Back to the D from the B.

[BlitzPig_EL]

As some may remember, I was, and in many ways still am, fond of the P51B.  It's overall flight performance, delightful handling, and sexy good looks are very compelling.  I have been flying it almost exclusively since it's release.  Well about a week ago I saw my old D model in the hangar looking forlorn and lonely, so I dusted her off and got reacquainted, with interesting results.

 

She isn't the racy little vixen that the B is, but she certainly is a more mature, and potent, dancing partner.

That extra pair of M2s in the wings more than makes up for her slightly heavier feel.  

 

I did not expect this change of heart, I really do like the B, but the D's attributes are more subtle, and more effective.

 

It's nice having both in the stable.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Yeah,

 

I'm a huge fan of the B. But every once in a while it's nice to have a six gun on your hip.

[Jade_Monkey]

Nothing wrong with some D once in a while. YOLO.

[CUJO_1970]

That escalated quickly.

[BlitzPig_EL]

2 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

That escalated quickly.

 

Would expect nothing less with these fine lads CUJO.

 

?

[Rjel]

I've really enjoyed flying both Mustangs too. She is an excellent stablemate to the later version. The historical significance of the B model can't be overstated. While the model this team created is excellent, the D is where my heart lies.

 

As to the extra pair of .50 cals, there is no doubt of the extra punch they provide. But, I've always remembered this quote from Kit Carson, who stated his preference for the B model. "If you can't hit 'em with 4 guns, two more aren't going to make your aim any better."

 

Sadly, I've found this to be true.

[LuftManu]

Loving the B, but coming back to the old D, it comes full circle.

[40plus]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

As some may remember, I was, and in many ways still am, fond of the P51B.  It's overall flight performance, delightful handling, and sexy good looks are very compelling.  I have been flying it almost exclusively since it's release.  Well about a week ago I saw my old D model in the hangar looking forlorn and lonely, so I dusted her off and got reacquainted, with interesting results.

 

She isn't the racy little vixen that the B is, but she certainly is a more mature, and potent, dancing partner.

That extra pair of M2s in the wings more than makes up for her slightly heavier feel.  

 

I did not expect this change of heart, I really do like the B, but the D's attributes are more subtle, and more effective.

 

It's nice having both in the stable.

D is a far sight better looking too

[[CPT]Crunch]

Now we need an A-36 and Mustang I along with a late M.3 equipped F-51, than we can career from 42 right up to the end.

[357th_KW]

The performance difference between the two is pretty minor when comparing apples to apples, but the additional visibility and firepower are a big bonus.

 

Additionally the P-51D starts showing up in numbers during the Summer of 1944 - right around the time the 8th AF switched to 150 octane.  Gyro gunsights and G suits start becoming common around the same time.  Together it makes for a pretty big upgrade compared to a basic P-51B from earlier that Spring.

 

In game I really like both, but prefer the P-51D.

[Asgar]

36 minutes ago, 40plus said:

D is a far sight better looking too

That’s your opinion… but your opinion is wrong ???

[40plus]

2 minutes ago, Asgar said:

That’s your opinion… but your opinion is wrong ???

Opinions are like .......

[Asgar]

3 minutes ago, 40plus said:

Opinions are like .......

that is what a person with a wrong opinion would say ? 

[Rjel]

42 minutes ago, 40plus said:

D is a far sight better looking too

 

5 minutes ago, Asgar said:

That’s your opinion… but your opinion is wrong ???

I think though, we can all agree either version of the P-51 is a damned sight more attractive than the Me-410 ever hoped to be.

[Asgar]

10 minutes ago, Rjel said:

 

I think though, we can all agree either version of the P-51 is a damned sight more attractive than the Me-410 ever hoped to be.

I formerly request the removal of this… this… tasteless Ninnyhammer (had to google old fashioned insults for this) from this here forum!

 

How dare you insult the one and only, the best of all, the flexible and always right for the job Me 410! 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Looking forward to the unscheduled disassembling of as many 410s as possible with my 51B or D.

 

[Rjel]

30 minutes ago, Asgar said:

I formerly request the removal of this… this… tasteless Ninnyhammer (had to google old fashioned insults for this) from this here forum!

 

How dare you insult the one and only, the best of all, the flexible and always right for the job Me 410! 

You're right. I'm sorry.  The Me-410 looks like a it'll be perfect... perfect cannon fodder for any and all Allied fighters. For those fighters without cannon, perfect for drilling hundreds, heck, thousands of little half inch holes alllll over its body.

 

All hail the Mighty Mustang!!!

[Asgar]

5 minutes ago, Rjel said:

You're right. I'm sorry.  The Me-410 looks like a it'll be perfect... perfect cannon fodder for any and all Allied fighters. For those fighters without cannon, perfect for drilling hundreds, heck, thousands of little half inch holes alllll over its body.

 

All hail the Mighty Mustang!!!

people said the same thing when the Bf 110 was first added to the game and do you know what I did on my first sortie with the 110 when we ran into a group of Yaks? I killed them

[Rjel]

7 minutes ago, Asgar said:

people said the same thing when the Bf 110 was first added to the game and do you know what I did on my first sortie with the 110 when we ran into a group of Yaks? I killed them

But a

 

 

Ain't a

 

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, Rjel said:

I've really enjoyed flying both Mustangs too. She is an excellent stablemate to the later version. The historical significance of the B model can't be overstated. While the model this team created is excellent, the D is where my heart lies.

 

As to the extra pair of .50 cals, there is no doubt of the extra punch they provide. But, I've always remembered this quote from Kit Carson, who stated his preference for the B model. "If you can't hit 'em with 4 guns, two more aren't going to make your aim any better."

 

Sadly, I've found this to be true.

With a well aimed burst, higher PK with more rounds in the air - the end.

The objective is to make him fly through your junk. More junk, more damage, more probability of hitting something critical.

[Rjel]

7 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

With a well aimed burst, higher PK with more rounds in the air - the end.

The objective is to make him fly through your junk. More junk, more damage, more probability of hitting something critical.

And Carson’s point was, if you can’t hit with four, you aren’t going to hit with six. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

For me the difference isn't hitting them or not, it's the end result, particularly on Bf 109s.  I seem to just get far more, ummm, violent results with the D. Explosions in particular, that I don't see with the 4 gun B.

 

A burst in the belly under the pilot often yields a very gratifying explosion, that I never get with the B.

Edited April 8, 2022 by BlitzPig_EL

[Gambit21]

15 minutes ago, Rjel said:

And Carson’s point was, if you can’t hit with four, you aren’t going to hit with six. 

 

I would contend that flying through a burst of 6  50's vs a burst of 4  50's is more likely to kill you.

Most pilots I've talked with agree with this assessment, which is why they preferred their Jugs to their Mustangs for certain things.

Meaning, 8  50's is more effective than 6  50's. 

 

No disrespect to Carson, but his fellow pilots don't necessarily agree with him.

[Asgar]

4 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I would contend that flying through a burst of 6  50's vs a burst of 4  50's is more likely to kill you.

Most pilots I've talked with agree with this assessment, which is why they preferred their Jugs to their Mustangs for certain things.

Meaning, 8  50's is more effective than 6  50's. 

 

No disrespect to Carson, but his fellow pilots don't necessarily agree with him.

Carson is still right, if you can't hit, it doesn't matter how many guns you got. P-51B is just better. looks better, flies better, looks almost as good as a 109

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, Asgar said:

Carson is still right, if you can't hit, it doesn't matter how many guns you got. P-51B is just better. looks better, flies better, looks almost as good as a 109

 

No, the point is that most shots are not straight, "enemy in your crosshairs", low-aspect shots. The kind of shot where you'd get a hit even if you were firing a single round.

Most shots are deflection shots, and some are extreme deflection shots. In this case you want more lead in the air so that when he flies  through your burst, he's more likely to sustain a critical hit. The "If you can't hit hit with 4, then you won't hit with 6" applies more to a simple, low aspect, "put the thing on the thing" sniper shot. In this case, yes he's correct and I'm sure any other pilot would agree.  That's not what I'm talking about since unless you've taken him by surprise, he's maneuvering.

 

One of 2 things is true in a 4 guns vs 6 gun equation. Either the dispersal pattern is smaller with 4 guns, or it's the same size and there's fewer rounds within it. In either case your chances of scoring a critical hit a real-world dogfight, snapshot situation is reduced. 

 

Further for ground attack purposes as I've said many times, there's reason why the Mustang pilots of the 352nd wanted their Jugs back when it came time to mount attacks against positions in Normandy. Not only were they more vulnerable, but they were putting half the rounds on the ground. 

 

Further still for breaking up German attacks with head-on passes (standard practice) more lead in the air was to their advantage (Robert Powell as per phone interview) and in this case the Jug was superior, followed by the D Mustang.  They still felt like they had an advantage over the Germans with 4 50's, but not nearly to the same extent.

 

Round in the air is just one of those "if some is good, more is better" equations. 

 

 

 

Look at it like this doe this statement hold true.

 

"if you can't hit him with a MK-108, then you can't hit him with 8x 50 cals"

 

True? Of course it isn't.  Same with 1 gun vs 4, or  6, or 8. Or 4 vs 8. Same same.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by Gambit21

[oc2209]

5 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

No, the point is that most shots are not straight, "enemy in your crosshairs", low-aspect shots. The kind of shot where you'd get a hit even if you were firing a single round.

Most shots are deflection shots, and some are extreme deflection shots. In this case you want more lead in the air so that when he flies  through your burst, he's more likely to sustain a critical hit. The "If you can't hit hit with 4, then you won't hit with 6" applies more to a simple, low aspect, "put the thing on the thing" sniper shot. In this case, yes he's correct and I'm sure any other pilot would agree.  That's not what I'm talking about since unless you've taken him by surprise, he's maneuvering.

 

I agree with your overall logic, but I disagree with 'most shots are not straight.'

 

I think quite the contrary, most kills on either side were made against either unaware targets, or against pilots who were so mediocre that their evasive maneuvers can only be described as lazy and uninspired. So, shallow deflection or no deflection.

 

There were proportionally very few screaming, eye-bursting negative-G dogfight kills compared to the rest.

 

*Rapid Edit:

 

If we're talking about the sim, yeah, most shots probably are high deflection. But I was referring to reality, which I assume you were too.

Edited April 8, 2022 by oc2209

[Gambit21]

5 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

I agree with your overall logic, but I disagree with 'most shots are not straight.'

 

I think quite the contrary, most kills on either side were made against either unaware targets, or against pilots who were so mediocre that their evasive maneuvers can only be described as lazy and uninspired. So, shallow deflection or no deflection.

 

There were proportionally very few screaming, eye-bursting negative-G dogfight kills compared to the rest.

 

*Rapid Edit:

 

If we're talking about the sim, yeah, most shots probably are high deflection. But I was referring to reality, which I assume you were too.

 

Well I think the point is "if you can't hit him with 6, you won't hit him with 8" doesn't hold true in all cases, which is the only point I'm making.

Being a good shot is an advantage in all cases obviously, even with high-deflection shots so even with all I've said I think Carson is on the money in a lot of circumstances.

[oc2209]

16 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Well I think the point is "if you can't hit him with 6, you won't hit him with 8" doesn't hold true in all cases, which is the only point I'm making.

 

I'm not disputing the fact that more shots = better. I just like to be the Debbie Downer and remind people that real air combat was pretty boring on average, and mostly involved sneaking up behind targets and figuratively clubbing them over the head.

 

Now, to the heart of the thread topic:

 

I placed myself in a P-51B versus a D, and a D versus a B. I handicapped the B with a 50% fuel load, while I pitied the D and so gave it a 34% load.

 

Both were given full engine/octane upgrades. No extra ammo.

 

While the AI can't turn the P-51 worth a dime, and therefore isn't much of a challenge, I still thought it'd be a funny experiment. As expected, the B turned inside the D much easier, even though, against the AI at least, the D could be made to turn inside the B. The latter was more of a struggle.

 

Recordings:

 

P-51B vs D :

 

Spoiler

 

 

P-51D vs B:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Now, if I'd managed to kill the pilot during the D's first opportunity, then the long turning engagement wouldn't have even happened. But luck wasn't on my side.

 

Long story short: I'd rather have the B's handling than the D's extra guns.

 

Flying in the 109 as often as I have, means I don't really care about how ugly and cramped the B's canopy feels. I do wish I could get rid of that infernal mirror, though.

Edited April 8, 2022 by oc2209

[IckyATLAS]

On 4/8/2022 at 9:26 PM, Gambit21 said:

 

I would contend that flying through a burst of 6  50's vs a burst of 4  50's is more likely to kill you.

Most pilots I've talked with agree with this assessment, which is why they preferred their Jugs to their Mustangs for certain things.

Meaning, 8  50's is more effective than 6  50's. 

 

No disrespect to Carson, but his fellow pilots don't necessarily agree with him.

 

I would also tend not to agree with Carson in general:

This is due to bullet dispersion. With six you have a higher density of bullets on the same volume of space and thus it is less likely that the enemy flies through unscathed.

It should also allow you to have hits at a larger distance because of dispersion again slightly compensated by more bullets. And if you do a strafing pass more bullets mean a shorter step size between bullets and again a higher chance of hitting a target along the bullet path.

But he would be right if you are completely off the target like being behind your target (not enough lead or too much and wrong compensation for the curved bullet trajectory due to gravity, more visible the further the target) and in which case it will make no difference.

If you are firing in front a letting the enemy fly through your bullets here again higher bullet density should help.

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by IckyATLAS

[[CPT]Crunch]

Effective dispersion is good, but even better is having the right tool to get what guns you do have on the mark.  All the guns in the world won't save you if you can't connect flying a brick.  It's a matter of connection and comfort with your preferred frame, man and machine is the winning combo.    

[spreckair]

Maybe this:  If you can't hit him with 4, you won't hit him with 6; however, if you can hit him with 4, then 6 is even better!  Simple.

[jollyjack]

BTW It's the same with this stuff: