K-4 is a P51 Killer

[vCUJOv]

Was it ever mentioned why the p-51d was only modeled with 67 manifold?

 

Also I've heard Bud Anderson (P-51 ace) talk about shooting down the 109. His conversation made it sound pretty clear he could out maneuver the 109 at will and even shot many down waiting for them to stall before he did. I really don't know but I don't think that many experienced German pilots saw as much action in the K4? I'll have to post the video

 

I belive that was the case when fighting against G10. The k4 was a better fighter but by the time it came to service the Germans were outnumbered and they lacked well trained and experienced pilots

[Crumpp]

Was it ever mentioned why the p-51d was only modeled with 67 manifold?

 

Well, most of the P-51's in the European theater did not use it. It only went in service in the United States Army Air Force with the 8th AF.

 

The 9th USAAF and every P-51 "on the continent" after D-Day were forbidden to use 100/150 grade because of the maintenance issues and it was not a specified fuel.

 

The 8th AF Fighter Group that used it and then it was limited to only 72" in Hg to reduce the maintenance issues Wright Patterson noted.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/8thaf-techops-4april45.pdf

 

The 75"in Hg performance was tested at Wright Patterson but never was used in an operational aircraft but seems to be the "expected" performance. It was not.

 

While the 8th AF was responsible for the conduct of the strategic bombing campaign, the 9th AF was charged with all Tactical, Medium, and Light bombing missions.

 

The 9th was the Tactical Air Arm of the United States Army Air Force in the European Theater of Operations.

 

That meant the only P-51's in range to NOT mount wing racks was the 9th AF fighters. The 8th AF P-51D's that used 100/150 grade all mounted wing racks.

 

The performance of a 72"Hg P-51D with wing racks is for all practical purposes the same as the performance of a P-51D without wing racks using 67"Hg.

 

That being said, I would love to see a 72"Hg 8th AF Fighter Group version of the P51D.

 

It existed and was used so why not? In priority of course.....

[Yob]

This 75 octane must be a typo Yob because the standard fuel for the Merlins was 100/130 octane?

 

In overall numbers the P-51 outnumbered the Lw but on the bomber escort missions not so. It might say 600 P-51s escorted the bombers but those P-51s would be spread out all along the bomber formation and not all of the 600 P-51s were with the bombers at the same time.

 

Sorry was a typo, i ment 75Hg.........

 

But as pman said no balancing is needed.

 

Just mustang pilots need to work together now. And need to get altitude to dogfight. hopefully we get the AI-B-17 soon so mustangs can stay high. :)

[MiloMorai]

Sorry was a typo, i ment 75Hg.........

 

But as pman said no balancing is needed.

 

Just mustang pilots need to work together now. And need to get altitude to dogfight. hopefully we get the AI-B-17 soon so mustangs can stay high. :)

 

72" was the standard boost.

 

A very big +1 for the rest.

[CorsairHundo]

Thanks, good info

 

 

Well, most of the P-51's in the European theater did not use it. It only went in service in the United States Army Air Force with the 8th AF.

 

The 9th USAAF and every P-51 "on the continent" after D-Day were forbidden to use 100/150 grade because of the maintenance issues and it was not a specified fuel.

 

The 8th AF Fighter Group that used it and then it was limited to only 72" in Hg to reduce the maintenance issues Wright Patterson noted.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/8thaf-techops-4april45.pdf

 

The 75"in Hg performance was tested at Wright Patterson but never was used in an operational aircraft but seems to be the "expected" performance. It was not.

 

While the 8th AF was responsible for the conduct of the strategic bombing campaign, the 9th AF was charged with all Tactical, Medium, and Light bombing missions.

 

The 9th was the Tactical Air Arm of the United States Army Air Force in the European Theater of Operations.

 

That meant the only P-51's in range to NOT mount wing racks was the 9th AF fighters. The 8th AF P-51D's that used 100/150 grade all mounted wing racks.

 

The performance of a 72"Hg P-51D with wing racks is for all practical purposes the same as the performance of a P-51D without wing racks using 67"Hg.

 

That being said, I would love to see a 72"Hg 8th AF Fighter Group version of the P51D.

 

It existed and was used so why not? In priority of course.....

[Friedrich-4B]

I've read several accounts by German pilots saying they were told to never use MW50 for more than 5 minutes... And most of them said they took this very seriously and used it much less than that. These aircraft kept them alive and they didn't purposely do things they knew would be a detriment to the engine lifespan unless absolutely necessary.

 

Having ten + ten minutes of WEP was probably nice to have, but hardly essential. Looking through lots of combat reports from NW Europe in 1944, the average fight was over in less than a minute.* Extended use of WEP would have been handy when trying to catch a fast flying opponent, or trying to get away from a persistent pursuer.

 

*Albeit, in flight sims combat might take a lot longer, but, then again, WEP isn't much use in turning dogfights.

[Yob]

Having ten + ten minutes of WEP was probably nice to have, but hardly essential. Looking through lots of combat reports from NW Europe in 1944, the average fight was over in less than a minute.* Extended use of WEP would have been handy when trying to catch a fast flying opponent, or trying to get away from a persistent pursuer.

 

*Albeit, in flight sims combat might take a lot longer, but, then again, WEP isn't much use in turning dogfights.

 

Completely agree.

 

And honestly i have not encounted a situation where i have had to engage mw-50 in the 109, against loads of AI.

[ZaltysZ]

I got an opportunity to fight against K4s in MP yesterday. Not impressed. My wingman was supposed to be on receiving end of killer punishment, but easily got away just by doing high G downward spiral. He got 2 maneuvering kills that way. K4s either break their wings or can't keep following. In other words, if P51 is not crawling near the ground, it can easily shake off all BFs due to the current low G tolerance of theirs. So, despite other advantages of BF, it is still far from true killer of P51.

[Solty]

Being buggy doesn't make it worse in the long run

[DB 605]

 

Also I've heard Bud Anderson (P-51 ace) talk about shooting down the 109. His conversation made it sound pretty clear he could out maneuver the 109 at will and even shot many down waiting for them to stall before he did. I really don't know but I don't think that many experienced German pilots saw as much action in the K4? I'll have to post the video

 

 

Sorry but pilot accounts are not very reliable sources when talking about aircraft capability. It could well be exactly other way round, if some german ace would talk about shooting down the P-51 with average pilot in controls of it...

[gavagai]

As someone said earlier, a 109G-6 with gun pods and an ETC rack at 27,000ft is what many P-51 pilots were outmaneuvering.

[Kwiatek]

We dont know what exacly type of 109 enounter Bud Anderson in his P-51.

 

It could be absolete 109 G-6 regarding that Bud was flying P-51 B version not D.

 

P-51 with -3 version of Packard Merlin ( high alt version) was much better at high alt then standart G-6 for example

[pingo]

Im a P51 pilot. I dont have a problem with the K4 being the way it is. How's that?

 

MP Video please :)

Edited December 6, 2014 by pingo

[greco.bernardi]

To all pilots that want make this game too balance....

 

Its good to "pilots" that all airplanes have done with your caracteristics and diferences or its more ease to ED and boring for us to fly all airplanes with same PFM with a external model MOD.

 

If all of us demand for this octane fuel.....that burst or better thing to make your plane better its game will be boring to fly......Diferences of caracteristics of planes make you to engage your oponent with diferent way.

 

My IL2 1946 experience of this "demands" for balance turn MP missions boring.....If Spit pilots dont have a plane with 25lbs xxx they exit the mission....if a Map is a early war time they exit because your plane don´t have 20mm wepons and your 25lbs.....I can enjoy with a diferent year missions and diferent variants of planes....I dont want to fly only at best plane.

 

Well....When the Spit comes all the sides can choose the plane with better caracteristic for your stile of fight....Spit and 109 for medium altitude dogfight and P51, p47 and Dora for a high altitude and energy fight.

 

Diference its a good thing.....make you to adapt a diferent oponents pilots and planes....and If you think that plane its unfair balance or you its a poor maked try to fly with the other plane and you may change what you think about.

 

Sorry by my poor english....

[Solty]

We dont know what exacly type of 109 enounter Bud Anderson in his P-51.

 

It could be absolete 109 G-6 regarding that Bud was flying P-51 B version not D.

 

P-51 with -3 version of Packard Merlin ( high alt version) was much better at high alt then standart G-6 for example

Obselete? G6? It was the newest one they had at that time.:huh:

[tempestglen]

Right. Talking to several of the veterans from both sides, the thing that struck me was how little they used these over-boosted power settings that are so important to players.

 

Oscar Bösch used it once when his staffel was bounced by ~60 Mustangs. He was the sole survivor.

 

http://www.warart.com/bailey-robert-all/war-wolf

 

Outside of that incident he never used Start-und Notleistung in any of the other 13 victories.

 

And no wonder, Aside from the obvious mechanical strain, these over-boosted conditions can be detrimental to an aircraft's performance under many conditions. Instead of seeing a performance boost, the airplane would lose performance even without engine damage just because of the physics of propeller aircraft.

 

 

 

http://www.epi-eng.com/propeller_technology/selecting_a_propeller.htm

 

So, flying in high density altitude conditions such as summer and turning on some over-boost could easily result in a huge performance loss as the propeller disc was suddenly loaded with several hundred more horsepower than the blades can transfer in those conditions and rpm induced tip losses.

 

hi Crumpp, do you remember the dive acceleration discuss on 1C forum? about propeller efficiency. :smilewink:

 

How does a P51D outvdive K4 in DCS? Let's have a test.

[tempestglen]

BTW，how is the anti-G suit modeled in P51D? Has P51 pilot less blackout than K4/D9's?

[Hook47]

This isn't war thunder. The P-51D was an inferior (fighter) aircraft vs the K4. I have heard this first hand from my great uncle, who was a combat P-47 and P-51 pilot. Deal with it, and quit crying about it. I would rather have realism than balance ANYDAY

[Crumpp]

hi Crumpp, do you remember the dive acceleration discuss on 1C forum? about propeller efficiency.

 

Yes I do.

 

How does a P51D outvdive K4 in DCS? Let's have a test.

 

Look in the POH for the Vne to see who outdives who.....

 

I bet the answer will be it depends on the P-51D variant. IIRC, the Mustang experienced several high speed stability and control issues and it's Vne was adjusted accordingly.

[MiloMorai]

According to my P-51D Handbook limiting max speeds:

 

All speeds are IAS.

 

40,000 ft. = 260 mph (418kph)

30,000 ft. = 300 mph (482kph)

20,000 ft. = 400 mph (643kph)

10,000 ft. = 480 mph (772kph)

5,000 ft. = 505 mph (812kph)

[Crumpp]

hi Crumpp, do you remember the dive acceleration discuss on 1C forum? about propeller efficiency. :smilewink:

 

How does a P51D outvdive K4 in DCS? Let's have a test.

 

BTW,

 

Yo-yo already posted on this topic. It is a BETA FM and the devs are looking for bugs.

 

DB-605...one of the knowledgeable 109 drivers already started a thread yesterday about the diving ability of the Bf-109K in DCS.

 

I have included the Bf-109 high speed trials and the Bf-109K4 Dive limits. The Bf-109K4 limits specify an altitude compensating (True Airspeed) Airspeed Indicator. You can see from the Dive trials True Airspeed Graph that 850kph is pretty much the limit in TAS.

 

I have also included the Flugzeugen Handbuch for the FW-190A8 which notes the limits change depending on the model airspeed indicator installed. Just changing the scale (airspeed indicator) does not raise either the q-limits or mach limits of the design.

 

There are design changes you can make to airplane to raise Vne but changing airspeed indicators is not one of them.

 

My information seems to say the Bf-109K4 has the same Vne as every other Bf-109 after the trials.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Crumpp

[fastfreddie]

I got an opportunity to fight against K4s in MP yesterday. Not impressed. My wingman was supposed to be on receiving end of killer punishment, but easily got away just by doing high G downward spiral. He got 2 maneuvering kills that way. K4s either break their wings or can't keep following. In other words, if P51 is not crawling near the ground, it can easily shake off all BFs due to the current low G tolerance of theirs. So, despite other advantages of BF, it is still far from true killer of P51.

 

I had a great time in the Mustang yesterday probably for the first time in awhile ... higher alts (16k) shot down 2 Dora's and a 109 in my first sortie. 109 couldn't escape no matter what he tried probably because I started the engagement with a slight altitude advantage. It very much appears that the 109 will not be outdiving the Mustang or beating it in straight line speeds. The BF109 also has a very limited ammo supply which can go very quickly especially since the 30s have no tracers.

[Hadwell]

I had a great time in the Mustang yesterday probably for the first time in awhile ... higher alts (16k) shot down 2 Dora's and a 109 in my first sortie. 109 couldn't escape no matter what he tried probably because I started the engagement with a slight altitude advantage. It very much appears that the 109 will not be outdiving the Mustang or beating it in straight line speeds. The BF109 also has a very limited ammo supply which can go very quickly especially since the 30s have no tracers.

 

Yeah the 109 is slow as hell, the problem, as I've said numerous times, is that people don't use the p51s strengths, instead they try to do what the 109 does, its not simon says, you don't copy the person your fighting..

 

 

The p51 is faster, holds its energy 100x better, dives better, and has more elevator authority at higher speeds, use those advantages and stop whining about not being able to fight a 109

 

Never fight a 109, use the 51s advantages to avoid fighting and kill 109s only using those same advantages.

 

Another good strategy is just to let him chase you till his tiny little gas tank runs dry, you'll still have more than enough fuel to keep flying for a while after before you need to rtb

Edited December 8, 2014 by Hadwell

[otto]

From what i read the P51 should be much faster and climb better than a k4 without mw50(I want to fly like that to simulate a 109G's performance).

Does this apply to DCS ?

[Jerkzilla]

So out of frustration with the fact that I could't take down the AI 109 with the 'stang, I figured I'd blow off some steam killing it with the Mig21 thinking I'll have all the energy and climbrate I'll ever need... I've probably never felt worse about my performamce in game, ever.

 

The little bastard zoomed into every one of my bounces, practically all my gun solutions were in head-ons. Even if he stalled, by the time I could bring the flying pencil around, he'd have recovered enough energy to turn into my subsequent attack.

 

It never fired, but a human player would have gotten me in one of those head-ons.