AcesHigh Fighter comparison Models

[FLS]

The principal opponents for the 1650-3 version P-51B-1 and -5 were the Fw 190A-7 and the Me 109G-5 and G-6

Conversely for the 1650-7 engined P-51B-5/7 and -10 and -15 (and all the P-51C's) fought the Fw 190A-7 and A-8 and D-9 plus the Me 109G-6 and G-6AS and G-10 and G-14 and K-4.

So which of the LW fighters are with the P-51B-1 and -5 (w/o fuselage tanks) in the 'middle period"

For German fighters mid war only has the 190A5 and 109E4, F4, G2 and G6. Mid war includes early war aircraft just like late war includes early and mid. They aren't necessarily opponents, they are part of the plane set available to all sides.

[colmbo]

Having said that, there is no difference between the A and the K in area, incidence, twist, thickness ratio, span, dihedral, taper ratio, mean chord length, washout, camber, area, aspect ratio, MAC, airfoil section incidence at the root.  Only the H (of production models) had changes to the above data.

The wing on the B was thinner...that is the reason the guns were mounted at an angle -- which caused jamming under G.  The D wing was thicker to accomodate the guns being mounted upright.

[Karnak]

I suppose -  but four months of the war (Dec 1943 through Mar 1944) is not much of a 'mid war' period is it?

in that period in which the P-51B was flying combat with only the -3 Packard Merlin, only the 354th (four months) 4th (1 month), the 355th (2/3 month), the 357th ( 1 1/2 months), 363rd (1 1/2 months) of sorties were flown with the 352nd and 339th coming with strictly the -7 in April/early May.  That is effectively 8 months of sorties with one Mustang Group compared to ~  14 Gp-sortie months for just the 8th AF (including temp assignment of 354FG) Mustang Groups between early April through May for all exclusive P-51B operations, with only the 1650-7.   

When you factor the Mustangs deployed to MTO starting in April/May 1944 wahich were also all P-51B until July and realize that as late as Dec 1944 that 8th was still flying with P-51B comprising 20% of 8th FC.

It is so that a progression can be represented.  The same argument you are making can be made, probably more strongly, for the Bf109G-6 and Spitfires Mk V and IX.  There were less than 400 Spitfire Mk IXs with the Merlin 61 engine out of more than 5,000 built, but having that Merlin 61 Spitfire IX gives us a two stage engined Spitfire for 1942 and the Spitfires VIII and XVI can represent the later ones.  So it is for the P-51B as well, let the P-51D represent the later ones while the P-51B gives us the earlier coverage.  There isn't much point to identically performing aircraft.

In a perfect world we'd have them all, but in the real world there are limited resources and so we must pick and choose.  I think HTC chose wisely.

[Stoney]

I want to add that the values shown on that comparison website had been determined by manually testing the planes. Particularly the difference in turning radius without flaps is so small that it's easily within the range of the small (less than 1.5%), but inevitable human operator error. (To determine turning radius the virtual test pilot has to fly a very precise circle at a certain speed & altitude.)

QFT...

[drgondog]

The wing on the B was thinner...that is the reason the guns were mounted at an angle -- which caused jamming under G.  The D wing was thicker to accomodate the guns being mounted upright.

That would not be the case.

The wing from WS 61.5 all the way to the tip was EXACTLY the same in every design feature save banked .50's versus upright 50's (in P-51D and H) and 20mm (in the P-51) in an earlier model. To accomodate the upright guns for the D required a gun bay change in mounting brackets, adding an extra link/case chute and modify the ammo storage section - but not a 'fatter' wing.

 In summary - both B and D wings had the NAA/NACA 45-100 modified Laminar flow wing and every dimension save for the area where the D extended the root chord to accomodate the more swept Strake (from CL to 61.5 for leading edge only - but the inside/outside dimensions outboard of 61.5 (where the guns were) is the same and the airfoil contours were the same.

You may (or may not) know that the prototype D's were two P-51B-10NA's pulled off the line - they actually had and kept the P-51B 'shallow strake' and wheel design but USAAF would never agree to stopping production to re-design (and re-tool) a completely different wing.

The P-51H had a different wing altogether.

[colmbo]

The wing from WS 61.5 all the way to the tip was EXACTLY the same

I was in fact trying to find documentation on the wing and couldn't...just today received my copy of "Americas 100000" and he mentions no changes in the wing.  I do remember the first Ds being Bs.

Now I wonder why the heck I've been thinking the earlier airplanes had thinner wings....probably some handsomehunk spouting on a BBS somewhere. 

[drgondog]

I was in fact trying to find documentation on the wing and couldn't...just today received my copy of "Americas 100000" and he mentions no changes in the wing.  I do remember the first Ds being Bs.

Now I wonder why the heck I've been thinking the earlier airplanes had thinner wings....probably some handsomehunk spouting on a BBS somewhere. 

I cheated. I had a lot of access to insiders at NAA and also have microfilm of all the Mustang derivatives..

beware HH on internet

[MiloMorai]

The wing on the B was thinner...that is the reason the guns were mounted at an angle -- which caused jamming under G.  The D wing was thicker to accomodate the guns being mounted upright.

Bill covered it pretty good but here is something else to think about. The P-51 was armed with 20mm cannons and those cannons were bigger than the .50s.

[drgondog]

Bill covered it pretty good but here is something else to think about. The P-51 was armed with 20mm cannons and those cannons were bigger than the .50s.

Milo - I mentioned it but did not emphasize because I was too lazy to go to the drawings to see what the 20mm Hispano installation looked like!  I just didn't know if a.) They were slanted because of size, or b.) if the replacement 50's in the P-51A were slanted... as a follow up to the 20mm inst'l

[STEELE]

Colmbo, is that a B25 you're flying?

[MOSQ]

I did the turn and acceleration testing. As was mentioned I did the best I could to keep the tests consistent but you can be sure that minor differences in turn stats are meaningless in a fight simply because the numbers aren't perfect. And some guys on here can turn tighter in some of the planes than I can.

There are also some mistakes in the graphs. Somehow when he imported the Spitfire raw data it got corrupted, the data for one Spit got swapped with another one. I've tried contacting DOK several times to fix the Spit issue and I also have the newer planes data but he never responds to any of the email addresses I have for him.

I know some of the trainer corps has my data in spreadsheet form and they use it when instructing.

I'm glad folks are still getting value from the charts.    

[colmbo]

Colmbo, is that a B25 you're flying?

B24J...Dragon and His Tail.  I'd like to get some B-25 time...you have one? 

[Krusty]

I don't believe the mid war arena is based on a 4 month period to match the early P-51B. There are other considerations. We have an early war arena, a mid war arena, and a split late war arena. If we had the late war P-51B we wouldn't have a P-51 in the mid war arena.

The arenas have NOTHING to do with the planes in the game. The P-51s have been in for a long long long long LONG time. Well before any split arenas. Well before any early war arenas. Well before anything along those lines.

The answer is quite clear, really... AH had very few plane types. It needed diversity. Why model 2 identical, exactly-the-same planes, just make one have a different canopy, and 2 less guns? You already have the 4-gun option on the P-51D. It would have been a major waste of HTC resources at the time. So they opted to use the engine model that would actually give you a choice between the two. It makes the craft distinctive.

[FLS]

The arenas have NOTHING to do with the planes in the game. The P-51s have been in for a long long long long LONG time. Well before any split arenas. Well before any early war arenas. Well before anything along those lines.

The answer is quite clear, really... AH had very few plane types. It needed diversity. Why model 2 identical, exactly-the-same planes, just make one have a different canopy, and 2 less guns? You already have the 4-gun option on the P-51D. It would have been a major waste of HTC resources at the time. So they opted to use the engine model that would actually give you a choice between the two. It makes the craft distinctive.

Krusty you're arguing a point that nobody made. I simply stated that there wouldn't be a P-51 in midwar if we only had the late war P-51B and P-51D.

[Krusty]

Krusty you're arguing a point that nobody made.

Apologies, then. All the P-51B comments seem to run together at some point. I saw your previous reply about the mid war arena and then this one and mis-read your intents.


My bad.