Solty

The dynamic will certainly become different. But it won't change the matter of the P-51D. Currently P-51 is just forced to fight a fight it was not designed to. Just like the Dora, it is not a light turnfighter. You see the Spitfire IXc even with 25lbs (81'hg) is going to be slower than P-51D with 67'hg :) It is just a different plane, and so Germans will be able to easily leave the Spit behind. Just break off at will. So it won't be any kind of a substitute. But those that will start turnfights will feel the wrath of the Spitfre. :D And thats good, it is going to be a cool clash of styles. Maneuvrability vs speed.:pilotfly::joystick:

I just wanted to say that I do undestand how big of an impact many factors like weather and plane condition have and change the whole picture. Nevertheless, I was not looking for new data, just referencing the one that Yo-Yo based his model off. I do understand that my tests are very well within margin of error and I might be able to get 1 or 2mph more if my rudder was more compliant :P Again, thank you for your time Yo-Yo.

Sure there is a lot of different tests with different results. But I am focused on the reference data in this thread as it was taken into account by Yo-Yo Also this data is based on: Flight Test Engineering Branch Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio 15 June 1945 Flight Tests on the North American P-51D Airplane, AAF No. 44-15342 As I said, I was wrong about the asumption that nothing has been done, and in fact the P-51D is faster than it was when this thread was created. Nevertheless I was unable to reach desired speeds. :dontgetit: Thank you Yo-Yo for your time though. That might be connected to the issue that Saburo mentioned, which is the engine overheating which causes the radiator to open too much which results in higher drag and worse max speed. That is just my theory though.:detective: EDIT: @Kurfurst The plane doesn't seem to be specifically prepared for the tests, as even bomb racks are not taken down and the weight seems in order of a standard P-51D (9760 pounds)

OK. So I did my two tests. +15°C, 760mm At 61'hg I was capable of 578kph (359mph) / reference data speed 363mph At 67'hg I was capable of 595kph (369mph) / reference data speed 375mph -------- But I still can't reach those reference speeds. What I want to mention though is that the reference data states that bomb racks under wings were installed. That would impact the performance a bit and it was still faster than our P-51D in the game with clean configuration. But yes it is closer to the data than it was before. And it was my testing conditions that made mostly the difference. But as I said, I can't reach the reference speeds. @Saburo. I don't know how were you able to fly slower than me and slower than reference data and Yo-Yo's chart xD. PS. And thank you guys again for the TAS indicator. It makes it sooooo much easier to mesure stuff xD

So you basically want to confirm that in fact it is too slow. If you hit with 61'hg only 562Km/h (349mph) at 15C. You should be doing 580kph/360mph acording to Yo-Yo's chart. I am doing my test now... Thx for advice on TAS.

Ohhh... so F2 does show TAS? But it is labeled as IAS... I am confused. Is it a typo in the game? I'll try to make my flight more coordinated.

Can you (or anyone realy) tell us what are MSA conditions? I assume that is minimal safe altitude. It is supposedly 1000ft above the airdrome... but that is hardly SL... right? Is it also possible that it is already fixed in 2.0 but not yet in 1.5? I just made another flight. I know my rudder coordination is not the best (I have a new stick and it has twichy rudder :() but still I am oscilating around 580kph. If anyone can make their own tests that would be great. Thx. EDIT: I just did a flight at 1000ft=304m. I was capable of 362mph or 582kph at 67'hg. IAS conversion to TAS gave me 368 mph 592kph. Can somone double check my "math"? xD

Use logic. 1. If a plane is weaker that doesn't mean it is unable to shoot something down. Hurricane Mk1 during the Battle of Britain is way weaker than Bf109E4 and can shoot it down. P-51D we have in game is weaker than the 109K4. But while it was historical for the Hurricane Mk1 to be slower than E4, it is not historicall for the P-51D to be slower than Bf109K4. 2. Proper tactics and placement will give you a brief advantage to shoot down a 109K4. 3. Most 109 players are waaay worse than trouble as a pilot. That doesn't mean that they do not have a clear advantage over other average US players. Your idea is for fix, is that everyone to become t4rouble? :D

After some time has passed, the issue was not yet resolved. Can this thread be moved to bug report section? I have checked the P-51D at SL. At WEP 67'hg I was able to achieve what YoYo has marked at 61'hg MIL power. The P-51D is underperforming and is too slow. Still.

Just read more about that. 72'hg and 150oct fuel was a standard since Gen. Doolittle took command of 8th AAF. It coincides with the fact that the P-51D was pushed (by him) as the primary escort fighter which caused many squadrons to switch from P47 and P38. I think only one Squadron was left with P47's.

You are OK with it? Hah. That's not a problem. We will get a Spit IX running 150 Oct merlin 66. So supercharger should be ready. I've heard its going to be 25lbs, that is 81hg

Lets then take a more conservative projection of the P-51 performance with 72'hg. Here it is, the 360mph at SL at 67'hg and 375mph (603kph) at 72'hg. But the document states it is preliminary only and I don't know what that realy means :P Still even if that is the "true" performance, it is waay better than what we have now and would bring more balance. And even the Dora would be still faster, so that means it would all be good :). As I said ED probably has even more data. But I doubt that performance would be any lower than that. This is around 39kph lower than the last one.

@Ala13_ManOWar You have made so many points it is hard to realy tackle all of them. But let's try. 1. Please give me data that states "P-51B is faster than P-51D". Because that is another myth that flies around and I only might suspect it is connected to early P-51D models. Early P-51D's had problem with longitudinalstability due to lack of the tail fin which created situations in which the D was loosing speed, but that doesn't concern us. We have a stable P-51D. 2. There are many reasons during the war concerning manufacturing that makes much more sense in a wider spectrum than just "produce plane A because it is better than plane B" while P-51B is certainly not "better" than Spitfire MkIX at everything. Check climb rates. It is a interceptor vs air superiority fighter type of argument. 3. You also misunderstood me. Two P-51B's in this test were using two different engines. V-1650-3 which was a standard engine on most 1943-44 P-51B's and very late B's V-1650-7 which is also the engine of the P-51D, that is why a "standard" B will not be faster (at least at low alt) than the D and this test show's that there are area's where the Merlin 63 is better than 66, but the reason for Merlin 66 aka Packard V-1650-7 is that allied plane's needed a better low level capability. 4. What can I tell you? It is not like I made those tests up and posted here. Those are not my projections. It is a data from the period. And there are tests that show P-51D outperforming the P-51B while both are at 67'hg, just as there is a test showing P-51B outperforming D at 75'hg. It just depends on many different factors and overall I think that the difference is barely noteworthy. What is sure though, is that P-51D would benefit from 72'hg immesly. Even if we take another tests that give it lower speeds. It will still be faster than Bf109K4 which will save it's pilot's life. Because P-51D is not a low level dogfighter. And should never be used as such. The reason you see so many people blow their engines, is that they push it to 67'hg and start turning and getting at speeds of around 200mph. Which will lead to not enough cooling on the engine and too much stress. Why did I choose this test? Because it states the most about aircraft's conditon and weight and it is a data for a test, not estimation. It also show's 72'hg while most P-51 tests available on the net show 75'hg. It very well might be similar to what Hummingbird was arguing. Where he stated that K4 "should" fly 610kph at SL, while other tests have shows 580kph and Yo-Yo's data gave it finally 590kph. So if 'theoretically' the tests that say's that the P-51B can reach 632kph means that P-51D can reach 610kph it will still help DCS P-51 player's to have a fair go at this. This test is just one of many and probably many more from NACA, NAA and NASA and RAF, that ED can probably acquire with no problem.

Let me show you one of those charts which actually shows 72'hg performance. The chart show's that the 72'hg mustang would benefit the most at low altitude, but only at the realy high altitudes the boost gives no real advantage. Lets take SL as a benchmark, because that is quite frequent in DCS MP. It shows that the P-51 (granted it is B, but with the same engine V-1650-7) is able to obtain 362mph (582kph) at SL and that is nearly the same to what our P-51D in DCS can do (I have checked it our P-51D does 580kph at SL). It also shows that the 72'hg P-51 is capable of 393mph (632kph). While our 109K4 in DCS is capable of 360mph (590kph with automatic radiator) at SL. That means the 72'hg rating will make the P-51D faster. Even if those numbers will be a bit lower, they will still make the difference. What will change with 72'hg rating. P-51 will become faster than the 109 by around 42kph. That is not a lot, but it is enough to dive away and be sure the 109 won't catch you. It will also make a difference when zooming and when trying to catch it. Currently the 109K4 is faster, turns better and is overall a better low speed dogfighter. That leaves the P-51 with very small window of oportunity to evade it and extend and pray he will loose you. If he keeps with you? Well prepare for a fight that you are destined to loose, and only if the 109 player makes a grave mistake you have chance of beating him. And again, note. I do not claim that will make the P-51D turn a lot tighter, or that it will make it way more maneurvrable. NO. But it will have that one thing that DEFINES the P-51 project. Speed. Please understand that :( EDIT: @Echo. Thx mate. o7

Wow thats wierd. Honestly I don't know... Maybe set it to 100 in the game, exit, delete the folder, repair DCS and then change the setting?

And that handbook is wrong. The charts from tests clearly show a speed increase at low alt with higher boost. And again. The 72hg won't make the P51 a better dogfighter by a large margin. But it WILL make it faster than 109. Why people want to dogfight? B&Z. That's all mustang is about. And 72hg rating will make it possible for P51 to have its one and very much historical advantage. Speed.

Hey no worries mate. You tried :) EDIT: I hope you had a copy?

I fly only mp lately and always need rudder for take off.

@rel4y Those engines work at different regimes giving different power outputs. DB engine will produce more power at lower boost but can't be pushed harder. So? This whole discussion doesn't belong here. Can we get a new thread? +1

Actually it would make more sense if it was Germans who would attack ground targets. That way they would have to take bombs and attack ground targets, which would lead to P-51's beeing able to actually use energy advantage. But that would probably only be Fw190 pilot's, as I have yet to see a 109 that bombs something in a sim xD

You are disrespectful towards me, I am prepared though, because 90% of 109 players are like that. You don't know enough about P-51 to be capable of speaking about it's characteristics. Check even what Yo-Yo has said about the P-51D's laminar flow beeing "weak". That is a claim that pops out every now and then and is completely false. The wing is not as efficient at low speed maneuvering but is a stable wing at most fighting conditions that P-51D was designed to fight in. That airplane is one of the most maneuvrable and fast planes of the war. EDIT: Anyway, this is not the place for it. It is a ACG thread, and I don't want to overwhelm it with unrelated stuff.

The thing is that P-51 should never dogfight a 109. Never ever. It relies on it's speed to keep it self out of trouble. It is a plane that could leave the fight at will. But can't in this game because of the low boost. Laminar flow a joke? Why then many airplane's during that period, that had different wing designs were switching to it? P39 didn't have laminar flow->P-63 has a laminar flow. La7 doesn't have laminar flow->La9 has a laminar flow. Typhoon->Tempest, Spitfire XIV->Spitefu. And no, the MW50 was not available since 1942. Only at the begining of 1944 the MW50 was starting to be fitted. All previous planes either had raw power and no additional cooling or used GM1 for high alitude.

I have 2 questions for devs. Are you modeling the AN/M2 yourself or are you going to use the existing one and are you modeling different ammo types for this .50cals? Like M8 API or M1 I etc. And with it new effects? Second question. Are you going to model fuel and hydraulic leaks or is it something that DCS cannot support? Thx. :)

For my 1920x1080 screen it looks ok.

You mention A4... which has a Colt MK12 20mm cannon that fire's 1000rpm. While P-51 is using AN/M2 Browning that is using 12,7mm rounds at 750rpm. There is a big difference between a cannon and a machine gun in terms of overheating. And placement in wings should help the case, as air has to hit the root of the wing and it is certain that air goes through those holes as the mustang pulls over 2G turns that create the distinct whine. To me this seems overdone.