Help me understand something...

[Bodhi]

No, trust me.

Should we trust you like when you said you had 200 foot tall pine trees?

Should we trust you like when you said the Polesti raid was conducted above 4k exclusively?

I am curious as to why anyone would trust you...

This was nobody special. Typical ho-an-yank pilot in the spitty. Very low on the skill chart. And no it wasn't a "fake dip" because he had to completely roll under himself to recover.

Spits are just UFOs in this game.

wahhh, mommy, make the mean cartoon airplane game easier for me...  wahhh

[Stoney]

i still think it's got more to do to their weights, and power to weight ratios than anything........[/list]

Rate of climb is affected largely by power loading, so you're correct on that part.

Top speed is a function of thrust/drag.  Obviously, the Spit has better power loading, hence better rate of climb.  And, if you assume that both aircraft get the same amount of thrust out of the same powerplant, the P-51 has lower drag.  Or perhaps North American figured out a way to get more thrust out of the same engine and the aircraft have the same drag coefficient.  Luckily, we know from test data that the P-51 drag coefficient is lower than the Spitfire Cd, so we don't have to guess there.  We would need to do some math to determine whether or not the P-51 creates more thrust than the Spit 16 (or perhaps test data already exists). 

So, to answer the OP's question, we don't have to talk about induced drag or energy retention.

[CAP1]

Rate of climb is affected largely by power loading, so you're correct on that part.

Top speed is a function of thrust/drag.  Obviously, the Spit has better power loading, hence better rate of climb.  And, if you assume that both aircraft get the same amount of thrust out of the same powerplant, the P-51 has lower drag.  Or perhaps North American figured out a way to get more thrust out of the same engine and the aircraft have the same drag coefficient.  Luckily, we know from test data that the P-51 drag coefficient is lower than the Spitfire Cd, so we don't have to guess there.  We would need to do some math to determine whether or not the P-51 creates more thrust than the Spit 16 (or perhaps test data already exists). 

So, to answer the OP's question, we don't have to talk about induced drag or energy retention.

the p51 is heavier. thus it will carry a bit more momentum. it's also cleaner aerodynamicly, along with what appears to be a more efficient prop, also helping its top speed.[/list]

[MiloMorai]

Agh Krusty, some P-51B/C's also got a fin fillet because of instability.

[Anaxogoras]

Quite understated actually.  What I was trying to point out, diplomatically, was that you cannot answer the OP's question by comparing induced drag.  The difference in the induced drag of either plane is not the property that differentiates the two aircraft with respect to the original question. 

Well, thanks for going easy on me!   I know you know more about this stuff than I do and I'd love to hear your correct explanation.

[dtango]

Hi guys I'm travelling so don't have a lot of time to respond at the moment.  Anax with correction by Stoney includes a part of the answer by mentioning induce drag.  CAP1's answer is better with mention of power to weight loading. 

Let me give another hint.  Here's the key relationship to understand.

Ps = (Thrust - Drag ) * Velocity / Weight

Ps is "Specific Excess Power" and represents the energy balance of an airplane.  Study and understand this relationship and you'll unlock the more comprehensive explanation for the faster P-51D but yet the better energy retaining and in the vertical Spitfire.

Cheers!

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Krusty]

Agh Krusty, some P-51B/C's also got a fin fillet because of instability.

(Image removed from quote.)

I was referring more to in-game, milo. I do recall some razorbacks had fillets, but the D models were more spin-prone and once p51Ds departed they had an unrecoverable stall. I believe even the pilot handbook tells the pilots to 'just bail, it's unrecoverable, save themselves.' [paraphrase]

[BnZs]

I was referring more to in-game, milo. I do recall some razorbacks had fillets, but the D models were more spin-prone and once p51Ds departed they had an unrecoverable stall. I believe even the pilot handbook tells the pilots to 'just bail, it's unrecoverable, save themselves.' [paraphrase]

No. Not even close.

There are incidents of pilots deliberately putting a P-51D into a spin as a defensive maneuver.

[Nilsen]

Had 2 squaddies witness it. I believe B2B and Snaphook, or B2B and Gumby, maybe?

Edit: regardless, that's not the only BS the spit has shown. You can have a spixteen dweeb HO you, pull a 180 behind you as you continue straight, and then accelerate and close to kill range from behind you while you retained full speed the entire time. The Spits are bogus.

Yup had that happens to me alot. And then there is the spixteen flipflop thing where they just start spinning, flopping and twirling around to get away from your shot.

Spixteen is the perfect planer for arcade gamers. Thankfully most of those who fly em are utterly useless even with their trackIR,  hotas, pedals and whatever aids they need to game. 

[bozon]

Spits do not out zoom the 51. At least not when starting from decent speeds. I did a zoom test way WAY back (AHII beta), the flight model has been tweaked since then, but I don't think that the conclusion will be different:

Spits are mediocre zoomers. However, the advantage of the "best" zoomers is quite small and will often not be more than 100-300 feet, meaning less than 100 yards. Even a slight energy advantage to the spit will result in it zooming to the same alt. The major factor that makes the light planes seem to be good zoomers is the great stall stability that almost ALL AH planes posses.

Normally, the player have no fear of full-power, extreme attitude stalls. This means that the hovercrafts gain an advantage not by zooming higher, but by zooming longer. The P51 will pull away only a little and start falling back while the spit/zeke/F4u(!) is still pointing up, hanging in there deep in the stall. It is not going up, but from the POV of the falling P51 it looks like it is closing the distance (but it doesn't get any alt at all). The little extra zoom of the 51 (~100 yards or less) is not enough to get it out of gun range and the stably hovering plane below can hose it down during this phase.

I blame the FM easy stalls on this. In real life, no WWII plane (I think) will be stalled until it falls tail-forward with full power on. If it does, the consequences will be severe. It means that there will not be a long hover period at the top of the zoom and power needs to be reduced to maintain control. E-retention becomes more important than power-loading and deep stall stability. The higher zoomer also zooms longer or equal in time.

[Bronk]

And then there is the spixteen flipflop thing where they just start spinning, flopping and twirling around to get away from your shot.

Ohh just like the fw-190 patented neg g into the land trout maneuver? Or the the 109 falling leaf move?

Cmon nils any ac can be stick stirred.

[Nilsen]

Ohh just like the fw-190 patented neg g into the land trout maneuver? Or the the 109 falling leaf move?

Cmon nils any ac can be stick stirred.

Nothing like the spixteen Bronk

[Krusty]

No. Not even close.

There are incidents of pilots deliberately putting a P-51D into a spin as a defensive maneuver.

Somebody posted actual scans of a P51 manual and it showed this info. It was some time ago, I did not save them (I have little interest in the P51 references, so I don't save 'em).

The P51 did have a lethal spin, and not just with the aux tank filled. It USED to spin much more in tight turns in this game, long ago. It has been dulled down. It and many other planes have a VERY hard time spinning now.

[CAP1]

i found this::::::

Some World War II airplanes were notoriously prone to flat spins when loaded erroneously, such as the Bell P-39 Airacobra. The P-39 was a unique design with the engine behind the pilot's seat and a large cannon in the front. Without ammunition or a counterbalance load in the nose compartment, the P-39's center of gravity was too far aft to recover from a spin. Soviet pilots did numerous tests of the P-39 and were able to demonstrate its dangerous spinning characteristics. Bell then issued a recommendation to bail out if the airplane entered a spin. North American P-51 Mustangs with auxiliary fuel tanks not originally designed for the P-51 suffered from the same problem. Similarly, the Vought F4U Corsair was reputed to have appalling stall and spin recovery characteristics, even in the "clean" (no stores) configuration.



here:::::::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(flight)

[BnZs]

Somebody posted actual scans of a P51 manual and it showed this info. It was some time ago, I did not save them (I have little interest in the P51 references, so I don't save 'em).

The P51 did have a lethal spin, and not just with the aux tank filled. It USED to spin much more in tight turns in this game, long ago. It has been dulled down. It and many other planes have a VERY hard time spinning now.

I agree, most of the aircraft seem rather hard to get into a spin, and impossible to do a pretty hammerhead.

What I say about deliberate spins in the P-51 can be backed up though...it can and has been done. But there are alot of variables. Even the Corsair *can* recover from a spin...ask William Kershner...though you wouldn't want to try it, especially close to the ground.