Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: SAS_KID on April 09, 2006, 12:07:59 AM
-
i meen im wondering why everyone thinks the 51D like won the war and stuff. Everyone i know says O a P51 could pwn and WW2 aircraft im thinking my prettythang but nobody gets it. Even WW2 history teachers think it was our savior in the air. I meen just because it was very fast doesn't meen it is great. Could someone show me some statistics or accounts of why people think it is so great?
Bah someone evwen said a 51D could outturn an A6M2 :rofl :lol :rofl
-
Im gotta go wit teh Sptfire cuz its all kewl n stuff wit teh canins go pow! pow! pOw! n teh wings sooo kewl n i no that it culd blaze a 109 all ur base r belong to meh!!11!1111!!
-
Originally posted by SAS_KID
i meen im wondering why everyone thinks the 51D like won the war and stuff. Everyone i know says O a P51 could pwn and WW2 aircraft im thinking my prettythang but nobody gets it. Even WW2 history teachers think it was our savior in the air. I meen just because it was very fast doesn't meen it is great. Could someone show me some statistics or accounts of why people think it is so great?
Bah someone evwen said a 51D could outturn an A6M2 :rofl :lol :rofl
Kid, ya gotta do a bit of research :) Who is everyone btw? I've never heard everyone say what you claim they said. I'm part of everyone and I'd never say that.
The 51 wasnt really the best at anything, but was very good at a lot of things and it could compete with the best the bad guys had to offer and do it over the bad guys turf. There really isn't an Axis fighter you can say that about. Combine it with the incredible range it had and it became the best plane for the job, whether it be escorting B17s and 24s to Berlin, or escorting B29s to Tokyo.
And it was a relatively easy bird to fly, less expensive to produce then say the P38 for example and easier to maintain.
-
The P-51 went up against Axis planes, not Spits or P47s or 38's or Yaks. They also faced against an airforce that had a expotential rise of loss of experienced pilots and fuel.
It has great visibility, a potent gun package, range up the wazoo, could carry some decent bombs, and it was a stable, all-around performer in various combat scenes.
In the MA, it has a tougher job for those that stay around to engage the enemy (rather than engage it's hyperdrive). I love flying the 51 and it's combat flaps and turn radius is acceptable against some of the larger planes those meant for Bnz's. The 51 can BnZ pretty well, but it can go too fast and any sudden adjustment can lead to the shearing of wings or blacking out quickly.
My tip? Get a wingman. A wingman will make any plane better than an opponent's.
-
Easy to fly?! A lot of what I've seen about the 51 makes her MORE dangerous for her own pilots than even the F4U.
-
i lov 51, Its faster then majority of the planes in the game, its pretty rugged, solid guns with enuff ammo,It can carry 2 1000lbers with rockets, great views,dont even talk about range and those high speed turns are something else(i never riped my wings off in a dive, unlike those light wieght spits). THe plane really is more of a complete package rather then one or two great attributes. Its just a plane that takes time to learn how to use. HIstorically the mustang went against a real tough bunch of germans, there top ace had like 200+ killes and the germans continued to have aces through out the war. The biggest thing it did was bring those bombers to berlin because with out the allies bringin the fight into there home court those 262 would have been all over. The biggest problem with the game is that all the newbies jump straight into it not noeing wat there doin(i did the same thing,had to learn and i out grew the spit and got back in it and appreciated wat it could do). Check out some ww2 pages and read up.
RTsimga the jug p38 and yak all fought against the axis. Allot of people forget that the p47 was all over before the mustang came. The jug fought on all fronts(run into a jug fan and say 51, he'll gladly tell you about it). Also the p38 was big time in the pacific. And the spits and hurris won the battle of britian. The mustang kinda over shadows the rest of the allied planes but there was alot of other great planes in the air(f6f,f4u,etc).
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
RTSimga the jug p38 and yak all fought against the axis. Allot of people forget that the p47 was all over before the mustang came. The jug fought on all fronts(run into a jug fan and say 51, he'll gladly tell you about it). Also the p38 was big time in the pacific. And the spits and hurris won the battle of britian. The mustang kinda over shadows the rest of the allied planes but there was alot of other great planes in the air(f6f,f4u,etc).
What I meant is that the 51 was great against the axis planes during WWII because of the situation and the abilities of the pilots and the plane, but never had to dogfight against Yaks, 38's, Spits, Tiffies, or any Allied plane.
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
What I meant is that the 51 was great against the axis planes during WWII because of the situation and the abilities of the pilots and the plane, but never had to dogfight against Yaks, 38's, Spits, Tiffies, or any Allied plane.
Soccer war.
From the Wiki: "The war is often cited as the last occasion on which piston engined fighters fought each other - both sides deploying former World War II American types. P-51 Mustangs, F4U Corsairs, T-28 Trojans and even Douglas DC-3s converted into bombers saw action. The Salvadoran Air Force was so out of shape that they reverted to dropping bombs by hand from the windows of their planes."
-
Hi Saskid,
>I meen just because it was very fast doesn't meen it is great.
It was fast in level flight, it was fast in a dive, it could go high, and it could range far.
Its direct contenders were the P-47 and the P-38.
The limiting Mach numbers, important for the dive speed, were something like Mach 0.75 for the P-47, 0.72 for the P-38, and around 0.80 for the P-51. Major advantage for the P-51 over the P-38 - it only tells up high, but up high is where the fight took place back then.
Then there is range. When the P-51 was introduced, it had a major range advantage over the P-47, making it the escort fighter of choice for the 8th Air Force. It could be the P-47 caught up later, but by that time, the 8th Air Force was (almost) an all-Mustang air force.
The P-51's opponents were the Me 109 and the Fw 190.
The P-51B/C was introduced into combat service in the European Theatre of Operation in December 1943. At that time, it held a major speed advantage over the then-current Me 109s and Fw 190s, and since the P-51 had a two-stage supercharger where the German aircraft had only a single-stage one, they didn't quite catch up with regard to high altitude speed even when improved versions came out. The P-51 always remained superior in that aspect.
>Could someone show me some statistics or accounts of why people think it is so great?
The Mustang was the fighter that defeated the Luftwaffe. At least, that was the opinion of the Luftwaffe.
With regard to statistics, a forum search will bring up a monthly deployment overview showing that the P-51 was the dominant fighter in the 8th Air Force from early 1944 on.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
When Hermann Göring heard of a new single engine fighter roaming over the center of Germany (This was before D-Day) he said something like "Now we are doomed"
-
yea i heard a documentary say the something. They fly other him i think.
-
If I were able to outurn a a6m5 in a spit8, I dont doubt a good player can outturn a a6m2 in a p51D...
maybe the zero lost an elevator
-
The P-51 was a mediocre fighter in all respects except speed and range. It was very successful over Europe because speed and range are the only two aspects of a fighter's performance you can't compensate for with superior numbers.
So the P-51 gave the Allies a fighter that could fly to Berlin and back. And to compensate for its mediocre performance they made sure they had every possible tactical advantage in numbers and altitude. Whenever the Axis got the upper hand the P-51 had the speed to disengage.
Simple really.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Kid, ya gotta do a bit of research :) Who is everyone btw? I've never heard everyone say what you claim they said. I'm part of everyone and I'd never say that.
Not in AH in RL around my area it seems like everyone is brain washed that the 51 actually won the war by itself...
Thanks for the info all.
-
i still think the spitfire was the most influential plane of the war, simply because it did so much over such a long period of time. the mustang never had to deal with the might of the early luftwaffe. now of course, this is a biased british view :D
but i still think it's the one of the most beautiful and most influential killing machines in history :)
-
SAS_Kid,
I get that feeling sometimes as well.
However I think it is the opposite in AH that in real life. There really are not that many P-51 geeks out there as there are 190, 109, Spit or even F4U (me) to argue the merits of the thing and ever detail that could be added. The P-51 performance is outstanding in fact it could be argued that it is undermodeled in AH to a degree.
It was legitamately the fastest prop fighter of the war from top to bottom. You can argue different aircraft were faster at different altitudes but the P-51D was the fastest overall. It did not even use water or ADI to achieve that speed. The climb was underated considering it carried a mother load of fuel and did not need it all for combat. With the addition of 150 octane fuel it could climb with the best the LW had while being faster and having the fastest combat diving ability (not special conditions or test flights) and excellent high speed characteristics.
Granted it was not ideally suited for close in fighting as some but it did so many things so well that it's short comings get overlooked.
I think some of the most impressive things that it has achived have been post war in cross country and closed course air racing. An amazing airplane really.
-
Hi F4UDOA,
Very fair treatment you give the P-51 there :-)
Maybe an interesting perspective for you: The original "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe" game manual had an interview with a historian who maintained that the USA wouldn't really have needed the P-51 (despite its obvious qualities) since they already had a fighter of comparable range and performance in service - the F4U :-) However, since this was a Navy aircraft, the USAAF, suffering from the Not Invented Here syndrome, the USAAF failed to employ it.
Personally, I believe this might be a bit of a simplification considering the problems generally inherent in procurement, but as you are our resident F4U expert, I'd like to hear your opinion on this :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
It was always my understanding that the P51 did not win the war. Neither did any other fighter for that matter. But what the P51 with its extraordinary range did do... Was to allow the previously unescorted bombers to win the war. Whether they were superior to their counterparts in every way or not is not the point. Their purpose, and they did perform it very well, was to see that more heavies got to the target.
-
OH Secrete Weapons of the Luftfalafa. My first WW2 combat simulator, and fell in WW2 planes since.
Honestly P51 gets all the credit, but when you think about it the P47(my love) did almost all the work. They had the widest job assignment threw out the war and yet it gets very little credit. Besides Recon and S&R what jobs didnt it do. It was a pretty success fighter. Had good range. Great Weapons. But they give all the credit to the P51. I am sorry I think the Jug needs its credit.
-
Hi Schwein,
>The P-51 was a mediocre fighter in all respects except speed and range
... which were the decisive respects.
"Turning doesn't win battles", for those who have not heard it before.
That these immortal words were spoken by a Spitfire ace should give everyone who disagrees a reason for contemplation.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Jebus
Honestly P51 gets all the credit, but when you think about it the P47(my love) did almost all the work.
Agreed. 51 came in and cleaned up the youngsters after the 47 killed the vets.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by HoHun
The original "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe" game manual had an interview with a historian who maintained
Williamson Murray. I think he still teaches at Ohio State. Don't know how they got him to do the interview for tha manual, but he's one of the brightest aviation historians there's ever been.
...er....in my opinion, of course.
- oldman
-
I think the reason the P51 gets so much fame is because it flew with the bombers to their targets and back. A lot of attention was given to the 8th AF and Thats where the P51 shined. In the PTO the P38 was the plane of choice, having long range and 2 engines made it safer to fly over the vast distances of water.
-
somebody should get the fighter scores for 51 and 47. The 47 did alot of things but you cant say that the 47 did all the work. Post some stats.
-
It is an interesting theory that the P-47 did the leg work for the P-51 in Europe, I have argued the same for the F4F and F4U in the PAC vs the F6F.
Personally, I believe this might be a bit of a simplification considering the problems generally inherent in procurement, but as you are our resident F4U expert, I'd like to hear your opinion on this :-)
What I think would have happened is that it (F4U) would have evolved in a different direction such as the production of the F4U-3 with the Supercharger and 4 blade paddle prop. This airplane was flying and in tested by the Navy in late 1942. It would have enhanced the high alt performance and climb rate.
I just liberated some NAVAER documents from the Naval Warfare Center about a week ago. It shows the early Navy testing of the F4U-3 and the speed of the F4U-1D without Pylons at 434MPH at 20K and 367MPH at sea level in 1944. I think this performance could have been utilzed more as a fighter than a fighter bomber had it flown it's Tiny Tim Missions against V1's as planned before D-Day.
Other that that it had many attributes that would have served it well in Europe. Range, Turn, Roll and better than most speed. I believe the F4U-4 would have been in service sooner to combat the D9 and K4. The 109G and 190A would have been facing the F4U-1 series. Obviously high alt performance and climb wouild have had to be addressed much sooner in the Euro theater.
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
somebody should get the fighter scores for 51 and 47. The 47 did alot of things but you cant say that the 47 did all the work. Post some stats.
You cant compair Fighter scores with the 51 against the 47 because there were so many 47 built. I shouldnt say it did all the work, but you have to admit the Jug did most of the work. It held its own in two different theaters, with two totally differant fighter types.
In the PT it had to go agaist slow better turning planes. In ET it went agaist faster planes. It had success against both. Plus it Jabo, and did close air support like no other fighter in the war.
All really the P51 do is escort bombers.
-
the 51 was in the fightin the japs aswell as the jug. And the jug didnt do most of the work. 51 maintained air dominace over both europe and japan. And the 51 more or less replaced the 47. And still we are forgeting the p38s,f4us,f6fs and even the p40. The allies had alot of good fighters but the 51 was the top of the line. DOnt get me wrong i like jugs but to say they did most of the work is disrespectful to all the other great fighter planes.
I think the aces high jug isnt what its supposed to be and needs to be reworked. I have read some storys about jug being chased by 109s and just taking all the punishment until the 109 run out of ammo and went home. Pilot lands and counts over 150 hits all over the plane from machine guns and cannons but thats a whole new post in itself.
-
let me refraze the Jug did most of the work. I mean most of the work in the ET.
Nothing against the F4u, F6F, or any other plan.
-
where did the pacific war come in???? I was talking about against Germany... jeez who cares about the Japan war:lol
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Schwein,
>The P-51 was a mediocre fighter in all respects except speed and range
... which were the decisive respects.
Didn't I make that clear enough?
-
Originally posted by G0ALY
It was always my understanding that the P51 did not win the war. Neither did any other fighter for that matter. But what the P51 with its extraordinary range did do... Was to allow the previously unescorted bombers to win the war.
The bombers did not win the war either. The soldiers did.
-
Originally posted by Schwein
The bombers did not win the war either. The soldiers did.
the soldiers wouldn't have been able to advance if the bombers didn't weaken the defenses the P51 also played a close support role for the ground troops
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
the 51 was in the fightin the japs aswell as the jug. And the jug didnt do most of the work. 51 maintained air dominace over both europe and japan. And the 51 more or less replaced the 47. And still we are forgeting the p38s,f4us,f6fs and even the p40. The allies had alot of good fighters but the 51 was the top of the line. DOnt get me wrong i like jugs but to say they did most of the work is disrespectful to all the other great fighter planes.
I think the aces high jug isnt what its supposed to be and needs to be reworked. I have read some storys about jug being chased by 109s and just taking all the punishment until the 109 run out of ammo and went home. Pilot lands and counts over 150 hits all over the plane from machine guns and cannons but thats a whole new post in itself.
Long before the P-51 arrived in Britain, P-47s were escorting bombers as far as Bremen. Thunderbolt units went operational in March and April of 1943. They were finally assisted by P-38s in November of 1943, with the first P-51 units arriving a few weeks later. Before the P-51 made any difference in the ETO, P-47s had already badly mauled the Luftwaffe. However, they suffered through the learning curve and much of what was learned was applied after units began re-equiping with P-51s in the spring and summer of 1944. P-51s were excellent fighters, but had nothing on the P-47 at high altitude.
A P-47 Group, the 56th had more air to air kills than any other Group in the ETO, with the exception of the 354th, which claimed 24 more than the 56th. However, 37 of the 354th's claims were of trainers. Only the 56th fighter group was to retain P-47s throughout the war within the 8th AF.
Thunderbolts saw combat in every major theater of the war. From the ETO to the MTO, down the SWPA, the PTO and the CBI theater. In the central Pacific, the P-47N was quite numerous in the last months of the war, and it numbers were rapidly growing when the war ended. Designed specifically for the Pacific war, the P-47N out-ranged even the P-51D.
No other American fighter in Europe had a lower loss per sortie rate than the Jug. Which is remarkable in that the P-47 was the primary close support fighter in the various Army Air Forces.
You can certainly claim that the P-51 finished off the Luftwaffe, but it was the P-47 that badly beat up the Luftwaffe during 1943, and significantly changed how the Luftwaffe would combat the bomber raids thereafter.
BTW, P-47s were incredibly rugged aircraft. However, a single 20mm hit could bring down any fighter, including the P-47 if hit in a critical location.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I wonder which type of fighter, and for that sake, which service, had the highest kills of LW aircraft.
My money goes to the RAF, but I'm really not sure, and it depends whether you count the commonwealth squadrons and the DAF.
In 1944 it was definately the US that came on top, but the RAF had been a lot longer on the job you see....
And for this:
"The P-51 was a mediocre fighter in all respects except speed and range"
Climb: Moderate
Gun package: Decent
Turn: Moderate
Roll: Rather good
Ordnance: Good
Reliability: Good
Ruggedness: Rather good
Depends on what you compare it too as well...but mediocre is rather an understatement IMHO.
-
SAS_Kid...Why do I get the feeling that you were one of those brainwashed "everyones", and someone shot your idea down, so you came and started this thread to make yourself feel better? hehehehehe
-
Angus,
I think the best attributes about the P-51 are Speed, Speed and high speed handling. No doubt turn and burn was not the role of the P-51 but at high speeds it was close to untouchable especially at alt.
The P-51 could also cruise faster than the max speed of many contemporary aircraft of it's day at alt and do it for hours. This made it harder to intercept than a slower aircraft filling the same role.
SAS_Kid,
Sorry about the partial thread jack. I was just responding to a question.
All in all I am not sure what I would want to fly if i were a Euro-pilot. I don't see the P-38 or P-47 with the type of maneuver advantage I would want to give up the speed of the P-51 especially with all of the speed on the axis side. I am usually partial to the R2800 but I might have to stick with the Pony in the AAF.
-
Hi Schwein,
>Didn't I make that clear enough?
No.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by SAS_KID
blah blah blah blah
i fly it.
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>What I think would have happened is that it (F4U) would have evolved in a different direction such as the production of the F4U-3 with the Supercharger and 4 blade paddle prop.
Hm, very good point, that was quite an impressive aircraft! The turbo superchargers would not only have helped high-altitude performance, but range as well, so that's a double advantage over the standard aircraft.
It would be interesting to compare F4U, P-47, P-38 and P-51 based on their Flight Operation Charts for similar mission profiles, but I think I have only the P-51 table and some F4U graphs, so I can't really work out a meaningful comparison for the case "no P-51 available".
>I just liberated some NAVAER documents from the Naval Warfare Center about a week ago. It shows the early Navy testing of the F4U-3 and the speed of the F4U-1D without Pylons at 434MPH at 20K and 367MPH at sea level in 1944.
Wow, cool! :-) Is there any positive indication in the report that the speeds were corrected for compressiblity? I'm asking because the Fw 190 is (still! :-) posing riddles, and there were two US tests run with a captured aircraft, so it would be interesting to confirm whether this correction was standard procedure.
>Obviously high alt performance and climb wouild have had to be addressed much sooner in the Euro theater.
One thing that might have improved F4U performance in USAAF service right away would have been the removal of the carrier equipment. I think the P-51 comparison test allows an estimate of how much that would have helped. (For high-altitude flight, light weight is a real bonus, so this would have made a noticable difference!)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by SAS_KID
Bah someone evwen said a 51D could outturn an A6M2 :rofl :lol :rofl
In Ah it can do that and more,even take off at 75mph and when you reach 88mph it can go back in time get Hitler as a toddler and send him into a Brazilian circus and make him parade them as the weird looking German child of the night that howls like a wolf but smells like a piggy. :rofl
-
Is there any positive indication in the report that the speeds were corrected for compressiblity? I'm asking because the Fw 190 is (still! :-) posing riddles, and there were two US tests run with a captured aircraft, so it would be interesting to confirm whether this correction was standard procedure.
Hmm,
What should I be looking for? What does it mean corrected for compressability? The only A/C I have seen that could reach it's own critical mach number in level flight is the P-38L with 150 octane fuel.
It would be interesting to compare F4U, P-47, P-38 and P-51 based on their Flight Operation Charts for similar mission profiles, but I think I have only the P-51 table and some F4U graphs, so I can't really work out a meaningful comparison for the case "no P-51 available".
I have detailed F4U range charts. It was not short legged considering it could carry so much external fuel (3DT's).
The combat range can be seen the Aircraft comparison chart from Vought that used the Navy's F-1 combat formula to determine effective range. The range on internal fuel was approx 1,000 miles one way. I can scan and post if you want it.
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/alliedchrts2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Glasses
In Ah it can do that and more,even take off at 75mph and when you reach 88mph it can go back in time get Hitler as a toddler and send him into a Brazilian circus and make him parade them as the weird looking German child of the night that howls like a wolf but smells like a piggy. :rofl
That's not true! (He was Austrian) :p
-
Suppose it depends what side of 'the pond' you come from.
Being originally from the UK I never considered the Pony uber, good speed, good range thats about it.
-
Kev,
Other than turing circle how was the Spitfire a better airplane?
I wouldn't want to dogfight a Spit with a Pony but I wouldn't want to fly escort missions in a Spitfire either. I guess the question is which airplane would you want over Berlin at 20 to 30K in 1944? There were only a few available and the AAF had to make a decision.
I can't believe I am defending an airplane that I have bashed so much in the past.
This much is true, it filled the role it was meant to do. It certainly was not the right airplane for Korea but it was definitely the best for Europe in fighting a Strategic war.
-
Like I said F4UDOA the Ponies range and speed are IMO it's only good assets.
Yup for long range escort missions the Pony, doesn't make it an uber plane IMO.
As you brought up the Spit -
F.21 was ultimate wartime Spit with a Griffon 65 -
4x20mm cannons
Approx 450mph @ 22.5k
Good climb
Better turn
Would have become the main frontline Spit if it wasn't for the end of the war.
Strange thing is all this about the uber Pony, whats the biggest number of complaints recently?
Spit XVI - not even a Griffon spit and at the same performance levels as a 1943 LF IX.
-
F4UDOA,
Keep in mind that both us and the Brits modified a Spitfire to have Mustang class range in 1943?. If the Mustang had not, for whatever reason, panned out it is likely that long range Spit's would have been pressed into service.
Unsurprisingly adding all that fuel to the Spitfire did bad things to its performance and handling. In particular I was amused that the fuel tank added behind the pilot made it dangerously unstable and combat would have been forbidden until it was burned off, just as in the P-51.
-
Kev/Karnak,
As Karnak mentioned the Spit was fitted for long range (I am not sure of the details) however not all aircraft want to do the long range high speed cruise. What I mean by that is that the P-51D could cruise at low fuel consumption at roughly 60 gallons per hour and fly 1900Miles at 300 miles per hour with internal fuel and two 75 gallon dt's.
As Karnak mentioned the weight increase in both is substantial enough to muck up the handling nicely on both. However the P-51D with enough fuel on board to fly over 1,000 on internal fuel at a weight of 9700LBS could still do this.
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/p51d-15342-climb.jpg)
Not bad for a Heavy fighter.
The Spit XIV could beat that but not with the same fuel load or nearly the same range. The performance gap narrows quite a bit the more things you hang onto the Spitfire to get it to do what the Pony could do with a standard load although not as spectacularly.
I don't know who said it but it is a true statement "The Mustang won't do what the Spitfire will do but it will do it over Germany".
The Mustang was not an Uber dogfighter but it was an Uber Escort.
BTW, have you ever read about the guy who tried to get his Griffon Spitfire to the Air Races? He had a very interesting opinion on the Spitfire at highspeed flight.
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>What does it mean corrected for compressability?
Compressiblity is best know for screwing up your flight dynamics, but it also increases dynamic air pressure. Since the airspeed indicator operates on dynamic air pressure, it will misread noticably at high Mach fractions.
>What should I be looking for?
In the British tests, there is a separate column "compressiblity error" in the test data listing. In German tests, it's documented by indices, so compressiblity corrected true air speed might be listed as "Vwck". If there is a position error table or graph, it might be noted below.
>The combat range can be seen the Aircraft comparison chart from Vought that used the Navy's F-1 combat formula to determine effective range. The range on internal fuel was approx 1,000 miles one way. I can scan and post if you want it.
Thanks, that would be highly interesting! :-)
The comparison table is quite good stuff, too. We have one fairly complete range comparison based on identical mission profiles now! It's a Navy mission profile, and I'm sure USAAF mission profiles were a bit different (flown at greater altitudes), so they probably gave better total range. I don't think the relative ranges should change too much, though.
The problem I spontaneously see with the table is that the number and size of the drop tanks used is not mentioned, so it's difficult to say whether all aircraft are loaded up to the maximum. The P-51B has a shorter range than the P-47D in the Navy listing, which is surprising considering that the P-51B's selling advantage over the P-47 was longer range. Maybe the P-47D was a later model with larger drop tanks, and the P-51B an early one with smaller ones? Hm ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi F4UDOA,
No doubting both the Spit and Pony were extremely well suited for their missions, but neither were particulary 'uber'.
Only 'uber' fighter of WW2 was the 262, and perhaps the Meteor III. (No one side had a big performance advantage prior to these)
By the time the Griffon Spits came out Supermarine had all but pushed them to their limits.
This resulted in a redesigned wing for the F.21, and a laminar flow wing for the Spiteful.
F.21 was cancelled after the end of the war (100+ being built and delivered ).
Spiteful cancelled once it was realised the laminar flow wing held no great advantages with the onset of the jet age.
-
F4UDOA,
The Spitfire would not have been as good an escort fighter as the P-51 was. It could have been pressed into service as one, but it would not have done the job as well. The cruising speed would be substantially lower. I don't know if a Griffon Spit could have done it though.
As to the air races, I seem to recall a comment about the radiators acting like air brakes when they opened as the coolant tempature climbed. It did well until the radiators opened. The Spit's radiator design is simple and crappy compared to the P-51's.
-
Kev,
>Only 'uber' fighter of WW2 was the 262, and perhaps the Meteor III. (No one side had a big performance advantage prior to these)
Agreed!! IMHO the peak of fighter design occurred in the 1950's. They may be better but they will never be as cool. I love my F4U's but I also love the B-58 Hustler, F9F Panther/Couger, F-86, Vampire etc. Again not uber just cool as can be.
HoHun,
Thanks for the explanation. I have seen it many times but never understood what it represented. I did not see it mentioned in the NAVAER documents but I will definitley revisit my files and search for some examples. Does it make a difference what the critical mach number is on the aircraft or is it dependand on speed and altitude only? Just wondering if I am more likely to see it on different A/C.
I think the Vought document shows the P-51B with 180 gallons of internal fuel. Had it been the D with 260 gallons I am sure it would shown better. I am not familiar with a similar AAF protocol.
Karnak,
That is the artical. I have seen interviews with the pilots of the OFMC where they speak of the P-51 as being a strickly high speed airplane and the Spitfire as being somewhat relucant at higher speeds but being very fluid at low to medium speeds. Annecdotal but interesting never the less.
-
Interestingly -
A specially modded Spit IX with fuselage tanks and able to carry Pony drop tanks flew from the UK to USA via Iceland for trials.
Must have been a somewhat sphincter twitching flight, single engine over the North Atlantic.
EEEEKKKKKK
-
Those were 2 Spitfires actually ;)
-
F4UDOA,
IMHO the best way to understand the relation between compressibility and IAS/CAS is to understand that the airspeed indicator reading is calibrated for certain conditions (say CINA standard atmosphere at sea level or what ever). So the CAS reading given by the meter (ie reading with position error) at these conditions contains very little error but when the conditions (altitude, temperature etc.) change these should be corrected. In other words IAS/CAS reading normally contain some compressibility correction but it's correct just for given conditions.
There are couple ways to check if the claimed speed contains compressibility error if it's not claimed. Simple way is to convert known IAS to TAS with standard conversion chart, if the difference between claimed and converted speed increase when the altitude increase (below FTH) claimed being faster, then it's very likely that the claimed speed is without compressibility correction.
The more complex way is to calculate drag from claimed speed with known power curve and quessed (or known) prop efficiency; if the drag decrease when the altitude increase, the claimed speed is probably without compressibility error.
But because the conditions tend to vary, these are just good quesses. Good data sets contain documentation on conditions and corrections; less room for uncertainty.
gripen
-
one .30 from a 109 and poof...no pony.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Soccer war.
From the Wiki: "The war is often cited as the last occasion on which piston engined fighters fought each other - both sides deploying former World War II American types. P-51 Mustangs, F4U Corsairs, T-28 Trojans and even Douglas DC-3s converted into bombers saw action. The Salvadoran Air Force was so out of shape that they reverted to dropping bombs by hand from the windows of their planes."
P-38L saw some of that action too...think it was with the Honduran AF.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Im gotta go wit teh Sptfire cuz its all kewl n stuff wit teh canins go pow! pow! pOw! n teh wings sooo kewl n i no that it culd blaze a 109 all ur base r belong to meh!!11!1111!!
WOW what a poser! (and its all your base are belong to us)
i dont kno why ppl think the p51 was so good, a full fuselage tank made the plave VERY unstable in fights, with the amount of gas its held, it would blow up from only a few bullets, yes the speed is good.
But when ppl say the mustang won the war, they are wrong... its not the plane that won the war, its the people who flew the planes, the people that built the wepons, the vehicles, the botas and the planes, AND MOST OF ALL, the people that fought the war, both the people that survived and died.
If u want to argue me about this go ahead, HTC will prob lock this if 2 many peole do.
-
Sas, You can't apply AHII to your history classes. It is a game.
The P51 was one of the most capable fighters of its time, Its speed vs an LA7 doesn't matter because it didn't fight against LA7s... Its turn rate Vs a Hurricane doesn't matter because it didn't fight Hurricanes... It fought FW190's and BF109s... And against those planes it was superior in most aspects. Just because some AHII 109 jock can whoop your butt when you're in a P51 doesn't mean the aircraft isn't capable of defeating a 109... It means you lost to that pilot... nothing more.
109s and 190s shot down lots of P51's... It was not like the sterile air wars of today where one team has an overwhelming advantage... winning by a few percent meant something... Today if you lose 3 planes, something is wrong... That wasn't true in 1943.
It was not a perfect aircraft. The F22 is not a perfect aircraft. But it is still better than anything it is likely to fight.
The 51 had good speed, good agility, a good gun package, remarkable range, outstanding cockpit visibility. It was a fighter pilots fighter much like the F16 today is a fighter pilots fighter. It doesn't do everything, but it does most everything very well.
Find me a Spit or an LA7 that could fly from Britain to Berlin and back.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Agreed!! IMHO the peak of fighter design occurred in the 1950's. They may be better but they will never be as cool. I love the B-58 Hustler.
:huh
In my school they taught us that 'B' meant Bomber.
Anyhow, all kidding aside, the hustler was neat, and it was fast.. But it was a joke as a bomber. The big 'pod' being all you have... Run in fast as hell, hope you don't get shot down... drop the nuke..
It was a short sighted machine with a short life to match. There is a reason why the B52 is still flying today., and the Hustler is almost forgotten history.
The B58 was a machine to make the public feel secure... It wasn't a genuine war machine. It would have been shot down by the thousands. It was the one you put in the SAC window to say 'Yeah, we have supersonic nukes.' It was nothing more than slick advertising by the Air Force.
-
Originally posted by Nemeth
WOW what a poser! (and its all your base are belong to us)
i dont kno why ppl think the p51 was so good, a full fuselage tank made the plave VERY unstable in fights, with the amount of gas its held, it would blow up from only a few bullets, yes the speed is good.
But when ppl say the mustang won the war, they are wrong... its not the plane that won the war, its the people who flew the planes, the people that built the wepons, the vehicles, the botas and the planes, AND MOST OF ALL, the people that fought the war, both the people that survived and died.
If u want to argue me about this go ahead, HTC will prob lock this if 2 many peole do.
Sure the P-51 was VERY unstable. :rolleyes: That is why during Bodenplatte, a squadron of P-51s took off with full tanks, with drop tanks, while under attack and cleaned the air of LW a/c, all at low level. Not one crashed because of its fuel load.:eek: There was an aft CG bias but the a/c was still flyable, one just had to be careful about radical manuevers.
Yes people are wrong for it was the P-47 that did all the hard work. The P-51 showed up in the middle of the 3rd quarter to finish the job.
-
Ah Kurt, PR Spits flew to Berlin and back. So nice of them to photograph the targets for the 8th AF.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Ah Kurt, PR Spits flew to Berlin and back. So nice of them to photograph the targets for the 8th AF.
Sometimes even a know-it-all like me learns something. :aok
-
Stripped down without armament and stuffed to the gills with gasoline.
To quote from "Target Berlin" by Jeff Ethel and Alfred Price
While the mass of American bombers and fithers rumbled over the Dutch coast and out to sea, a lone aircraft was speeding eastwards to Berlin to complete the mission. This was Spitfire "High Lady" of the US 7th Photo Group piloted by Major Walt Weitner. The Spitfire had been stripped of all armament and armor, part of the wing had been converted into a huge fuel tank...
He ran out of gas upon landing as he taxied to his dispersal point.
-
Always wondered what a Pony with a Griffon would have been like. (of for that matter a Mossie with twin Griffons).
-
I do believe the P-51 racer "Red Baron" had a griffon mounted.
-
I think Kev meant "in fighting trim".
Bronk
-
Yup,
Was reading up on how Rolls Royce developed the Merlin -
Basically get more power then run it till something breaks......
Strengthen or redesign that part......
Run the test again.....
Repeat as neccessary.
They actualy got a late model Merlin running for 15 mins at 2600+HP using the above method in late '44.
Merlin 130 was capable of 2030HP. (deHavilland Hornet)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Yes people are wrong for it was the P-47 that did all the hard work. The P-51 showed up in the middle of the 3rd quarter to finish the job.
WOW u didnt get my point, and the p47 wasnt the ONLY plane flying, not one plane alone could of won the war, it was a combined effort of the allies, that won the war (winter in russia helped a whole **** load to), and why does it always have to be a american plane?? the britts were in the war from the beginning, why cant a hurricane be the one that wone the war??they seen the most action, or even a bomber?
-
Here is the listing of USAF fighter air to air claims in ETO before June 44 from USAAF statistical digest:
1943
Jan 5
Feb 2
Mar -
Apr 4
May 8
Jun 18
Jul 42
Aug 53
Sep 38
Oct 76
Nov 105
Dec 100
1944
Jan 203
Feb 341
Mar 469
Apr 418
May 596
So USAF fighters did not claim particularly high numbers 1943. It would be interesting to know claims by type but so far I have not seen such data.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Nemeth
WOW u didnt get my point, and the p47 wasnt the ONLY plane flying, not one plane alone could of won the war, it was a combined effort of the allies, that won the war (winter in russia helped a whole **** load to), and why does it always have to be a american plane?? the britts were in the war from the beginning, why cant a hurricane be the one that wone the war??they seen the most action, or even a bomber?
I got your point but you failed to understand what I said. :)
Without America, the arsenal, of the world, WW2 could be still being fought. What was that sci-fi book that had the world divided into 3 camps?
Winters in the SU were not nice but a bigger factor was that due to the Russians using a different RR guage all supples had to be transferred from German RR cars to Russian RR cars.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Sure the P-51 was VERY unstable. :rolleyes: That is why during Bodenplatte, a squadron of P-51s took off with full tanks, with drop tanks, while under attack and cleaned the air of LW a/c, all at low level. Not one crashed because of its fuel load.:eek: There was an aft CG bias but the a/c was still flyable, one just had to be careful about radical manuevers.
Yes people are wrong for it was the P-47 that did all the hard work. The P-51 showed up in the middle of the 3rd quarter to finish the job.
It may have something to do with the fact many of the People flying in Boddenplatte weren't the cream of the crop Milo. 16 and 17 year olds with 50 hours total flying time. Even vets would say the P-51 was quit a handful at lower airspeeds. I had a video of a P-51 pilot flying at an airshow trying to make a low speed barrel roll and he augered in due to the aft CG limits of the aircraft.
The plane was good due the high altitude speed and low drag at higher speeds which gave it such great speed but it was hardly a turn fighter like we see in AH.
It's overly generous in its turn performance,and acceleration or lack of speed bleed. Not only that but being able to outnumber the enemy 10 to 1 which made up for lack of skill of many that were sent to the ETO,which like mentioned before when they arrived enforce they were mostly shooting down clay pigeons.
-
Originally posted by Glasses
It's overly generous in its turn performance,and acceleration or lack of speed bleed..
You know this for a fact because you have flown how many 51s ??????
Bronk
-
Let's go a bit further in USAAF statistics, below is heavy bomber losses to enemy aircraft before June 1944:
1943
Jan 18
Feb 21
Mar 18
Apr 28
May 48
Jun 78
Jul 79
Aug 87
Sep 46
Oct 139
Nov 53
Dec 85
1944
Jan 139
Feb 170
Mar 178
Apr 314
May 211
So based on bomber loses the activity of the Luftwaffe was strongest during April 1944. Same can be concluded from fighter losses to enemy aircraft:
1943
Jan 3
Feb 1
Mar 1
Apr 5
May 9
Jun 8
Jul 14
Aug 7
Sep 10
Oct 13
Nov 53
Dec 37
1944
Jan 57
Feb 69
Mar 54
Apr 201
May 176
Claims by bombers are also interesting:
1943
Jan 45
Feb 72
Mar 142
Apr 146
May 372
Jun 293
Jul 527
Aug 401
Sep 255
Oct 791
Nov 106
Dec 231
1944
Jan 582
Feb 397
Mar 363
Apr 346
May 380
While there is some justified doubts about bomber claims, it's quite clear that effect of the long range escort fighters did not show up before February 1944.
Overall it seems that USAAF fighters did not cause large damage to the Luftwaffe before spring 1944. Claims by type during spring 1944 would give quite good indication which type did the hard work.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Nemeth
WOW what a poser! (and its all your base are belong to us)
Nice one. Now go spit out the hook.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
You know this for a fact because you have flown how many 51s ??????
Bronk
Likewise you've flown how many 109s P-38s F4Us or 190s???
I'm going by what was reported of the aircraft in the field and what one documentary of "flying the P-51"
In which they flew a refurbished P-51, if I'm not mistaken it was the same guy that died later flying a 109.
It's like saying that the super laminar flow of the P-51 also allowed it to defy the thrust to weight of the aircraft or dropping full flaps allowed to grow a second wing as it performs in AH. It allowed it with a 1700hp engine and a weight of 12k lbs to reach higherspeeds due to the lower drag profile compared to other aircraft , it was however not too stellar in acceleration,not only that but it had a very vulnerable radiator, and this has been said from people who got shot down flying it during low raids over German occupied Europe. Yet in AH it can take a bunch of hits and keep on flying, heck even 20mm rounds to the cockpit don't phase it.
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Likewise you've flown how many 109s P-38s F4Us or 190s???
I'm going by what was reported of the aircraft in the field and what one documentary of "flying the P-51"
In which they flew a refurbished P-51, if I'm not mistaken it was the same guy that died later flying a 109.
It's like saying that the super laminar flow of the P-51 also allowed it to defy the thrust to weight of the aircraft or dropping full flaps allowed to grow a second wing as it performs in AH. It allowed it with a 1700hp engine and a weight of 12k lbs to reach higherspeeds due to the lower drag profile compared to other aircraft , it was however not too stellar in acceleration,not only that but it had a very vulnerable radiator, and this has been said from people who got shot down flying it during low raids over German occupied Europe. Yet in AH it can take a bunch of hits and keep on flying, heck even 20mm rounds to the cockpit don't phase it.
1 I am not claiming anything YOU are.
2 I believe S.O.P. was to burn off the AUX tank first. Once that was emptied the cg problem was eliminated. Of course just going by what I have reading, told, and seen on documentaries . HMMM just like YOU.
3 HMM in AH yup it has slow excell, cooling system is made of glass. Strange I have taken damage damage from GF in AH when i make low pass over a GV defended field. Where do i get this force field you seem to think the mustang has. Btw I no longer use the 51 for this purpose Jug does it much better. You know its really strange I killed 3, 51 ds just last night. What uber weapon platform was I using 51b . Yup that's right 4 .50 cal . Please tell the whiners in the other thread that the .50 cal is to uber and must be porked.
Bronk
-
In AH P51B=P-51D-2 *.50cals, so again no challenge. :D Thing is you need a P-51 to kill a P-51. Then again most pilots in AH don't fly too well in it. A mediocre pilot in AH can become a good one while flying a good one an excellent pilot and an excellent one into a God.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Kev,
>Only 'uber' fighter of WW2 was the 262, and perhaps the Meteor III. (No one side had a big performance advantage prior to these)
Agreed!! IMHO the peak of fighter design occurred in the 1950's. They may be better but they will never be as cool. I love my F4U's but I also love the B-58 Hustler, F9F Panther/Couger, F-86, Vampire etc. Again not uber just cool as can be.
HoHun,
Thanks for the explanation. I have seen it many times but never understood what it represented. I did not see it mentioned in the NAVAER documents but I will definitley revisit my files and search for some examples. Does it make a difference what the critical mach number is on the aircraft or is it dependand on speed and altitude only? Just wondering if I am more likely to see it on different A/C.
I think the Vought document shows the P-51B with 180 gallons of internal fuel. Had it been the D with 260 gallons I am sure it would shown better. I am not familiar with a similar AAF protocol.
Karnak,
That is the artical. I have seen interviews with the pilots of the OFMC where they speak of the P-51 as being a strickly high speed airplane and the Spitfire as being somewhat relucant at higher speeds but being very fluid at low to medium speeds. Annecdotal but interesting never the less.
That's why I say HT and crew should Make Sabres and MiGs no question about who won the war in that one because it was a tie :D So the arguement of giving a favorable performance to one side or the other is moot.
-
Originally posted by Glasses
In AH P51B=P-51D-2 *.50cals, so again no challenge. :D Thing is you need a P-51 to kill a P-51.
I'm going to take this opportunity to hi-jack this thread.
The B is different than the D. It handles the same, for the most part, but it has a different power curve, that's for sure. B is really a medium-to-high alt craft (but can go lower). D is low-to-medium (but can go higher). The guns do make a difference, in that 6x50cal will get you kills better, and will allow for snapshots (not reliable ones, but worth taking) whereas in the B you better saddle up and sit there getting that shot before ya fire.
As for the second half of what ya said, I got a 51D in a 47N last night, and today I got one in 51B in a D11, so as with any plane they can be killed by any other plane -- if they slow down :P
-
Sure you got that the right way round Krusty?
Always thought -
B - was good at low alts (engine sucked at high alts). I believe in its day it was one of the fastest fighters on the deck.
D - As the B, sucked at high alts UNTIL they fitted a Merlin engine.
-
I'm pretty sure. I've checked the power curves, the B has a huge drop in lower alts (say 8-14k) then starts going above 15k or so. I think the D is the opposite, the supercharger is geared so that there's a second "step" between 0 and 15k, so that there's not such a bad dip in power, but this means that the step above that is the last one and the higher alt performance is a trade off. It still rocks up there, but compared to the B ....
They trade back and forth, it seems.
-
The D had Merlins. They didn't put them in later.
As to the P-51s in AH they are essentially the same thing is what i'm getting at.
I can make 5 kills in a single sortie easy using the 51B. and make a little bit more in the D.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I'm pretty sure. I've checked the power curves, the B has a huge drop in lower alts (say 8-14k) then starts going above 15k or so. I think the D is the opposite, the supercharger is geared so that there's a second "step" between 0 and 15k, so that there's not such a bad dip in power, but this means that the step above that is the last one and the higher alt performance is a trade off. It still rocks up there, but compared to the B ....
They trade back and forth, it seems.
Yes, they do trade back and forth. I've tested every fighter at 10k, 15k, 20k and 25k.
At 10k, the fastest 10 prop fighters are:
Bf 109K-4: 411 mph
P-51D: 407 mph
Fw 190D-9: 405 mph
Spitfire XIV: 404 mph
P-51B: 401 mph
P-47N: 399 mph
F4U-4:398 mph
Tempest: 396 mph
La-7: 394 mph
F4U-1: 390 mph
When comparing the P-51D to the P-51B, at 15k the P-51B surges well ahead of the D model, 424 mph, vs 407 mph for the P-51D. At 20k, they're dead even at 421 mph. As a side note, the 109K-4 does 426 mph at 15k.
My regards,
Widewing
-
On paper in AH they do that but a K-4 cannot run away from a P-51D ever. Even with slight control inputs the K-4 or D-9 in Ah bleed a bunch of airspeed and they can neither out maneuver or out turn a P-51D. SO again my point being it requires nothing of grey matter to actually be sucessful in the D or B.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Sure you got that the right way round Krusty?
Always thought -
B - was good at low alts (engine sucked at high alts). I believe in its day it was one of the fastest fighters on the deck.
D - As the B, sucked at high alts UNTIL they fitted a Merlin engine.
We talking 51s? B was the first Merlin model. They operated alongside the Ds right til the end of the war. That tends to bug me in AH cause I'll take a B before the D. Fly along with some guys in Ds though and you can't keep up. Don't think it should really be that way.
Most pilots found the handling of the 51B better then the D due to the lighter weight and it was also a bit faster. THe trade off for the extra 50s and the all round view being improved was worth it though.
There shouldn't be much difference at all as the Merlins were the same. Might be like the Spit FIX and the Spit LFIX however with the supercharger set to cut in at different alts in the B vs D.
Allison engined Mustang was the A and it didn't have the high alt performance.
Image of 359th FG Mustangs, 8th AF in late 44. Note the mix of early canopy, Malcom hood B/C models and D models all operating together. A common sight with the 8th.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/861_1145940712_359thmix.jpg)
-
Widewing: I thought so! Thanks for actual numbers!
Guppy: In real life they cruised everywhere, and they had the ability to goose the throttle a bit to stay in formation. A few MPH speed difference isn't a big deal in that case. However in AH everybody flies FFT so you won't be able to stay in formation, unless the P51Ds are concious of the issue and slow down.
-
"That tends to bug me in AH cause I'll take a B before the D. Fly along with some guys in Ds though and you can't keep up. Don't think it should really be that way."
Fly with those guys at 30K and *they* won't be able to keep up.
J_A_B
-
Yeah because you know a Dora 9 with 4 extra MPH will be able to outpace those turboprop fighters . :D
-
Originally posted by Glasses
On paper in AH they do that but a K-4 cannot run away from a P-51D ever. Even with slight control inputs the K-4 or D-9 in Ah bleed a bunch of airspeed and they can neither out maneuver or out turn a P-51D. SO again my point being it requires nothing of grey matter to actually be sucessful in the D or B.
Acceleration of the 109 is usually what helps me get away from P51's if necessary. Couple of hard turns to slow things down, then extend. 109's will get to speed much faster than the P51.
-
Yeah but you need the P-51s to lose their speed first don't you? :D