Jan 24 1944 - P-51B enters service? - Request for Apache!!!

[BnZs]

BnZ,

I was referring to reality, not the game.  Captain Eric Brown and the Soccer War were my basis for the statement.

That was Ds vs. -4s if IIRC... By what I'll "1946" standards, a standard P-51D is under-engined.

[Chalenge]

None of it changes that the 4 cannon 51 was the least significant Allision Mustang variant both in numbers and in actual combat use

I dont think you should argue significance based on your information. The Ta-152 is reported to have gotten no more than seven kills in its service life (to four losses) and yet it is in the game. The 'Allison' P-51 Apache is one of the most easily recognized variant of the 'Mustang' line and it was the first to serve. Without it there would not have been a P-51 or an A-36 Mustang.

[Karnak]

That was Ds vs. -4s if IIRC... By what I'll "1946" standards, a standard P-51D is under-engined.

As a fighter, the P-51D is under-engined by 1943 standards.

[Chalenge]

Actually the Mustangs were downed by F4U-5s and if the D-Mustang was underpowered by your standards it certainly did a lot of damage and so it must have had other characteristics that made it superior.

[Karnak]

Actually the Mustangs were downed by F4U-5s and if the D-Mustang was underpowered by your standards it certainly did a lot of damage and so it must have had other characteristics that made it superior.

Of course it did.  Great high speed handling, great streamlining and phenomenal range.  It was, without a doubt, the best escort fighter of WWII.

[BnZs]

As a fighter, the P-51D is under-engined by 1943 standards.

LOL, so are alot of fighters. Not every mission can be filled by an engine with a saddle strapped to it.

It was *good* with with a rather low thrust/horsepower ratio, you take the good points of the same machine, lighten and increase horsepower to maximize performance rather than range and it is *incredible*. IMHO, from a performance standpoint it was the best *airframe* of WWII.

[Guppy35]

I dont think you should argue significance based on your information. The Ta-152 is reported to have gotten no more than seven kills in its service life (to four losses) and yet it is in the game. The 'Allison' P-51 Apache is one of the most easily recognized variant of the 'Mustang' line and it was the first to serve. Without it there would not have been a P-51 or an A-36 Mustang.

But this still comes down to 4 cannons or the more numerous MG variants.  What's so important to you about the 4 cannons?  Looking at the significance to the game of the MG variant Allison Mustangs vs the 4 cannon bird is no contest.  There is far more scenario use for the MG birds as they served in greater numbers and in more places.  The first to serve were not 4 cannon Mustangs but the MG equipped RAF Mustangs with the A36s showing up in greater numbers either just before or just after, depending on the source, the small number of recce 51s with 4 cannon.

Why so hung up on 4 cannons? 

I don't recall being around for the discussion on introducing the Ta152 btw.  I am a long time fanatic about the Spitfire XII of which 100 were built, serving in 2 squadrons.  I have many a time said there are far more important birds I'd want to see before the XII and it's my favorite bird of all time.

[Chalenge]

Guppy its pretty clear now that its YOU that have the hang up with four cannons. Historical significance to you is just a numbers game and thats just not how it works. And you are very much mistaken. The very first American 'Mustang' in combat was the P-51 Apache. Yes the British Mustang I was in service even before that.

And again its not about WHEN the P-51 Apache is added to the game but I wish it were added.

Since your so afraid of four cannon birds you might want to stick to tanks because we already have four cannon birds much more fearsome than the Apache its just Im not as fond of them as I am of the P-51 Apache.

[5PointOh]

Personally, as being a self proclaimed 51 pilot, I'd rather just see the just the RAF Mustang I (2 .50s and 4 .30) with an Allison powerplant, the Mustang II  (Allison powerplant w/ improved supercharger). 
Specifications

Model  -  Mustang I
Production  -  620
Length  -  32.25
Height  -  12.2
Wingspan  -  37.04
Weight - empty  -  6536
Weight - normal T.O.  -  8600
Weight - max G.W.  -  10,600
Powerplant  -  Allison V-1710-39
Horsepower  -  1,150
Propeller  -  Curtiss 3-bladed electric 10'6" 
Max Speed  -  388 @ 15k
Service Ceiling  -  30,800
Fuel Capacity  -  180
Drop Tanks  -  na
Range  -  750
Guns  -  2x .50 cal, 4x .30 cal
Bomb / Rockets  -  na
 

Also the standard A-36 Apache would be great, considering the theaters of service it particpated in.

Specifications

Model  -  A-36
Production  -  500
Length  -  32.25
Height  -  12.2
Wingspan  -  37.04
Weight - empty  -  6087
Weight - normal T.O.  -  8600
Weight - max G.W.  -  10,700
Powerplant  -  Allison V-1710-87
Horsepower  -  1325
Propeller  -  Curtiss 3-bladed electric 10'9" 
Max Speed  -  356 @ 5k
Service Ceiling  -  25,100
Fuel Capacity  -  180
Drop Tanks  -  2x 75 gal
Range  -  750 / 1375+
Guns  -  6x .50 cal
Bomb / Rockets  -  2x 500 lb bombs

I've often wondered why the Mustangs didnt have the multiple variants in AH like the 109 series or the Spit Series.  Looking at the generla shape of the planes, I dont think it would be overly hard for the talents of HTC to incorporate.  So bring in more Mustangs, but leave the cannons at home.

[Strip]

Bring on the cannon bird.....

[Karnak]

Chalenge,

If you want quad Hispanos so much, take one of the existing quad Hispano fighters up.  There is nothing wrong with flying a Hurricane or Typhoon to get that fix.  There is no need to swamp the MA with a historically insignificant version of the P-51.  Just because you want that crutch is not a valid reason to add it in favor of much more representative models.  If you don't think it would see massive over use, you are naive.

[Strip]

Why would it Karnak?

The Typhoon would be faster, turn comparably, and carry more ordnance. Your arguement does not hold water, if so the Typhoon would be wildly popular. The first version of one of the most prolific fighters USAAF is hardly insignificant. Planes like the Me-163, N1K or Ta-152 flew less sorties and had even less of an impact.

Its his wish, it fits every critera HTC has set forth, get over it. Just because you don't like it....

 

Strip

[Karnak]

Strip,

The handling of the P-51 is very much superior to the Typhoon.


A side note, I don't know why you people always toss the N1K2-J into the same category as the Me163 and Ta152.  More N1K2-J's saw service than C.205s, F4U-1C or Me262s.  It was a very late fighter, but it wasn't that rare.


Comparing the N1K2-J to the quad 20mm P-51, well, in each case let us ask "Is there a more representative aircraft that could be added to cover the same time and place?"  In the case of the N1K2-J, the answer is a definite "No." while in the case of the quad 20mm armed P-51 the answer is a definite "Yes." and that is why the quad 20mm P-51 should be a very low priority compared to the other Allison P-51s.


Anything else is just asking for quad 20mm cannons without any regards to the game or history for the sole reason that you want the firepower of four Hispanos on your P-51.

[Chalenge]

It meets the criteria... it existed... flew enough sorties... actually WAS in the war...

Your scared Karnak. Thats all there is to it. 

[Chalenge]

Personally, as being a self proclaimed 51 pilot, I'd rather just see the just the RAF Mustang I (2 .50s and 4 .30) with an Allison powerplant, the Mustang II  (Allison powerplant w/ improved supercharger). 

At least get it right man! The RAF Mustang I had four .50s and four .30s. Two 30s in each wing with a .50 between them and two .50s in the nose.

I still prefer the ferocious look of the four cannons and it was the first to serve for the Americans!