Author Topic: Perk the P51 B (Read 1960 times)

Wilbus · « **Reply #15 on:** September 12, 2002, 02:14:19 PM »

Yes yes I don't want it perked either, not worth it, but I think you all understand me when the only real difference is the better turn rate of the Pony, and the much better guns (if in close) on the Ta152.

Pongo, in my last post I said the Ta152 has got great guns but compare the eas of delfection shooting and long range shots. Matter of flying and what planes you attack I guess

No, this thread isn't really about unperking the Ta152, just to compare it with even NON uber rides of the MA, where the TA still comes out a bit short.

Vati... there are DEFINATLY some GREY13 areas about the Ta152 production numbers

Funked, our B pony does reach 450, at alt

Quote

What you don't mention is the 51b's crap 6 view, propensity for unrecoverable stalls, and 4 50's.

Deflection shots in this plane don't cut it. You need solid bursts.

The crap 6 view is one thing.
Unrecoverable stalls? No need to get into a stall when a plane turns like it does, even if you don't fly it near the edge it will still outturn a Ta152, specially with the use of a notch flap or two

Solid burst can quite easily be done in deflection shots too, whole nother thing with snapshots though where of course the Ta152 beats the living crap out of the B pony

Why all the fuss... can't believe you don't understand that

I have enough perks, lost alot in discos on 262's etc but still got plenty, takes me 1, maybe 2 sorties to get a Ta152 so no problem with that really but what I want going here is a discussion and to make people somewhat know what it feels like to have his "uber" ride perked, although it's no better then any other mediocre plane AH

~~all keep the discussion going please~~

Karnak · « **Reply #16 on:** September 12, 2002, 02:25:16 PM »

Red Tail,

Perking is not all about the numbers. There were 1,200 Me262s built, 957 Spitfire Mk XIVs and 700 Tempest Mk Vs.

Perking is mainly due to the effect the aircraft would have (or "had" in the case of the F4U-1C) on the MA. Who wants to have one fifth of their fights be against the F4U-1C? Now imagine a free Me262 or Spitfire Mk XIV, they'd make the F4U-1C's usage numbers look tame.

The fact is that the N1K2 simply doesn't have that kind of impact, and so will not be perked.

Before I could say yay, or nay to the Ta152 being unperked I'd want it to be fixed and then let the MA evaluate it. If it still wasn't that good I'd see no reason not to unperk it. Hell, it'll still have the "gangbang me, I'm a perk plane tag" and I think it'll still attract the gangbangs simply due to being a former perk plane.

Innominate · « **Reply #17 on:** September 12, 2002, 02:36:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak

The fact is that the N1K2 simply doesn't have that kind of impact, and so will not be perked.

True, it's only roughly tied in the top-four. Right next to the p51d, with how many thousands that saw service?

Right now the p51d is the standard for perking, however by that time, the air war was prettymuch over, leaving the axis fighters lagging behind. Perhaps the performance maximum for free fighters should be lowered a bit, creating more cheap perk planes.

Soulyss · « **Reply #18 on:** September 12, 2002, 02:40:21 PM »

It has been said time and time again that performance alone does not determine whether an aicraft is perked or not.

Innominate · « **Reply #19 on:** September 12, 2002, 02:59:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Soulyss
It has been said time and time again that performance alone does not determine whether an aicraft is perked or not.

It's also apparent that the criterea for perking a plane is fuzzy at best. There are any number of reasons for perked planes to be unperked, or unperked planes to be perked.

There are free planes which are free for the same reason that a perk plane is perked. There are also perked planes which are perked for the same reason that a free fighter is free.

Let us see a definitive explanation of what determines wether a plane is perked or not. It would solve a lot of these debates.

Glasses · « **Reply #20 on:** September 12, 2002, 04:02:42 PM »

The way I understood it, and correct me if I'm wrong is that those planes which by introducing them in a uncontroled manner would upset the MA arena plane type balance, i.e. Plane X would get 10% or 20% of the kills etc. That's why a plane like the Hitspano CHog was perked.

Now, considering the historical performance of the 152 in speed at hi alt, and acceleration at lower altitudes...compared to its Stopgap the D9 it's about as useful as a 190A8 with the same armament with a slight performance advantage over at 30k. It may have been some mistake in the calcs as to why the 152 has such a mediocre perfromance in the game, which would translate in having an impact on overall gameplay balance as a Ju88.

humble · « **Reply #21 on:** September 12, 2002, 04:32:28 PM »

the b pony is a sweet bird to fly, and it's stall is sudden but perdictable. No reason to stall it out at all. Now it will "flip" on you if you push her a bit past the edge looking for a shot...but it's simple to unload and recover before she spins out.

Personally I've always felt the 152 is a pretty useless bird in the MA....cept to uber runstang with. But you cant dance it around like a pony,jug,hog or even a tiffie.

Vermillion · « **Reply #22 on:** September 12, 2002, 04:33:46 PM »

Yes the fact that there were maybe 2 or 3 production Ta152-H1's total has nothing to do with the perk status that makes it rare in the arena

Nothing at all. If you count the H0's, there were only 42 production Ta152's produced overall.

And while our P-51B is decent at alt, it doesn't compare to the Ta152 in the least.

Since when did the B pony make 450mph? Is this on the guage or on the digital readout you can use in the film?

Mister Fork · « **Reply #23 on:** September 12, 2002, 04:41:08 PM »

Problem with tha Ta-152 is the acceleration. It should acclerate like a rocket up to 350 mph at any altitude with it's WEP injection systems.

AH didn't model this.

Wmaker · « **Reply #24 on:** September 12, 2002, 04:41:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
Just be glad HTC modeled the B so conservatively. Manufacturer's testing yielded top speeds in excess of 450 mph.

For the quote below I don't have it's original source. It was posted by Oleg Maddox to the http://www.simhq.com's IL-2 Sturmovik message board. Oleg said that it was from a western historian. I'm just posting it to show a different view on the matter.

"The printed maximum speed in all books for the NA P-51D Mustang is 437 mph at 25,000 ft. Absolute nonsense. The fastest speed ever actually RECORDED for a P-51 ocurred on 20 October 1944, over Henden RAF base, England. Following RAF complaints that the P-51 would not reach the printed speeds, no fewer than 12 Mustangs from various units--two right off the boat, as well--were tested with USAAF pilots. Both theodolite units and radar were used to measure the speed. The fastest run--I should mention after innumerable flights occupying the whole day--
was 416 mph in a P-51B (s/n 36799 "Carolina Hustler"); this speed was sustained only for 10 seconds before the engine became seriously over-boosted. The longest sustained maximum speed recorded was 405 mph for 55 seconds by a brand new P-51D at 23,000 ft. (s/n 472484). Most of the machines in this evaluation were incapable of exceeding 400 mph under any conditions whatever. The NII VVS tested their P-51B (L-L, s/n 35145) to a maximum of 392 mph at 25,500ft, and climb to 5000m of 6.5 mins. (yes, on 100 octane gas). I suspect that this was exactly correct, despite the fact that all Wetserners try to explain it away. These two events are the ONLY scientific evaluation of the Mustang by any non-Company (i.e. North American) entity in the entire history of the aircraft. Both evaluations prove that the Company was inflating their numbers for 'advertising' reasons...."

-ammo- · « **Reply #25 on:** September 12, 2002, 04:52:47 PM »

thats gotta be BS wmaker. Its a neat story though.

Published top speeds that I have seen vary from 440-448 MPH TAS at altitude. FWIW, Zeno's has 448 MPH for the P-51D.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-51.html

Pongo · « **Reply #26 on:** September 12, 2002, 04:53:29 PM »

now...
woudnt that change our little game..lol

funkedup · « **Reply #27 on:** September 12, 2002, 05:14:16 PM »

I'm talking about manufacturer's data, not USAAF or RAF data. If people want to say that NAA was lying then the discussion ends, because we can apply that to any other organization who tested aircraft. Certainly one could construct scenarios the NII-VVS might have a motive to show the inferiority of an American product.

http://yarchive.net/mil/laminar_flow.html

Quote

Report: NA-5798
Title: "Flight Test Performance for the P-51B-1
Date: January, 1944
Test Weight: 8,460 lbs
High Speed: 453 mph true airspeed at 28,800 feet at 67" HG and 1298 HP,
war emergency power, high blower, critical altitude.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #28 on:** September 12, 2002, 05:55:21 PM »

Wasn't Carson that fool who ignorantly lambasted the Bf109, often criticizing it for for features, like the radiator ducting, almost identical in concept to his beloved P51.

funkedup · « **Reply #29 on:** September 12, 2002, 06:06:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Wasn't Carson that fool who ignorantly lambasted the Bf109, often criticizing it for for features, like the radiator ducting, almost identical in concept to his beloved P51.

If you can't see the superiority of the P-51 radiator/oil cooler ducting over the 109, you shouldn't be posting here.