Author Topic: Perk the P51 B  (Read 1961 times)

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Perk the P51 B
« Reply #30 on: September 12, 2002, 06:10:36 PM »
Verm, I said it before and say it again, charts that we had before, that went 30k+, showed the P51 B with a speed of 450 at about 35k.

Karnak, what I want is fot it to be fixed, even then I don't think it would be worth perking, it had a great, actually, exelent rate of climb but that doesn't make it perkable.
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Perk the P51 B
« Reply #31 on: September 12, 2002, 06:24:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Wilbus
Karnak, what I want is fot it to be fixed, even then I don't think it would be worth perking, it had a great, actually, exelent rate of climb but that doesn't make it perkable.


It sure made the Spitfire Mk XIV perkable, and its WEP only lasts five minutes.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Perk the P51 B
« Reply #32 on: September 12, 2002, 06:30:19 PM »
Are we using manufacturers data for all planes?
if the usaaf and the RAF coundt get within 50mph of that number..what does it matter what the russians found?

Offline Glasses

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
Perk the P51 B
« Reply #33 on: September 12, 2002, 06:56:58 PM »
When Pyro decides to fix the Climb, accel, and Speed at altitude like its RL counterpart it will indeed be worthy perked aircraft. The odds of that happening are really slim even with the overwhelming evidence we have from various sources no even LW,but brit tests and numbers.

4.5k per minute at SL for climb rate would indeed make it perkable!!!  also considering  the LW wep lasts for about 10minutes and the climb to 23k would be made in 8 minutes.

I suspect greatly it has to do something with missing HP for the Ta and torque like Fork has meintioned  before that's why it doesn't get its speed nor acceleration.

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
Perk the P51 B
« Reply #34 on: September 12, 2002, 08:02:23 PM »
Ha ha ha that quote from Oleg is such pure and utter crap.  

J_A_B

Offline Montezuma

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
Perk the P51 B
« Reply #35 on: September 12, 2002, 08:28:54 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Glasses
Yes, that's why I'd rather see the Ta152 fixed than rather having it unperked, in all mentioned aspects of accel,climb,and top speed at alt. But if it's not fixed or is not intended to be fixed I sure hope it doesn't remain perked for a long time.



Maybe they should just remove it from the game to stop all the crying about it.  In the history of the war, it was a totally insignificant curiosity.

Offline Glasses

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
Perk the P51 B
« Reply #36 on: September 12, 2002, 09:14:22 PM »
I don't think at all it should be removed if it's that way some would have the D9 completely dissapear because of it's "low" production numbers.

For an aircraft that is perked and it's suppossed to have performance greater than that of the D9, it's undermodeled in those aspects if it was put in the game it was done so for a reason so the LW would have  an prop driven perk but I think either  they put up the  climb and HP from the H-0 or it might have been a slight modeling mistake in  HP which doesn't give the correct speeds, climb and acceleration. The aircraft is not a problem and will probably  not be a problem in the future,why? It's perked,why? because it would unbalance the arena, and indirectly one of the reason it would be chosen for perking  it'd be a derivative of an overwhelming advantage over the other unperked aircraft which would lead it to be chosen over any other rides. It'd be frankly a waste if it'd be just erased after I'd have complete support from people like Frenchy and Karnak who have seen with the information posted and agree to its modeling being short of what it is suppossed to be. It was indeed a rarity in the war which almost about over when these aircraft came to action but those aircraft were the Best to come out  the design beureu of K.T. and we've had proven with numbers and not just  historical accounts the aircraft falls short real short of hitting the numbers,and of course the paint Scheme is that of the Ta152H-0,but IMO that's minimal. If and when and if ever Pyro decides to fix the aircraft, and the use increases with it's improved climb rate acceleration and hi altitude speed I guarantee you this aircraft would be perked  higher out  of use alone of the regular bunch and some other of the 190 Leather wearers.

I don't want to see it unperked I want to see it  fixed,and I implore pyro to take a look at the data that has been brought up to please , please  fix the plane because it's one of my fav planes yet there's  overwhelming evidence it's falling short of its RL counterpart numbers.

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
Perk the P51 B
« Reply #37 on: September 12, 2002, 09:42:58 PM »
Quote
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.


planes arent perk just on anyone thing.
 
performance alone dont matter
overall numbers alone dont matter

However overall imopact on the main matters. Thats why the chog was perked. Not on performance or numbers but because it got nearly 20% of the kills.

The ta152 needs to be perked because it was very rare in ww2. I dont want a main full of wunderwaffe planes :)

My squaddie moot, last time I checked, was 73 and 1 in the 152.

Its a great plane and a cheap perk. I fly flew in the other night went 6 and 0 in it. And no I wasnt gangbanged because of its icon :)

None of the top 3 killers in ah have the same impact of the main as the chog.

Olegs quote about 51 performance makes you wonder. Doesnt ht model VVS planes based on test of production a/c (more like quality control tests)? Anyway p51b is pos imho.

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
Perk the P51 B
« Reply #38 on: September 12, 2002, 10:03:43 PM »
"Olegs quote about 51 performance makes you wonder"

No it doesn't.  It's BS.   I can understand why he might be of that opinion, but it's still BS.  Why would he be of the opinion he is?  He'd feel that way for the same reason most Americans assume that Soviet planes were junk--growing up during the cold war.

FYI the 437 MPH figure, although it may match manufacturer's claims (I have never seen manufacturer's data on the 51D), also comes from post-war testing of the plane in war configuration (read:  not souped up).   The P-51D, of all WW2 planes, probably has the most and best information available.   In other tests the P-51 performed even better; several tests such as the Navy's test of a P-51B rate the plane for as much as 450 MPH (and the Navy was if anything biased against an Army plane like the P-51).

Not to mention just a paper comparison of the P-51 to planes like the Spit and 109G should show Oleg to be wrong.  But it's a free world; he can be as wrong as he wants to be  :)

J_A_B

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
Perk the P51 B
« Reply #39 on: September 12, 2002, 11:21:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Wmaker


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...."


as to OLEG's information. I queried some folks in a newsgroup to th validity of OLEG's response in the IL2 thread.  

here as follows FWIW--

Gruenhagen's book on the Mustang shows a max. level speed of 441 mph @ 30kft for
the P-51B with V-1650-3 (and probably no rear fuselage tank).  I'd really want
to know what the atmospheric conditions were on the day in question, as all test
results are supposed to be normed to Standard atmosphere, and whether this was
done.  The claim that "these two events are the ONLY scientific evaluation of
the Mustang by any non-Company entity in the entire history of the a/c" is
patently incorrect.  For instance, there used to be a web link which had the
results of the speed and climb tests performed on the Mustang Mk. I (AG 351) at
Burtonwood by the RAF.  Unfortunately that link's no longer active, but
Gruenhagen states that the a/c managed a top speed of 382 mph at its best
altitude of 14,000 feet (engine critical altitude of 11,300 ft.) during those
tests, reduced from the 390 achieved in company tests because the a/c had gotten
its camouflage paint as well as having other operational equipment added.
Elsewhere he lists the same speed at 13,700 feet, which may be the value
corrected to ISA.  Either way the best speed altitudes were a hell of a lot
lower than the Merlin-powered models in high blower, which were also more
powerful.  Higher altitude = thinner air = less form drag = higher speed, until
the power starts to fall off or mach effects (on the prop or airframe) become
significant.

The P-51A, with a more powerful engine (Allison V-1710-81 vice -39) is credited
by Gruenhagen with 409 mph at its best altitude of 10,000 feet, mainly because
the -81 has a War Emergency MP rating of 57"/3000 RPM at that altitude, vs. the
-39 engine's military rating of 44.2"/3000 RPM at 11,300 feet; the -81 can
maintain the 44.2"/3000 RPM up to about 17 or 18,000 feet (eyeballing the
graph).  Again, both of these are well below the critical and best speed
altitudes of the Merlin models in high blower, as well as being down a couple of
hundred hp compared to the Merlin.  The Merlin V-1650-3 engined models made
their best speed at 30kft (give or take a few hundred, allowing for the usual
variation), while the V-1650-7 models made theirs at 25,000 feet.

Guy
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline Glasses

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
Perk the P51 B
« Reply #40 on: September 13, 2002, 02:29:01 AM »
Well Jab sometimes it happens across these boards aswell what you think of what oleg said.

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Perk the P51 B
« Reply #41 on: September 13, 2002, 04:55:19 AM »
Pongo AFAIK HTC are not in the business of revealing research sources.  However if you "reverse engineer" the climb and speed curves you will find they almost always come very close to some set of customer test data (e.g. USAAF, NII-VVS, AFDU) as opposed to manufacturer's data.  Manufacturer's data is often more optimistic than customer data, for many more reasons than advertising.

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Perk the P51 B
« Reply #42 on: September 13, 2002, 04:55:29 AM »
Quote
I don't want to see it unperked I want to see it fixed,and I implore pyro to take a look at the data that has been brought up to please , please fix the plane because it's one of my fav planes yet there's overwhelming evidence it's falling short of its RL counterpart numbers.


Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself.

Quote
The ta152 needs to be perked because it was very rare in ww2. I dont want a main full of wunderwaffe planes

My squaddie moot, last time I checked, was 73 and 1 in the 152.


Wotan, the Ta152 has got worse performance, in all ascpect at all altitudes below 25k, except for turn rate then the D9. It is only slightly faster then the P51B, and the 190 A8 aswell as many many other planes. It's about 25mph slower then the La7 at the deck, bout 20mph slower then a tiffie and a good 15mph slower then a D pony, 20mph slower then a Dora (cirka).
It climbs worse then all of those except the tiffie. What makes it a wunderwaffle plane bro? :)

When it's fixed (if) it would sure be worth the perking, as it is now, hell, it's hardly worth flying unperked as the Dora beats it hands down aswell as many other planes even from 1943. I was chased down, in a dive followed by along "on-the-deck-run" by a P47 D-11! He didn't lose any distance on my although we were on the deck for 3 minutes.
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Perk the P51 B
« Reply #43 on: September 13, 2002, 05:02:14 AM »
Hi Funked,

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

You shouldn't dismiss it so lightly :-)

The Me 109 radiator, after it was completely redesigned for the Me 109F, featured a boundary layer bypass duct and continuously variable intake and outlet cross sections,  and that's technologically very similar to the P-51's radiator system.

The actual layout of course differed, but the late-series Me 109 radiators were quite sophisticated and much more efficient than the early-series underwing "boxes" :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Perk the P51 B
« Reply #44 on: September 13, 2002, 05:20:13 AM »
Hi Ammo,

>as to OLEG's information. I queried some folks in a newsgroup to th validity of OLEG's response in the IL2 thread.  

As an additional info, I remember reading a comment on some board that provided an explanation for the low numbers Oleg posted.

It seems like the British tests he refers to were using British standard procedures which had top speed tests done with radiator flaps in closed position. This gave the best short-term top speeds for most British aircraft, but the Mustang of course relied on its variable outlet to provide a jet effect, which was negated by British procedure. As a result, drag increased and cooling deteriorated, leading the the poor speeds and quick overheating pointed out by Oleg.

I can't comment on how accurate this information is, however, and couldn't find the original post again when I searched for it.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)