_361st
05-05-2004, 10:01 AM
You are always good for a laugh, Kurfurst.

Your single-mindedness on so many of the issues ever addressed here is genuinely hilarious.

The fact that you always preach the advantages and innovations of German aircraft of the Second World War and harp on the shortcomings of American aircraft of the Second World War really reflects your blatant bias.

Anyone who reads the forums long enough can see that. Thats why you are always good for a laugh, Kurfurst. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

P.S. - Please Avoid the PF forum. Friendly, considerate people who look at both sides of the equation post in there. You'd hate it.

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

crazyivan1970
05-05-2004, 10:42 AM
Please avoid personal attacks or this thread will be locked. Stay on the subject and try to find different way in overcoming your differences.

Thanks

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

lrrp22
05-05-2004, 11:11 AM
quote:
"I bet you don0t like it, but it0s time for you to face the facts. Its 345mph, no more, very close to the game results. "

That's funny Issy, when I look at the AHT charts I see, ~350 mph, 359 and 371 mph at sea level and 67" HG for V-1650-3 P-51B/C's.

When I look at the P-51D charts on the very same page I see 367 and 372 mph at sea level and 67" manifold pressure.

Why do you see different results than everyone else? Hysterical blindness perhaps?

quote:
"Its the truth. The test you choosen is for a plane that was polished with the standard wingracks removed.

You tried to mislead the people here with it, but it failed miserably."

Here's the 'truth' Isegrim...

From section 4.2 of the report:
" The aircraft was a standard mark III type. Bomb racks were fitted under the wings. The whip type aerial was fitted behind the hood and offset to starboard. The adhesive patches over the gun ports were loose and were replaced by fabric patches befroe flight. Except for this minor alteration, the aircraft was flown as received.

The paintwork was in a very poor condition. The paint on the leading edge and inboard surfaces of the wings was badly chipped. This is most serious in the case of the Mustang due to the thickness of the paint layer. At least six seperate coats of paint had been applied."

In this condition FB377 did 383 mph at sea level.

It continues...
" In the cleaning up tests, the leading 2 ft. of the wing surfaces had to be stripped of paint and repainted. The rest of the aircraft was rubbed down only.

The bomb racks were removed and also a small projecting bracket at the base of the whip aerial."

In this condition FB377 did 403-404 mph at sea level.

With the exhaust stubs replaced by Spitifre exhaust stubs FB377 did 405 mph at sea level.

From pg 4, section 5.2:
"Due to the urgency of the tests the bomb racks and the bracket at the base of the whip aerial were removed at the same time as the finish of the wing surfaces was improved. This gave a total increase of 21 mph and the effects of the seperate items are estimated as 8 mph due to the bomb racks, 1 mph due to the aerial bracket and 12 mph due to the improved finish.

To summarize: 383 mph + 12 mph for the correction of the paintwork equals 395 mph for a fully combat equipped Mustang III/P-51C **WITH BOMB RACKS**.

Those are the facts Isegrim/Kurfurst. Deal with it.


Here's figure 4 from the same report:

http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v11/brentce/FB377fig4.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Wrong on every count Isegrim. Your only proof for 345 mph is a chart for a post-war Mustang using a different engine running at a reduced power setting? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I bet you don0t like it, but it0s time for you to face the facts. Its 345mph, no more, very close to the game results.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Nobody but you is buying your disengenuous 'carefully picked plane' 'without wing racks' argument Isegrim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its the truth. The test you choosen is for a plane that was polished with the standard wingracks removed.

You tried to mislead the people here with it, but it failed miserably.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your 88% figure is a typical Issy misrepresentation. You are conveniently and purposefully ignoring the entire P-51C production run (and part of the B run as well) in that figure, aren't you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apart from your typical immature ranting, I do agree with you John often misrepresents things. Not in this case, though. Its his figure, but also agrees with others... We have P-51B and C modelled in the game. The question is about the B version, which agrees with actual flight test results.

Speaking of misrepresntation, you gave wrong information about the number of V-1650-7. It is another example of (deliberate?) manipulation on your part. A taste of the things to come.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What flight tests, Issy? Certainly you aren't claiming that your posted chart represents a -3 Mustang at 67" WEP are you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do. The V-1650-7 even produced slighltly MORE power at 61" than the V-1650-3, according the 'P-51 Power vs. altitude', Graph no. 37 of AHT, shows about 1500 HP developed by the -7 at 61", and about 1480 HP by the -3 at 67" at SL.

In fact 345 ph is a bit TOO GOOD for a typical P-51B with V-1650-3 and 67" boost, as it had less power than with -7 at 61" Hgmm.

Now of course you dont even know that, you only try desperately here to sell the P-51B as according to your own wishful thinking, misrepresenting the engien type it used, misrepresenting the boost it used, misrepresenting flight tests with a/c that were cleaned up and stripped down instead of operational a/c.

I wouldn`t say its all a deliberate, ignorance plays an important part, too. You are simply grossly unfamiliar with the subject.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No operational Merlin Mustang was ever limited to 61" HG WEP, but you knew that didn't you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course they were limited to that, Lrrp. There are flight manuals, engine cards, plane operating instruction etc. etc. that all show that. It does not change it even slightly if you repeat to opposite like a machine. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Of course you never heard of them, but why would that be neccesary, since the agenda is clearly to make the Mustang look better than it really was.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's obvious that, as usual, you have already made up your mind and you aren't about to let facts (multiple and documented facts) get in the way of your opinion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like you are introducing yourself. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"A comparison of the Me 109 and a Mustang is said to have been devastating..." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, ie. the Bf 109 was faster, turned better, climbed better, accelerated much better, had better handling characteristics, rolled faster at dogfight speeds, etc. etc. History shows us that even the "inferior" G-6 could and did shot down P-51s in hundreds. The more intelligent members like Blutarski, admitted this already, you belong to the minority with this partisan-like attitude, but I am sure Oleg has a special place for your type - his Junk Mail folder! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

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

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

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

PzKpfw
05-05-2004, 12:29 PM
Question, was everyone able to read the AHT P-51B/C/D chartsa ok?, or do i need to do a better scan?.

Yes Aaron thats what I saw to, from the AHT charts it looks like the P-51s are about 20mph under right now, and notice the Mustang III speed in the Spit XIV chart as well.

Yes the Tempest must have been a terror below 4000ft, fits with pilot accounts to. Its interesting neither the Typhoon or Tempest ever realy got to strut their stuff, in AC as both were pulled off on Diver patrols, then in CAS missions etc.

Yet they both destroyed almost the same amount of enemy AC in air to air combat, as each other Ie, the Typhoon was credited with *246, and the Tempest with 239.

*See: Thomas Chris. Typhoon and Tempest Aces of World War 2. p.6

Concerning fuel theirin lies the problem, the US always had 100 and above grade fuel, as did the British after the US arrival as the US supplied 90% of all Allied Nations high octane AV fuel during WW2 Ie, over 97% of the AV fuel recieved LL by the Soviets, was 99 octane & above.

The fuel was always of a much higher quality then ersatz Axis fuel, so the normal fuel for the P-47, P-51 etc, was 100, 115/145, and 150. Even Training AV used in the US was 92 octane IIRC, well all the AC performance testing was done with 100 - 150 grade.

Regards, John Waters

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Wed May 05 2004 at 12:21 PM.]

lrrp22
05-05-2004, 12:32 PM
I *knew* you would turn that quote 180 degrees on its head! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

Isegrim accusing someone of 'partisanship'...HILLARIOUS! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"A comparison of the Me 109 and a Mustang is said to have been devastating..." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, ie. the Bf 109 was faster, turned better, climbed better, accelerated much better, had better handling characteristics, rolled faster at dogfight speeds, etc. etc. History shows us that even the "inferior" G-6 could and did shot down P-51s in hundreds. The more intelligent members like Blutarski, admitted this already, you belong to the minority with this partisan-like attitude, but I am sure Oleg has a special place for your type - his Junk Mail folder! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

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

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

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

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Wed May 05 2004 at 11:45 AM.]

lrrp22
05-05-2004, 12:35 PM
John,

Thanks for posting the charts but, yes, they are kinda hard to read.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Question, was everyone able to read the AHT P-51B/C/D chartsa ok?, or do i need to do a better scan?.

Yes Aaron thats what I saw to, from the AHT charts it looks like the P-51s are about 20mph under right now, and notice the Mustang III speed in the Spit XIV chart as well.

Yes the Tempest must have been a terror below 4000ft, fits with pilot accounts to. Its interesting neither the Typhoon or Tempest ever realy got to strut their stuff, in AC as both were pulled off on Diver patrols, then in CAS missions etc.

Yet they both destroyed almost the same amount of enemy AC in air to air combat, as each other Ie, the Typhoon was credited with *246, and the Tempest with 239.

*See: Thomas Chris. _Typhoon and Tempest Aces of World War 2._ p.6


Regards, John Waters

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lrrp22
05-05-2004, 12:44 PM
.

PzKpfw
05-05-2004, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
John,

Thanks for posting the charts but, yes, they are kinda hard to read.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp if get me your email thru private topics etc i will email you a better scan. In fact my original scan is more readible then the one we have linked, am sending a better one to sight.

BTW i'm new to scanning, just learning etc so excuse the quality till my wife & I learn more about all the options.

Regards, John Waters

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hop2002
05-05-2004, 01:01 PM
The Tempest in that graph was running at 11 lbs boost. That increased to 13 lbs later on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Concerning fuel theirin lies the problem, the US always had 100 and above grade fuel, as did the British after the US arrival as the US supplied 90% of all Allied Nations high octane AV fuel during WW2 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF began switching over to 100 octane fuel in March 1940, by which time Britain had built up a stockpile of over 300,000 tons.

22,000 tons was used by Fighter Command during the BoB, but by the end of December 1940 the stocks in the UK had rsien to 425,000 tons.

From AIR 19/254 in the British archives, production of 100 octane fuel to which Britain had access, not counting American sources, tons per year in Nov 1940:

Heysham, UK 150,000
Billingham, UK 15,000
Stanlow, UK 55,000
Abadan 50,000
Trinidad 80,000
Palembang, Dutch East Indies 50,000
Pladejoe, Dutch East Indies 50,000
Aruba, Dutch West Indies 50,000


The first 5 are in Britain or British territories, and amount to 350,000 tons per year.

I suspect that it took longer to get 100 octane supplies for overseas territories like the far east, North Africa etc, but later in the war British supplies were obtained purely from the US/Carribean, leaving the Middle/Far Eastern sources free to supply other theatres.

PzKpfw
05-05-2004, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
The Tempest in that graph was running at 11 lbs boost. That increased to 13 lbs later on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Concerning fuel theirin lies the problem, the US always had 100 and above grade fuel, as did the British after the US arrival as the US supplied 90% of all Allied Nations high octane AV fuel during WW2 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF began switching over to 100 octane fuel in March 1940, by which time Britain had built up a stockpile of over 300,000 tons.

22,000 tons was used by Fighter Command during the BoB, but by the end of December 1940 the stocks in the UK had rsien to 425,000 tons.

From AIR 19/254 in the British archives, production of 100 octane fuel to which Britain had access, not counting American sources, tons per year in Nov 1940:

Heysham, UK 150,000
Billingham, UK 15,000
Stanlow, UK 55,000
Abadan 50,000
Trinidad 80,000
Palembang, Dutch East Indies 50,000
Pladejoe, Dutch East Indies 50,000
Aruba, Dutch West Indies 50,000


The first 5 are in Britain or British territories, and amount to 350,000 tons per year.

I suspect that it took longer to get 100 octane supplies for overseas territories like the far east, North Africa etc, but later in the war British supplies were obtained purely from the US/Carribean, leaving the Middle/Far Eastern sources free to supply other theatres.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Hop, aye, i should have worded that better, to 100+ grade. I was refering to that overall lend lease deliveries, Ie, from 1941 till the end of the war the US alone supplied 628,000 tons of aviation fuel to the USSR, the UK & Canada supplied supplied 573,000 tons to the USSR.


2,850,500 short tons of aviation fuel and light fraction gasoline received by the USSR from the US, Great Britain and Canada, which makes 2,586,000 metric tons. The US reimbursed both GB & Canada with the same ammount of fuel sent in return, for deliveries to the USSR.


The Soviets then used the imported fuel to mix with their lower grade B-78 fuel as the imported AV & fraction fuel as the octane level was 99% in 97% of the fuel deliverd.

Lend lease AV & fraction comprised 51.5% of wartime production excludeing production from the 1st half of 1941. Subtracting Soviet production for the 1st half of 1941 LL deleveries equal 57.8%.

Lend lease deleveries from August 1941 through September 1945 of AV fuel exceeded Soviet production by 1.4 times. Even when the Soviet's captured the refineries in Romania, Poland, Hungary, & Czechoslovakia in 1944 - 1945 these refineries only provided 82,800 tons of gasoline.

Regards, John Waters

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PzKpfw
05-05-2004, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Indeed, ie. the Bf 109 was faster, turned better, climbed better, accelerated much better, had better handling characteristics, rolled faster at dogfight speeds, etc. etc. History shows us that even the "inferior" G-6 could and did shot down P-51s in hundreds. The more intelligent members like Blutarski, admitted this already, you belong to the minority with this partisan-like attitude, but I am sure Oleg has a special place for your type - his Junk Mail folder! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

History also shows us; that the LW fighter force was virtualy destroyed over the Westren front, thru attrition of AC & pilots, on a scale far worse then Allied fighter pilots losses in air to air combat despite these inferior fighters. Even in 1943 the US escort fighters were makeing their presense felt Ie, the below quote from Adolf Galland from 1943 is interesting:

Outside fighter escort range our pursuit and night fighter operations are successful. If we gave up any serious attempt to engage on the peripheries and pulled our fighters right back, we should in logic, at the same time be able to use them in high concentration at key points.

The successful operations were attacks on US bombers with no fighter escort, Ie, German tactics were to wait outside P-47 escort range, later when P-47s began useing belly tanks the Germans got another suprise they had to adopt to by waiting farther back, till the P-47 had to turn to where they could. Even in October 1943 after the 2nd Schweinfurt raid, the Germans were not satisfied with their performance and inibility to stop US bomber incrusions all together, Ie, an excerpt from an memo from Galland , under pressure from Georing to the Westren front Jagdgeshwader concerning Octobers performance is interesting:

The fighter and heavy formations have not been able to secure decisive success in air defense against American four engined formations. The introduction of new weapons... has not appreciably changed the situation. The main reason for the failure is that the Kommandeure and Kapitane (sic) do not succeed in secureing attacks in close formation up to the shortest ranges...

Then the P-38 showed up, and the final nail in coffin was the P-51B, because it could go anywhere in Germany the bombers could.

What Bf 109G-6 was faster then the P-51B/C/D and at what altitudes?

And lets be a bit realistic about this, if we are discussing fighter losses, P-51s Flew 213,873 sorties, losing 2,520 planes in combat. Mustangs are officialy credited with 4,950 aircraft destroyed in the air, and 4,131 on the ground. Not a bad record at all for a Fighter.


USSAC ETO FIGHTER ONLY losses all types for all of 1944 ammounted to the below totals, cause of loss EA = Enemy Aircraft, AA = Flak, OC = Other causes:


Jan 1944 - 69, 57 to EA, 6 AA, 6 OC.
Feb 1944 - 103, 69, EA, 13 AA, 21 OC.
March 1944 - 191, 56 EA, 46 AA, 91 OC.
April 1944 - 280, 201 EA, 60 AA, 19 OC.
May 1944 - 340, 176 EA, 98 AA, 66 OC.
June 1944 - 540, 147 EA, 226 AA, 167 OC.
July 1944 - 326, 65 EA, 153 AA, 108 OC
August 1944 - 546, 100 EA, 294 AA, 152 OC.
Sept 1944 - 357, 104 EA, 190 AA, 63 OC.
Oct 1944 - 349, 99 EA, 198 AA, 52 OC.
Nov 1944 - 298, 80 EA, 164 AA, 54 OC.
Dec 1944 - 366, 141 EA, 163 AA, 62 OC


Total 1944 Fighter only Losses on Combat Missions in ETO was:

3,765 Fighters, with 1,295 lost to Enemy Aircraft, 1,711 lost to Anti-Aircraft fire, & 861 lost to Other Causes.

*See: Table 159 - Airplane Losses on Combat Missions in European Theater of Operations, By Type of Airplane and By Cause of Loss: Aug 1942 to May 1945. P.255

Clearly the most dangerous weapon to US fighters was Flak.


Luftwaffe day Fighter COMBAT LOSSES ONLY in November 1944 Westren Front & Reich Defence were 404 day fighter's lost with claims filed for 155 Allied Aircraft. VS 80 USAAC fighters lost to Enemy Aircaft in November 1944.

Then Ie, USSAC fighter performance in the Ardennes where some of the heaviest fighter vs fighter combat in the West, took place, we can compare * Luftwaffe Day fighter combat losses to enemy aircraft only, from Dec 17 - Dec 31 1944 Ie:

December 17 1944 - 79 AC.
December 18 1944 - 33 AC.
December 23 1944 - 98 AC.
December 24 1944 - 106 AC.
December 25 1944 - 62 AC.
December 27 1944 - 50 AC.
December 31 1944 - 49 AC.

Total Luftwaffe Day fighter losses Dec 17 - Dec 31 were: 477 day fighters vs 141 USAAC fighter's lost to Enemy Aircraft for the whole month of December. LW totals do not include losses from Other causes.

From Dec 23 to 31 alone the LW fighter units lost 316 pilots KIA/MIA/WIA alone. December operations alone, cost the day fighter force 500 pilots KIA/MIA, 194 WIA, and 35 POW.

*See: Girbig: Six Months to Oblivion pp. 64 - 99.

An perfect example of the P-51s superiority in the escort/air superiority role was November 27th 1944. 1 Jagdkorps put up 750 day fighters, the strongest force put up to that date, the 353rd & 357th Fighter Groups pinned the German force down long before they could get to the bombers. The LW lost over 50 day fighters in this engagemnt, vs the loss of 11 P-51 and not 1 bomber was lost.


By the Autumn of 1944 total monthly USSAC losses were with a few exceptions were under 1% of soties flown, vs equivelant figures for the German day fighter force of between 10 - 20%. Ie, in September 1944 German day fighters filed claims for 307 Allied AC vs losses of 371 day fighters, the Allied number of sorties flown into the German defensive areas was 18 times greater, then LW defensive sorties which equated to a loss ratio; of 0.7% for the USAC vs 14.5% for the LW.

Haveing a fighter with superior performance etc, means very little, if the pilots flying it are inexperienced, Ie, never even trained for low level operations, or dogfighting, & cant fly it to its full potential etc. The below quote from Walther Dahl is interesting:

November 1944's flying was the toughest I had been through the whole war. The odds were 20 to 1 and often as much as 30 to 1 against us. We were takeing casualties every day. Our aircrew reinforcements were short omn quality as they didn't recieve eneough training. And shortage of fuel was makeing itself more and more felt.


Regards, John Waters

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu May 06 2004 at 06:47 AM.]

Boandlgramer
05-05-2004, 11:32 PM
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t100.htm

about the losses of the USAAF in ETO :
total losses 17,082

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
The first Time i saw Chuck Yeager, i shot him down. Petrosillius Zwacklmann ( WW2 Hero ).
***********************
Somebody asked me, what i liked most, my chromium-plated Colt or my Helmet with the 4 Stars. I said : you damn Bastard, none of them, the most important thing in my life is my pink underwear.....a well know WW2 General http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
******************************

Aaron_GT
05-06-2004, 01:12 AM
Thanks for the info, hop2002. Do you have
any figures on the Tempest V performance with
+13 boost?

As I said before, maybe we can petition for
being able to select available boost levels to
represent improved boosts and fuel stocks as
the war progressed. I don't think we'll be
successful as it might be a lot of work to beta
test the performance with improved boosts. I
suppose in theory in a physics-based model it
should be just a case of updating the stats on
the engine power at various altitudes, but I
don't know how amenable the physics engine is
to a quick fix like that.

Maybe we can campaign for the physics engine
in BoB being clean enough to allow this to be
easy to implement in the next sim?

hop2002
05-06-2004, 04:54 AM
I don't have access to any of my stuff at the moment, but I don't think I have figures for a Tempest at 13 lbs anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As I said before, maybe we can petition for
being able to select available boost levels to
represent improved boosts and fuel stocks as
the war progressed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd really, really like it as an option for the Spitfire and Mustang at least.

All P-51s with the -7 engine (I can't say for sure about the -3 because I haven't got my sources) in the 8th AF used 150 octane fuel from the summer of 44 until close to the end of the war.

All British Mustangs with the -7 engine used 150 octane and 25 lbs boost from summer 44 onwards. By the end of 44, that's more than a dozen squadrons in Britain, iirc.

All ADGB Spitfire IXs in Britain used 150 octane and 25 lbs boost from mid 44, all those in 2nd TAF on the continent used it from Jan 45. That's something like 25 squadrons of Spit IXs in 2nd TAF, iirc.

That takes the Spit IX up from 335 mph at sea level to 360 or so, and the climb rate to well over 5000ft/min (Ignore Isegrim if he comes in with his JL 165 figures again, Jl 165 was 20 mph slower than any other Spit IX on test, and was underperforming)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Maybe we can campaign for the physics engine
in BoB being clean enough to allow this to be
easy to implement in the next sim?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I'd really like to see in BoB is the Spitfire and Hurricane modelled with 100 octane fuel. Every sim I've played so far models the Spit at 87 octane.

The RAF fighters in Britain switched to 100 octane in March 1940. The BoB began mid July.

100 octane fuel increased the sea level speed of the Spit I to 310 mph. I've never seen a sim Spit I that could do even 300 mph.

I hope Oleg's BoB will model the planes as they actually were.

lrrp22
05-06-2004, 09:05 AM
Hop,

I am going to scan and forward the entire +25 lb. report (AVIA 6/10618) to Oleg sometime in the next week.

Let me know if you have any supporting information or pointers on the best way to submit the data.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
I don't have access to any of my stuff at the moment, but I don't think I have figures for a Tempest at 13 lbs anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As I said before, maybe we can petition for
being able to select available boost levels to
represent improved boosts and fuel stocks as
the war progressed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd really, really like it as an option for the Spitfire and Mustang at least.

All P-51s with the -7 engine (I can't say for sure about the -3 because I haven't got my sources) in the 8th AF used 150 octane fuel from the summer of 44 until close to the end of the war.

All British Mustangs with the -7 engine used 150 octane and 25 lbs boost from summer 44 onwards. By the end of 44, that's more than a dozen squadrons in Britain, iirc.

All ADGB Spitfire IXs in Britain used 150 octane and 25 lbs boost from mid 44, all those in 2nd TAF on the continent used it from Jan 45. That's something like 25 squadrons of Spit IXs in 2nd TAF, iirc.

That takes the Spit IX up from 335 mph at sea level to 360 or so, and the climb rate to well over 5000ft/min (Ignore Isegrim if he comes in with his JL 165 figures again, Jl 165 was 20 mph slower than any other Spit IX on test, and was underperforming)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Maybe we can campaign for the physics engine
in BoB being clean enough to allow this to be
easy to implement in the next sim?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I'd really like to see in BoB is the Spitfire and Hurricane modelled with 100 octane fuel. Every sim I've played so far models the Spit at 87 octane.

The RAF fighters in Britain switched to 100 octane in March 1940. The BoB began mid July.

100 octane fuel increased the sea level speed of the Spit I to 310 mph. I've never seen a sim Spit I that could do even 300 mph.

I hope Oleg's BoB will model the planes as they actually were.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst__
05-06-2004, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
The Tempest in that graph was running at 11 lbs boost. That increased to 13 lbs later on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahem, the Tempest that was running on +11 lbs in these trials used 150 grade to achieve such boost. Later the same plane was lost due to engine failure...

There are several problem with Hops version of the event.

The first being 13lbs was not cleared for either the Sabre IIA or IIB during the war. Hop of course claims this, but he also claims others things, purely made up, like SpitXIVs being cleared for +25lbs. Everyone else, including Neil Stirling states +21lbs was the maximum, there are documents that state the reason was main bearing troubles, let alone Hop continues to state +25lbs was allowed in service use. Interestingly, a British test in summer 1945 with a Griffon power Mk 21 also state the maximum permissable boost was +21 lbs, no more.


The second problem is that to obtain +11 lbs ofr the Tempest, it would require 150 grade, for its Sabre IIA powered versions. Trouble is, 150 grade was not issued to Tempest squadrons, so they could not run on it - Spit IX squadrons received the special fuel, for they desperately needed it to remain competitive in 1944... unless if they had Sabre IIB engines, but these appeared only in the later production a/c, only apprx. half of the Tempest Vs had these engines, which would allow them to run on +11boost w/o the need of 150 grade. The rest could run at best on +9 lbs, making apprx. 375 or so mph at SL.

So reality is again rather different than Hops version of it, ie. hundreds of Tempest Vs running at +13 etc. boost. Really one would like to see a source for this, as there are only documents, English engine charts that prove the contrary etc.

Now, lets carry on with the Hoppian Statements vs. Reality issue:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All P-51s with the -7 engine (I can't say for sure about the -3 because I haven't got my sources) in the 8th AF used 150 octane fuel from the summer of 44 until close to the end of the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for the -3 engines, they were allowed to run it under emergency conditions, but after every use of +25lbs a detailed report and inspection of the engine for damage was required. At least in the RAF.

This being of course one-third of the full story. All 8th AF Mustangs were using 150 grade fuel, but at a reduced boost, as US spark plugs fouled more quickly than British ones. US Mustangs run at 71" Hgmm boost instead of 81 Hgmm , barely giving HP increase, or increase performance over the standard 100 grade fuel and 67 Hgmm boost.

Not to mention of course that saying "all in the 8th AF used 150 grade for Mustangs" is a rather alternative way putting that the _single US unit that used 150 grade was the 8th AF, and at a reduced boost rate. NONE of the 9th US AAF, NONE in the 15th AAF`s Mustangs in Italy and over the EF ever used 150 grade fuel.

Which, basically translates to about half the US Mustangs used in quantity, and a much reduced boost with little performance gain. Hop is right that this should be modelled, but in a way that would reflect reality, not as per Hop`s half or one-third parts of truth.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All British Mustangs with the -7 engine used 150 octane and 25 lbs boost from summer 44 onwards. By the end of 44, that's more than a dozen squadrons in Britain, iirc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How much was that? The actual consumption of 150 grade feul in the entire RAF was 12000 tons in the summer, emplyoed mostly vs V-1 divers. In september 44 this fell to a mere 2000tons of consumption, ALL planes, inlcludign every Mosquito, Spitfire IX and XIV, Mustang squadron, indicating it was primarly an anti-diver, and not anti-fighter fuel. 2000 tons is a tiny sum (one can compare to LW`s consumption, which was 15-20 TIMEs as high, even as late as 1945, per month... and fuel situation was hardly good by that time for the Germans...), used over the British usles and the channel in a defensive role, not any other unit outside Britain, inckso even if Hop likes to put a twist on it, 150 grade was everything but widespread in 1944 in the RAF. The only RAF unit, the 2nd TAF that was in regular contact with the enemy conveted to it in 1945. Not any other RAF unit, such as those employed in the Mediterreanean ever used it. Fact.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
All ADGB Spitfire IXs in Britain used 150 octane and 25 lbs boost from mid 44, all those in 2nd TAF on the continent used it from Jan 45. That's something like 25 squadrons of Spit IXs in 2nd TAF, iirc.

That takes the Spit IX up from 335 mph at sea level to 360 or so, and the climb rate to well over 5000ft/min (Ignore Isegrim if he comes in with his JL 165 figures again, Jl 165 was 20 mph slower than any other Spit IX on test, and was underperforming)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well of course the ONLY example we know of a standard Spit IX is JL 165, Hop usually comes up with experimental type with experimental propellors. Maybe Spits need that little trick to make them competitive... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for the "5000+" climb rate, 5080 fpm was measured in RL, and this could maintained no more than 500 feet (!!) above SL, then it fell off drastically.

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

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

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

Kurfurst__
05-06-2004, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:

History also shows us; that the LW fighter force was virtualy destroyed over the Westren front, thru attrition of AC & pilots, on a scale far worse then Allied fighter pilots losses in air to air combat despite these inferior fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its a rather ridiculus statement, ie. the LWs fighter force being destroyed on the Western Front, ie. on 1st of December, 1944, there were 2526 s-e fighters issued to the LWs first line units, not including the reserces; about 50% higher than they had in early 1944. Destroyed..? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Basically the picture was, that the USAAF sustained well over half of all its casulties alone in 1944, whereas the German fighter strenght kept growing and growing every month.

By January 1945, the LWs fighter forces increased to well over 3000 planes with the first line units - destroyed? 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://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Even in 1943 the US escort fighters were makeing their presense felt Ie, the below quote from Adolf Galland from 1943 is interesting:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"1943 the US escort fighters were makeing their presense felt " vs. just a little below he states the only reason of the German success in 1943 was because US fighter didnt have the range.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/354.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The successful operations were attacks on US bombers with no fighter escort, Ie, German tactics were to wait outside P-47 escort range, later when P-47s began useing belly tanks the Germans got another suprise they had to adopt to by waiting farther back, till the P-47 had to turn to where they could. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Etc. etc. etc., nice words John, you just forgot one little detail:

All large scale US incursions were suspended in late 1943, because the losses were UNSUSTAINABLE for the USAAF.

The LW succeeded in its goals in 1943, the USAAF failed.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Even in October 1943 after the 2nd Schweinfurt raid, the Germans were not satisfied with their performance and inibility to stop US bomber incrusions all together, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"inibility to stop US bomber incrusions all together" - inabilty, John ? In who`s reality? US incursinos STOPPED after Scheinfurt and Ploiste.

Historical fact.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What Bf 109G-6 was faster then the P-51B/C/D and at what altitudes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said the basic G-6, rahter atypical by the time the P-51D appeared in numbers, was faster?

I just said the G-6 shot down Mustangs in huge numbers, even though the 109G pilots were told not to engage enemy fighters but concentrate on enemy bombers.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And lets be a bit realistic about this, if we are discussing fighter losses, P-51s Flew 213,873 sorties, losing 2,520 planes in combat. Mustangs are officialy credited with 4,950 aircraft destroyed in the air, and 4,131 on the ground. Not a bad record at all for a Fighter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nobody says the P-51 had a bad record, just that it was decidedly inferior one on one vs. any German fighter from the respective period.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Luftwaffe day Fighter COMBAT LOSSES ONLY in November 1944 Westren Front & Reich Defence were 404 day fighter's lost with claims filed for 155 Allied Aircraft. VS 80 USAAC fighters lost to Enemy Aircaft in November 1944. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

.. and at the same time, in November 1944



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Total Luftwaffe Day fighter losses Dec 17 - Dec 31 were: 477 day fighters vs 141 USAAC fighter's lost to Enemy Aircraft for the whole month of December. LW totals do not include losses from Other causes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

... and neither your list contains the losses of US bombers, the main target of German fighters, which US escort fighter failed to protect, ie. several B-26 flights were wiped out, and it occured multiply times that US bomber formations suffer as high as 50%(!!) losses to enemy fighters. Where was the USAAF then? OR was it ghost planes of the 'virtually destroyed' LW shooting down those planes?

John is comparing 477 German fighter lost to all enemy related causes vs. 141 USAAF fighters lost to fighters only, not counting other losses such as fact. Double standards showing.
John is not including Allied bomber losses in his comparison. We all know why.
He neither adds the losses of the RAF in the area, ie. the 2nd TAF - double standards showing again.


As for the LW`s first line fighter unit losses, for all fronts, they lost 875 fighters in December 1944 to enemy action, flak and fighters, bombers defensive fire alike.

In the same month, they received a total of 1429 planes as replacements, 1024 newly built ones from factories, 225 from repair centers.

LW reinforcements outweighted losses, by far.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>An perfect example of the P-51s superiority in the escort/air superiority role was November 27th 1944. 1 Jagdkorps put up 750 day fighters, the strongest force put up to that date, the 353rd & 357th Fighter Groups pinned the German force down long before they could get to the bombers. The LW lost over 50 day fighters in this engagemnt, vs the loss of 11 P-51 and not 1 bomber was lost. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a perfect example of tunnel vision, John. The P-51s alleged 'superiority' hardly shown by in examples, when Mustangs, massively outnumbering the foe, who is busy attacking the bomber formation, and not the fighters themselves.

Ie. five men attacking another one in the alley who`s busy with another, and knocking him out from behind.

There are multiply examples of how badly US fighter performed when they were unlucky enough to 'enjoy' the full attention of German fighters, ie. JG in early 1944 bounced a P-51 unit approx. 4 times as big as them, and succeeded shooting down over 20 planes for NO losses on the German part.

On 14h of June, P-38th of the 15th AAF were just as unlucky : they bumped into a formation of Bf 109G-6s over Hungary, who were at the time eager to engage whatever got in their way. In the following dogfight, the USAAF lost 5 Lightings, including the commander`s, and two heavily damaged ones for a single Bf 109G shot down.

The interesting question would be, how would P-51 fare if put under the same circumstances as 109s and 190s found themselves. What are the chances of survival of lone P-51D with seven Bf 109Ks on his six, from which he cant escape in climb or level flight, while he has to target the bombers, and ignore the fighters whenever possible?

I think close to 0%. Yet 109s and 190s succeeded in such conditions as well, ie. got to their targets, the bombers, shot them down, and then escaped from mulitple enemy a/c chasing them.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Haveing a fighter with superior performance etc, means very little, if the pilots flying it are inexperienced, Ie, never even trained for low level operations, or dogfighting, & cant fly it to its full potential etc. The below quote from Walther Dahl is interesting:

_November 1944's flying was the toughest I had been through the whole war. The odds were 20 to 1 and often as much as 30 to 1 against us. We were takeing casualties every day. Our aircrew reinforcements were short omn quality as they didn't recieve eneough training. And shortage of fuel was makeing itself more and more felt._
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, this is a rather good quote, as it tells what is the opion of basically every single top ranking German military man, ie.

"The odds were 20 to 1 and often as much as 30 to 1 against us. "

The Allies, and the P-51, won by massive numerical superiority, not by quality. What is surprising, is how well the LW performed under such condtitions, and was capable to defeat allied formations time and time again, despite being heavily outnumbered in all cases. Superior aircraft quality certainly played a large part in this, and partly made up for the numerical disadvantage.

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

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

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

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Thu May 06 2004 at 12:46 PM.]

Maple_Tiger
05-06-2004, 01:55 PM
Qoute:
-----------------------------------------------
Nobody says the P-51 had a bad record, just that it was decidedly inferior one on one vs. any German fighter from the respective period.


Lmao, lol.


You is funny Kurfurst.

How much of what you post is true? Sorry guy, but i don't beleave even 05% of what you type.

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

lrrp22
05-06-2004, 02:14 PM
Number of RAF Mustang III/IV squadrons running +25 lb. boost and 100/150 grade fuel...

1 January 1945- 12 (240 aircraft)

8 May 1945- 16 (320 aircraft)


I'd say these numbers merit inclusion of a 395 mph@sea level +25 lb boost Mustang III in FB/AEP...



**And just for you Isegrim**

Squadron designations and Mustang III conversion dates:

65 Sqn Dec43
122 Sqn Jan44
19 Sqn Mar44
306 Sqn Mar44
315 Sqn Mar44
129 Sqn Apr44
316 Sqn Apr44
234 Sqn Sep44
309 Sqn Oct44
64 Sqn Nov44
126 Sqn Dec44
165 Sqn Jan45
118 Sqn Feb45
303 Sqn Apr45 (Mustang IV)
441 Sqn Apr45 (Mustang IV)
442 Sqn Apr45 (Mustang IV)

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-06-2004, 02:26 PM
Issy and Kurfy

Provide one example of when a USAAF heavy bomber raid lost 50%.

You can't, because they didn't.

Schweinfurt and Regensburg were approx. 20%.

And those were raids where the escorts could not stay with them to target.

Your claim that the USAAF failed in 1943 is also false.

In fact what happened was that the USAAF realized they could not fly unescorted missions with their B17s and B24's. So they reduced the radius of the targets they would hit, and focused on areas within the range of escorting P-47's, which were 95% of the available fighters.

When the P-51's arrived, along with the potential to escort all the way to targets deep in Germany, the USAAF immediately began to fly those long range missions.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-06-2004, 02:27 PM
German Operational Aircraft Strength February 1943

Fighters: 1360

Others: 4014

Total: 5374


Distribution of Authorized German Fighter Strength January 1943 (note this is Authorized strength or Paper strength, not Operational strength)

Eastern Front: 445

Mediterranean: 280

NorthWest Europe: 1045


From this you can see 74% of German Fighter strength is cocentrated against the Western Allies.


German Monthly Aircraft Losses in 1943 by Front. First number is total Aircraft losses/Second number is Fighter losses

Month---------------Eastern---------------------Mediterranean------------------Northwest Europe

January--------------482--85------------------------282--124------------------------176--87

February------------318--63------------------------206--89--------------------------182--77

March---------------314--100----------------------308--140-------------------------256--140

April----------------238--67------------------------572--247-------------------------256--143

May-----------------331--110-----------------------333--97--------------------------331--183

June-----------------249--85------------------------235--131-------------------------313--157

July-----------------558--201-----------------------711--246-------------------------526--335

August-------------472--150-----------------------321--133-------------------------625--248

September---------338--99------------------------503--167-------------------------522--276

October------------279--94------------------------285--92---------------------------530--281

November---------194--45------------------------180--54---------------------------529--281

December---------Not Available


In January the German losses are slightly higher on the Eastern Front than both the Mediterranean and Northwest Europe combined. This reflects the continued attempted airlift to Stalingrad. But after that, losses versus the Western Allies become much more significant. Losses are very high during the close of the Tunisian Campaign, especially during the abortive attempted Air Supply phase. Even during the Kursk Offensive and subsequent Soviet Counter-Offensive, the losses are less than those suffered during the Sicily invasion. Meanwhile as the 8th Air Force Bombing Offensive begins in July of '43, the German losses in Northwest Europe begin to climb till they are largest portion of all losses. Notice especially the higher proportion of Fighters lost in Northwest Europe.


Total Aircraft Losses in 1943 by Front (excluding December)

Eastern Front

Fighters: 1099

Total: 3773

Mediterranean Front

Fighters: 1520

Total: 3936

Northwest Europe Front

Fighters: 2208

Total: 4246


Total German Aircraft losses inflicted in 1943, Western Allies vs Soviet Union

Western Allies: 8182

Soviet Union: 3773


German Monthly Fighter Pilot Casualties January to December 1943

January: 137

February: 115

March: 155

April: 206

May: 266

June: 246

July: 330

August: 333

September: 343

October: 339

November: 245

December: 252


Of these casualties, the majority have been inflicted by the Western Allies.

Notice the huge number of German Fighter pilot casualties??

Also compare the German losses with the American losses for the same period and you see the Germans are not winning by any stretch of the imagination.

As usual, Issy is providing false data

lrrp22
05-06-2004, 02:29 PM
ISSY quote:
"There are multiply examples of how badly US fighter performed when they were unlucky enough to 'enjoy' the full attention of German fighters, ie. JG in early 1944 bounced a P-51 unit approx. 4 times as big as them, and succeeded shooting down over 20 planes for NO losses on the German part."

Dates? Units involved? Claimed vs. verified kills?

Even if this is true there are many, many more examples of small Mustang units pounding much larger formations of 109/190's.

Puzzle me this Isegrim- Why is it virtually impossible to find a single Mustang *or* 109 pilot who will support your claims of 109 superiority? Why is it so easy to find opinions that claim just the opposite?

Some more numbers for you...

40-48 -Number of Mustangs operating alone over Germany on any given day during December 43/January 44.

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Thu May 06 2004 at 01:39 PM.]

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Thu May 06 2004 at 01:40 PM.]

WWMaxGunz
05-06-2004, 02:35 PM
Somebody get these guys a ruler. And a marching band to play for the weiner, errr winner.

PzKpfw
05-06-2004, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


Its a rather ridiculus statement, ie. the LWs fighter force being destroyed on the Western Front, ie. on 1st of December, 1944, there were 2526 s-e fighters issued to the LWs first line units, not including the reserces; about 50% higher than they had in early 1944. Destroyed..? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Basically the picture was, that the USAAF sustained well over half of all its casulties alone in 1944, whereas the German fighter strenght kept growing and growing every month.

By January 1945, the LWs fighter forces increased to well over 3000 planes with the first line units - destroyed? 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://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting as all this 'how many planes' stuff is, It's quite irrelevant as you are attempting to put a material spin on the subject.

The LWs immidiate problems were not airacraft numbers availability etc. Ie, from August 1944 to mid Nov 1944, German single engine fighter strength increased from 1,900 to 3,300 fighters.

This allowed the Jadgwaffe to form 6 new Gruppen, as well as increaseing Staffel sise from 12 to 16 aircraft. In all 2,953 SE fighters were delivered in this time period.

Problem was A), not eneough fuel, Ie, OKL ordered J2 fuel was to be strictly conserved Ie:


The monthly production, compared with possibilities of consumption, is very small. As the jet engines have a relatively high consumption rate, it is absolutely forbidden for these particular aircraft to taxi under their own power prior to takeing off and after landing. Remember that the Me-262 consumes 200 liters of J2 while taxiing for five minutes under its own power.:" As well as stocks of B4 & C3 were running out, as well as fuel requirements for Bodenplatte ate away most of Germany last remaning AV fuel stocks.


b) not eneough bodies to fill cockpits. Planes were so plentiful & pilots so lacking that German units were parking damaged aircraft & lust takeing a new aircraft from the depot, rather then waiting on repairs. Ie:*

We simply went to the depot nearby, where they had hundreds o brand new 109s --G-10s, G-14s and even the very latest K models. There was no proper organization anymore: the depot staff just said, 'Their are the aircraft, take what you want and go away.' But getting fuel--that was more difficult.

C). Which goes with b) as German fighter pilot training was sub par Ie:*

The average Luftwaffe fighter pilot in 1942 recieved 210 hours flying time, in 1943, 136 hours, by the begining of 1944 112 hours, but this is misleading as in reality the averagage German pilot, only recieved an actual 20 - 34 hours experience, in the operational aircraft, they were to fly.

German fighter pilot training was done in 3 stages in "A" schools that taught elementary flying skills originaly in an 7 month course, that included 72 hours of flying instruction. In 1944, the course time was cut to 18 weeks, & flying instruction time to 52 hours in order to produce larger numbers of pilots.

The Secondary schools made similar cutbacks with instruction reduced to 3 months. The operational training course at 4 Erganzungs Jagdgruppen was cut to 14 days & 20 hours flying in the type, they were to fly with their units. This was the state of the Jagdwaffe training schools in 1944 - 1945.

So as we see the LW had more severe problems then Ie, how many planes it had lying around etc.

Just how exactly Isegrem, were these poorly trained replacement pilots, to gain any operational experience?, when they could barely maintain flight formation, much less the rigors of trying to protect their wingman in an dogfight. Much less get maximum benifit out of their planes performance. Ie:

We were given large numbers of the new Messerschmitts. We were assigned young pilots who were timid, inexperienced and scared. We flew little (fuel was in short supply), but we were able to practice formation flying and formation attacks on mock bomber flights. The young pilots were not yet readyfor combat. It was hard eneough leading and keeping together a large combat formation of experienced fighter pilots; with youngsters it was hopeless.

They were just windy. They were expected to fly in precise formation, stuck in the middle of an enormous unit made up of more then a hundred fighters, keeping distance, height and spacing constant. They were suposed to watch their airspace and not let themselves be lured into dogfights with enemy fighters (they had absolutely no experience in aerial combat), and when the formation attacked the bomber armada they were told they must keep in position--come what may. It could never work."

Johannes "Macki" Steinhoff....


As of December 1 1944 Jagdkorps 1 returns showed 1000 SE fighters on strength. From Dec 2 - 31 Westren front & Reich defense SE fighter losses COMBAT ONLY were 617 SE fighters, with 500 pilots KIA/MIA etc. and this total doesent include losses Other causes etc.


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

1943 the US escort fighters were makeing their presense felt " vs. just a little below he states the only reason of the German success in 1943 was because US fighter didnt have the range.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/354.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because when the bombers operated in range they made their presence felt.


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

All large scale US incursions were suspended in late 1943, because the losses were UNSUSTAINABLE for the USAAF.

The LW succeeded in its goals in 1943, the USAAF failed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrem what you fail to realise was that in 1943 the 8th AF could rarely put up more then 100 bombers a mission. August 17ths raid on Schwinfurt regasburg was the largest 6th AF raid to date with 300 bombers put up, vs 500 German day fighters.



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

"inibility to stop US bomber incrusions all together" - inabilty, John ? In who`s reality? US incursinos STOPPED after Schweinfurt and Ploiste.

Historical fact.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again Isegrem, as we have went over in the past repeatedly, 8th AF missions did not stop after Octobers 2nd Schweinfurt raid. Operations were continued within escort range.

In November 1943 8th AF raids began in increased intensity throughout November despite the losses from the October Schweinfurt' raid, Ie, Bremen was hit by 491 B-17s etc, December 11 523 bombers hit Emden, Dec 13 649 bombers hit targets in Germany, December 16, 535 hit Bremen, Dec 20 472 hit Bremen again, Dec 22 Osnabruck & Munster, Dec 30th 650 bombers hit Ludwigshafen etc.

As to your unsuported allegations that the LW succeeded etc, General Der Flieger Galland once again disagrees with your assessment Ie, concerning October 1943s performaqnce:

concerning Octobers performance is interesting:

The fighter and heavy formations have not been able to secure decisive success in air defense against American four engined formations. The introduction of new weapons... has not appreciably changed the situation. The main reason for the failure is that the Kommandeure and Kapitane (sic) do not succeed in secureing attacks in close formation up to the shortest ranges...

So Isegrem, whom are we to put more trust in Galland or you?.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What Bf 109G-6 was faster then the P-51B/C/D and at what altitudes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said the basic G-6, rahter atypical by the time the P-51D appeared in numbers, was faster?

I just said the G-6 shot down Mustangs in huge numbers, even though the 109G pilots were told not to engage enemy fighters but concentrate on enemy bombers.

[/quote]

Realy:

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

Indeed, ie. the Bf 109 was faster, turned better, climbed better, accelerated much better, had better handling characteristics, rolled faster at dogfight speeds, etc. etc. History shows us that even the "inferior" G-6 could and did shot down P-51s in hundreds. The more intelligent members like Blutarski, admitted this already, you belong to the minority with this partisan-like attitude, but I am sure Oleg has a special place for your type - his Junk Mail folder!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


BTW operational SOP despite orders was BF 109s engaged the escorts, while the Fws etc engaged the bombers. Ie, Sturmgruppen generaly operated with an conventional escort 4 times their size.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Nobody says the P-51 had a bad record, just that it was decidedly inferior one on one vs. any German fighter from the respective period.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you cant have it both ways Isegrem, either te P-51 was a good fighter comparible to German fighters or it wasn't it's that simple.

As to one on one these are 'tunel vision' views, focused on on individual fighter performance paper stats, which dont reflect actual operational performance, in fact if one was to judge the success of fighters by achievements in their roles both the P-47 & P-51 dominated the Bf 109. These constant attempts to focus 1 vs 1 fights are ridiculous both sides fighters operated in the hundreds, and even when German fighters outnumbered US fighters in the Ardennes at low to medium levels the loss ratio was in the US favor.


The interesting thing is if you compare the most common Bf 109 in 1944 & 45 which was the Bf 109G-14, vs the P-51B/C/D you dont see any marked superiority in any area even in ROC, both are very close etc.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
... and neither your list contains the losses of US bombers, the main target of German fighters, which US escort fighter failed to protect, ie. several B-26 flights were wiped out, and it occured multiply times that US bomber formations suffer as high as 50%(!!) losses to enemy fighters. Where was the USAAF then? OR was it ghost planes of the 'virtually destroyed' LW shooting down those planes?

John is comparing 477 German fighter lost to all enemy related causes vs. 141 USAAF fighters lost to fighters only, not counting other losses such as fact. Double standards showing.
John is not including Allied bomber losses in his comparison. We all know why.
He neither adds the losses of the RAF in the area, ie. the 2nd TAF - double standards showing again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am only, as I stated quite clearly, if you had read what you were replying to showing LW fighterCombat Losses only vs US fighter losses, I never once said. I included Other causes etc.

Again if your reading comprehension would improve we are discussing Fighter vs fighter combat. As to your assertion that US bombers suffered 50% losses on a mission, please list the mission date this occured on as the highest losses were in 1st Berlin mission with 69 bombers lost, which didnt even slow the tempo of 8th operations.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In the same month, they received a total of 1429 planes as replacements, 1024 newly built ones from factories, 225 from repair centers.

LW reinforcements outweighted losses, by far.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See above.............

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is a perfect example of tunnel vision, John. The P-51s alleged 'superiority' hardly shown by in examples, when Mustangs, massively outnumbering the foe, who is busy attacking the bomber formation, and not the fighters themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So its your assertion that 2 P-51 Groups outnumbered 750 German SE fighters?,
interesting.

As I said not 1 German fighter reached the bombers. Interesting that the Allies are to be penalized because they outnumbered the LW etc, who's fault was that Isegrem?.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
There are multiply examples of how badly US fighter performed when they were unlucky enough to 'enjoy' the full attention of German fighters, ie. JG in early 1944 bounced a P-51 unit approx. 4 times as big as them, and succeeded shooting down over 20 planes for NO losses on the German part.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And their are hundreds of examples of Allied fighters decimateing German SE Fighter Gruppen, whats your point?.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The interesting question would be, how would P-51 fare if put under the same circumstances as 109s and 190s found themselves. What are the chances of survival of lone P-51D with seven Bf 109Ks on his six, from which he cant escape in climb or level flight, while he has to target the bombers, and ignore the fighters whenever possible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? because it excuses German leadership for their shortsightedness? had the Germans instituted an realistic production plan in 1939 - 1940 as well as a realistic pilot training program they might have been better off in 1944 etc.

And why this fixation on the K? it was never used in large numbers etc. The most common Bf 109 operational in Gruppen in 1944 - 1945 was the G-14 with a small number of G-10/K-4 Ie:

Ie, in 1944 looking at loss data starting in Jan 1944 & ending in March 1945 the following Gruppen were operateing G-10/K-4:

III./JG1 - Bf 109G-10/G-14
II./JG2 - Bf 109G-14/K-4
1./JG3 - Bf 109G-10/G-14
III./JG3 - Bf 109G-14/K-4
III./JG4 - Bf 109G-10/G-14/K-4
IV./JG4 - Bf 109G-10/G-14
III.JG6 - Bf 109G-10/G-14
II./JG11 - Bf 109G-14/K-4
III./JG26 - Bf 109G-14/K-4
1./JG27 - Bf 109G-14/K-4
II./JG27 - Bf 109G-14/K-4
III./JG27 -Bf 109K-4
IV./JG27 - Bf 109G-10/K-4
II./JG53 - Bf 109G-14/K-4
II./JG77 - Bf 109K-4
III./JG77 - Bf 109K-4
III./JG 77 - Bf 109G-14/K-4
III./JG300 - Bf 109G-10/G-14
IV/JG300 - Bf 109G-10/G-14

As of May 1945 the following Gruppen were operateing the Bf 109:

II./JG3 - Bf 109G-10
III./JG3 - Bf 109K-4

III./JG4 - Bf 109G-14/K-4
IV./JG4 - Bf 109G-14

III./JG6 - Bf 109G-14
II./JG11 - Bf 109G-10/G-14

I./JG27 - Bf 109G-10/K-4
II./JG27 - Bf 109G-14
III./JG27 - Bf 109K-4

III./JG51 - Bf 109G-14
IV./JG51 - Bf 109G-14/K-4

1./JG52 - Bf109G-14/K-4
II./JG52 - Bf 109G-10/G-14
III./JG52 - Bf 109G-14

1./JG53 - Bf 109G-10/G-14
II./JG53 - Bf 109G-14
III./JG53 - Bf 109K-4
IV,/JG53 - Bf 109G-14

1./JG77 - Bf 109K-4

1./JG300 - Bf 109G-10/G-14
111./JG300 - Bf 109G-10/G-14
IV./JG300 - Bf 109G-14

1./NJG11 - Bf 109G-14
II./NJG11 - Bf 109G-14
III,/NJG11 - Bf 109G-14

Compare thre above to Fw 190 Gruppen etc.


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

Well, this is a rather good quote, as it tells what is the opion of basically every single top ranking German military man, ie.

"The odds were 20 to 1 and often as much as 30 to 1 against us. "

The Allies, and the P-51, won by massive numerical superiority, not by quality. What is surprising, is how well the LW performed under such condtitions, and was capable to defeat allied formations time and time again, despite being heavily outnumbered in all cases. Superior aircraft quality certainly played a large part in this, and partly made up for the numerical disadvantage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course its a good quote, had you actualty read it, Ie, lacking of trained pilots, and shortage of fuel.

Again you ignore that the average US pilot was much beter trained then the average LW pilot etc, their is more to air to air combat then paper stat fighter performance comparisons.

What is clear is despite their inferiority, and short life expectancy, German pilots still climbed into their cockpits, time & time again, and that tells the story in its self, how brave these men were much better then your constantly trying to put your trademark Deutschland über Alles, spin on everything.



Regards, John Waters

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu May 06 2004 at 05:26 PM.]

SkyChimp
05-06-2004, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It appears a P-51B should do 345 mph at SL, and a P-51D about 354mph under normal boosted conditons w/o special grade fuel.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/speed.jpg

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

BSS_Vidar
05-06-2004, 06:16 PM
I tested the speed at SL from this post above ^^^^^
Ten Flat runs w/ 25% gas:
I am a professional pilot so I do know what I'm looking at:

The most I could get out of any of the P-51's was a tad over the 300 mph indicated (in a flat run- no dive) on the A/S indicator. No wind in the game so indicated is close to groundspeed. Seems to me the 'Stang is a little more than 20 mph too slow.

An ex-LW 109/190 pilot frequents my model club meetings here in North Florida. Alot of our members specialize in German WWII aircraft. He said I could quote him but not to give his name. I told him about my post here. He said, the P-51 outclassed the 109 badly from the start. High members of the LW short of Gering and Hitler wanted to take the 109 completely out of production and only make 190's and 262's. (190's purpose only to give cover for 262's during take-offs and landings). He stated 109's did have an even match with the early Spitfires, but then the later verions seem invincible. He loved the 190 because it matched well with the Mustang, but also said trying to run away from a Mustang was futile, especially in a dive.

I've really enjoyed the info pooring in, but I'll take my friends word for it.

S!

Vidar

Aaron_GT
05-06-2004, 11:44 PM
Vidar,

I did the same tests as you, with 25% fuel,
flat runs at sea level (Crimea map, no wind)
and consistenly got 550 kph every time by
the time the first engine overheat warning
appeared. This was based on using WEP, radiator
closed. 550kph (on the speedbar, not from
the instruments) is a little over 340 mph.

I don't know why you would be getting less.
Perhaps it is the same sort of random,
apparently processor based, bug that affects
the P38 roll rate for some, but not others?

My system spec is: Windows XP Home, AMD XP 2000,
1GB RAM, Soundblaster Live Value, Radeon 9800.

Aaron_GT
05-06-2004, 11:46 PM
Just a thought - I presume you trimmed for
level flight as well?

BSS_Vidar
05-07-2004, 01:26 AM
Yeah, I trimmed it out real well. What real pilot wouldn't http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Over 2000 hrs of flite time and I know not to make my job any harder than it's suppose to be http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif The trim was set to where I could let go on the controls with no problem steamin' just above the surface. The indicators needle barely got above the 300 mph calibration mark... and no where near the 350 mark.
I don't think it's my computer. I built it myself to run LOMAC and I don't have any problems with running that:

Ausus A7N8X-E Delux MoBo w/ 400 FBS
Athlon 2600+ XP Processor
1.24G duel channel Corsair DDR Ram
2 SATA Hard drives in RAID config.
5x Samsung CD/DVD
Soundblaster Audigy Gamer ver 5.1 24bit
Asus Radion 9800 Pro 256MB/256bit video card
Sony/Silicon Graphics 24" monitor
Track IR 1 ver 3.03
Cable modem

I tried everything from adjusting prop pitch, and radiator settings to see how it would react. Nuttin' but bogged it down a bit. I'll do it again and take a look at the speed bar. I was just looking at the airspeed indicator. I ususally fly full cockpit settings with no speed bar. I hate metric http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif You might want to try it and see what your airspeed indicator reads.

S!

Vidar

Mc_Wolf
05-07-2004, 04:13 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
P-51 is the best escort fighter! That's I read from most of books.

Some russian fighters after 1942 are indeed very good. Some history experts said The Easten front war caused the 2nd industrial revolution in Russia. This heavy statement alreay make something very clear. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://www2.uufriends.com/images/upload/907000/mclan2004050118443089_big.jpg

Maple_Tiger
05-07-2004, 04:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Vidar,

I did the same tests as you, with 25% fuel,
flat runs at sea level (Crimea map, no wind)
and consistenly got 550 kph every time by
the time the first engine overheat warning
appeared. This was based on using WEP, radiator
closed. 550kph (on the speedbar, not from
the instruments) is a little over 340 mph.

I don't know why you would be getting less.
Perhaps it is the same sort of random,
apparently processor based, bug that affects
the P38 roll rate for some, but not others?

My system spec is: Windows XP Home, AMD XP 2000,
1GB RAM, Soundblaster Live Value, Radeon 9800.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yet again i can beet your speed test. On the deck I can get between 570 and 575km/h TAS. This is with the P-51D though.

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

clint-ruin
05-07-2004, 04:50 AM
Might help if in addition to the general settings [fuel/plane type/map], the instrument used to measure speed is also noted.

Speedbar, no-cockpit TAS, and cockpit speed guage are going to give 3 different figures.

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

CTO88
05-07-2004, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:



All British Mustangs with the -7 engine used 150 octane and 25 lbs boost from summer 44 onwards. By the end of 44, that's more than a dozen squadrons in Britain, iirc.

All ADGB Spitfire IXs in Britain used 150 octane and 25 lbs boost from mid 44, all those in 2nd TAF on the continent used it from Jan 45. That's something like 25 squadrons of Spit IXs in 2nd TAF, iirc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

this 150octane is an possible-option, only ~6500t/year 150octane were produced. it was used to hunt v1's not to fight german fighters. so it isn't any option for FB.

combat losses:
us airforce: 27,000 aircrafts(europe); 45000 deads (only 8&9th AF); 79265 total crewman lost (europe) ;1700000 sorties (europe)

raf: ~22000 ac's; 79281 crewman lost; 1600000 sorties

soviet: 46000 ac's; 27 600 pilots; 4000000 sorties

luftwaffe: 99000 damaged(55%) and lost; 9/43 - 10/44 35000 damaged and lost (24,2% eastern front); 60000 deads (june 41 - 43 30843 dead airmen (50%)!)(1944 17675 deads). 1800000 sorties eastern front.

Italy: 3269 ac's (mostly western front)

romania, finnish, bulgaria, hungary and some more: unknown (all east front)
~1000ac's form this airforces attacked the soviet 22.6.41.

as you see aircraft losses are not the whole story. western allies had lost more planes than soviet and aproximatly 4times more crewman than vvs and pvo. but the germans lost &gt;50% airmen at eastern front. most of them were several times more skilled 41/42 than in those in 1944.

according to christer bergstr¶m, b17 has the highest lost/sortie - rate in ww2, even higher than il2.

Mc_Wolf
05-07-2004, 08:22 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Hi CTO88,

Do you have some complete info about the loss? Very interested to read and learn more. Thanks a lot. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://www2.uufriends.com/images/upload/907000/mclan2004050118443089_big.jpg

lrrp22
05-07-2004, 08:53 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CTO88:
"this 150octane is an possible-option, only ~6500t/year 150octane were produced. it was used to hunt v1's not to fight german fighters. so it isn't any option for FB."
------

That's simply not true. By August of '44 *ALL* 8th AAF fighter groups were using 100/150 grade and by Jan '45 *ALL* 2nd Tactical Air Force and Air Defense of Great Britain Mustang and Spitfire units were using it as well. In other words, by the new year 150 octane was the standard (and only) fuel for all USAAF and RAF fighters based both in Britain and on the Continent.

Besides, the units that were conducting V-1 patrols were concurrently conducting fighter sweeps and long-range escort missions for Bomber Command and Coastal Command daylight operations. 2nd TAF Mustang squadrons based on the continent faced German aircraft regularly from June '44 onward.

150 octane/+25 lb. boost Mustangs were common from the Summer of '44 onward. They were represented in far greater numbers than many of the aircraft that we see in FB. It's quite likely that at any given time in 1945 there were more servicable +25 lb Mustang III's on operations than there were servicable Bf 109K-4's.

Boandlgramer
05-07-2004, 09:11 AM
CTO, some of your numbers are ......

about the USAAF losses, you wrote in Europa about 27000 planes, thats wrong .
the USAAF losses in the ETO were 17082
in the MTO ( southern europe AND AFRICA = thats not in Europe http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif) losses were 10612
all causes

the german airforce lost from september 1 . 1939 till dec.31 , 1944 71965 planes ( according Generalquartiermeister der Deutschen Luftwaffe.
destroyed or damaged ( more than 10 %) all cause.
of course the LW lost in the year 1945 planes too, i am sure not too few, but almost 30000 ?




and i think your numbers of the VVs losses are too small.
can you post your source ?

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/bc-rs/sovair.html

as you can read , the soviets lost 106,400 planes, of course all causes.

if you take every airforce losses: " all causes", then do it with the VVS as well.
otherwise we get a wrong view.

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
The first Time i saw Chuck Yeager, i shot him down. Petrosillius Zwacklmann ( WW2 Hero ).
***********************
Somebody asked me, what i liked most, my chromium-plated Colt or my Helmet with the 4 Stars. I said : you damn Bastard, none of them, the most important thing in my life is my pink underwear.....a well know WW2 General http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
******************************

[This message was edited by Boandlgramer on Fri May 07 2004 at 08:28 AM.]

Boandlgramer
05-07-2004, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:



All British Mustangs with the -7 engine used 150 octane and 25 lbs boost from summer 44 onwards. By the end of 44, that's more than a dozen squadrons in Britain, iirc.

All ADGB Spitfire IXs in Britain used 150 octane and 25 lbs boost from mid 44, all those in 2nd TAF on the continent used it from Jan 45. That's something like 25 squadrons of Spit IXs in 2nd TAF, iirc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

this 150octane is an possible-option, only ~6500t/year 150octane were produced. it was used to hunt v1's not to fight german fighters. so it isn't any option for FB.

combat losses:
us airforce: 27,000 aircrafts(europe); 45000 deads (only 8&9th AF); 79265 total crewman lost (europe) ;1700000 sorties (europe)

raf: ~22000 ac's; 79281 crewman lost; 1600000 sorties

soviet: 46000 ac's; 27 600 pilots; 4000000 sorties

luftwaffe: 99000 damaged(55%) and lost; 9/43 - 10/44 35000 damaged and lost (24,2% eastern front); 60000 deads (june 41 - 43 30843 dead airmen (50%)!)(1944 17675 deads). 1800000 sorties eastern front.

Italy: 3269 ac's (mostly western front)

romania, finnish, bulgaria, hungary and some more: unknown (all east front)
~1000ac's form this airforces attacked the soviet 22.6.41.

as you see aircraft losses are not the whole story. western allies had lost more planes than soviet and aproximatly 4times more crewman than vvs and pvo. but the germans lost &gt;50% airmen at eastern front. most of them were several times more skilled 41/42 than in those in 1944.

according to christer bergstr¶m, b17 has the highest lost/sortie - rate in ww2, even higher than il2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and about your " westallied losses ( Aircrafts)in Europe were higher than the VVS , see above http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
The first Time i saw Chuck Yeager, i shot him down. Petrosillius Zwacklmann ( WW2 Hero ).
***********************
Somebody asked me, what i liked most, my chromium-plated Colt or my Helmet with the 4 Stars. I said : you damn Bastard, none of them, the most important thing in my life is my pink underwear.....a well know WW2 General http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
******************************

Kurfurst__
05-07-2004, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:Interesting as all this 'how many planes' stuff is, It's quite irrelevant as you are attempting to put a material spin on the subject. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Turning another 360 degree spin on it, John? The claim was the LW was 'virtually destroyed on WF'. And now you claim number of fighters present is just - 'irrevelant'?

Pardon me, but to actually destroy an airforce, not only in wishful thinking and in imagination, you have to physically destroy it, too. The exact opposite is happening if the airforce in question in fact suceeds in INCREASING it`s strenght despite all efforts.. No sorry, John, despite all the Allied efforts, the Jagdwaffe just got stronger and stronger. The Allies had the upper hand because their forces, as being supported by a MUCH larger industrial base, increased at a faster rate.

Rather 'virtually', I must say, since their force increased with time, not decreased, and they made a very large number of sorties, ie. in December 1944 LW fighters did 11053 take-offs, scored 552 victories for a loss of 527 of their own (translates to an avarage of 4.7% loss rate, instead of your stated "10-20%"), during which they were heavily outnumbered, ie. US fighter sorties against Germany amounted 35 487 fighter sorties including 21 867 escort sorties.**

In January, in the EF they did 6816 takeoffs, scored 395 victories for 140 lost of their own, in February 45 they doubled the amount to 12 255 fighter sorties with 443 victories for 260 fighters lost, a loss ratio of 2-2.1%.

* See Bf 109K, Camoflage and Markings, Japo Publishing
** See : Table 128 - Combat Sorties Flown By Fighters in Theaters vs Germany, By Theater and By Type of Sortie: Jan 1943 to May 1945.....Page 229 of Army Air Forces Statistical Digest.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The LWs immidiate problems were not airacraft numbers availability etc. Ie, from August 1944 to mid Nov 1944, German single engine fighter strength increased from 1,900 to 3,300 fighters.

This allowed the Jadgwaffe to form 6 new Gruppen, as well as increaseing Staffel sise from 12 to 16 aircraft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pardon me, John - are you talking about an AF that is 'virtually destroyed', yet it`s busy to raise newer units?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Problem was A), not eneough fuel, Ie, OKL ordered J2 fuel was to be strictly conserved Ie:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHAT the HECK does the _DIESE 'J-2' jet fuel_ has to do with the fuel situation of the LW, John? The ONLY plane that used it was the Me 262, and Arado 234, none of the other, common piston engined fighters used it.

As for the actual data, the LW by late 1944 largely run only it`s fighter for combat, other types seeing reduced action, large bombers were practically grounded. Depsite that, the LW avgas consumption in Novemebr/December 1944 amounted 45 000 tons/month, production being 35-40000 ton/month, but the reservers were still huge, ie. 160 000 tons of avgas held in reserve at the same time.

This can be compared to the allegadly 'widespread' use of 150 grade fuel by the allies, ie. 20 000 tons by the US 8th, at a reduced boost, and 2000 tons by the RAF`s UK based units in automn 1944, largely Spitfire IXs.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As well as stocks of B4 & C3 were running out, as well as fuel requirements for Bodenplatte ate away most of Germany last remaning AV fuel stocks._ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes fuel did start to run out, but a very slow rate, not until April 1945 was this a severe problem, ie. until the very end by when the war was decided on the ground. Ie. in end February 1945 stocks were still over 100 000 tons of avgas, enough for 2-3 months of operation even if the production cuts to zero..

As for the claim that Bodenplatte ate away the remaining fuel stocks - that`s more than just ridiculus, John, how can a lousy sinlge operation, involving some 900 fighters ate away 145 000 tons of avgas reserves, as per 1st Jan 1945? A mission with 900 fighters, even when fully tanked up, and 400 of them being 190s, would cosume no more than about 305 tons of avgas - that`s 0.2% of the German avgas reserves at the time...



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
C). Which goes with b) as German fighter pilot training was sub par Ie:*

The average Luftwaffe fighter pilot in 1942 recieved 210 hours flying time, in 1943, 136 hours, by the begining of 1944 112 hours, but this is misleading as in reality the averagage German pilot, only recieved an actual 20 - 34 hours experience, in the operational aircraft, they were to fly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sub-par to whom, John? Ie. fighter pilots in the USAAF didn`t receive any more training, ie. it`s been stated by P-38 pilots that the training was poor, and neither the USAAF pilot`s spent more than 25-30 hours in the plane they were to fly, ie. the P-38.

Not to mention the fact that the USAAF`s training system was poor, it didn`t prepere the pilot`s for actual combat, rather than just flying the plane. ie.:

" We new P-38 trainees were lucky in many respects; we had been selected to and given our dream. Also, we would be trained in the aircraft that we would go to war in, and many combat returnees were just starting to enter the instructor ranks.

The major problems included such as a disgruntled body of old instructors who had no incentive and consequently cared less about the trainees, assimilating new ideas, or improving on what they knew which was next to criminally negligent. This super airplane needed to have its operational knowledge developed way beyond what had ever been conceived. These Instructors were stuck in the training command with no hope of promotion and all applications to get out refused. An absurd stagnation developed at all levels. Now their class mates were starting to return from combat as Captains and in some cases Colonels, generally two grades higher in rank.

This obstruction was compounded by politics, both inside the Military and civilian. Bulletin Boards were layers thick with directives - don't do this -- don't do that - not one carrot - not one reward.

One of the most blatant "don'ts" was the prohibition of all individual combat between themselves, the Air Force, Navy, and Marine fighters. All these pilots were more than willing, wanted to sharpen their skills, and learn from the experienced Navy and Marine fighter pilots just back from the Pacific War. No - No - No, the navy even put out patrols of specially painted fighters to prevent it. Numbers taken and court marshals were threatened - No Dog Fights, no gunnery, no way to integrate acrobatics and individual combat, and no way to learn how to avoid an iron hose full of API from being run up your six.

We did get a lot of close formation - that was good. Also, lots of "rat racing" around clouds - a lot of fun. Instructors had been watching Battle of Britain movies and thought air combat was still done in trail. The Germans had invented "finger four" spread out combat in WWI and had been using it with deadly effectiveness ever since. No one was listening except the guys just back from North Africa. So simple, but so complex in its subtleties, and effectiveness in offence as well as defense that it just whiffs over the heads of those that had never experienced it in combat. Like a complex football play, an instructor had to display it on a blackboard and insert every player into every position and force him to visualize every move at every second as it is played out. From all this the integrity of a combat formation is developed. All must be able to maneuver violently, see everything, be seen by everyone and maintain his area of responsibility in a "mixmaster" environment. Practice would develop a comfortable feel for it. Trouble was, there were few Don Blakeslee types out there demanding inflexible objectives until late in '44."




<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As of December 1 1944 Jagdkorps 1 returns showed 1000 SE fighters on strength. From Dec 2 - 31 Westren front & Reich defense SE fighter losses COMBAT ONLY were 617 SE fighters, with 500 pilots KIA/MIA etc. and this total doesent include losses Other causes etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good, this CAN be compared to Allied losses of the same time, ie. JaPo states 527 German s-e fighters lost in air combat (see above), the rest likely being lost to AAA.

Now, for the period of Dec 1944, the USAAF lost 211 aircraft to enemy fighters in ETO, further 28 in MTO. British losses are unknown, but certainly there were many, the 2nd TAF oing combat over the Ardennes almost every day, and there were known cases of British bombers being badly mauled in winter 44/45, when daring to operate in pure daylight, ie. on 23rd December 7 Lancesters and a Mosquito was shot down w/o any losses by JG 26.



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

Once again Isegrem, as we have went over in the past repeatedly, 8th AF missions did not stop after Octobers 2nd Schweinfurt raid. Operations were continued within escort range.

In November 1943 8th AF raids began in increased intensity throughout November despite the losses from the October Schweinfurt' raid, Ie, Bremen was hit by 491 B-17s etc, December 11 523 bombers hit Emden, Dec 13 649 bombers hit targets in Germany, December 16, 535 hit Bremen, Dec 20 472 hit Bremen again, Dec 22 Osnabruck & Munster, Dec 30th 650 bombers hit Ludwigshafen etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny that they were so keen to stay waaaaay away from Schweinfurt, i.e going against lightly defended, closer targets, and ALL DEEP PENETRATIONS INTO GERMANY WERE SUSPENDED.

Historical fact. It doesn`t matter how much you twist and turn it, 1943 was about a series of paralyizing defeats for the USAAF, ie. Ploisti, Scheinfurt, Regensburg etc, which were on the other hand grand success for the LW.

Your story about the USAAF 'defeating' the LW in `43 is nonsensical, to put it mildly.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW operational SOP despite orders was BF 109s engaged the escorts, while the Fws etc engaged the bombers. Ie, Sturmgruppen generaly operated with an conventional escort 4 times their size. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, this is pure fiction on your part. Bf 109s never became pure anti fighter units, it was never SOP for them to escort 190s, especially as many units didn`t have 190s at all etc.. Sturmgruppes were specialized units with heavy Fw190A Sturbocks, and represented a special case. Ie. many 109 aces that are known were specialists of killing heavy bombers.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As to one on one these are 'tunel vision' views, focused on on individual fighter performance paper stats, which dont reflect actual operational performance, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Operational performance is a, exegerate by you b, Is largely due to overwheliming numerical superiority, not plane or pilot quality. ANY moron can shot down planes when there is 8 vs. ONE.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>in fact if one was to judge the success of fighters by achievements in their roles both the P-47 & P-51 dominated the Bf 109.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is good for a joke, John. Ie. if we compare actual combat record of a single Wing of Hungarian Bf 109G-6s we find that in 11 months during 1944, with 649 sorties they succeeded bringing down 61 enemy 4-engined, 32 twin-engined (P-38s), and 14 s-e enemy aircraft, a total of 107 enemy a/c for a loss of 78 a/c and 30 pilots, under extreme numerical disadvantage etc.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The interesting thing is if you compare the most common Bf 109 in 1944 & 45 which was the Bf 109G-14, vs the P-51B/C/D you dont see any marked superiority in any area even in ROC, both are very close etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s really interesting, because you are wrong in every aspect... 1st, the most common type of Bf 109s was the similiar performace G-10, G-/AS, K-4 in 44/45, see the details elsewhere.

As for ROC - the G-14 would climb at ~4500 fpm, this is markedly better than the P-51`s typical ~3300-3400 fpm. In fact even old models of Bf 109G easily outclimbed the P-51, ie.

Climb rates expressed in m/sec.

Alt__P-51D_____Me109G-2*_____Me109K-4

0km___17.5_______20.6________24.5
1km___17.6_______22.5________24.7
2km___17.8_______23.6________23.5
3km___15.9_______19.5________22.4
4km___14.3_______17.2________21.9
5km___14.0_______16.6________20.2
6km___13.6_______15.4________17.5
7km___11.6_______12.9________15.0
8km____9.4_______10.4________12.5
9km____7.1________8.0________10.0_

*at reduced, 30 min military rating. All others refer to full power climbs.

Acceleration, as calculated by Greg Shaw. At SL, at Full Throttle, from 250mph TAS:

in feet/seconds


109 K-4 : 6.85
109 G-14: 5.59
109 G-10: 5.50
109 G-2 : 4.62
109 G-6 : 4.22

P-51D-25: 3.34

The Mustang D would show little to no advantage in level speed at low levels, ie. P-51D`s top speed at SL was 354mph according to British testing with a good quality airplane, P-51Bs were doing 345mph, while G-14s would do 353mph. The P-51D would have considerable speed advantage at medium high altitudes vs. the basic G-14 types, unfortunately most G-14s were built with the high altitude /AS engine, and they saw action at the same time the P-51s arrived, ie. early 1944. In high altitudes, G-10s and G-14/AS were faster than P-51D, the 109K even more so.

But acceleration, ie. the ability to quickly regain E quickly for new manouvers, is far more important than theoretical max. speed which is only achieved after minutes of straight level flight etc.


Roll rates at typical dogfight speeds favoured the Bf 109s again... Handling is an important aspect in air combat, too, how much forgiving the plane etc. Again thew Bf 109 was known for an exteremely forgiving plane with bening stall characteristics, while the the P-51 was infamous for vicious stalls with no warning, large rollings occuring during stall etc.

Dive performance was again not much to speak for, ie. as a Mustang pilot told:

American pilot Robert C.Curtis remmembers :

"My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed, unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane and regained control, but the 109 got away.
On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds"



Fact is, the only areas where the P-51 could factually compete was 1, Level speed performance 2, Dive performance 3 , Zoom performance.

In all other aspects it was inferior, many of those like ROC, handling, Accelerations are keys to either individual or large scale dogfights.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is a perfect example of tunnel vision, John. The P-51s alleged 'superiority' hardly shown by in examples, when Mustangs, massively outnumbering the foe, who is busy attacking the bomber formation, and not the fighters themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So its your assertion that 2 P-51 Groups outnumbered 750 German SE fighters?,
interesting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why don`t you tell us the total number of US fighter sorties flown at that day, John?
It`s called selective quoting.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As I said not 1 German fighter reached the bombers. Interesting that the Allies are to be penalized because they outnumbered the LW etc, who's fault was that Isegrem?. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who`s fault are such blatantly stupid questions John like 'who`s fault was it'?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And their are hundreds of examples of Allied fighters decimateing German SE Fighter Gruppen, whats your point?.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...yet somehow the end result being a lot less German SE fighters lost in WW2 than Allied - why is that, John?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And why this fixation on the K? it was never used in large numbers etc. The most common Bf 109 operational in Gruppen in 1944 - 1945 was the G-14 with a small number of G-10/K-4 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. The G-14 wasn`t the most common, the high altitude Bf 109 types, ie. /AS types, G-10 and K-4 were the most common ones. The K-4 was used in large numbers, in fact, larger than any of the other 'ultimate' fighters of the war, ie. Spit XIV, Tampest, P-51H etc, with the possible exception of the La-7.

German strenght reports, ie. RL2III/1158 show the following percantage of Bf 109 types with 1st line units, on 31st January 1945 :

G-6s : 4.9 %
G-14s : 30%
G-10, G-14/AS, K-4(see later) : 65%
Bf 109s made up 57.5% of the first line fighter strenght of the LW at the time.

The trend is clear, the high altidue 109s with very similiar performance (ie. G-14/AS 680km/h@7500m, G-10 690km/h@7500, K-4 715 km/h@7500m. Climb performance was even better matched, as the 109Ks speed advantage was due to its refined aerodynamics, that don`t effect climb much) were the most likely opponents to be met. Not without a reason, total number of these types produced was no less than ~6500 examples in 44/45.

K-4s represnted themselves in numbers, ie. in the very month of it`s introduction, October 1944, immidiately 208 saw action in the 1st line units etc. By January 1944, 314 K-4s were in service, or 25% of the total 1st line Bf 109 force; every 4th 109 was a K-4, two out three was either a K-4, a G-10, or a /AS. The figures and percentage are likely to increased further later on, February, March etc.

See RL2III/1158.


For comparison, the USAAF employed the following types vs. Germany in Jan 1945 in it`s 1st line units, as per the USAAF`s statistical digest :

562 P-38s or 11%
2285 P-47s or 45%
2053 P-51s or 41%
102 Night fighters.
Total in first line : 5002 fighters

In other words, 66% of the USAAF`s fighter force was made up by P-47s and P-38s at that time, the P-51 being only the 2nd most important USAAF fighter (including old P-51A as well).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ie, in 1944 looking at loss data starting in Jan 1944 & ending in March 1945 the following Gruppen were operateing G-10/K-4: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*long part cut off*

Jhon, it appears that even in your source the G-10 and K-4 are very widespread in use, even in the unit`s listing, almost every unit has them...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Well, this is a rather good quote, as it tells what is the opion of basically every single top ranking German military man, ie.

"The odds were 20 to 1 and often as much as 30 to 1 against us. "

The Allies, and the P-51, won by massive numerical superiority, not by quality. What is surprising, is how well the LW performed under such condtitions, and was capable to defeat allied formations time and time again, despite being heavily outnumbered in all cases. Superior aircraft quality certainly played a large part in this, and partly made up for the numerical disadvantage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course its a good quote, had you actualty read it, Ie, lacking of trained pilots, and shortage of fuel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, so you say a good Mustang pilot would win against 30 bad pilots flying Bf 109Ks ? 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://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"The odds were 20 to 1 and often as much as 30 to 1 against us. " - everything else was of tertiary importance.

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

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

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

Kurfurst__
05-07-2004, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
By August of '44 *ALL* 8th AAF fighter groups were using 100/150 grade <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

... at a reduced boost with little gain compared to 100 grde fuel.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>and by Jan '45 *ALL* 2nd Tactical Air Force and Air Defense of Great Britain Mustang and Spitfire units were using it as well. In other words, by the new year 150 octane was the standard (and only) fuel for all USAAF and RAF fighters based both in Britain and on the Continent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, sorry, on the continent there was also the 9th US AF and the 15th AAF on the continent, using *ZERO* amount of 150 grade, as well as the 2nd Brit TAF was using it *only for Spitfires* and *not* for any other types because of short supply, ie. this means *NONE* of the British Tempests, Typhoons used the fuel, *NONE* of the British and US fighters in Italy and the mediterrean.

In fact, it was about 40-45 Squadrodns of Spitfire, or roughly 500-800 planes out of the many thousend Allied fighters that actually used 150 grade fuel by 1945.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>2nd TAF Mustang squadrons based on the continent faced German aircraft regularly from June '44 onward.150 octane/+25 lb. boost Mustangs were common from the Summer of '44 onward. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, they were not. The 2nd TAF had

ad1, Very few Mustang Squadrons issued
ad2, Didn`t receive 150 grade fuel until 1945.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>They were represented in far greater numbers than many of the aircraft that we see in FB. It's quite likely that at any given time in 1945 there were more servicable +25 lb Mustang III's on operations than there were servicable Bf 109K-4's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As per your very own statements, there were no more than 15 RAF Squadrons equipped with Mustang IIIs. Every squadron is made up by 20 planes, but this is a maximum rarely reached in actual combat.Many of these didn`t receive V-1650-7, or 150 grade fuel. So it`s 200-300 planes MAXIMUM, but likely a lot less 100-200 that runs on +25lbs.

Compared to that, there were 314 K-4s alone in January 1945 in LW service, save the other types. Not that I say a +25lbs RAF Mustang wouldn`t be acceptable at 383mph SL speed, but as per historcial fact it wasn`t anything 'common'.

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

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

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

lrrp22
05-07-2004, 11:15 AM
Typical Isegrim,

As usual, all your comaprisons rely on best data for the 109 vs. worst data for the P-51.

Your climb rate and acceleration numbers are, of course, for a P-51D with 269 gallons of fuel and 67" WEP, i.e.- worst possible.

I'd like to know, at what 'high altitudes' (or low for that matter) was the G-14/AS and G-10 faster than the P-51/B/C/D? The Merlin P-51's were capable of anywhere from 704 to 729 kph at 7600 meters and anywhere from 578 kph to 652 kph at sea level. Your sea level Mustang speeds are laughable, as has been proven to you repeatedly.

Why the fondness for RAF tests when they suit your purposes yet you dismiss them outright when they don't?

Kurfurst__
05-07-2004, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As usual, all your comaprisons rely on best data for the 109 vs. worst data for the P-51.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Avarage 109, avarage P-51.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Merlin P-51's were capable of anywhere from 704 to 729 kph at 7600 meters and anywhere from 578 kph to 652 kph at sea level. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-51D could do 570kph/354mph at SL at 67", apprx. 582kph/362mph at 71" (8th AAF), 379mph at 81" (RAF`s ADGB).
Max. speed was 438 mph at 7600m regardless of fuel used.

There was no _operational_ Mustang that did 650+ km/h at SL.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your sea level Mustang speeds are laughable, as has been proven to you repeatedly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/TK589speed.jpg

You have only EMPTY WORDS.

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

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

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

lrrp22
05-07-2004, 01:02 PM
Isegrim,

So you've got one test that shows a lower speed at sea level- there are many others that show higher speeds. Why do you disregard all the others and refer only to this one? How can you declare that *all* P-51D's were capable of only 354 mph at sea level when you have been shown multiple tests that indicate otherwise?

Is it possible and even likely that this single airframe was operating at less than full potential? Doesn't the fact that it was having cooling problems tend to indicate that this is the case? TK589 was a USAAF hand-me-down after all.


Again, why the sudden fixation on British tests? Does this mean that you're finally going to accept the +25 lb. test for the Mustang III/Spit XIV/Tempest V?

BTW, you're right, few if any operational Mustang III's did 650+ kph at sea level, but pretty much any of them did 639-640 kph by mid-late 1944.

Are you going to clarify your statements claiming that the G-14/AS and G-10 were faster than the Mustang at altitude?

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Fri May 07 2004 at 12:44 PM.]

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-07-2004, 01:09 PM
Issy/Kurfy

Give a man enough rope and he'll hang himself... 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

Thanks Issy for providing the proof that the Mustangs in the game are severely undermodelled.

The test you provide is a Mustang with the radiator opened to 8 1/2 inch gap, ie. more than normal as noted by the commentary. This is obviously because the aircraft was being tested continuously. A Mustang with the radiator closed, and which had the opportunity to be completely cooled prior to a run would have a much better result.

Even with the radiator open, the aircraft manages a speed FAR in excess of what the AE FORGOTTEN BATTLES P-51D's can acccomplish.

Now of course, as a scrupulously accurate aerophile, (NOT... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) you will start a new thread on this board, requesting Oleg adjust the speed of the P-51D up to at least the level of this tested P-51D, with the aircraft able to accomplish these speeds with the radiator open to the degree noted. I will expect to see you lobby him for a 379mph sea level speed with the radiator open. I eagarly await your post. Of course if you do not post such a request, we can assume you are biased, uninterested in accuracy, and solely bent on seeing false modelling of aircraft in the sim.

Everyone else should note of course, that the P-51D's speeds are only achieved with MS supercharger gear, and that at altitudes over approx. 10,000 ft, the aircraft would have switched to FS gear and thus register higher speeds to what is shown in this chart.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-07-2004, 01:15 PM
Salute

Further to Issy's comments:

The Mustang IV differs from the earlier Mustang III's in that they were not tuned for low altitude performance. This is the reason that the aircraft is not as fast at sea level.

This test obviously does not invalidate the earlier tests done of the Mustang III's, which were clearly different aircraft, with different engines and airframes.

NeilStirling3
05-07-2004, 01:45 PM
British 150 grade production.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/150y.jpg

hop2002
05-07-2004, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>this 150octane is an possible-option, only ~6500t/year 150octane were produced. it was used to hunt v1's not to fight german fighters. so it isn't any option for FB.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Edited because Neil has just posted, and he can give the exact figures for 150 octane production.

US 8th AF use amounted to approx 20,000 tons per month,iirc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Avarage 109, avarage P-51<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim uses the figures for a 109K4 running on C3 and MW50 at 1.98 ata.

That configuration was only approved for service in late Feb 1945, and according to Butch only a couple of Gruppen ran their 109s at 1.98 ata.

Not exactly average, in other words.

Aaron_GT
05-07-2004, 02:25 PM
"Yeah, I trimmed it out real well. What real pilot wouldn't"

I presumed you would! I am just trying to work
out what the differences might be. I am guessing
that it might be that the ASI in cockpit might
not be reading accurately (or that additional
compensation might be required - I notice that
a lot of RAF documents note corrected ASI). What
do you get from the speed bar?

Maple:
I haven't tested the P51D yet for SL speed.
I tried the P51B as that was the classic
version also used by the RAF with 150 Octane
fuel.

NeilStirling3
05-07-2004, 02:37 PM
From The Hawker Typhoon and Tempest by Francis Mason.

Against this background of tremendous success. Bcamont himself was working to improve the Tempest in its r61e of bomb-destroyer. On 3 July he carried out a trial using 150-grade fuel and 11 Ib boost. this giving a speed of 415 mph at 500 feet (indicated)-and being introduced immediately throughout the Wing. On the 27th he shot down two bombs (at Bexhill and Tenterden) using point harmonization of his cannon-as distinct from spread harmonization. normally adopted-with considerable effect: this unauthorized practice created some friction with No. 11 Group as it had not been cleared officially, but Bcamont nevertheless went ahead and ordered its adoption throughout his Wing. aoain with outstanding success.

Neil.

Aaron_GT
05-07-2004, 02:41 PM
Kurfurst wrote:
"But acceleration, ie. the ability to quickly regain E quickly for new manouvers, is far more important than theoretical max. speed which is only achieved after minutes of straight level flight etc.


Roll rates at typical dogfight speeds favoured the Bf 109s again..."

Actually given the number of attacks that
relied on the unobserved bounce I'd argue
that the following are more important:

* Roll at high speed (to be able to correct
at the last moment of the bounce). Through
the war the tendency was to improve high
speed roll rates. This would not have been
done unless it was of use

* High cruise speed - if you are cruising at
a high speed you are harder to bounce. The
109K4 can manage high speeds, but AFAIK its
cruise is slower.

* Good acceleration in a dive from cruise.
(This is where I differ from SkyChimp. If
I was bounced when at cruise I would throttle
UP with the nose down until the engine
started complaining, so I think excess power
loading is important).

* Heavy firepower to be able to knock down
the enemy on a high speed pass.

* Energy retention.

* Cockpit visibility.

The 109s remained remarkably competitive for
a mid 1930s design even with the P51, but they
lose on the first two criteria. On the last,
it's a bit of a toss up - the 30mm cannon of,
say, the K4, is powerful, but with only 600rpm
total from a single gun its ROF is on the
marginal side to reliably ensure at least one
hit, and two supporting synchronised MG131 not
really enough punch, but do have the advantage
of being concentrated in the nose. I'd say that
the 3 B20s of the La7 probably represents on
of the better armaments produced in numbers.

Aaron_GT
05-07-2004, 02:42 PM
"I don't think it's my computer. I built it myself to run LOMAC and I don't have any problems with running that:"

There seem to be some semi-random bugs going
around. Your system seems moderately similar,
though (AMD and ATI based).

NeilStirling3
05-07-2004, 02:57 PM
Types that used 150 grade.
Spitfire LF IX +25lbs boost.
Spitfire XVI +25lbs boost. Reverted to 100/130 grade and +18lbs boost as of April 1945.
Spifire XIV +21lbs boost.
Spitfire XVIII +21lbs boost Griffon 65 +25lbs boost Griffon 67.
Spitfire F21 +21lbs boost.
Spitfire XIX +21lbs boost.
Mosqito FB VI +25lbs boost.
Mosquito NF XIX +25lbs boost.
Mosquito XXX +25lbs boost and ejector exhausts.
Hornet +25lbs boost.
Tempest II +12lbs boost
Tempest V Sabre IIa +11lbs boost plus written evidence of +13lbs boost.
Mustang III and IV V-1650-7 80"hg.
P38 65"hg.
P47D 67"hg Doc dated Jan 45 reports 70"hg.
P51 B/C/D V-1650-7 72"hg.

Neil.

[This message was edited by NeilStirling3 on Fri May 07 2004 at 02:19 PM.]

Aaron_GT
05-07-2004, 04:02 PM
I just did some more testing. I suspect why
some are getting more like 315 mph from the
P51B is to do with the radiator. It seems it
is semi open unless you cycle it to closed.
With it in the default state in a QMB
I get about 510kph (which is just a shade over
300 on the dial) but cycling it to closed
gives me 550 kph.

The manifold pressure reads 67" Hg.

WWMaxGunz
05-07-2004, 04:06 PM
Aaron, by all your criteria I would go with the FW's as the best overall throughout the war with at the end the Allies catching up in some cases. It's the firepower I find the 190's mostly reigning in but they always have the speed and roll to match, those things were made able to BnZ heavy bombers which only Axis nations had to do.

If the P-47's had carried 2x 20mm's even then they might have edged more into the FW's region and been able to target 262's at longer range but the climb would have suffered and they might have mushed in zoom transition as well. As it is they make good anti-fighter fighters and very good jabos.


Neal

SkyChimp
05-07-2004, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

* Good acceleration in a dive from cruise.
(This is where I differ from SkyChimp. If
I was bounced when at cruise I would throttle
UP with the nose down until the engine
started complaining, so I think excess power
loading is important).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't disagree with that. I simply stated that no plane is going to remaining in a dive at full throttle for very long.

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

PzKpfw
05-07-2004, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Turning another 360 degree spin on it, John? The claim was the LW was 'virtually destroyed on WF'. And now you claim number of fighters present is just - 'irrevelant'?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I do, because they are irrelevant w/o a pilot or fuel to fly them. What you fail to aknowledge is pilot losses, and the effect attrition had on operational Gruppen. It's interesting that the Jagdwaffe as an force was literly replaced 6 times over in WW2. Ie, Galland related:

The Luftwaffe as a whole has 60-70 thousand; officers but this same air force has never got beyond the figure of 7000 aircrew officers..

instead you prefer to try & defelect it useing production numbers when as I already detailed production last post. Anoter example was the immidiate effects of the 8th AF Febuary 20 - 25 'Big Week' operations, the LW was unable to stop an single raid, even though enemy losses were 'appreciable' the fact remained the ratio of kills was so unfavorable as to leave no doubt that defensive operationswould shortly become in some degree uneconomic.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
the Jagdwaffe just got stronger and stronger. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In aircraft numbers yes they did, but as discusdsed before aircraft numbers are irrelevant w/o fuel or trained pilots, nor do production numbers relate the attrition of Jagdwaffe pilots over the Westren Front.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
ie. in December 1944 LW fighters did 11053 take-offs, scored 552 victories for a loss of 527 of their own (translates to an avarage of 4.7% loss rate, instead of your stated "10-20%"), during which they were heavily outnumbered, ie. US fighter sorties against Germany amounted 35 487 fighter sorties including 21 867 escort sorties.**<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

German day fighter losses COMBAT ONLY Dec 1 - Dec 31 1944:

December 2 1944 - 65 AC
December 5 1944 - 75 AC
December 17 1944 - 79 AC.
December 18 1944 - 33 AC.
December 23 1944 - 98 AC.
December 24 1944 - 106 AC.
December 25 1944 - 62 AC.
December 27 1944 - 50 AC.
December 31 1944 - 49 AC.

Total German fighter losses = 617 SE fighters with 500 pilots KIA/MIA, 194 WIA, & 35 POW.

USAAF ETO losses only: all causes from Dec 1 - 31 1944 AC losses were:

Fighters:
316 - 141 E/AC, 163, AA, 62 OC.
Heavy Bombers:
119 - 28 E/AC, 74 AA, 17 OPC.
Medium Bombers:
118 - 42 E/AC, 48 AA, 28 OC.

So actual USAAF losses to enemy fighter action Dec 1 - 31 was 211 AC vs German day fighter losses Combat only of 617 AC. And again German AA was more deadly then German fighters Ie, Dec shows 285 USAAF losses from AA.

Its also interesting that in 1944 66% of US Heavy bomber crews completed their 35 mission tour (compared to 35% in 1942- 1943) & in 1945 81% of US Heavy bomber crews completed their 35 mission tour.

As to the 522 victory claims filed by the LW for Dec, the USAAF suffered 211 losses to EA over december so I assume the other 311 were against the UK etc.

And again Ie, in the Autumn of 1944 total monthly loss rates of the USAAF in the ETO with the exception of a few occcasions remained under 1% of SORTIES flown vs Ger,ma losses of 10 - 20% of SORTIES flown.

In September alone the day fighters claimed 307 AC destroyed vs losses of 371 day fighters. This when compared to sorties flown IE, when compared to USAAF sorties into the German day fighter defence zones, an ratio of 0.7% USAAF vs 14.5% losses.

For November 1944 Jagdkorps reported 155 claims for Allied AC destroyed filed vs 404 day fighter losses. USAAF losses for November 1944 in the ETO were:

Fighters:
298 - 80 E/AC, 164 AA, 54 OC.

Heavy Bombers:
209 - 50 E/AC, 146 AA, 13 OC.

Light & Medium Bombers:
31 - 1 E/AC, 18 AA, 12 OC.

Again German AA is destroying more USAAF AC then fighters.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In January, in the EF they did 6816 takeoffs, scored 395 victories for 140 lost of their own, in February 45 they doubled the amount to 12 255 fighter sorties with 443 victories for 260 fighters lost, a loss ratio of 2-2.1%.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So we have moved to the Eastren Front now for more favorable outlook Isegrem?.

Lets get back to the ETO for Jan Boedenplatte cost the German day fighter force 300 SE fighters.

January 14 alone cost the Reich defence day fighters 69 AC (39 from JG 300/301). Combined German losses Westren front were 139 day fighters. compared to sorties flown this equated to an 41% loss rate.

1 Jagdkorps losses alone for January 1944 ammounted to 30% of sorties flown vs 0.2% USAAF losses.

USAAF ETO losses for Jan 1945 were:

Fighters:
274 - 72 E/AC, 162, AA, 40 OC.

Heavy Bombers:
314 - 49 E/AC, 222 AA, 43 OC.

Light/Medium Bombers:
58 - 28 AA, 30 OC.

Feb - March are even worse for German day fighters as defensive sorties by German day fighters virtualy decline over 70%, Ie, March 2 44 SE day fighters lost, March 24 40 SE fighters lost, April 7, 133 fighters lost etc.

Febuary 1945 USAAF ETO losses were:

Fighters:
299 - 38, to E/AC, 208 AA, 53 OC.

Heavy Bombers:
196 - 49, E/AC, 222 AA, 43 OC.

Light & Medium Bombers:
85 - 4 E/AC, 68 AA, 13 OC.

March 1945 USAAF ETO Losses:

Fighters:
419 - 76 E/AC, 244 AA, 99 OC.

Heavy Bomberd:
266 - 63 E/AC, 164 AA, 39 OC.

Light & Medium Bombers:
89 - 5 E/AC, 52 AA, 32 OC.

April 1945 USAAF ETO Losses:

Fighters:
343 - 36 E/AC, 207 AA, 100 OC.

Heavy Bombers:
190 - 72 E/AC, 77 AA, 41 OC.

Light & Medium Bombers:
46 - 11 E/AC, 18 AA, 17 OC.

May 1945 USAAF ETO Losses:

Fighters:
36 - 5 E/AC, 5 AA, 16 OC.

Heavy Bombers:
7 - 1 E/AC, 4 AA, 2 OC.

Light & Medium Bombers:
0

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

Pardon me, John - are you talking about an AF that is 'virtually destroyed', yet it`s busy to raise newer units?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being rather selective arn't we Isegrem as all this led to Decembers losses as well as showing LW AC production had increased.

For a look at USAAF training sugest you look at Astor Gerald. The Mighty Eighth

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

Funny that they were so keen to stay waaaaay away from Schweinfurt, i.e going against lightly defended, closer targets, and ALL DEEP PENETRATIONS INTO GERMANY WERE SUSPENDED.

Historical fact. It doesn`t matter how much you twist and turn it, 1943 was about a series of paralyizing defeats for the USAAF, ie. Ploisti, Scheinfurt, Regensburg etc, which were on the other hand grand success for the LW.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny you first state all 8th AF operations ceased after the 2nd Schweinfurt as 'historical' fact then here concede that operations did continue. And as to Schweinfurt no one here ever implied that these were not LW successes etc. In fact these were the Apex of LW success vs US heavy bombers, from teir it was all down hill for the LW.


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

Sorry, this is pure fiction on your part. Bf 109s never became pure anti fighter units, it was never SOP for them to escort 190s, especially as many units didn`t have 190s at all etc.. Sturmgruppes were specialized units with heavy Fw190A Sturbocks, and represented a special case. Ie. many 109 aces that are known were specialists of killing heavy bombers.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrem in fact, if you read Jagdwaffe war diary's from the time you will see that the 109 Gruppen ofted acted as Liecht Gruppen defending the Fws who were acting as heavy fighters against the Bombers.

Yes Bf 109 pilots had success in fact you can find out plenty about both subjects in: Weal John. Bf 109 F/G/K Aces On Westren Front



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



This is good for a joke, John. Ie. if we compare actual combat record of a single Wing of Hungarian Bf 109G-6s we find that in 11 months during 1944, with 649 sorties they succeeded bringing down 61 enemy 4-engined, 32 twin-engined (P-38s), and 14 s-e enemy aircraft, a total of 107 enemy a/c for a loss of 78 a/c and 30 pilots, under extreme numerical disadvantage etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take it these Hungarian pilots were of a much higher quality then their German allies Ie, JG 52's 6 weeks of Sternluge missions over Roumania netted them; 15 US AC includeing 3, 4 engine bombers (2 B-24, 1 B-17). JG 52 ended their Sternluge operations with 2 operational Bf 109Gs.


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


It`s really interesting, because you are wrong in every aspect... 1st, the most common type of Bf 109s was the similiar performace G-10, G-/AS, K-4 in 44/45, see the details elsewhere.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No they were not thew G-14 was interesting how you prefer to use the G-10 & K-4 in compsarison despitre their fewer numbers compared to the G-14

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As for ROC - the G-14 would climb at ~4500 fpm, this is markedly better than the P-51`s typical ~3300-3400 fpm. In fact even old models of Bf 109G easily outclimbed the P-51, ie.

Climb rates expressed in m/sec.

Alt__P-51D_____Me109G-2*_____Me109K-4

0km___17.5_______20.6________24.5
1km___17.6_______22.5________24.7
2km___17.8_______23.6________23.5
3km___15.9_______19.5________22.4
4km___14.3_______17.2________21.9
5km___14.0_______16.6________20.2
6km___13.6_______15.4________17.5
7km___11.6_______12.9________15.0
8km____9.4_______10.4________12.5
9km____7.1________8.0________10.0_

*at reduced, 30 min military rating. All others refer to full power climbs.



Fact is, the only areas where the P-51 could factually compete was 1, Level speed performance 2, Dive performance 3 , Zoom performance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Intersting data etc, and irrelevant when presented against actual performance vs losses.

The standard Bf 109G-14 climb rate was 16m/s which compared well with The P-51B/C/D Ie,


Bf 109G-14:

568km/h (350mph)@ S/L @ 1740PS
665km/h (413mph)@ 5000m @ 1700PS
625km/h (390mph)@ 7000m
Initial ROC (steig u. kampf) - 16m/s (6min to 6000m).

P-51B/C V-1650-3 @ SL:
350 - 370mph @ SL
425mph @ 15000ft
430-450mph @ 30000ft
ROC 3400fpm @ 5000ft

P-51D V-1650-7
372-373mph. @ SL
400mph + @ 10000ft
435mph @ 25000ft
ROC 3300fpm @ 5000ft

Yet these inferior P-51s were killing German experten Ie, in the first half of 1944 P-51s flamed Wolf Dietrich Wolf (162 victories), Josef Zwernemann (126 victories), P-47s took out, Egon Mayer (102 victories), Kurt Uben (110 victories), Hans Philipp (206 victories) etc.

Wolfgang Spate (99 victories) had some interesting comments on the P-51:

Of all my many air battles and adventures, I would have to say I had the most respect for the Mustang. The Mustang's armament and equiptment were superior to ours.

Thet had better sighting equiptment their sights could automaticlly compensate for our movcments; they could attack from higher altitudes, and in high speed dives, they'd fly through our formation and still be able to pull out at low altitudes. Thanks to their high performance engines, they would still be able to attack our formation from underneath. So we realy had to look out for those Mustangs.


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

Why don`t you tell us the total number of US fighter sorties flown at that day, John?
It`s called selective quoting.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And your exibiting selective memorty. As usual your avoiding the issue again Isegrem, exactly how many Fighters were in an US Fighter Group Ie, US 2 fighter Groups vs 750 German SE fighters. From that you should be able to deduce how many planes in 2 FGs could be in the air.





Ahh.




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

Wrong. The G-14 wasn`t the most common, the high altitude Bf 109 types, ie. /AS types, G-10 and K-4 were the most common ones. The K-4 was used in large numbers, in fact, larger than any of the other 'ultimate' fighters of the war, ie. Spit XIV, Tampest, P-51H etc, with the possible exception of the La-7.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem here is I.m comparing common fighters, well your useing the more favorably compared & smsller numbered Bf 109G-10/K-4

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
German strenght reports, ie. RL2III/1158 show the following percantage of Bf 109 types with 1st line units, on 31st January 1945 :

G-6s : 4.9 %
G-14s : 30%
G-10, G-14/AS, K-4(see later) : 65%
Bf 109s made up 57.5% of the first line fighter strenght of the LW at the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny loss records & unit strengths dont show these numbers, Funny that in May 1945 we still see more G-14 then G-10/or K-4.


[QUOTE
Jhon, it appears that even in your source the G-10 and K-4 are very widespread in use, even in the unit`s listing, almost every unit has them...


Does it Isegrem, considerimng I only posted 109 units that had an G-10 or K-4 in them many other 109 units were left out as all they had was G-14s.


Regards, John Waters

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Sat May 08 2004 at 05:07 AM.]

k5054
05-08-2004, 04:50 AM
So, if the Hungarians lost 78 fighters and 30 pilots, how come when the LW lost 600 fighters they had 700 pilots killed missing pow and wounded (I appreciate that wounded pilots can fly home, but did nobody bale out successfully?) I note that throughout Girbig's six months to oblivion the number stack up this way, and I think LW losses are being suppressed,
Ise shouldn't talk about newly formed units if he doesn't talk about the ones that were destroyed. Where are the US or RAF units being taken out of the line because of casualties?

Kurfurst__
05-08-2004, 05:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Yes I do, because they are irrelevant w/o a pilot or fuel to fly them. What you fail to aknowledge is pilot losses, and the effect attrition had on operational Gruppen. It's interesting that the Jagdwaffe as an force was literly replaced 6 times over in WW2. Ie, Galland related:

_ The Luftwaffe as a whole has 60-70 thousand; officers but this same air force has never got beyond the figure of 7000 aircrew officers._. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny how Galland`s reference to the _entire LW`s_ crew personnel suddenly applied to the Jagdwaffe alone, officers alone not counting NCOs etc.

"Lies, damned lies, statistics."



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Anoter example was the immidiate effects of the 8th AF Febuary 20 - 25 'Big Week' operations, the LW was unable to stop an single raid, even though enemy losses were 'appreciable' the fact remained _the ratio of kills was so unfavorable as to leave no doubt that defensive operationswould shortly become in some degree uneconomic_.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How does an operations becoming uneconomic, a small, cheap fighter for a expensive and large heavy bomber ?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
the Jagdwaffe just got stronger and stronger. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In aircraft numbers yes they did, but as discusdsed before aircraft numbers are irrelevant w/o fuel or trained pilots, nor do production numbers relate the attrition of Jagdwaffe pilots over the Westren Front. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [/QUOTE]


Not only in aircraft numbers, also in number of pilots and the sorties flown, as proven above, ie. 10-15 000 sorties were flonw per month in December- February by LW fighters. It`s a fact John. To prove your claim, ie. the Jagdwaffe was 'virtually destroyed', you will have to show evidence, ie.:

-large decrease of fighter sorties
-large decrease of fighter pilots
-large decrease of fighter numbers

So far we only evidenced the contrary.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>German day fighter losses COMBAT ONLY Dec 1 - Dec 31 1944:

Total German fighter losses = 617 SE fighters with 500 pilots KIA/MIA, 194 WIA, & 35 POW. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what John? The Germans lost 617 fighters, so what? They could replace them, that`s the problem with your ideas, John. Simply the Germans could build fighter faster, train pilots faster than the Allies could shoot them down. As I said, the Allied air superiority late in the war was much more like the increasing number of Allied capabilities, and not because decreasing German capabilities. Allied strenght increased faster than the German`s etc.

You know know the fun part with your theory, all this joke about the LW being defeated 'already in 43' http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif , is that despite 'defeated', 'destroyed', they were pretty much alive in early 44, mid 44, automn 44, end of 44, and 45, only that they had more planes, more pilots, and flew more sorties than ever before.

Sorry John, the historical fact is that the LW kept growing in strenght until the very last months of the war.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>USAAF ETO losses only: all causes from Dec 1 - 31 1944 AC losses were:

Fighters:
316 - 141 E/AC, 163, AA, 62 OC.
Heavy Bombers:
119 - 28 E/AC, 74 AA, 17 OPC.
Medium Bombers:
118 - 42 E/AC, 48 AA, 28 OC.

So actual USAAF losses to enemy fighter action Dec 1 - 31 was 211 AC vs German day fighter losses Combat only of 617 AC. And again German AA was more deadly then German fighters Ie, Dec shows 285 USAAF losses from AA. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It appears that the German fighter losses in combat missions were 617 fighters on all fronts, whereas the USAAF lost 553 combat aircraft at the time, the losses in MTO, British and Soviet losses not being counted... as per AA, it was always a big toll of losses, but it`s fair to assume that many US planes that were shot down by LW fighters without a trace were also counted as AAA losses.

It hardly shows the things you would want it to show.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Its also interesting that in 1944 66% of US Heavy bomber crews completed their 35 mission tour (compared to 35% in 1942- 1943) & in 1945 81% of US Heavy bomber crews completed their 35 mission tour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don`t find it anything special. The number of US bombers in 44/45 were many times that of 42, in percantage shooting down 25 planes out of a total of 200 (42) will be higher than shooting down 100 planes from 2000 in 1944.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As to the 522 victory claims filed by the LW for Dec, the USAAF suffered 211 losses to EA over december so I assume the other 311 were against the UK etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, save inaccuracies etc., main thing is it proves the LW managed to arrive at roughly 1:1 exchange rate, despite massively outnumbered on all fronts.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And again Ie, in the Autumn of 1944 total monthly loss rates of the USAAF in the ETO with the exception of a few occcasions remained under 1% of SORTIES flown vs Ger,ma losses of 10 - 20% of SORTIES flown.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John, you are parrotting the wisful thinking again, there was no 10-20% loss rate per sortie, I can repeat it for you as many times you want until you understand:

December 1944, 11053 take-offs by LW fighter, a loss of 527 of their own, translates to an avarage of
4.7% loss rate per sortie.
Facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In January, in the EF they did 6816 takeoffs, scored 395 victories for 140 lost of their own, in February 45 they doubled the amount to 12 255 fighter sorties with 443 victories for 260 fighters lost, a loss ratio of 2-2.1%.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So we have moved to the Eastren Front now for more favorable outlook Isegrem?. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, that`s what is given in the source, not my selection even though it appears that the 'virtually destroyed' were pretty much alive in 1945, don`t you think?

C`mon John, admit you were just dreaming for a bit.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Lets get back to the ETO for Jan Boedenplatte cost the German day fighter force 300 SE fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

... and a similiar number of Allied fighters, most of the German losses being caused by their own AAA... one must add.

Previously you also stated Bodenplatte used up the German avgas reserves, yet it was shown that it was a drop in the ocean.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
January 14 alone cost the Reich defence day fighters 69 AC (39 from JG 300/301). Combined German losses Westren front were 139 day fighters. compared to sorties flown this equated to an 41% loss rate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, goodie-goodie, John, you picked another single day to present it from a frog`s POV. Now, what are the things looking like in a larger scale? No less than 3379 German fighters among 8228 LW planes by the end of Jan 1945.
It doesn`t matter if you loose 139 fighters, if you have 200 to replace them.

A year before, Jan 1. 1944, they had 1561 s-e fighters. Now, being 'destroyed', they had double the amount.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>1 Jagdkorps losses alone for January 1944 ammounted to 30% of sorties flown vs 0.2% USAAF losses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, the Frog`s point of view. Who cares about a single Jagdkorps, it`s a single medium sized unit it the LW..



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Funny you first state all 8th AF operations ceased after the 2nd Schweinfurt as 'historical' fact then here concede that operations did continue. And as to Schweinfurt no one here ever implied that these were not LW successes etc. In fact these were the Apex of LW success vs US heavy bombers, from teir it was all down hill for the LW. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John, now was 1943 the Apex of LW success vs. USAF or was it the year the LW was 'already defeated'?
Please decide, though I am happy you seem to got in touch with reality once again in your latest statements. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Isegrem in fact, if you read Jagdwaffe war diary's from the time you will see that the 109 Gruppen ofted acted as Liecht Gruppen defending the Fws who were acting as heavy fighters against the Bombers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John, is there a difference between 'often', 'sometimes', and your previous 'always'? It appears that 109s took their part against the heavies as well, perhaps to a lot more extent than you believe, ie. the already noted Hungarian unit used only 109s vs. US heavies, as did Rumanian, Slovakian, Italian etc 109s, and pure-109 German units.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I take it these Hungarian pilots were of a much higher quality then their German allies Ie, JG 52's 6 weeks of Sternluge missions over Roumania netted them; 15 US AC includeing 3, 4 engine bombers (2 B-24, 1 B-17). JG 52 ended their Sternluge operations with 2 operational Bf 109Gs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can find out in no time wheter this is true or not, John. Give us the exact dates and details, we can check if your claims are true.

As for the quality, true that Hungarian pilots were of rather high standards, most of their took experience on the EF, and were being trained already before the war begun etc. However, they were located at the same a/f as JG 52, yet they were impressed with their performance, met Barkhorm, Hartmann etc.

BTW, one veteran stated that for some odd reason, Mustangs of the 15th AF stayed awaaay clear away from their airfield in the balaton area, full of 109s of the JG 52 and 101st v.o. in 1944 . I wunder why was that? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I guess it had something to do with the fact JG 52 alone scored twice as many victories (10 000+) with Bf 109s as every US Mustang Group in every theatres. IIRC you were speaking of historical records, didn`t you? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
No they were not thew G-14 was interesting how you prefer to use the G-10 & K-4 in compsarison despitre their fewer numbers compared to the G-14
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, John, you can repeat it like a parrot, but the basic fact remains, the G-14 was NOT the main type in LW service at the time that is being discussed, unless you take G-14 and G-14/AS the same, but they were as much the 'same' as P-51A and P-51D...

Ie. number of

G-14s vs. K-4s was
431 vs. 314
in 31st January 1945, 1st Line units.

Total 1st line 109 force was 1435 planes at the time. Further 527 in reserves with 2nd line units, and given the production rate, I guess there were literally hundreds laying around in depots, as there`s also picturial evidence to that etc.

Typical 109s to be faced in the end of 1944 were G-10s, G-/AS types, K-4.
Typical US a/c to be faced were primarly P-47s, secondary P-51.
Typical British a/c to be faced were the older Spit IXs and Typhoons from 1942.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Intersting data etc, and irrelevant when presented against actual performance vs losses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good, I hoped you liked it. Here`s it again, it`s twice the enjoyment you know http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Climb rates expressed in m/sec.

Alt__P-51D_____Me109G-2*_____Me109K-4

0km___17.5_______20.6________24.5
1km___17.6_______22.5________24.7
2km___17.8_______23.6________23.5
3km___15.9_______19.5________22.4
4km___14.3_______17.2________21.9
5km___14.0_______16.6________20.2
6km___13.6_______15.4________17.5
7km___11.6_______12.9________15.0
8km____9.4_______10.4________12.5
9km____7.1________8.0________10.0_


As for how much irrevelant etc is it, I think it`s one important aspect to understand why the Jagdwaffe performed so well despite extreme odds.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The standard Bf 109G-14 climb rate was 16m/s which compared well with The P-51B/C/D Ie, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s pretty funny, John. So now the ROC of the G-14 is equal to the P-51 - and how? John gives the G-14 on 30-min military rating, ie. ~1250 HP out of 1800 HP, and 5-min Combat rating of P-51B-D, 1630 out of 1630 HP available.

Comparing like with the like, gives 4500 fpm for the G-14 on max. 10-min Sondernotleistung, and 3400 fpm or so for the P-51D at max 5-min Combat power.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The problem here is I.m comparing common fighters, well your useing the more favorably compared & smsller numbered Bf 109G-10/K-4<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, John, you are comparing less common LW fighter at a reduced power w. a common US fighter at max. powers.


LW 1st line 109 strenght, 31st January 1945:

933 G-10, K-4, G-14/AS
431 G-14 and G-14/U4
71 G-6s

G-10, G-14/AS, K-4(see later) : 65%
G-14s : 30%
G-6s : 4.9 %

Bf 109s made up 57.5% of the first line fighter strenght of the LW at the time.

As per RL2III/1158.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Does it Isegrem, considerimng I only posted 109 units that had an G-10 or K-4 in them many other 109 units were left out as all they had was G-14s. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jhom, I know you have sometimes difficulties, but please try to get it, G-10 and K-4 were the typical types at the time. Blinkers-on attitude doesn`t help it.

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

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

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

Maple_Tiger
05-08-2004, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"Yeah, I trimmed it out real well. What real pilot wouldn't"

I presumed you would! I am just trying to work
out what the differences might be. I am guessing
that it might be that the ASI in cockpit might
not be reading accurately (or that additional
compensation might be required - I notice that
a lot of RAF documents note corrected ASI). What
do you get from the speed bar?

Maple:
I haven't tested the P51D yet for SL speed.
I tried the P51B as that was the classic
version also used by the RAF with 150 Octane
fuel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Good point. I think the P-51B in FB has the V-1650-3 engine, where is the P-51D had the V-1650-7.

The B should go about 560kmh TAS at see level. The D should get about 578kmh TAS at sea level.

They both seem to be about 3 to 5 km/h too slow at sea sea level.

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

Kurfurst__
05-08-2004, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

Actually given the number of attacks that
relied on the unobserved bounce I'd argue
that the following are more important:

* Roll at high speed (to be able to correct
at the last moment of the bounce). Through
the war the tendency was to improve high
speed roll rates. This would not have been
done unless it was of use <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Aaron,

Roll rate depends on IAS, we all know that. Since you can only develop high TAS at high altitude, where the IAS will be low, I think for all practical purposes, low-medium speed roll rate is decisive. Besides, it doesn`t appear 109s had too bad roll rates even at higher speeds, neither do they in Il-2, even though Mustang`s are better, but not by much to make a big difference. The point is, as long as you want to dogfight at high speeds, then you have to go up high, where because of aerodynamics, low/med speed roll rate will decide things, and this favours the 109.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
* High cruise speed - if you are cruising at
a high speed you are harder to bounce. The
109K4 can manage high speeds, but AFAIK its
cruise is slower.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was certainly the 109`s strong point, all of them cruised very fast, 600+ km/h at altitude. K-4 was the fastest, at 645 km/h under cruise settings (if you noticed that`s my favourite to mock poor Hop, ie. K-4 could OUTCRUISE his beloved Spit IX at altitude even if the Spit used the maximum powers. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) The Mustang wasn`t that much different, IIRC what Neil sent me also showed 400mph or so cruise at altitude. But if we want to be dirty, at a 30min, de facto high-powered cruise power, the K-4 could manage 690 km/h at 8000m. I don`t even dare to think what two-staged 109Ks could do, their engines outperformed virtually anything else, having a rated alt of 10 000(!!) meter.

I say pretty good... for cruise. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
* Good acceleration in a dive from cruise.
(This is where I differ from SkyChimp. If
I was bounced when at cruise I would throttle
UP with the nose down until the engine
started complaining, so I think excess power
loading is important).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dive was, admittedly, a strong point of the 109 as well, all versions. Frankly, I doubt that late 109s would be an much different from Mustangs, except for very prolonged dives perhaps, but the quote I showed the P-51D did have troubles with catching up with 109s due to compressibility etc. From what Butch recently posted, it appears late 109Ks could sustain very high dive speeds, 850 km/h or so.


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

* Cockpit visibility.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem in either areas with the 109s either. E-retantion was great, in fact even the old gunpod G-6 was found similiar to the Mustang in AFDU trials. I would risk that this means later ones would outzoom the Mustang, perhaps not much because of superior E-retantion but because of the far more gentle behavior at stall speeds.

As for cocpit visibility.. to the rear, P-51D was at least comparable, the Erla canopy ensured that no 109 pilot would need to complain either. I would say the sighting view was better on the 109 to the front because the nose shape, while to the sidedes, and down, there`s no real difference.



* Heavy firepower to be able to knock down
the enemy on a high speed pass.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The 109s remained remarkably competitive for
a mid 1930s design even with the P51, but they
lose on the first two criteria.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really, see above why. I`d rather say it`s more like equal, often with advantage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On the last,
it's a bit of a toss up - the 30mm cannon of,
say, the K4, is powerful, but with only 600rpm
total from a single gun its ROF is on the
marginal side to reliably ensure at least one
hit, and two supporting synchronised MG131 not
really enough punch, but do have the advantage
of being concentrated in the nose. ..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I`d say it did the job, well enough vs. fighters also. Not to mention it was a perfect combination for the 109, which had extremely good acceleration and high speed, making it easy to close up on the prey. But, did you notice how much whining was there at time, from Allied fighter jocks, how 'unfair' was it that LW pilots use the MK 108 almost every time? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
But it`s really two very different approaches, and finding a system to describe them with statistics in next to impossible.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'd say that
the 3 B20s of the La7 probably represents on
of the better armaments produced in numbers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed with that 100%. But such combination would be very hard to do on an inline engine, there`s no possible mounting point(s).

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

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

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

Kurfurst__
05-08-2004, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Isegrim,

So you've got one test that shows a lower speed at sea level- there are many others that show higher speeds. Why do you disregard all the others and refer only to this one? How can you declare that *all* P-51D's were capable of only 354 mph at sea level when you have been shown multiple tests that indicate otherwise? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simply, this P-51 seem to be in standard conditions, it even received a little extra care, ie. joints were filled etc, it was cleaned down, and you cant even complain about that bad, bad paintwork becuase it has none, it`s a pure bare metal one.

As for the other tests, none of them show similiar stantards, and it`s the operetional Oleg will model, not planes in perfect laboratory condition. 'As received from Squadron', your Mustang III did 383mph. That`s what Oleg will model, if he is convined to model the rarer RAF planes as well, not US ones with reduced boost.

But do you still want perfect conditions, find, here you go, K-4 immidiately does 620+ km/h at SL, the D-9 does 630, La-7 will roam at 640, and the little Yak-3 will be happy at 600 km/h. etc. All this from flight documents, this could be done just by improving the finish, some tiny oddities like bombracks removed etc.
You want unlikely/rare engine variants, too, great, you made me even happier, now K-4 runs happily at 2.3ata, 649 km/h, the D-9 roams at 655 etc.
You want experimental propellors, too, like Hop2002, OH MAN I AM HAPPY to see my K-4 doing 660 km/h at SL AND 765 at 7500m!!

Maybe we should leave it at operational variants?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Is it possible and even likely that this single airframe was operating at less than full potential? Doesn't the fact that it was having cooling problems tend to indicate that this is the case? TK589 was a USAAF hand-me-down after all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There`s no indication of the airframe troubles in the report. As for the cooling - I don`t know what is surprising in excessive temperatures in a plane designed to cope with the heat of 1630 HP, and now it runs on 1930..


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Again, why the sudden fixation on British tests? Does this mean that you're finally going to accept the +25 lb. test for the Mustang III/Spit XIV/Tempest V?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spit XIV certainly never run at +25lbs, neither did the Temppest V. +21 for the Spit XIV would be nice as an 1945 version, and +11 for the Tempest V as `45 as well, they get an 1945 3D model for the Spit in any case, for I doubt they run on +21lbs for more than month in `44 (by the time 150 grade was introduced they were quickly sent to 2nd TAF which didnt have 150 grade until `45).

I don`t really care, it makes Allied jocks happy, yet it won`t render them immune to the MK 108, neither they will able to match the K-4 in it`s strong points.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW, you're right, few if any operational Mustang III's did 650+ kph at sea level, but pretty much any of them did 639-640 kph by mid-late 1944. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree with that, it has to be RAF, it has to be a `stang III, it has to be with -7 engine, it has to be in jolly good condition (and this effected the Mustangs specs far more than any other plane because of the laminar flow wings). Most Mustangs were not like this, but 615-620 would be an realistic result.

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

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

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

lrrp22
05-08-2004, 09:01 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
"Simply, this P-51 seem to be in standard conditions, it even received a little extra care, ie. joints were filled etc,"
----


Considering the fact that *all* Mustangs came from the factory with filled and sealed joints this hardly constitutes "extra care".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
"As for the other tests, none of them show similiar stantards, and it`s the operetional Oleg will model, not planes in perfect laboratory condition. 'As received from Squadron', your Mustang III did 383mph. That`s what Oleg will model, if he is convined to model the rarer RAF planes as well, not US ones with reduced boost."
--------

Hasn't it been pointed out here, ad nauseam, that Oleg only models factory fresh airframes free from defects? Besides, as you know, FB377 was still far from factory fresh.

As far as unlikely/rare variants, you're 1.98 ata K-4 falls firmly into this defenition. By the time your K-4 was available in any numbers at all, there were well over 300 +25 lb. Mustang III's conducting daily operation over Northern Europe. How many 1.98 K-4's were flying in March/April '45- one or two understrength Gruppen? You're 2-stage DB605D/L model is essentially fantasy.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
"But do you still want perfect conditions, find, here you go, K-4 immidiately does 620+ km/h at SL, the D-9 does 630, La-7 will roam at 640, and the little Yak-3 will be happy at 600 km/h. etc."
-----------

Pure conjecture and "Empty Words" on your part, Isegrim.

Your K-4's numbers are pure fabrication- you have absolutely no proof to support this assertion.

Your D-9 numbers are 20 kph higher than Jagdhund's Dora numbers which he asserts are most likely for a perfect or even specially prepared D-9 and they may even be estimated.

640 kph for the La-7 is for a hand-built factory prototype.

FB377, on the other hand, had been in service since April '44 (316 Sqn) and was far from factory fresh, even after the 'cleaning up' work.

Using your reasoning, I'm going to go ahead and start claiming that perfect-condition Mustang III's were capable of 670 kph at sea level on +28 lb boost and 2200 hp. After all, there is a chart showing the results of Merlin 66/V-1650-7's being run safely at that boost level. The chart says that all these engines could be raised to +28 lb.

You can't have it both ways Isegrim.

Aaron_GT
05-08-2004, 10:17 AM
Eric Brown says that some Mustang IIIs, cleaned
up with high octane fuel, could manage 420mph
at SL, and some pilots reported getting their
Tempest Vs to 415mph at SL, during WW2, on 150
octane. So if the LW gets the super performance
K4s I presume that we can have an 'Eric Brown
special' P51B?

SkyChimp
05-08-2004, 10:25 AM
But aaron, that wouldn't be fair.

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

Kurfurst__
05-08-2004, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Hasn't it been pointed out here, ad nauseam, that Oleg only models factory fresh airframes free from defects? .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, that`s why we have realistics performance for P-51s in AEP.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As far as unlikely/rare variants, you're 1.98 ata K-4 falls firmly into this defenition.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

K-4 saw action in hundreds as early as Oct 44; it was cleared for 1.98ata etc.
A standard mount of the LW in 44/45 by any standard. And the most hated, it seems. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How many 1.98 K-4's were flying in March/April '45- one or two understrength Gruppen? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, considering that a JG 77 alone could show up more K-4s than every Spit MkXIV in service with the RAF.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You're 2-stage DB605D/L model is essentially fantasy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, it`s not.


Pure conjecture and "Empty Words" on your part, Isegrim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your K-4's numbers are pure fabrication- you have absolutely no proof to support this assertion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don`t feel like needing to support my performance number to BB jokers. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Suffice if Oleg knows them, and the reasonable Allied plane-fans.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Using your reasoning, I'm going to go ahead and start claiming that perfect-condition Mustang III's were capable of 670 kph at sea level on +28 lb boost and 2200 hp. After all, there is a chart showing the results of Merlin 66/V-1650-7's being run safely at that boost level. The chart says that all these engines could be raised to +28 lb..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good luck convincing Oleg `bout this. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

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

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

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

Kurfurst__
05-08-2004, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
So if the LW gets the super performance
K4s I presume that we can have an 'Eric Brown
special' P51B?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when did the LW get 'super-performance' K-4s in Il-2? It does 583 km/h at SL, equivalent of the earliest model, with a rare engine at lowest boost, 1800 PS, etc?

If we would get a version with the later, and far more common DB/DC engine, it would do 607 km/h at SL; 620 km/h if the airframe received extra care.

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

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

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him