Crumpp Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Cool, so we can all agree Narushima was mistaken when he said.. No, he was correct. He did not imply they could not be removed. He simply stated a fact that the racks were required for a vast majority of the missions the aircraft were asked to perform. Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize: 1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAGERT Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) No, he was correct. He did not imply they could not be removed So your saying I may have read too much into it? I think you may want to re-read what he wrote, ie. PS: The 150 octane fuel mustangs all had wing racks installed, which reduced their top speed to that of a clean regular fuel mustang. So in the end, the only advantage 150 octane fuel gave them is slightly better climb rate at the expense of engine life. Note he said.. all had wing racks installed As for you saying he said He simply stated a fact that the racks were required for a vast majority of the missions the aircraft were asked to perform. I submit that you are reading too much into it! Based on the FACT no where in this thread did he use words like 'required for the vast majority of missions'.. Nothing about required Nothing about majority Nothing about mission types All he did say is all had wing racks installed Which I think most would agree implies ALL P51s had them.. Which sheds light on his FALSE conclusion that the only thing a P51 with 150 oct will notice is a better ROC.. Which would NOT be true of the P-51s that removed them. Hope that helps! Edited February 28, 2015 by TAGERT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpp Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Most....most.....of us know what he meant and did not take the interpretation so literally. To imply the P51D using 100/150 Octane normally flew around in clean configuration is just not true. As an outlier you might find a clean configuration P-51D using 100/150 octane. About 10%-20% of the mission of the 8th USAAF fighter group were other than long range escort. Of those 10% a significant number still required long range drop tanks to be mounted or wing ordinance. It is tough to have a ground attack mission without mounting the hard-points. So, I really fail to your point. Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize: 1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAGERT Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Most....most.....of us know what he meant and did not take the interpretation so literally. Well I guess your crystal ball is better than mine ;) So until I get a new crystal ball.. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.. But in closing I should point out the differences in the bases of our conclusions.. My conclusion was based on things he actually said. Your conclusion was based on things you think he meant, but didn't actually say. Hope that helps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solty Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 @crump I fail to see what is your point in opposing a change that would be not only historically accurate but would bring the current matchup to a much more balance in dogfighting resulting in more skill based combat. 1.Add 75/72hg power setting 2... 3. Profit 4. Profit 5. Profit [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]In 21st century there is only war and ponies. My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS. My channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpp Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 crump I fail to see what is your point in opposing a change What do you think I am opposing? Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize: 1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpp Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Escort Mission vs Bombing (wing racks), strafing (maybe wing racks), and rodeo (probably wing racks)... Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize: 1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAGERT Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Cool, so we all agree there were missions that did not require wing racks.. Lets hope ED takes this into account when the look into the addition of a 150 oct P51 and give the user the option to install them. Mater of fact, pretty sure that option is already in the game? If you have the ground crew unload all ord, I don't recall seeing the wing racks? Need to check Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAGERT Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Ok, just checked online Starting off clean, no wing racks are mounted on the plane! Only when you load ord (bombs or drop tanks) does it install the wring racks! So the option is already in the game! Should have known ED would know how easy it was for the ground crew to remove the wing racks and therefore made it an option in the game.. All we need now is for ED to finish WWII and than add a 150 oct P51 option! WOOT! Edited February 28, 2015 by TAGERT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiloMorai Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Table 128 - COMBAT SORTIES FLOWN BY FIGHTERS IN THEATERS VS GERMANY, BY THEATER AND BY TYPE OF SORTIE: JAN 1943 TO MAY 194 Aug '44 vs Germany total - 45,827 escort - 23,793 b&s - 4,524 other - 17,510 A much better reference source than the graphic posted. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a542518.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USARStarkey Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Since we cant agree, how about this: You are all focusing on the B models for some reason. The D model WITH racks did 442mph at 26,000ft and 375mph at SL. WITH WING RACKS. With an additional 200bhp, it would go faster obviously, making it just as fast if not slightly faster than the 190D and K4 at SL. ALSO note, the P-51B in tests was tested with RACKS, so all of that is legit as well (and I recall it did 380mph at SL.) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAGERT Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Since we cant agree, how about this: Actually I think we all agree! Even Crump admits the racks were optional, and is not opposed to ED adding a 150 oct P-51 WOOT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpp Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 ALSO note, the P-51B in tests was tested with RACKS, so all of that is legit as well (and I recall it did 380mph at SL.) The turtledeck has a lower drag signature than the bubble canopy of the D model. The P-51D is not quite as fast. Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize: 1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAGERT Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 ALSO note, the P-51B in tests was tested with RACKS, so all of that is legit as well (and I recall it did 380mph at SL.) If it is the tests I am thinking of, pretty sure those were the old style wing racks, which did have a noticeable affect on the top speed.. So, the D with the newer wing racks wont have as big of a problem as the early B testing had wrt top speed. But who cares really! DCS has the option to remove them just like they had the option to remove them in real life! ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USARStarkey Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 If it is the tests I am thinking of, pretty sure those were the old style wing racks, which did have a noticeable affect on the top speed.. So, the D with the newer wing racks wont have as big of a problem as the early B testing had wrt top speed. But who cares really! DCS has the option to remove them just like they had the option to remove them in real life! ;) Yes, that is also true. The ones on the P-51B in those tests are the old racks. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USARStarkey Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 The turtledeck has a lower drag signature than the bubble canopy of the D model. The P-51D is not quite as fast. Nope. Higher angle of incidence of the bubble canopy resulted in lower drag on the D model. the D is just as fast if not slightly faster. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpp Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Nope. Higher angle of incidence of the bubble canopy resulted in lower drag on the D model. the D is just as fast if not slightly faster. A turtleneck smooths the airflow reducing separation drag that a bubble canopy almost always has USAstarkey. Why do you think so many unlimited racing P-51's removed the bubble canopy for a turtleneck? Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize: 1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Friedrich-4B Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Nope. Higher angle of incidence of the bubble canopy resulted in lower drag on the D model. the D is just as fast if not slightly faster. 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. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpp Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 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. No it is not. That being said, drag estimates for the design are all over the map. Some the B series is ahead and others the D series. Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize: 1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrapeJam Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Oh and Hartmann fought P51 running on 150 octane fuel. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurfürst Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 The problem is that you cannot really asses the P-51D's combat qualities based on one-on-one dogfights. The P-51D's good points were to be found in a multiple plane fight, such as good visibility, good guns and high speed etc - as well in the operational aspect (range and relative cheapness). People who want to make the best use of it by going solo against a 109K-4 or a Spit IX, which are lightweight interceptors with the roughly the same horsepower but a ton less in weight are just going to frustrate themselves. No amount of boost can make up for the weight handicap, ie. that these interceptors are literally a ton lighter than the Mustang, and correspondingly they WILL have the upper hand in a maneuvering dogfight, since the factor that governs almost all of the important specs that come handy for that, power-to-weight ratio and movement inertia, will always favor the lightweight interceptor. Same goes for the 190D btw. Its heavier plane. Bottom line - don't try to beat the opposing swordsman with a rapier in his own game with your broadsword. http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse! -Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solty Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) The problem is that you cannot really asses the P-51D's combat qualities based on one-on-one dogfights. The P-51D's good points were to be found in a multiple plane fight, such as good visibility, good guns and high speed etc - as well in the operational aspect (range and relative cheapness). People who want to make the best use of it by going solo against a 109K-4 or a Spit IX, which are lightweight interceptors with the roughly the same horsepower but a ton less in weight are just going to frustrate themselves. No amount of boost can make up for the weight handicap, ie. that these interceptors are literally a ton lighter than the Mustang, and correspondingly they WILL have the upper hand in a maneuvering dogfight, since the factor that governs almost all of the important specs that come handy for that, power-to-weight ratio and movement inertia, will always favor the lightweight interceptor. Same goes for the 190D btw. Its heavier plane. Bottom line - don't try to beat the opposing swordsman with a rapier in his own game with your broadsword. You seem to not know what B&Z is. Heavier planes have advantage in this region and P-51 is one of the most aerodynamic fighter designs of the war (only 262 was more aerodynamic). So its diving and zoomclimbing ability were amazing. The same reason why Bf109G6 had so many problems with P-47C. Untill K4 came out (and few G10s with the same engine) the P-51B and D was way faster than most German standard issue planes (Bf109G6, G6/AS, G14 and G14/AS, Fw190A8 ) It was also quite good at turning for such a heavy plane. It would outturn a Fw190A8/A9, D9 and was capable of turning with 109G6, G14 at speeds of 400kph+ and outturning them at 600kph+(roughly) Granted in low speed and low alt maneuvrability it has no chance of wining against 109. But that is close to stalling speed turnfight which P-51 almost never had to go into because it was faster and could break off at any given moment from the fight. PS. Turnfighting is not the only method of fighting... but you need to be faster to do B&Z well, hence 150 octane fuel. :) USAAF knew that. Edited March 3, 2015 by Solty [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]In 21st century there is only war and ponies. My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS. My channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurfürst Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) You seem to not know what B&Z is. I have flown the 109 something for like 95% of the time since the beta test phase of the original Il-2 Sturmovik... granted there has been a piloting hiatus in the last several years and I probably got more rusty than I would be happy to admit, but are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that I have no idea what B&Z is...? I did that 99% of the time. P.S. This means I have already read countless threads on how weight makes diving/zooming better... :doh: Edited March 3, 2015 by Kurfürst http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse! -Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrapeJam Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Yo, Kurfurst, I like your knowledge about the 109 so I'mma let you finish..... But you certainly look like you're out of your depth when it come to actual aerial combat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts