P51 wing loading

[RTHolmes]

I was comparing turn radius without flaps, as this is the only AH data available on gonzoville and RL data from wwiiaircraftperformance.org. gonzoville has data for full flaps as well, but as I and others have suggested, this isn't a useful comparison for realistic ACM, and not a configuration they tested during WWII.

http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=p51d&p2=p47d11&p3=p47d25&p4=p47d40

wwiiaircraftperformance.org has data showing a 47C radius about the same as a 51B, consistent with AH's D11 and 51B data. BnZ's diagram shows the Mustang III (51B/C) outturning the Thunderbolt II (D25), again consistent with AH.

gonzoville doesnt give the test conditions - fuel load for equivalent range perhaps? perhaps WW could shed some light on this?

[Stoney]

Sarcasm aside - all I can do is look at the performance of the planes before and after, and ask WHY there were such drastic changes in performance (I seem to recall Widewing comparing the turning circle of the 190s before and after - and the after circle was 20% larger).  To me, drastic changes in the flight model with no explanation of why is ... unacceptable. 

Well, BnZ did mention the types of flaps--if indeed slotted flaps were made more effective.  Does anyone have any comparisons of Spitfire turning circles before and after that version?  If plain flaps were made less effective, it should show up in the king of plain-flap turning circles.  If anyone remembers the anchor that was the last notch of P-38 flaps from that update, I was always interested in what was changed to make that go away, even though those are Fowlers.   However, I personally would not classify the difference in the Pony's behavior before and after as "drastic".  Conspicuous perhaps, but not earth-shattering.

[iTunes]

The bottom line, the good flyers in ponies were good before the update and still are, the guys who fly the pony "Duke Nukem MA style" are still going to be just that.

[Steve]

The bottom line, the good flyers in ponies were good before the update and still are, the guys who fly the pony "Duke Nukem MA style" are still going to be just that.

I'm sure you are right. I'm not declaring myself "good" but I did have to make some adjustments with the update.

[Chalenge]

Well, BnZ did mention the types of flaps--if indeed slotted flaps were made more effective.  Does anyone have any comparisons of Spitfire turning circles before and after that version?  If plain flaps were made less effective, it should show up in the king of plain-flap turning circles.  If anyone remembers the anchor that was the last notch of P-38 flaps from that update, I was always interested in what was changed to make that go away, even though those are Fowlers.   However, I personally would not classify the difference in the Pony's behavior before and after as "drastic".  Conspicuous perhaps, but not earth-shattering.

I have filmed guys using flaps in a spit but... why? They are always easy kills.

[Stoney]

I have filmed guys using flaps in a spit but... why? They are always easy kills.

[sigh]...

[SgtPappy]

RTHolmes, I believe the tests are actually carried out with full fuel. I came to this conclusion after taking a look at some of WW's turn radius tests at full fuel. I saw that they were more or less consistent with the turn radius measurements at Gonzo's.

What is strange are the amount of differing information there is on the Mustang.

One of the NACA tests I have on my home computer states that the P-51's of all models had slotted flaps and that the D version had 235 sq. ft. of wing area.

Another test I have compares a field-standard P-51D-15 with an F4U-1. This test by NACA states that the P-51D has plain flaps and a wing area of 240.1 sq. ft.

[iTunes]

I'm sure you are right. I'm not declaring myself "good" but I did have to make some adjustments with the update.

Ah. C'mon man, your good in that thing  But I guess what I'm trying to say is the guys like you will still fly it the way it's mean't to be flown and tghe dweebs, well they won't notice any stuble changes.
Said this once and I'll say it again, it's a shame the pony gets flown the way it does by so many, it ends up getting a bad rap when it's the Duke nukems that are the issue and not the pony. It's just that the majority of the ack huggers and runers/ split sers follwed by the quick dive crowd tend to stick to the pony.

[Murdr]

gonzoville doesnt give the test conditions - fuel load for equivalent range perhaps? perhaps WW could shed some light on this?

Here is a copy of the data that was used... Mosq's turn data AHv2.07.  Test conditions are on the last page.

[Murdr]

Oh, by the way.  The dokgonzo/mosq 2.07 data is not up to date for flaps on either the P-38G/J/L, or the P-51B/D. 

2.08 changes:

Fixed a bug in the P-38 flaps that was causing excessive drag with full flaps.

Made some minor corrections to the lift and drag properties of the P-51 flaps.

 

[BnZs]

The figure that BnZ posted is ridiculous. It is nothing more than someone's schematic impression of the general turning ability.

Believe me, it is hardly the depth of testing I would prefer, but it is better than simply asserting the infallibility of a computer game. 

[BnZs]

wwiiaircraftperformance.org has data showing a 47C radius about the same as a 51B, consistent with AH's D11 and 51B data. BnZ's diagram shows the Mustang III (51B/C) outturning the Thunderbolt II (D25), again consistent with AH.

And the Typhoon?

[Krusty]

To me, drastic changes in the flight model with no explanation of why is ... unacceptable. 

Reminds me of the F4Us. Before the airflow recode they were hangar queens, used only by great USN fans or by carrier ops. They were not manuverable at all. For YEARS, since AH1 came out, nobody questioned this, at all. Nobody cried foul, NOBODY came out with metric tons of evidence saying "this is wrong!!!" -- the plane turned about as well as a Jug did, back before the Jug turns like it does now. It was BNZ and angles, NOT a turn fighter.

Then it gets magically revamped, and all of a sudden it's got docile handling, superb stability, super-uber-flappen that make it contend with the best of spitfires, and general performance that catapult it into the top 5 most common dweeb rides I see nowadays.

Yet, when folks question this, all the new-found F4U pilots cry out in unison "No! This is how it really was! See?? See?? Here, and here, it states this was the best turning plane in the war!"

I wonder where they were for almost 8 years or so until just recently when 2.07 changed all that.

 

[bozon]

Then it gets magically revamped, and all of a sudden it's got docile handling, superb stability, super-uber-flappen that make it contend with the best of spitfires, and general performance that catapult it into the top 5 most common dweeb rides I see nowadays.

The F4U was always turning better than the P51 throughout the envelope, in all AH version as far as I can remember. What has changed is only the behaviour of planes very close to stall and in particular the effects of flaps. Since the latter became standard flight control surfaces where every turn starts by lowering flaps, this had a significant effect on the relative performance of planes. Without flap usage, the differences are much smaller.

[Urchin]

Have you taken the time to give HTC a call or email asking about it? 

I've got the answer I'd get right here. 

The last flight model change to the P-51 was in the flaps and that was almost 3 years ago.  I challenge you to go load up an old version and show the difference in performance.

I will say that you are correct about the tachometer being out of alignment but that has diddly squat to do with the actual performance.  Just because your speedometer is off in your car it doesn't change how fast you're actually going.

Pyro does all the modeling.  He says there has been no changes to the P-51's flight envelope.