Jump to content

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

Referencing information that I've gleaned through research,...

 

 

This got a genuine out loud laugh from me...well done.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

Referencing information that I've gleaned through research, plane versus plane the Mustang was not the greatest thing on earth in my opinion.

Of course it wasn't the greatest but neither was the 109 or 190. The thing about the P-51 is that it was a good all round fighter and could do many things adequately enough. The P-51 may not have been superior at any one thing but it was good enough at just about everything.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda surprised no one has brought up wing flex yet or did I miss it?

 

 

Share this post


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

Great Interview with Günther Rall here. Among other things he also mentioned his impressions about the Mustang because he himself flew many allied planes in 1944.

 

https://www.historynet.com/aviation-history-interview-with-world-war-ii-luftwaffe-ace-gunther-rall.htm

 

Günther, Rall: wrote in "Mein Flugbuch Erinnerungen 1938-2004" 2. Auflage 2004 NeunundzwanzigSechs, Moosburg 2004.

 

"Die Rollrate, die Steigfähigkeit, das Beschleunigungsvermögen des Flugzeugs sind einfach phantastisch. Seine einzige Schwäche liegt in der Tendenz, im langsamen Kurvenflug ohne Vorwarnung nach außen ins Trudeln abzukippen." S. 214

 

Translation "The roll-rate, the climb ability, the acceleration of the plane is just fantastic. The only weakness is that the plane tends to drop outward in slow speed turns."

 

7 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Of course it wasn't the greatest but neither was the 109 or 190. The thing about the P-51 is that it was a good all round fighter and could do many things adequately enough. The P-51 may not have been superior at any one thing but it was good enough at just about everything.

 

The P51B and P51D saw service before Bf109G14, Bf109G10 + their each AS variants, before Fw190A8 with 1.42 ata.

It's topspeed matched any german fighter except Me262 in Summer 1944.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html

 

With 375 mph at sea level(deck) which is pretty much 600 kph with the (67') Boost in the P51D and 371 mph with P51B which is 597 kph at sea level.(Later B variants were going even to +620kph)

 

And our Bf109G14 goes 580 +/-5 kph at sea level. And 600 kph with K4 and D9 if we go 1945.

So it is quite depended on which year the scenario is played. It might be supiorer at topspeed in early to mid-late 1944 and "balanced" at 1945.

And since the thread is only called P51, i assume that it would be quite fun to fight P51Bs and Spit Mk. IXs(yes the Spit we have with the same boost) with our Bf109G6(without MW50 and Fw190A5 +) over North France. 

Edited by MeoW.Scharfi
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Of course it wasn't the greatest but neither was the 109 or 190. The thing about the P-51 is that it was a good all round fighter and could do many things adequately enough. The P-51 may not have been superior at any one thing but it was good enough at just about everything.

 

It's the superior machine to wage war on a strategic level. Dogfights should be an exception than the rule to follow. Just secure advantageous position, engage using high speed maneuverability and be gone. Then repeat the next day and again until the enemy is depleted.

If you have stamina you can tackle 262s that way too. Evade them until they are bingo fuel and some will go down.

Of course this game doesn't have such scope and the MP is just rapid series of 1vs1 most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, mentioning the same pilot accounts for the 152th time as proof.:dance:

 

In order for that to be even remotely sufficient we need the accounts of the downed/killed 51/109 pilots. Feel free to do the research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Pict said:

 

And that reason would be what?

 

"The RAF also operated 308 P-51Bs and 636 P-51Cs which were known in RAF service as Mustang Mk IIIs; the first units converted to the type in late 1943 and early 1944. Mustang Mk III units were operational until the end of World War II..." http://mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/variants/raf_mustangs

 

 

Are you serious?

 

In 1945 allied pilots flew P-51's, B's, C's & D's plus many other aircraft types, into Germany from bases in the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy and you suggest that what they were doing and in some cases dying for does not count unless they were flying for who?...the USAAF?

 

Give us a break :) 

 

Simple:

2nd TAF flew a large amount of Mustang IIIs right until the end of hostilities and generally had the largest area- and time-overlap/ exposure with Dora units (JG 26 mostly).

The hand full of B/C airframes that were used, while being replaced by D/K airframes is insignificant in terms of sorties flown by the time the Doras got operational (October '44).

 

Unles you can actually match a long-nose 190 (TM) loss to a P-51B kill, the claims have a 99% chance of being fairy tales (that is either overclaiming, mis-identification or even downright wishful thinking).

 

Congratulations on entirely missing the point in the second part of your post, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am quite sure by now. We all hope it will compete against enemy planes. 

We hope it will feel and act a way we can recognize from impressions we got from various sources. 

However why people choose to be unpleasant , arrogant and rude toward a fellow member about performance and expectation is beyond me.

It isnt going to be historical, none of the planes are. At best it will be able to simulate

its place in history compared to its opponents in a realistic way. Personally I am of the impression that is not the case with rest of the US planes. I read differently by some about the P 47 so I might be wrong about that. 

Personally I think we got to wait for P.38 and Tempest before we get full balance

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

I think it's simply hilarious that folks point a finger and make a comment in this manner because you disagree with how I characterized the Mustang. Referencing information that I've gleaned through research, plane versus plane the Mustang was not the greatest thing on earth in my opinion; don't like that? Just disagree and make a rebuttal; no need for snobby remarks. If I've sounded snobby, I've not meant to do so.

When you freely admit you are not an expert, however make statements as though you are .You  continual prove the former . I am certain through your exhaustive research you have gleaned the following indisputable facts. The Luftwaffe lost more aircraft to the West than the VVS. Secondly, The US lost more aircraft to German AAA than the Luftwaffe. What I find hilarious are Luftwaffe pilots when outnumbered by VVS planes considered it a target rich environment, adding to their scores. However, when outnumber ( even though at the point of attack they frequently outnumber the US escorts) against the west they were annihilated. 

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


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

 

Simple:

2nd TAF flew a large amount of Mustang IIIs right until the end of hostilities and generally had the largest area- and time-overlap/ exposure with Dora units (JG 26 mostly).

The hand full of B/C airframes that were used, while being replaced by D/K airframes is insignificant in terms of sorties flown by the time the Doras got operational (October '44).

 

Unles you can actually match a long-nose 190 (TM) loss to a P-51B kill, the claims have a 99% chance of being fairy tales (that is either overclaiming, mis-identification or even downright wishful thinking).

 

Congratulations on entirely missing the point in the second part of your post, btw.

 

When you put it like that, it makes a modicum of sense :)

 

Your ability to create something sensible from a few one liners worthy of the Max brothers, leaves me wondering if you could build me a real working P-51B from the odds and ends I have lying around in the loft ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladies and gentlemen, I know we are all eager to get the Mustang, but don't go the wrong way here.


Let's go back to the topic, please

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Great Interview with Günther Rall here. Among other things he also mentioned his impressions about the Mustang because he himself flew many allied planes in 1944.

 

https://www.historynet.com/aviation-history-interview-with-world-war-ii-luftwaffe-ace-gunther-rall.htm

 

From the article:

 

Quote

The P-47, which as you know shot me down, we knew right away. It had tremendous diving speed and could run up to 1,400 kilometers per hour, where the Bf-109 was limited to 1,000 kph. I learned this quickly when they chased me, and I could do nothing else. The structural layout design of the P-47 was much stronger, yet I consider the P-51 the best battle horse you had of all the fighter escorts.

 

While we can debate of the facts behind this statement, it is completely opposite from what we have in-game now.

Edited by [DBS]TH0R

Share this post


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

Your ability to create something sensible from a few one liners worthy of the Max brothers, leaves me wondering if you could build me a real working P-51B from the odds and ends I have lying around in the loft

 

Would you accept a Mustang III as well? 😋

 

 

And now for something completely different:

 

I'm trying hard to get "the book" about every ETO/ MTO fighter group there is (just found out there actually is such a thing on the 20th FG).

Looks like the 325th and 332nd aren't off too well in that department. Is there some literature about the Tuskeegee and Checkertail wings worthy of mention?

The Osprey "units"-books usually are okay for the money but nothing to write home about really...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

While we can debate of the facts behind this statement, it is completely opposite from what we have in-game now.

Good that we don´t have supersonic p-47s in the game :lol:, that would be wierd.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Would you accept a Mustang III as well? 😋

 

 

And now for something completely different:

 

I'm trying hard to get "the book" about every ETO/ MTO fighter group there is (just found out there actually is such a thing on the 20th FG).

Looks like the 325th and 332nd aren't off too well in that department. Is there some literature about the Tuskeegee and Checkertail wings worthy of mention?

The Osprey "units"-books usually are okay for the money but nothing to write home about real

the opsrey Tuskegee is good but u can also look at biography books Charles McGee, Charles Dryden, Curtis robinson, etc.I have about six of the tuskegee biographies including the ones I mentioned

 

Edited by -332FG-Buddy
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Psyrion said:

Good that we don´t have supersonic p-47s in the game :lol:, that would be wierd.

 

Slightly weird, to say the least. 😄 I guess he must have been speaking "figuratively".

Edited by [DBS]TH0R
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Would you accept a Mustang III as well? 😋

 

Easily :)

 

In all fairness to you, the Mustang III, while being built on the P-51B & P-51C production lines had a hotter motor installed on the production lines than the standard aircraft it was built alongside, so technically a Mustang III was not a P-51B or C. So don't forget the extra 60 HP when you cobble my bird together. The Malcolm hood you can pass on as it was lust a field mod :biggrin:

 

===============

 

The one book to rule them all seems like a fair quest. I'm not sure if such a work exists, at least in any kind of decent quality, but I would be surprised if it's not out there somewhere.

 

Are you looking for USAAF only or other units? US Navy were also in the MTO & ETO, not sure if the Marines were in the air there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO discussing about what a WW2 fighter could out-turn/run/something is of a limited value. They hadn't FFW nor control surfaces on hydraulics (with rare exceptions) thus a lot was on the pilot. How one was strong, experienced, resilient to a panic and Gs had all the major part how the plane would perform. Also, the same fighter plane could vary in weight, drag (due to accumulated dirt), thrust (different props used, wear, in-field changes) and more. Now, just apply the same variables to the enemies one faced...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

 

From the article:

 

 

While we can debate of the facts behind this statement, it is completely opposite from what we have in-game now.

Not trying to get this OT but I think he was speaking figuratively to show the P-47s superiority in a dive.

Maximum speed a P-47 could attain in a dive is around 630 mph (1013 km/h), in game we cannot reach these speeds, at least not without breaking up which wouldn't happen in reality.

 

The P-51 is a good diver as well though I'm sure it will be limited by gameplay mechanics just like the P-47 currently is.

 

Edited by Legioneod
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

 

Easily :)

 

In all fairness to you, the Mustang III, while being built on the P-51B & P-51C production lines had a hotter motor installed on the production lines than the standard aircraft it was built alongside, so technically a Mustang III was not a P-51B or C. So don't forget the extra 60 HP when you cobble my bird together. The Malcolm hood you can pass on as it was lust a field mod :biggrin:

 

What engines were these?

 

Some Mustang IIIs were P-51B/Cs as they came from USAAF stock.

 

Serial numbers SR406/438 and SR440 were a mixed bag of P-51Bs and Cs delivered to the RAF from the USAAF--US serial numbers were respectively 43-12162, 43-12407, 43-12412, 43-12473, 43-12484, 43-12427, 43-70114(?), 43-12189, 43-12177, 43-7039, 43-6831, 43-12155, 43-12188, 43-12456, 43-12480, 43-12399, 42-10663(?), 42-106683, 42-106630, 42-106687, 43-7071, 43-7144, 43-5595, 43-7171, 43-6829, 43-12420, 43-7152, 43-7135, 42-103209, 42-106478, 42-106431, 43-7007, 43-12420, 43-7159.

 

Even as late as the last month of the war, 1000 out of the 2500 Mustangs serving in the ETO were of the P-51B/C variety.

Share this post


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

Even as late as the last month of the war, 1000 out of the 2500 Mustangs serving in the ETO were of the P-51B/C variety.

 

Got a rough breakdown of these in terms of squadrons?

 

Just by looking at squadron pictures, a percentage of 10% B/C airframes looks more reasonable to me than 40% (just looking at USAAF birds).

The RAF got about 900 Mustang IIIs in total, which is slightly more than the 875 Mustang IVs they got.

Share this post


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

the Mustang III, while being built on the P-51B & P-51C production lines had a hotter motor installed on the production lines than the standard aircraft it was built alongside, so technically a Mustang III was not a P-51B or C. So don't forget the extra 60 HP when you cobble my bird together.

 

Same motor just running at increased boost.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

What engines were these?

 

Great question to which I currently have nothing more solid to offer than what is given in the official RAF history of WW2, published by H.M.S.O.  "Royal Air Force 1939-1945 Volume III The Fight is Won" a work commissioned in 1947 and entrusted to authors who worked for the British air Ministry as historians during the conflict.

Spoiler

20190629_133448_LLS.thumb.jpg.d07ac811e67f0b915d57d8f57406b03c.jpg

 

Mustang III & Mosquito performance is noted in the Appendix as having two values representing the two different types of engine installed. I'm also interested to know more.

Spoiler

20190629_130425_LLS.thumb.jpg.f8ebd1ace150630759e972d5295cd76b.jpg

 

3 hours ago, Talon_ said:

Same motor just running at increased boost.

 

You may well be right, but when looking in the same volume about anti V1 operations I have found that the Mustang III was found to be useful from the start, June 1944. The book goes on to describe additional measures for increasing the performance of fighters used to intercept V1's including the use of 150 octane fuel. This however is not reflected in the performance chart above for any of these aircraft

 

I figured you might find this interesting, as it specifically mentions 2TAF and the use of 150 octane fuel in June 1944.

Spoiler

20190629_133733_LLS.thumb.jpg.cb69167017f5e6f5eae81c4ed78a46a3.jpg

 

Having read all that so far, I quite like the idea of a polished & juiced Mustang III chasing doodlebugs across the channel...must take the time to read more of it :) 

 

Edited by Pict
Spelling, tweaking etc.

Share this post


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

 

Great question to which I currently have nothing more solid to offer than what is given in the official RAF history of WW2, published by H.M.S.O.  "Royal Air Force 1939-1945 Volume III The Fight is Won" a work commissioned in 1947 and entrusted to authors who worked for the British air Ministry as historians during the conflict.

  Reveal hidden contents

20190629_133448_LLS.thumb.jpg.d07ac811e67f0b915d57d8f57406b03c.jpg

 

Mustang III & Mosquito performance is noted in the Appendix as having two values representing the two different types of engine installed. I'm also interested to know more.

  Reveal hidden contents

20190629_130425_LLS.thumb.jpg.f8ebd1ace150630759e972d5295cd76b.jpg

 

 

You may well be right, but when looking in the same volume about anti V1 operations I have found that the Mustang III was found to be useful from the start, June 1944. The book goes on to describe additional measures for increasing the performance of fighters used to intercept V1's including the use of 150 octane fuel. This however is not reflected in the performance chart above for any of these aircraft

 

I figured you might find this interesting, as it specifically mentions 2TAF and the use of 150 octane fuel in June 1944.

  Reveal hidden contents

20190629_133733_LLS.thumb.jpg.cb69167017f5e6f5eae81c4ed78a46a3.jpg

 

Having read all that so far, I quite like the idea of a polished & juiced Mustang III chasing doodlebugs across the channel...must take the time to read more of it :) 

 

P-51B, C's and D's were fitted with both V-1650-3 and -7 engines (there were conversion kits available), the -3 being a high altitude engine and -7 being a lower altitude engine.

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Would you accept a Mustang III as well? 😋

 

 

And now for something completely different:

 

I'm trying hard to get "the book" about every ETO/ MTO fighter group there is (just found out there actually is such a thing on the 20th FG).

Looks like the 325th and 332nd aren't off too well in that department. Is there some literature about the Tuskeegee and Checkertail wings worthy of mention?

The Osprey "units"-books usually are okay for the money but nothing to write home about really...

 

I have the squadron history on the 352nd, published by the 352nd squadron association itself. Written by Powell (actual pilot) and Ivy. Only ever available from the squadron and now out of print.

 

If you’re motivated and want to spend you might be able to find a used copy.

 

They also published Bluenoser Tales, same story as above. I have this volume as well. 

 

PM me if you’re interested in borrowing them.

 

I also posted a link a while back to the 406th (Jugs) squadron history PDF. Originally a book but long out of print.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I figured you might find this interesting, as it specifically mentions 2TAF and the use of 150 octane fuel in June 1944.

 

150 octane allowed for 81'' MAP - it's not the engine, just the juice that made it fast.

The -7 more so at low-medium altitudes than the -3.

 

5 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I have the squadron history on the 352nd, published by the 352nd squadron association itself. Written by Powell (actual pilot) and Ivy. Only ever available from the squadron and now out of print.

 

Out of likes for the day.

I actually do have a pretty fine copy of the "Bluenosed Bastards of Bodney", thanks! :)

I wrote "325th" (Checkertail Clan), not "352nd" :P

Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Out of likes for the day.

I actually do have a pretty fine copy of the "Bluenosed Bastards of Bodney", thanks! :)

I wrote "325th" (Checkertail Clan), not "352nd" :P

 

Nice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/28/2019 at 1:16 PM, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

Günther, Rall: wrote in "Mein Flugbuch Erinnerungen 1938-2004" 2. Auflage 2004 NeunundzwanzigSechs, Moosburg 2004.

 

"Die Rollrate, die Steigfähigkeit, das Beschleunigungsvermögen des Flugzeugs sind einfach phantastisch. Seine einzige Schwäche liegt in der Tendenz, im langsamen Kurvenflug ohne Vorwarnung nach außen ins Trudeln abzukippen." S. 214

 

Translation "The roll-rate, the climb ability, the acceleration of the plane is just fantastic. The only weakness is that the plane tends to drop outward in slow speed turns."

 

 

The P51B and P51D saw service before Bf109G14, Bf109G10 + their each AS variants, before Fw190A8 with 1.42 ata.

It's topspeed matched any german fighter except Me262 in Summer 1944.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html

 

With 375 mph at sea level(deck) which is pretty much 600 kph with the (67') Boost in the P51D and 371 mph with P51B which is 597 kph at sea level.(Later B variants were going even to +620kph)

 

And our Bf109G14 goes 580 +/-5 kph at sea level. And 600 kph with K4 and D9 if we go 1945.

So it is quite depended on which year the scenario is played. It might be supiorer at topspeed in early to mid-late 1944 and "balanced" at 1945.

And since the thread is only called P51, i assume that it would be quite fun to fight P51Bs and Spit Mk. IXs(yes the Spit we have with the same boost) with our Bf109G6(without MW50 and Fw190A5 +) over North France. 

 

I would imagine it's not entirely accurate to quote speed figures for a clean P51 because typically P51B and Ds were flying with wing racks which would knock ~12-16mph off the top speed.  Correct me if I am wrong but 67" was not cleared until spring 1944?  So in reality a P51B configured for long range escort in late 1943 would be not that much faster than a Fw190A6 at SL.

 

The reality is that in 1943 - 1945 piston engine fighter performance was close enough between LW and Western Allies that pilots skill and numbers were what mattered.

 

Edited by ICDP
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I would imagine it's not entirely accurate to quote speed figures for a clean P51 because typically P51B and Ds were flying with wing racks which would knock ~12-16mph off the top speed.  Correct me if I am wrong but 67" was not cleared until spring 1944?  So in reality a P51B configured for long range escort in late 1943 would be not that much faster than a Fw190A6 at SL.

 

Clean P51? Those tests were made with a "unclean" P51 with Bomb racks and TAKE OFF weight which is +4000 kg/9760 pounds.

 

Flight Test Engineering Branch 
Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio
 
15 June 1945

Flight Tests on the North American 
P-51D Airplane, AAF No. 44-15342

 

Summary

 

       Fuel consumption and speed data listed in the flight operation instruction chart have been spot checked by duplicating in the test program some of the power settings shown in the T. O. By comparing the results obtained with the T. O. figures, a quick estimate of the validity of the T. O. may be made.

       High speed and climb performance have been obtained on this airplane at a take-off gross weight of 9760 pounds. Performance was obtained up to an altitude of 35,000 feet in increments of 5000 feet in a clean configuration. The clean configuration included one external bomb rack on each wing. Additional configurations were flown at 5000 and 15,000 feet including two 110 gallon tanks, two 500 pound bombs, and two 250 pound bombs. The principal results are as follows:

   

    A.  Clean Configuration (with bomb racks).

 

  1. Maximum speed at critical altitudes  
     
    High Blower  
   
    War Emergency power (3000 RPM and 67") 26000' 442 MPH
    Military power (3000 RPM and 61") 28000' 439 MPH
    Normal Rated power (2700 RPM and 46") 29400' 420 MPH
   
    Low Blower  
   
    War Emergency power (3000 RPM and 67") 10000' 417 MPH
    Military power (3000 RPM and 61") 13200' 413 MPH
    Normal Rated power (2700 RPM and 46") 16200' 387 MPH
   
  2. Maximum speed at sea level  
     
    War Emergency power (3000 RPM and 67") 375 MPH
    Military power (3000 RPM and 61") 364 MPH
    Normal Rated power (2700 RPM and 46") 323 MPH
     
  3. Rate of climb at critical altitude.
     
    War Emergency power (3000 RPM and 67") high blower (19,000') 3200 ft/min.
    War Emergency power (3000 RPM and 67") low blower (4,800') 3600 ft/min.
     
  4. Time to climb to service ceiling, war emergency power
3000 RPM and 67") (41600')
28 minutes.

 

       B.  True speed loss, MPH from clean configuration due to external load items (2700 RPM and 46").

 

2-110 Gal. Tanks 2-500 Lb. Bombs 2-250 Lb. Bombs
5000 ft. 45 36 25
25000 ft. 47 33 23
 
 

A.  Clean Configuration (with bomb racks). <============= 

 

With bomb racks.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html

 

Quote
21 minutes ago, ICDP said:

Correct me if I am wrong but 67" was not cleared until spring 1944?  So in reality a P51B configured for long range escort in late 1943 would be not that much faster than a Fw190A6 at SL.

 

Wrong, 67'hg was a standard factory setting for the V1650-7 the moment it was introducted to the P51B.

Edited by MeoW.Scharfi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove because I was specifically referring to the P51B 61" performance of late 1943 to mid 1944.  Your post I replied to was stating that the P51B was available before the later 109G10/14 and 190A8 at 1.42 ATA.  I was simply trying to clarify that in late 1943 - early 1944 the P51B was running at 61" and not much faster at SL than equivalent LW fighters.  My main point however, which you conveniently ignored and cut off from your unedited reply, was that performance between Western Allied and LW piston fighters in late 43 to end of the war was pretty close.

 

Credit for this chart goes to Mike Williams

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org

 

na-p51b-150grade-level.jpg

 

Edited by ICDP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a minute...

 

Quote
     
  4. Time to climb to service ceiling, war emergency power
3000 RPM and 67") (41600')
28 minutes.

 

 

They held WEP for 28 minutes?  I want to try that in the sim...

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

They held WEP for 28 minutes?  I want to try that in the sim...

 

Haha i was thinking the same 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ICDP said:

My main point however, which you conveniently ignored and cut off from your unedited reply, was that performance between Western Allied and LW piston fighters in late 43 to end of the war was pretty close.

 

I'd put in an exception for the timeframe between spring and fall of 1944, where the Luftwaffe fighters just didn't have the ooomph to compete.

Only MW50 and flying under the influence changed that.

 

The Luftwaffe lacked a proper engine in early 44.

Share this post


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

 

I'd put in an exception for the timeframe between spring and fall of 1944, where the Luftwaffe fighters just didn't have the ooomph to compete.

Only MW50 and flying under the influence changed that.

 

The Luftwaffe lacked a proper engine in early 44.

 

I do agree to a large degree but it wasn't like performance difference was massive.  By spring 1944 it wouldn't have mattered much if every G6 was a K4.  The Western allied air forces did not defeat the LW because the P51 was ~15 - 30mph faster, they defeated them because the P51 could escort bombers all the way to Berlin and the Allies AF outnumbered the LW.  Look at the 1942 Bf109G2, it was some 15-20 mph faster than a G6 because the LW were forced to move away from air superiority as its main mission, to bomber killing.  The same was true of the Fw190A, its performance remained largly static despite getting more powerful engines.  The A8 performance was no better (and arguably worse) than the 190A-3 despite have an uprated engine.

 

I respectfully stand by my point that in 1943 - 1945 piston engine fighter performance was close enough between LW and Western Allies that pilots skill and numbers were what mattered.

Edited by ICDP
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ICDP said:

By spring 1944 it wouldn't have  mattered if every G6 was a K4. 

 

But that's not your initial argument, is it?

The P-51 was more like 40-50mph faster* and did considerably better at high altitudes than your plain vanilla G-6 in early to mid 1944.

The same applies for your plain vanilla fighter 190A.

 

The 109 only managed to get "good" again at altitude after they bolted a better (DB 603) supercharger onto it.

 

___

*depending on engine type and boost level

Share this post


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

 

But that's not your initial argument, is it?

The P-51 was more like 40-50mph faster* and did considerably better at high altitudes than your plain vanilla G-6 in early to mid 1944.

The same applies for your plain vanilla fighter 190A.

 

The 109 only managed to get "good" again at altitude after they bolted a better (DB 603) supercharger onto it.

 

___

*depending on engine type and boost level

 

Apologies if I didn't clarify enough but that was my initial intended argument.

 

"The reality is that in 1943 - 1945 piston engine fighter performance was close enough between LW and Western Allies that pilots skill and numbers were what mattered."

 

By early 1944 the Allies had won control of the air over the continent.  The LW were forced more and more back into Germany, not because the allies had faster fighters but because they had substantially more of them flown by overall better trained pilots.  Not every fighter the allies had in 1943-44 was a souped up P51 running 67" - 75" boost.

Edited by ICDP
  • Like 2

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...