Which 'block number' P-51 B/C will be released?

[TP_Sparky]

What is the block number of the P-51 B/C model for Battle of Normandy?  I assume it's the -7, -10 or -15.  All had the 85 gal. fuselage tank.

[Yo-Yo_Kirby]

Could be any of three. Modifications to those P-51s are pretty minimal big picture aside from the fuselage tank.

 

I’m more curious in being able to find out what engine comes out of the box unless that is already confirmed. The P-51C in War Thunder coming with only the V-1650-7 engine was a letdown. In this sim, which is significantly more detailed, I hope to be able to to choose between the V-1650-3 and -7.

 

Later production P-51Bs and Cs fitted the V-1650-7 and V-1650-3 out of the factory. I know the end of the B-10-NA line onwards standardized it. That might give us a clue that the later B/C may come in.

 

If it comes with the -3 engine, I may be inclined to say this is a -7 or early -10. Modifications could allow it to use the -7 engine and 150 octane fuel combined for mid-late 1944-1945 scenarios. By having 4 guns, that should lighten up the plane a little, making it slightly faster and more maneuverable.

 

I’m sure a lot of people are looking forward to the Malcolm Hood. That extra headroom adds to the immersiveness especially in VR.

 

Many were excited for the P-51D, but a Malcolm Hood + 150 octane P-51B/C is the real one I’ve been waiting for.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Looks like it will be a B-5



In regards to modifications, devs have confirmed both V-1650-3 and -7 available, three types of gunsights, Malcolm Hood and 150 octane.

Would be interesting to have the mechanic that when fitted with a British skin or from a British airbase the 150 octane modification gives the 81" setting rather than the 72" / 75" used by the US ones.

[Gambit21]

Such a beautiful aircraft.

[357th_KW]

2 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Would be interesting to have the mechanic that when fitted with a British skin or from a British airbase the 150 octane modification gives the 81" setting rather than the 72" / 75" used by the US ones.

 

This would be nice for the D model as well. 

[Rjel]

9 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Such a beautiful aircraft.

To me, the A/B/C model Mustangs are the only U.S. built aircraft that look like naturals in RAF camo.

Edited September 25, 2021 by Rjel
Grammer.

[[DBS]Browning]

1 hour ago, Rjel said:

To me, the A/B/C model Mustangs are the only U.S. built aircraft that look like naturals in RAF camo.

Not the P-40?

[BlitzPig_EL]

Yeah, the P40 absolutely works in any Commonwealth paint scheme.

My favorites are 112 Squadron desert schemes, and the RNZAF ones.

 

My favorite though is the AVG on the Hawk 81s.

[Rjel]

1 minute ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Not the P-40?

When I see the P-40, I think of the Flying Tigers. 

[CountZero]

14 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Looks like it will be a B-5



In regards to modifications, devs have confirmed both V-1650-3 and -7 available, three types of gunsights, Malcolm Hood and 150 octane.

Would be interesting to have the mechanic that when fitted with a British skin or from a British airbase the 150 octane modification gives the 81" setting rather than the 72" / 75" used by the US ones.

So it should not have fuel tank that is problematic when full, i see here that come with block 7 changes.

 

https://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/variants/p51b

[357th_KW]

Essentially every -1 and onward was retrofitted with the fuselage tank, so it should be a mod.  

Edited September 25, 2021 by VBF-12_KW

[Gambit21]

12 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Yeah, the P40 absolutely works in any Commonwealth paint scheme.

My favorites are 112 Squadron desert schemes, and the RNZAF ones.

 

My favorite though is the AVG on the Hawk 81s.

 

I like the ANZAC P-40's too.

Back when I/we thought the Zero was eminent, I had a Darwin mini-campaign planned using the Kuban map and the P-40.

[LuftManu]

I think

On 9/25/2021 at 2:35 AM, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Looks like it will be a B-5



Would be interesting to have the mechanic that when fitted with a British skin or from a British airbase the 150 octane modification gives the 81" setting rather than the 72" / 75" used by the US ones.

I think the ability to have 2 mods for that would be great. One being 150 oct and the other one 81" being blocked unless 150 oct is selected first.

 

Also, another mod for the fuselage tank would be very welcome so we have more variety of Mustangs in our hangars

 

 

[Avimimus]

On 9/25/2021 at 10:02 AM, Rjel said:

When I see the P-40, I think of the Flying Tigers. 

 

Hmm... well I grew up reading about the performance of Kittyhawks and Tomahawks in North Africa... and the Commonwealth did operate 27 squadrons compared to the 3 squadrons of Flying Tigers... so I think it is reasonable to think of both when looking at these planes

[TP_Sparky]

They should all have the 85 gal. fuselage tank.  800 P-51B-5NA were built but 550 of these were modified to have the fuselage tank and their designation changed to P-51B-7NA. All the -10 and 15 had the fuselage tank.  So, only 250 -5 didn't have the fuselage tank in the field officially [more of the -5 may well have been so modified unofficially.]   Specifically (not including the 550 modified -5, then called -7, all B models delivered in December, 1943, and all C models delivered in March, 1944 and after from their respective factories had the fuselage tank.  The modified P-51B-5 that were modified to -7 status by adding the fuselage tank were 43-6563-7112.

 

I disagree that the fuselage tank is "troublesome."  It's not.  It's a great help and if you were among the few based in Belgium you might take off with 75 % fuel but operating out of England or in the Med or against Japan you start out full and burn the fuselage tank first to half-full.  That brings you within the CG envelope and thereafter burn the drop tanks.  Fuel management is easy.  The Mustang may easily and safely be flown with a full fuselage tank as long as you don't try abrupt control movements or acrobatics until the fuselage tank level is 40 gallons.  With takeoff, assembly and a trip across the Channel you'll burn the fuselage tank down without problem.  

 

Simple fuel management will be great for IL2 Great Battles.  Burn the fuselage tank down to a certain level, then burn from the drop tanks alternately, switching every half hour at least.  I'll switch every 15 minutes after checking levels to prevent asymmetrical fuel weight, then switch to burn the last of the fuselage tank and then alternate wing tanks. Easy peasy.

 

I wish we could "hack the clock" by zeroing a minute hand to mark each time you switch tanks so you can see when it's time to switch tanks again.  Could the designers do that with the dashboard clock?

 

[info from Gruenhagen's, Mustang, The Story of the P-51 Fighter (revised 2nd ed.), p.199, etc.

Edited October 11, 2021 by TP_Sparky

[Rjel]

29 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Hmm... well I grew up reading about the performance of Kittyhawks and Tomahawks in North Africa... and the Commonwealth did operate 27 squadrons compared to the 3 squadrons of Flying Tigers... so I think it is reasonable to think of both when looking at these planes

I wouldn't disagree with you. It's just what I see when I look at certain things. It's like the old adage of a glass being half full or half empty. I see a half full glass while wondering who in the Hell took the other half.....

13 minutes ago, TP_Sparky said:

I wish we could "hack the clock" by zeroing a minute hand to mark each time you switch tanks so you can see when it's time to switch tanks again.  Could the designers do that with the dashboard clock?

Not quite as cool but you could use the stop watch feature on your cell phone and accomplish the same thing.

[TP_Sparky]

4 minutes ago, Rjel said:

...you could use the stop watch feature on your cell phone and accomplish the same thing.

 

I fly VR so I can't use your helpful suggestion like a cell phone or a hackable wrist watch. 

[Sandmarken]

21 hours ago, TP_Sparky said:

 

I fly VR so I can't use your helpful suggestion like a cell phone or a hackable wrist watch. 

1+ i also need it when boosting the p47 for example ? too many fatal  engine damages ??

[TP_Sparky]

On 9/28/2021 at 6:56 AM, Sandmarken said:

1+ i also need it when boosting the p47 for example ? too many fatal  engine damages ??

 

I flew in real life and military aircraft of the 1980s had a dash clock and you "punched the clock" to reset to time various things.  Seems so much easier then remembering, "Uh, I went to combat power setting at minute 47- or was it minute 52?"

[Sandmarken]

8 hours ago, TP_Sparky said:

 

I flew in real life and military aircraft of the 1980s had a dash clock and you "punched the clock" to reset to time various things.  Seems so much easier then remembering, "Uh, I went to combat power setting at minute 47- or was it minute 52?"

Something like that woud be of great help ?

[TP_Sparky]

Can anyone find out for sure if we'll have the fuselage tank like almost all B/C did?  Since we all want to play bomber escort against hoards of German fighters we'll need drop tanks and fuselage tanks to be realistic.  Yes, we'll escort B-25, B-26 or A-20 but there were lots of those missions in the pre/post D-Day bombing missions all across the Normandy map.  If we're flying at 20K+ it'll almost be like escorting B-17s. 

[Mtnbiker1998]

1 hour ago, TP_Sparky said:

Can anyone find out for sure if we'll have the fuselage tank like almost all B/C did?  Since we all want to play bomber escort against hoards of German fighters we'll need drop tanks and fuselage tanks to be realistic.  Yes, we'll escort B-25, B-26 or A-20 but there were lots of those missions in the pre/post D-Day bombing missions all across the Normandy map.  If we're flying at 20K+ it'll almost be like escorting B-17s. 

In all fairness, even a Mustang without drop tanks and the smaller fuse. tank could still fly across any of our maps in game a few times before running out of fuel lol.