PDA

View Full Version : P51 Manuverability



at_your_6
11-14-2004, 10:59 PM
Mr. Maddox and crew,

First..Thank you for all the greatest fighter-sims ever!!

Question: I don't understand why the P51's dont even handle as well as the P40M, 1942 in your sim. My grandfather flew both P40's and 51's and although he is in his 80's enjoys flying your sim when visting me. Anyway, he told me that that there was no comparison. Hands down the the P51's handled better.
Thanks again!!

PS: His nose art was my Gandmothers name and I got some cool pics if you ever want me to e-mail.

Kwiatos
11-15-2004, 02:39 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

IIJG69_Kartofe
11-15-2004, 03:55 AM
OMG !! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Maple_Tiger
11-15-2004, 04:47 AM
At lower speeds, the P-51 shoudld't. At higher speeds, yes. At very high speeds, the P-51 will out maneuver most aircraft in WW2.


You might as well stop beating dead horses.

Atomic_Marten
11-15-2004, 05:34 AM
Like Tiger says. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

VVS-Manuc
11-15-2004, 06:01 AM
http://blue-heron.us/weblog/icons/Beating_a_Dead_Horse_FINAL.gif

3.JG51_BigBear
11-15-2004, 06:08 AM
If we all back away quietly maybe this thread will dissapear. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

FA_Whisky
11-15-2004, 09:07 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif BUMB http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

VW-IceFire
11-15-2004, 09:36 AM
Try 25% fuel...she's very nice in handling once you take off a few pounds of weight with the full fuel tanks.

Infact, it was apparently standard procedure that you would not fight in a P-51 until one of the tanks was empty (rear tank?) because it caused a servere loss of stability. We don't even see that modeled...

But it does feel heavy at 100%.

JG53Frankyboy
11-15-2004, 09:40 AM
so far i remeber Mustangilots "emptied" first these fuselage tanks (behind the cockpit), than their Droptanks and at last their wingtanks.

JtD
11-15-2004, 09:42 AM
Hm, I think he has a valid point. I, however, would name the thread "P-40 maneuverability".

geetarman
11-15-2004, 10:25 AM
Boy, I wish I could remember the name of the book! It was recently put out. One of the authors I recognized as a famous Warbirds pilot, but I have forgotten his name.

Anyway, it has only full color photos of the US planes in the ETO. The text is all quotes from the pilots and ground crews of the planes.

One officer contributes that the new pilots coming into the squadron were full of p!ss and vinegar, all set to kill the Jerries in their brand new Mustangs. The more experienced pilots would train the newbies in their Mustangs by taking up an old P-40. The mock fight would take place a lower altitudes. The P-40 would walk all over the Mustang.

at_your_6
11-15-2004, 11:34 AM
Great info guys!! I have to say that I was comparing the two usually at low altitude with 75% full tanks. My Grandfather is up there in age and is at the mercy of however I set up the "Quick Mission" and hand over the controls. By the way he is in awe of how close to reality the dog fighting is and says the only factor missing is the G force. Thanks again!!

JH

Bearcat99
11-15-2004, 08:15 PM
That is great to hear.... The next time you talk to him tell him I said.... THANKS! ~!S!~

Smokin256
11-16-2004, 01:00 AM
Geetarman,
The book is called Fighters of World War II. And It's by Jeffrey L. Ethell & Robert T. Sand. I have it too, Great book!

Cheers........Smokin256

J_Weaver
11-16-2004, 09:47 AM
at_your_6...what can I say...welcome to the madness bud! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

As far as the Mustang goes, I would say the faster the better. It is not very manuverable at low speeds.

And about your grandfather's Mustang; check out il2skins.com, I but some of those great guys over there would love to paint it. I'm sure it would mean alot to your grandfather too.

Chuck_Older
11-16-2004, 10:28 AM
Everybody remembers the P-40 as a bad plane, it just wasn't so.

Different than the P-51? Yes
Overshadowed by the P-51 in almost every area? Yes
Unmanueverable? No. The Luftwaffe in fact considered it a good turning airplane

Terms like "handling" and "manueverablility" are so broad that they lose a lot of meaning comparing different aircraft.

The P-51 had better "handling"...well, doing what? What model P-51? What altitude? What speed?

If you take a P-40E and ask it to do a P-51D's job, then yes, it handles poorly compared to the Mustang

Atomic_Marten
11-16-2004, 01:08 PM
Yeah P40 is poor compared to P51, but still I love P40 better... heh.. yes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
11-16-2004, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Everybody remembers the P-40 as a bad plane, it just wasn't so.

Different than the P-51? Yes
Overshadowed by the P-51 in almost every area? Yes
Unmanueverable? No. The Luftwaffe in fact considered it a good turning airplane

Terms like "handling" and "manueverablility" are so broad that they lose a lot of meaning comparing different aircraft.

The P-51 had better "handling"...well, doing what? What model P-51? What altitude? What speed?

If you take a P-40E and ask it to do a P-51D's job, then yes, it handles poorly compared to the Mustang <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Absolutely...the P-40 has a bad rep because it can't turn with an Oscar but its a fine aircraft below 20,000 feet and it did the job capably once the proper tactics were employed.

Sir.Robin-1337
11-16-2004, 04:00 PM
The P-51D turns like a Mother Fokker.

VF-29_Sandman
11-18-2004, 08:35 PM
51's since patch will snap-stall to the right very quickly and by the time u get out of it, tojo has ur #. so far, this affects the corsair and the cat's as well. a bit odd since pilots in the pacific reported they lost tojo with ease pulling into a hard right hand turn at speed where the zero would pull away from them with ease if they tryed to follow their left hand turns.

chris455
11-18-2004, 09:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geetarman:
Boy, I wish I could remember the name of the book! It was recently put out. One of the authors I recognized as a famous Warbirds pilot, but I have forgotten his name.

Anyway, it has only full color photos of the US planes in the ETO. The text is all quotes from the pilots and ground crews of the planes.

One officer contributes that the new pilots coming into the squadron were full of p!ss and vinegar, all set to kill the Jerries in their brand new Mustangs. The more experienced pilots would train the newbies in their Mustangs by taking up an old P-40. The mock fight would take place a lower altitudes. The P-40 would walk all over the Mustang. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup.

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-20-2004, 01:22 PM
The Mustang is one of the best all around performing planes in the game. As it should be IMO.

=S=

Kwiatos
11-20-2004, 03:59 PM
For me P-51 now in FB/PF is overmodelled in slow speed manouvering. P-51 could turn with bf 109 G-6 (auto prop pitch) even at 300-200 km/h and even turn slighty better. For me its total absurd. With laminar profil of wing, no slots and much more weight it shouldn't do it. Bf with slots could reach higher AoA without stall. As i read ( for example Mark Hanna opinion) and watched inteviews with pilots - P-51 have no chance in slow speed turning with Bf 109 but what could do P-51 in FB/PF is incredible and unbeliveable. Of course P-51 should turn better at high speed than BF 109 which we have in FB/PF but no in slow speed turnig. I usually fly allieds planes and i prefer fly P-47 than P-51 beacuse i feel that P-51 is not like should be. Its pity beacuse i would like fly P-51 but with more close correct FM not like these.

WWMaxGunz
11-20-2004, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
51's since patch will snap-stall to the right very quickly and by the time u get out of it, tojo has ur #. so far, this affects the corsair and the cat's as well. a bit odd since pilots in the pacific reported they lost tojo with ease pulling into a hard right hand turn at speed where the zero would pull away from them with ease if they tryed to follow their left hand turns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because the Japanese plane in question had a harder time turning right than left.

And that pull away from them with ease? You mean turn inside easily? Surely not pull
ahead? Because to get slow enough for that to happen, you'd have to be an idiot.
Check the speeds at which different planes could and couldn't turn so well compared to
others. Those are deadly critical according to pilots who included details in accounts,
at least among the AVG and former-AVG-in-the-Pacific pilots. It was a matter of training
within the units, knowing the details where tactics worked and not just the tactics.

LuftLuver
11-21-2004, 04:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
For me P-51 now in FB/PF is overmodelled in slow speed manouvering. P-51 could turn with bf 109 G-6 (auto prop pitch) even at 300-200 km/h and even turn slighty better. For me its total absurd. With laminar profil of wing, no slots and much more weight it shouldn't do it. Bf with slots could reach higher AoA without stall. As i read ( for example Mark Hanna opinion) and watched inteviews with pilots - P-51 have no chance in slow speed turning with Bf 109 but what could do P-51 in FB/PF is incredible and unbeliveable. Of course P-51 should turn better at high speed than BF 109 which we have in FB/PF but no in slow speed turnig. I usually fly allieds planes and i prefer fly P-47 than P-51 beacuse i feel that P-51 is not like should be. Its pity beacuse i would like fly P-51 but with more close correct FM not like these. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Complete Horse Dung kwiatos. Why you guys persist on spreading this UNsubstantiated lie is beyond me. Oh wait, you want the P51 neutered at all costs.

Down low, only the very best Mustang pilots able to do anything at all with the 109s down in the weeds. If you want to feel guilt for flying something, feel guilty over flying the 109.

Til then, give the Mustang bashing a rest.

robban75
11-21-2004, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
For me P-51 now in FB/PF is overmodelled in slow speed manouvering. P-51 could turn with bf 109 G-6 (auto prop pitch) even at 300-200 km/h and even turn slighty better. For me its total absurd. With laminar profil of wing, no slots and much more weight it shouldn't do it. Bf with slots could reach higher AoA without stall. As i read ( for example Mark Hanna opinion) and watched inteviews with pilots - P-51 have no chance in slow speed turning with Bf 109 but what could do P-51 in FB/PF is incredible and unbeliveable. Of course P-51 should turn better at high speed than BF 109 which we have in FB/PF but no in slow speed turnig. I usually fly allieds planes and i prefer fly P-47 than P-51 beacuse i feel that P-51 is not like should be. Its pity beacuse i would like fly P-51 but with more close correct FM not like these. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Complete Horse Dung kwiatos. Why you guys persist on spreading this UNsubstantiated lie is beyond me. Oh wait, you want the P51 neutered at all costs.

Down low, only the very best Mustang pilots able to do anything at all with the 109s down in the weeds. If you want to feel guilt for flying something, feel guilty over flying the 109.

Til then, give the Mustang bashing a rest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not commenting on the turnability of the 109's, as it is a fuzzy subject to me. The Mustang on the other hand is pretty ok IMO, apart from its low speed turning ability. It turns well enough to keep up in sustained turnfights with AI flown La-7's, or deny them to turn into you.

So IMO it does turn too well, much better than my trusty D-9, which in RL was pretty much on par with the Mustang.

OldMan____
11-21-2004, 05:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
For me P-51 now in FB/PF is overmodelled in slow speed manouvering. P-51 could turn with bf 109 G-6 (auto prop pitch) even at 300-200 km/h and even turn slighty better. For me its total absurd. With laminar profil of wing, no slots and much more weight it shouldn't do it. Bf with slots could reach higher AoA without stall. As i read ( for example Mark Hanna opinion) and watched inteviews with pilots - P-51 have no chance in slow speed turning with Bf 109 but what could do P-51 in FB/PF is incredible and unbeliveable. Of course P-51 should turn better at high speed than BF 109 which we have in FB/PF but no in slow speed turnig. I usually fly allieds planes and i prefer fly P-47 than P-51 beacuse i feel that P-51 is not like should be. Its pity beacuse i would like fly P-51 but with more close correct FM not like these. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Complete Horse Dung kwiatos. Why you guys persist on spreading this UNsubstantiated lie is beyond me. Oh wait, you want the P51 neutered at all costs.

Down low, only the very best Mustang pilots able to do anything at all with the 109s down in the weeds. If you want to feel guilt for flying something, feel guilty over flying the 109.

Til then, give the Mustang bashing a rest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

because someone needs to counter balance all the lies some luft haters try to impose here, like saying ALL 109 fly too well. SOME of them fly too well and some fly too bad!!

Chuck_Older
11-21-2004, 06:51 AM
I actually have to agree with that

Also, when commenting on the "P51", let's please indicate what model we are talking about. A P-51B and a P-51D are not the same aircraft, but if there is a complaint, it's the "P51 turns too well". What model?

Maple_Tiger
11-21-2004, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
For me P-51 now in FB/PF is overmodelled in slow speed manouvering. P-51 could turn with bf 109 G-6 (auto prop pitch) even at 300-200 km/h and even turn slighty better. For me its total absurd. With laminar profil of wing, no slots and much more weight it shouldn't do it. Bf with slots could reach higher AoA without stall. As i read ( for example Mark Hanna opinion) and watched inteviews with pilots - P-51 have no chance in slow speed turning with Bf 109 but what could do P-51 in FB/PF is incredible and unbeliveable. Of course P-51 should turn better at high speed than BF 109 which we have in FB/PF but no in slow speed turnig. I usually fly allieds planes and i prefer fly P-47 than P-51 beacuse i feel that P-51 is not like should be. Its pity beacuse i would like fly P-51 but with more close correct FM not like these. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



With combat flaps, I will stall out at 230km/h in the P-51D. G/6, I'll stall out at about 200km/h.

I think you'r full of sht......

10 min later.


Wow! now I stall out at 260km/h in the P-51D. G/6 never stalled out until it reached 210km/h. Both planes with 50% fuel and on the deck.

Anyone who can't out turn a P-51D on the deck while flying a BF-109, should mayby fly the Zero instead.

You guys have what you want. Now quite beating a dead horse.

Aaron_GT
11-21-2004, 08:27 AM
You'd be nuts to get as slow as 210 or 260 km/h in either in a fight. That's 130-160 mph. That's not good practice. Ray Hanna, at least, reports that the P51 slow speed turn handling is pretty average due to the wing design (although AFAIK the -D wing is thicker and may not really count as a laminar flow wing any more, which should help low speed handling a bit). I don't know what Ray Hanna's views on the 109 are (just his brother's) but given that the 109G series has a wing that develops more lift at low speeds than the P51 and a better power:weight ratio (mostly) it should turn better than the P51. I haven't tried it myself as I never fly the 109 but if the 109 can turn inside the P51 when slow, that's correct. But even in a 109 getting that slow is only going to be worth it if you are in a panic and out of ideas as it leaves you open to being BnZed out of existence outside of, perhaps, a 1-on-1. That's why as the war progressed TnB performance at slow speed was deemphasised in favour of performance at high speed: get slow and you can quickly run out of options no matter what the turn performance.

WWMaxGunz
11-21-2004, 02:45 PM
I have read and even heard that the P-40 could out turn the P-51... don't know the load
conditions. Eric Schilling of the AVG states that the P-40B out turned the Bf 109E-3,
both planes contemporary. Later P-40 models did fall short of improvements or the 109's
and others though.

The Allison engine P-51's had the same engine as the P-40's didn't they? And were designed
for more speed. Draw some conclusions. The P-40's had a nasty spin from stall by one source
and maybe that's where the better handling of the P-51 comes in, besides speed.

But then Eric Schilling also states that the Ki-43 contemporary with the P-40B....
The P-40B was. . .
40 mph faster than the AM6-2 (21) Zero.
50 mph faster than the Hyabusa, or Ki-43.
......
130 mph faster in a dive than any Japanese fighter.
3 times the roll rate of the Zero.
........

I know about the 3x roll rate of Zero. Yes but only at high speed, like 240+ mph!
I don't know the alts or conditions of being faster than AM6-2 and Ki-43 but I do
find it interesting that the Ki-43 is slower than the AM6-2.

All of these are about the early part of the war, time of P-40B/109E-3/Spitfire 1A.

Anyhow Jeff Ethell also really liked the P-40 but I don't see the info free, just
comments and where to buy the book or video about how much.

It'd be nice to know what/if limits and what of P-40's out turning P-51's. I don't
have much trouble believing it.

SkyChimp
11-21-2004, 05:27 PM
The P-40 was considered was either "not manueverable" or "very manueverable." depending on the context of the comment.

Against Japanese planes, the P-40 could not compete in the slow-speed turn. It was generally superior int high speed turning to the A6M and Ki-43.

AFAIK, the turn ability of the P-40 was the one true advantage the P-40 had over the Bf-109 and Fw-190. USAAF fighter groups, particularly the 325th FG, did exceptionally well in North Africa against the German fighter. I recall reading one pilot's comment that he couldn't believe the Germans never seemed to learn NOT to get into a turning fight with a P-40.

Skalgrim
11-22-2004, 12:51 PM
spit and 109 have the best climb/powerload ratio

almost no plane could match, with same powerload the climb from 109 and spit

g2 has with 1300ps 3150kg 21m/sec initialclimb

la-5fn with almost same wingloading, but better powerloading has 19m/s with 1650ps,


why?

because longer wing from 109 produce more lift by 260-280km/h ias as relative short la-5fn wing,


examble sail boat like catamaran,

by same sail surface,

is the catamaran with the longer sail front faster,

especially by weak wind velocity,

because longer sail, make more lift, by same surface, because most lift get the wing at the front line,

therefore has the longer sail more lift by same areal

plane wing is similar

la-5fn could perhaps better turn as g2 under 2000m,

because better powerload as g2 under 2000m, but above 2000m has g2 better powerload, and should probable outturn la-5fn under 260-280km/h ias

then liftloading from g2 was sure better with 260-280km/h as from la-5fn, see g2 better initialclimb with only 1300ps

by spit same, when spit has powerload advantage, they should better turn, but with same powerload turn 109 and spit probable similar,

read "mark hanna"

so it is depent from altitude, where has engine best power

g6/as should best turn from all 109, too better as g2,

g6/as much better powerload at low altitude as the g2 by only 50kg more weigh.

spain g10 3150kg 1680ps had initialclimb over 28m/sec,

seem those 109g wing make many lift 260-280km/h

and that means too good turn 260-280km/h ias



what i not like in those game,

109 turn from 230-300km/h same good, that seem wrong, but many other plane have same behavior

all plane have only one speed, there turn they at best, above or under those speed, turn they weaker

i can that not see in pf

the best turn speed, is probable in near of the best climbspeed,

because there has the plane the best lift
.

Hoarmurath
11-22-2004, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

AFAIK, the turn ability of the P-40 was the one true advantage the P-40 had over the Bf-109 and Fw-190. USAAF fighter groups, particularly the 325th FG, did exceptionally well in North Africa against the German fighter. I recall reading one pilot's comment that he couldn't believe the Germans never seemed to learn NOT to get into a turning fight with a P-40. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, i recall reading a P-40 pilot's comment on how it was impossible to have a turning fight with a 109, they always made bnz attacks.

Kwiatos
11-22-2004, 02:26 PM
What i read P-40 was better in turn fight than bf 109 at low to medium alt. P-51 should be worse than Bf 109 at slow speed turning medium to low alt. The same P-51 should be worse than Corsair. What we have in FB/PF. P-51 turn the same with Bf 109 G-6 in slow speed dogfith and turn better than Corsair.

BigganD
11-22-2004, 08:11 PM
I think hes lying.. thats all I have to say. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif