Jump to content
II/JG17_HerrMurf

American Iron

Recommended Posts

So, how are we going to fight in these new American rides? The P-38, P-47 and P-51 are decidedly different aircraft in almost every way except for their national markings and .50’s.

I flew all three in ‘46; the P-38 exclusively on Pacific maps as a mid level rocketship, I used the P-47 much like a Fw 190 for BNZ and actually belonged to a P-51 group where I learned basic teamwork. I can dogfight or BNZ with the Mustang.

Bodenplatte will be the first venture where I am equally happy flying Axis or Allies. So, I will be switching sides readily and probably even ‘mostly’ when not flying with my trusty wingman. Though, the D9 calls......

 

Thoughts on driving the American rigs?

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf
BIG font size

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Thoughts on driving the American rigs?

 

Once I strap myself into my new P47 the first thing I'm gonna do is.........switch to a smaller font.:)

  • Haha 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're going to have a hard time with the 100 octane against late war axis hyper-boost 1.98K-4s and jet 262s.

 

Stay high and fast at all times and fly with more discipline than a current 190 pilot. And check six every second and a half.

Edited by Talon_
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, the most similar plane to the Jug we have now is... the Kittyhawk. Except, the former's relative performance will increase strongly with altitude. Both frames are robust and heavy; best at strong dives, yet not that fast when flying level on the deck. The armament is almost the same, too, so was the use as a fighter-bomber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

You're going to have a hard time with the 100 octane against late war axis hyper-boost 1.98K-4s and jet 262s.

 

Stay high and fast at all times and fly with more discipline than a current 190 pilot. And check six every second and a half.

 

Edited by Garven_Dreis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Talon_ said:

You're going to have a hard time with the 100 octane against late war axis hyper-boost 1.98K-4s and jet 262s.

 

Stay high and fast at all times and fly with more discipline than a current 190 pilot. And check six every second and a half.

 

Those are just good generic practices for any fighter-pilot.

Assuming the very worst case for possible manifold pressures and length of timers the driver in any BOBP's P-xx should still have much easier life than in the P-40/P-39, IMO. It's manageable in the latter now; should be at least the same in the BOBP.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it, and based ONLY on how they flew in '46, the best ground pounders will be the 47 and the 38.  Robust aircraft with good payloads.

 

The 51 will be the best all around fighter of the three because of it's balanced overall performance and handling, the 47 will be situational as a pure fighter, and the 38 will be even more so because it's size makes it such a tempting, and easy to hit, target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

We seem to have drifted already. What are your thought regarding strengths, weaknesses and employment of these three airframes?

I think the one thing you can be sure of, some people will be taking all three up with 25% fuel loads because "that's all we need".

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really cannot blame them for doing that, as the P51 could fly from the German border to London on 50% fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Really cannot blame them for doing that, as the P51 could fly from the German border to London on 50% fuel.

I know but it kind of negates the simulation aspect doesn't it?

Edited by Rjel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Rjel said:

I know but it kind of negates the simulation aspect doesn't it?

 

Not really, the XIX and IX groups would not have been taking anywhere near full fuel on their ground attack sorties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For offline flying role players, sure, take all the fuel you can pack on it, but online, going up against K4s on the map we are going to have, why handicap yourself?  You are not going to be escorting heavies from England to Germany and back you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

As I see it, and based ONLY on how they flew in '46, the best ground pounders will be the 47 and the 38.  Robust aircraft with good payloads.

 

Yes, besides the anticipation for the P47, I can´t wait to take the P-38 lightning (fork-tailed devil) for strafing railway locomotives. Chattanooga choo choo 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

For offline flying role players, sure, take all the fuel you can pack on it, but online, going up against K4s on the map we are going to have, why handicap yourself?  You are not going to be escorting heavies from England to Germany and back you know.

 

In real life, flying a Mustang from bases a couple hundred km from the front, why would I load up on fuel?  I admit that I don't know, but I would try to take up drop tanks and wing tanks and leave the center tank empty if possible.  Even in that state I probably have much better range than a 109 or 190.  Would be interested if anybody knows for sure what standard practice was.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

online i expect to see fighters using mostly 51 and GA guys 38s, 38s vs axis is to slow and only good thing it can do is turn but its so big that you cant miss it, but atleast better then 47 down low if you do GA in my view.

ill proobably just fly uber tempest and its instant boom guns on red side (if it will be as good as it was in 46) and leve american .50 cals to guys with better aim 😄

 

i just hope they dont give bombs and rockets to tempest so GA guys dont take it :)

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Talon_ said:

You're going to have a hard time with the 100 octane against late war axis hyper-boost 1.98K-4s and jet 262s.

 

Stay high and fast at all times and fly with more discipline than a current 190 pilot. And check six every second and a half.

Not really imo, the P-47 is still fast with 100 octane 443 mph top speed (at least the D-28 should be), 150 fuel would allow for 70" wich would give us around 7-8 mph at all or most altitudes which is nice but not needed. 

 

In all honesty if you can't make it with 100 octane you cant make it with anything else imo.

 

EDIT FOR ABOVE COMMENT: One advantage I will give to 150 is that it would allow us to run at 64-65" without using water injection, that way we could save it for when we really needed it. Using 64" with water vs without does give us a 8-9 mph boost in speed though.

 

As to the OP, the P-47 wil be my ride of choice, it's big, got eight .50s, and is very durable (at least irl, not sure how it will be in-game).

There are many misconceptions about the P-47, one is that it was strictly a high altitude fighter. Many people seem to think that the P-47 won't be able to handle itself down low but too many pilot reports say otherwise.. High alt is where the Jug really shines but it will still whoop you down low just as well as it would up high, just at a slower pace lol.

 

My plan for flying it is to stay above 10,000ft unless ground pounding or helping a friend down on the deck. Stay above my target as much as possible, dive in on them and use quick BnZ attacks as much as possible, basically your normal P-47 stuff.

My preferred method currently when flying down low is to stay within a few thousand feet of the clouds, that way I can zoom up into them if I ever get into real trouble.

 

The advantages of the P-47 are imo, much better than the disadvantages, it's excellent roll, zoom, and dive will keep it competitive in the majority of fights it finds itself in.

Turning can even be considered an advantage when fighting certain opponents, the Jug could stick with 190s in a turn at most altitudes, though turning is never the best option.

 

 

As for the other two American aircraft I'll enjoy those as well.

The P-51 is definitely going to be the best all round fighter imo, though imo it's a jack of all trades master of none kinda deal, it can do everything good but it's not necessarily the best at it.

 

The 38 is just one slick chick imo and will be such a nice aircraft to fly, ground pounding and some mid-high alt flights are gonna be nice and fun.

 

All that said, the American aircraft will bring much competition to our german friends, yet we'll be able to do it at all altitudes instead of just low alt. Germans won't have anyplace to hide when Bodenplatte comes out and they're gonna have a rude awakening if they think it will be a cakewalk like the P-40 or P-39 (though the P-39 is decent)

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

In real life, flying a Mustang from bases a couple hundred km from the front, why would I load up on fuel?  I admit that I don't know, but I would try to take up drop tanks and wing tanks and leave the center tank empty if possible.  Even in that state I probably have much better range than a 109 or 190.  Would be interested if anybody knows for sure what standard practice was.

 

 

 

If drop tanks are indeed available, then drop tanks with 25% in the onboard tanks would be the way to go for sure.  Plenty of loiter time while running on the drop tanks, then lose them when bad guys show up and have the advantages of a lighter plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm most curious to see how they zoom, if finally there's a class that's distinctive.  So far there isn't much difference in anything, an I-16 vs Fw-190 in the zoom is close enough to being the same.  Nothing has a distinct advantage, hope that changes, it should, but not counting on it.  Will be pleased if so, than they will truly kick some tail.  My hopes are pinned on the new dive and atmospheric work fixing this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

If drop tanks are indeed available, then drop tanks with 25% in the onboard tanks would be the way to go for sure.  Plenty of loiter time while running on the drop tanks, then lose them when bad guys show up and have the advantages of a lighter plane.

 

 

In DCS, the standard practice is to only have about 30%, this should empty the center tank (behind the pilot) and only leave the wing tanks. Sorry, I haven't gone into details, but that should give you roughly a 20-30 min flights at max power damn near. Comparable to the 30 min of flight time in a 109k4 running mw50 for 30 mins lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

Aluminium 


Needless pedantic replies 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

Aluminium 

 

Yes, too much pedantry.........but I think what you really mean to say is aluminum

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, according to many sources, P-51 was faster and more maneuverable than almost all German planes at 20,000 feet. We will see if that is reflected in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tag777 said:

Well, according to many sources, P-51 was faster and more maneuverable than almost all German planes at 20,000 feet. We will see if that is reflected in game.

 

At what engine settings? A 67" Mustang like the one we're getting is going to get shredded by a 1.98ata DC-engine K-4.

Edited by Talon_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is the P51 will be similar to the Yak only better with those murderous 50 cals , lead computing gun sight and best overall cockpit view and speed,  the P47 similar to the FW and the P38 similar to the ME 110. I can tell you from playing in Vr the P38 is going to be a problem for axis. That view over the nose will give fantastic deflection shooting scenarios, on the flip side it seems to be the plane that goes down the easiest due to its tail design, no way can it take any 20 mm back there and say air worthy.

 

Image result for p38 lighting guns

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty excited about the Mustang and being able to fly it again but I worry that people will be mad for the third or fourth sim in a row when the performance doesn't quite match the reputation.

 

None of the performance stats bear out a plane that was exceptionally maneuverable (though pilots used to the P-47 and switching to the P-51 surely felt like they had a nimble fighter) and certainly not able to turn like the Yak. In addition to the higher wing loading (by 6lb/ft roughly) the laminar flow design on the wing bleeds energy more quickly than conventional wings. It wasn't the best climber either when weighed down by all of that fuel.

 

Not to be too negative here... the Mustang has lots of great attributes. It's handling was fairly straight forward. It was relatively inexpensive to build. The Merlin engine was very much a known quantity in England and by the time Merlin powered Mustangs really started to show up... the Merlin had become a mature design. It could also fly long distances and it was fast. Not the fastest but certainly the fastest for having slightly less horsepower.

 

Mustang is an awesome fighter not because its the best in any one way but in that the whole package is greater than the sum of its parts. I have a good feeling about what 1CGS will be able to do with this fighter and they will make a very authentic experience available to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

At what engine settings? A 67" Mustang like the one we're getting is going to get shredded by a 1.98ata DC-engine K-4.

Whats the performance of the K4 with 1.98 ata? In all honesty I don't think it's going to be as bad as you think.

 

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I'm pretty excited about the Mustang and being able to fly it again but I worry that people will be mad for the third or fourth sim in a row when the performance doesn't quite match the reputation.

 

None of the performance stats bear out a plane that was exceptionally maneuverable (though pilots used to the P-47 and switching to the P-51 surely felt like they had a nimble fighter) and certainly not able to turn like the Yak. In addition to the higher wing loading (by 6lb/ft roughly) the laminar flow design on the wing bleeds energy more quickly than conventional wings. It wasn't the best climber either when weighed down by all of that fuel.

 

Not to be too negative here... the Mustang has lots of great attributes. It's handling was fairly straight forward. It was relatively inexpensive to build. The Merlin engine was very much a known quantity in England and by the time Merlin powered Mustangs really started to show up... the Merlin had become a mature design. It could also fly long distances and it was fast. Not the fastest but certainly the fastest for having slightly less horsepower.

 

Mustang is an awesome fighter not because its the best in any one way but in that the whole package is greater than the sum of its parts. I have a good feeling about what 1CGS will be able to do with this fighter and they will make a very authentic experience available to us.

 

Idk, the P-51 will still be the best all round dogfighter imo. It can stick with 109s in the turn and can definitely take out 190s.

Apparently in 44 they had a conference to compare the fighters across multiple allied nations, they determined that the P-51 was the best all round fighter below 25k ft.

Even in German interviews I heard them say that the P-51 was certainly a handful and could do everything the german aircraft could do in regards to combat.

 

Imo it's going to be a handful for the German side and will do fine.

 

If only we were getting the P-51B/C, now those were some sweet P-51s, very fast and I've heard they were more maneuverable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

The P-51B/C was only very slightly faster than the P-51D/K.

It varies depending on altitude but even a few mph is good imo.

 

What engine did the P-51D-15 use? I know next to nothing on the P-51 so I'm just trying to do some research on what our performance could potentially look like.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem for P-51(regarding online gameplay) is that its yet another plane to learn, and in its own ways tricky. Its opposition though are 109 and 190, and many have flown them for years in flight sims. Decades even. Some pilots know those two inside out in their all virtual incarnations. In 1946 the P-51 objectively was/is not bad at all, actually its very good and indeed good match to both 109 and 190 even in a close dogfight, but many people still gave up learning, and went back to Spitfire and Tempest. We all saw this on Spit vs 109, Warclouds, CZ_AH and all the coop campaigns. Making level speed advantage without the rate of roll of the 190(or actually, against the 190) or climb and low speed handling of the 109 work can be difficult, especially for those who have flown dogfighters.

 

I will fly it just like I did back then but I'm afraid that especially newcomers from the US market will be disappointed by both P-51 and the huge learning cliff. Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

It varies depending on altitude but even a few mph is good imo.

 

What engine did the P-51D-15 use? I know next to nothing on the P-51 so I'm just trying to do some research on what our performance could potentially look like.

 http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/specifications

 

One must also remember there is a +/- factor. 3% iirc. The specs will give the best which is not necessarily the average.

 

Early B/Cs used the -3 and late production used the -7.

This link will tell you what dash number used with what engine, http://joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p51.html

Edited by MiloMorai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Not to be too negative here... the Mustang has lots of great attributes. It's handling was fairly straight forward. It was relatively inexpensive to build. The Merlin engine was very much a known quantity in England and by the time Merlin powered Mustangs really started to show up... the Merlin had become a mature design. It could also fly long distances and it was fast. Not the fastest but certainly the fastest for having slightly less horsepower.

 

Mustangs weren't using just Merlins but Packard V-1650s - a licensed version which wasn't exactly the same. The V-1650 had some improvements over the RR build engine.

Performance doesn't depend on the engine alone, too. The P-51's radiator design could nullify most of the cooling drag when flying at +450km/h.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we REALLY need for the P-51 is some sort of fuel management. If you have fuel in your fuselage tank, the plane is severely testricted from maneuvering. Considering the map size we have, there should never be use for the fuselage tankto be used in BoBP. The Mustang has more endurance than any single engine axis plane on wing tanks alone. In case of the Jug, it is less critical, as it is in the P-40.

 

For our purposes, I don‘t think the Mustang can be on average preferred ride over the Spit Mk.IX. The Spit is not but nearly as fast, but better turn and better climb.

 

Also I don‘t think that the Mustang is that much of a great „boom and zoomer“ over aircraft with a considerably better power to weight ratio as the K4 or the D9. A Mustang can never follow those planes in the vertical.

 

What the Mustang can do however is cruising very fast and with a top speed comparable to both the D9 and the K4 (depending on boost ratings, it is slower or even faster than both) while retaining reasonably good maneuvrability, something the K4 sorely lacks. The Mustang can basically do this at all altitudes, while the Tempest can do this even better, but only at low and mid altitudes. The Tempest is also considerably better in the vertical (in its suitable altitudes).

 

A lightly loaded Mustang will definitly be a handfull for any axis plane, as it has no real downsides besides its relatively weak engine that will be felt in the vertical, but is offset by its better aerodynamics in the horizontal cruise.

 

At higher speeds (and lower AoA) the turn as well as instantaneous turn will be more than a match for the K4 but progressively lose out at slower speeds. Flown to their strenghts it will be a great plane and (together with the SpitIX with working rads) will end any desire for the Lufties to venture above 7000 meters.

 

I do however not share that enthusiasm for the cal. 50 gins. Although they are very potent and easy to use, they are a very heavy installation regarding their firepower. The Tempests Hispanos are lighter in total and have considerable more punch.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...