Best Prop Plane??????

[Widewing]

I took a few minutes and flew the P-51B at 25% gas and a P-47D-25 with 50% gas and performed some turn radius tests. Both aircraft were flying with full flaps and WEP engaged. Altitude was about 50 feet ASL. I was well into stall buffet in both types, on the ragged edge of an accelerated stall.

Viewing the films, I selected Fixed view and rotated to a view from directly above at max zoom out. I then took screen shots and combined the images for comparison.

The image is below. Note that the Jug, even with more weight of fuel, turns tighter than the P-51B.



My regards,

Widewing

[Viking]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
Well, you're a perverse compulsive liar, so it doesn't matter what you think.

LOL it obviously matters to you or you wouldn't have replied. Oh does that make you a liar? Why yes it does!

I always consider your posts BS. You're always full of BS and nothing but. I don't think you do it on purpose, you just can't help it, being a such a simpleton and all.

[Platano]

k4

Superb climbing

Superb Acceleration

Above Average TopSpeed

Average Turning when Using FLaps ANd throttle Management

Good Diving When Using Trim

Has Enough Power To go Vertical WHen in a Stallin Scissors with a U4 and come back down with an angle for a kill shot

ANd best of all...

It shoots High Explosive Potatoes

This is why I believe the K4 is the best prop plane in the Game

[toonces3]

I've had good luck with the K4, and I've seen it do some amazing things (yes, I'm talking about you PhuManChu).

But, the K4 certainly takes some experience and finesse to get the most out of, wouldn't you agree?  It's not a plane one can take up for a sortie and dominate in without some flight hours under their belt.

[Platano]

lol "phumanchu"

[SteveBailey]

Originally posted by Platano
k4

Superb climbing

Superb Acceleration

Above Average TopSpeed

Average Turning when Using FLaps ANd throttle Management

Good Diving When Using Trim

Has Enough Power To go Vertical WHen in a Stallin Scissors with a U4 and come back down with an angle for a kill shot

ANd best of all...

It shoots High Explosive Potatoes

This is why I believe the K4 is the best prop plane in the Game

If the -4 isn't, the k4 certainly is.  

I wish 51's weren't so crummy compared to other late war rides.  I enjoy flying them but the disadvantage against late war rides  is hard for my meager skills to overcome

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Karnak
Incorrect.  Cutting throttle tightens the turn because you are decelerating, not due to a change in thrust.

The difference between MIL and WEP is mostly in keeping the nose higher.  But differences in thrust produced by WWII fighters doesn't tighten or loosen the turn significantly.

No, no, no!  Cutting the throttle worsens the turn, not only sustained turns but all turns below corner turning speed (which is quite high; for instance, it's 230 M.P.H. for the P-38).  It worsens it by a great deal.  Adding power greatly enhances the turning ability except for above corner turning speed.  And corner turning speed is far from sustainable (unless you make a very, very wide turn that even an idiot can stay inside of).

If you want to see how power affects turning ability, make a sustained turn at best sustained turning speed.  This will probably be around 165 M.P.H. for most U.S. ships with a light load.  Try it at 80% throttle, then try it at war emergency power.  You'll be amazed at how much better it turns with more power.  It's why the F4U-4 turns so much better than the other Corsairs.

Originally posted by Viking
You're always full of BS and nothing but. I don't think you do it on purpose, you just can't help it, being a such a simpleton and all.

Hee hee!  My simple-mindedness must be the reason I pointed out a link which proves you wrong.  You know, you are not scoring many points for the afterlife with all of your deceit and falsehood.  But, hey, it's too late for anyone to try to amend your parents' mistakes.  Oh, well.

[Viking]

Afterlife? Are you some kind of religious nut as well as a retard? Of course ... one usually follows the other. Your link does not prove that allied airmen boosted their rides more than was officially allowed. You're still completely full of BS.

[Benny Moore]

Are you some kind of godless creep as well as a liar?  Of course, one usually follows the other.

Originally posted by Viking
Your link does not prove that allied airmen boosted their rides more than was officially allowed.

You are, of course, putting words into my mouth, you smirking, two-faced snake.  I said that they boosted them more than the pilot manual numbers were; in fact, I said that those "higher than pilots manual" numbers were official, even if they never made it into the manuals.

Of course, there were also pilots who said that they ran their P-38s at 85".  I'm not sure whether to assume that those were, at some point and for some units, officially approved numbers or if they were running unofficial boosts.  But I do know that you'd disregard that, like all else, even if the man told you himself.  You only believe something if Herr Goebbels tells it to you.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
You are, of course, putting words into my mouth, you smirking, two-faced snake.  I said that they boosted them more than the pilot manual numbers were; in fact, I said that those "higher than pilots manual" numbers were official, even if they never made it into the manuals.

So you're saying the pilot's handbook (I assume that's what you meant) of the P-51D was not updated or amended throughout the war? I sincerely believe you're wrong. In any case 100/150 avgas was used by only a few units in the closing months of the war. If you also do some thinking (I know it's hard for you) you'll notice than none of the 1944 planes have their 1945 engines/fuel/boost-level. We don't have the +25 lbs spitfires, Mosquitoes or Mustang III/IV. Nor do we have the +22.5 (or thereabouts) P-51B/C/D. On the other side of the fence we don't have the 2400 hp C3 fueled 109K-4 only the 2000 hp B4 fueled one. Nor do we have the Jumo 213F powered 1945 Fw 190D, only the Jumo 213A-1 powered 1944 version. With the exception of the planes that only entered service in 1945 (Ta 152 for example) none of the planes are modeled with late 1944-45 boost levels, fuel or equipment.

But don't let that stop you from ranting on. It's very entertaining.

[Angus]

I asked a Spitfire pilot if he flew according to the manual.
Answer was NO. One would break all parameters quoted in the book.

[Viking]

Yeah, I'm sure everybody did that at one point or another. Hard to quantify for a simulation though.

[Benny Moore]

I didn't say that it needed to be in the simulator.  I simply pointed out that the real pilots often ran them above the numbers in the pilot manuals, to which you replied "B.S."  And now you say you're sure that they all did that at some point?

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Viking
In any case 100/150 avgas was used by only a few units in the closing months of the war.

The 8th AF used 150 fuel from mid 1944.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/361st-24june44.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/359th-150grade-1jul44.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/150-fuel-13-june44-b.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

[Viking]

Cool.

I am however a bit surprised by the modest increase in engine power: Max 1860 hp on Merlin V-1650-7 with 100/150 fuel. I'm also surprised that according to the P-51 150 octane tests at wwiiaircraftperformance the P-51's max speed at 75" boost (150 octane) was only 431 mph, and at 67" boost the top speed was only 426 mph (both speeds are with wing racks as modeled in AH). Also the best speed altitude dropped to 20,600 feet. Even without wing racks the top speed with 70" boost was only 444 mph. Seems that even without 100/150 fuel the AH Mustang outperforms its real-life counterparts.


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-24771-level-blue.jpg