Swoop73

Thanks, Merlin.... Interesting info. Amazing how much of this stuff is available to purchase. You could probably build up a pretty neat Mustang cockpit using the "real" front ends.

As a general rule, carb icing becomes less of a threat as the bore of the carb becomes larger. The T-6 doesn't even have a carb heat control, as I remember. Think of it this way. Icing conditions "Sometimes described as a Temp/dewpoint spread of less than 11C" and a quarter inch of ice forms in the carburetor. In a Cessna, the carb throat might be around 1.5 inches, so that ice buildup is a big deal. I don't know the throat diameter in the 51 but it must be 5-6 inches. That same ice deposit would hardly be noticed. This is an approximation. Not writing this with a Lycoming manual in my lap, but it's the general idea. I can find out from pilots who flew P-51's in appalling conditions in Italy. Never heard of carb ice being one of their worries. Losing control in clouds, mid air collisions and friendly fire were probably more feared than enemy action. I'll have to ask about carb icing.

One other way is to be close to the guy you're shooting. That would be an interesting thing to model. I know, in Aces High, You can take hits from enemy plane debris flying back. A Mustang pilot from the 325th I stay in contact with, Barrie Davis, shot up a German plane and was rewarded with enough oil on the wind screen he had to roll the canopy open and land looking out both sides.

I used to own a Cherokee 140 and one night, going to visit friends, I neglected to stow the primer. In most light planes, this is a brass pump you work kind of like a giant syringe. It locks closed after you give the engine a few shots of prime. Partly open it allows some raw gas to make it to the carburetor. The engine ran fine on the flight since it was making the mixture rich but not too rich. However, when I landed and was taxiing to park, my friends were going crazy. Under the plane my exhaust stacks were playing blue flame over the pavement. Wouldn't have been visible in daylight but really something at night. So... Yes. in theory the fuel burns in the cylinder but actually, if overly rich, the leftover fuel does make it out the stacks. Another reason for this would be valve overlap. I'm all for getting these little details in as they help establish a sense of emersion. Guess I won't be happy until a simulation is so exact I can't tell it from reality. That day is coming. :-)

Exorcet has a point. I have so much fun just flying the Mustang, I can count on the fingers of one hand how often I've been in a fight. Just fun doing low level cross country stuff, maybe set an AI Mustang and fly formation with it. Pull the power off at 6,000 ft. and see if you can dead stick it to a runway. Do a touch and go on the Carl Vincent. Millions of things to do...And the scenery is terrific up North. That's why you'll hardly ever see me use the word "game" here. :-)

I guess I just thought "randomizing" would be the simpler approach to making sure the same thing didn't happen over and over. Absolutely agree tying an event to conditions is best....Just figured harder to do. I wouldn't care, if DCS Mustang wasn't so darn good. It begs for adding little details that will push it over the top.

I would be interested if anyone can find any info on the antenna embedded in the vertical fin. My own guess is that this is the rear radar warning antenna that is connected to that horn shaped object on the top left panel. Very doubtful that this was ever in a WWII Mustang but not going to lose sleep over it. Per MP's question, though, it would be great if slight tweaks like removing the belly and homing antennas could be done by the skinners. I just got off the phone with Art Fiedler, a 325th FG Mustang ace, and he does remember some of them had a "homing" radio but it never got used. Hilariously, they were told by the brass..."We won't give you the frequency of the homing range because the enemy might get hold of it."

Looks neat but shouldn't be a regular occurrence. Those are stack fires and just mean it was a bit over-primed. I wonder if some effects could be randomized? I personally would love to see compression streamers off the wing tips once in a while. :-)

There were about a dozen TF 51's a few years ago. There is a TSO for the mod, I'm pretty sure. There are more today because people having Mustangs rebuilt are attracted to the TF. It's important to note- The TF-51 doesn't just have dual controls. It has a full rear cockpit. Also, the canopy is different, with more headroom in the back section. The altered canopy profile is the reason for the taller vertical fin as there is some airflow separation and a little less flow to the rudder. When I was in Crazy Horse almost a decade ago, I rode in both positions. The rear cockpit had no radio/nav stack but all the other instruments. You couldn't start the Merlin from the back and the guy in front had to handle the gear. I rode with both Ed Shippley and Lee Lauderback. Their biggest fear as instructors- The one thing they couldn't counteract was somebody getting on the brakes too hard. There will be more TF-51's every year.

I was told the whole prop assembly "4 blades plus hub" comes to 450 lbs. accelerating that in a go around is bad enough and many are taught to just go to 40 inches to help avoid a torque roll. I was told 2700 RPM on final but as has been pointed out other real world Mustang pilots may use slightly different settings. One thing.. Setting RPM really low does not cut down on torque, it makes it worse as that huge prop is taking a bigger bite out of the air. Also, listen to Squirrel. Aerobraking from a flattened prop is a real thing and the courser the pitch the harder to keep it slow while coming down final.

In 2007 in Columbus, OH, I was a legend Host at the Gathering of Mustangs. As a volunteer, one of my jobs was to pick up arriving air show guests at the airport. Jim Brooks was the first person I was assigned. That half hour drive went by in a heartbeat. What an amazing life. After the War, he was a test pilot. We've all seen those 1950's photos of jet fighters "F94's?" launching off the back of a truck with a JATO bottle. He was in the plane for several of those launches. What a ride that must have been. Amazing. Great guy.

You're right. In the outfit I'm most familiar with, the 325th, there were some pilots who preferred the C model, which of course is the same as the B. Slightly thinner wing and greenhouse canopy made it just a little faster and, some thought, a better gun platform. The drawback? The 50 cals had to be mounted partly on their sides which made a tighter turn for the ammo feed into the receivers. In a fight the guns were very likely to jam if you were firing and pulling more than 3 1/2 G's. They added electric motors to help move the belts but the D models had wings thick enough to take the Brownings upright. Wonder if they would model this? Sure would like to see this version....and about a hundred other WWII planes. I like jets but DCS is well on the way to the best WWII sim ever...if they just follow through.

OK... Guess I've been fixated on "Takeoff from Parking hot", thinking it was "parking lot" Time for new glasses.... :-)

Yeah..... Been driving me crazy too. :-)

RPM is prop pitch control, yes. The Mustang is geared just about 2:1, i.e., 3,000 RPM on engine "What you see on tachometer" is close to 1,500 RPM on the prop. I know many of you know this but Prop RPM needs to stay below the speed of sound for efficiency. Then it's all about prop diameter. A Piper Cherokee 140 might be at full power at 2,700 RPM. The engine not being geared would be the same. The prop tips based on diameter, would not be all that far from sonic speed. The Mustang's 450 lb, 11 foot prop approaches this tip velocity at around 1,500. That's why almost all big, high horsepower prop assemblies are geared to the engine if it's a recip. These are just round numbers, folks. If someone finds the P-51D in 1944 had an 11 foot, 5 1/4 inch prop....Go easy on me. :-)