P51D needs to be removed from the game

[Karnak]

MY GODS!!!!

What is with this sudden burst of F4U-1C (and P-51) whinning?

What did I miss?

Sisu
-Karnak

[Yeager]

Today I got my bellybutton handed to me by whels1 me P51 he C-Hog.  I know whels1 is damned capable but the things he did with that FM were just too much for me.

I filmed it and looked at it and thought the vertical work was simply too much to purchase with any sort of faith.  Its just reached a point where I dont trust the FMs on some of these planes any more.

Not a slam Whels, fantastic work.  Do the lords work with the tools provided but I really think we have way too much energy surviving some of these high G manoevers!

Yeager

[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 12-19-2000).]

[gatt]

Hehe, Rip, you'll not succeed in shifting the whine from the C-Hog to the Pony   I like Ponies and skilled Pony drivers.

[SKurj]

About the only ACM i do is rope a dope..  I rope chogs, 51's, 109's, spits, N1K's u name it.  I'd say roughly 9 of 10 attempts I am successful in stalling out my opponent while managing to live to be able to drop on him (my aim sux so unfortunately only about 1 in 5 ropes actually gets the kill)
I heard on my FE 4-5 pings tonight from a chog (i was in dhog) from about 800 yrds (on my FE) all he did was takeoff 1 elevator.  LoL Booky (the chog pilot) and i had a great fight IMO (he likely donesn't agree) it lasted 5 mins plus with myself maintaining the advantage and eventually winning. The best part was it was a solid 1 v 1 with no raiders.  Anyways back to my point... In all my ropin attempts I see ALOT of tracers coming at me, which 95% of the time miss.  If the range on my FE drops below 800 on my FE when i am still pointy side up I worry.  Otherwise I know i am relatively safe.  I just don't die from 1 ping kills.

And just to dispell any hog whining, I Roped roper in his chog, in a 47d30 at medium alt coupla days ago as well.  Chog, Dhog = FM fine, guns = fine IMO

I think the chog issue is possibly this...  with 900 rounds a chog can spray at ya, and a 20 mm spray is gonna be more effective at 800 yrds than a .50.  Hell i spray with 50's all the time, get hits too, If i had 3400 rounds of 20mm I'd get a helluva lot more kills due to my spray and pray tactics  

AKskurj

[senna]

Bok bok bok  

I like killing runstangs when I can catch them.

-- senna

 

Originally posted by Ripsnort:
 Right now, not many people fly it.  But if it became more popular than the Chog or Niki, then we could name this game P51's High.  It simply should not be in here, its too fast, it can get out of trouble anytime it wants to and its guns are more than adequate (see my 34 to 1 K/D ratio).  At least the Chog can be caught and shot down, and if a person flys really smart, one can stay away from the business end of the Chog, however, nothing can be done about this Uber-Stang.  It upsets gameplay.  Please remove it HT, Pyro!  Thanks!

[Tac]

heh, take away the CHOG and then you can take away the pony if you want.

You gotta know how to fly the pony to get kills in it.

Give an 8 year old kid the controls of a CHOG and he gets kills. See my previous threads on this, its a true story.

[senna]

Well there were only 200 produced during wa wa 2. Thats not very much in comparison to what we tend to see online in AH. To be honest, I've adapted to this new Chog rich environment (after some time of course). But the air could be more diverse in AC types and not only the types we have now but future types we dont have yet. Would b more fun to see a D9's potential against a spits rather than against armies of chogs. The difference is like tag team futball and real football  
-- senna

[Dingy]

 

Originally posted by Ripsnort:
You mean I'm flying it like the TAS does?!? OMG!!!  Actually, most all my kills are under 20k, and I always maintain E, whether in a Pony or F4U. Only a fool would bleed his E in a pony.

Im a fool!  I bleed E all the time, whoohooo!!  HEE HEE! HA HA!  How else can I turn inside a spit, yak or Nik to keel em!  TA HA! TEE HEE!  

DINGY IS A FOOL! DINGY IS A FOOL!! <hops around>

-Ding

[LLv34_Camouflage]

 

Originally posted by RAM:

Fact is: in WWII Hispanos were known for:

1-Jamming
2-Overheating in sustained bursts
3-Freezing over 15000 feet

and for:

1-high muzzle vel.
2-Heavy projectile with good ballistics.

I simply think that the two latter things are "TOO" well represented in AH, while the 3 former ARE NOT EVEN SHOWN HERE.

Morane Saulnier 406's of the Finnish Air Force were originally fitted with a Hispano-Suiza 20mm cannon, shooting through the propellor spinner. I believe it is the exact same hispano cannon as in AH. The finns found the cannon to be completely pathetic (only 60 round magazine, but cannon usually jammed after 2-3 shots) and replaced it with a 50cal browning, russian 12.7mm berezina mg or finnish 12.7mm LKK mg.  The resulting combat effectiveness was better.  In the later stages of the war the Moranes were fitted with 20mm mauser cannons (same as in 109 G) which really boosted their firepower.

And this I have read from a dozen books.

Camo

------------------
Camouflage
XO, Lentolaivue 34
 www.muodos.fi/LLv34

Brewster into AH!

"The really good pilots use their superior judgement to keep them out of situations
where they might be required to demonstrate their superior skill."

[Nashwan]

 

The British had a lot of early problems with unreliable firing with the Hispano, and solved them by shortening the chamber (by 2mm) to make sure that the firing pin would strike the primer with sufficient force, and urged the USA to do the same (the British wanted complete standardisation between both countries' production). The Americans, after testing the guns in April 1942, decided not to bother.

However, concern was expressed by US ammo manufacturers that the misfires which kept occurring were the gun's fault, not theirs, so further US tests were held between June 1942 and January 1943. The results of the tests
were...a recommendation to shorten the chamber! (but not as short as in the British guns). Various other detailed changes were made, following which some guns were sent over to the UK for testing in July and August 1943 and
showed themselves to be as good as British production. Only at this point were US guns accepted by the British as "acceptable for service use".

The problem was that the USA had already made 56,410 guns (no less). These guns effectively had to be remanufactured to the new standard. In February 1944 all AN-M2 production stopped. At that time there were still 35,955 long-chamber guns in store, classified as "unserviceable". Most were later converted to M3s.

Chinn goes on to give details of the operational performance of the AN-M2. The USN mounted some 90% of these guns, the USAAF making very little use of them. Incidentally, the M1 version was for engine mounting and not used in service, although several hundred were made (also incidentally, for some reason US production of the 60-round drum feed carried on into 1944 and nearly 30,000 were made).

First use by the USN was in the SB-2C when a test batch was sent out in 1943 and evaluated in combat, the first action being in March 1944. Factory representatives accompanied the cannon to the front. To quote Chinn; "These expert technicians sent back voluminous reports that explained the
malfunctions that did occur were due to one of three things; failure of the feeder, bad ammunition and improper maintenance. Their zeal in clearing the gun itself in every instance casts doubt upon the validity of the reports."

Some 5,800 USN planes were fitted with 11,600 guns. The SB-2C and SB-W aircraft were the principal planes carrying this weapon into combat, along with a very limited number of F4U-1Cs. It was therefore hardly ever used by fighters and shot down very few aircraft.

Chinn says; "With the mounting of the 20mm cannon in Navy planes a series of malfunctions began that could not be properly corrected at the time as manufacture was at the peak of production...the most serious problem was the
oversize chamber. There still remained considerable variance in dimensions between the chambers of the British and US cannon...". A curious explanation for the poor standards of manufacture which plagued the AN-M2 was that, being over .60" (15mm) calibre, it was considered to be an
artillery weapon rather than a small arm. It was therefore built to artillery manufacturing tolerances, which were not tight enough for this weapon. As a "quick fix", the USN liberally coated the ammunition with a heavy lubricant (which the British specifically banned from their Hispanos).
Some 32,000 M3s had also been delivered by the end of the war and these suffered the same problems as the AN-M2.

After the end of the war, all of the problems were analysed and a development programme was put in hand to correct them, work being successfully carried out over the next few years. In conclusion, Chinn says; "Nothing was basically wrong with the weapon. Its wartime performance, good or bad, was the result of having being bought in desperation, put into mass production without first having been adequately proved, and then modified regularly to meet a future commitment before the previous model had been made to function reliably."

Unfortunately Chinn, a USMC officer, did not comment on the gun in USAF service. It would be interesting to know how it fared in the P-38.

On a personal note, I am well aware that when the firing pin strike is only just good enough to fire the primer, such minor details as the characteristics of the metal forming the primer cap can be very significant. The fact that the guns performed well in the UK could have been simply due to a softer or thinner primer cap material, or even that the primer protruded slightly more, in the ammunition used in the tests. Alternatively, as
its problems partly resulted from excessive manufacturing tolerances, it would have been possible to produce satisfactory guns by carefully selecting and matching components. However I'm sure that the Americans would never
consider doing something so devious and underhand to their old ally, perish the thought  (Image removed from quote.)

The other point concerns the need to oil the cartridges. This was never entirely dispensed with as even the Mk 16, in USN service in the 1980s as a deck gun, had a built-in cartridge oiler. Yet the British decided they didn't like this and, according to Wallace, changed the cartridge to avoid the need to oil it (this is supported by the official manual, which specifically bans oiling). The problem is, I have never been able to find out what changes were made,
and it begs all sorts of questions about the interchangeability of British v. other nations' ammunition etc.

The postwar USAF one would have been the M24, which was converted to electrical ignition. I don't have any information about problems with that.

Tony Williams
 http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/

Military gun and ammunition website

[BUG_EAF322]

I love the CHOG after emptying half my ammo on it , it still acts like a good target.

I admire their one ping kills.

Especially their most common used tactic go straight up for a HO losing all E a manouvre i am afraid to use. Takes a lot off guts to do that  

[BigMax]

 

It simply should not be in here, its too fast, it can get out of trouble anytime it wants to and its guns are more than adequate (see my 34 to 1 K/D ratio). B]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that actually how this plane performed?!?!? Bravo Zulu to HTC for an accurate representation of a P-51D. Perhaps modelling a FW-190D "Stang Killer" would satisfy the "UBERSTANGERS".....?
A P-51 is only as good as its pilots ability to evaluate his current situation & his ability to manage energy... Flown by a DWEEB, It's just dead...

BigMax "Feeling the Love!"

[TheWobble]

i have no love for those that piss on the pony.