Pyro, HT, can you review the 51D

[Yeager]

I dont make alot of noise regarding FMs, as a genral rule I dont know that much but! and trust me this is a big one, can you guys take a few a review the P51D?

Being in the first five FMs since beta, I cant help but wonder if the P-51D FM needs adjustment in comparison to more recent additions.

Case in point: the wings will shear off precisely at 8 Gs regardless of forward momentum.  I know a little about engineering and the rated G limits always have a built in safety margin.

Also, the P47d-25 and -30 both generally outperform the P51D in all manners of BFM under 300 IAS.  This somehow seems odd.

Do what you will but I genuinely feel something is off here.

Also, if you get the chance, try and add a little bit of flesh to the onset of compression, it *feels* too clean on entry and exit and seems too abrupt as a general rule.

Regards and plenty of beer,
Yeager

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Yeager:
?

Also, the P47d-25 and -30 both generally outperform the P51D in all manners of BFM under 300 IAS.  This somehow seems odd.

Yeager, Idont want to start a flamewar here, this is a simple point:

Why do you thing that if P47 outperforms P51 in BFM is becaues P51's FM fault?...I dunno, but I've heard a lot of things here about P47's E retention.

As I said I dont know about it, Dont know enough about P47 to judge it. Still I wonder if there is something weird on P47 and not on P51.

Just a thought



[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 07-29-2000).]

[rosco-]

  I usually dont get involved in the FM debate but the wings on the Pony do seem a bit weak IMHO. DO I base this on any historical info..nope just compared to past versions.

[Hristo]

I have witnessed P 47D (the silver one  ) do amazing low speed loops, barrell rolls and scissors.

Right or wrong, but there was a big "...hmmmmmmm, but....." at those times for me.

------------------
Stoickov
JG54 "Grünherz"

[Citabria]

oh and no mention of the 190 which is supposed to be superior to the spitv and equal to the spit IX outzooming both easily in fact it outzooms the p38, p47 p51 190g10 spit IX n1k2 a6m5 205 202 b17 b26.


but thats how it really was compared to all these planes   hahaha

btw you guys see that Nuremburg movie on TV?
pretty good.

[Hangtime]

Yup.. wing rips and pops are common again. Even experienced pony pilots have noted an odd rebirth of wingitus. Even nearly empty wing tanks will force a wing rip at absurdly low g loads. Compresson onset is mighty wierd.. no buffet at all; and it and seems to happen at lower speeds. E retention is also notably poor compared to other less 'clean' airframes.

Yeagers right.. comparitive FM's need a look.

Thanks for looking into it HTC!

Hang

[Hristo]

 

Originally posted by Citabria:
oh and no mention of the 190 which is supposed to be superior to the spitv and equal to the spit IX outzooming both easily in fact it outzooms the p38, p47 p51 190g10 spit IX n1k2 a6m5 205 202 b17 b26.


but thats how it really was compared to all these planes     hahaha

btw you guys see that Nuremburg movie on TV?
pretty good.

I believe p47 outzooms 190

190g10 is not included in AH planeset, so we don't know if it is ouzoomed by anything

you also forget it outzooms the Panzer IV


Was it that old version of Nürnberg movie (with Maximilian Schell, if I remember right) ? Still, I think it is somewhat longish and rather boring.


------------------
Stoickov
JG54 "Grünherz"

[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 07-29-2000).]

[Kieren]

It was a new "TNT" version, starring Alec Baldwin. It was pretty good.

[Fishu]

You should say that P-47 FM has something wrong and compare it to P-51, not compare P-51 to P-47 as if P-51 would have something wrong  

That P-47 is amazing for that what I've thought, even more amazing than it ever were in WB (and I flew *alot* P-47D in WB).
I thought that 109 with all the advantages would give a big kick for P-47, but no, when
I tried it in AH, I survived even advantage spitfires, making turns and loops with those for a little (but still too long) moment, even at low altitude. (and ops, I have too often fought with empty center droptank still attached to fuselage)

Shouldn't P-47 at 3-7k be dead P-47 for almost any other fighter? (at least more deaths than 1:1 K/D I would figure)

..but.. as old P-47 flier from WBs, I like this P-47  

[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 07-29-2000).]

[Westy]

 I like the 47 too. Very much. For too long all Jug lovers had to fly online were the 'porked' AW and WB's models. For the first time I feel like the Jug is performing close to what it should. Low and slow it is dead meat for just about any airplane being piloted by the most average of online pilots. But low and FAST it's not an easy pick off.
 And upstairs (25K, 30K plus) it really is at home and it rules. As it did in real life.

 -Westy

[ra]

<<<Case in point: the wings will shear off precisely at 8 Gs regardless of forward momentum.>>>

8 Gs is 8 Gs, regardless of forward momentum.  When they want to test the structural limit of a plane's wings they load  sandbags on it till something breaks.  

I read somewhere that the US Navy required  fighters to be capable of 7 Gs, I don't know what the US Army required.

<<<Also, the P47d-25 and -30 both generally outperform the P51D in all manners of BFM under 300 IAS.>>>

I think with similar fuel loads I would give the edge to the P-51, but it's close.  I can understand the Jug having more docile handling at high-AoA and low speeds, the P-51's 'laminar' airfoil was not optimized for high AoA.  The main characteristic the Jug has is incredible E retention.  Since E retention is not quantified anywhere, there's  no way to point to a chart and settle which plane should have what level of E retention.  So we have FM's as different as the Tiffie, which fights in the vertical like its dragging an anchor, and the Jug, which flys like it's filled with helium.

ra

[Yeager]

Ra,

the only point I would make is that the official rated limit for the P51D was 8 Gs positive and that all aeronautical engineering builds in a margin of safety
on any published specification.  If 8 Gs is the published spec then I would like to think it could exceed that by some margin.

Im not sure why I am having this problem.  Its always the P51 that I shed wings from.  

Maybe there is no problem, I could just be perceiving things out of sorts, thats entirely possible.  I just wanted to voice myself for the record.

FWIW, Im pretty comfortable with spits, 109s, 190s, 202s and 205s, zekes, jugs, all the heavies, everything seems about where they should be except for the P51 and again, its probably just me.....

Yeager

[Hangtime]

Mebbe so yeag.. I just took a week off; so I kinda expected the pony to feel 'different'.

Nontheless; I was shocked at how fast my poor ponys wings popped and it seemed to compress a lost faster and more abruptly than I 'remember'. Mebbe it could use a look-see.

Whats this nonsense about the Jug anyway? Thought we was talkin bout ponies.  

Hang

[wells]

I've always understood that there was a 50% safety margin built into the G load limit, so a wing rated for 8 G's will fail at 12.

[ra]

Yeager,

You are probably right regarding civilian aircraft, but in wartime I doubt engineers built in any safety margin.  Also, an 8 G limit is nothing to sneeze at.  

BTW, how do you know the wings are breaking off at 8 Gs when you would be blacked out long before that?  Whenever I pull the wings off a plane I'm not even completely blacked out, so they probably pop off before 6 Gs.