PDA

View Full Version : man i bet this plane woulda been a killer



fordfan25
03-11-2005, 07:55 PM
http://nasaui.ited.uidaho.edu/nasaspark/safety/types/P51H.htm

http://home.insightbb.com/~p51h/p51h.htm

JunkoIfurita
03-11-2005, 08:08 PM
Heh heh, what about that P-82 twin mustang.

Well, we did have the 109Z.

----

LEXX_Luthor
03-11-2005, 08:09 PM
first link... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Mustang was 50 mph faster than the Luftwaffe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I rolled on the rug so hard reading that, sounded like a ubi post.


They can't handle the -H. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

fordfan25
03-11-2005, 08:11 PM
yea i didnt like the first link eather.

its a shame the US and brit had these great planes that would at the very least even things out online aginst fighters like the 109K, TA-whatever, LA-7 and KI84C but were left out.

LEXX_Luthor
03-11-2005, 08:31 PM
Agreed. According to SkyChimp's chart, the -H should have 500 miles longer range than the Japanese Navy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sorry, but I'm still RoR'ing about this. However, it may not be fair to condemn a whole link because of a single slip~up.

Thanks for the links!!

btw...La~9 or La~11 is what you are looking for comparison. La~7 was old design by summer 1945.

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-11-2005, 08:52 PM
P-47N and F4U-4

The two planes I wish for. But we all know the story on that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

AlmightyTallest
03-11-2005, 09:17 PM
I got a laugh with that link too fordfan. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Just a typo, but the -H was an incredibly high performance aircraft.

I'm with Havock though, I really wish we'd get an F4U-4 and P-47N, and more ships and maps for the Pacific Theater. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I think if we had more Allied high performance planes, there'd be more fun flying against the likes of the 109Z, or Ki-84C in online matches. Plus it would probably allow those aircraft to have more chance of being allowed in these online games. I'd enjoy those planes offline as well though in the campaigns.

fordfan25
03-11-2005, 10:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
P-47N and F4U-4

The two planes I wish for. But we all know the story on that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea me to. still a shame though.

Buzzsaw-
03-11-2005, 10:39 PM
Salute

The P-51H did outperform the standard P-51D, but after the war, guess what aircraft most nations purchased?

The P-51D.

The H model was significantly weaker in the frame, and the extra speed and performance was not considered enough to make up for the fragility, especially since the P-51D's could also be operated with the engines boosted to 2000 hp with the same reliablity. (the RAF operated +25 P-51C's and P-51D's or Mustang III's and IV's throughout '44 and '45) The speed difference was not that much.

Below is Mustang III chart at elevated boost:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14at21.jpg

Courtesy 4th Fighter Group Site at:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

WTE_Gog
03-11-2005, 11:29 PM
I think you will find that many countries had very advanced piston engined aircraft on the drawing board or in prototype stage at the end or just after WW2.
The aircraft above is no more spectacular than many of them.

fordfan25
03-12-2005, 01:39 AM
o im not sayn its better than any thing some one had on blue prints. all im saying is that it was a killer plane from the looks of its specs and that it was in flight during ww2 just like the bearcat was. we have super planes in the game now that never saw combat or saw very little of it. sept for the yp80 we amaricans and brits "i count brits because i think the stang is as much theres as ours" in the game.we had planes that saw a good bit of combat or were made in a fair amount but did not get to the front in time and would have been nice to even things out a bit.

to be honest i think if the war "god forbid" had kept going things like the p-80 woulda been put to use fast.

geetarman
03-12-2005, 07:01 AM
Gog - what was the point of your post? We're not talking about the planes of other countries. We're talking about a P-51H. Heaven forbid someone complements a US design on this board without having to mention the fact that "it wasn't just us."

Texas LongHorn
03-12-2005, 08:17 AM
Yep Fordfan, she's a sweetie! Can you imagine the dogfight between the 'Stang and the Dora? Both at home at high altitude, it would have been a heck of a roller coaster ride <ggg.> All the best, LongHorn

horseback
03-12-2005, 10:06 AM
The reason most US and British late-war designs didn't make it to combat was that they simply weren't needed. Most US manufacturers were advised to slow down production and R & D in the second half of 1944; US fighters already in the field were mopping the floor with the remnants of the LW and Imperial Japanese air forces, and further need for piston engined aircraft improvement was not anticipated, particularly as the jet programs were beginning to bear fruit.

Axis governments, on the other hand, were casting about desperately to find something that would reverse the tide. They tried to field everything that looked promising. In some cases, if their manufacturing and pilot quality matched the design, those improved Allied designs might have been fielded sooner in response.

Our problem in this sim is that all aircraft are supposedly modelled in factory fresh ideal condition, with none of the systemic flaws. This confers a decided 'edge' to late-war Axis designs that rarely existed in actual practice.

cheers

horseback

Badsight.
03-12-2005, 12:50 PM
the P-51H could do 370 Mph ON THE DECK !

but only as long as the water tank lasted

i too really wanted to see this & the -4 Corsair (& especially the F8F & F7F , especially those two) dont understand the predjudice against late-war , then that copywright problem happened http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

second-to-last piston/propeller plane shot down in a "conflict" was a P-51D by a -5 Corsair (the next day this same pilot used his Corsair to shoot down another Corsair) during the Soccer War

kinda surprised me that the D model was in use rather than the H model , i thought it was that the USAF didnt want to sell its best gear

arjisme
03-12-2005, 02:22 PM
I'm a bit curious about another comment in that first link: "The tightness of its turns were much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190."

I didn't think the FW-190 was a better turner than the Me-109. I thought it was the other way around actually -- and significantly so. Am I just wrong about this?

Buzzsaw-
03-12-2005, 03:08 PM
Salute

On the tightness of the turns:

Depends on the speed of the aircraft when the turn is initiated.

At higher speeds, which the pilots who flew the Mustang were trained to operate at, the 190 turned better than the 109.

At low speeds, which the Mustang pilots were told to avoid, the 109 would turn better.

mortoma
03-12-2005, 03:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ar****e:
I'm a bit curious about another comment in that first link: "The tightness of its turns were much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190."

I didn't think the FW-190 was a better turner than the Me-109. I thought it was the other way around actually -- and significantly so. Am I just wrong about this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I think they just made a mistake and got them backwards.

arjisme
03-12-2005, 04:02 PM
OK, thanks Buzzsaw. That's kindof what I expected. That or perhaps the difference depended on altitude.

Platypus_1.JaVA
03-12-2005, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Mustang was 50 mph faster than the Luftwaffe . The Mustang had between 3000 and 4000 lbs. more weight, and so was able to outdive either German plane. The tightness of its turns were much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190. The aircraft, which was to become the best piston engined fighter ever produced, took World War II by storm. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, P-51 won the war!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Mustang to outdive the fw-190... and more manouvrable then either LW fighter. I guess that's food for alot of whiner groupies here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ElAurens
03-12-2005, 05:06 PM
Platypus,

As the posts above note the P51 was a better turner at higher speeds. Low and slow the Bf109 was better.

And as for the number of countries using P51Ds after the war instead of the H model, well, we did have a lot of them to get rid of...

bolillo_loco
03-13-2005, 04:18 AM
I would love to get my hands on a pair of D's

BanaBob
03-13-2005, 09:22 AM
Yeah, Double D's!http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bob

arjisme
03-13-2005, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I would love to get my hands on a pair of D's <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

SkyChimp
03-13-2005, 07:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

The P-51H did outperform the standard P-51D, but after the war, guess what aircraft most nations purchased?

The P-51D.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because thousands were available on the surplus market and they could be had for pennies on the dollar. The H was a new plane being built for the USAAF. The D was obsolete.



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

The H model was significantly weaker in the frame, and the extra speed and performance was not considered enough to make up for the fragility, especially since the P-51D's could also be operated with the engines boosted to 2000 hp with the same reliablity. (the RAF operated +25 P-51C's and P-51D's or Mustang III's and IV's throughout '44 and '45) The speed difference was not that much.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fragility?

The P-51H wasn't weaker than the P-51D, it was stronger. Lighter AND stronger. It was designed to be lighter and stronger. At full gross weight, the P-51D reached its limit loading at 6.3Gs. Under the same load conditions, the P-51H met its at 8.0Gs.

The P-51H outperformed the D in all parameters, except roll rate, where they were deemed equal.

First and foremost, the reduction of the internal fuel capacity in the H did away with the instability problems associated with a full fuselage tank, a problem never solved in the D.

The critical mach of the P-51D was around mach .73, at which it would begin to porpise. The H could reach mach .80 without porposing.

Top speed of the H was 487, versus 437 for the D. SL speed for the H was 424mph, versus just 400 for the most highly boosted P-51D (and 400 is from optimistic British numbers).

The H could climb to 30,000 feet 3 minutes and 20 seconds faster than the D when both were flown at 67"hg boost. And the V-1650-9 in the H could be boosted to 90", the V-1650-7 in the D to just 80" (British). At 90", the initial climb rate of the H was something like 5,000fpm.

The -9 engine was built much more robustly than the -7 engine.


All in all, the H was far superior to the D. That's why the H superceded the D in production.

SkyChimp
03-13-2005, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
the P-51H could do 370 Mph ON THE DECK !

but only as long as the water tank lasted
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the boost. That may be correct ay 67"hg. At 90"hg, the following speeds are accurate:

From:
Report NA-8284, date 9-14-44
( 90"hg mp + H2O Injection-3000 rpm)

Weight 9000lbs.

424mph at sl
464mph at 10,100 ft
462mph at 18,100 ft
487mph at 25,400ft

VW-IceFire
03-13-2005, 07:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ar****e:
I'm a bit curious about another comment in that first link: "The tightness of its turns were much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190."

I didn't think the FW-190 was a better turner than the Me-109. I thought it was the other way around actually -- and significantly so. Am I just wrong about this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The FW190 turns better at higher speeds than the 109 does. Infact, the two trade rolls somewhere aroudn 400kph TAS. The Mustang is similar to the FW190 in this regard in that its high speed turn is better than its low speed turn...with the exception that the Mustang doesn't bleed quite as much energy in a slower speed turn as a FW190 does so its able to loose speed and still turn a bit before it becomes surpassed by a 109s superior low speed turn.

Seeing as they are comparing Mustangs to other aircraft...its probably in the higher speed area of the flight envelope.

Talk to any online FW190 pilot...they love their superb manuverability. Its just not the same type.

Badsight.
03-13-2005, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
the P-51H could do 370 Mph ON THE DECK !

but only as long as the water tank lasted
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the boost. That may be correct ay 67"hg. At 90"hg, the following speeds are accurate:

From:
Report NA-8284, date 9-14-44
( 90"hg mp + H2O Injection-3000 rpm)

Weight 9000lbs.

424mph at sl
464mph at 10,100 ft
462mph at 18,100 ft
487mph at 25,400ft <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>sweet !

that is one fast airplane

WTE_Gog
03-13-2005, 08:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geetarman:
Gog - what was the point of your post? We're not talking about the planes of other countries. We're talking about a P-51H. Heaven forbid someone complements a US design on this board without having to mention the fact that "it wasn't just us." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point was to illustrate that everything is relative. The better Allied fighters were getting, the better Axis fighters were getting. Sure it would have been a killer but no more than a lot of other aircraft so to single it out as some freak of air combat is unjustified. You could post 100 topics here with the same heading as this one with 100 different aircraft.....it's a bit boring.

Plus, I don't care where the plane came from.