PDA

View Full Version : P51 B



AFJ_Locust
04-18-2005, 09:24 PM
Why are the wings flying off the P51 B ??

This was a strong & very fast fighter, It didn't suffer from the P51D wing problems

Why is it modeled here to fly off??

109g6 can fly as fast & pull more G's without riping the wing off, The P51 B should be able to follow it easy with no wing loss.

Come on all US ac were not paper airplanes that folded structurally like wooden kites

No im not whineing Im just wondering why the P51B is modled like its made of glass ?

VW-IceFire
04-18-2005, 09:48 PM
Good point, I thought only the P-51D had the door that fell of causing the structural failure of the wing in a high speed/high-G situation.

AFJ_Locust
04-18-2005, 09:58 PM
http://www.flightjournal.com/plane_profiles/p-51_mustang/p-51_mustang_history.asp

In numerous accounts about the development of the Allison-powered Mustang, it has been stated that its poor performance at high altitudes was a surprise and a disappointment to the British and to the USAAF as well. This simply is not so. The aircraft designers of that day had more than sufficient knowledge of powerplants, and they were capable of determining that the Allison engine and supercharger combination installed in the aircraft would have a drop in performance above 15,000 feet. Clear evidence of this is that two of the P-51s, ordered even before the flight of the first XP-51, were reserved for testing with a Packard-built Rolls Royce Merlin engine. They knew that the Allison-powered Mustangs would be low-Ievel fighters, while the Merlin-powered aircraft would be the high-altitude versions. By comparison, Mustangs with the Allison engine could outperform the Merlin-powered variants below 15,000 feet, but no writer has criticized the P-51B, -C, -D, or -K for having less performance at low altitudes. It has been claimed that the Merlin engine is what allowed the Mustang to reach its potential. If only high-altitude performance is considered, this would be true. But a more correct assessment would be that both the Allison and Merlin-powered versions performed very well at the altitudes where they were designed and intended to operate.



"The first production version of the Mustang to be equipped with the Merlin engine was the P-51B"

shinden1974
04-18-2005, 10:03 PM
heh, I never noticed that, I hardly ever dive very fast, I like to stay high and let the kids play in the grass. I'll have to try it. If I'm not mistaken wasn't the P-51 adapted from a dive bomber?

jarink
04-18-2005, 10:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shinden1974:
heh, I never noticed that, I hardly ever dive very fast, I like to stay high and let the kids play in the grass. I'll have to try it. If I'm not mistaken wasn't the P-51 adapted from a dive bomber? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it was designed as a fighter for export to the British. The USAAC saw the potential of the Allison-engined prototypes and briefly typed it as the A-36 Apache. As you can tell from the designation, it was to be used as a ground attack machine. Though it did have dive brakes, I don't think it was ever really used like a true dive-bomber.

There's actually a few of these still in existance.
Surviving Early Mustangs (http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/survivors/p51listA.shtml)

p1ngu666
04-18-2005, 10:41 PM
ppl whined for elivator authority, so 1c gave it that in SPADES, basicaly u can pull 15 or more G instantly with a slight movement
kinda like those mental aerobatic planes, but more deadly

we should whine for it to have authourity like p47, corsair..

AFJ_Locust
04-21-2005, 07:27 AM
Its not whineing

I asked a legitimate question

The B's wings shouldnt be snapping off as they do.

I want it realistic or as close to reality as it can be.

AFJ_Locust
04-21-2005, 07:33 AM
The Mustang's combat record is generally considered to consist of: 4,950 air kills, 4,131 ground kills and 230 V-1 kills, with an 11:1 "kill ratio".


If the wings were snapping off all the time I think that loss number would be alot higher http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

VW-IceFire
04-21-2005, 08:03 AM
On the other hand...the elevator is such that 15G is possible and I'm sure that will overstress any airframe...

Pingu is right, everyone whined for increased elevator authority and they got it alright. Well beyond the tolerances of any WWII aircraft...

Slickun
04-21-2005, 08:29 AM
I just don't see where the Allison Mustangs were better performers at low levels. I believe that quote was from a Smithsonian magazine that was a special edition about the Mustang. If so, it got an amazing number of things worng, IIRC.

Brits got 51's over 400 mph on the deck.

horseback
04-21-2005, 08:53 AM
On paper, Allison Mustangs performed only somewhat better on the deck than the Merlin ponies, but the real advantage was in handling. The Allison versions were lighter, quicker, and better balanced; contemporary British evaluations compared it quite favorably to the Spitfire at lower altitudes. Allison Mustangs were much 'sweeter' and forgiving aircraft than the Merlin models, just as the Merlin Spits were easier handling than the higher performance Griffon versions.

Adding the multi-stage Merlin and the greater fuel capacity for high altitude performance and even greater range added weight and changed the center of gravity unfavorably, but this was an acceptable loss in view of the added reach and performance.

cheers

horseback

Chuck_Older
04-21-2005, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shinden1974:
heh, I never noticed that, I hardly ever dive very fast, I like to stay high and let the kids play in the grass. I'll have to try it. If I'm not mistaken wasn't the P-51 adapted from a dive bomber? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it was designed as a fighter for export to the British. The USAAC saw the potential of the Allison-engined prototypes and briefly typed it as the A-36 Apache. As you can tell from the designation, it was to be used as a ground attack machine. Though it did have dive brakes, I don't think it was ever really used like a true dive-bomber.

There's actually a few of these still in existance.
http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/survivors/p51listA.shtml <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's also because to bury some of the cost, the Army used some money it had for development of a ground attack aircraft. They played lots of name games back then. For instance: in the '20s and '30s, the USAAC had a hard time getting Congress to fund new fighter aircraft. So, they called them Pursuit planes instead, and gave them a mission profile of intercepting or 'pursuing' enemy attack aircraft. That's why the P-51 is a "P" 51 and the P-40 is a "P" 40, and so on, the P stands for Pursuit. The army just gave the planes called "pursuit" the same design requirements any fighter would have, and Congress was more or less tricked into funding a new generation of fighter aircraft

Bull_dog_
04-21-2005, 11:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
On the other hand...the elevator is such that 15G is possible and I'm sure that will overstress any airframe...

Pingu is right, everyone whined for increased elevator authority and they got it alright. Well beyond the tolerances of any WWII aircraft... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen only a couple of things that Oleg has changed due to whining...the HMG's and the P-47, both of which had substantial evidence (like the Lightning) indicating an inconsistancy across various aircraft.

The Mustang has problems with wings and elevator authority...It is easy for Fw's to evade at high speed because a mustang just can't follow the moves or wings fall off. If there was a problem with a door coming open during high g turns (i'm skeptical about that) it was not so significant as to tarnish the reputation of the Mustang.

The Mustang did not have the structural integrity of a Jug, but neither did any single engined fighter aircraft of the day...no Locust is right in that there is a problem. Whatever its root cause, the current Mustang is not modelled accurately in any way. Of course real pilots had inputs to determine the relative state of their aircraft than we do...partiuclarly sound, g force etc...but there is no way any logical person could draw the conclusion that the elevator authority and wing shedding is anywhere close to the real thing....The mustang had arguably the best elevator authority at high speed but it wasn't effortless.

I die far more often from wing shedding than any other reason when flying a Mustang...more than the Fw which sheds wings too...it is not right and imho, the mustang took a step backwards in modelling accuracy when this feature was accentuated. It was a great representation at one time of the real aircraft and it is no longer.

p1ngu666
04-21-2005, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
Its not whineing

I asked a legitimate question

The B's wings shouldnt be snapping off as they do.

I want it realistic or as close to reality as it can be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i didnt mean u http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

but yeah, its overdone and should be toned down. dont think its had a problem with p47 authority, its always been enough for me

ICDP
04-21-2005, 12:03 PM
I wish some people would stop acting like the only fighter with this problem is the P51. The Fw190A and D's both shed their wings at high speed if you are not careful, the same thing happens with the Ki84. Tests have been done using devicelinl to show that at EVERY occasion a wing is shed the aircraft had reached 15G. The reason you dont black out in such a manouever is becuase it is so instant you don't get time to feel it (in the game of course). In reality during such a high G high speed maouver you would FEEL the excesive G force and instinctively release the pressure.

It is also a common misconception to believe that the 109G or Spitfire are pulling more G's with impunity. They are simply so locked in concrete at high speed they are TOTALLY UNABLE to pull enough G to stress the airframe.

IMHO the solution to this problem is to reduce high speed elevator authority on the affected aircraft, at the moment it is unrealisitcally excessive.

JG52Karaya-X
04-21-2005, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
Why are the wings flying off the P51 B ??

This was a strong & very fast fighter, It didn't suffer from the P51D wing problems

Why is it modeled here to fly off??

109g6 can fly as fast & pull more G's without riping the wing off, The P51 B should be able to follow it easy with no wing loss.

Come on all US ac were not paper airplanes that folded structurally like wooden kites

No im not whineing Im just wondering why the P51B is modled like its made of glass ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're missing the point that the Bf109s controls freeze up at high speeds. It can go as fast as a 'Stang in a dive but won't pull nearly as many Gs - actually it's pretty hard to blackout the pilot... on the other hand the Stang can pull up as if it was going at only 300km/h... a lot more Gs involved

JG52Karaya-X
04-21-2005, 12:33 PM
And as it has been already mentioned the following planes also suffer from this "problem":

- FW190A,F,D
- Me262A1a/2a
- He162
- Go229
- Me163
- YP80
- Ki84

JG52Karaya-X
04-21-2005, 12:39 PM
The solution to this problem would be to give the P51 its realistics high-speed elevator authority... as it is now it can pull a lot tighter than it shoud resulting in wing-shredding

It seems that quite some planes are missing their correct compression effects... these include:

-FW190s (although they should be some of the most manoeuvrable planes at high speeds they need to be turned down a bit)
-P47s (why do you think they introduced DIVE BRAKES on late model planes huh?)
-P51s of course
-Ki84s (pretty overdone in my eyes)

AFJ_Locust
04-21-2005, 02:12 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ICDP:
I wish some people would stop acting like the only fighter with this problem is the P51. The Fw190A and D's both shed their wings at high speed if you are not careful,QUOTE]

ICDP Im not some noob that runs around here for fun Id rather be flying......

I also fly the Dora and ALL of the FW's

They do not shed wings like the P51 does, FW can make Very sharp turns at very high speed

Go 600kmh+ in a FW & yank the stick back, NO PROBLEM, Try it in a P51 Poof wing comes off.

This wing shedding is non realistic & should be addresed before we get the patch


I have perfect evidence of a fight that happened only the other day

Im flying home in my FWA6 after wasteing 2x Spits, when I spot a P51B in a shallow dive from maybe 300m high on my six, Im going around 480kmh hes probly doing 490 were at 1800m or so.

I also go into a shallow dive, about 10 to 12 degree dive, Hes closing slowley, Im gaining speed near 580kmh now....... Hes still closeing slowley......... were getting close to the deck about 500m, I dive untill I reach 610kmh he starts too pull the trigger & I pull the nose vertical as hard as I can, I look over my shoulder & the P51B wing ripped right off he goes twiriling to the deck with no wing & I go home & land.

Dont tell me thats reality even if its fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

ICDP
04-21-2005, 03:30 PM
I didn't call you a noob locust. I do agree that this is a problem that is due to over sensitive controls at hi speed.

Your story is no different than my own experience in the Fw190. I pulled in behind a Spitfire at 610kph and just as I was about to open fire he pulled up, I pulled hard to get a snapshot and my wing came off.

Again I am not disputing the P51B has a problem, I am merely saying it isn't the only aircraft to exhibit this problem, they should ALL be fixed.

3.JG51_BigBear
04-21-2005, 04:09 PM
The P-51 wing is two separate pieces. Each piece was mounted to the feus separatey. This made the aircraft much easier to transport. Compare that design to the single piece Focke Wulf wing that had a solid, single piece spar that ran the length of the wing.

When you combine the Mustang's excellent elevator authority with a weak wing design...well we all know what happens.

HellToupee
04-21-2005, 05:08 PM
ive pulled my wing off in a 190 a few times, mostly when pulling for a snap shot, also the ki84 wing seems to come off easyer than the mustangs yet no whines http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, ive lost it plently of times following a mustang in dives and pulling out even when not trying to pull lead and poof no wing.

Stanger_361st
04-21-2005, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
On the other hand...the elevator is such that 15G is possible and I'm sure that will overstress any airframe...

Pingu is right, everyone whined for increased elevator authority and they got it alright. Well beyond the tolerances of any WWII aircraft... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Icefire I am not agreeing with ya or disagreeing. Has anybody done a devicelink test to see how many g's are pulled before you black out. I have definte pulled wings off before an blackout. I wonder if 15g is possible.

p1ngu666
04-21-2005, 07:20 PM
u pull 15g very very quickly, like say hitting a ball with a bat, or dropping something, u get a sudden massive G, and with limit planes just fall apart.
if there was a sustained 15g, we would hardly ever break wings

Abbuzze
04-22-2005, 04:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
u pull 15g very very quickly, like say hitting a ball with a bat, or dropping something, u get a sudden massive G, and with limit planes just fall apart.
if there was a sustained 15g, we would hardly ever break wings <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

100% correct, we all have to life with the limitation of the engine, I think reducing elevator authority - would like to hear the whining then, seems to be the only possibility to reduce the pilots ability to reach the 15g.
190 hold their wings longer simply cause they loose speed faster when they trying to turn.
Thats the complete mystery.
If you like to stay with the historical correct elevator you will have to life with the breaking wings, like FW pilots will enjoy the pretty gunsight.

geetarman
04-22-2005, 09:38 AM
Just a small tidbit - lower your stick settings a bit towards the lower range. I used to have my stick at 100 across the board. A little pull on the stick at 420mph would rip the wings off.

I lowered the settings a bit towards the low end and have seen an improvement. Not an elimination, mind you, but an improvement.

I dove at a 190 this morning and hit 610mph. I pulled significantly, but not abruptly, to get on his six and the wings stayed on.

p1ngu666
04-22-2005, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
u pull 15g very very quickly, like say hitting a ball with a bat, or dropping something, u get a sudden massive G, and with limit planes just fall apart.
if there was a sustained 15g, we would hardly ever break wings <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

100% correct, we all have to life with the limitation of the engine, I think reducing elevator authority - would like to hear the whining then, seems to be the only possibility to reduce the pilots ability to reach the 15g.
190 hold their wings longer simply cause they loose speed faster when they trying to turn.
Thats the complete mystery.
If you like to stay with the historical correct elevator you will have to life with the breaking wings, like FW pilots will enjoy the pretty gunsight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the elivator isnt historicly correct tho is it. on average coop u will loose 1-2 or more to wingsnap caused by high G. so thats probably 10% of the p51's in the coop.
p51 had a 11 to 1 kill ratio according to someone else, so the luftwaffe managed to shoot down 1 p51, for every 10 wing breakages.
amusing anology really. the p51 elivator was 10x more dangerous too the pilot, than the entire luftwaffe, and probably including flak aswell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif.

Badsight.
04-22-2005, 03:36 PM
im amazed

im able to yank the D around harder than i can the B

first time it happened to me i was like "wtf!"

RedNeckerson
04-22-2005, 05:48 PM
All P-51Bs were grounded in March 1944 because engines were breaking away from airframes.

Other than that, the biggest problems for the P-51B was persistent gun stoppages.

You asked for historical accuracy? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

As far as wing failures, they were very well known on the P-51D, two test pilots being killed due to wing failures after the first D models arrived in England.

From Roger Freeman's Mighty Eighth War Manual

"Instances of wing and empennage failures occured throughout the Mustangs operational use, the causes of which were difficult to identify".

In late 1944 skin wrinkling through overstress was common for P-51Ds and Mustangs were being lost every week.

External reinforcement plates had to be added to P-51s at both the wings and tailplanes to try and cure the problem.

More info can be found on this in 8th AF historian Roger Freeman's books as well as a number of other sources.

German evaluations of the P-51, though laudatory in most cases refer to its tendency to "break apart in violent maneuvers".

ZG77_Nagual
04-22-2005, 05:54 PM
I think this is due to the overcontrolling problem in the mustang. The elevator is really too light - hence you can pull alot of G's instantaniously. When I first heard this might be the problem I did some testing and it does indeed seem to be the case - you just have to enforce a little elevator discipline when pulling up from high speed.

RedNeckerson
04-22-2005, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geetarman:
I dove at a 190 this morning and hit 610mph. I pulled significantly, but not abruptly, to get on his six and the wings stayed on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

610mph, or 610kph?

610kph is about 378 mph - and the FW190 can handle that speed all day long.

610mph however, is over 980kph.

Already in level flight alone before 980kph, the FW190 in this sim has begun to shed ailerons and elevators in my experience.

Can you provide a n.trak showing a significant pull at 980kph and no damage for the FW190?(not intended as a flame)

fordfan25
04-22-2005, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
I just don't see where the Allison Mustangs were better performers at low levels. I believe that quote was from a Smithsonian magazine that was a special edition about the Mustang. If so, it got an amazing number of things worng, IIRC.

Brits got 51's over 400 mph on the deck. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



400 on the deck ...then why cant we http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Slickun
04-22-2005, 08:02 PM
400 on the deck ...then why cant we http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/QUOTE]

Well, we don't get to operate at 25+ boost.

The Brits did in real life. And, as I've recently learned, VII Fighter Command on Iwo Jima in the Pacific did as well.

We don't. We get the slothful boost settings the 8AF used.

AFJ_Locust
04-23-2005, 01:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:


Again I am not disputing the P51B has a problem, I am merely saying it isn't the only aircraft to exhibit this problem, they should ALL be fixed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


RGR T

AFJ_Locust
04-23-2005, 01:27 AM
I regularly dive bomb targets doing 800kmh in the B & D proper trim helps iliminate some of the wing shedding, I rarely lose a wing in that situation, the times I lose wings is when following a 109g6 late in a highspeed dive, doing around 700kmh, when they go vertical out of the dive they cant turn very sharp, so realy im not turning very hard either, but still the wing comes off the B, not sure about the D in that situation because its a semi historical planeset server, It just seems odd to me that the 109g6late while loosing elevator authority at speeds above 600kmh can pull more vertical out of a high speed dive than the P51B can, maybe it is accurate I honestaly do not know but it sure dosent seem right imo.

Aaron_GT
04-23-2005, 01:28 AM
"Has anybody done a devicelink test to see how many g's are pulled before you black out. I have definte pulled wings off before an blackout. I wonder if 15g is possible."

Some people did this a while back and could find no difference in terms of blackout or breakup point (in terms of Gs) between any of the planes.

EPP_Gibbs
04-23-2005, 03:06 AM
You're all having a laugh...15G?? WW2 fighters were not stressed to take 15G, even modern Jets don't want to do 15G even instantaneous, never mind sustained..what's the point?

An average human untrained and without a G suit will black out at around 5G positive. Training pushes the G tolerance higher as do certain physical attributes, and positioning within the aircraft, but fully trained modern fighter pilots even with the aid of G suits struggle to stay awake approaching 10G positive which is about the structural limit for some, but sadly not all, WW2 fighters. Spits were stressed to 10G positive, I think. Some were worse than that. So, your Stang pulling it's wings off at 15G..what do you expect? It shouldn't even be pulling 15G...and if you are you shouldn't even be awake to even see the wings come off if you are, having sailed through 7-8-9-10G etc before reaching the ludicrous figure of 15! Given the Mustang's history of shedding wings..are you surprised?

109 pilots also used to worry about high G turns because of the weakness of the 109 wings.

G tolerance is about keeping your blood in your head against the tendency for it to drain into your lower body under the effect of the extra force pulling it down.

What seems to affect tolerance are distance between heart and head, ie, physical atttribute, elevating your lower body relative to your heart, ie, seating position or raising your feet, level of fitness, and performing strain excercises under G load to restrict the blood flow away from the head....a bit like straining to take a Sh1t while tightening your leg muscles at the same time.

p1ngu666
04-23-2005, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP_Gibbs:
You're all having a laugh...15G?? WW2 fighters were not stressed to take 15G, even modern Jets don't want to do 15G even instantaneous, never mind sustained..what's the point?

An average human untrained and without a G suit will black out at around 5G positive. Training pushes the G tolerance higher as do certain physical attributes, and positioning within the aircraft, but fully trained modern fighter pilots even with the aid of G suits struggle to stay awake approaching 10G positive which is about the structural limit for some, but sadly not all, WW2 fighters. Spits were stressed to 10G positive, I think. Some were worse than that. So, your Stang pulling it's wings off at 15G..what do you expect? It shouldn't even be pulling 15G...and if you are you shouldn't even be awake to even see the wings come off if you are, having sailed through 7-8-9-10G etc before reaching the ludicrous figure of 15! Given the Mustang's history of shedding wings..are you surprised?

109 pilots also used to worry about high G turns because of the weakness of the 109 wings.

G tolerance is about keeping your blood in your head against the tendency for it to drain into your lower body under the effect of the extra force pulling it down.

What seems to affect tolerance are distance between heart and head, ie, physical atttribute, elevating your lower body relative to your heart, ie, seating position or raising your feet, level of fitness, and performing strain excercises under G load to restrict the blood flow away from the head....a bit like straining to take a Sh1t while tightening your leg muscles at the same time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

gibbs, the massive elivator authority ingame means u pull 15g right away, with a slight movement on the stick at high speed. the speed at which u move the stick, and possibly if u have some turning is a big factor in wingrip, but ive done it while being very gentle...
u dont "sail" through 5-6-7 G, id say that its less than a second, probably .5secs or even less. so its u put in some movement, and bang u lost your wing instantly.
btw i use default stick settings.

think the p51 wingshed was due to highspeed air sucking the wheel covers down, changing the aroedynamic load, and snapping the wing, not due to pullouts?