PDA

View Full Version : Overheating problems (P51)



domenlovrec
12-29-2006, 06:17 PM
I was just flying on zeke vs. wildcat server some late 45' mission. I was "flying" P51C at 6000m when i saw Ki84 below me. I attacked this guy (he was flying about 4000m) and afcours i missed him. Then i climed back at 5500m, leveled, look backward and saw this pilot closing on me. He was far away, so i went full throtle with closed radiator. I thought my only weapon now is speed. I went into a very slow climb + very gentle left turn. Engine was overheating so i opened radiator (full) and set throtle at 80% (this is what i normaly do when overheating, plz give me some advice about that). When cooled, i closed raditor and again set throtle to full. That didn't work cause dude on my six was so close i heared his engine. I don't know why he didn't shoot. I made sharp left turn with combat flaps on. He went to spin, when i saw that i got too excited. At the end, we were both spining. But that's another story. I just don't understand why was he closing on me and that's why i came to ask you.

carguy_
12-29-2006, 06:40 PM
You either lost a lot of E or were jumped by another Ki84.

Sometimes,it happens that the enemy you engage below you is already at high E state and can retaliate if you make a mistake.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sigjzg23upgraded.jpg
Self-proclaimed dedicated Willywhiner since July 2002
: Badsight.:"increased manouverability for bf-109s was satire" :
Please bring back 3.01 dots!

Brain32
12-29-2006, 06:59 PM
First of all, you can run P51 at 103% throtthle with rads on auto for as long as you have fuel in P51. Close rads for only short periods where it can make a difference(kill or be killed situations).
As for what happened I would need to see a track, but from what you wrote, like Carguy said, he may had been at high cruise speed at the moment of bounce. Also I noticed you said you dived from 6000m down to 4000m and back to only 5500m, P51 is one of if not the Best dive and zoomers in the game, at the very least you should have been back at 6000m, you lost quite a big amount of E somwhere in the process.
Also, if I am not mistaken ki84 is a much better sustained climber than P51 so if you decided to run, climbing was a bad idea, a mild turn coupled with engine overheat didn't help either...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
12-29-2006, 07:01 PM
You went into a powered shallow climb and the Ki84 has a much better climb rate.

You also turned allowing him top cut the corener, the advantage is always with the chasing plane, becasue he doesnt have to follow your path, he can just head straight for you and if you are turning at all, he will cut the corner.

Possibly you lost a lot of energy in the attack and the Ki84 managed his a lot better.

It would have been bettr to go into a shallow dive, not climb, but even then the Ki84 is a year later model than the P51C, so I would think it may be able to catch you.

Next time go into a shallow dive and fly dead straight, never turn if you are trying to outrun someone.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

ElAurens
12-29-2006, 07:21 PM
Unlike the P51D, the C model should have 20mph on the Ki84, but not in the climb.

This of course assumes that the P51B/C in game can reach it's real world top speed.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/ELsKi.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

vocatx
12-29-2006, 08:52 PM
I fly the Frank on that map when it's up. The Mustang can leave the '84 in the dust as long as you don't climb or turn. If you are co-E with your opponent you can simply fly level and run away. If he has the E advantage on you, then a SHALLOW dive to gain speed, followed by a level runout should get you to safety. Also, learn all you can about engine management in the P-51. A good place would be Zeno's Warbirds. They've got some great WWII training films you can watch for free.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

4H_V-man
The 2nd Horseman

Akronnick
12-29-2006, 09:24 PM
My engine strategy in the Mustang is as follows:

Rule #1: Never touch the Radiator.
Rule #2: Never touch the Radiator.
Rule #3: In climb, run the engine at 99%, hold airspeed at 170 mph indicated for best climb.
Rule #4: In combat, run the engine at 110%, hold airspeed above 250 mph whenever possible, speed is life, speed also keeps your engine cool, more speed -> more air through radiator -> cooler engine. As long as you keep your speed up, you won't overheat.
Rule #5: In a combat climb situation, run the engine at 110% and hold 170 mph IAS. When the engine begins to overheat, reduce power to 99% until overheat goes away, then wait five seconds and return to 110%.

Generally speaking, the P-51 can run at 110% indefinately, as long as you keep your speed up and keep air moving through that radiator.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

Bearcat99
12-29-2006, 10:47 PM
Prop pitch. You need to use prop pitch. When trying to run, especially if you have a little speed already and some distance, drop your pitch to @95 at first... throttle to 100 rad on auto.... when your speed stops increasing then drop the pich to 90...do not climb.. watch your altimeter.... stay level.... you will outrun most planes ..especially in 4.07. I havent had the chance to do this in 4.071 yet.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>

Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | Magnum PC.Com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/) | Joint Operations (http://www.joint-ops.com/joil2fb/default.asp)

<span class="ev_code_white">Oleg: I think players should upgrade their PC after the release of Storm of War: The Battle of Britain, but not now. Minimum system would be probably like last year good system for IL-2 series. The simulation has gone from what was to be a study sim involving one aircraft to a real monster anthology of WWII aviation. The engine has been stretched to fit multi-engined bombers, aircraft that are linked (such as the Mistel and the TB-3/I-16 combinations), aircraft carriers, runway cratering, working searchlights, etc.



</span>

Bearcat99
12-29-2006, 11:22 PM
I am really impressed with the B. I have a QM that I alays run to test these things with... since the Mustang is my favorite plane.. and I must say that up until now it was hard to even be competitive... I couldnt catch anything.. and as soon as I tried to extend I was hunted down and blown out of the sky.. if I got something in my sights it seemed like my guns were ineffective. No more.. I really like the P-51 in this version and I really hope it never gets changed.... I think it is as close to it's historical performance as it has ever been in this sim... It isnt a plane that will win th fight for you.... but if you handle it well you can win almost any fight.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>

Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | Magnum PC.Com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/) | Joint Operations (http://www.joint-ops.com/joil2fb/default.asp)

<span class="ev_code_white">Oleg: I think players should upgrade their PC after the release of Storm of War: The Battle of Britain, but not now. Minimum system would be probably like last year good system for IL-2 series. The simulation has gone from what was to be a study sim involving one aircraft to a real monster anthology of WWII aviation. The engine has been stretched to fit multi-engined bombers, aircraft that are linked (such as the Mistel and the TB-3/I-16 combinations), aircraft carriers, runway cratering, working searchlights, etc.



</span>

KaleunFreddie
12-30-2006, 12:19 AM
Think of this.. when trimmed your plane has less drag so can go faster for the given power setting.
Now drag, which slows you down, is introduced via..

1) Plane out of trim for the power settings.
2) Torque from the engine which make the plane 'crab'. Usually brought on by grunting the throttle, flying at lower speeds and high prop-pitch with max throttle. As BC says adjusting Prop-Pitch helps here. Also requires trimming.
3) The usual stuff, flaps, wheels, high AoA's..etc

You have to think in 3D and the effects on your plane of your actions. When using E tactics this is easy enough, but when in a tight DF you gotaa think fast, maannn!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Oh! watch that vertical needle on your bank indicator. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.bomber-command.info/medalbc.jpg

Bearcat99
12-30-2006, 06:32 AM
Rgr that.. I forgot all about trim...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>

Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | Magnum PC.Com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/) | Joint Operations (http://www.joint-ops.com/joil2fb/default.asp)

<span class="ev_code_white">Oleg: I think players should upgrade their PC after the release of Storm of War: The Battle of Britain, but not now. Minimum system would be probably like last year good system for IL-2 series. The simulation has gone from what was to be a study sim involving one aircraft to a real monster anthology of WWII aviation. The engine has been stretched to fit multi-engined bombers, aircraft that are linked (such as the Mistel and the TB-3/I-16 combinations), aircraft carriers, runway cratering, working searchlights, etc.



</span>

DuxCorvan
12-30-2006, 06:54 AM
Bla bla bla. Frank was a better plane. Japanese engineers are competitive. Nintendo and Sony are Japanese. US citizens buy Japanese products. Frank was a better plane. (Oops, I told that yet).

Live with that.

How could he catch you?

HE CAUGHT YOU.

Haaa! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Richardsen
12-30-2006, 06:59 AM
Does anyone have a good engine strategy on Spit?

Ratsack
12-30-2006, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by Richardsen:
Does anyone have a good engine strategy on Spit?

Sugar in his fuel tank?

Ratsack

Ratsack
12-30-2006, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I am really impressed with the B. .

Likewise. I have a series of QMB that I only ever did in the B for the sheer masochism of it. It kicks ar$e now. In my view, it's better than the D at high alt.

cheers,
Ratsack

GH_Klingstroem
12-30-2006, 07:53 AM
Prop pitch and trim!!!
the p51 never overhets for me and I ALWAYS fly with rads closed, to get an extra 20kmh.
In dives come back on prop pitch and in STEEP climbs ONLY give it 100!! In shallow climbs it may stay at 90. NEVER EVER dive with prop pitch at full! Thats when she will overheat! Check RPM gauge to see as proof. Usually u will be way beyond the green arc and the engine is not comfortable there and will overheat quickly!
Instead my trick is to leave power at 100 + WEP (depending on altitude, check manifold gauge to see when WEP will give u extra power, usually up to 3500m and from 6000m and up, in between 3500m-6000m WEP doesnt really give u extra power at least in the D model) and then leave rads closed at all times! Sometimes I go rads 2 if I have to.
Try it out offline and come back and let us know!! In 4.071m the P51 is better than ever!! A pure energy fighter finally! I fly only the p51 and fw190 since 7 months and I know what they can do!
Make sure the nose of the AC stays stable!! Basicly, trim it all the time! The p51 is famous for that irl as well. Every time u have to correct the attitude by pushing or pulling with ur stick, she is UNTRIMMED and that going to create drag as someone mentioned!
anyway, try it and u will see!
this goes for every single plane in the game where u can adjust proppitch! I promise it works!

ElAurens
12-30-2006, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I am really impressed with the B. .

Likewise. I have a series of QMB that I only ever did in the B for the sheer masochism of it. It kicks ar$e now. In my view, it's better than the D at high alt.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This should come as no suprise. The B and C model P51s were 15 to 20 mph faster than the D model at altitude owing to their more aerodynamic shape. The bubble canopy of the D is much draggier than a razor back desgn.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/ELsKi.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

Tator_Totts
12-30-2006, 08:32 AM
This is great stuff here. To bad we do not have stickys for each plane with info like this.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/AG-51/Stanger.gif

knightflyte
12-30-2006, 08:57 AM
At the end of the years "BEST OF" I vote Dux as funniest on UBI forums!

Prop pitch was mentioned and is correct. I recently read Vulgar's Engine management article on Airwarfare.com. In it I learned that RPM management is the guide to go by. Each plane has an optimum RPM band. Keeping it there is done through engine management. Throttle... Prop Pitch... Trim... Radiator...

Look on the spec sheet for the P 51 to see the RPM bandwidth. (The 450 page pilot manual on the '46 DVD)

I've found myself overheating much less if I pay attention to RPMs verses trying to ride the fine line of climb rate and engine throttle settings.

It helped me understand engine management in a different way. The end result is the one we all strive for..... more speed while keeping a cooler engine. Looking at it this way via RPM management is better than guessing if I have the right settings or not. Be sure.

CEM (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_cem.htm)

Aaron_GT
12-30-2006, 09:26 AM
Rule #3: In climb, run the engine at 99%, hold airspeed at 170 mph indicated for best climb.

If you are being chased then the pursuer might have the option of a slightly shallower climb and a higher ground speed and might be able to close distance horizontally and vertically at some point. It all depends on the ROC at any particular airspeed for each aircraft, and those aren't figures it is easy to find as most charts are max ROC at the best climb speed as opposed to ROC at a slightly higher speed. The advantage for the P51 is going to be its zoom and high cruise speed, so the best option might be to zoom up until you are still at high cruise and then extend horizontally and then when clear try a climb, assuming you have no wingman. If you can't get clear at high cruise you have the option of going to WEP and a very gentle dive and the P51 should pick up speed fairly well. The P51's level acceleration isn't great so I am not sure I'd want to try to do it from 170, though.

domenlovrec
12-30-2006, 10:00 AM
I was flying all day, trying different settings. So i took p51D20, and tried to fly as fast as i could at sea level (10m).

throttle: 100%, Radiator: auto (no overheating), prop. pitch: 100%, max speed between 520-530.

throttle: 100% Radiator: closed (no overheating), prop. pitch: 75% (at the edge of green area-2700RPM), max speed 540

throttle: 110% Radiator: closed (overheating), prop. pitch: 75% (at the edge of green area-2700RPM), max speed 560

throttle: 110% Radiator: closed (overheating), prop. pitch: 100%, max speed 580

Tnx for all replys!

TheBandit_76
12-30-2006, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Bla bla bla. Frank was a better plane. Japanese engineers are competitive. NintBendo and Sony are Japanese. US citizens buy Japanese products. Frank was a better plane. (Oops, I told that yet).

Live with that.

How could he catch you?

HE CAUGHT YOU.

Haaa! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Better indeed:

.....resulted in a steady drop in quality standards of both the engine and the airframe of the Hayate as the war progressed. The performance and reliability of production Hayates was seldom as good as that of the service test machines.

As the quality of the workmanship steadily deteriorated, the performance of the Hayate steadily declined as production progressed, with later machines having successively poor and poorer performance and mechanical reliability. The hydraulic and fuel pressure systems were both poorly designed and were subject to frequent failures.

.........................................

In theory it was a great plane, but in RL, no.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/sparksco/PacificFighters/BudSig.jpg

For the good old American lifestyle: For the money, for the glory, and for the fun... mostly for the money.

TheBandit_76
12-30-2006, 10:15 AM
In BoB the Ki84 should have 2 out of 3 (or whatever appropriate number) engine failures at random times, early Mustangs should have gun jams at high Gs, etc, etc.

Who's up for that?

http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/thnx.gif

GH_Klingstroem
12-30-2006, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by domenlovrec:
I was flying all day, trying different settings. So i took p51D20, and tried to fly as fast as i could at sea level (10m).

throttle: 100%, Radiator: auto (no overheating), prop. pitch: 100%, max speed between 520-530.

throttle: 100% Radiator: closed (no overheating), prop. pitch: 75% (at the edge of green area-2700RPM), max speed 540

throttle: 110% Radiator: closed (overheating), prop. pitch: 75% (at the edge of green area-2700RPM), max speed 560

throttle: 110% Radiator: closed (overheating), prop. pitch: 100%, max speed 580

Tnx for all replys!

hey buddy, try one more!
Fly with radiator closed(maybe 2) and 100% power (not 110!) and wep enabled! check what happens to ur mainfold pressure! I will increase, but u will still not get overheat, or at least very seldom!
Experiment as u have done, and u will find small tricks! thats exactly what I have done! the use them online!
we need p51 riders online that kick butt! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DuxCorvan
12-30-2006, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
In theory it was a great plane, but in RL, no.

Just like P-51. Great range for a single engined, tho. The rest is a legend based in great looks and fairly gained statistics over umpaired and outnumbered late war enemies.

ElAurens
12-30-2006, 11:14 AM
As we all know all aircraft in the sim are modeled as factory fresh, well made, perfectly maintained examples, running on the best available fuels and lubricants.

This is as it should be.

Too many of you Red flyers (and Luftwhiners too) just want to shoot fish in a barrel. Where is the challenge in that?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/ELsKi.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

TheBandit_76
12-30-2006, 11:25 AM
Rgr that. Leave the Hayate as Uber as needed. I have a big grin on every time I put one down. For Dux, you are simply perpetuating myths. The P51 went into combat outnumbered many times.


Top Web Results for "umpaired"

No results found for umpaired.
Did you mean impaired (in dictionary) or Impaired (in encyclopedia)?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/sparksco/PacificFighters/BudSig.jpg

For the good old American lifestyle: For the money, for the glory, and for the fun... mostly for the money.

BillyTheKid_22
12-30-2006, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
Rgr that. Leave the Hayate as Uber as needed. I have a big grin on every time I put one down. For Dux, you are simply perpetuating myths. The P51 went into combat outnumbered many times.


Top Web Results for "umpaired"

No results found for umpaired.
Did you mean impaired (in dictionary) or Impaired (in encyclopedia)? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/bkid/pacificfighters/p39.jpg

.................................................. ..............

"All I got was a bellyful of English Channel."

DuxCorvan
12-30-2006, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
Top Web Results for "umpaired"

No results found for umpaired.
Did you mean impaired (in dictionary) or Impaired (in encyclopedia)?

Typo. It happens. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Anyway, not so bad for a non-native English speaker.

Well, outnumbered by what? Swarms of badly maintained, low-octane fueled, super-weathered aircraft piloted by half-trained teens living in harsh conditions and dragged to war to fight to extenuation and utmost attrition?

When I say that they outnumbered their enemies from 1944 on, I mean outnumbered real enemies in the sky. Flying targets, sitting ducks and vulched airbases don't count.

If you want to know how Mustang earned its fame, just fight always against rookie AI, and you'll have the all-winner Mustang you dream of.

Spitfire, Corsair, Yaks, Las, Frank, Doras: those ARE good designs.

The real merit of Mustang is being there when they were desperately needed, and being a fairly good performer. That it was far more effective scaring bandits off the bombers than the miriad .50s of the Fortresses alone. Not having more Schweinfurts is a good reason to praise it alone. And that it is a very very beautiful plane. "Cadillac of the sky".

But it was not the miracle of killing technology that media insists in depicting. Just had the job done -that should be enough.

TheBandit_76
12-30-2006, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:

Well, outnumbered by what? Swarms of badly maintained, low-octane fueled, super-weathered aircraft piloted by half-trained teens living in harsh conditions and dragged to war to fight to extenuation and utmost attrition?

When I say that they outnumbered their enemies from 1944 on, I mean outnumbered real enemies in the sky. Flying targets, sitting ducks and vulched airbases don't count.

I believe this has been covered over and over, and there were numerous German aces still flying later than most Luft-apologists want to admit.


If you want to know how Mustang earned its fame, just fight always against rookie AI, and you'll have the all-winner Mustang you dream of.

I never said I "dreamed" about anything. The P51 has a terrific war record that revisionists will never be able to sweep under the carpet.


Spitfire, Corsair, Yaks, Las, Frank, Doras: those ARE good designs.

So the Mustang was NOT a good design? First I've heard about it.


But it was not the miracle of killing technology that media insists in depicting. Just had the job done -that should be enough.

I don't think even the Hysterical Channel has ever slapped "miracle of killing technology" on the Mustang. The last docu-entertainment show on the P51 characterized it as the plane that "turned the tide" of the airwar in Europe.

Sounds like a great weapon to me.

Always wanted to do a Tagert-like quote down with somebody. That was fun, and it's ok if we don't......

Agree 100%!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/sparksco/PacificFighters/BudSig.jpg

For the good old American lifestyle: For the money, for the glory, and for the fun... mostly for the money.

DuxCorvan
12-30-2006, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
Always wanted to do a Tagert-like quote down with somebody. That was fun, and it's ok if we don't...... Agree 100%!

He he, me too, but I'm too lazy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ok, ok, I won't break the heart of Mustang lovers anymore. Oleg does it much better. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

TheBandit_76
12-30-2006, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:


Ok, ok, I won't break the heart of Mustang lovers anymore. Oleg does it much better. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Nah, I don't give Oleg that power.

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

The Mustang did stink through 4.xx, but she is back for good in 4.07+.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/sparksco/PacificFighters/BudSig.jpg

For the good old American lifestyle: For the money, for the glory, and for the fun... mostly for the money.

BillyTheKid_22
12-30-2006, 02:44 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/bkid/pacificfighters/p39.jpg

.................................................. ..............

"All I got was a bellyful of English Channel."

jasonbirder
12-30-2006, 03:06 PM
the plane that "turned the tide"

It sure did...'cos it was all going so badly up till 1944....

Bearcat99
12-30-2006, 03:32 PM
The Mustang was a good plane.. period. It was fast responsive, climbed and dove well.... and contrary to the misinformed... it wasn't just flying against inferior aircraft. The 4.07 Mustang is the best of the series IMO and if it doesnt change it more than does the plane of legend justice.... without hiding any of it's warts.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>

Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | Magnum PC.Com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/) | Joint Operations (http://www.joint-ops.com/joil2fb/default.asp)

<span class="ev_code_white">Oleg: I think players should upgrade their PC after the release of Storm of War: The Battle of Britain, but not now. Minimum system would be probably like last year good system for IL-2 series. The simulation has gone from what was to be a study sim involving one aircraft to a real monster anthology of WWII aviation. The engine has been stretched to fit multi-engined bombers, aircraft that are linked (such as the Mistel and the TB-3/I-16 combinations), aircraft carriers, runway cratering, working searchlights, etc.



</span>

Vike
12-30-2006, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
Does anyone have a good engine strategy on Spit?

Sugar in his fuel tank?

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


ROFL! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif


@+ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://vike01.free.fr/images/avatars/signIL2.jpg
- AthlonXP 2400Mhz + 1024MB DDR CL 2.0
- Radeon 9800XT 460/790Mhz
- Saitek X-52 + Track IR 4 Pro
- Aka JV69_Vike http://vike01.free.fr/images/avatars/jv69.jpg

BfHeFwMe
12-30-2006, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
Top Web Results for "umpaired"

No results found for umpaired.
Did you mean impaired (in dictionary) or Impaired (in encyclopedia)?

Typo. It happens. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Anyway, not so bad for a non-native English speaker.

Well, outnumbered by what? Swarms of badly maintained, low-octane fueled, super-weathered aircraft piloted by half-trained teens living in harsh conditions and dragged to war to fight to extenuation and utmost attrition?

When I say that they outnumbered their enemies from 1944 on, I mean outnumbered real enemies in the sky. Flying targets, sitting ducks and vulched airbases don't count.

If you want to know how Mustang earned its fame, just fight always against rookie AI, and you'll have the all-winner Mustang you dream of.

Spitfire, Corsair, Yaks, Las, Frank, Doras: those ARE good designs.

The real merit of Mustang is being there when they were desperately needed, and being a fairly good performer. That it was far more effective scaring bandits off the bombers than the miriad .50s of the Fortresses alone. Not having more Schweinfurts is a good reason to praise it alone. And that it is a very very beautiful plane. "Cadillac of the sky".

But it was not the miracle of killing technology that media insists in depicting. Just had the job done -that should be enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another confirmation on how great the Stang really was. One must answer the question, how did this vunderbar uber Luftwaffe get in this shape in the first place?

Only one possible answer, carp planes like the early P-47s, P-39s, P-40s, and P-38s along with other undermenshen carp totally decimated them first. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif If these Carp planes with their noobs could destroy the experten on their own home turf, with axis numbers advantages, how the **** could they have expected to face off against the Mustang any way?

Try answering that one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Xiolablu3
12-30-2006, 05:35 PM
Ermm I think you forgot the Spitfires, Typhoons, Yaks, Hurricanes, MOsquitos, Pe2's, and Las through 1939 to 1945.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

carguy_
12-30-2006, 05:50 PM
I mussay I quite agree,chaps.

P51 was really a mediocre plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sigjzg23upgraded.jpg
Self-proclaimed dedicated Willywhiner since July 2002
: Badsight.:"increased manouverability for bf-109s was satire" :
Please bring back 3.01 dots!

Kettenhunde
12-30-2006, 07:06 PM
Let's not rewrite history for the sake of a game shape.

The USAAF grossly outnumbered the Luftwaffe in the air:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1150913302_sizeofopposingforces.jpg

1944 was the year the Luftwaffe's back was broken. In doing so though the USAAF took considerable casualties in air to air combat.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1150913328_lossrates.jpg

The USAAF enjoy massive quantitative superiority over the Luftwaffe. The USAAF also enjoyed a massive qualitative advantage. The average USAAF fighter pilot had many times the experience of the average Luftwaffe pilot. The Allies were simply much better trained and more experienced pilots:

Comparison of total training flying hours:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1154278426_traininghours.jpg

Average flying time in operational type aircraft:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1154278480_flyinghours.jpg

Here are the USAAF fighter air to air losses in Europe during 1944 in comparison to other years:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1167530445_1944usaaffighterlossesairtoair.jpg

Drawing conclusions about individual aircraft performance during this time is rather silly.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Xiolablu3
12-30-2006, 07:28 PM
ALso remember this is only the USAAF figures, elsewhere the RAF, RCAF, COmmonwealth and VVS were attacking in force too.

Not taking sides here but there can be no doubt the Luftwaffe was massively outnumbered from 1943 and on, trying to fight 3 Superpowers with a country around the size of France. (Britain was a world power then too)

There really ant be any denying this fact.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

heywooood
12-30-2006, 08:13 PM
so the gist of these boards is that the P-51 Mustang was a marginal airplane at best and wouldn't even receive that notable accolade if not for the English Merlin engine.

The Mustang was no big deal - in fact - the P-51 was outclassed by most if not all other fighter aircraft fielded by every other country in the war.

The P-51 was designed as a bomber escort and could hardly fly at any other altitude or perform any other task with any distinction whatsoever and no matter what was written down by test pilots postwar, or during the war in active combat pilot evaluations, the real truth, the indisputable truth is that all of those reports are a pack of lies and propaganda.
The Mustangs' biggest asset was that it came late to the party after all the good Luftwaffe aces were gone and Germany could no longer sustain her airforce....The P-51 took advantage of the attrition and was not in any way actually responsible for it...

Kinda like that 'mountain of evidence' thing all over again innit?

But no you tell us, Oleg has made the plane exactly as it should be.

Is that it?

because you is wrong be sure.

I have proofs

I have tracks

I have graphs

I have sandwiches

Ofcourse - none of that matters to the people that want to revise history and obliterate the truth - and the truth is - you can't handle the Mustangs' truth.

Face it - there really is no denying that fact.

now bow to His Stangishness and repeat after me...

I - state your name - do hereby acknowledge - that teh P-51 wno the war - amen

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/sixshooter.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/afewofTheFew-1.jpg

A few of The Few

Akronnick
12-30-2006, 09:50 PM
I Akronnick do hereby acknowledge - that teh P-51 wno the war - amen<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

BfHeFwMe
12-31-2006, 03:56 AM
VVS? Come on, the winter of 43 after the fall of Stalingrad with the almost complete grounding of axis air due to severe weather, Soviets operating out of prepared installations gained for the first time air superiority.

To bad the VVS couldn't take advantage, nor muster an air arm even half the strength of those in the African theatre alone. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif And Africa was a small side show in 43, the desert ground forces they supported were miniscle compared to Russia, there were more troops in the city of Kiev than all of Africa. East front was a land battle, air war, where? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Xiolablu3
12-31-2006, 04:03 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
VVS? Come on, the winter of 43 after the fall of Stalingrad with the almost complete grounding of axis air due to severe weather, Soviets operating out of prepared installations gained for the first time air superiority.

To bad the VVS couldn't take advantage, nor muster an air arm even half the strength of those in the African theatre alone. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif And Africa was a small side show in 43, the desert ground forces they supported were miniscle compared to Russia, there were more troops in the city of Kiev than all of Africa. East front was a land battle, air war, where? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

With an answer like this, why even bother?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

msalama
12-31-2006, 04:49 AM
East front was a land battle, air war, where?

Where? F.ex. in supporting that land battle w

jasonbirder
12-31-2006, 05:06 AM
East front was a land battle, air war, where

I think you'll find that the Russians were saving those thousands of La's Yaks's Pe's And IL's just in case the war rolled on into 1946...

On a serious note:

Luftwaffe Strength in the East:

June 1943 2292
Dec 1943 1683
Mar 1944 1785

Luftwaffe Strength in the West:

June 1943 1528
Dec 1943 2510
Mar 1944 2340

(Fighters/Zerstorer/Bombers & Recon - Excludes Transport & Seaplanes)

Which I think should put paid to any claims that there was no air war in the East compared to the Western Front...

Kettenhunde
12-31-2006, 05:28 AM
Click on:


Luftwaffe Aircraft Losses By Theatre September 1943 - October 1944

http://jg26.vze.com/<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Manu-6S
12-31-2006, 06:26 AM
IMO:

I really don't give much credit to the "P51 won because of german young pilots": tactically they were still a match for the 8th AF (Samuel W. Taylor said this).

The real advantage of P51 was the condition of the fight: Luftwaffe didn't have good high altitude planes (they tried with Turbo-Compressors but nothing until the Ta152H) and since P51 were escort fighters they always found themself in altitude advantage against inferior planes (at that alt) aimed to the bombers.

Luftwaffe could have made the same in the BoB but He111s were **** and the Fat Guy ordered the escort fighers to stay close the bombers, losing all the advantage they could gain.

Finally, then the German high alt planes were operative it was too late: NOW US fighters outnumbered the Luftwaffe.

Simply the combo "B17s - P51s" was perfect: the greater aspects of P51 were range and speed (and nothing more... be honest with yourself: it was mediocre in the other aspects)

Like many said: P51 was the right plane at the right time... nothing more but propaganda made a myth of it.


PS: Damn, I tried the Mustang MkIII yesterday: it's the best 4.05 plane... I could play against 2 my mates flying Dora '44!!! P51 - Mustang mkIII is similar to Anton - Dora.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/banner.gif (http://www.diavolirossi.net)

Tator_Totts
12-31-2006, 06:54 AM
More American propaganda be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif From Zeno's Warbirds.


http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-51.html


It was the Mustang's ability to place at or near the top in so many categories that made it an outstanding aircraft and a leading candidate for Best All Around Fighter of World War II: It was among the fastest piston engine planes of the war; it had an outstandingly high Mach number and strong construction so it could out dive opponents; it had a very good roll rate and could use it's "combat flaps" to turn inside many opponents; the P-51's great range meant it could fly farther and loiter longer in the battle zone than it's opponents,

It's six 50 caliber machine guns packed plenty of punch and the Mustang's rugged frame could absorb an unusual amount of damage. Though not "easy' to fly and requiring that the pilot pay attention, the Mustang was predictable, with good stall characteristics and was without any really nasty habits.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/AG-51/Stanger.gif

KaleunFreddie
12-31-2006, 07:01 AM
Probably the most important point that is missed is the Luftwaffe tactics decreed by Goering.

This being that all a/c should attack the bombers, thus giving the escorts the advantage. The germans being disciplined followed this order, to their peril. A few 'rebelled' against these orders and sensibly formed this tactic.. The Me109's attacked the escorts and the FW190's hit the bombers... the results..

Escort losses rose alarmingly, as well as the bomber losses.

Conclusion... With correct tactic application the P51 was outclassed, even at altitude. The P51's saving grace WAS that there were not enough experienced lutwaffe pilots to exploit this tactic...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.bomber-command.info/medalbc.jpg

Aaron_GT
12-31-2006, 07:12 AM
Simply the combo "B17s - P51s" was perfect:

Although given the numbers in service B24-P51 might have been the more common combination.

In terms of fighting ability when in combat the big advantages of the P51 are its performance at altitude compared to the 190A and 109G series. The advantages narrow somewhat towards the end of the war with the 190D and 109K series.

In terms of a overall war machine, though, are factors which don't really shine in the simulation: superior training of US pilots, team work, better nutrition in the USAAF, superior maintenance, a better laid out cockpit meaning a good level of comfort (somewhat offset by the duration of escort missions, admittedly, but it did mean that US pilots could be competitive when engaged, whereas a similar length mission in a 109, even if it was possible would have led to a high level of pilot fatigue and reduction in fighting ability), and range, better trim, G suits. Some of these don't really shine in the sim.

Perhaps some things could be modelled in BoB, like modelling nutrition differences by differences in fatigue level. It might be nice to have energy levels modelled as a function of mission length such that you can set up an escort scenario after 3 hours of flying and have the fatigue taken into account and affected by cockpit ergonomics. It would bring out the differences between aircraft a bit more.

Aaron_GT
12-31-2006, 07:17 AM
Though not "easy' to fly and requiring that the pilot pay attention, the Mustang was predictable, with good stall characteristics and was without any really nasty habits.

It had good stall characteristics in a low speed stall. The accelerated stall was apparently not such fun, with a tendency to sometimes flip the plane upside down as torque took over. Takeoff could sometimes be a handful due to torque (probably not as much as a handful as the 109 with its narrow track landing gear, though). By the time combat on escort missions was taking place the nasty issue with the fuselage tank had been dealt with by draining it, at least.


So the P51 certainly wasn't without vices but they were no worse than other aircraft, and it had a roomy and well laid out cockpit with a good level of pilot protection which made long missions easier to fly.

The other positive factor (in general) was the excellent high cruise speed, although ironically it could sometimes be a problem going slow enough for escort missions, sometimes compromising fuel usage to range. That's more of an issue with the B17 and B24 not being fast ENOUGH really, though, and not a fault of the P51, although in a sense it is the whole bombing system (bombers plus escort, bombs, navigational aids etc) that is the thing.

Manu-6S
12-31-2006, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by KaleunFreddie:
Probably the most important point that is missed is the Luftwaffe tactics decreed by Goering.

This being that all a/c should attack the bombers, thus giving the escorts the advantage. The germans being disciplined followed this order, to their peril. A few 'rebelled' against these orders and sensibly formed this tactic.. The Me109's attacked the escorts and the FW190's hit the bombers... the results..

Escort losses rose alarmingly, as well as the bomber losses.

Conclusion... With correct tactic application the P51 was outclassed, even at altitude. The P51's saving grace WAS that there were not enough experienced lutwaffe pilots to exploit this tactic...

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

I agree only with your first statement, but this is well known: a great part of the German defeat was caused by higher Command orders. (Hitler above all)

Inexperienced german pilots where still disciplinated and well trained: all that missed to them was.. experience. Experience is that takes you home, but this doesn't mean that they couldn't take some enemies with them. The tactics were well applicated, but they miss all the little secrets to stay alive.

P51 outclassed? no at all... they had their pros and some cons...

A question: what did you send against bombers if you were a Luftwaffe general? I think 109 (speed above 7000m and greater number of machines) against escorts and FW190 (firepower, 4 times a bf109) against bombers was the best choose.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/banner.gif (http://www.diavolirossi.net)

Manu-6S
12-31-2006, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Although given the numbers in service B24-P51 might have been the more common combination.


I wrote B17 because was the first US bomber in my mind http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Good postes Aaron: you seem to me very unbiased http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/banner.gif (http://www.diavolirossi.net)

Aaron_GT
12-31-2006, 08:28 AM
I wrote B17 because was the first US bomber in my mind Tongue

I know - the B24 is always the bridesmaid, never the bride when bombers get discussed. It might be because (to most people, me included) the B17 is a prettier plane, its heritage ultimately being from 1930s airliner designs, and the 1930s were one of the decades in which beautiful design was much in evidence in many areas.


Good postes Aaron: you seem to me very unbiased Wink2

Thanks. I try to be open minded.

In terms of daylight raids the USAAF won the war (or that battle) but the aircraft's performance is only part of the picture, which is what I wanted to say, and the other part of the picture isn't just numbers or training but a whole series of less obvious factors that we don't have modelled in the sim. At least we are (it seems, at least) fatigue and wear-and-tear in BoB so it means that there might be a path to get things like mission fatigue, egonomics, pilot fitness (the USAAF and US military in general had a great fitness programme in WW2 that was probably the best of any combatant nation) taken into account.

Kettenhunde
12-31-2006, 08:36 AM
and well trained

I don't think is a true statement at all refering to the late war Luftwaffe.

Consider that a basic private pilot training in the US at a minimum must include 40 hours of flight training and 40 hours of ground, you are looking at 80 hours of training just for basic VFR flight.

That is just the basics of flight operations. Steep turns, slow flight, stalls, take off, landings etc...

All in trainer type aircraft!

The late war German pilot training did very little to prepare a pilot to fly a state of art complex high performance fighter at the edge of the envelope.

USAAF pilots on the other hand learned insturment flight, gunnery, air to air combat tactics and gained an average of 8 times the amount of experience just flying the aircraft they would use in combat.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Kettenhunde
12-31-2006, 08:43 AM
Crumpp says:

Drawing conclusions about individual aircraft performance during this time is rather silly.

This statement seems to have been overlooked in my first post.

Either that or some folks see it as:

"Drawing conclusions about <insert preferred type for whatever side one wishes to make silly game point in the hopes some game developer will listen> aircraft performance during this time is rather silly."

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Manu-6S
12-31-2006, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and well trained

I don't think is a true statement at all refering to the late war Luftwaffe.

Consider that a basic private pilot training in the US at a minimum must include 40 hours of flight training and 40 hours of ground, you are looking at 80 hours of training just for basic VFR flight.

That is just the basics of flight operations. Steep turns, slow flight, stalls, take off, landings etc...

All in trainer type aircraft!

The late war German pilot training did very little to prepare a pilot to fly a state of art complex high performance fighter at the edge of the envelope.

USAAF pilots on the other hand learned insturment flight, gunnery, air to air combat tactics and gained an average of 8 times the amount of experience just flying the aircraft they would use in combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, with well trained I mean that that were trained about the base tactics: how to attack a bomber, what to do if your plane is damaged, the wingman job ect...

At last, when you have learned the basis you need to do experience: and every hour of flight is experience.

I see this with my mate in the OTU of my squadron: some are very strong since the beginning, can shoot well and takeoff and land with no difficulties.... but when you try to force your hand they die... because they didn't know all the little tricks to survive.

We are sure that they were not able to use their plane at 100%, but THAT war was different from our game: a old G6 could still kill a P51 if suprised at 6, and that was the common way to achieve kills. They usually weren't forced to use the 100% of the plane.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/banner.gif (http://www.diavolirossi.net)

Kettenhunde
12-31-2006, 09:35 AM
Yes, with well trained I mean that that were trained about the base tactics: how to attack a bomber, what to do if your plane is damaged, the wingman job ect...


Certainly if you consider a ground lecture good training for attacking a bomber.

Both Oscar and Heinz related that late war "pilot training" was performed in actual combat.

For example Oscar's transition to the Focke Wulf consisted of a 20 minutes of ground instruction followed by 20 minutes of touch and go's in the pattern. He then formed up with his unit and flew his first operational mission in the type intercepting USAAF bombers.

He recieved less than 1 hour of instruction in the FW190 before engaging in combat.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

msalama
12-31-2006, 09:38 AM
...and was without any really nasty habits.

OK, that's your $0.002.

This (http://www.migman.com/ref/pilots/Henriques/P51.htm) article from a well-known RL Mustang demonstration pilot, however, paints a tad more refined picture about the beast and its behaviour. An excerpt from the article: " First and foremost, you never forgot for a minute that it could bite hard if you got careless."

HTH http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hippies FTW!

Manu-6S
12-31-2006, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Certainly if you consider a ground lecture good training for attacking a bomber.

Both Oscar and Heinz related that late war "pilot training" was performed in actual combat.

For example Oscar's transition to the Focke Wulf consisted of a 20 minutes of ground instruction followed by 20 minutes of touch and go's in the pattern. He then formed up with his unit and flew his first operational mission in the type intercepting USAAF bombers.

He recieved less than 1 hour of instruction in the FW190 before engaging in combat.


This is not a basis teaching about combat tactics: it's a "look, this is the FW190 and these are its controls".

Said like you did it seems almost that they took one man from the street and after 40 minutes he could fly against the target.

Combat tactics don't depend from tha plane you fly.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/banner.gif (http://www.diavolirossi.net)

heywooood
12-31-2006, 09:43 AM
Yes please we must be realistic - the plane had vices and they had to be respected! lets no have any fairey tales about the Mustang.

So much power in the front end means the pilot must be carefull with the rudder in all flight regimes and attitudes.

But to imply as so many here do - that it was mediocre and pffft...'poor' in a turn fight or at low altitude or as a low level ground attack plane is rediculous.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/afewofTheFew-1.jpg

A few of The Few

Xiolablu3
12-31-2006, 10:00 AM
Surely its obvious that it will be poor in a turn fight tho, as it had a turn comparable turn as a FW190, with was also poor in a turnfight?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

GH_Klingstroem
12-31-2006, 10:29 AM
Yes I think we can all agree that it SHOULD be poor in turnfights! I love the p51 in 4.07!!

Kettenhunde
12-31-2006, 10:44 AM
This is not a basis teaching about combat tactics:


Just how much of a "basis" in combat tactics can you teach in the total time given? The 125 hours total training time is not enough time to make a pilot proficient in navigating from point A to point B much less flying a complex high performance aircraft at the edge of the envelope. In the US a civilian pilot requires 160 hrs of total training time just get a basic IFR rating and basic pilot certificate. Again there is no flight training beyond the very basic maneuvers in this instruction.

Personally I think you greatly underestimate the basic skills and amount of time it takes just to fly a complex high performance aircraft and navigate. This game has nothing in common with reality and just because your friend can fly a game shape in a few minutes practice has no bearing.

Little to no time is available for "practice" for combat in a safe environment in 1944 Germany. The entire country was a combat zone and training units conducted "training" on actual combat missions. Even civilian pilots flew combat missions if they were employed by an aircraft factory. Kurt Tank was in charge of the Focke Wulf factory defense flight for example.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Tator_Totts
12-31-2006, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...and was without any really nasty habits.

OK, that's your $0.002.

This (http://www.migman.com/ref/pilots/Henriques/P51.htm) article from a well-known RL Mustang demonstration pilot, however, paints a tad more refined picture about the beast and its behaviour. An excerpt from the article: " First and foremost, you never forgot for a minute that it could bite hard if you got careless."

HTH http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for your $.00000000002 worth quote<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/AG-51/Stanger.gif

Manu-6S
12-31-2006, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Just how much of a "basis" in combat tactics can you teach in the total time given? The 125 hours total training time is not enough time to make a pilot proficient in navigating from point A to point B much less flying a complex high performance aircraft at the edge of the envelope. In the US a civilian pilot requires 160 hrs of total training time just get a basic IFR rating and basic pilot certificate. Again there is no flight training beyond the very basic maneuvers in this instruction.

Personally I think you greatly underestimate the basic skills and amount of time it takes just to fly a complex high performance aircraft and navigate. This game has nothing in common with reality and just because your friend can fly a game shape in a few minutes practice has no bearing.

Little to no time is available for "practice" for combat in a safe environment in 1944 Germany. The entire country was a combat zone and training units conducted "training" on actual combat missions. Even civilian pilots flew combat missions if they were employed by an aircraft factory. Kurt Tank was in charge of the Focke Wulf factory defense flight for example.

I think navigation is the lesser problem: like you said there was things what would be learned inflight: after all because of this usually a young pilot is assigned as wingman to more experienced mates (I remember Sakai who said his new wingman above Iwo Jima "Stay close to me and nothing will touch you", something similar... my book is in italian and I miss the exact statement).

I'm not saying that flying a warbird it's easy: not at all!! I'm sure that lots of those guys experimented engine problems or crashed in takeoff/landing procedure because of their inexperience (I remember the story about the young guy in the me109 who didn't know well how to work with manual pitch). I'm sure that those BEASTS there difficult to manage, the TempestV's Sabre itself must be clean every 1 minute within the ground procedures (I'm not using exact words here, sorry).

A basic combat manouvre: "If you find yourself in troubles dive and return for home"... sure this statement were told to the young pilots (maybe not in my bad english) and sure this guy did so when in trouble: they dove away not knowing the a P51 or P47 followed him (following in a dive a esacaping plane is a crazy choose, but I imagine that in case of number superiority this could be done without many problems)... So you now find the good guncameras of Anderson there he's chasing the enemy at 200m alt.

That I mean from the beginning is that these guys had the chances to make their job: not that their mission were suicidal... they were following more expert pilots who could take them out of trouble thanks to his ability as leader and thanks to his tactics. Like I told you before, if enemies forced their hands on them it's sure that they would die (if they not killed themself). The point is: did their commander lead them against death at every mission? No, I don't think.

Again Samuel W. Taylor said that even if young and inexperienced pilots the Luftwaffe always was a mathc for 8th AF thanks to their offencive and difensive tactics.

Interesting the part of the civilian and K. Tank: probably they were teached some combat tactics too.

Sorry again for my english. I wish I'va practiced it more in the past.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/banner.gif (http://www.diavolirossi.net)

msalama
12-31-2006, 11:22 AM
Thanks for your $.00000000002 worth quote

You're welcome! My money's seemingly worth more than yours however, because I at least _contributed_ something to this discussion...

HTH again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hippies FTW!

Kettenhunde
12-31-2006, 11:44 AM
I think navigation is the lesser problem:

Actually navigation was a huge problem for the Germans. Central Europe is not known for it's plethora of good flying days.

You are making the assumption that a pilot is always in contact with another friendly aircraft. In this case that friendly aircraft would have to be one of the less than 5% of the experten in the Jadgwaffe.

I am sure you have heard of "empty sky syndrome".


they were following more expert pilots who could take them out of trouble that to is ability as leader and thanks to his tactics.

I think you are greatly overestimating the number of experten in the Luftwaffe and the effect that years of continous combat had on the formation leaders. That effect was to further reduce the numbers of effective combat leaders available to the Jagdwaffe.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

horseback
12-31-2006, 12:17 PM
Let's settle some basic points:

1. ALL fighter aircraft in the late war are much more of a handful than a modern Cessna. ANY statements about a forgiving flight characteristic MUST be taken in the context of other fighters of that period.

For example, in the late 1930s RAF, the Hurricane was considered an extremely challenging aircraft to fly, and had an early reputation as a killer compared to the Spitfire (and even more so compared to the Gladiator).

Part of this can probably be attributed to the early Hurricane squadrons wanting to be recognized as composed of 'hot' pilots. The real 'forgiving and tractable' qualities of the Hurri (relative to other high performance fighters of the time) only became well known after the Battle of Britain.

Simply put, every fighter aircraft of the period had its vices and would bite you hard if you made a wrong move.

2. In over forty years of reading, talking to pilots who actually flew the aircraft, and doing models of WWII aircraft, I have seen no indication of an occasion where a Mustang entered combat with a full fuselage tank. The COG problems associated with a full tank were recognized very early, and the fact is that the Mustang with the main wing tanks filled had a substantial range.

Drop tanks were often mounted on the Mustang instead of filling the fuselage tank for missions requiring less than maximum range.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Referring to the handling problems associated with the Mustang's fuselage tank is simply an attempt at distraction, and is irrelevent to a serious discussion of the aircraft's combat qualities.</span>

3. The Mustang did its greatest damage to the jagerkorps during the period of late January to mid Aprilof 1944, when there were very few Mustangs available (and even fewer when its' teething problems are factored in-it had a fairly high initial abort rate) and the Jug had yet to build up the range to reach central Europe. The fighter and zerstorer geschwadern defending the skies over the Reich were still mostly pre and early war trained and combat hardened, yet they were decimated during this period.

The historical record does not indicate that the bomber gunners suddenly acquired the skills of the ai in this game, so it must have been the Mustangs flown by mostly well trained but NOT combat experienced USAAF pilots.

Only the 4th Fighter Group had any significant combat experience out of all the Mustang groups operating during that key period, and while they did disproportionately well, the 'rookie' groups were still doing far more scoring than the Lightning and Thunderbolt groups with veteran cores during that time.

I gotta go do laundry.

cheers

horseback<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"Here

Tator_Totts
12-31-2006, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thanks for your $.00000000002 worth quote

You're welcome! My money's seemingly worth more than yours however, because I at least _contributed_ something to this discussion...

HTH again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes your quote is better than my quote. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/AG-51/Stanger.gif

Xiolablu3
12-31-2006, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Let's settle some basic points:

yet they were decimated during this period.



Were they?

I'm pretty sure it was a more gradual thing, look at the difference in numbers on the graph posted, you have to add to that the RAF, Commonwealth and VVS attacking too.

You have to surmise that the RAF and the VVS were holding the Germans to a stalemate at least through 1939-1943, and when the USAAF joined in it was simply too much for them, the numbers began to tell.

I would not say it was the P51 as a fighter which broke the back of the Luftwffe, but the combined pressure from overwheliming numbers of RAF, USAAF and VVS planes, which made the Germans have to divide their forces.

Seems more like a 'straw which broke the camels back' situation.

Remember that often the German fighters were told to 'ignore the enemy fighters, go only for the bombers', which automatically put the defending fighters in a very advatages position.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Bearcat99
12-31-2006, 01:00 PM
The bottom line is, regardless to what any of the nay sayers in this thread or on these boards may say the Mustang was indeed a good plane. Up high. Down low. In any air to air fight with a competent pilot. To even discuss how the Mustang should do against Spitfires or Yaks is moot. Thats the sim. In the real world the planes would not have met in any great numbers in opposition to one another. Against the planes it was designed to fight and their successors within the time from of the war give or take a few years the Mustang was a capable contender to be taken lightly at your peril. I have yet to speak to any Mustang pilots who have said the Mustang was anything but a dream to fly.... a bit tricky.. and you had to keep your head out of your butt... not very forgiving but a dream to fly. I have spoken to dozens of men who have flown the Mustang.... in combat at various airshows and TA meetings.. and not one.. not one... had anything bad to say about the Mustang other than the well doc umented issues... like the center tank thing, the torque, the overheating issue on the deck, and the susceptibility of it's engine to small arms fire.. a flaw most inline engines had. For those who want to say the Pony was a dog until it got the Merlin I say pure BS... The main thing the Merlin did was give the Mustang better high alt performance... but by virtue of it's design even the Alison engined Mustangs were not pushovers. Anyone who thinks differently is probably biased against the plane anyway, totally ignorant of the facts or a combination of the two. Mediocre? pfft... Hardly. And don't give me that nonsense about how the Mustangs so outnumbered all the German rookie pilots either... baloney.

Lastly.... the Mustang of course was not the only hammer driving nails in the Nazi coffin from the air.... but it was certainly an effective one by anyones standards except the biased, uninformed folks who think all it could do was fly far. Flying far means JACK if you cant fight effectively when you arrive at your destination... or on your way home.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>

Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | Magnum PC.Com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/) | Joint Operations (http://www.joint-ops.com/joil2fb/default.asp)

<span class="ev_code_white">Oleg: I think players should upgrade their PC after the release of Storm of War: The Battle of Britain, but not now. Minimum system would be probably like last year good system for IL-2 series. The simulation has gone from what was to be a study sim involving one aircraft to a real monster anthology of WWII aviation. The engine has been stretched to fit multi-engined bombers, aircraft that are linked (such as the Mistel and the TB-3/I-16 combinations), aircraft carriers, runway cratering, working searchlights, etc.



</span>

Kettenhunde
12-31-2006, 01:00 PM
The Mustang did its greatest damage to the jagerkorps during the period of late January to mid Aprilof 1944,


Maybe you are seeing some trend I do not. The later you get into 1944, the more common the Mustang is in the USAAF ETO fighter inventory.

Maybe performance conclusions are very hard to draw given the facts? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1167594518_usaaflosses.jpg

It is certainly a fact that as the Mustang became more numerous, the Luftwaffe destroyed more USAAF fighters. It is also a fact that the Luftwaffe destroyed these fighters in air to air combat while greatly outnumbered with poorly trained pilots.

Wouldn't that mean the Luftwaffe planes had to have greatly superior aircraft if we want to put things in terms of pure plane performance???

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

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

horseback
12-31-2006, 01:10 PM
Yeah, that's it! It was all a coincidence!

Goerring and all those guys in the LW were wrong when they got reports of Allied escorts over Berlin and thought that the jig was up.

Rall was just 'kissing up' to us Yanks when he stated that the Mustang was an excellent fighter, and outperformed the contemporary versions of the 109.

The decision by 8th Fighter Command to convert all their groups to the Mustang in theater as quickly as possible was based solely on the relatively cheap retail price compared to the other two US fighters.

The entire LW retired, to be replaced en mass by teenagers and men previously considered unfit for service, due to their suicidal tendencies.

Yeeaaahhh, that's the ticket! (look up Jon Lovitz if you miss the reference)

My reference to decimation was specific to the gruppen defending the Reich and was drawn from several sources, including Galland's biographies, and The First and the Last. Almost every source stated flatly that the Americans' ability to reach over central Europe and DOMINATE was crucial.

You can't dominate using limited numbers of an 'average' fighter with 'average' fighter pilots.

Xio, it seems to me that you take great delight in claiming to be 'fair' while minimizing the Mustang's real qualities. It's fair to mention that other people and their contributions to the air war, but the cold hard fact is that the major air battles in the first half of 1944 in the ETO were fought by the USAAF, and that the range AND performance of the Mustang were the deciding factors, because as we all know, American fighter pilots were just a bunch of gum-chewing farmboys given to gross exaggeration.

The only other valid arguement would be that USAAF fighter pilots were so much better than anybody else that as long as their fighter got them there and fired anything more potent than spitballs, they would have gotten the same results.

Credit where credit is due is the ultimate in fairness, IMHO.

cheers

horseback<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Kettenhunde
12-31-2006, 01:10 PM
The main thing the Merlin did was give the Mustang better high alt performance...


Absolutely. The allison powered Mustangs where more manuverable at low altitude and had much better flying characteristics.

It is interesting to note the fighter weight growth in US designs. For example the FW190A series experienced an 8% growth in weight while the Mustang fattenend up by 14%. Both designs experienced an appropriate gain in power.

The Mustang was by no means a "dog". It was great fighter and a very competative design. I can't wait to get started restoring "SCAT VII". It also had the legs to deny the Luftwaffe any safe haven and was flown by aggressive, courageous, and well trained pilots who sought out combat whenever they could find the Luftwaffe.

All of these fighters were competative in the air. The largest deciding factor in combat is the man not the machine. History should never forget that.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Xiolablu3
12-31-2006, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
The bottom line is, regardless to what any of the nay sayers in this thread or on these boards may say the Mustang was indeed a good plane. Up high. Down low. In any air to air fight with a competent pilot. To even discuss how the Mustang should do against Spitfires or Yaks is moot. Thats the sim. In the real world the planes would not have met in any great numbers in opposition to one another. Against the planes it was designed to fight and their successors within the time from of the war give or take a few years the Mustang was a capable contender to be taken lightly at your peril. I have yet to speak to any Mustang pilots who have said the Mustang was anything but a dream to fly.... a bit tricky.. and you had to keep your head out of your butt... not very forgiving but a dream to fly. I have spoken to dozens of men who have flown the Mustang.... in combat at various airshows and TA meetings.. and not one.. not one... had anything bad to say about the Mustang other than the well do***ented issues... like the center tank thing, the torque, the overheating issue on the deck, and the susceptibility of it's engine to small arms fire.. a flaw most inline engines had. For those who want to say the Pony was a dog until it got the Merlin I say pure BS... The main thing the Merlin did was give the Mustang better high alt performance... but by virtue of it's design even the Alison engined Mustangs were not pushovers. Anyone who thinks differently is probably biased against the plane anyway, totally misinformed or a combinatuiomn of the two. Mediocre? pfft... Hardly.

Noone is saying its a dog, mate, its a great plane, but it must be used in the right way, and you cant deny it has built up something of a mythical reputation.

All we are responding to (which you might see as naysaying) is the 'won teh war' attitude, and saying the plane is gods gift to planes.

Sure it was a great plane, but it wasnt top dog in many categories, if you look at Spit XIV vs the P51 for eg, the Spitfire beats it in all but range and dive. However range and numbers is what was important for the USAAF as they had to cover their bombers in daylight. As such the P51 was hte perfect plane at the perfect time.

You cant deny that in the stats of turn, climb, roll, firepower etc it wasnt a great performer compared to the top planes of the day. Top speed was excellent for such a mainstream fighter, but the FW190D9, Tempest and SPitfire XIV (maybe the Bf109 too?)were as fast. Range was phenomenal however, and the automated systems and cockpit made it very nice to fly and the controls were very responsive right up to the highest speeds.

I love the plane, but lets keep it real http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And who is saying the P51 was a dog without the Merlin engine?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Kettenhunde
12-31-2006, 01:26 PM
Rall was just 'kissing up' to us Yanks when he stated that the Mustang was an excellent fighter, and outperformed the contemporary versions of the 109.


Rall did not say that AFAIK. I think you just heard that because it is what you wanted to hear:


WWII: How would you compare your aircraft with Allied fighters?

Rall: When I was injured, I became the commander of the German Fighter Leader School for about four months or so. At that time we had formed a squadron with captured enemy aircraft, and we flew them--the P-38, P-47, P-51, as well as some Spitfires. My left hand was still in bandages, but I was flying all of these aircraft, as I was very eager to learn about and evaluate them. I had a very good impression of the P-51 Mustang, where the big difference was the engine. When we received these aircraft we flew about 300 hours in them. You see, we did not know anything about how they flew, their characteristics or anything before that. In the P-51 there was no oil leak, and that was just fantastic. This was one of the things that impressed me, but I was also very interested in the electrical starting switches, which we did not have. This made it very difficult in starting our engines in the Russian winter. We had the inertia starter. The cockpits of all of these enemy aircraft were much more comfortable. You could not fly the Bf-109 for seven hours; the cockpit was too tight, too narrow. The P-51 (cockpit) was for me a great room, just fantastic. The P-38 with two engines was great, but I think the best airplane was the P-51. Certainly the Spitfire was excellent, but it didn't have the endurance of the P-51. I think this was the decisive factor. They flew for seven hours, and we flew for one hour and 20 minutes.

http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/aces/3038146.html?page=4&c=y

No mention of performance. Seems he concetrates on range, starting, pilot comfort, and mostly admiration for the endurance of the Mustang.

However here Rall does offer his opinion of the Dogfighting ability of the 109 vs P51:


Q: I was particularly interested about, when in combat, for example against the P-51 with the later fighters.
Rall: Yeah, the 109 could compete with the P51, no doubt. Maneuverability was excellent. But the P51 could do it longer! <Laughs> Ja? And the pilot sits... But, you know, if you fly seven and a half hours, you cannot fly seven and a half hours in the cockpit in the 109. You MUST have a better cockpit, which the P-51 has, they came from England. They flew 7 hours, you know? And so there are differences. But in the battle itself, the 109 certainly could compete with the P-51, even the Spitfire. You couldn't follow the Spitfire in a tight turn upwards. You couldn't follow it. But we knew exactly the Spitfire also had shortcomings. In the beginning when they dived away, they had problems with the carburetor. cshhht shhht cht cht cht (shows engine cutting out) . Until they came up to speed. So every airplane has some problems in some areas, and if you know it, you can overcome it.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

I don't think we will find the answer in swapping pilot stories. Especially when what they actually say is misquoted.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

DuxCorvan
12-31-2006, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
The entire LW retired, to be replaced en mass by teenagers and men previously considered unfit for service, due to their suicidal tendencies.

No, they were replaced en mass by teenagers and men previously considered unfit for service...
due to the casualties and war fatigue of an *unending* tour of duty that lasted six years.

The 50 mission tour of duty of USAAF did not apply for them, Horseback. No matter how good you are, if you stay there for months and months, without pause for a breath, you die.

Nobody can deny Mustang was an able plane. What we find hard to believe is that its success is due to its sheer excellent characteristics alone. Cir??umstances weighted A LOT, and in other different context, P-51 wouldn't probably have earned the legend that it's attached to its elegant -yet big bellied- figure.

The progressive annihilation of German air power was a long and painful story of attrition and starvation. It wasn't the kind of 'Vini, vidi, vincit' war that flashy media usually sells us.

horseback
12-31-2006, 01:35 PM
It is certainly a fact that as the Mustang became more numerous, the Luftwaffe destroyed more USAAF fighters. It is also a fact that the Luftwaffe destroyed these fighters in air to air combat while greatly outnumbered with poorly trained pilots.

Wouldn't that mean the Luftwaffe planes had to have greatly superior aircraft if we want to put things in terms of pure plane performance??? Well, except for the fact that with very few exceptions, air forces fighting a defensive battle in WWII tended to outscore the oppostion by a significant margin. When you are outnumbered, target identification is greatly simplified for you and greatly more complicated for the enemy. That first two or three seconds of confirming your target's identity is often critical. Approximatley 40% of your pilots who are shot down will return to combat immediately, with a solid lesson of tactics, while your opponents' losses are for the duration.

If you look at the figures though, you will see that flak was a greater hazard to US fighters than enemy fighters. How many experiencing mechanical problems (stresses the LW didn't have to consider nearly as much - how superior do you have to be if you don't have to spend even a third as much time in the air?) or flak damage at the extreme end of their range were lost to aerial attack cannot be calculated, but it must have been a factor.

However, taken as percentages, the loss numbers for the USAAF fighters were a lot closer to static than than significantly higher, while the percentages for the LW steadily increased. That's one of the beauties of a numerical advantage; taken as a proportion, those higher losses are actually lower losses for each group or squadron.

As for aircraft performance, I have never maintained that it was so simple. Quality of personnel, mechanical reliability, leadership and tactical flexibility are also at least as important as raw aircraft performance. US pilots and their leaders are often given short shrift in this regard, particularly on these boards.

cheers

horseback<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Manu-6S
12-31-2006, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Well, except for the fact that with very few exceptions, air forces fighting a defensive battle in WWII tended to outscore the oppostion by a significant margin. When you are outnumbered, target identification is greatly simplified for you and greatly more complicated for the enemy. That first two or three seconds of confirming your target's identity is often critical. Approximatley 40% of your pilots who are shot down will return to combat immediately, with a solid lesson of tactics, while your opponents' losses are for the duration.


I don't agree:

Escort fighter ALWAYS had advantage (exception of BoB) since the objective of the enemy are bombers.

And more, I am not sure about the "40%" of the pilots: in many case that was not German territory, but occupied territory. It was more easily to escape for a allied then a german pilot.

Totally agree with Xiola and DuxCorvan: good post guys.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/banner.gif (http://www.diavolirossi.net)

Bearcat99
12-31-2006, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
All we are responding to (which you might see as naysaying) is the 'won teh war' attitude, and saying the plane is gods gift to planes.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif For anyone to say that any one plane won or lost the war for that matter is ludicrous anyway.. and to even respond to someone posting such stupidity is biting the hook real hard.

No one has the "Gods gift to planes" attitude.. and no one is stupid enough to think that "The Mustang won the war.." A lot of what seems to get a lot of shorts in knots on these boards from American posters is usually in direct proportion to the willingness of so many to instantly and with out discretion rag anything positive relating to anything American. I know am not imagining this. Only an idiot or someone even more misinformed would think that any one anything[ won the war.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>

Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | <A HREF="http://www.magnum-pc.com/" TARGET=_blank>Magnum PC.Com

drose01
12-31-2006, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
A lot of what seems to get a lot of shorts in knots on these boards from American posters is usually in direct proportion to the willingness of so many to instantly and with out discretion rag anything positive relating to anything American.
Agree. And note that the main Mustang-hater in this thread has a sig featuring a photo of the current American president dressed as Osama bin Laden.

I think I can tell where his bias lies.

Kettenhunde
12-31-2006, 02:17 PM
If you look at the figures though, you will see that flak was a greater hazard to US fighters than enemy fighters.


Flak is always a greater hazard than enemy aircraft no matter what side.

What does that have to do with the increase in USAAF air to air casualties when the USAAF started using the Mustang?

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

horseback
12-31-2006, 02:19 PM
I didn't 'misquote' General Rall. I met him in the late sixties-early seventies a couple of times in Tucson while my father was stationed at Davis-Monthan AFB. We were initially introduced by my girlfriend at the time's father, who had served in the 78th FG during the war, and after few minutes' conversation, my hobby of building models came up (I'd just done a 1/48th scale P-47D for the colonel).

I was working on a Monogram 1/48th scale Mustang at the time, and that was when he made the comment that the Mustang was "...better than the Messerschmitts I was flying - faster, very good up high, and you could not dive away from them...if they went after you, they would catch you." He mentioned that the cockpit was very nice, which led our host into a protracted rant about the F-4 Phantom's pit...

Obviously, we didn't get into any great detail, though a bit later Gen. Rall did mention that he had flown a 'recovered' Mustang, which our host immediately pointed out had to be a "beater" (a term used for old cars that still run, but are thoroughly trashed). He didn't argue the point.

About this time, my date got impatient, and we had to make our farewells.

On another occasion, I ran into him at Base Ops at D-M when I was picking up my Dad after his shift running the tower crew. He recognized me after I greeted him and asked how my model came out. My overwhelming impression of him is that he is a man of great charm, and a true gentleman. I was just another skinny teenaged boy, an enlisted man's son, and he treated me like a favorite nephew.

But he was emphatic that the Mustang as he had to deal with it was "better" than the Messerschmitt as he had to deal with it; speed, cockpit ergonomics, build quality, high altitude operation or diving ability, he appeared to me to think it was better than what he had.

cheers

horseback<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Xiolablu3
12-31-2006, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
All we are responding to (which you might see as naysaying) is the 'won teh war' attitude, and saying the plane is gods gift to planes.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif For anyone to say that any one plane won or lost the war for that matter is ludicrous anyway.. and to even respond to someone posting such stupidity is biting the hook real hard.

No one has the "Gods gift to planes" attitude.. and no one is stupid enough to think that "The Mustang won the war.." A lot of what seems to get a lot of shorts in knots on these boards from American posters is usually in direct proportion to the willingness of so many to instantly and with out discretion rag anything positive relating to anything American. I know am not imagining this. Only an idiot or someone even more misinformed would think that any one anything[ won the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was trying to say that we are trying to be objective and realistic, not 'naysaying'.

I love Americans, I have just been flying with 2 of the most friendly guys I know and they are both from the USA, so to say I am intentionally bashing Americans is ridiculous.

Saying that the Mustang had faults and flaws is not US bashing.

I do think some of the guys get carried away with the Mustangs mythical reputation, thats all. Basing it on nothing but reputation and hype without looking at the actual figures.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Kettenhunde
12-31-2006, 02:32 PM
However, taken as percentages, the loss numbers for the USAAF fighters were a lot closer to static than than significantly higher, while the percentages for the LW steadily increased. That's one of the beauties of a numerical advantage; taken as a proportion, those higher losses are actually lower losses for each group or squadron.


Where do you see that?

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1150913328_lossrates.jpg

I would say 22% is 6.28 times the 1943 percentage of 3.5% of the US fighter force lost.

It represents an 803% increase in the number of USAAF fighter air to air losses from 1943.

Meanwhile the size of the Luftwaffe remains fairly steady:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1167600683_luftwaffe_strength2.jpg

As for the flak figure increase in 1944, I would say it is very difficult for a US fighter in 1943 and earlier to be shot down by German flak over England or the Channel.

Again nothing to do with aircraft performance from either side.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Tator_Totts
12-31-2006, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
All we are responding to (which you might see as naysaying) is the 'won teh war' attitude, and saying the plane is gods gift to planes.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif For anyone to say that any one plane won or lost the war for that matter is ludicrous anyway.. and to even respond to someone posting such stupidity is biting the hook real hard.

No one has the "Gods gift to planes" attitude.. and no one is stupid enough to think that "The Mustang won the war.." A lot of what seems to get a lot of shorts in knots on these boards from American posters is usually in direct proportion to the willingness of so many to instantly and with out discretion rag anything positive relating to anything American. I know am not imagining this. Only an idiot or someone even more misinformed would think that any one anything[ won the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/AG-51/Stanger.gif

Xiolablu3
12-31-2006, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
VVS? Come on, the winter of 43 after the fall of Stalingrad with the almost complete grounding of axis air due to severe weather, Soviets operating out of prepared installations gained for the first time air superiority.

To bad the VVS couldn't take advantage, nor muster an air arm even half the strength of those in the African theatre alone. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif And Africa was a small side show in 43, the desert ground forces they supported were miniscle compared to Russia, there were more troops in the city of Kiev than all of Africa. East front was a land battle, air war, where? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Just one example of a 'US Won teh air War' post in this thread, which gets some people to respond, and as such Americans think they are being 'bashed'.

See where it started?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Kettenhunde
12-31-2006, 02:45 PM
We were initially introduced by my girlfriend at the time's father, who had served in the 78th FG during the war,

Since you know General Rall come on down to our engine starting as he will be there AFAIK!


My overwhelming impression of him is that he is a man of great charm, and a true gentleman.

A very correct impression, General Rall is a true gentleman and I am very glad he took the time to pass on some joy to a young model builder who obviously loved the Mustang.

However in later interviews he clarifies his position on the Mustang vs 109 performance in a dogfight.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Manu-6S
12-31-2006, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by drose01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
A lot of what seems to get a lot of shorts in knots on these boards from American posters is usually in direct proportion to the willingness of so many to instantly and with out discretion rag anything positive relating to anything American.
Agree. And note that the main Mustang-hater in this thread has a sig featuring a photo of the current American pr

esident dressed as Osama bin Laden.

I think I can tell where his bias lies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since this is directed to me I respond that I'm not a Mustang hater, not at all and you can read this in all my posts in this thread.

My political opinion about US actual government is another thing.

You simply looked at my avatar and thought: this is an US hater.

I repeat again: P51 was a beautiful machine, and above all was the right plane at the right plane.
Am I biased to said this? I don't think.
And then I say that is great skills were speed and range, am I biased now? No again.
I think that one of the best plane was P47 too... always more biased not?

Because I try to be open minded, something that not all fanatic Mustang-lovers are: many of them are close minded in this and in a lots of more important facts (my avatar speak a lot...)

Many of "US are the best" guys can't look things differently from black and white, and above all you are gullibles: .50cal that kills Tigers, the US pilots where the best in the world.... you believe everything your country promote is true, everything that is built by your country is the best... Come on, grown up!!!

I assure Bearcat that I'm not referring to all you american people here, but there are so many with this attitude that I think you might try to avoid yourself by their blind opinion.

Yes, I'm this attitude-hater.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/banner.gif (http://www.diavolirossi.net)

Manu-6S
12-31-2006, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I was trying to say that we are trying to be objective and realistic, not 'naysaying'.

I love Americans, I have just been flying with 2 of the most friendly guys I know and they are both from the USA, so to say I am intentionally bashing Americans is ridiculous.

Saying that the Mustang had faults and flaws is not US bashing.

I do think some of the guys get carried away with the Mustangs mythical reputation, thats all. Basing it on nothing but reputation and hype without looking at the actual figures.

Yes... this "you think differently by me so you hate me" is another pissing thing...

Here we are trying to be objective, men...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/banner.gif (http://www.diavolirossi.net)

msalama
12-31-2006, 03:33 PM
Yes your quote is better than my quote.

OK, granted, my retort was a bit too sharp. But let's still remember that Zeno's is out there to sell warbird videos to enthusiasts, and thus of course want to portray the subjects as nostalgically as possible. This Henriques bloke, OTOH, is not trying to make a buck out of the _mystique_ of these machines per se - well not in the same way as Zeno's at any rate - and can therefore afford a bit more neutral tone IMHO. Not that his take on the subject is in any way complete, however; AFAIK he never participated in any WWII ops with the bird himself.

But actual Mustang pilotage is still a subject he certainly knows better than all us UBI smacktards rolled together, be sure!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hippies FTW!

ImpStarDuece
12-31-2006, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you look at the figures though, you will see that flak was a greater hazard to US fighters than enemy fighters.


Flak is always a greater hazard than enemy aircraft no matter what side.

What does that have to do with the increase in USAAF air to air casualties when the USAAF started using the Mustang?

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you cross reference the figures for losses you posted with the graph of total fighter sorties flown, what do you get? Is the total loss rate as a percentage of sorties flown appreciably higher or lower when the P-51B/C/D makes its appearace?

Perhaps the greater amount of time spent by the Mustang direclty in harms way (i.e. escort over Berlin, Dusseldorf, the Rhur, ect) may of had something to do with any relatively higher loss rate, in comparison to the P-47 or P-38?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

ImpStarDuece,

Flying Bullet Magnet... Catching Lead Since 2002

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

"Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol, morphine or idealism."
-Carl Jung

Aaron_GT
12-31-2006, 06:09 PM
2. In over forty years of reading, talking to pilots who actually flew the aircraft, and doing models of WWII aircraft, I have seen no indication of an occasion where a Mustang entered combat with a full fuselage tank.

I can't remember which but there is one account from a famous US pilot about stick reversal when in a tight turn in combat due to the fuselage tank. Someone posted this story a couple of months ago in another thread. From memory this was just after the fuselage tank had been introduced and the old SOP of draining the drop tanks first was still being followed. The SOP was soon changed after this incident, after which there wasn't really a problem. The rear tank was a similar issue for the Spitfire XVI.


I would say 22% is 6.28 times the 1943 percentage of 3.5% of the US fighter force lost.

It represents an 803% increase in the number of USAAF fighter air to air losses from 1943.

Kettenhunde, a couple of points.

In 1943 the 8th AF fighter strength was flying relatively shorter escort missions and rather less fighter bomber missions. In 1944 the escort missions were longer and the number of fighter bomber sorties was larger, so the mission profiles in 1943 and 1944 are not the same. But the telling statistic is perhaps the proprtionate bomber losses which fall from 1943 to 1944. Since the rationale of the campaign was to allow the expensive bombers to get through then you could argue that the extra loss of fighters on longer escort missions might have been worth it. Also on the shorter escort missions in 1943 the LW tended to avoid contact until the bombers were out of escort range where possible, hence the fighters were possibly engaged with less frequency or ferocity than they were in 1944 when it was not possible for the LW to wait until the escort turned back.

Kettenhunde
12-31-2006, 06:28 PM
f you cross reference the figures for losses you posted with the graph of total fighter sorties flown, what do you get?


In 1943 the USAAF had a percentage loss rate of .59% when examining sortie to loss figures.

In 1944 the USAAF also had a .45% loss to sortie ratio.

The USAAF lost 161 fighters in air to air combat in 1943 vs 26,999 fighter sorties.

The USAAF lost 1293 fighters in air to air combat in 1944 vs 285,694 fighter sorties.

So I don't see any dramatic effect on loss percentages that can be attributed to the Mustang.

Loss rates stayed pretty much stayed the same. Dilema for the GAF was they needed to increase that percentage to win not maintain it.

Only difference is .5% of 200,000 is a quite a few more planes to knock down compared to .5% of 20,000.

It is obvious that the huge numerical advantage obtained by the Allies was an absolute necessity to victory. Without it Germany would have maintained its air superiority over Europe.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Kettenhunde
12-31-2006, 06:57 PM
Also on the shorter escort missions in 1943 the LW tended to avoid contact until the bombers were out of escort range where possible, hence the fighters were possibly engaged with less frequency or ferocity than they were in 1944 when it was not possible for the LW to wait until the escort turned back.


Certainly Aaron, I think that is a fair assessment of the tactical situation.

The Luftwaffe was defeated because they were out produced, out trained, and overwhelmed.

A claim that they were outfought however cannot be made with any truth.

The men who flew the planes won the air war not the machines. Never forget, they are ones who got up everyday and fought that fight. It makes absolutely no difference that that the allies had more stuff and better training. The fight still had to be fought every day without fail. Thank them every opportunity you get because the world would be a very different place without their tenacity and courage.

Attributing their hard fought victory to <insert favourite plane you wish would dominate your game to make you a virtual ace> is simply not born out by any facts. IMHO it is a slap in the face to the men who climbed in a cockpit everyday to destroy the Luftwaffe.

It is just plain silly to attribute any of this plane performance for either side.

From the GAF POV, as Oscar puts it, "We know the math was not in our favor but every bomber we stopped meant lives saved on the ground."

That is the biggest reason so many young German boys were willing to go up and fight with so little training and so outnumbered. Whether they believed Hitler???s propoganda or not.

From the Allies POV, every bomber that got through brought the war closer to being over.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

horseback
12-31-2006, 07:25 PM
quote:
We were initially introduced by my girlfriend at the time's father, who had served in the 78th FG during the war,


Since you know General Rall come on down to our engine starting as he will be there AFAIK! If the General recognized the 55kg boy with the long dark hair that he met twice thirty five plus years ago in this 110kg bearded bald guy, it would truly be a miracle.

In fact, I'd be impressed if he still remembered Col. Scholz, our host (I spent a good ten minutes racking my brain for his name myself).

I'd love to come to the engine startup, but a trip to Germany would be a lot longer drive than I think my 8 year old Chevy S10 could handle...

cheers

horseback<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Kettenhunde
12-31-2006, 08:20 PM
I'd love to come to the engine startup, but a trip to Germany


Kissimmee Florida....Love to have you see it.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Bearcat99
12-31-2006, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
VVS? Come on, the winter of 43 after the fall of Stalingrad with the almost complete grounding of axis air due to severe weather, Soviets operating out of prepared installations gained for the first time air superiority.

To bad the VVS couldn't take advantage, nor muster an air arm even half the strength of those in the African theatre alone. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif And Africa was a small side show in 43, the desert ground forces they supported were miniscle compared to Russia, there were more troops in the city of Kiev than all of Africa. East front was a land battle, air war, where? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Just one example of a 'US Won teh air War' post in this thread, which gets some people to respond, and as such Americans think they are being 'bashed'.

See where it started? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I refuse to feed it anymore.... C ya..<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>

Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | Magnum PC.Com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/) | Joint Operations (http://www.joint-ops.com/joil2fb/default.asp)

<span class="ev_code_white">Oleg: I think players should upgrade their PC after the release of Storm of War: The Battle of Britain, but not now. Minimum system would be probably like last year good system for IL-2 series. The simulation has gone from what was to be a study sim involving one aircraft to a real monster anthology of WWII aviation. The engine has been stretched to fit multi-engined bombers, aircraft that are linked (such as the Mistel and the TB-3/I-16 combinations), aircraft carriers, runway cratering, working searchlights, etc.



</span>

ElAurens
12-31-2006, 11:07 PM
I feel your pain Bearcat.

All I know is this. People that I know have flown or do know those that have flown P51s, a Yak 9 and an I-16 in real life. That pilot has also flown the sim. He says that the in game Yak 9 and I-16 are extremely accurate models of the real thing in terms of how they fly, and that the P51 in game bears no resemblence to any real P51 that he has ever flown.

You can draw your own conclusions, and I'm sure you all will.

Is the P51 in game done badly on purpose? I don't think so. I really believe it is simply a matter of poor information for the P51 vs. good information for some other aircraft. And limitations of the sim that do not allow a realistic spin/stall model to be implemented.

Oh well, those of you who have, for whatever reason, a dislike of the P51 will never be swayed anyway.

Revisionism run amok.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/ELsKi.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

heywooood
01-01-2007, 01:00 AM
P-51 = lightening rod

If Oleg has access to better or more comprehensive data on Russian plane types, well I guess that would be expected.

If he has access to more data on German types being in Eastern Europe I guess thats also to be expected - this would probably go for all lend lease types from the west as well - and so we see (with the exception of the P40-M wing dihedral) that that also is the case...

So should it be surprising that a plane that was not part of lend lease, and which also had so much adoration in the west would have far less data available in Olegs part of the world? - and wouldn't it also be likely that much of the do***entation made

msalama
01-01-2007, 01:18 AM
...so how about hooking up w/ this pilot again and asking him to test the v4.07 Mustang, Aurens? Let's remember that most folks have perceived it as a vast improvement over the old one...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hippies FTW!

Aaron_GT
01-01-2007, 02:52 AM
ElLaurens - can you get that pilot to talk to Oleg and discuss issues with the P51? That would seem the best approach.

ElAurens
01-01-2007, 09:07 AM
BlitzPig_Tailspin is an aerobatics instructor in California, this P51 pilot/owner is an acquaintance of his. (Tailspin owns a 350 HP Stearman, and he instructs on that aircraft).

I'll see if he can get his buddy to try the '51 again in this version. BTW, Tailspin just got his copy of '46 and we flew online together last night for the first time. His impression is that the Mustang is improved to be at least flyable now. He still thinks the entire stall model is wrong (aircraft don't slip on banana peels). And he has sent info to Oleg in the past (resoundly ignored), and was a moderator here in the old days. He will also tell you this is the best sim there is, but it's not even remotely real.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/ELsKi.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

msalama
01-02-2007, 01:56 AM
He will also tell you this is the best sim there is, but it's not even remotely real.

I digress a bit but WTH...

None of these PC simulator games can ever be even remotely real unless someone comes up with a cheap, refined and accurate full 3D motion cockpit / control center w/ a minimum of 6DoF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_freedom) movement. And I for one just don't see that happening.

Realistic AC stall and post-stall behaviour is another problem area. Implementing that functionality accurately is very tedious and computationally taxing, so what PC sim makers have historically resorted to is to either omit it altogethed (yes, even X-Plane, BTW - no spins at all) or to make do w/ some sort of pre-defined ("canned") sequence of events. And this is what IL-2 does, too - our lets-call-it-a out-of-envelope-flying module seems to accept some individual AC parameters when invoked, but canned and thus somewhat generic behaviour is _still_ all we get!

So what is left if we accept these restraints, i.e. what we PC jocks have currently isn't - and cannot be - completely realistic? My opinion is that we should strive for reasonably accurate AC behaviour _within_ these confines, and accept our stalls f.ex. to be somewhat funny at times. So maybe your questions to this gentleman should reflect that, too?

Just my $20, though - or, in other words, a bargain-bin price of a common PC flight simulator http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hippies FTW!

p1ngu666
01-02-2007, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also on the shorter escort missions in 1943 the LW tended to avoid contact until the bombers were out of escort range where possible, hence the fighters were possibly engaged with less frequency or ferocity than they were in 1944 when it was not possible for the LW to wait until the escort turned back.


Certainly Aaron, I think that is a fair assessment of the tactical situation.

The Luftwaffe was defeated because they were out produced, out trained, and overwhelmed.

A claim that they were outfought however cannot be made with any truth.

The men who flew the planes won the air war not the machines. Never forget, they are ones who got up everyday and fought that fight. It makes absolutely no difference that that the allies had more stuff and better training. The fight still had to be fought every day without fail. Thank them every opportunity you get because the world would be a very different place without their tenacity and courage.

Attributing their hard fought victory to <insert favourite plane you wish would dominate your game to make you a virtual ace> is simply not born out by any facts. IMHO it is a slap in the face to the men who climbed in a cockpit everyday to destroy the Luftwaffe.

It is just plain silly to attribute any of this plane performance for either side.

From the GAF POV, as Oscar puts it, "We know the math was not in our favor but every bomber we stopped meant lives saved on the ground."

That is the biggest reason so many young German boys were willing to go up and fight with so little training and so outnumbered. Whether they believed Hitler???s propoganda or not.

From the Allies POV, every bomber that got through brought the war closer to being over.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

quite right crumpp, but we often forget the poor chaps in the **** planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

the % losses are also vastly lower than you see in online stuff<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666/spitfiresig.jpg

WWMaxGunz
01-02-2007, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
BlitzPig_Tailspin is an aerobatics instructor in California, this P51 pilot/owner is an acquaintance of his. (Tailspin owns a 350 HP Stearman, and he instructs on that aircraft).

I'll see if he can get his buddy to try the '51 again in this version. BTW, Tailspin just got his copy of '46 and we flew online together last night for the first time. His impression is that the Mustang is improved to be at least flyable now. He still thinks the entire stall model is wrong (aircraft don't slip on banana peels). And he has sent info to Oleg in the past (resoundly ignored), and was a moderator here in the old days. He will also tell you this is the best sim there is, but it's not even remotely real.

Is that P-51 completely historic so far as weight and distribution; guns, ammo and all?

The CoG thing had to be a design decision that came about long after the limitation of
fixed CoG's was part of the design itself. It only makes so big a difference on P-51 and
any other plane besides?

I did ask for other P-51 models to be included as same plane only rear tank empty and
nothing. I think it should be simple enough. Same 3D model. Same DM. Would need to
generate different flight model data MAYBE.
Such would help sales in the US but perhaps hurt sales to the Euros who can't stand the
plane or the country it comes from and ditto in Russia?

It is okay. In the full run you have some people interested in all planes and finding
out about them. Apparently the most modelled ones all must have a technical hitch that
handicaps them not worked around in any way from a direct but incomplete approach to the
models themselves.
P-51 whiners should acknowledge the limit of pilot strength when flying Bf-109's. Same
for view from 190 cockpit. Anyone thinks that is where it ends is perhaps a bit slow in
the head.
It is not bias but only the way the things work out when applied to the system as written
when it was designed as a one flyable plane limited simulator.

Please don't say this should be or that should be as if not having it as you imagine is
simple choice made just to anger you. That is childish. Look at the whole and see how
every part is applied to the same concept as they fit. And grow up if you need to.
Making such a sim is a lot of expensive and hard work plus loads of talent. If it was
any different then we would have many such sims to choose from rather than one favorite
toy to pick and b!tch about.

We ALL would have some things different, YES. But leave off the childish accusation
whining please! Don't expect new panties for the ones you wet, girls.

Xiolablu3
01-02-2007, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
VVS? Come on, the winter of 43 after the fall of Stalingrad with the almost complete grounding of axis air due to severe weather, Soviets operating out of prepared installations gained for the first time air superiority.

To bad the VVS couldn't take advantage, nor muster an air arm even half the strength of those in the African theatre alone. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif And Africa was a small side show in 43, the desert ground forces they supported were miniscle compared to Russia, there were more troops in the city of Kiev than all of Africa. East front was a land battle, air war, where? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Just one example of a 'US Won teh air War' post in this thread, which gets some people to respond, and as such Americans think they are being 'bashed'.

See where it started? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I refuse to feed it anymore.... C ya.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too, mate.

Sucks to be arguing.

See you in a nicer thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Viper2005_
01-02-2007, 05:34 AM
The thing which drives me nuts about the P-51 whine is the continual accusation that the rear tank is full.

This just doesn't make sense.

With the rear tank full the aeroplane should be unstable in pitch, and should exhibit a stick force reversal in turns (forward pressure should be required to prevent turns from tightening up).

Since 3.02 the worst I've seen from the P-51 in-game has been a poorly damped short period oscillation, which is very different from instability in pitch.

***

As for X-plane and spins, there are several aeroplanes which spin quite nicely in XP, all things considered. It isn't right of course. Some very clever people are working on plugins to improve the intertia coupling aspects of the model, and it will doubtless improve with time.

***

My experience of attempting to model WWII fighters is that it's quite easy to nail (for example) speed and ROC figures without actually having an accurate model.

I can give you 2 classic examples;

1) A highly respected modeller built a very nice Corsair for X-Plane. It was nice to fly, but took forever to slow down for landing. I had a look at the model in detail. It turned out that the model used a direct drive prop instead of the correct 2:1 reduction gear. The prop tips were supersonic, so thrust was well down. The modeller had simply reduced the drag coefficient of the aeroplane until it reached the correct top speed...

2) In a similar vain, I spent a lot of time working on a Spitfire model. Again, the L/D seemed too good to be true. The problem was that X-Plane wasn't modelling the exhaust thrust of the engine, and so the model had about 120 lbf too little thrust. This really matters at high speed when prop thrust decays. Unfortunately, building an accurate model of a Merlin engine for X-Plane was a bridge too far for my limited programming skills, though I did manage to get it working in excel...

The trouble is that there are lots of sources of thrust and drag on real aeroplanes, and these sources often have different characteristics. Thrust and drag curves must be the correct shape if the aeroplane is to behave correctly. Unfortunately, speed tests only tell you the speed at which thrust = drag, whilst ROC test tell you how much specific excess power you have.

We suffer from relatively poor sampling...

In the case of the Mustang, there has long been debate over whether its performance was due to wing design or cooling system design (personally my money's on the cooling system). Laminar flow over the wing gives a different shape to the drag curve than high radiator efficiency.

If you model it with low cooling drag it will behave differently than if you model it with laminar flow over the wing.

Then there's exhaust thrust, supercharger gear ratio etc..

Aircraft performance is a complex business, and the only way to really get to the bottom of it is a well designed series of scientific tests on all aspects of the model, allowing thrust and drag to be broken down into their component parts for comparison with available data.

A serious team effort would be required, since we'd be talking about perhaps 500 hours of work.

DKoor
01-02-2007, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Is the P51 in game done badly on purpose? I don't think so. I really believe it is simply a matter of poor information for the P51 vs. good information for some other aircraft. I don't think that is what you really think nor it is what majority thinks. Xept for a small minority who lost their compasses long time ago.
Most of you guys just keep repeating over and over again "It's wrong, but I don't think it has been done on purpose...", but in reality you know that isn't the case.

P-51D, FW-190 issues, obviously cheating Ai and all other inaccuracies (regardless of their category) that have been more than gently (and not so gently) pointed out countless times and backed up with hard evidences have never been fixed nor they ever will. On purpose.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<hr class="ev_code_hr" />http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/5638/g14hartmannlh1.jpg (http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=search&sa=599) <pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">@ SoW: Battle of Britain coming November 2006 for PCs worldwide. Not!!!

Brain32
01-02-2007, 06:18 AM
Ma pusti debile, ne znash koji je gori... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
01-02-2007, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Is the P51 in game done badly on purpose? I don't think so. I really believe it is simply a matter of poor information for the P51 vs. good information for some other aircraft. I don't think that is what you really think nor it is what majority thinks. Xept for a small minority who lost their compasses long time ago.
Most of you guys just keep repeating over and over again "It's wrong, but I don't think it has been done on purpose...", but in reality you know that isn't the case.

P-51D, FW-190 issues, obviously cheating Ai and all other inaccuracies (regardless of their category) that have been more than gently (and not so gently) pointed out countless times and backed up with hard evidences have never been fixed nor they ever will. On purpose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kuna have you been taking drugs on New Year! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Must be a joke, surely.

Or are you just trying to get rid of the whiners for good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

ElAurens
01-02-2007, 10:34 AM
DKoor,

Please don't ever try to tell me how I am thinking. It only makes you look foolish.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/ELsKi.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

msalama
01-02-2007, 10:43 AM
...but in reality you know that isn't the case.

An oft-heard claim, but one that is impossible to prove. So it all comes down to individual beliefs in the end, doesn't it?

Suffice it to say that I don't believe so myself... but then again I junked my compass right after the Boy Scouts anyway, so what do I know?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hippies FTW!

ElAurens
01-02-2007, 04:27 PM
BTW, I have put in a request to have the P51 owner fly the newest version. No promises, but I'm hoping.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/ELsKi.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

JSG72
01-02-2007, 04:54 PM
Oh FFS.

Let him fly the darned thing.
Then maybe he could have a go in the "Lerche"
and you can watch his eyes light up as he says

"This is what the Mustang, should really be like"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Is it just me? or can, anyone sook the truth.

ElAurens
01-02-2007, 05:50 PM
This is whom I'm speaking of...

http://www.davemorss.com/

He will be flying the game again in a couple of weeks, and as noted before he has previous experience with the sim.


JSG72, your comment is uncalled for and way off base. I'd suggest growing up before posting.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/ELsKi.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

JSG72
01-02-2007, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
This is whom I'm speaking of...

http://www.davemorss.com/

He will be flying the game again in a couple of weeks, and as noted before he has previous experience with the sim.


JSG72, your comment is uncalled for and way off base. I'd suggest growing up before posting.

I am sorry for that ELaurens.

But hey! Daves gonna fly the SIM mustang.
Eh? which one/ and under what circumstances. Flying over Reno or Berlin with a 190 on his tail. (Probably not cause he will be sure to outfly it).
I am not trying to be facetious. It is just that No one but no one would be able to use the mustang like Dave could and i am sure this would call for any pilot in WW2. What this SIM is about.
and so it may become irrellevant. Oher than to satisfy your own wishes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Is it just me? or can, anyone sook the truth.

WWMaxGunz
01-02-2007, 06:55 PM
ElAurens, is the P-51 this guy owns carry the same weight as did the fighters?
Guns or dummy guns, ammo and all?
Because I do believe those things get taken off race planes. Or don't they?
Is there some class of racers that conform to historic fighter configurations?

I just want to know, it will affect how much gap there should be between his and the sim.

ElAurens
01-02-2007, 06:59 PM
Some good points JSG72, but what else do we have?

Books? Charts? Graphs?

These tell us the numbers, but they don't tell us how an aircraft "feels". Is it easy to fly on the limit, or is it a workout to attain the edge of the envelope? Will departure be smooth and benign, or a ragged near death experience?

Only someone with hands on experience can tell us these things. Not the Kurfursts, HayateAces, and other desktop "flyers", myself included, around here.

I'll trust the word of a real pilot myself.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/ELsKi.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

ElAurens
01-02-2007, 07:04 PM
I don't know Gunz, honestly. He has said that the Yak 9 in game is very believable compared to his (or ones he as flown, not sure which). I'll try to get Tailspin to get some answers from him when they do their virtual check ride.

Best I can do for now.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/ELsKi.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

Xiolablu3
01-02-2007, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
This is whom I'm speaking of...

http://www.davemorss.com/

He will be flying the game again in a couple of weeks, and as noted before he has previous experience with the sim.


.

Thanks for posting that El Laurens. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

MrMojok
01-02-2007, 07:44 PM
If I'm not mistaken, almost all the P51s still flying around today are P51H or K or something. The fuel tank in the center is gone, as is the armor plate behind the pilot.

I have no idea how much difference this makes.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/f1dude/P51_sig.jpg

Bearcat99
01-02-2007, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
This is whom I'm speaking of...
http://www.davemorss.com/
He will be flying the game again in a couple of weeks, and as noted before he has previous experience with the sim.
JSG72, your comment is uncalled for and way off base. I'd suggest growing up before posting.

El I am betting that even if he feels it is still off... he will agree that the 4.07/4.071 P-51 is better than any of the others overall. I just hope it doesn't get changed.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>

Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | Magnum PC.Com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/) | Joint Operations (http://www.joint-ops.com/joil2fb/default.asp)

<span class="ev_code_white">Oleg: I think players should upgrade their PC after the release of Storm of War: The Battle of Britain, but not now. Minimum system would be probably like last year good system for IL-2 series. The simulation has gone from what was to be a study sim involving one aircraft to a real monster anthology of WWII aviation. The engine has been stretched to fit multi-engined bombers, aircraft that are linked (such as the Mistel and the TB-3/I-16 combinations), aircraft carriers, runway cratering, working searchlights, etc.



</span>

Xiolablu3
01-02-2007, 08:31 PM
The P51H is a far more lightweight P51, so I read.

SUpermarine weighed every single part of the Spitfire for North American so they could compare things and get the weight down to nearer SPitfire levels.

The P51H should handle much better than a P51D.

SAying that I think there are quite a few P51D's arent there? Old Crow and a few others? Maybe this guy has flown one of these?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

horseback
01-02-2007, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by MrMojok:
If I'm not mistaken, almost all the P51s still flying around today are P51H or K or something. The fuel tank in the center is gone, as is the armor plate behind the pilot.

I have no idea how much difference this makes. Wrong. There weren't that many H models built (less than 600), and they stayed in squadron or group service with the AF and then the various Guard units the longest. Fewer survived to make it into the civilian market, not least because they were lighter weight and couldn't take as much abuse. The vast majority of flying Mustangs are P-51D/Ks, of which thousands were built, and relatively few saw overseas service. Many D/Ks were sold off or scrapped new right after V-J Day.

The only difference between the D and K Mustang is that the K was originally equipped with an uncuffed Aeroproducts propellor instead of the D model's cuffed Hamilton Standard.

While most currently flying Mustangs have removed the fuselage tank and the much heavier wartime radio equipment, that space is rarely empty. Many have a passenger seat (I've ridden in one myself) or a reinforced cargo space there now. However, as has been pointed out ad infinitum, the aircraft was originally designed without the tank, and very rarely saw combat with it over half full.

The gun areas may or may not be ballasted, depending on the degree of the owner's warbird/racer orientation.

cheers

horseback<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

MrMojok
01-02-2007, 11:10 PM
oh come on, I wasn't that far wrong.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/f1dude/P51_sig.jpg

msalama
01-03-2007, 12:21 AM
...he has previous experience with the sim.

Great http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Keep us posted, will you? S!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hippies FTW!