RL Mustang vs AH Mustang

[5PointOh]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
There are fuel gauges in the cockpit of the Mustang.  Its the gauge with two needles inside of one dial.

I think, you are refering to the Fuel Pressure gauge.

[HomeBoy]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
There are fuel gauges in the cockpit of the Mustang.  Its the gauge with two needles inside of one dial.

Not sure of your point here.  I stated that there are gauges in the cockpit, just not on the instrument panel.  The wing tank gauges are on the floor just inside the fuse wall where the fuel lines run into the tank.  The fuse tank gauge is actually behind the seat and you had to turn your head around to actually read it.  There were no drop tank gauges at all.  I'm sure the plumbing was just too complicated and therefore abandoned.

Personally, I'm glad there are fuel gauges on the IP as well as flap position indicators, trim indicators, and gun round counters in AH.  I didn't post this originally to try and effect change for AH.  I'm quite happy with the compromises AH has made between realism and fun.

I read one first hand account of a Mustang pilot who flew all the way from France to England with wep engaged.  Engine wear may have resulted, but it didn't damage the engine in flight.

Good point.  Well, it's like everything in life.  Sometimes you just get lucky.  I remember as a starving teenager hardly able to rub two nickels together driving my old piece of junk Chevy home from work one night with basically no oil in the engine (because it had leaked out) and it neither seized or caused so much damage that it never ran again.  That was a bit of a miracle I think.  Things like that do happen from time to time.  I'd be willing to bet that other pilots had their engines ruined by excessive wep.

The tail mounted radar was difficult to accurately adjust.  Pilots complained of getting false signals when the sensitivity was turned up (wingmen usually caused the false signals).  When it was turned down enough that the pilot's wingman wouldn't activate the warning, it was useless.

Same thing with the IFF I'm sure.

There is one other comparison that I forgot to include in my original post.  With respect to flaps:

It takes 10-15 seconds to extend/retract flaps from one extreme to the other.  

The flaps control is on the lower back portion of the throttle box.  I wonder how reasonable it was to "milk the flaps" the way we do given the transition delay and inconvenience of the control placement.  Certainly you had to take your hand off the throttle to drop the flaps but I guess it was something that you could get good at with practice.  Still, I somehow doubt they worked the flaps quite as much as we do.

[Golfer]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
There are fuel gauges in the cockpit of the Mustang.  Its the gauge with two needles inside of one dial.
 

They're on the floor panel to the right of the seat.  Below the canopy crank for a reference.

[Ghastly]

The "10 second rule" was implemented in WWIIOL shortly after it was found out that some aircraft were capable of tremendously greater acceleration and significantly higher top-end speeds inverted than they were right side up.  There was also a flap over the implementation of it because some of the Axis aircraft that benefited most from the bug also had oil delivery systems that would probably have allowed for longer periods of inverted flight.  

I too felt it added to the game.

And with respect to the spirit of the thread, the same is true of the F4U pilot manuals - we "push our birds" around in ways that would have horrified the designers of the real aircraft.

And not to start a mine is bigger than yours war over sims, but one of the things that makes TW so much fun to fly is that some of that complexity is modeled. (Solely in my own dweebery opinion, your milage may vary, etc. etc. ...)

[AquaShrimp]

I really thought the fuel pressure gauge was a fuel amount gauge.  Thats why I thought you had posted an error.

[toonces3]

Great post Homeboy- thanks for taking the time to write all of that!

One of the things that caught my mind was the g-limits with ord on the wings.  I had totally forgotten about that from when I used to fly in real life.  Is that modeled in the game at all?  Are the wings more prone to structural failure when pulling G's with 1000 lb. bombs on the wings?

With respect to the flaps, that's another good point.  I was reading one of my dad's old TopGun manuals years ago and there was a part in there regarding flap use in the F-4 Phantom.  Basically it said not to use them and that if you saw your opponents flaps coming out you had a couple seconds advantage on him because he'd have to physically manipulate the flap switch.  

There was a time when I wanted uber-realism, but I'm at the point now where I enjoy the game as-is.  

Thanks again Homeboy, that was a really interesting read.

[BaldEagl]

Originally posted by toonces3
Is that modeled in the game at all?  Are the wings more prone to structural failure when pulling G's with 1000 lb. bombs on the wings?

I'm pretty sure it is.  I have a tendancy to snap the wings on the F6F if I'm heavy and not careful.  Without ord it almost never happens.


Great post Homeboy.  Fun to read.

[AquaShrimp]

On an interesting note, I watched a documentary on a P-47 pilot.  On one dive bombing mission, a P-47 entered a dive.  However, the bomb release malfunctioned and the pilot had to pull out of the dive with his bombs on.  It damaged the wings and the pilot had to return to base.

Source: PBS Documentary

I read an account about the P-51 too.  A pilot entered an extended dive and exceeded 550mph (possibly much higher).  The wings on the Mustang were bent nearly 3 feet at the wingtips.

Source: P-51 Mustang (forgot the author)

[ImMoreBetter]

Originally posted by Simaril

Not as sure about the K-14. When its been implemented elsewhere, did the pilot actually have to input the wing dimensions and range?

Without those requirements, the gunsight would essentially be the Korean era radar equipped K14 -- no way does that belong in AH! On the other hand, making pilots take the time to get that stuff entered would about erase the advantage for the purposes of AH. Our environment has much greater threat density than was present in WW2, and our fights are WAY more likely to be fast changing dogfights. In real life, the vast majority of kills came from unseen enemies shooting non-evading targets...so the K14 could make  a real impact. Correctly modelled, I doubt it would help practical gunnery in Aces High.

Yes, this is modeled in IL2. It's very slow and ineffective, unless you sacrifice a few sliders. I don't recall many people getting good enough to use them effectively.

[Viking]

I repeat my question:

"WEP is completely ineffective below 5k." Why would that be? If this is true the shouldn't the Pony be able to reach its top deck speed at MIL power alone?

[crockett]

Originally posted by Viking
Hmm ... why would that be?

Most likely fuel air mixture..

[HomeBoy]

Originally posted by Viking
If this is true the shouldn't the Pony be able to reach its top deck speed at MIL power alone?

Yes.  The manual says exactly that.

[AquaShrimp]

Well maybe this explains the P-51 pilot who flew halfway across France to England in WEP.  He got jumped by some bandits during an escort mission.  If the engine won't produce any more power in wep on the deck, then it shouldn't damage it right?

[Widewing]

Originally posted by HomeBoy
Yes.  The manual says exactly that.

Please double check that Homeboy. I'm looking at the power chart for the V-1650-7 and using WEP (67 in/hg) at sea level, and it boosts hp from 1,490 to 1,650. This is a 10% increase in power and that will absolutely make a significant difference. Power increases to 1,720 hp at 6,250 feet.

Likewise, the V-1650-3 in the P-51B shows a power increase using WEP at sea level.

The P-51D/V-1650-7 power chart correlates very well to this power chart from Flight Tests on the North American P-51D Airplane, AAF No. 44-15342 at Wright Field on 15 June, 1945.



If the manual does in fact state that "WEP is completely ineffective below 5k", then the manual is at odds with the historical test records. In short, the manual would be wrong in that regard.

My regards,

Widewing

[Virage]

Compression in a p51, that can't be right.

Thanks for the post.