Jump to content

KW_1979

Members
  • Content Count

    174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

179 Excellent

About KW_1979

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Oregon, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm not sure if its the same story that was being referenced, but Norbert Hannig mentioned this in his book "Luftwaffe Fighter Ace". While working as an instructor with 1/Jgr Ost they were sent into combat against an 8th Air Force raid. In the book he mentions that they were using 190A-6s at this time and described the limiter as follows: "When I climbed into the cockpit of my machine and checked the controls I discovered that a screw was inhibiting the full travel of the throttle. This had the effect of reducing engine output by ten percent, which was a justifiable measure on a training aircraft. It helped to protect the engine and increased its number of flying hours. But in combat it could mean the difference between life or death if maximum engine power was not available. When I asked the mechanic why this locking screw had not been removed his answer was "Orders from above ..." A few pages later he wrote: "I rammed the throttle forward - I'd made sure all the Einsatzstaffel machines had had those damned inhibitor screws removed ... "
  2. 8th AF claims were taken from Kent Miller's "Fighter Units & Pilots of the 8th Air Force Volume 1". RAF claims come from John Foreman's "RAF Fighter Command Victory Claims of World War Two part 3" 9th AF claims were from the USAF Historical Study #85. Miller's book on the 8th pulls from USAF records as well, and includes much more detail as well as being far more readable.
  3. I'm posting this in response to some discussion yesterday on the discord channel. I didn't have time to respond then and its frankly too much to try to communicate in that format. This is some info I shared a while back in the TAW thread that is applicable here as well.
  4. The A20 has an AN/M2 .50 in its top turret, but I don't think it has enough traverse to hit itself anywhere but the tail.
  5. In the actual dive testing of the Mustang performed back then, they exceeded Mach .8 on a number of dives and even reached .85 in one case. They never reported any Mach tuck or nose over tendency. The big problems were vibration which started causing airframe damage at .84. Just like in the various P-51 manuals they emphasized that great care was needed in recovery due to low stick forces and the potential to over stress the airframe. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangIV-divetest.html http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51d-dive-27-feb-45.pdf
  6. In the US vulnerability survey, out of 50 shots of .50 API-T taken against B-25s and P-38s (all self sealing tanks) 32% of them resulted in a leak or fire. That's from single shots on the tank. They also tested compound or followup shots and while they didn't record leaks, the fire rate on compound shots with .50 API-T was 66%. That would seem to indicate that a burst of .50 had no problem defeating US self sealing tanks. @=362nd_FS=RoflSeal posted a different US test from 1943 in another thread, done using German type self sealing tanks and in those tests, M8 API and M20 API-T were averaging 1-2 rounds per tank to start a fire. Once again, this indicates that .50 had no problem defeating a WW2 era self sealing fuel tank. I ran some testing in 4.006 against the P-38 and B-25 sitting stationary at around 80-90 yards. The first burst of 2-4 rounds (aimed at the wing fuel tanks) almost always causes a fuel leak. Starting the tank on fire averaged about 33 rounds on the P-38 and 39 on the B-25. We clearly have plain AP and AP-T in game. Based on the stationary target testing I did in 4.006, the Spit 9 and 190A8 are the two most vulnerable aircraft in BoBP from the rear. The 109s were the strongest by a huge margin - you can make them burn but it often takes 100+ rounds on target from a rear angle. Here's the quick and dirty video I put together in 4.007:
  7. Thanks for taking the time to read my post and discuss this! 485mph at 5000ft on a standard day (I was just playing around with this on Kuban autumn) is about Mach .69 - pretty low for compressibility. They are clearly not writing about a loss of trim or elevator effectiveness: "rapid application of trim may very easily result in the application of excessive load factors" "The elevator trim tab is not normally required to aid recovery. In the event it is necessary, use with extreme care and feed in gradually. WARNING Care should be taken in pull-outs above 4G, as the stick forces are relatively light, and an abrupt pull-out may cause rapid uncontrolled increase in G." While I understand that the controls of any aircraft using rods or cables without hydraulic boost will stiffen as speed increases, all the sources are very clear that the pilot needs to be very cautious pulling out of dives to not over G the aircraft and pilot. In game this is almost never a problem - only when you get to near full trim and full stick as the speed falls off can you start to black out. The issue is always that you need to apply full back elevator and start dialing in trim aggressively to make a recovery - exactly what the manuals tell you NOT to do! I think this may all be related to the bulging observed in the fabric elevators at high speeds changing the shape of the control surface. When they switched to a metal elevator in the very late aircraft they had to change the angle of incidence of the horizontal stabilizer to compensate. From America's Hundred Thousand by Francis Dean: "On the P-51D-30 airplane, and as a modification to other P-51D aircraft metal covered elevators were installed to improve high speed flying qualities. Since the metal covered elevators did not bulge, the normal tendency was for the aircraft to become increasingly nose heavy at very high speeds, and to compensate for this undesirable characteristic, most noticeable at high altitudes, the incidence setting of the horizontal stabilizer was decreased from the one and a half degrees nose up to only on half degree nose up, done at the same time as the change to metal covered elevators. Without the incidence change of the stabilizer the pilot would have observed a sharp pitch forward of the airplane, and a sharp reversal of control forces from push to pull as the high speed placard limits were reached." Anyway, thanks again for your time! We all really appreciate the work you guys put in.
  8. I might as well throw this in here since people are discussing the 50s. In 4.006 I did a series of similar shoots against P-38, B-25 and Me262 fuel tanks, as well against Me262 engines to compare with the testing in the airplane vulnerability study mentioned above. On average it took about 32 rounds to light a P-38 fuel tank on fire and 39 rounds against a B-25, using the single AN/M2 in the A20 (fired in short bursts). This compares pretty poorly to the 68% chance of a fire they reported when attacking damaged fuel tanks (damaged in the test meant that the tank had been shot at least once with .50cal already). Against the Me262 it was again around 39 rounds on average, vs a 71% chance of fire recorded in the real life test. Obviously we're using AP, rather then the API-T in the real world test, but that just goes to show what an enormous difference API should make - the second burst (if not the later rounds of the first burst) fired should theoretically ignite the tank in most cases. Against the Me262 engines it took an average of 6 rounds from the rear and 9.7 from the front to knock out the engine. In the test above, early jet engines (from a P-59) had a 50-60% chance of being knocked out from a single hit of .50 API-T.
  9. Relative to the development cycle for the P-51B getting started, I'd like to draw the Devs attention to two posts in the FM discussions section, that impact the P-51B (as well as the P-51D). Landing gear door loss Elevator response at high speed
  10. Bumping this as the P-51B development cycle has begun, and this issue will impact it as well.
  11. My assertion here is that the P-51's elevator response at high speed is incorrect. I've posted about this before but since the devs are now working on the P-51B which will likely have these identical issues due to the similarity of the planes, its a good time to bring this up again. Currently in game, as airspeed increases past around 485mph in a dive, the aircraft becomes unrecoverable with elevator alone, and significant elevator trim (sometimes full nose up) is required to recover the aircraft. This is incorrect, as shown by the following sources: RAF dive test of the Mustang IV : "Recovery Technique.- Recovery in any case must be gradual and executed with extreme caution since relatively light elevator stick forces or rapid application of trim may very easily result in the application of excessive load factors. As acceleration is applied at the beginning of the pull-out some increase in vibration may occur. This will gradually decrease as the recovery is completed. In no case is elevator trim necessary to aid recovery." P-51 Pilots Operating Instructions from 1944 : "The use of elevator tabs is not required for dive recovery because of the low elevator control forces." (from page 24, section 21 - Diving) From the 1954 F-51D Flight Handbook: "Reduce power and pull up very gradually, taking care not to exceed 4G except in emergencies. If a pull-out above 4G is necessary, as G increases, relax pull force on stick. The elevator trim tab is not normally required to aid recovery. In the event it is necessary, use with extreme care and feed in gradually. WARNING Care should be taken in pull-outs above 4G, as the stick forces are relatively light, and an abrupt pull-out may cause rapid uncontrolled increase in G." As seen from these reports and manuals, in the real aircraft the danger in dive recovery was too much elevator authority, rather then the complete lack of it that we have in game.
  12. Also getting lots of crashes to desktop when using single player missions and QMB.
  13. Aaaaaand we’ve come full circle from page 1. 😀
  14. There was just the one fuselage tank along with the two wing tanks. It was a problem having it full of fuel, and I believe that's why he mentioned it in his report. My guess on why they filled them was that the group had just relocated to Y-29 a week earlier in response to the ardennes offensive, and likely had no supply of drop tanks there. It would be easy enough to burn it down during your climb out before patrolling - so they must have thought it would be worth the extra endurance, as they had no idea they were about to get attacked at their own field. With regard to the credits and pilot quality etc, Bill Whisner was indeed awarded 4 victories for his actions that day. Many of the wrecks were on or near Y-29 itself (the ground crews had some interesting stories of having a front row seat to a huge dogfight) and numerous members of the 352nd Fighter Group were tasked with collecting German pilots remains for burial after the battle was over. Not surprisingly there does appear to have been some over claiming that day - hardly unusual in a confused fight like that. The 487th FS was awarded 23 victories and the 390th FS (the P-47s who were returning to the field when JG11 arrived) 7. JG11 reportedly lost 24 or 28 aircraft depending on your source, with at least 3 of those being attributed to anti-aircraft fire. Among the pilots lost by JG11 that day were experten like Gunther Specht (34 victories), Alwin Doppler (37 victories), Franz Meindl (31 victories) and Horst-Gunther von Fassong (75 victories). Obviously the average Luftwaffe pilot at this point in the war was pretty inexperienced, but there were still a number of skilled German pilots left and some were present in this battle. JG11 pilots claimed 11 kills in return, though actual American losses were a single P-47, two P-51s damaged in the air and one damaged on the ground. Anyway, it's just an interesting historical anecdote involving the namesake of the expansion and P-51 fuselage tanks. Kudos to the devs for modeling them in game.
  15. Fortunately there’s now a server option to prevent people from playing with Migoto and Reshade - so if it bothers anyone just go play on such a server. Problem solved.
×
×
  • Create New...