Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: beau32 on February 16, 2009, 09:08:56 PM
-
Hello and good day all.
I have a P-51 manual and it states that without droptank or bombs loaded the mustang can carry 10 rockets. The version we have only carries 6. Here is what the manual says.
Later airplanes of the P-51D series are equipped to carry ten 5-inch, zero rail rockets, five under each wing. Each rocket is supported at nose and tail by a pair of launchers which are attached to the wing structure. The forward launcher contains an arming solenoid and supports the rocket by means of a forward-opening slot which engages a lug on the rucket. A safety-wired latch on the aft launcher restrains the rocket from slipping forward and falling off. When the rocket is ignited, its forward thrust shears the safety wire, allowing it to shoot forward from the launchers. Four of the rockets are installed close to the bomb racks. Consequently, when bombs or droppable tanks are attached to the racks, only six rockets can be carried, three on each wing.
So in game do we have a early P-51D model, or are the rocket set up on the plane incorrect?
-
How does it define 'later'? Was made well beyond WW2
-
The Mustang was tested with a setup that used the main pylon to carry two extra rockets. In service the plane used two bombs and six rockets but I dont think the pylon mod was made available in the field.
-
ok, i was just curious. I didnt know how they would mount the other 4. Thanks.
-
ok, i was just curious. I didnt know how they would mount the other 4. Thanks.
Eigh, instead of three rocket mounts and the standard drop tank or bomb mounts/hardpoints on each wing they were able to put two additional rocket hardpoints, thus ten rockets total (five per wing). Someone else brought this up a couple weeks ago I think and it was discussed more thouroughly. Something I thought was interesting which someone brought up in that thread was that there is no photos from WWII that show a P-51 "very heavy" (two 1000lbers and rockets), just one with maybe 500lbers and rockets and the rest have smaller bombs and rockets or drop tanks and rockets or just rockets with no bombs/DTs.
-
Eigh, instead of three rocket mounts and the standard drop tank or bomb mounts/hardpoints on each wing they were able to put two additional rocket hardpoints, thus ten rockets total (five per wing). Someone else brought this up a couple weeks ago I think and it was discussed more thouroughly. Something I thought was interesting which someone brought up in that thread was that there is no photos from WWII that show a P-51 "very heavy" (two 1000lbers and rockets), just one with maybe 500lbers and rockets and the rest have smaller bombs and rockets or drop tanks and rockets or just rockets with no bombs/DTs.
It was CorkyJr/GuppyJr that pointed out that there weren't any known photographs of any WW2 era P-51Ds with 10 HVAR rockets mounted.
ack-ack
-
Well having a set of 10 rockets for the P51D would be a nice addition.
-
Well having a set of 10 rockets for the P51D would be a nice addition.
Not if they didn't field them in real life.
ack-ack
-
The plane could carry 10 rockets--it rolled off the factory with the capability. There are very few pictures of P-51's carrying 1,000 lb bombs either (Dan's photos from Iwo Jima being the only ones I've ever seen). Given that the POH states plainly that it is outside of the normal operation of the aircraft to load 2X1,000 lb bombs, you could make the argument that the 2X1,000 lb load is just as much an anomoly as a 10 rocket load.
P-47's almost never operated with 2X1,000 + 1X500 + 10 rockets in real life--I've never seen a picture of an operational aircraft with that load, and yet you can fit one out that way in-game. Not necessarily a right/wrong issue--just inconsistent IMO.
Just saying...
-
This a Jug like you are talking about?
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/NJug.jpg)
Even Korean 51s don't carry 10 rockets as they kept the pylons on to carry bombs or napalm. The WW2 Mustangs seemed to carry DTs for the most part when they carried rockets.
-
Touche`--I should have assumed you had one :)
I would hazard a guess that this aircraft was conducting air support on or around Okinawa, not unlike the P-51's that your picture shows on Iwo Jima. For typical missions they were carrying some external fuel to get somewhere.
All I'm saying is that the P-51 had the capability to carry the ordnance--that's all. I have no agenda beyond that.
p.s. You got some D-model shots in that configuration? Perhaps 9th AF used it frequently?
-
Touche`--I should have assumed you had one :)
I would hazard a guess that this aircraft was conducting air support on or around Okinawa, not unlike the P-51's that your picture shows on Iwo Jima. For typical missions they were carrying some external fuel to get somewhere.
All I'm saying is that the P-51 had the capability to carry the ordnance--that's all. I have no agenda beyond that.
p.s. You got some D-model shots in that configuration? Perhaps 9th AF used it frequently?
Agreed on the short range bit with the 51 and 1000 pounders as well as that N Jug.
Best I can do on a D Jug. 4 rockets on the zero length rails and 3 500 pounders. A fair amount of photos of Jugs with the rocket tubes totalling 6 rockets and 2 500 pounders but not three that I can find.
9th AF bird
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/DJug.jpg)
-
During WWII the US Army would have been looking carefully at mission reports and I think in the case of the Mustang they would have seen a large portion of its 'mission accomplished' reports to be as a fighter and not as an attacker. Even though the plane could carry a heavier load then its type specification it had a problem with antiaircraft guns and heavy loses in the attack role would have had the groups primarily assigned to attack roles having different planes assigned dont you think? I mean if an individual squadron had great losses in Mustangs and another had great success with the Thunderbolt and most of the boys made it back home I would think both squadrons would be handed Thunderbolts next time around.
If you look at the Lightning (for a different perspective) you can see that it was successful in the Pacific but I believe the German engineering was refined upon beyond the Japanese level and when PTO fighters came to the ETO it was obvious the Lightning was out of its element. If that isnt completely true it must be true at least that the Lightning was a par behind in effectiveness. Likewise the Corsair was not used much in Europe and you would think if that fighter were the same success it is in our main arena that it would have been a front line machine against Hitler wouldnt you?
-
Personally, I don't think that fighters should be able to carry bombs larger than 500lbs without paying perks for them.
-
I wasnt trying to comment against the 1000 lbers but just trying to point out a possible reason for the scarcity of photos of a P51 with 1000 lbers and rockets.
-
Agreed on the short range bit with the 51 and 1000 pounders as well as that N Jug.
Best I can do on a D Jug. 4 rockets on the zero length rails and 3 500 pounders. A fair amount of photos of Jugs with the rocket tubes totalling 6 rockets and 2 500 pounders but not three that I can find.
9th AF bird
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/DJug.jpg)
Very nice!
And Chalenge, according to the POH, the Mustang got pretty squirrely with the crowd-pleasers hung. It was a very rare load out.
-
Like I said I thought it was scarce but since it rolled with it we should have it and yes our Mustang is a handful that heavy. I dont think you can say 'very rare' though... not with any certainty.
-
ok, i was just curious. I didnt know how they would mount the other 4. Thanks.
Next paragraph in 15 Aug 45 printing:
Four of the rockets are installed close to the bomb racks. Consequently, when bombs or droppable tanks are attached to the racks, only six rockets can be carried, three on each wing.
-
I wasnt trying to comment against the 1000 lbers but just trying to point out a possible reason for the scarcity of photos of a P51 with 1000 lbers and rockets.
I know.
I was adding my 2 cents. I think the fact that the late war fighters carry so much ord really hurts the variety we see in the game. Limit P-51s, F4Us and F6Fs to 500lbers and more variety would be out there. I am tempted to say limit the Bf110G to 250kg bombs and the P-38 to 500lbers too.
-
Like I said I thought it was scarce but since it rolled with it we should have it and yes our Mustang is a handful that heavy. I dont think you can say 'very rare' though... not with any certainty.
No, not with any certainty. All I can say with certainty is that the POH specifically discourages the use of 1000 lb bombs due to the maneuvering limits placed on the aircraft. Given that those guys out in the field pushed their aircraft to the edge, I'm sure it was done more than once. The only pictures I've seen are Dan's from Iwo Jima. On those missions they were taking off from one of the airfields on the island, climbing up, dropping the bombs and landing. That's a very short mission radius that would allow them some flexibility loading the aircraft with fuel/ammo, perhaps. It could be interesting to see what was going on at Saipan and Tinian as they had some fairly short-distance missions during those campaigns.
The 318th hated taking off heavy from Ie Shima. The runway was 3000 feet long, with cliffs and the ocean at the end, and required a full run-up, 72" of MP and water injection to get airborne. The Republic test-pilot that flew out there to "prove" to them the aircraft could handle such loads was killed on a takeoff trying to make his point. IIRC, those heavy loads were dictated by the Marine General that was the joint air commander for the battle and not something the group liked to carry.
Ultimately, HTC gets to make the decisions and its a good piece of trivia to discuss from time to time.
-
I know.
I was adding my 2 cents. I think the fact that the late war fighters carry so much ord really hurts the variety we see in the game. Limit P-51s, F4Us and F6Fs to 500lbers and more variety would be out there. I am tempted to say limit the Bf110G to 250kg bombs and the P-38 to 500lbers too.
While not used in every ground attack mission, P-38s did carry 1000lbers in level flight bombing runs. They'd be led by a P-38 Droop Snoop pathfinder equipped with a Norden bombsight and would all drop when the pathfinder released its eggs. How many missions were run like this? Probably hundreds, if not more.
ack-ack
-
If you look at the Lightning (for a different perspective) you can see that it was successful in the Pacific but I believe the German engineering was refined upon beyond the Japanese level and when PTO fighters came to the ETO it was obvious the Lightning was out of its element. If that isnt completely true it must be true at least that the Lightning was a par behind in effectiveness.
Obviously it had nothing to do with the decisions of the 8th AF who believed thier bombers did not need long range fighter escorts in the spring of 42 when P-38s were being delivered to MTO and PTO. The following year they were well behind the curve in supply, maintainance, training, and formulating operational tactics for the P-38 specifically, and long range escorting in general. The 38 had its teathing problems with operations under higher altitude/lower tempatures, however lack of pre-deployment training of ground and flight personel, poorly blended fuel, and command level tactical trial and error did not help matters one bit. Meanwhile in MTO the 38's effectiveness was not in question against the same enemy.
-
I'm with Karnak, you want to hang 1k's on a fighter you should have to pay for them.
-
<- really hoping for a perked ordinance/weapons system.
-
i heard they also mounte M-10 rockets tubes
found this too
Wings
6: 0.5" MG4
6: 12.7 mm Browning MG1,2
6: 12.7 mm MG3
Bombs
2: 500 lb1, 2: 1,000 lb2,3, 2,000 lb4
2: 227 kg1, 2: 454 kg2,3, 907 kg4
OR
Rockets
8: 75 mm1
6: 5"2,3,4
6: 127 mm2,3,4
note the 10 HVAR rockets not mentioned
Sources:
1 Aircraft of WWII, General Editor: Jim Winchester, 2004
2 Fighting Aircraft of World War II, Editor: Karen Leverington, 1995
3 The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II, General Editor Chris Bishop, 1998
4 Aircraft of WWII, Stewart Wilson, 1998
-
Same here
anything 500 and over should be perked.
please Ht bring on that good ol' perk ord system!
-
Just so everyone knows, the P-51D pilots training manual is posted on its AHWiki page. A number of other manuals are also posted on AHWiki plane pages for US and UK aircraft...more as I get to them.
-
<- really hoping for a perked ordinance/weapons system.
+1.
I personally hate the suicide jabos. I can't wait for a perked ord system. This will require more wingman tactics to take down strats at bases and such. You would need a couple planes off a CV to take down the VH, etc.
-
Perking ordnance won't get rid of the suicide jabos or cut down on the tactic.
ack-ack
-
Perking ordnance won't get rid of the suicide jabos or cut down on the tactic.
ack-ack
It may make them think twice before diving in.
By this perked ord, this means you take up the 1K's and when they are dropped, perks are subtracted? Or when you die, they are?
-
Just so everyone knows, the P-51D pilots training manual is posted on its AHWiki page. A number of other manuals are also posted on AHWiki plane pages for US and UK aircraft...more as I get to them.
Thanks for taking the effort to get those posted, as they are excellent resources.
-
Thanks for taking the effort to get those posted, as they are excellent resources.
:salute Thanks to HTC for the space to host part of the collection, and to Ron Handgraaf who's collection we're referring to for documents we don't have on hand.
-
It may make them think twice before diving in.
The reason I don't think it will is that the majority that use 'suicide jabo' tactics do so out of 1) carelessness (they let themselves get too fast in a dive and auger in after pickling) and 2) lack of skill (not knowing how to dive bomb). For those that don't know how to dive bomb, it's very easy just to ride the plane in to make sure your bombs hit. These kind of players will keep doing this regardless if some of the larger ordnance packages were perked.
By this perked ord, this means you take up the 1K's and when they are dropped, perks are subtracted? Or when you die, they are?
From what I gather (and information has been very scarce other than the brief mention from Pyro) but it would seem the perks would be subtracted in the hanger when you select a perked ordnance package.
ack-ack
-
The reason I don't think it will is that the majority that use 'suicide jabo' tactics do so out of 1) carelessness (they let themselves get too fast in a dive and auger in after pickling) and 2) lack of skill (not knowing how to dive bomb). For those that don't know how to dive bomb, it's very easy just to ride the plane in to make sure your bombs hit. These kind of players will keep doing this regardless if some of the larger ordnance packages were perked.
From what I gather (and information has been very scarce other than the brief mention from Pyro) but it would seem the perks would be subtracted in the hanger when you select a perked ordnance package.
ack-ack
I'm a #1, especially if I zoom in during the dive.
wrongway
-
Perking ordnance won't get rid of the suicide jabos or cut down on the tactic.
ack-ack
My thoughts have nothing to do with suicide jabos. I want to see attack aircraft such as the TBM and Ju87 have a definitive role. I would honestly rather see the 1000lbers removed from fighters rather than perked.
-
While not used in every ground attack mission, P-38s did carry 1000lbers in level flight bombing runs. They'd be led by a P-38 Droop Snoop pathfinder equipped with a Norden bombsight and would all drop when the pathfinder released its eggs. How many missions were run like this? Probably hundreds, if not more.
ack-ack
I went through the 428t FS, 474th history just to check as they flew 38s in the ETO until the end. The flew ground attack and consistantly carried 2 x 1000 pounders for dive bombing or general ground attack from November 44 on. It was 2 500 pounders prior to this time, so they were lugging 1000 pounders almost daily from November 44 to May 45. They also carred 2 x 2000 pounders on a few occasions, again in ground attack. They didn't do much droop snoot stuff.
Quoting an e-mail from a 474th pilot who I correspond with now and then.
"We even carried two 2000 lb bombs a few times. Had to use wooden sway bars that banged up the bird on bomb release
so we didn't do it often and 1k bombs were probably just as effective. Both 2k bombs had to be dropped together-on pull out,
the bomb shackle would come off from g force."
As for the Mustangs. Even in Korea where they were closer to the front lines and didn't lug DTs, they carried a mix ord load of Rockets and bombs or napalm. It makes sense to have that kind of load out I think. There is a great book on the Mustang in the Korean war with all kinds of photos and there isn't a single photo of a 10 rocket load out, but all kinds of photos of 51s with 6 rockets and bombs or 6 rockets and napalm tanks.
-
As for the Mustangs. Even in Korea where they were closer to the front lines and didn't lug DTs, they carried a mix ord load of Rockets and bombs or napalm. It makes sense to have that kind of load out I think. There is a great book on the Mustang in the Korean war with all kinds of photos and there isn't a single photo of a 10 rocket load out, but all kinds of photos of 51s with 6 rockets and bombs or 6 rockets and napalm tanks.
You know, they may have never carried them in combat, but the aircraft was capable--that's all. From a tactical standpoint, I can't think of a scenario that would have made a 10 rocket load better than a rocket/bomb mix, other than perhaps FAC(A), but they weren't doing that kind of stuff yet in the 50's, and I don't know if they even had Willie-Pete 5" HVAR--probably not. In game, on the other hand, I can certainly see a use for a 10 rocket only load--de-acking fields. But, I prefer Jugs for that mission anyway. :salute
-
(http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2504/image064.th.jpg) (http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image064.jpg)
-
My thoughts have nothing to do with suicide jabos. I want to see attack aircraft such as the TBM and Ju87 have a definitive role. I would honestly rather see the 1000lbers removed from fighters rather than perked.
But certain fighters did lug around 1000lbers on certain missions when called for. Or are you trying to say that it never happened?
ack-ack
-
But certain fighters did lug around 1000lbers on certain missions when called for. Or are you trying to say that it never happened?
ack-ack
Not at all. Simply talking about game balance. Now, I do think the P-38 and Bf110 should have their 1000lbers and 500kg bombs. Just tempting to say otherwise.
I don't think the P-51 should have them for free. Not sure about the F4U, F6F, P-47 or Typhoon.
-
On second thought, couldnt the P51D carry an additional drop tank or bomb underneath the fuselage? Ive seen a few pictures of them.
-
On second thought, couldnt the P51D carry an additional drop tank or bomb underneath the fuselage? Ive seen a few pictures of them.
You've seen a photo of a 51 with a fuselage DT or bomb? I'm thinking you are mistaken as the radiator 'doghouse' is under the fuselage and wouldn't be a place to hang a bomb as it's too low to the ground under the intake, and in front of the intake would not allow the airflow to the radiator.
-
You've seen a photo of a 51 with a fuselage DT or bomb? I'm thinking you are mistaken as the radiator 'doghouse' is under the fuselage and wouldn't be a place to hang a bomb as it's too low to the ground under the intake, and in front of the intake would not allow the airflow to the radiator.
And, the inner gear doors are right there on the center line. No where to hang a bomb there on a P-51.
wongway
-
Oh okay... forgive my ignorance... :o