PDA

View Full Version : P-51 and Allied planes



realpointman
05-27-2005, 07:14 AM
First off I would like to say to Oleg and his people that you have done heck of a job with the sim through out the years. On top of that you just keep making it better and better as we go!!! What I would like to know is why all the planes such as the P-51, P-47, and P-38 have been made so weak? What I mean is now just about the only thing a P-51 can out turn is a bomber. The P-47 I can understand not turning so well. I'm not sure if this has been talked about before or not. I'm sure it has but I thought that I would ask. I know there are all kinds of documents stating that this plane is this good at this altitude and all that kind of stuff. However the P-51 was one of the top fighters of WW2 and I do have statistics and comparisons to the P-51 against other planes such as the 109, 190, ect. So before I get flamed for just not knowing how to fly it, I know all about using prop pitch fuel and all that stuff. I've been flying this sim is the IL2 days. Anyway, this isn't a gripe or whine!!! Just a couple of questions that I had. I certainly appreciate everything that happens with the sim and I love it.

-S-
Point-man

VVS-Manuc
05-27-2005, 08:00 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

VVS-Manuc
05-27-2005, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by realpointman:
First off I would like to say to Oleg and his people that you have done heck of a job with the sim through out the years. On top of that you just keep making it better and better as we go!!! What I would like to know is why all the planes such as the P-51, P-47, and P-38 have been made so weak? What I mean is now just about the only thing a P-51 can out turn is a bomber. The P-47 I can understand not turning so well. I'm not sure if this has been talked about before or not. I'm sure it has but I thought that I would ask. I know there are all kinds of documents stating that this plane is this good at this altitude and all that kind of stuff. However the P-51 was one of the top fighters of WW2 and I do have statistics and comparisons to the P-51 against other planes such as the 109, 190, ect. So before I get flamed for just not knowing how to fly it, I know all about using prop pitch fuel and all that stuff. I've been flying this sim is the IL2 days. Anyway, this isn't a gripe or whine!!! Just a couple of questions that I had. I certainly appreciate everything that happens with the sim and I love it.

-S-
Point-man

Yes...and the earth is a flat disc http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

jurinko
05-27-2005, 08:05 AM
P-38 is a bit questionable, but P-47 and P-51 are very capable planes. Early Mustanges are also quite good turners. Put dozens of them with altitude advantage against few Bf 109 with novice pilots in 10km altitude and you can re-play the battle for Germany in late 44/early 45.

ZG77_Nagual
05-27-2005, 08:11 AM
Whoah!.. REalpointman - with all respect all three of those birds are stellar performers. I fly mostly the p38 - I stay away from the p51 because it's too easy! In my opinion it's turn is, if anything, overmodeled - unless you make the mistake of getting into a low-speed circle fight - which is not how the p51 was ever flown - it rules the air. The P47 is also a very impressive fighter but must be kept fast - even more than the mustang.

In any case - I too have been flyng since the original demo - formerly I flew the 190 almost exclusively - the first time I tried a p51 was against a couple of very good late 109 drivers - they fought an extremely tight tactical fight where one would engage and dive away while the other separated and climbed - it required very careful energy management because if I let one get on my six the other would be along shortly while I tried to evade - likewise if I pursued the one in front of me at the expense of overal tactical advantage. I was unable to beat them in the p39n1 because it just didn't have the vertical fight and I was starting from the deck - in the mustang neither of them even got off a shot.

Hate to say it - so I won't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tigertalon
05-27-2005, 09:54 AM
Hi realpointman

I see you registered quite late for playing this sim from IL2 times. Fw190D9 was one of the top fighters of ww2. Have you tried how it turns? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(Hint: check: http://www.airwarfare.com and search for energy fighting instead of stall fighting)

KraljMatjaz
05-27-2005, 09:58 AM
Hm, interesting, how japanese Ki27, Ki43, A6M lost the war altough being EXTREMELY maneouverable... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

faustnik
05-27-2005, 10:03 AM
Realpointman,

I suggest you fly a Spitfire instead. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ULTIMA_LATET
05-27-2005, 10:05 AM
The newly-arrived Mustang was quickly recognized as being the best fighter aircraft yet to be delivered from the USA. It was found to be superior to the Kittyhawk, Airacobra and Spitfire in both speed and maneuverability at low altitudes. Maximum speed was 382 mph at 13,000 feet. At all heights up to 20,000 feet, the Mustang was faster than any other fighter then in service with the RAF. Rate of climb, acceleration, speed in a dive, stability, handling in all configurations, rate of roll and radius of turn were all rated as being satisfactory to outstanding. The armament of four 0.50-inch and four 0.30-inch machine guns was heavy and effective. The range was nearly double that of any RAF single-engined fighter. It was 25 to 45 mph faster than the Spitfire V at altitudes up to 15,000 feet. The problem was the rapid fall-off in performance at altitudes above 15,000 feet, caused by its low-altitude Allison engine which was supercharged for best performance at low levels. The Spitfire could climb to 20,000 feet in seven minutes, while the Mustang required 11. Both the Spitfire and the Messerschmitt Bf 109 were more nimble at higher altitudes. The Mustang weighed about a third again as much as a Spitfire, and was considered as being somewhat underpowered.
The relatively poor high altitude performance of the Mustang was more than just a minor deficiency, since most aerial combat over Europe at that time was taking place at medium to high altitudes. Consequently, it was decided that the Mustang I could be best used for low-level tactical reconnaissance and ground attack, where full advantage could be taken of its exceptional low-altitude performance.

Cajun76
05-27-2005, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by jurinko:
P-38 is a bit questionable, but P-47 and P-51 are very capable planes. Early Mustanges are also quite good turners. Put dozens of them with altitude advantage against few Bf 109 with novice pilots in 10km altitude and you can re-play the battle for Germany in late 44/early 45.

Yes, apparently the P-47 had wiped out most of the experianced LW pilots on the west front by the time the Mustang was availible in numbers. The Mustang has stolen the thunder http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif of the Jug for far too long. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Cajun76
05-27-2005, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by ULTIMA_LATET:
The newly-arrived Mustang was quickly recognized as being the best fighter aircraft yet to be delivered from the USA. It was found to be superior to the Kittyhawk, Airacobra and Spitfire in both speed and maneuverability at low altitudes. Maximum speed was 382 mph at 13,000 feet. At all heights up to 20,000 feet, the Mustang was faster than any other fighter then in service with the RAF. Rate of climb, acceleration, speed in a dive, stability, handling in all configurations, rate of roll and radius of turn were all rated as being satisfactory to outstanding. The armament of four 0.50-inch and four 0.30-inch machine guns was heavy and effective. The range was nearly double that of any RAF single-engined fighter. It was 25 to 45 mph faster than the Spitfire V at altitudes up to 15,000 feet. The problem was the rapid fall-off in performance at altitudes above 15,000 feet, caused by its low-altitude Allison engine which was supercharged for best performance at low levels. The Spitfire could climb to 20,000 feet in seven minutes, while the Mustang required 11. Both the Spitfire and the Messerschmitt Bf 109 were more nimble at higher altitudes. The Mustang weighed about a third again as much as a Spitfire, and was considered as being somewhat underpowered.
The relatively poor high altitude performance of the Mustang was more than just a minor deficiency, since most aerial combat over Europe at that time was taking place at medium to high altitudes. Consequently, it was decided that the Mustang I could be best used for low-level tactical reconnaissance and ground attack, where full advantage could be taken of its exceptional low-altitude performance.

To add on, or perhaps modify:

No one was shocked that an Allison Mustang didn't have high alt performance, they knew what they were getting. They didn't put it together and then slap their collective foreheads, "Dang, why can't we perform well at 30,000ft?" It performed excellently at the alts it was designed for, the Packard built Merlins merely raised the "bar", and let it bring that performance up higher.

BigKahuna_GS
05-27-2005, 10:36 AM
S!
S!


KraljMatjaz,
Hm, interesting, how japanese Ki27, Ki43, A6M lost the war altough being EXTREMELY maneouverable...
___



Hmmm, not sure what your point is here but if you think that light weight aircraft with no armor, self-sealing fuel tanks, radios, and or parachutes, fighting with an antiquated WW1 dogfighting style with little or no teamwork will win wars well...look at the record it speaks for itself.


__________________________________________________ ______________________
Cajun--Yes, apparently the P-47 had wiped out most of the experianced LW pilots on the west front by the time the Mustang was availible in numbers. The Mustang has stolen the thunder of the Jug for far too long.
__________________________________________________ _______________________


Well said Cajun. How often it is forgotten that the Luftwaffe had it's back broken in at the peak of their strength in the West in 1943-44 against often out numbered P47's and P38's escorts.

Robert S. Johnson interview:

"Just like the controversy over the P-51 and P-47. The P-47 was faster; it
just did not have the climb and range the Mustang did. But it had speed,
roll, dive and the necessary ruggedness that allowed it to do such a great
job in the Ninth Air Force. As far as aerial kills go, we met and beat the best the Luftwaffe had when we first got there. It was the P-47 groups that pushed them back, as I said before. "


___

VW-IceFire
05-27-2005, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by realpointman:
First off I would like to say to Oleg and his people that you have done heck of a job with the sim through out the years. On top of that you just keep making it better and better as we go!!! What I would like to know is why all the planes such as the P-51, P-47, and P-38 have been made so weak? What I mean is now just about the only thing a P-51 can out turn is a bomber. The P-47 I can understand not turning so well. I'm not sure if this has been talked about before or not. I'm sure it has but I thought that I would ask. I know there are all kinds of documents stating that this plane is this good at this altitude and all that kind of stuff. However the P-51 was one of the top fighters of WW2 and I do have statistics and comparisons to the P-51 against other planes such as the 109, 190, ect. So before I get flamed for just not knowing how to fly it, I know all about using prop pitch fuel and all that stuff. I've been flying this sim is the IL2 days. Anyway, this isn't a gripe or whine!!! Just a couple of questions that I had. I certainly appreciate everything that happens with the sim and I love it.

-S-
Point-man
I'd strongly disagree that the P-51 and P-47 are weak. Those are two deadly fighters. The P-38 has some questionable attributes right now so I won't make the case for it although I think its a very deadly fighter in its own right too.

What speed are you turning your P-51 at? What fuel load? Remember the P-51 is a high altitude escort fighter designed for many hours of endurance rather than the hour or so that the average 109, 190, Spitfire, Yak, or Lavochkin has. If you're taking up a Mustang in a dogfight server and flying around at 500 meters, with a speed in combat never exceeding 350 kph then you aren't flying the Mustang to its advantages.

The Mustang is very fast, is most manueverable at high speeds, uses combat flaps to get the best shots on targets, and achieves its highest roll rates also at top speeds. The Mustang was meant to be flown at 500 kph in a fight...and without too many turns. It can turn well enough to plant the bullets on any target...but not in circles like many new pilots do online.

My suggestion...dive on your opponents, use your speed and your zoom climb, sparingly turn, and use only 25% fuel. The P-51 is not weak...its one of the best fighters in the game. The P-47 is very similar...although it requires a different touch.

faustnik
05-27-2005, 11:00 AM
The P-47 has huge advantages over the Fw190A in PF that most people seem to ignore. If they would fly the Jug like the U.S.A.A.F. pilots did historically, they would do real well with it. Not that I'm going to go into those specific advantages here. Those who fly the Jug a lot already know, the rest can figure it out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Mustang is great, I really enjoy flying it in the air superiority role. The only thing that bothers me is the weak .50 cal. Opps, ".50 cal" is a bad word here isn't? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Danschnell
05-27-2005, 11:21 AM
Jeez.
Which sim is the original poster flying? The P-51 and the P-47 are way better than any axis plane in the sim. Maybe he was expecting to be able to do wonder manouvers like in other sims with all stalls turned off and infinate life etc.
Fw190s and Bf109s are slower in the sim, have worse climb rates,worse accelleration, worse turn. In fact the sim modells the P-51s and P-47s as being better than all the axis planes in every respect, so what is this guy on about? Jeez.

BigKahuna_GS
05-27-2005, 12:33 PM
S!



Danschnell Posted Fri May 27 2005 10:21
Jeez.Which sim is the original poster flying? The P-51 and the P-47 are way better than any axis plane in the sim. Maybe he was expecting to be able to do wonder manouvers like in other sims with all stalls turned off and infinate life etc.
Fw190s and Bf109s are slower in the sim, have worse climb rates,worse accelleration, worse turn. In fact the sim modells the P-51s and P-47s as being better than all the axis planes in every respect, so what is this guy on about? Jeez.



As with any comments specifics are needed and which aircraft models are you talking about. It is obvious that the P51 and P47 are not better over all axis planes in every respect. The 109 and 190 hold several clear advanteges in the sim.

Climbrate -both the 190 and 109 have a better climbrates than both US planes.

Speed--Advantages in speed depend on what year warplane and model. The late model 109G10/K4 and 190D-9 are very fast and dive very well. On paper, as in the sim their top speeds at alt are superior than the P47D-27 & P51D. This is not taking into account overboosting which P47 groups did on a regular basis, some P51 groups did also(all late model US P51 groups operated on 72" MAP) and all RAF Mustang groups did 25lbs boost, over 400mph+ at sea level, 425mph at 15,000ft and over 450mph at altitude.

Turn Rates/Dive Speed--The P47D-27RE will not out turn a 109 and is marginal against a 190. The P47D-27 cannot out dive a 109G10/K4 until terminal dive speed is reached which is often times too late. The historical dive seperation Gunther Rall talked about is not there until way late.

The P51 does better at turn rates but only at mid to high speeds. The 109 will out turn the P51 in a slow speed fight easily--so dont do it. At slower speeds the P51 has a clear advantge over the 190 as speeds increase the 190 turns better but the P51 still holds the advantage.

So it all comes down to which plane, altitude and speed as to who holds the advantage.

__

fordfan25
05-27-2005, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Danschnell:
Jeez.
Which sim is the original poster flying? The P-51 and the P-47 are way better than any axis plane in the sim. Maybe he was expecting to be able to do wonder manouvers like in other sims with all stalls turned off and infinate life etc.
Fw190s and Bf109s are slower in the sim, have worse climb rates,worse accelleration, worse turn. In fact the sim modells the P-51s and P-47s as being better than all the axis planes in every respect, so what is this guy on about? Jeez.

and what game are you playing?

faustnik
05-27-2005, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Climbrate -both the 190 and 109 have a better climbrates than both US planes.


__

Which 190 are you talking about here Kahuna?

HayateAce
05-27-2005, 01:54 PM
Don't know what sim you folks are playin, cuz mine is named Forgotten Helicopters of the Luftwaffe.

Fb~109:

http://www.indianamilitary.org/FreemanAAF/images/Helocopter1.jpg

MEGILE
05-27-2005, 02:19 PM
hmm that answers a few questions then Hayateace...
see, we are all flying pacific Fighters.

robban75
05-27-2005, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
both the 190 and 109 have a better climbrates than both US planes.



Climb comparisons in m/sec. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


100% fuel

Alt -- P47 -- P51 -- D-9 -- A-5

1000 - 19.6 - 18.5 - 22.7 - 19.2
2000 - 19.2 - 19.2 - 20.8 - 19.6
3000 - 17.9 - 20.0 - 20.8 - 16.9
4000 - 17.0 - 18.5 - 22.2 - 16.7
5000 - 16.4 - 14.7 - 20.4 - 17.9



And, climbrates with 25% fuel

Alt -- P47 -- P51 -- D-9 -- A-5

1000 - 23.3 - 22.2 - 24.4 - 20.4
2000 - 22.2 - 22.2 - 21.7 - 20.8
3000 - 21.7 - 23.3 - 22.7 - 18.5
4000 - 20.0 - 21.3 - 23.3 - 18.2
5000 - 20.0 - 17.9 - 21.7 - 19.6

BuzzU
05-27-2005, 03:26 PM
You guys are really funny. If someone starts a thread saying how bad the P-51/P-47 are, you all come on the thread saying they're the greatest planes in the game, and way better than the German planes.

Yet if someone starts a thread saying how great the P-47/P-51 are. You'll come on the thread saying what a piece of c-rap they are and you kill them without even trying.

Funny in a pathetic sort of way.

faustnik
05-27-2005, 03:34 PM
All what guys Buzz? WTF are you talking about?

BuzzU
05-27-2005, 03:39 PM
Figure it out on your own. Read the posts.

faustnik
05-27-2005, 03:41 PM
Cranky today? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BuzzU
05-27-2005, 03:47 PM
My post wasn't hard to understand. Don't act like Hellcat. You're smarter than that.

faustnik
05-27-2005, 03:54 PM
Ouch! You are cranky. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

My tendency is to give anyone who says any nationality's planes suck in IL-2 a hard time. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. P-51s and P-47s are certainly capable in PF as are Bf109 and Fw190s.

crazyivan1970
05-27-2005, 03:55 PM
Kids, no fighting...mmmkey? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

carguy_
05-27-2005, 04:00 PM
USAAF planes are really good,pointman.Though none of them is flawless.


We have had plenty of ppl talking the same about US planes through the whole year.Most of them search for tips,try them out and come back with different notes.

You need to use your planes` advantages over other,that`s pretty much it.

faustnik
05-27-2005, 04:01 PM
But he started it Ivan!


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BuzzU
05-27-2005, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Ouch! You are cranky. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

My tendency is to give anyone who says any nationality's planes suck in IL-2 a hard time. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. P-51s and P-47s are certainly capable in PF as are Bf109 and Fw190s.

I see. So, if someone started a thread saying the P-51 was great and the 109 sucked. You would then give them a hard time and say the P-51 wasn't that tough?

I'll use you as an example of what I was talking about.


btw Cranky or not cranky has nothing to do with this.

faustnik
05-27-2005, 04:07 PM
I would say the 109 has certain advantages over the P-51 that can be exploited.

BuzzU
05-27-2005, 04:09 PM
btw...I didn't use any names in my first post. Why do you think I was talking to you?

crazyivan1970
05-27-2005, 04:09 PM
Someone patch Buzz ASAP to keep him away from forums http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

faustnik
05-27-2005, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
btw...I didn't use any names in my first post. Why do you think I was talking to you?

I din't assume you were referring to me. I couldn't really figure out who you were talking about. You posted right under Robban's post, he certainly does not "choose sides". So, who were you talking about?

BuzzU
05-27-2005, 04:14 PM
Good idea Ivan.

I'm waiting with lots of room on my HD.

BuzzU
05-27-2005, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzzU:
btw...I didn't use any names in my first post. Why do you think I was talking to you?

I din't assume you were referring to me. I couldn't really figure out who you were talking about. You posted right under Robban's post, he certainly does not "choose sides". So, who were you talking about? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was talking about the whole thread in general, and other threads like it but with different planes. I always quote or give a name if i'm talking to one person.

faustnik
05-27-2005, 04:20 PM
OK, Buzz. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I guess the "you people" approach just put me on guard.

KraljMatjaz
05-27-2005, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">KraljMatjaz,
Hm, interesting, how japanese Ki27, Ki43, A6M lost the war altough being EXTREMELY maneouverable...

Hmmm, not sure what your point is here

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

(http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif irony)
Seriously: smaller turning circle means almost nothing in WW2 aerial dogfighting IMO. Speed and climbrate are WAY more important (IMO again). I posted sentence about japanese planes just to remind original poster about that.

BuzzU
05-27-2005, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
OK, Buzz. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I guess the "you people" approach just put me on guard.

It should have put you on guard if you were doing what I said in my post. If not you should have ignored it.

So, it looks like you were the one who was cranky.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

faustnik
05-27-2005, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
OK, Buzz. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I guess the "you people" approach just put me on guard.

It should have put you on guard if you were doing what I said in my post. If not you should have ignored it.

So, it looks like you were the one who was cranky.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, like you ignore that kind stuff. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BuzzU
05-27-2005, 04:30 PM
All the time. You just don't realize it if I ignore it.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
05-27-2005, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Ouch! You are cranky. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

My tendency is to give anyone who says any nationality's planes suck in IL-2 a hard time. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. P-51s and P-47s are certainly capable in PF as are Bf109 and Fw190s.

I see. So, if someone started a thread saying the P-51 was great and the 109 sucked. You would then give them a hard time and say the P-51 wasn't that tough?

I'll use you as an example of what I was talking about.


btw Cranky or not cranky has nothing to do with this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No see...I would say the same thing. Although it might be interpreted the same way. The Mustang is better than the 109. That said...the 109 has advantages the Mustang doesn't have....a superior pilot will turn a slightly or potentially inferior plane in one situation into a superior plane in another.

Take a 109G-10 and a P-51D-20.

Speed Advantage = Mustang by a hair.
Slow Speed Manuevering = 109 by alot
High Speed Manuevering = Mustang by alot
Firepower = 109
Accuracy and ease of shooting = Mustang
Climb = 109
Dive = Mustang

The two are fairly evenly matched overall (although my personal feeling is that the Mustang is better overall - or rather for me overall). A good 109 pilot is going to give a good Mustang pilot a good ride...depending on where they catch each other.

SO...case in point is this. I would say the same thing overall...but may state it in a different way. I presently do not want to see any relative changes made to the 109 / Mustang balance. The two are fairly well modeled and good planes in the end. But if a guy came in and says Mustang rocks, 109 sucks...I'd argue the other way. Because he's not right either.

BuzzU
05-27-2005, 06:02 PM
Too late Ice. We're all done.

Badsight.
05-27-2005, 06:41 PM
Buzz why would it matter if the P51 thread you spoke about started with the posts going the way you meant

like this thread , there is a lot of mis-infomation spread around about how planes perform

you always will have axis & allied fans posting to correct others

BuzzU
05-27-2005, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
Buzz why would it matter if the P51 thread you spoke about started with the posts going the way you meant

like this thread , there is a lot of mis-infomation spread around about how planes perform

you always will have axis & allied fans posting to correct others

I just find it funny the reaction a plane will get depending on how the thread is started. A lot of times the same guy will do a complete 180.

Not really important. It's the way flight sim forums are.

bolillo_loco
05-27-2005, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ULTIMA_LATET:
The newly-arrived Mustang was quickly recognized as being the best fighter aircraft yet to be delivered from the USA. It was found to be superior to the Kittyhawk, Airacobra and Spitfire in both speed and maneuverability at low altitudes. Maximum speed was 382 mph at 13,000 feet. At all heights up to 20,000 feet, the Mustang was faster than any other fighter then in service with the RAF. Rate of climb, acceleration, speed in a dive, stability, handling in all configurations, rate of roll and radius of turn were all rated as being satisfactory to outstanding. The armament of four 0.50-inch and four 0.30-inch machine guns was heavy and effective. The range was nearly double that of any RAF single-engined fighter. It was 25 to 45 mph faster than the Spitfire V at altitudes up to 15,000 feet. The problem was the rapid fall-off in performance at altitudes above 15,000 feet, caused by its low-altitude Allison engine which was supercharged for best performance at low levels. The Spitfire could climb to 20,000 feet in seven minutes, while the Mustang required 11. Both the Spitfire and the Messerschmitt Bf 109 were more nimble at higher altitudes. The Mustang weighed about a third again as much as a Spitfire, and was considered as being somewhat underpowered.
The relatively poor high altitude performance of the Mustang was more than just a minor deficiency, since most aerial combat over Europe at that time was taking place at medium to high altitudes. Consequently, it was decided that the Mustang I could be best used for low-level tactical reconnaissance and ground attack, where full advantage could be taken of its exceptional low-altitude performance.

To add on, or perhaps modify:

No one was shocked that an Allison Mustang didn't have high alt performance, they knew what they were getting. They didn't put it together and then slap their collective foreheads, "Dang, why can't we perform well at 30,000ft?" It performed excellently at the alts it was designed for, the Packard built Merlins merely raised the "bar", and let it bring that performance up higher. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thunder was the harmless noise that followed lightning :O

LeadSpitter_
05-27-2005, 11:24 PM
They are all done pretty well, with the exception of the .50 cals, the game inbetween shots we can fit 6 planes between the tracer spread and there is more recoil on them and .303s then being in the eye of a hurricane storm, and theres very little chance of getting a very good concentrated 3 second burst on a ac.

As for the highspeed elevator of the mustang past 560kmph you have to be more gentle with the elevator with the 109s slight compressibility from 570-700 then it gets more controll higher speed.

So basically highspeed the 109 has the turn advantage just trim trottle back and combat flaps, mustang can noway stay on a 109 highspeed becuase its wing will do the magic pop off.

It happens to other ac like the 190 109 ta152 me262 but only at 800-1000kmph with fast stick movement.

P-38 elevator compressibility problem which happen above 26000 feet becuase of thin air, did not lock up but went mushed. I would like to see compressibility at alt determined by thier mach number for all aircraft looked into as well.

Another problem is US planes with 50-100 fuel which come nowhere remotely close to thier data test sheets with 100 fuel load, not even clean 100 fuel and full ammo, or with external fuel tanks. other thing is the bf110 with bombs makes it heavier then a he111 b25 a20 etc makes no sense, also oleg needs to add max payloads for the allied bombers instead of just 2500lbs which was used with thier max fuel limit payload.

I would also like to see 250 and 500lb bombs do more damage to ground objects.

As for the p-47 it would be nice if oleg can correct the mistake they made with its payload, the wing racks carried 1000lb 500lb or 250lb, the centerline rack could carry a max of 500lb, or 250lb bomb.

Another thing that makes me wonder how the 20mm on the p39 and p38 have the same recoil effect as the mk103 and 50mm on the me262u4 but worse that that adding the .303 and .50 cal firing from weapon one.

but the mg151 is completely recoiless and the 108 cannon does not have much recoil at all either and extremely easy to aim distances of .60 .70 and get kills.

I hope they pay attention to the US 20mm and japanese 20mm as well as well as adding some recoil to the mg151 and make the 109s elevator very loose which it was well know for same with the zeke, unlike the FW190 p38 p-47 p-51 p39 etc which had very stable rudders and "stable gunplatform becuase of thier aircraft weight"

I do excellent with the mg151 4-6 kills usually per sortie and prefer it over the 108 and 103 cannon, the only ac i have to take a 2-3 second burst at is the hurricane, beufighter and basically all russian ac with mg151.

All the rest explode or come apart with a 1 second tap at .20 distance.

I think its more of a problem with planes dm then actual weapons effectiveness to be honest.

Then the rudder effectiveness less then 25% rudder use will throw most allied ac into a flopping stall same with the ki84 now.

But the russian ac, p40e spit bf109 fw190 can bank use 100% fast rudder left right flopping flying sideways which i think is one of the reason of the ufoness.

The corsair and ki84 had that in PF 3.0 so did the ki43 and zeke which thier rudder use was toned down and fixed the problem so why not correct the others as well.

I would also like to see a host option for dogfights servers to lock fuel limits for each side.

all american ac usually take 25 or 50 for the p47, russian and british 50 and german usually 75-100 which is where all the fm complaining comes from so making allied ac perform like they contain 100 fuel using 25 is not the solution for the whines.

Aaron_GT
05-28-2005, 01:26 AM
So basically highspeed the 109 has the turn advantage just trim trottle back and combat flaps, mustang can noway stay on a 109 highspeed becuase its wing will do the magic pop off.

It has been shown with DeviceLink that the wings pop off at the same point in terms of G load with the P51 as every other plane, it is just that the P51 has more effective elevators at high speed. Oleg did warn that this would happen...

Dolemite-
05-28-2005, 01:56 AM
Troll topic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

HellToupee
05-28-2005, 02:04 AM
highspeed manoverbilities nice an all but other than wing popping fights at high speed will just black you out, ever try jet vs jet. The 109 can just drop throttle and turn especially with its handbreak like effect this will outturn and force and overshoot.

faustnik
05-28-2005, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:

I do excellent with the mg151 4-6 kills usually per sortie and prefer it over the 108 and 103 cannon, the only ac i have to take a 2-3 second burst at is the hurricane, beufighter and basically all russian ac with mg151.

All the rest explode or come apart with a 1 second tap at .20 distance.

I think its more of a problem with planes dm then actual weapons effectiveness to be honest.


Leadspitter,

I don't understand this part of your post??? Based on comments that you have made in the past about the Mg151 being very weak in 3.04, I'm not sure what version you are talking about. If you don't want to answer here, could you please send me a PM.

Thanks,

Faust

realpointman
05-28-2005, 09:34 PM
I understand that all the planes are different. That wasn't what I was getting at. Basically what I was talking about were the guns and the fact the other day I was on a 190's tail doing 300+mph when he rolls and does a half loop towards the ground. I follow and the next thing I know he's 3k away from me. I was using 25% fuel with combat flaps. Anyway, it doesn't matter anymore. Now for some other things that have come up in this. As for the guy that asked if I've been flying since the il2 days why am I new here. Because my e-mails have changed and I don't remember my passwords. Since I can't check those e-mails I can't get my passwords. The other reason why I don't post here much is for the simple fact of what BuzzU was talking about. If it's not one thing it's another. All most people do here is flame and rag on other people. Instead of answering them or helping them they make A$$'s out of themselfs. Sorry but I left that behind in the 6th grade.

LeadSpitter_
05-28-2005, 11:46 PM
faustnik

faustnik I do find the mg151 weak in servers against russian ac, hurricane and beaufighter, so but still like i said they can be shot down in one pass still 2-3 second burst of solid hits close range only .20 distance.

Then vs the p47 in which i posted the online track of vs 8 p47s.

firing mg151 only at .20 range direct6 the tail completely all of them with fuselage on fire rips off from 4-6 single 20mm only shots at .20 range, you can also fire 1-2 shots of 20mm then do a 1 sec burst of 7.92 with the same result same with the p38 rips off the booms with 3-4 mg151 shots at .20 range.

The thing is the nose mounted 20mm seems alot more devastating the the 190 and doras mg151s becuase its much easier to get shots in the same spot then 2 at convergence of .20 .30

Theres been times servers with a ping of 200-500ms some planes will appear to take 20 hits or so in game, but then looking at the track with arcademode=1 you see hits on your screen were actually missing. with the arrows

Making to 20mm stronger and leaving the problematic dms alone is really a bad solution to the fix, its just going to lead to the spit p47 p38 p-51 exploding wings ripping off from 1-2 20mm hits but the problematic dms will most likely still take 10-15 hits+.

Yak, lagg3, la, hurricane, beaufighter, he111, b25, a20, usn ac mc202, ju88, p-39,p63, p40e-m, 109g6 thru k4, fw190 and a couple others seem to have these super dms.

The we have shvak which can explode these dms as far as 1.3 range, the german 103 and 108 cannon can easiliy at .50 -.60 range.

then we have mg151 and hispano which can .30 - .40 range.

then browning which loose thier punch at past .20 range. .303s .10 range with 100 convergence, us 20mm in the p39 and 38 at .20, japanese 20mm and light mg at .20 distance.

30mm with the corsair c ki84 is amazingly easy to aim at .50 .60 like the 108 cannon. The 103 cannon is slightly more difficult but much much easier then the p63s 30mm which is almost the same difficulty to get hit as the me262u4s 50mm cannon.

Thats what i see in 3.04 and definatly the shvak and 108 cannon are the top dogfighting weapon becuase its easy to get kills in one pass from further distances and so easy to aim.

Then seeing the gap between shots firing is a whole other story, mg151 for example 1 plane will barely fit between the tracer rounds, but with browning you can fit 5-6 ac lenghts between them and another thing is 1-10 were suppost to be tracer rounds with browning so are browning ROF completely wrong becuase with the ground test only the tracer rounds are firing and creating strikes, the hurricane seems to have none tracer strikes which appear far right of the tracer shots.

im sure many notice this when flying besides me.

Badsight.
05-29-2005, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
but still like i said they can be shot down in one pass still 2-3 second burst of solid hits close range only .20 distance. that can be said for any larger caliber weapon in FB

i dont think that saying the MG151 as it is can get planes busted up is reason to leave out the rounds that should be there

you cant seriously say the MG151 hits anywhere near like the other 20mm's ingame

ColoradoBBQ
05-29-2005, 12:21 AM
I don't feel that .50s are weak or lose power past .20 kilometers. I managed to damage enemy planes severly at .50 kilometers but it depends on the size of the aircraft and the distance from the cone of fire. If you set coinvergence at 100 meters, the .50 will get scattered easily past 150 meters and few bullets will hit the target at 200 meters. If you set convergence at 300 meters, you'll get a nice, long cone of fire that would bring down an unlucky bandit at 100 to 500 meters if you direct your fire instead of firing wildly.

Aaron_GT
05-29-2005, 01:06 AM
browning ROF completely wrong becuase with the ground test only the tracer rounds are firing and creating strikes,

Offline the non tracers definitely create strikes. I just tested this by taking an A20 low over the water and firing a short burst containing one tracer per gun (normally 1 in 5 round, not 1 in 10) and there were multiple groups of hits, not just the tracer group in the water.

GR142_Astro
05-29-2005, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by ColoradoBBQ:
if you direct your fire instead of firing wildly.

Leadspitter doesn't fire wildly, be sure. It is a combination of super DMs and weak .50s. Lagg is still whack, the K4 is way overdone. Do a qmb using .50s against a K4 and see for youself that it takes too many hits. Meanwhile, the Spitfire can take tons of abuse, but the same engined P51 will lose its engine if a LW plane passes within a mile. Lots of things like that are off and I find 3.04 to be as bad or worse than many of our past patches.

Aaron_GT
05-29-2005, 05:22 AM
You must be playing a different game to me, Astro. When I fly the Spitfire falls apart as soon as look at it. The .50s (online) are a bit problematic - sometimes they are devastating, sometimes not, but I think that's a combination of packet loss and the way the rounds are clumped (as Gibbage showed). Round for round the 12.7mm guns in the VVS planes are as destructive, and you can't expect a 50 cal to be as powerful as a 20mm cannon. At convergence, and with a bit of luck, the 50 cal will saw wings off. It's just a little less consistent, again probably due to the 'clumpiness' issue, plus everything seems a little randomised. Sometimes 20mm rounds do next to nothing.

faustnik
05-29-2005, 03:15 PM
I see your point Leadspitter & Astro. DM adjustment is much needed. The Spitfire is as tough as the P-47 in 3.04, the gap between those DMs should be wide. We already know the Mg151 is missing a main component, the minengeschoss rounds, in 3.04. That is fact stated by Oleg, not conjecture. Those who stated that the people complaining about the Mg151 were "just whiners" were flat out wrong. A corrected Mg151 should be devastating against Spitfires, Yaks, Hurricanes and other light fighters. Against P-47s and bombers, the Mg151 should not be getting easy kills.

As for .50cal, I've been on the "it's not strong enough" side since IL-2 1.0. I'm glad the specific reasons are being closely looked at.

realpointman
05-29-2005, 05:05 PM
Now that some of the points that I was meaning to begin with are coming out. I hope that the image of what I was saying isn't as a whiner anymore. Also the other thing that I've been trying to figure out is why the wings on the p-51 are coming off at 400 mph. While the other planes that are lighter can with stand much more.

-S-
Point-man

faustnik
05-29-2005, 06:03 PM
Realpointman,

When you say this...

"What I would like to know is why all the planes such as the P-51, P-47, and P-38 have been made so weak? What I mean is now just about the only thing a P-51 can out turn is a bomber."

...it really doesn't make much sense. I fly the Fw190A a lot, and I can tell you that the P-51 is a very maneuverable, very tough oponent. The P-47 and P-38can be very difficult too, with their firepower and climb. If you think there is a specific problem, please outline it. As it is, your initial post came of as your basic whine. I understand that you didn't intend it to be, so, please use more specific issues you have next time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

ColoradoBBQ
05-29-2005, 10:31 PM
Try using some down trim when flying the Mustang at high speed. In addition of easier level flight that helps keep the speed up, there is also a buffer that helps keep the plane from turning too hard and ripping off your wings.

S.taibanzai
05-30-2005, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Don't know what sim you folks are playin, cuz mine is named Forgotten Helicopters of the Luftwaffe.

Fb~109:

http://www.indianamilitary.org/FreemanAAF/images/Helocopter1.jpg


Dumass http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Hastatus
05-30-2005, 09:45 AM
why the wings on the p-51 are coming off at 400 mph.

They dont. Your Airspeed Indicator might register 400mph but for every 1000 ft of altitude you add 2 percent to get your True Airpseed

Ex. 400mph Indicated (on your instruments) at 10,000 ft is actually 480mph. At 20,000 feet 400mph is actually 560mph.

Also, you cant yank the stick at very high speeds, you will overstress the airframe.

They are modelled after real a/c in IL-2, and many folks just need more time to learn the basics. No disrespect intended.

LeadSpitter_
05-30-2005, 11:26 AM
even if you dont yank the stick using very slow movement at 1000m doing 560kmph the wings pop off

Aaron_GT
05-30-2005, 12:31 PM
Weird, leadspitter. I just tried to test that and set up a Quick Mission on the Crimea map starting at 3000m. I dived down to just above 1000m with an IAS at around 630 km/h and pulled a turn so hard that the pilot blacked out for 10 seconds. Wings remained intact. What stick settings are you using?

p1ngu666
05-30-2005, 01:17 PM
its the speed u move the stick, not always the deflection, thats why theres so many issues
if u bank too that can make it worse

Hastatus
05-30-2005, 01:37 PM
Yup, sounds like a calibration/settings problem to me. Something is causing those sticks to overstress the a/c with only mild inputs.

I just did a test at full realism with a P-51D-20 and hit 490mph Indicated at 8000 ft and didn't lose any parts (it was shaking though) thats 570mph TAS. Also did a hard turn at 450 IAS and it did not come apart.

p1ngu666
05-30-2005, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Hastatus:
Yup, sounds like a calibration/settings problem to me. Something is causing those sticks to overstress the a/c with only mild inputs.

I just did a test at full realism with a P-51D-20 and hit 490mph Indicated at 8000 ft and didn't lose any parts (it was shaking though) thats 570mph TAS. Also did a hard turn at 450 IAS and it did not come apart.

i use default settings, so do alot of others
i think the elivator gets more effective with speed

faustnik
05-30-2005, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
even if you dont yank the stick using very slow movement at 1000m doing 560kmph the wings pop off

It must be something in your setup Leadspitter. I don't get that even at speeds over 750kph. I can make it happen but, not through normal maneuvers. I sure have to be careful about blackout in the P-51 though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

BuzzU
05-30-2005, 06:25 PM
I never lost a wing on the P-51. I've never understood the problem.

VW-IceFire
05-30-2005, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by realpointman:
Now that some of the points that I was meaning to begin with are coming out. I hope that the image of what I was saying isn't as a whiner anymore. Also the other thing that I've been trying to figure out is why the wings on the p-51 are coming off at 400 mph. While the other planes that are lighter can with stand much more.

-S-
Point-man
Reason: I don't remember the specifics but its a combination of a few factors including a door panel with a known weakness that would fly open at certain G loads and sufficiently weaken the wing to cause a structural failure. Its historically recorded although I haven't the foggiest idea where - not that I'd even understand the report anyways. But know that the Mustang did have a problem with wings bending or breaking. There's a reason why P-47 drivers would always say that they may not be able to dive quite as quickly as the Mustang but they always knew they would pull out of the dive at the bottom.

Solution: Tweak your joystick controls so you have less sensitive response on the stick until you're really pulling it back. My scale goes up slowly until the last two notches (in the control panel) and then finally goes to 85 and 100. Don't yank on the stick in a high speed dive...introducing 10G pullout is going to be a problem. While most planes just have control lock, the Mustang's elevator is still VERY effective so you have to treat it properly.

I have not broken a Mustang wing since the first time it happened to me. If you're breaking it more than once or twice you need to work on your technique and you can only blame yourself. Lots of guys use the wing break as a crutch for a greater sense of whining (not saying your doing that) but the Mustang is a top notch fighter and it does have personality so you treat it to its desires and it treats you back quite nicely.

Temerarious1960
05-31-2005, 04:35 AM
While I'm relatively new to the flight sim world (been flying about 4 yrs now), I have almost exclusively chosen the P51D. And the bodies of those who tried and failed are strewn about the landscape. High altitude or mowing the lawn, turning battle or full out race for the finish, they always go down, ok, almost always. I've been flying IL2,FB,AEP for about 4 months and can't get enough. The tips, support and general comraderie is definately far above anything I've ever found. Oleg and team! And everyone else, Thank you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Xnomad
05-31-2005, 05:03 AM
I'm just an average online pilot that likes to fly Bf 109's and P-38's. Whenever I jump into a Mustang online I often double my kill scores instantly.

Just stay fast take a few shots then move on. With the Mustang you don't have to wait to see the plane blow up, remember you are using MG not cannon so the damage done isn't as visible as a ripped off piece from cannon damage. So dive onto some blues take a shot at each one then move on to the next, and keep your speed up, in a few mintues the kill messages will pop up one after another.

You should fly a 109 and meet up with a good Mustang pilot if he doesn't slow down it's almost impossible to fight him he can do fast circles around you take a few shots and disappear into the sunset. Then you'll get the picture on how to fly it.

As for ripping the wings off, I have posted quoted references on this before it happened in real life. It was just too easy to pull too hard on a Mustang in a high speed dive as the controls were so responsive and quite a few Pony drivers learnt the lesson the hard way. Or should I say they taught others the lesson as they usually didn't get a second chance.

WOLFMondo
05-31-2005, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
I never lost a wing on the P-51. I've never understood the problem.

I've only ever popped them off then I've tried too. Same with the Dora too, you can make the wings pop off with a very sharp dive recovery.

I cannot make the wings of a P47 come off in a dive recovery though.

NorrisMcWhirter
05-31-2005, 05:14 AM
Hi,

Nearly every time I pop a wing in a Mustang it's because I forgot to change my joystick settings as I use different settings for different aircraft.

If anything, it's only marginally more prone to shedding wings than the Dora; just be gentle when you pull back on the stick over 600kmh.

Also, XNomad has made a very important point regarding the P51 (and any .50 cal equipped plane) in that just because you don't see a spectactular event every time you fire doesn't mean you haven't done enough to score a kill. Short bursts of .50s into 109 and 190s will nearly always cause enough damage to put it out of the fight (unless you fire from dead 6 but that's true for any plane).

Ta,
Norris

Temerarious1960
05-31-2005, 06:38 AM
Xnomad is right. One of my favorite tactics isyo fly over a wing or squad at very high altitude, hopefully remain undectected, dive on them from behind, and just let a couple burst go at each one as I go screaming up the line of them. I'm usually pulling out of my dive at about 750 to 800 Kmph. And haven't ripped them off yet, unless I meant to do that! And the BF109's? While they are a chalenge, I usually just take them down to the deck run like hell turn and take them out with a head on.

geetarman
05-31-2005, 09:40 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xnomad:

You should fly a 109 and meet up with a good Mustang pilot if he doesn't slow down it's almost impossible to fight him he can do fast circles around you take a few shots and disappear into the sunset. Then you'll get the picture on how to fly it.

__________________________________________

In a very simple way, this describes exactly how a P-51 should be flown in the game. If a 51 jock does this, they are truly very difficult to down. On top of that, they'll get kills.

Blakeslee stated that the most important aspect for a fighter is speed, speed, speed. He almost encouraged his pilots to overshoot the enemy. Why? While many other planes turn, climb, slow down, etc. better than a P-51, it really doesn't help against the 51 jock that is faster than you and stays faster than you.

Helps to have good loiter endurance to.

LilHorse
05-31-2005, 02:15 PM
Something "fishy" going on here methinks.

If the original poster had been on these boards for a long time he'd never ask the questions that he asked. So he's either a long time poster under another name who's trolling or he's new and doesn't want to admit it.

Oh, and, leadspitter, the .50s shred everything in front of them and have almost no noticible shake or recoil. Maybe you just need to have a smoke before you fly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Recon_609IAP
05-31-2005, 04:10 PM
I suggest we all reassess the situation after the patch.

The late war servers are lacking for the p47 and p38 because they lack the equivalent late war for those models.

The p51 is the only one that is really late war imo.

I'd like to see more late '43 servers running, I think you'd notice a difference.

I hope to see a later model p47 and p38 - then we can argue the case again.

The aircraft I have a beef with is the spit vb - it's DM is silly. One minute I take one shot in the 109G2 and the wing falls off, next 5 engagements I put every bullet in a spit and he laughes me off and flies away http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFMondo
05-31-2005, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:

The late war servers are lacking for the p47 and p38 because they lack the equivalent late war for those models.

We have the D25, one of the most common P47's available in the ETO late in the war.

Its more than enough to take on any Luftwaffe plane in a late war plane set.

Badsight.
05-31-2005, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
I never lost a wing on the P-51. I've never understood the problem. i have , i can make it happen in the Pony or the Hayate easy

but at the same time its totally avoidable , but tast the last thing on my mind when i just need a bit more angle so i can shoot

Recon_609IAP
06-01-2005, 05:54 AM
I am speaking of, ie . the p47N model Mondo.

fyi - I'm not complaining about the situation, I just think if Allies had a p47N and a late model p38 it would be more in line with the current late model German aircraft.

WOLFMondo
06-01-2005, 07:06 AM
But the P47N never fought against the Luftwaffe and I doubt very many of the later version L P38's did either but I'll fly it when we get it.

By the time the P47D25 we have came about most P47's were going ground pounding anyways. Earlier model D's and C P47's were used against earlier model FW190's and BF109's. But the D25 is still competative up high.

For the ETO we have the most common late war Mustang and a fairly common version of the Spitfire IX even with out the 25lbs boost. Maybe we will get the other most common 2 RAF variants the Tempest V and Spitfire XIV as well as the 25lbs boosted IX. We might also get the RAF Mustang III. So really with those the late war western allied ETO planes are there in full force as there was no P47N in the ETO, no P51H in the ETO. Maybe only a P47D30 would justify another P47 for the ETO.

Really not sure what the problem is especially if the Tempest arrives, even on its most modest performance data with the older of the engines at 9lbs boost its still got performance that makes even the D9 or La7 weep, if we get the IIC version with overboosting then the RAF will have the highest performing plane under 25,000ft. Then there is the XIV, that goes higher then the Ta152 (and faster at its maximum ceiling) and is generally a 109K4 analogue for the allies.