Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: angelsandair on February 21, 2008, 05:02:51 PM

Title: P-51
Post by: angelsandair on February 21, 2008, 05:02:51 PM: This isnt no "I WANT THE P-51H" thread
Just would like to know how it was so good and what made it good.
Personally, I could care less if it was in the game or not...
Title: P-51
Post by: Widewing on February 21, 2008, 05:28:26 PM: A general aero clean-up, reducing weight by about 600 lb, add another 210 hp.

Read a test report here. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-8284.html)

My regards,

Widewing
Title: P-51
Post by: angelsandair on February 21, 2008, 05:31:59 PM: Cool that pretty much awnsers my question

~1pLUs44
Title: P-51
Post by: Stoney on February 21, 2008, 05:53:02 PM: Had a more refined airfoil shape and used a straight tapered wing minus the root fillet on the D model. Don't have data, but the wing was probably more efficient as a result. Had a larger vertical stabilizer to reduce the affects of adverse yaw as well. The radiator intake/exhaust was reshaped to be more efficient too.
Title: P-51
Post by: gripen on February 22, 2008, 03:01:59 AM: The light weight developements of the P-51 (F, G, H and J) were pretty much completely new design; new wing with another profile, longer fuselage, different tail surfaces, new radiators etc.
Title: P-51
Post by: MiloMorai on February 22, 2008, 03:48:23 AM: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_13.html

Not a bad site (most data is reliable).
Title: P-51
Post by: Charge on February 22, 2008, 04:07:58 AM: Some more info on later models:

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2000/01/stuff_eng_p51late.htm

-C+
Title: P-51
Post by: angelsandair on February 26, 2008, 05:51:33 PM: Suprising i didnt make some squeaker announcement of how i want the uber p51 :D
Title: P-51
Post by: Bodhi on February 26, 2008, 08:33:01 PM: Quote
Originally posted by angelsandair
Suprising i didnt make some squeaker announcement of how i want the uber p51 :D

Does not change the fact that you are still a squeaker. :aok
Title: P-51
Post by: angelsandair on February 27, 2008, 01:11:30 AM: who ever said it did? :rofl
I think im prolbably the oldest of all squeakers.
Title: P-51
Post by: outbreak on February 27, 2008, 05:46:14 PM: Quote
Originally posted by angelsandair
who ever said it did? :rofl
I think im prolbably the oldest of all squeakers.

want a cookie ?:lol
Title: P-51
Post by: angelsandair on February 28, 2008, 12:53:41 AM: Quote
Originally posted by outbreak
want a cookie ?:lol

yes.......
Title: P-51
Post by: AquaShrimp on March 02, 2008, 10:46:01 AM: Is this an error, or can someone explain the mechanism of action to me:

(B)   Combat Radius of Action
(b)   Long Range Fighter (2 – 110 gal. tanks)   1002 miles
(c)   Long Range Fighter (2 – 165 gal. tanks)   1024 miles

110 more gallons of fuel only equals 22 miles extra in range? What is going on here?
Title: Re: P-51
Post by: 1sum41 on March 15, 2008, 01:45:23 AM: i like all ponys
Title: Re: P-51
Post by: AquaShrimp on March 15, 2008, 01:15:05 PM: The P-51H wasn't stressed for as many G's as the P-51D. The 51D itself had some structural weakness problems. Early 51Ds had a problem with the wings tearing off. That problem was partially fixed when it became apparent that the gear doors were opening in high speed dives. However, the tail section of the plane sometimes would tear off in high-g turns.

I believe the P-51D was stressed for 8g's, while the P-51H was stressed for 6g's.