Jump to content

Recommended Posts

People want to believe something about the P-51 that was never true...it wasn't revolutionary, it didn't introduce radical technologies (beyond maybe the Meredith effect which was more of a  interesting byproduct), it was just a great combination of a number of proven concepts and technologies. 
 
 It was an exceptional aircraft because it was fairly inexpensive for the needs (roughly 3/4 the cost of a P-47 IIRC), it could be made quickly and it was adaptable..that's about it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Looking away from the timers, I don't know how this problem is so big. People are doing fine in the Spitfire despite being a lot slower and rather poorly in the P47 because of scenario conditions. Heck with that continous speed, you can fight with energy too.

 

About the Spitfire IXe - from the game's specs pages:

Engine modes:
Max Cruising power (unlimited time): 2650 RPM, boost +7
International power (up to 1 hour): 2850 RPM, boost +12
Emergency Max All Out power (up to 5 minutes): 3000 RPM, boost +18

 

From what I recall (not 100% sure) the combat in the Spitfire IXe can be used to recharge the emergency. Even if the emergency depletes the combat because the latter is so long (a hour!) it doesn't matter like it would with 15m.

 

Apparently for the Spitfire IXe the problem is not so big because she has a long timer. Hence pilots aren't that much constrained and can actually do ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:

People want to believe something about the P-51 that was never true...it wasn't revolutionary, it didn't introduce radical technologies (beyond maybe the Meredith effect which was more of a  interesting byproduct), it was just a great combination of a number of proven concepts and technologies. 
 
 It was an exceptional aircraft because it was fairly inexpensive for the needs (roughly 3/4 the cost of a P-47 IIRC), it could be made quickly and it was adaptable..that's about it. 

Given your reasoning, I find it difficult to imagine Col. Don Blakeslee pulled every string available to him to get the P-51 assigned to the 4thFG. Or that his pilots were jumping over each other to fly the thing, much less having a renowned airman in Jimmy Doolittle betting on the outcome of the air war by focusing on it exclusively as soon as production ramped up. Then again, I could be wrong in what I've read in countless well researched books. It's why I love the internet. The truth is out there.

 

As to it being adaptable, how so in your view? You could swap out drop tanks for bombs, strap rockets/rocket tubes to it or use it for armed photo recon. Beyond that, I don't see it as adaptable in the same way as the P-38 was capable of being. Fighter, photo recon, droopsnoop, nightfighter among others. At least one P-38 was converted into a plush transport for a General. I've got a picture of that somewhere. I think it was in the CBI late in the war. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

Given your reasoning, I find it difficult to imagine Col. Don Blakeslee pulled every string available to him to get the P-51 assigned to the 4thFG. Or that his pilots were jumping over each other to fly the thing, much less having a renowned airman in Jimmy Doolittle betting on the outcome of the air war by focusing on it exclusively as soon as production ramped up. Then again, I could be wrong in what I've read in countless well researched books. It's why I love the internet. The truth is out there.

 

As to it being adaptable, how so in your view? You could swap out drop tanks for bombs, strap rockets/rocket tubes to it or use it for armed photo recon. Beyond that, I don't see it as adaptable in the same way as the P-38 was capable of being. Fighter, photo recon, droopsnoop, nightfighter among others. At least one P-38 was converted into a plush transport for a General. I've got a picture of that somewhere. I think it was in the CBI late in the war. 


I didn't say it wasn't an exceptional performer, merely that there was nothing truly innovative or revolutionary about the P-51 (I should have clarified what I meant by exceptional).  Jimmy Doolittle referred to the war effort hinging on it because it was the only USAAF fighter that could, reliably, escort USAAF heavies to and from extremely deep penetration missions both out of England and Italy, without the P-51, no matter what drop tanks, fuel settings or otherwise you hung on a P-47..it couldn't take the heavies there and back.  The P-51 simply had a great combination of a proven engine, IE the V1650-7/3 aka Merlin 66 (7) and Merlin 63 (3) that was very fuel miserly, a tremendous amount of internal fuel capacity and the ability to hang yet more fuel under the wings. 

The reason why guys were jumping at the bit to fly it (although not universally at first) is because it offered a very dramatic improvement in range, agility and speed over the P-47's and P-38's that came before it.  A good number of pilots in the 352nd FG weren't particularly anxious to trade in their P-47's for P-51B's at first, only in time did they fully acclimate and whole heartedly adopt the Mustang. 

Again, the P-51 was a very very good airplane, but it was more the ultimate refinement of conventional aircraft design and construction logic (in the US) rather than breaking new ground and being a trailblazer into new territories like aircraft that had come before it (I.E the P-38 as a single seat, twin engine, twin boom fighter, the Hawk series as being the first USAAC/USAAF all metal monoplane fighters, etc). 

As for adaptable?  I say this because it could perform a number of duties beyond simply being a high altitude escort fighter.  It could effectively function as both a short range (aka "point defense" in todays logic) interceptor fighter as the original Spitfire was envisioned, it could be that extremely long range escort fighter, it could do ground attack (granted not ideally due to it's more vulnerable cooling system inherent to most inline engines), it could do photo recon, it could do fighter sweeps between the point defense zones and long range escort (IE the rhubarb missions as the RAF called them). 

Was it as adaptable as the P-38? No, but I didn't say it was THE most adaptable, just that it was adaptable. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:

eople want to believe something about the P-51 that was never true...it wasn't revolutionary, it didn't introduce radical technologies (beyond maybe the Meredith effect which was more of a  interesting byproduct), it was just a great combination of a number of proven concepts and technologies. 
 
 It was an exceptional aircraft because it was fairly inexpensive for the needs (roughly 3/4 the cost of a P-47 IIRC), it could be made quickly and it was adaptable..that's about it.

 

It wasn't revolutionary, but it proved that laminar flow wings were almost ready for prime time on industrial manufacturing scales. It also proved that you could extract world-class performance on a relatively modest engine, while other contemporary designs were hard on complicated turbos.

 

It was a very smart airplane for a lot of reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LF_Gallahad said:

So this thread goes like this...

P51 won the war, Engine timers and German bias?

 

 

Sorry for the OT

Anyways, the P51 is fast in combat power. Even with the "debacle" of timers you will be able to catch 2/3 Germans you encounter. You will be able to catch G6s, G14s, A8s(F8,G8), any bomber, and have a little disadvantage in speed against a Dora or a K4 . And that in combat power.

Looking away from the timers, I don't know how this problem is so big. People are doing fine in the Spitfire despite being a lot slower and rather poorly in the P47 because of scenario conditions. Heck with that continous speed, you can fight with energy too.

 

Things can change with the P51 as you will be able to catch running Germans and have more time than them with their WEP modes of 10m wich is for me one thing the Spitfire lacks eventough you will be sacrificing agility and accel.

 

The thing is, the P-51 doesn't have the staying power the German planes have due to the simple fact it's much heavier per hp its engine produces even at maximum boost. It's exceptional at flying in a straight line and going really fast while doing that even at moderate boost, but maneuvering isn't something it can sustain for a reasonable amount of time even at 67" and manual limits.

 

25 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:


I didn't say it wasn't an exceptional performer, merely that there was nothing truly innovative or revolutionary about the P-51 (I should have clarified what I meant by exceptional).  Jimmy Doolittle referred to the war effort hinging on it because it was the only USAAF fighter that could, reliably, escort USAAF heavies to and from extremely deep penetration missions both out of England and Italy, without the P-51, no matter what drop tanks, fuel settings or otherwise you hung on a P-47..it couldn't take the heavies there and back.  The P-51 simply had a great combination of a proven engine, IE the V1650-7/3 aka Merlin 66 (7) and Merlin 63 (3) that was very fuel miserly, a tremendous amount of internal fuel capacity and the ability to hang yet more fuel under the wings. 

The reason why guys were jumping at the bit to fly it (although not universally at first) is because it offered a very dramatic improvement in range, agility and speed over the P-47's and P-38's that came before it.  A good number of pilots in the 352nd FG weren't particularly anxious to trade in their P-47's for P-51B's at first, only in time did they fully acclimate and whole heartedly adopt the Mustang. 

Again, the P-51 was a very very good airplane, but it was more the ultimate refinement of conventional aircraft design and construction logic (in the US) rather than breaking new ground and being a trailblazer into new territories like aircraft that had come before it (I.E the P-38 as a single seat, twin engine, twin boom fighter, the Hawk series as being the first USAAC/USAAF all metal monoplane fighters, etc). 

As for adaptable?  I say this because it could perform a number of duties beyond simply being a high altitude escort fighter.  It could effectively function as both a short range (aka "point defense" in todays logic) interceptor fighter as the original Spitfire was envisioned, it could be that extremely long range escort fighter, it could do ground attack (granted not ideally due to it's more vulnerable cooling system inherent to most inline engines), it could do photo recon, it could do fighter sweeps between the point defense zones and long range escort (IE the rhubarb missions as the RAF called them). 

Was it as adaptable as the P-38? No, but I didn't say it was THE most adaptable, just that it was adaptable. 

 

I agree. The P-51's advantages were evolutionary in nature, not revolutionary. Most contemporary designs the allies were fielding then took some advantage of the Meredith effect, for instance - notably the Spitfire and the P-38 - but not to the degree of an additional ~200 hp like the Mustang did.
If the P-51 did it, it can almost certainly be said another allied plane had done it or was doing it, but worse. Except for the bubble canopy, that was exceptional in any plane that received it.

 

18 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

It wasn't revolutionary, but it proved that laminar flow wings were almost ready for prime time on industrial manufacturing scales. It also proved that you could extract world-class performance on a relatively modest engine, while other contemporary designs were hard on complicated turbos.

 

It was a very smart airplane for a lot of reasons.

 

I'd remove the 'almost' in the face of thousands of P-51s that were mass produced and fielded during wartime. And I really wouldn't call the Merlin a modest engine design, seeing as the version ours will be getting was the same the British were boosting to 81" for some mindblowing performance figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

I'd remove the 'almost' in the face of thousands of P-51s that were mass produced and fielded during wartime. And I really wouldn't call the Merlin a modest engine design, seeing as the version ours will be getting was the same the British were boosting to 81" for some mindblowing performance figures.


The Merlin series 60's, which the V1650's were based on, were fairly modest in their specifications. They weren't particularly high displacement (the Allison's the P-51A had were larger), they didn't have an unusually complex and sophisticated supercharger system (IE the DB605 series), it didn't have the most cylinders (IE the Napier Sabre) and it wasn't turbocharged (P-47, etc). It was simple, robust and adaptive to wildly ranging fuels with a minimum of work. It was efficient and put out a considerable amount of power for it's size (around 1,500 HP average) and did it smoothly compared to other engines.  It could run very high manifold pressure levels, but that was more dependent on fuel than anything..the V1650-7 needed 150 octane to reliably and safely run at 72" of mercury.



Were there more powerful engines?  Sure..the Rolls Griffons in the Spit XIV was more powerful, as was the Sabre in the TempestPhoon, and the DB605 with MW50 (in some conditions)  but it was just the right amount of power to just the right airframe at the right time to do brilliant things. 

Edited by 357th_Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:


The Merlin series 60's, which the V1650's were based on, were fairly modest in their specifications. They weren't particularly high displacement (the Allison's the P-51A had were larger), they didn't have an unusually complex and sophisticated supercharger system (IE the DB605 series), it didn't have the most cylinders (IE the Napier Sabre) and it wasn't turbocharged (P-47, etc). It was simple, robust and adaptive to wildly ranging fuels with a minimum of work. It was efficient and put out a considerable amount of power for it's size (around 1,500 HP average) and did it smoothly compared to other engines.  It could run very high manifold pressure levels, but that was more dependent on fuel than anything..the V1650-7 needed 150 octane to reliably and safely run at 72" of mercury.



Were there more powerful engines?  Sure..the Rolls Griffons in the Spit XIV was more powerful, as was the Sabre in the TempestPhoon, and the DB605 with MW50 (in some conditions)  but it was just the right amount of power to just the right airframe at the right time to do brilliant things. 

 

The V-1710 was a mere 3.6 % larger in displacement. I question the relevance of the comparison, considering the Merlin got up to 1.2 hp/in³ at maximum cleared boost (81") compared to the Allison's 1.05 hp/in³ assuming 1800 hp at 70".

The DB605 was an entirely different beast, conceptionally. Where the allied engineers went with boost, DB went with compression ratio. And yes, the hydraulic coupling on the DB engines was working extremely well at getting the best performance out of the engine up to critical altitude.

 

Turbocharging was still in its infancy then. Considering the fact it was an optional addition to the V-1710 and R-2800, I again question the relevance.


Comparing the number of cylinders is like saying that being more maintenance intensive is somehow a good thing. Nevertheless, the Sabre at +11 lb/in² produced a 'mere' 1.08 hp/in³.

 

Efficiency is an interesting choice of words for a time where more engine power easily equated more fuel being wasted and used as a crude heat sink. That said, I'm too lazy to run the numbers right now, but I'd be willing to bet my left arm the Merlin's fuel consumption over a wide range of MAP isn't going to be spectacularly different from whichever other engines the allies used in an hp per displacement comparison.

 

Actually, the V-1650-3 and -7 both were rated to 81" in British service, the same as the Merlins domestically produced in the UK.

 

E: That said, it was indeed the right engine for the right engine at the right time.

Edited by PainGod85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Imo, the Merlin/V-1650 best feature was the integrated liquid based inter/after-cooler. That's very unique for an inline fit enough for a single engine fighter. That's was one of reasons why the P-47 was so big because her inter-cooler was air to air and needed extra ducking. That's why the turbo charged Airacobra had failed as the whole air-air installation was not sleek enough and resulted in high drag big side intakes. Air-to-air inter-coolers were plaguing the P-38s as well.

 

edit:

Just checked the Spit IXe (100% fuel, Merlin 66, Kuban autumn map, sea level) for combat and emergency endurance. What I have found you don't have touch the nominal at all. Just switch to the emergency for 4-5m then back to the 10-13m of combat and you can cycle like that as long you have the fuel! (for about 45m)

 

I expect no less (as the D had the same or even improved engine - the V-1650 had indium plating and tighter tolerances to enable it to be machined more readily) for the incoming Mustang.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Ehret said:

Imo, the Merlin/V-1650 best feature was the integrated liquid based inter/after-cooler. That's very unique for an inline fit enough for a single engine fighter. That's was one of reasons why the P-47 was so big because her inter-cooler was air to air and needed extra ducking. That's why the turbo charged Airacobra had failed as the whole air-air installation was not sleek enough and resulted in high drag big side intakes. Air-to-air inter-coolers were plaguing the P-38s as well.

 

edit:

Just checked the Spit IXe (100% fuel, Merlin 66, Kuban autumn map, sea level) for combat and emergency endurance. What I have found you don't have touch the nominal at all. Just switch to the emergency for 4-5m then back to the 10-13m of combat and you can cycle like that as long you have the fuel! (for about 45m)

 

I expect no less (as the D had the same or even improved engine - the V-1650 had indium plating and tighter tolerances to enable it to be machined more readily) for the incoming Mustang.

 

In spitfire 9 manual for its engine combat power is on lover setting then combat power for P-51, so thats why on spitfire its 1h and on P-51 is 15min.

 

On P-51 war emergancy power 67" 3000rpm for 5min is same on Spitfire 9 ( 3000rpm and 18lbs boost), and for Milatary power (probably combat power in game) 61" 3000rpm limit is 15min for P-51 and on Spitfire 9, same engine,  its set +12lbs 2850rpm 1h combat, so combat power on P-51 is set on 3000rpm and +15lbs ( 61") and thats why its shorter thens spits 9s 1h on same engine, both are taken from manuals.

 

if you turn on instrument panel in qm when you test spitfire engine youll see that message that your emergancy expired show up after 5min, and you then can fly on combat or continues and it dosent mather youll get message that you recharged it fully 15min after you used it fully, but as combat is 1h you can easy recharg it on combat, on P-51 combat will be 15min so youll not be able to recharg it using combat. As youll use 5min emergancy and then 10min combat and you then have to fly rest 5min on continues, bt you would used up all 15min of combat and would have to first recharg that, so thats then 45min flying on continues.

 

ALso if you just check in game spitfire 9 at 3000rpm and +15lbs (61") that is P-51 15min limit, you will got message emergancy time expired after exactly15min, so limit for P-51 combat is already working as it should, as its same engine just combat flag will be there on P-51, diff setting for 51 then its now on spit9.

 

Youll have to recharg your emergancy on P-51 flying continues, as you dont wont to waist combat mode as youll have same 1min recharges in 3min problem, so if you use up all 15min of combat on P-51, thats 45min to recharg it then.

 

Also strenght, fuel or quality of engine build dosent seam to mather when you look other airplanes recharg times and conditions, there seam to be no logic in how they are selected, so better platings or higher tolerances mean nothing in game, if spit9 hase 1min recharges in 3min then p-51 with same engine will have same.

 

 

 

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

Nevertheless, the Sabre at +11 lb/in² produced a 'mere' 1.08 hp/in³.

The DB603A has 0.65 without steroids... 1750 hp for 44.5L displacement.

 

The Sabre is not a big engine in terms of displacement. The DB603 should be compared to the R-2800. Only in terms of dry weight they compare. The Merlin is about 25% less in dry weight.

 

7 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

Efficiency is an interesting choice of words for a time where more engine power easily equated more fuel being wasted and used as a crude heat sink. That said, I'm too lazy to run the numbers right now, but I'd be willing to bet my left arm the Merlin's fuel consumption over a wide range of MAP isn't going to be spectacularly different from whichever other engines the allies used in an hp per displacement comparison.

The automatic mixture in the early Merlins is such that past (IIRC) 60% power output, fuel to air mixture spikes from 0.65 (weak) or 0.75 (rich) to a bit more than 1.0 in both rich and weak settings. (Below 60% power, even „rich“ is a lean mixture.) 

 

The point is that (as you say) upping power means increasing the range where the engine does not run with a good mileage. It means that your max. cruise speed (max weak mixture configuration) will not really change, despite you may be increasing nominal output by 50%. Higher cruise speed thus is only obtained by aerodynamic improvements (e.g. by taking the Mustang).

 

Upping displacement was one way to increase efficient power output. Or in case of the Sabre, they also drastically increased rpm. They did so at the expense of serviceability. (Who ever tried to „fix“ a Jag E Type V12 knows that such a metric didn‘t exist on that island.) That is why both Typhoon and Tempest were so great as intruders. They were (bottom line) most fuel efficient near their max. power output while the Spitfire was anything but that. In both Tempest and Typhoon there was no mileage penalty for „hauling a**“.

 

Thus, I would expect both Griffon and most certainly the Sabre having different fuel/air mixture ratios at similar nominal power outputs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

 

In spitfire 9 manual for its engine combat power is on lover setting then combat power for P-51, so thats why on spitfire its 1h and on P-51 is 15min.

 

On P-51 war emergancy power 67" 3000rpm for 5min is same on Spitfire 9 ( 3000rpm and 18lbs boost), and for Milatary power (probably combat power in game) 61" 3000rpm limit is 15min for P-51 and on Spitfire 9, same engine,  its set +12lbs 2850rpm 1h combat, so combat power on P-51 is set on 3000rpm and +15lbs ( 61") and thats why its shorter thens spits 9s 1h on same engine, both are taken from manuals.

 

Thank you for clarifying this. It's important to keep things clear so no one will have false-hopes and such.

 

Well, the P-51D will have 0.25x of combat endurance for about 1.3x more power for it... that's a poor deal especially that the P-51D would go faster at the same hp than the Spitfire. Only 15m will ensure that you will not be able to recharge the emergency (which is the same hp in both planes) when on combat mode.

Spit IXe's limits pros - no need to touch the nominal, you can recharge the emergency few times when on combat and the former has the same top hp as in the P-51D, one only needs to worry about fuel left.

P-51D's limits cons - you fly 90% of time on the nominal, your shortish 15m of combat is going to be ruined by touching the emergency, you can not recharge much (if at all) on the combat so (usually) only one decent run on the WEP possible, after few minutes you are back to the nominal and good luck.

 

This is the P-39L all over again and somehow worse yet: your quick dash may be longer by 3m but the D's peak level speed is only going to impress minority (2/5) of the BOBP enemies.

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

The point is that (as you say) upping power means increasing the range where the engine does not run with a good mileage. It means that your max. cruise speed (max weak mixture configuration) will not really change, despite you may be increasing nominal output by 50%. Higher cruise speed thus is only obtained by aerodynamic improvements (e.g. by taking the Mustang).

 

In Ds you can control amount of ram-air pressure which goes to the engine. Thus, at some flight conditions it's possible to open your normal throttle 100% and then lower the MP by the cold-air lever. It's a neat trick and it's implemented in the other sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2019 at 6:37 AM, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

All .50 cals going into one place, but desynchronised. With a precise aim just a trigger touch is enough to down a german, I'd rather rely on my own skill, than on randomness of the gun spread.

Problem in game though is that the guns aren't desynchronized. I'd also much rather have a shotgun pattern than a single point pattern like we have in-game.

The ability to adjust our convergence for each pair of guns would allow us to have any pattern we wanted.

Synchronization needs to be done away with, whether we get more patterns or not.

Share this post


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

It's a neat trick and it's implemented in the other sim.

This is borderline funky. I like that. But another lever to mind once tracers fly past your cockpit. Switching to low SC gear at cruise altitude helps a lot already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2019 at 12:46 PM, ICDP said:

So in those scenarios if you take up an Allied plane in a late war server, the following is always true.

  • Any LW plane you encounter will be very unlikely to be flown by a rookie with minimal training and zero experience.
  • No plane will have manufacturing defects because of poor build quality or even sabotage.
  • You won't have the benefit of having 20 - 1 odds in your favour.

Exactly and thats why the servers are 2:1 in favour of german side most of the time (less on WOL). Better planes in general and experienced online pilots who favours german planes are deadly combination specially since the numbers in MP are even in their favour unlike in RL.

Me262 is basically unbeatable in this sim since its not RL relfecting and experienced pilots would evade on time and there isnt RL problems and issues in MP.

Share this post


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

Problem in game though is that the guns aren't desynchronized. I'd also much rather have a shotgun pattern than a single point pattern like we have in-game.

 

IMO the shotgun pattern is a must when you are using the gyro sight. The gyro's manual ranging is not accurate and without some spread many bursts result in near misses. That's even more frustrating than marginal hits.

 

Just now, ZachariasX said:

This is borderline funky. I like that. But another lever to mind once tracers fly past your cockpit. Switching to low SC gear at cruise altitude helps a lot already.

 

Good idea. I have a suspicious that some seizures I had were due the 2nd gear switching-on and over-boosting the RPM suddenly. I will try the low SC gear control for both purposes.

Share this post


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

 

Thank you for clarifying this. It's important to keep things clear so no one will have false-hopes and such.

 

Well, the P-51D will have 0.25x of combat endurance for about 1.3x more power for it... that's a poor deal especially that the P-51D would go faster at the same hp than the Spitfire. Only 15m will ensure that you will not be able to recharge the emergency (which is the same hp in both planes) when on combat mode.

Spit IXe's limits pros - no need to touch the nominal, you can recharge the emergency few times when on combat and the former has the same top hp as in the P-51D, one only needs to worry about fuel left.

P-51D's limits cons - you fly 90% of time on the nominal, your shortish 15m of combat is going to be ruined by touching the emergency, you can not recharge much (if at all) on the combat so (usually) only one decent run on the WEP possible, after few minutes you are back to the nominal and good luck.

 

This is the P-39L all over again and somehow worse yet: your quick dash may be longer by 3m but the D's peak level speed is only going to impress minority (2/5) of the BOBP enemies.

 

In Ds you can control amount of ram-air pressure which goes to the engine. Thus, at some flight conditions it's possible to open your normal throttle 100% and then lower the MP by the cold-air lever. It's a neat trick and it's implemented in the other sim.

 

On P-51 you will have to fly on combat settings using Spitfire 9 settings to extend combat time, so not use 3000rpm and 61" what will be his max combat setting, but use 2850rpm and ~54" (if thats eaqal to +12lbs boost) and youll then be able to fly 1h on combat settings. Basicly using same tricks now used on P-47 to extend his combat to 30+min and so on... as Normal Rated power for P-51 is 2700 RPM and 46", its better to not use full combat settings then and to fly on lover MP and rpm then what specs will say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 77.CountZero said:

 

On P-51 you will have to fly on combat settings using Spitfire 9 settings to extend combat time, so not use 3000rpm and 61" what will be his max combat setting, but use 2850rpm and ~54" (if thats eaqal to +12lbs boost) and youll then be able to fly 1h on combat settings. Basicly using same tricks now used on P-47 to extend his combat to 30+min and so on... as Normal Rated power for P-51 is 2700 RPM and 46", its better to not use full combat settings then and to fly on lover MP and rpm then what specs will say

 

I'm not sure the used interpolating curve works that way... At best I'd expect 2x extension and the problem with regeneration remains. +10m to get 4-5m of WEP back. We should see soon enough.

 

The fact we have to game the game only because someone took literally few numbers from a paper without any consideration what they may represent (there is difference between a Yak's few dozens hours between overhauls (or not surviving) and a P-xx plane with few hundreds hours) is just :crazy:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

I'm not sure the used interpolating curve works that way... At best I'd expect 2x extension and the problem with regeneration remains. +10m to get 4-5m of WEP back. We should see soon enough.

 

The fact we have to game the game only because someone took literally few numbers from a paper without any consideration what they may represent (there is difference between a Yak's few dozens hours between overhauls (or not surviving) and a P-xx plane with few hundreds hours) is just :crazy:.

 

if thouse settings work on spitfire 9 that has same engine as p-51, they will work same on p-51, you cant have same engine in game that works differantly on 2 differant airlanes.

You can already see that if you fly on 3000rpm and 61" (+15lbs) on spitfire 9 in game now you can fly for 15 min before braking engine (time expired message shows up), so flying on 2850rpm and +12lbs of boost for 1h on spitfire 9 has to be posible same way on p-51, as its same engine ( and if not posible then something is wrong with how same engine is modeled on P-51).

 

And if spitfire 9 engine regenerate 1min for flying 3min on lover settings, then same has to be for that same engine on p-51, 1min regenerates in 3min (or something is wrong with one of them if that is not same), so after flying full 5min on emergancy, youll be posible to use it again after flying 15min on any lover settings then emergancy. I tested in game on most airplans and time of recharg does not get shorter if you fly on smaller rpm or mp or lbs or ata and so on, only requirament is that you fly on lover settings then timer you try to recharg and time is always same for that airplane, if its 10min to recharg 10min of emergancy, it will always be that time no mather if you fly on combat, nominal or something inbetwen and so on..

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

I'd remove the 'almost' in the face of thousands of P-51s that were mass produced and fielded during wartime. And I really wouldn't call the Merlin a modest engine design, seeing as the version ours will be getting was the same the British were boosting to 81" for some mindblowing performance figures.

 

Very few P-51 achieved laminar flow on the majority of their design-area in field conditions. The profile-section chosen and the building-processes of the time just couldn't achieve that.

It's a bit different with the current state of the art designs.

 

Boost a Griffon to 81'' with a dual-stage three speed superchrger and be even more mindblown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Just now, 77.CountZero said:

if thouse settings work on spitfire 9 that has same engine as p-51, they will work same on p-51, you cant have same engine in game that works differantly on 2 differant airlanes.

 

Of course you can. The V-1710s in the P-40 and the P-39 are as similar (if not more) than the Merlin and the Packard build V-1650. Yet, they have very different limits in the game 5m vs 15m for both at the 42".

I'm not against your idea - I think that would be a step in the right direction. However, after the P-40/P-39/P-47 it's hard to expect anything different.

 

Just now, Bremspropeller said:

Boost a Griffon to 81'' with a dual-stage three speed superchrger and be even more mindblown.

 

In the fuel use, too?

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


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

 

IMO the shotgun pattern is a must when you are using the gyro sight. The gyro's manual ranging is not accurate and without some spread many bursts result in near misses. That's even more frustrating than marginal hits.

Agreed. Also on the topic of synchronization I found this:

1718206602_sunchroguns.PNG.73ead616cd44277db608e663bdd36d33.PNG

 

I wonder if it's the same for the P-51? Either way I think it shows (somewhat) that the synchronization should be removed for the P-47.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,

 

I think you' ve now cleared up your displeasure about the (probable) engine behaviour of the P-51. And that already a few pages ago.  Can't we let the plane arrive before it is taken apart? Yes it is a disadvantage with the momentary handling of the engine power levels. But it is neither perfect nor a bug.

I would also like to remind you that it has already been confirmed that the developers will take care of this system again. So the chances are good that we will get many new features that improve the game. And I personally am really looking forward to the pony to be honest. I'll probably be flying some ground attack missions as well and often get shot down by some K4 etc., but that's the way it is.  In return I get a beautifully detailed airplane which will be a lot of fun to fly.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

 I'll probably be flying some ground attack missions as well and often get shot down by some K4 etc., but that's the way it is.  In return I get a beautifully detailed airplane which will be a lot of fun to fly.

 

If you mean the multi-player then better it won't be "the way it is" because you may not persist long enough to do any substantial flying nor do ground attacking. We don't ask for anything extraordinary; much less in a fact than the "1.98ATA" or a jet.

Share this post


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

 

If you mean the multi-player then better it won't be "the way it is" because you may not persist long enough to do any substantial flying nor do ground attacking. We don't ask for anything extraordinary; much less in a fact than the "1.98ATA" or a jet. 

 

Hey I am also happy about a revision of the system, which will then benefit everyone. But it doesn't make it any better to get all upset about it (especially when it's already been confirmed that it will be reworked).Just like it doesn't make much sense to keep complaining about an airplane that isn't even integrated into the sim.

And even if it will come with 90 percent probability exactly as predicted we don't know.  The only thing I ask is patience. To be honest, I'm much more looking forward to the allied planes than to the Germans and even if I have only limited hope that this will change a bit on some servers, I'll still have fun with the pony.  Whether now with 10 or 50 minutes combat performance (whereby the latter of course would be better).  

 

Share this post


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

Agreed. Also on the topic of synchronization I found this:

1718206602_sunchroguns.PNG.73ead616cd44277db608e663bdd36d33.PNG

 

I wonder if it's the same for the P-51? Either way I think it shows (somewhat) that the synchronization should be removed for the P-47.

 

I'm almost 100% certain that is referring to synchronization gear for firing through the propeller disk, which the P-47 neither had nor required.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

I'm almost 100% certain that is referring to synchronization gear for firing through the propeller disk, which the P-47 neither had nor required.

I thought about that and I'm sure you're right.

Either way they shouldn't be firing all at the exact same time. There should be some delay between each  gun.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Slow down the video to see that the guns barrels fire and move individually. Notice the "ragged" sound of free firing guns.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't mind the guns firing at the same time with the first trigger press but they would fall out of sync rather quickly as the pilot holds the trigger. What we see in-game shouldn't happen, it didn't happen irl.

DCS does a good job of representing gun ripple.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Slow down the video to see that the guns barrels fire and move individually. Notice the "ragged" sound of free firing guns.

 

I would like to see 4xMK108 against car wreck. Even one MK108

Share this post


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

I would like to see 4xMK108 against car wreck. Even one MK108

 

The youtube has some videos of the AH-64 Apache strafing various stuff including cars. Should give a good idea...

Share this post


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

I don't mind the guns firing at the same time with the first trigger press but they would fall out of sync rather quickly as the pilot holds the trigger. What we see in-game shouldn't happen, it didn't happen irl.

DCS does a good job of representing gun ripple.

 

Absolutely. On paper rate of fire was an average, with guns firing slightly faster or slower depending on how well lubricated they were, the cartridges' powder load and quality, how worn its springs were, slight differences in mass for the bolts, you name it.
Some guns even displayed oscillating fire rates, notably the MG42.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why be bothered?  It's a thread about a pixel plane in a computer game.  Nothing earth shattering really.

Share this post


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

Why be bothered?  It's a thread about a pixel plane in a computer game.  Nothing earth shattering really.

 

I guess I should take some comedy classes because I'm apparently really bad it it. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2019 at 2:19 PM, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

 

"lone LW beater" 

The P51 is an airplane that will make the typical LW only flyer make think twice before he starts running away(except 262). We don't have any allied airplane YET that can match the topspeed of the D9 or Bf109K4 yet, not even the Fw190A8.

 

With the P51 we will get the first allied airplane that can catch german planes or having equal topspeed. The typical dogfights end up in the lw plane trying to run away. This won't be so easy anymore against the P51D just to "run away". Some Waffles should start to learn defensive flying.

109 regulars are normally very used to dogfighting on the very envelope against such planes as yaks, La5 and even I16. Mustang`s weak sides are well known, and with a G14/K4 there is good performance.

 

Hence no running from the p51.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, gentlemen.

First of all, the last posts are no longer compatible with the topic P-51. For this purpose you should consider that pure data on paper does not necessarily represent the overall picture. At least we don't know how the P-51 will behave, just like you don't know how our flights were just because you see a statistic. (Especially if then please from all participants of the flight and not only from one to hack then around on it).
Especially since I can confirm the statements (yes two Heroes of my own team killed me) made by Jgon and that you can be quite successful with American airplanes (despite the limitations).  So I placed great hopes in the P-51, as well as in the coming changes and improvements of the engine.  
If there is a need for further evaluations of personal statistics, you are free to do so via PM or in another area.

 

greetings.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Just cleaned this topic, won’t do it a second time so get back on topic.

 

Haash

  • Like 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...