PDA

View Full Version : Mustang performance?



Bull_dog_
03-19-2004, 09:05 PM
All you testers and factoid junkies...

How does the P-51 B/C stack up against the P-51D in the game vs. real life?

I feel like the B/C climbs better but I almost feel like the D turns better and it is definitely faster down low... B/C seems a little easier to stall...all of this is purely "feel" so I was curious how you all feel about it.

I was really expecting the B/C to be a better turn and burner with better acceleration, turning ability, more speed down low etc...with weak fire power... I don't get that feeling but I haven't flown it online much and that is where I form all my opinions about which plane is better than another

Bull_dog_
03-19-2004, 09:05 PM
All you testers and factoid junkies...

How does the P-51 B/C stack up against the P-51D in the game vs. real life?

I feel like the B/C climbs better but I almost feel like the D turns better and it is definitely faster down low... B/C seems a little easier to stall...all of this is purely "feel" so I was curious how you all feel about it.

I was really expecting the B/C to be a better turn and burner with better acceleration, turning ability, more speed down low etc...with weak fire power... I don't get that feeling but I haven't flown it online much and that is where I form all my opinions about which plane is better than another

crazyivan1970
03-19-2004, 09:06 PM
Fly it online then http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Chuck_Older
03-19-2004, 09:14 PM
IRL, there were differences on a D model such as a thicker (and lower!) wing, vertical tail fillet, and such, that affected performance. Some pilots back then felt that the B and C models were indeed faster than a D.

If it were me, I'd take a D model in real life, just because the guns wouldn't jam as frequently in high G maneuvers and I could get a better view. I wouldn't sweat the 5-10 mph difference much. But the thinner wing in particular made some pilots prefer the earlier models because they also felt it gave them an edge in manueverability.

*****************************
Wave bub-bub-bub-bye to the boss, it's your profit, it's his loss~ Clash

VW-IceFire
03-19-2004, 10:10 PM
The D model I feel has more high speed agility. The B and C are more even placed in their agility throught the speed range.

The C I think looks really nifty but I ultimately prefer the D model for the firepower of the extra 2 .50 cal machine guns.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

BlindHuck
03-20-2004, 01:49 AM
I believe the thinner wing arrived with the H. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif And why the heck is the H a P-51, anyway? It has as much in common with http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif the P-51 as a Spiteful does with a Spitfire! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif

"I race full real exclusively in IL2:The Forgotten Battles." - Mark Donohue

Maple_Tiger
03-20-2004, 06:44 AM
The P-51B had the 1650-3 engine.

The P-51D had the 1650-7 engine.

In real life.. like in the game the D is a little faster at lower altitudes. But the P-51B was a little faster at higher altitudes.

The B\C are not as fast as the D down low. But the B\C do infact turn better and roll better then the D.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Chuck_Older
03-20-2004, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlindHuck:
I believe the thinner wing arrived with the H. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif And why the heck is the H a P-51, anyway? It has as much in common with http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif the P-51 as a Spiteful does with a Spitfire! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif

"I race full real exclusively in IL2:The Forgotten Battles." - Mark Donohue<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The wing did not become thinner as the aircraft developed. The wings initially held only two guns, while two were in the forward fuselage. then the 2 gun wing was introduced. These models were prone to gun jams because of the fact that the MGs were mounted at a slight angle. Not a slight angle up or down or left or right, they were roatated slightly along their fore and aft axis. The ammo feeds were prone to jamming while feeding into the guns.
The thicker wing allowed the positioning of the weapons in a more standard manner than the earlier models with a thinner wing, which in turn allowed a straighter feed for the ammunition.


The P-51H and P-51M are generally similar, the P-51M being built at the Dallas plant with a different propeller. The external identifiers of a P-51H are simply a taller fin and rudder. (This is also a way to tell the difference between similar aircraft such as Wildcats, the GM built example having generally the exact same appearance as a Grumman built one except for the taller tail on the GM built plane) A P-51D and a P-51H look almost identically the same with the exception of the vertical tail surfaces. Inside, there was a more powerful engine, and the wing could accomodate either 3 guns or 2 guns.

I have extreme difficulty understanding your comment that the P-51H has little in common with a P-51D. I can only assume that you have never seen a photograph of a P-51H and that you're confusing it with some other aircraft.

*****************************
Wave bub-bub-bub-bye to the boss, it's your profit, it's his loss~ Clash

horseback
03-20-2004, 09:25 AM
Hm...my sources say nothing about the wing getting thicker in the D model, although the 'crank' at the wing root got a little sharper(not portrayed in FB, RL razorback ponies had a nearly straight wing leading edge), and instead of the guns' barrels being tucked just inside the leading edge of the wing, the guns were moved forward, barrels protruding somewhat, so that the guns were located at the deepest part of the wing profile, allowing them to be mounted upright, rather than angled tops outward, as in the A/B/C models.

As for the GM built Wildcats, the FM-1s were originally identical to the F4F-4, then, as the pilots demands for more firing time over more guns was heard, they returned to the 4 gun armament with more rounds. The FM-2 was the tall tailed variant originally designed by Grumman to be the F4F-8, lighter and faster at medium alts with the tall tail to compensate for the torquey-oh, hell-greater torque of the Wright Cyclone engine. They also tended to have the overall glossy sea blue paint jobs.

I see only 1 P-51M being built; the 555 H and the lonely M were lightweight versions returning to the near straight wing leading edge and a great deal of plastic to lighten the a/c. It was a different aircraft, sharing little with it's predecessor. The planform and profile were quite different from the D.

cheers

horseback

"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

Aaron_GT
03-20-2004, 09:34 AM
Chuck, the first P51s had
four or six gun wings, not
two gun wings.

The A36 had two guns (.50)
in each wing, and two chin
guns. The Mustang I had
one .50 and two .303s in
each wing instead. The
IA had two 20mm cannon in
each wing.

Chuck_Older
03-20-2004, 10:50 AM
I really must disagree.


I am looking at a photo of a P-51H right now, and on a cursory inspection the only visual cue is the taller tail.


Is a Bf-109E an aircraft that shares little with it's later variants just because the aircraft underwent a re-design? A Bf-109K and a Bf-109E share much in common. I see no difference between that line of aircraft evolution and in the changes made to a P-51 to make it an "H" model. In visual respects, they are minor details compared to the overall shape of the plane. Yes planform was changed, but does that mean a clipped wing Spitfire has little in common with it's predecessors? The 'razorback' Mustangs are more radically different from a P-51D than a P-51H is to a D model. If you compare a P-51A to a P-51D and note the changes, then compare a P-51D to a P-51H and note the changes, I think you'll find that the P-51A is more radically different from a D model than a H model is to a D.

Going back to the wing, the D model's wing was also lower (that's why it had a plywood floor!). So does that mean a P-51D is an aircraft that shouldn't be in the P-51 family because the wing is lower?

You would not see a Mustang P-51H fly by and think that the aircraft was not a Mustang. I really have to disagree with you, horseback. The D and H model are visually quite similar. Even a Cavalier Mustang is obviously in the Mustang family, on looks alone. You refer to the aircraft's profile, and it's role as a lightweight fighter, and I can't help but wonder: Are you referring to the air intake? The P-51J was intended as the lightweight fighter, and this aircraft also had the "chin" intake relocated to the ventral radiator. I think that this may be the aircraft you are thinking of.

My copy of "The Mustang Story" lists 255 Mustang P-51H-10NAs being built, not 555, by the way. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron-
I stand somewhat corrected.

I had recalled that there were 4 .50 cals in Mustang Is, and of those, two in the fuselage. When I looked it up, I didn't read further into the specs, I stopped when I found out how many .50 cals (4) were in the aircraft.

The US evaluated to XP-51s, which were identical to Mustang Is. They ordered their own, and called them A-36As. The A-36 aircraft was later upgraded to four .50 cals in the wing, and were called P-51As. Fifty went to the UK as Mustang IIs.

However, I see you make the distiction in saying "Mustang I", which is the aircrfat I was referring to.


Can someone please post a photo of a P-51H and a P-51D?

I have no web hosting. Compare the two photos yourselves and then tell me that the H and D models are not very similar. If you can still do that, I won't try to change your minds, but I'll think you're all flippin nuts. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

*****************************
Wave bub-bub-bub-bye to the boss, it's your profit, it's his loss~ Clash

Arm_slinger
03-20-2004, 10:59 AM
I find the B/C a little bit less manoeuverable and rather stally, there again this may have been me in a "not too good at flying" mood http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Either way i love the panel in them http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

T4T recruitment officer

Sim lover?, want something new? Then look at "Target for Tonight the definitive night bombing simulation ever, featuring the RAF's Bomber Command.

Got you interested? Look for us here: www.nightbomber.com/forums (http://www.nightbomber.com/forums)

SkyChimp
03-20-2004, 11:14 AM
The P-51H wasn't based on the P-51D. It was based on the experimental and lightweight XP-51F. There was never any XP-51H, the experimental XP-51F, XP-51G and XP-51J serving that purpose.

There were 555 P-51Hs built. Serial numbers were:

P-51H-1-NA 44-64160-64179
P-51H-5-NA 44-64180-64459
P-51H-10-NA 44-64460-64714

Visual cues are many. The tall tail is one, but that is a later P-51H developement. The first batch of P-51H's had tails of the same height as the P-51D.

The P-51H also had a revised canopy. The nose of the H sloped more than the D, giving the pilot excellent, and better, view. And the radiator scoop was revised was well, remaining deeper along the back length of the fuselage. This improve aerodynamics, thus, increasing the critical mach to .80 versus .74 for the P-51D.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/skychimp.jpg

Chuck_Older
03-20-2004, 11:41 AM
My "Complete Book of Fighters" indicates that the XP-51F was developed as a lightweight version of the P-51D, though. If the P-51H was not based on the P-51D, it was based on an aircraft that was a development of the P-51D.

I do not dispute your post, SkyChimp, but to me all this says is that the aircraft evolved, it doesn't indicate a change into another aircraft to me.

*****************************
Wave bub-bub-bub-bye to the boss, it's your profit, it's his loss~ Clash

horseback
03-20-2004, 11:45 AM
Chuck-

As Skychimp pointed out, the H and M models are significantly different from the earlier Merlin models. I never said they didn't bear a family resemblance, but as the Kingcobra was to the Airacobra, so is the H to the D model of Mustang. Next to no parts commonality, although they were of more similar dimensions.

As for the D model's wing being lower, it might be more accurate to say that the cockpit was raised somewhat to take fuller advantage of the teardrop canopy; the profile of the lower fuselage is essentially unchanged from the B/C to the D/K from nose to tail.

By contrast, the wing planform and aft profile of the Mustang changed quite a bit from the D to the H. Similar, yes, but side by side, the differences jump out at you. I've built 1/48th scale models of all the Mustang fighter variants, including the H (Classic Airframes), and they are on my livingroom bookshelf as I write. The H is decidedly different, even discounting the insignia's postwar red stripes and orange hi-vis panels.

By the way, the first Mustang I ever saw was an H model flown into Mountain Home AFB by an Air National Guard unit (all of them no doubt avoiding combat duty in Korea) back in the late fifties. You may find it reassuring that they SOUNDED like Mustangs to my six year old ears.

cheers

horseback

"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

SkyChimp
03-20-2004, 12:12 PM
A curious shortcoming of the P-51H was the frequent failure of the tail wheel lock. Once raised, it may not lock again when lowered, resulting in the literal dragging of the tail. As a result, in routine training flights, the tail wheen was often left down.

A good book on the P-51H is Air Force Legends # 209: North American P-51H Mustang.

http://www.aviationworld.net/img/productImages/24546.jpg

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/skychimp.jpg

Chuck_Older
03-20-2004, 12:13 PM
But isn't this just evolution?

I am still driving at the point that the H and D models are not so dis-similar that,

" why the heck is the H a P-51, anyway? It has as much in common with the P-51 as a Spiteful does with a Spitfire "

is still a question I can't understand. Again I go back to my Bf-109 example, wherein the airframe was redesigned. A Bf-109K certainly belongs in the same fmaily as a Bf-109E, even though the K is based on a redesign of the E model's airframe. There were many visual cahnges made to the '109 by the time it was developed, but a K is still as much of a Bf-109 as n E model. My points are all aimed at discussing why on Earth should a P-51H model NOT be a P-51. What else would it be??


By the way:

It seems I am wrong about the propeller change http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I just looked it up in another book and I read it wrong from my first ref.

*****************************
Wave bub-bub-bub-bye to the boss, it's your profit, it's his loss~ Clash

SkyChimp
03-20-2004, 12:16 PM
Chuck,

I understand what you are saying and I don't necessarily disagree.

I suppose the P-82 could have as easily been called the P-51W or something like that.

I always thought when the P-47D went from a razorback form to a bubble canopy it should have gotten a new model letter.

Who can figure any of this out.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/skychimp.jpg

ajafoofoo
03-20-2004, 12:19 PM
Wow, excellent thread hijacking here.

SkyChimp
03-20-2004, 12:21 PM
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/p-51h.gif

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/skychimp.jpg

Heavy_Weather
03-20-2004, 12:22 PM
just from flying the P-51 B's& C's yesterday online, both appear to be heavy in the controls than the later mustangs.

"The wise man is often the man who plays dumb."

Chuck_Older
03-20-2004, 12:28 PM
That's a good point about the canopy change, SkyChimp.

I wonder what exactly the criteria is for a development of an aircraft to becaome it's own model was in those days? Even the XP-60 was a development of the P-40, but with a laminar flow wing. I wonder what the cause for the model change was? It could have been as simple as showing the Army that it wasn't just another P-40. It looks very much like a slightly modified P-40 with the intake trunking drastically changed. It was considered a new aircraft.

And yet the P-47J would have needed around 70 percent of the tooling changed for production. But it was still a P-47! I would have thought that a 70% change would mean a new aircraft. Maybe it would have been changed if the P-72 hadn't taken prominence at Republic, and the P-47J had gone into actual production? I don't know if anyone who knew is still alive.


edit~

Sorry, I forgot about the rigid rule of: "you can only discuss the pertinent points of the original poster's message. No-one else's replies can be considered a valid point of discussion in this thread and must be pursued in their own topic". How could I forget that rule? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I am a thread hijacker. I am a bad bad man. I shall go and hang my head because I was interested in replying to someone's post and then I discussed it with others who posted about that point, too. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Must atone, must atone. I shall fly Fw-190As in QMB for 3 hours against La-7s at low altitude, in penance. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


PS

thanks for the pic, Chimp. I really can say that the resemblance between the two aircraft are closer than that of brothers to me. Not quite twins, or maybe just fraternal twins.

*****************************
Wave bub-bub-bub-bye to the boss, it's your profit, it's his loss~ Clash

[This message was edited by Chuck_Older on Sat March 20 2004 at 11:38 AM.]

WUAF_Badsight
03-20-2004, 12:39 PM
knowing how awesome the P-47 M & N were the J would have awesome

SkyChimp
03-20-2004, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

thanks for the pic, Chimp. I really can say that the resemblance between the two aircraft are closer than that of brothers to me. Not quite twins, or maybe just fraternal twins.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They definately have the same mother.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/skychimp.jpg

Bull_dog_
03-20-2004, 12:52 PM
I don't mind the discussion about the late model mustangs at all, but I was curious as to whether anyone had confirmed which aircraft is superior B or D in these characteristics...

Climb rate
Roll Rate
Turn radius
Corner Speed

I had read that the B/C models were better dogfighters and the A model was very agile.

I really can't feel a difference and I'm not much of a spec tester. I'd say the b/c models even feel heavier on the controls. The D has the fluid feel of flight...very smooth. I don't get that from the b/c. So is the b/c the better dogfighter...except for armament of course.

BM357_Raven
03-20-2004, 01:58 PM
I also expected the B to be a little more nimble than it is--especially in contrast to the D..

It's almost like they are reversed to what I would expect.. I think I need more time with the B to be sure...but I know what you mean...

Blazing Magnums 357th VFG
bm357.com (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash_intro.html) | Roster (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/bm357_rosters.asp) | Flash Cartoon (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/raven_in_plane9p.html) | BroDawg (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash-intro/tinman3.html) | QuickTime Video (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/Downloads_Public/bm357_transmission.zip)
Blazing_Magnums Server (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/server.htm)

http://bm357.com/bm357_bw%20copy.jpg (http://bm357.com)http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

My mamma's Harley is bigger than your mamma..

SkyChimp
03-20-2004, 02:05 PM
In real life the "A" was supposed to have had wonderful handling characterisitcs - best of all the Mustangs.

The early "B" and early "C" did as well, as early model Bs and Cs were produced without fuselage tanks. And the fast-back design allowed for more directional stability than the bubble-top D model, as well as allowing it to achieve higher dive speeds before the porpising-effect set in.

Early Bs and Cs were produced with the V-1650-3 engine that was tuned for high-altitude performance. These planes were a little slower down low than the D, but faster up high. Bs and Cs with this engine had slightly lower rates of climb down low than did the D, but up high the climb rates were very good, even as good or better than the Bf-109K-4.

Later Bs and Cs got the V-1650-7, the same engine as the D. The performance of these planes were very close to that of the D, but the B and C always retained its superior handling and stability attributes over the D regardless of engine.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
03-20-2004, 02:33 PM
I haven't tested the Mustangs in FB, but the speeds in the Object Viewer for the B and C are wrong.

The P-51B we have is apparently the P-51B-1-NA. This was the fastest of the WWII combat-service P-51s. Oleg has a top speed of 703 km/h listed. Actual top speed was 724 km/h at 8,839 meters.

Oleg has 695 km/h listed as the top speed for the P-51C. The model we have in the game had a top speed of 708 km/h, a few miles per hour faster than the D.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/skychimp.jpg

Bull_dog_
03-20-2004, 04:47 PM
I never took the time to do the math conversion, but if your right skychimp...I ... well I just feel like pulling what little hair I have left, out.

I don't know...maybe all the stuff I've been reading about US planes is hogwash.... the US must have just got lucky. There is not a characteristic on a US plane that is overmodelled...instead we have to fight tooth and nail for proper energy modelling, roll rate and machine gun performance in the Jug, the Lightning flies pretty well considering it has torque but that gun shaking/dispersion is ridiculous and we got shorted a little ammo, and the D model mustang seemed slow to me, but heck what do I know....now the B model is too slow possibly...the mustang was the fastest prop aircraft built in any number in 1944.

Well I did get to fly it on line a little today but trouble is these dogfight servers are full of Ki's, 109K's, 109Z's, La's and the usual assortment of ubercraft...also maps are so close that there is just the old rolling furball.

There is only one server for me and it hasn't converted over yet...then I'll know how the P-51B stacks up...can't stand that cockpit view either....If I was a pilot I'd add a boster seat so I could see out.

Arm_slinger
03-20-2004, 04:52 PM
D'oh *slaps head*

I just figured out why the B and C was crap for me, i had the fuel on 100% setting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

T4T recruitment officer

Sim lover?, want something new? Then look at "Target for Tonight the definitive night bombing simulation ever, featuring the RAF's Bomber Command.

Got you interested? Look for us here: www.nightbomber.com/forums (http://www.nightbomber.com/forums)

mortoma
03-20-2004, 04:54 PM
[QUOTE] The B and C are more even placed in their agility throught the speed range.

Well that's because the B and C are the same plane except for the canopy and I thought I read somewhere that Oleg had said they have exactly the same FM.

Bull_dog_
03-20-2004, 09:42 PM
well after flying it online...I can see no reason to keep flying it when you got the D model. The cockpit vis is very poor, the .50's are just about useless and you can't outrun anything down low and online dogfights are no fun at 9Kilometers when it takes a half an hour to climb and 30 seconds to get shot down! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BlindHuck
03-21-2004, 03:03 AM
Cavalier Mustang is aftermarket developement of D. All Mustangs through K had essentially same wing. H is all new airframe developed from lightweight fighter program (E, F, G) and most significant development was wing with 1/2 the frontal area, or half as thick (aircraft being 500 lbs. lighter was good too, tho). No (very definate) interchangable airframe parts between D and H. H is a case of "How would we design the D knowing what we know now". Same as Spitfire/Spiteful and Typhoon/Fury. Same pedigree but generation(s) beyond.

Some pilots preferred to hang on to fastbacks (or highbacks as Brits say) because of faster speed/accelleration at altitudes they tended to fight at (motor and lower cockpit/better streamlining) and faster initial roll rates. There may have been a little more yaw stability, certainly with fin leading edge extension or strake as on D (Brits were never impressed, officially, with Mustang yaw stability).

"I race full real exclusively in IL2:The Forgotten Battles." - Mark Donohue