PDA

View Full Version : 3.04 P-51D now 10-15 kph slower at SL



lrrp22
01-26-2005, 10:22 AM
Somewhere in the last couple of patches the P-51D lost 10+ kph at sea level. I was to able reach 595-596 kph at sea level (actually 20 meters, or so) on the Crimea map at 100% fuel, cockpit off/TAS. As of my latest test runs I have topped out at 584-585 kph. Has anyone else noticed this?

The P-51C seems to be limited to 565 kph as opposed to the 578-579 that I noted in previous versions.

Robban, if you see this and have the time, I would greatly appreciate one of your benchmark-quality tests! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

faustnik
01-26-2005, 10:25 AM
Irp,

Some of us have noticed that trim settings seem to be more important for vMax lately. Just a thought. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A slow Mustang is just so wrong.

lrrp22
01-26-2005, 10:58 AM
Hey fuastnik,

I'm not sure it is neccessarily 'slow'. 585 kph/363 mph is a reasonable speed for a P-51D w/wing racks running +18 lbs boost. That's at the low(est) end of Mustang power settings/configurations, but it is legitimate. It doesn't represent an ETO squadron service example all that well, but that seems to be the status quo for USAAF/RAF aircraft in AEP/PF.

Frankly, I'm more concerned with the P-51C which is *way* too slow for the V-1650-7 version it is purported to be, even for +18 lbs/67" hg boost.

I don't think it is a trim issue since I reached exactly the same speeds in the Ki-84-Ia and 109K-4 as I had in previous versions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Irp,

Some of us have noticed that trim settings seem to be more important for vMax lately. Just a thought. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A slow Mustang is just _so_ wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
01-26-2005, 11:06 AM
Oh, I thought the P-51B & C were modeled with the -3?

lrrp22
01-26-2005, 11:10 AM
Not according to the Object Viewer. If they are both modeled with the -3 then they should both be capable of 440-450 mph at 28,000 ft, or so. Has anyone ever tested this?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Oh, I thought the P-51B & C were modeled with the -3? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
01-26-2005, 11:16 AM
Looking at IL-2 Compare graphs since the P-51 was released for FB, the B/C always had better high altitude performance. I just figured it was the -3 which had the supercharger optimized for higher altitude (right?)?

lrrp22
01-26-2005, 11:30 AM
Right...

That's probably it- the OV is wrong and the P-51C is an early -1-NT model. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif All the more reason to give us a +25 lbs -7-engined Mustang III! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Looking at IL-2 Compare graphs since the P-51 was released for FB, the B/C always had better high altitude performance. I just figured it was the -3 which had the supercharger optimized for higher altitude (right?)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Looking at IL-2 Compare graphs since the P-51 was released for FB, the B/C always had better high altitude performance. I just figured it was the -3 which had the supercharger optimized for higher altitude (right?)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
01-26-2005, 11:35 AM
I did some SL speedruns not too long ago and I managed to reach 593km/h with the P-51D. But it is slower now, I managed 598km/h some patches ago.

Strange.

lrrp22
01-26-2005, 11:39 AM
Was that on v3.04? The reason I posted a 10-15 kph difference is because you had said that you reached 598 kph- I was never able to do better than ~595.

Oh, the inhumanity... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
I did some SL speedruns not too long ago and I managed to reach 593km/h with the P-51D. But it is slower now, I managed 598km/h some patches ago.

Strange. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
01-26-2005, 11:40 AM
So which plane is fastest on the deck Robban, P-51D or Dora?

lrrp22
01-26-2005, 11:42 AM
Dora, as it should be vs. a +18 lbs P-51.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
So which plane is fastest on the deck Robban, P-51D or Dora? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
01-26-2005, 11:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Was that on v3.04? The reason I posted a 10-15 kph difference is because you had said that you reached 598 kph- I was never able to do better than ~595.

Oh, the inhumanity... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did the 593km/h speed run in 3.03. I reached 598 way back in 2.03-04 something!

robban75
01-26-2005, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Dora, as it should be vs. a +18 lbs P-51.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
So which plane is fastest on the deck Robban, P-51D or Dora? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. The D-9 '44 can reach 605-608km/h and the D-9 '45 can reach 612km/h.

The '44 D-9 should reach 621km/h. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

lrrp22
01-26-2005, 11:52 AM
You know, I don't think I have done any speed runs since installing PF- maybe that is where the speed loss was introduced. I had just assumed it was a 3.03 or 3.04 thing...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Was that on v3.04? The reason I posted a 10-15 kph difference is because you had said that you reached 598 kph- I was never able to do better than ~595.

Oh, the inhumanity... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did the 593km/h speed run in 3.03. I reached 598 way back in 2.03-04 something! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
01-26-2005, 11:58 AM
If you do a speedrun, compare the acceleration to La-7 when you get above 550km/h. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

faustnik
01-26-2005, 11:58 AM
So, the fastest P-51s would have been the "B" model with the -7's and +25 boost, right Irp? This is because the B fusalge had less drag or weight?

lrrp22
01-26-2005, 12:00 PM
Robban,

Was the Dora's performance really *reduced* with the introduction of MW-50? I realize that C-3 was harder to come by than B4, but didn't the 213A operate at 1.8 ata boost regardless of whether it used C3 injection or B4/MW-50 to reach that boost? In other words, why would the MW-50 Dora be slower than the C3 injected Dora since both operated at the same boost/HP?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Dora, as it should be vs. a +18 lbs P-51.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
So which plane is fastest on the deck Robban, P-51D or Dora? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. The D-9 '44 can reach 605-608km/h and the D-9 '45 can reach 612km/h.

The '44 D-9 should reach 621km/h. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
01-26-2005, 12:12 PM
I'm not really sure on that one. But the chart that lists the performance of a D-9 using C3 fuel doesn't show the ata, which is too bad. But the very same chart shows the performance of the B4/MW50 D-9. And it is slightly slower at all altitudes.

But C3 fuel would allow for higher boost pressures compared to the B4 fuel and MW50.

lrrp22
01-26-2005, 12:29 PM
Would it? Obviously C3/MW-50 would allow for higher boost than B4/MW-50 (as in the DB605DC's 1.98 ata) but I'm not sure that C3 on its own could sustain more boost than B4 with MW-50.

We're only dealing with a 9 kph/5.5 mph@SL difference which I guess could be attributed to any number of fairly minor differences. Frankly, it may not require any explanation at all. 9 kph likely falls well within the noraml variation of what could be expected from two factory fresh and identically configured examples.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:

But C3 fuel would allow for higher boost pressures compared to the B4 fuel and MW50. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
01-26-2005, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
We're only dealing with a 9 kph/5.5 mph@SL difference which I guess could be attributed to any number of fairly minor differences. Frankly, it may not require any explanation at all. 9 kph likely falls well within the noraml variation of what could be expected from two factory fresh and identically configured examples.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I guess you're right. 9km/h isn't all that much. But 621km/h looks so much more than 612km/h! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Btw, AFAIK the C3 fueled D-9 didn't use MW50 to achieve higher boost pressures, it used a similar boosting system to the Anton's, by injecting C3 fuel instead. That's how I've come to understand it anyways.

faustnik
01-26-2005, 01:17 PM
When you're dragging a herd of angry Mustangs, every kph counts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

robban75
01-26-2005, 01:21 PM
He he, very true! But the P-51 is one of very few planes that the D-9 can dogfight on even terms with IMO. Mixing it up with Mustangs is very fun!

lrrp22
01-26-2005, 01:43 PM
I know what you mean! Now you know how I feel about my 10 kph-slower Pony! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

With the C3 thing- I wasn't under the impression that it was used with MW-50, I was only pointing out that C3 injection may have been more of an alternative to MW-50 than an improvement.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
We're only dealing with a 9 kph/5.5 mph@SL difference which I guess could be attributed to any number of fairly minor differences. Frankly, it may not require any explanation at all. 9 kph likely falls well within the noraml variation of what could be expected from two factory fresh and identically configured examples.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I guess you're right. 9km/h isn't all that much. But 621km/h looks so much more than 612km/h! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Btw, AFAIK the C3 fueled D-9 didn't use MW50 to achieve higher boost pressures, it used a similar boosting system to the Anton's, by injecting C3 fuel instead. That's how I've come to understand it anyways. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
01-26-2005, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
I know what you mean! Now you know how I feel about my 10 kph-slower Pony! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sure do! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Btw, at +18 lbs boost, what's the engines hp output?
And what's the output at +25 lbs? Just curious!

DarthBane_
01-26-2005, 02:15 PM
Good, good, it should lose even more speed, than the other allied ufos also need fixing,
specialy rebelions spit-wing. May the spit be with you.

lrrp22
01-26-2005, 02:22 PM
We get it, Darth. You don't like Yanks or Limeys- your posting history has made that abundantly clear.

Please go away.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
Good, good, it should lose even more speed, than the other allied ufos also need fixing,
specialy rebelions spit-wing. May the spit be with you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
01-26-2005, 02:34 PM
Stop turning Darth, you'll live longer and have less Spit envy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Von_Rat
01-26-2005, 02:37 PM
hmm you guys better check p51ds sl speed again.i just tested it.

crimea map, 100% fuel, rads closed, cockpit off TAS,, i got 597kph.

i just made sure i was trimed good, and i used proper prop pitch.

lrrp22
01-26-2005, 02:46 PM
For +18 lbs:
1690 HP@SL
1720 HP at a little under 10,000 ft

for +25 lbs:
1980 HP@SL
2020 HP at around 4,000 ft

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
I know what you mean! Now you know how I feel about my 10 kph-slower Pony! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sure do! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Btw, at +18 lbs boost, what's the engines hp output?
And what's the output at +25 lbs? Just curious! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
01-26-2005, 02:48 PM
Hey, I also managed 597km/h with a trimmed aircraft. Keeping the rudder centered seems to be important. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

robban75
01-26-2005, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
For +18 lbs:
1690 HP@SL
1720 HP at a little under 10,000 ft

for +25 lbs:
1980 HP@SL
2020 HP at around 4,000 ft

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks lrrp! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

lrrp22
01-26-2005, 02:56 PM
Just now? In v3.04? If so, then it's just because I SUCK! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Do you mean keep rudder centered, or the ball? When I test I usually trim everything but the rudder.

Hmmm, I wonder why I had no problem in the Frank or the K-4.

If you get a chance, could you test the P-51C?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Hey, I also managed 597km/h with a trimmed aircraft. Keeping the rudder centered seems to be important. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
01-26-2005, 03:05 PM
Keep the ball centered. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

lrrp22
01-26-2005, 03:16 PM
Aaaahhhh...

The Mustang's sensitivity to yaw trim must have been increased. I wonder if it was a universal change?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Keep the ball centered. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FA_Whisky
01-26-2005, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Hey, I also managed 597km/h with a trimmed aircraft. Keeping the rudder centered seems to be important.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

got a track? I get to about 585 without overheat. 597 is very fast......

Von_Rat
01-26-2005, 11:26 PM
closed rads on my test. i didnt bother to trim rudder.still got 597kph. yes version 3.04

ImpStarDuece
01-26-2005, 11:27 PM
I can get in the ballpark of the mid to high 590's, roughly 20m above SL, midday on crimea after some testing. Still fighting the trim a touch. After a couple of runs i can usually make about 593~595. Dammn, still missing those vital 2kph http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VVS-Manuc
01-27-2005, 12:58 AM
so everything is o.k. and there is no reason for some P-51 whining ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Hetzer_II
01-27-2005, 02:01 AM
Just wait a moment... will begin soon

lrrp22
01-27-2005, 08:42 AM
DOH! Closed rad's! It is entirely possible that I forgot to close the rad.

MEA CULPA, MEA CULPA!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
closed rads on my test. i didnt bother to trim rudder.still got 597kph. yes version 3.04 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
01-27-2005, 08:44 AM
Nope, no reason.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Luftwhining... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VVS-Manuc:
so everything is o.k. and there is no reason for some P-51 whining ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst__
01-27-2005, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Robban,

Was the Dora's performance really *reduced* with the introduction of MW-50? I realize that C-3 was harder to come by than B4, but didn't the 213A operate at 1.8 ata boost regardless of whether it used C3 injection or B4/MW-50 to reach that boost? In other words, why would the MW-50 Dora be slower than the C3 injected Dora since both operated at the same boost/HP?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Running on the exactly same boost, the plane that injects MW50 also MUST be faster. MW50 alone, without any boost increase boosted power by about 4%. This is due to the charge cooling qualities of the MW injection, increasing charge weight as well as adding some extra fuel to burn - methanol itself.

C-3 alone would be able to sustain the same boost as b-4/MW combination. The jumo213a powers are somewhat complex, I tend to believe the two charts curves showing d-9 at C-3 and B4+mw probably differ not in power output, but in existance of the ETC bombrack... ie. C-3 curve is clean, the other has the bombrack installed.

IIRC the B-4+MW or C-3 plane should reach 615 kph at SL (1945 Dora), the 1944 one about 580kph.

fherathras
01-27-2005, 10:46 AM
did a test in crimea map, 100% fuel, p-51D



top speed: 596kmh "wonderwoman wiew"



seems right to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JG53Frankyboy
01-27-2005, 10:52 AM
so, 3 pages for ............. nothing ????

i realy like this community http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
01-27-2005, 11:14 AM
b4+mw50 was cos of worsening fuel situation i think. aprently the mw50, the meths was there to stop water freezing at high alt, it did add combustion too, but u could always inject more fuel instead and get better combustion if fuel was better banger?

think jumo had enhort nostlising thingy, that pumps fuel into supercharger (much like mw50?)

it doesnt really matter, all we do is press W and go faster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

faustnik
01-27-2005, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:


it doesnt really matter, all we do is press W and go faster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does matter with the Doras. With the NE you can press "W" any time, with MW50 only initially engage WEP at low rpms.

lrrp22
01-27-2005, 12:22 PM
Nothing? Nothing you say?

Thanks to *moi*, we now know that the P-51D loses about 10 kph at sea level if you leave the radiator set to 'automatic'! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
so, 3 pages for ............. nothing ????

i realy like this community http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
01-27-2005, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Running on the exactly same boost, the plane that injects MW50 also MUST be faster. MW50 alone, without any boost increase boosted power by about 4%. This is due to the charge cooling qualities of the MW injection, increasing charge weight as well as adding some extra fuel to burn - methanol itself.

C-3 alone would be able to sustain the same boost as b-4/MW combination. The jumo213a powers are somewhat complex, I tend to believe the two charts curves showing d-9 at C-3 and B4+mw probably differ not in power output, but in existance of the ETC bombrack... ie. C-3 curve is clean, the other has the bombrack installed.

IIRC the B-4+MW or C-3 plane should reach 615 kph at SL (1945 Dora), the 1944 one about 580kph. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jumo power outputs are quite complex indeed. I'm a little bit confused when it comes to the performance of the two Dora versions we have in-game.
The First Dora's had a stock Jumo 213A which had an output of 1750PS, however a "steigerungsruztsats" were soon installed giving an output of 1900PS. At pretty much the same time a so called Oldeburg low pressure MW50 system was introduced. High pressure MW50 systems were introduced in late '44 early '45 IIRC. However, there is pictorial, charted and anecdotal evidence for C3 use on D-9's, although I have no idea on how extensive the use of C3 was.

Looking at the performance of the '44 D-9 in-game, it is not the very first D-9's with 1750PS, nor is it the 1900PS or Oldenburg MW50 boosted D-9. It has to be a C3 fueled D-9, with a higher ata than 1.8, as the climbrate is so great. There's a chart showing the speed of a B4/MW50 D-9 using 2.02 ata, and it reached 623km/h at SL. This is very close to the 621km/h for the C3 D-9.

VW-IceFire
01-27-2005, 04:59 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but the FW190D-9 1945 with the MW50 is a wee bit faster at lower altitudes but the FW190D-9 1944 is a bit faster at higher altitudes and benefits from slightly less weight? I mean, the MW50 gear was an addition to the plane and apparently weighed something significant.

Thats what I understood...

...or at least that the MW50 wasn't really an "improvement" to the design but rather a coping with the war situation sort of thing.

lrrp22
01-27-2005, 10:32 PM
Yep, it's official...I'm an idiot. It was the radiator flap. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

For the record: *THE P-51B/C/D HAS NOT LOST A SINGLE KPH IN THIS, OR ANY OTHER PATCH*.

My apologies...

P.S.- Did ya' hear that the P-51D is 10 kph slower at sea level with the radiator left at 'auto/closed'? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

jagdmailer
01-27-2005, 10:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Yep, it's official...I'm an idiot. It was the radiator flap. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

For the record: *THE P-51B/C/D HAS NOT LOST A SINGLE KPH IN THIS, OR ANY OTHER PATCH*.

My apologies...

P.S.- Did ya' hear that the P-51D is 10 kph slower at sea level with the radiator left at 'auto/closed'? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WTF ????

Jagd

Badsight.
01-28-2005, 02:03 AM
L-O-L @ this slanting into a LW plane discussion thread

i mean ffs look at the threads title , you want a c3 / b4 fuel discussion then make a new thread !

& Lrrp , the Pony used to be hobbled by 20 Kph in AEP , couldnt get over 684 Kph @ 7k , & even tho it does (eventually) reach 700 now , take a look at the time difference& overheat difference between it & the La-7 when you accellerate from 400 to top speed . . . .

can we say Huge ?

now which Prop fighter do you think was the most aerodynamic in WW2 ?

& isnt it aerodynamics these planes are fighting against the most in the hunt for extra speed ?

as in . . . . look at what 3000 Hp does to a Props top speed over 2000 Hp . . . . stuff all is what it does

p1ngu666
01-28-2005, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
now which Prop fighter do you think was the most aerodynamic in WW2 ?

& isnt it aerodynamics these planes are fighting against the most in the hunt for extra speed ?

as in . . . . look at what 3000 Hp does to a Props top speed over 2000 Hp . . . . stuff all is what it does <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

mossie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

fherathras
01-28-2005, 08:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
now which Prop fighter do you think was the most aerodynamic in WW2 ?

& isnt it aerodynamics these planes are fighting against the most in the hunt for extra speed ?

as in . . . . look at what 3000 Hp does to a Props top speed over 2000 Hp . . . . stuff all is what it does <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

mossie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

lrrp22
01-28-2005, 08:53 AM
Hey jagd,

In the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka:

Lighten up, Francis... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Yep, it's official...I'm an idiot. It was the radiator flap. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

For the record: *THE P-51B/C/D HAS NOT LOST A SINGLE KPH IN THIS, OR ANY OTHER PATCH*.

My apologies...

P.S.- Did ya' hear that the P-51D is 10 kph slower at sea level with the radiator left at 'auto/closed'? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WTF ????

Jagd <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
01-28-2005, 09:01 AM
Gotta agree with you, Badsight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I haven't tested speed at 7500 m, but when you consider that the Merlin Mustang could *cruise* at over 400 mph at altitude, it doesn't seem like that last 20 mph should be that much harder to reach than the La-7's last few mph. Especially when you consider the exponential manner in which drag increases with speed, coupled with the Mustang's known radiator thrust advantages at high speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
L-O-L @ this slanting into a LW plane discussion thread

i mean ffs look at the threads title , you want a c3 / b4 fuel discussion then _make a new thread_ !

& Lrrp , the Pony used to be hobbled by 20 Kph in AEP , couldnt get over 684 Kph @ 7k , & even tho it does (eventually) reach 700 now , take a look at the time difference& overheat difference between it & the La-7 when you accellerate from 400 to top speed . . . .

can we say Huge ?

now which Prop fighter do you think was the most aerodynamic in WW2 ?

& isnt it aerodynamics these planes are fighting against the most in the hunt for extra speed ?

as in . . . . look at what 3000 Hp does to a Props top speed over 2000 Hp . . . . stuff all is what it does <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

jagdmailer
01-28-2005, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Hey jagd,

In the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka:

Lighten up, Francis... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Yep, it's official...I'm an idiot. It was the radiator flap. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

For the record: *THE P-51B/C/D HAS NOT LOST A SINGLE KPH IN THIS, OR ANY OTHER PATCH*.

My apologies...

P.S.- Did ya' hear that the P-51D is 10 kph slower at sea level with the radiator left at 'auto/closed'? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WTF ????

Jagd <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whatever.....

Jagd

lrrp22
01-28-2005, 11:40 AM
edited: nevermind...