Friedrich-4B

:doh: How did I overlook this Ebook (also available as a hardback) Spitfire M. IX & XVI Engineered? I remember reading a review about the hardback some years ago here , but it was a bit expensive at the time. Anyway, I've downloaded the ebook and have been going through it on and off during the day - brilliant! :book: :worthy: :thumbup: Would that such comprehensive publications be made for the 109G-Ks and the Fw 190A-Fs or Ds and the P-51D or P-47D!

Douglas (by then) B-26 Invader Polikarpov Po-2 Tupolev Tu-2

Thanks alfredo lerado; however, AFAIK the P-47 didn't use the British 5 in rocket and rails - certainly not in Europe. Of course, the P-47 had a built in armament of 8 x Browning .50 cal M2s; attached is a manual on the M2 (2 parts):

Of more immediate importance than fuel types, is what types of weapons will be available & what types of drop tanks? Taking the drop tanks; the main options: 1) 75 US gal aluminum tank 2) 108 gal "paper" tank 3) "Flattened" 200 gal tank designed specifically for the P-47 (also note 3.5 in rocket clusters):

For starters, pilot's combat reports can help; eg: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html

+1

8th AF Fighter Groups using the P-47 June- December 1944: 56th FG stayed operational on P-47s thru to May 1945 78th FG started conversion to P-51s December 1944 last P-47 missions January '45 353rd FG started conversion to P-51 November 1944 356th FG started conversion to P-51s November 1944 (info from http://www.amazon.com/American-Eagles-Vol-Mustang-Units/dp/1903223199 ) 4 of the 8th AF's 14 FGs still used the P-47, including P-47D-30s, during the time ED's planeset covers. That sums it up nicely, thanks. :thumbup:

Also from the 9th AF document, on D-Day the P-47s provided high cover over the beach-heads, operating at 8 - 10,000 feet, while low cover (3 - 5000ft) was provided by the RAF:

I'll add these to help complete the picture (also pdf) Completely wrong; the 9th AF was based in Britain well before D-Day: this is the disposition of its forces in Britain 1 June 1944: The 9th started moving to Northern France in July 1944 and, by October 30, the P-47s were based just to the south of the Ardennes (see pdf), well with range of the front lines and able to hit targets well beyond the front lines using 1 drop tank.

There were no differences, except in the tail numbers; see: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2338731&postcount=319

Mainly for interest, here are some encounter reports from late 1944, P-47s at medium-low altitudes: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-bast-23dec44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-baughman-18nov44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-brown-21sept44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-butliste-31dec44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-chasko-23dec44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-davis-18nov44.jpg There are plenty more where they came from: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html

2.1 km = 1.133 nm. (Afghanistan now 140/9 vs Australia's 417/6 - I'm off to bed)

Sounds familiar, but I can't remember where I have read that - it might have been in Warren Bodie's book on the P-47, or Graham White's on the R-2800. I don't have time to look now, but I'll see what I can find.

Essentially, any measured speed differences between the B/C and D/K were so small as to be meaningless; this isn't forgetting the D/K had a slightly different inner-wing profile vs the B/C , plus the gun ports were faired vs the open gun ports of the earlier Mustangs, dorsal fin fillet on most Ds, etc: P-51B (clean) 440mph @ 24,200 ft (V-1650-7) 442 mph @ 29,200 ft: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51B_24777_P-51B_6883_Level.jpg (Full report) http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-24777.html P-51D (clean) 442 mph @ 26,000 ft: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51D_15342_Level.jpg (Full report) http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342.html Really, considering all of the aerodynamic changes between the B/C and D/K, including the bomb racks etc, whatever effects the canopy had on level top speed isn't worth arguing over.

Here is the Airspeed Correction Chart for the P-51D-5 from the Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions, 5 April 1944:

The Ju 88S-3 or Ju 188A-2 or D-2 with Jumo 213s would be interesting options.

Seriously? This is just arguing for the sake of arguing; In one sentence Crumpp tells me I don't understand the word fixed yet, two sentences later: How many other ways is it possible to define fixed for control surfaces in flight? Otherwise, the only way of ensuring the rudder stays truly fixed is to use a control lock - eg; the Boeing Model 299 (prototype for what became the B-17) crashed in late 1935 because the gust locks on the control surfaces hadn't been disengaged. From Stability and Control: Flight testing NB: This is the reference used; none other than the 1943 NACA report posted earlier:

It is also very possible that Dave Southwood was quoted correctly and that he did perform fixed-rudder rolls, as set down in NACA's testing procedures described in a 1943 document 3G24, and in the 1947 Report #868: 1943 page 7: #868 pages 14 & 15 Its always possible for someone to ask Dave Southwood himself exactly what he meant: https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dave-southwood/93/a11/385

The P-47D-30 might not perform as badly at lower altitudes; attached is a report on a comparison test of a P-47D-4 against what looks to be an Fw 190F-8. The test was conducted in Italy in December 1943, covering SL to 10,000 ft. No doubt the accuracy and specifics of such a test could be argued over ad-nauseum (hopefully not), but it has been posted mainly because it makes interesting reading.

According to the F-16CD Block 50 Flight Manual, the total stick movement is 1/4 inch in both axes, with maximum nose up and nose down pitch commands being generated by 26 and 16 pounds of input; roll commands are generated by a maximum of 17 pounds in cruise gains, and 12 pound in takeoff and landing gains:

AFAIK the only "Mustangs on Steroids" are the highly modified Reno Racers using special fuels - by comparison those with 150 Octane fuel are more like Mustangs on multi vitamins - or maybe Red Bull?

A correction here: the overwhelming majority of operational, real life P-51Ds used the wing racks, regardless of which fuel grade was used. Should people choose to fly ED's P-51Ds without wing racks, 150 Octane fuel will make a difference cf a clean ED P-51D using the standard 100/130 grade fuel.

You mean this one?

All good news - can't wait to see the -47D, the Spitfire IX or the Me 262; it doesn't matter in what order they come out, as long as they're as good as the P-51D, 190D-9 or 109K-4. :thumbup:

+1 The P-47D deserves the ED treatment, just as much as a Spitfire or Me 262 - it doesn't matter in what sequence they emerge. Anyway, there's more room for nose art on the P-47...8) (Disclaimer: not all P-47D-30s; not all European based) Was that BOOM or THUD? (quick exit...)