Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Die Hard on April 08, 2009, 05:46:02 AM
-
Although I'm not a huge fan of the P-51 personally (though she's beautiful) I have often thought about why we don't have more versions of it. Why don't we have more versions of it, really?
The P-51 was a very important aircraft in the European theater, and one of the great aviation icons of WWII, just like the Spitfire and Messerschmitt, or perhaps even more so than those two. We have several versions of the 109G which differ only in armament and engine performance, and the only real difference between the Spit V, IX and XVI is the engine and armament. We also have several versions of the Jug and the Hog. I find it strange that we don't have more Ponies; sure we have the B-Pony and the D-Pony, but that doesn't really cover the performance changes from 1943 to 1945.
I propose the following versions be implemented:
1943 P-51B/C with the birdcage canopy and the -3 engine
1944-early P-51B/C with the Malcolm canopy and -7 engine, optional six-gun package
1944-early P-51D/K with -7 engine
1944-late P-51B/C with -7 engine and 150 octane avgas, optional six-gun package
1944-late P-51D/K with -7 engine and 150 octane avgas
Maybe a 1945 P-51D/K with -9 engine and Simmons automatic boost control and water injection just for fun? ;)
The 1944-late and 1945 versions might have to be perked, but that's perfectly all-right. More goodies to spend perks on!
Anyone else have the same thoughts on this subject?
-
Bung in the A-36 as well.
-
The P-51 was a very important aircraft in the European theater, and one of the great aviation icons of WWII, just like the Spitfire and Messerschmitt, or perhaps even more so than those two.
An aircraft that served for a year and half in the ETO is more important than two that served nearly 5 years?
We have several versions of the 109G which differ only in armament and engine performance
:lol
-
Although I'm not a huge fan of the P-51 personally (though she's beautiful) I have often thought about why we don't have more versions of it. Why don't we have more versions of it, really?
The P-51 was a very important aircraft in the European theater, and one of the great aviation icons of WWII, just like the Spitfire and Messerschmitt, or perhaps even more so than those two. We have several versions of the 109G which differ only in armament and engine performance, and the only real difference between the Spit V, IX and XVI is the engine and armament. We also have several versions of the Jug and the Hog. I find it strange that we don't have more Ponies; sure we have the B-Pony and the D-Pony, but that doesn't really cover the performance changes from 1943 to 1945.
I propose the following versions be implemented:
1943 P-51B/C with the birdcage canopy and the -3 engine
1944-early P-51B/C with the Malcolm canopy and -7 engine, optional six-gun package
1944-early P-51D/K with -7 engine
1944-late P-51B/C with -7 engine and 150 octane avgas, optional six-gun package
1944-late P-51D/K with -7 engine and 150 octane avgas
Maybe a 1945 P-51D/K with -9 engine and Simmons automatic boost control and water injection just for fun? ;)
The 1944-late and 1945 versions might have to be perked, but that's perfectly all-right. More goodies to spend perks on!
Anyone else have the same thoughts on this subject?
Cool, more Runstangs to do just that!
-
An aircraft that served for a year and half in the ETO is more important than two that served nearly 5 years?
Perhaps not, but more iconic. At least in the US.
:lol
What's so funny about that? In AH the 109G-2 and G-6 only differ in armament. G-6 and G-14 only differ in armament and engine (DB 605AM).
-
Ok, two harsh replies in a row....
I agree that the P-51 was a great aircraft. You don't need to hype it up or make light of the variety of 109s to ask for more versions of the P-51.
A P-51D with 150 octane fuel would probably be perked. That extra power would mean more than just a faster Mustang. :t
-----------------
What's so funny about that? In AH the 109G-2 and G-6 only differ in armament. G-6 and G-14 only differ in armament and engine (DB 605AM).
How else should versions of any aircraft differ besides engine and armament?
You also missed canopy differences, bullet-proof-glass headrest, tail-wheel retractability, oil-cooler size, main-wheel size, wheel-recess bulge size in the wings, cowl bulges for the MG 131, vertical stabilizer size...there might be more.
-
Ok, two harsh replies in a row....
You don't need to hype it up or make light of the variety of 109s to ask for more versions of the P-51.
Make light? In Aces High what other performance changes than armament and engine are there in the Gustav series? There are just as many, if not more, minor and major changes between the P-47D-11 and the P-47D-40 as there are between the 109G-2 and G-14. Sure, there were minor structural changes, and instrument changes, but these do not affect game play.
-
You also missed canopy differences, bullet-proof-glass headrest, tail-wheel retractability, oil-cooler size, main-wheel size, wheel-recess bulge size in the wings, cowl bulges for the MG 131, vertical stabilizer size...there might be more.
None of which affect game play in any way (except the Erla hood).
-
Yes, but you make me laugh when you say "only differ armament and engine performance," as those are about the two most important factors for game play.
Also, to some of us AH isn't really for the arenas; many of us wouldn't have an account if it weren't for FSO, and substitutions are the bane of scenario play. If anything we want more versions of the Gustav.
-
Yes, but you make me laugh when you say "only differ armament and engine performance," as those are about the two most important factors for game play.
And that's the whole point: Beyond the changes made from the B to the D model the airframe of the P-51 did not change from 1943 to 1945 in any way that would affect game play much, however there were changes in engine power that would affect game play a lot. Giving the B a -7 engine for instance. Not to mention 150 octane fuel. The P-51's we have now are only representative for a 1943 and early-1944 Pony, contemporaries of the 109G-6 . We lack the 109G-14's and K-4's contemporary P-51's.
-
Sure, I'm all for it. I'll add it to the list of other easy-to-add variants that we'll likely never see. ;)
-
We have several versions of the 109G which differ only in armament and engine performance...
I'm all in favor of any new aircraft, but for purposes of clarification, the differences between the 109G2, G6 and G14 span far wider than simply "engine and armament."
-
I'm all in favor of any new aircraft, but for purposes of clarification, the differences between the 109G2, G6 and G14 span far wider than simply "engine and armament."
Not in terms of Aces High game play they don't. We are discussing internet cartoon planes here, not the real thing. Get with the program already.
-
Crap I couldn't throw the first rock.
In any case the pony already got his new model done so you'd have to wait for aces high III to get new versions.
Not in terms of Aces High game play they don't. We are discussing internet cartoon planes here, not the real thing. Get with the program already.
A Plane in real life and aces high isn't only defined by its engine power and its guns. IMO one good exemple is the F4U-1 VS F4U-1A. P47-D40 and P47-D25 is a good exemple too.
-
I want a P51 with 20mm's. :D
-
A Plane in real life and aces high isn't only defined by its engine power and its guns.
And who has ever made that claim? Get on topic and stop arguing over these irrelevancies. The only difference between an early-1944 and late-1944 P-51D that affects AH game play is engine power. HTC does not need to model a new aircraft. There are no bulges or Galland armor or Erla hoods or wheel-well bulges or anything ... just 150 octane gas and invisible (to us players) changes in the engine. The only art work they would have to do is bring back the birdcage B-Pony to represent the 1943 version.
They could even add these versions as options in the hangar instead of separate planes if the game code allows for it.
-
And who has ever made that claim? Get on topic and stop arguing over these irrelevancies
I extended your way of thinking over the 109G series (maybe too much I agree) which are WAY more complicated than just engine and guns...
On the topic the new P51 variants you propose are ok with me, put it on top of the "easy to add variants" pile with the F6F-3.
Just for the input the spitfire flew before and after the war so it sounds logical we have more variants of it, whatever icon the plane is.
-
Time frame is what matters: In service in 1943 and 1944 we have the Spit IX (in service since 1942), VIII, XIV and XVI; and we also lack late-1944/1945 150 octane versions of the Merlin Spits. In service in 1943 and 1944 we have the 109G-2 (in service since 1942), G-6, G-14 and K-4. The P-51's modeled in AH are as anachronistic compared to the 109K-4 as the 109-G6 would be to the Spit XIV.
-
The P-51's modeled in AH are as anachronistic compared to the 109K-4 as the 109-G6 would be to the Spit XIV.
Anybody that can use "anachronistic" in a well thought out sentence has my vote! Good argument.
We are supposed to only write at an eighth grade level at work when corresponding via email. I should visit
these boards more often, so I don't get dumbed up to bad.
When did 150 octane get introduced? Was it available to all Western Allied ac or just a few modified ones?
You see where I am going here? If the 51 gets it would all late model Western ac want it?
Thanx
-
Anybody that can use "anachronistic" in a well thought out sentence has my vote! Good argument.
We are supposed to only write at an eighth grade level at work when corresponding via email. I should visit
these boards more often, so I don't get dumbed up to bad.
When did 150 octane get introduced? Was it available to all Western Allied ac or just a few modified ones?
You see where I am going here? If the 51 gets it would all late model Western ac want it?
Thanx
Lmao!!
Perk the 150 octane fuel!!
I don't think aircraft that weren't designed with 150 octane fuel in mind would fare too well in the long run, or at all without modifications.
It would be like putting racing fuel in my stock Northstar engine. Boom!!
-
IN :aok
-
There are substantial differences in the handling and performance of the Bf109G-2, Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-14, more than the differences between the P-51B and P-51D.
-
Lmao!!
Perk the 150 octane fuel!!
I don't think aircraft that weren't designed with 150 octane fuel in mind would fare too well in the long run, or at all without modifications.
It would be like putting racing fuel in my stock Northstar engine. Boom!!
If you put racing fuel (not alcohol) in your stock Northstar engine, it wouldn't tear it up or cause it to go BOOM! You, however, might do it if you kept your foot to the floor and dogged the heck out of it.
There are substantial differences in the handling and performance of the Bf109G-2, Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-14, more than the differences between the P-51B and P-51D.
Not substantial enough to request a 109G-6ASM or whatever moniker you want to insert. Seriously, reading the "Wishlist" section usually calls for the addition of some LW bird we already have, with a special engine or power booster in it. Nothing wrong with wanting, but the justifications get downright ridiculous IMO.
Would it be within reasonable expectations for non-LW fans to want "150 octane fuel" with the upgraded performance? Yup, if it was representative of what the USAAF aircraft flew with during the war.
I'm all for new aircraft being added, for whatever country. Heck, I've been waiting 8 years now for HTC to model the P-47M, it ain't happened yet, but I'm still waiting.
If ya don't agree with someone's thoughts on needing or wanting a certain plane, just disagree and leave it at that. Why ridicule or belittle them?
Just my thoughts..........
-
Agreed. Diehard's off his rocker on this one.
Oh, and please note the Mustangs didn't start showing up in numbers until early 1944, so your claims of having a 1943 version are baffling.
Also, "optional 6-guns on P-51C"???
Bs and Cs are identical. They were just made at different plants, each with their own designation.
Facetious request.
-
Not substantial enough to request a 109G-6ASM or whatever moniker you want to insert.
You picked the wrong plane to pick on. There were around twice as many 109G-6s with the DB 605ASM than there were La-7s with 3x20mm. The aircraft is needed for one of the most popular historical setups, i.e. Big Week in '44.
-
Not substantial enough to request a 109G-6ASM or whatever moniker you want to insert.
They are absolutely substantial enough to justify the Bf109G-6AS or Bf109G-14AS (or just changing the Bf209G-14 to a Bf109G-14AS). Why are they that substantial? Because the Bf109K-4 is too late and the Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-14 as gasping for breath at the altitudes they need to fight against US bombers and their escorts. There are massive performance differences between the two at those altitudes.
-
I think some people in this thread need to consider that the 109 G series was by far the most produced variant of the Bf.109, and from 1942 until 1945 well over 12,000 had been built (compare this to 15,000 Mustangs). And unlike most aircraft, hundreds of un-denoted changes were made throughout it's production (a late G-6 was very different from the originals, despite still being called a G-6!). If anything... we don't have enough of the G-series! Particularly the -6!
Though I do think an Allison Pony would be interesting, much more of the planeset needs to be fleshed out first.
edit; 12,000 was not the total production for the G series :o ,
that's the total production of the G-6 in particular. I can't find the specific number for the entire G series, but IIRC it's somewhere close to 2/3's of the entire 109 production of about 33,000. It was a pretty significant aircraft, believe it or not...
-
Not in terms of Aces High game play they don't. We are discussing internet cartoon planes here, not the real thing. Get with the program already.
Who is discussing the real thing?
I hate to fall back upon such a simple argument, but if you think that engine performance and armament are the only differences in the Gustav lineup, you're just not familiar enough with the airplane to draw an assessment of any value. Sorry.
Beyond that, I'm confused as to why you are taking such a hard line stance (read: attitude) with people who appear to be supportive of your idea.
-
Not that I'm a big pony fan, but the Mustang I was used in squadron strength by the RAF in August of 1942. Doing research on the Dieppe raid, I found 2 RCAF squadrons that used the Mustang Mk I during the raid, scoring the first Mustang kills of the war.
http://rcaf.com/squadrons/400series/414squadron.php (http://rcaf.com/squadrons/400series/414squadron.php)
I think an early Mustang would be a good addition for the reasons others have posted; it would allow for much better aircraft sets in early war events.
However, I think there are many other aircraft that should be higher on the priority list.
-
I'm not "picking" on any particular aircraft. I do however think it's a bit much to expect HTC to model each and every subtle variation of any aircraft, regardless of the differences in oil cooler size, main gear size, bulges, etc.
Gaps in the planeset are there for all countries, not just the Axis rides. Expecting one side to make do with what we have now, but stating a need for additional planes for the other side gets old after a while (well, like 8, going on 9 years now).
-
I'm not "picking" on any particular aircraft. I do however think it's a bit much to expect HTC to model each and every subtle variation of any aircraft, regardless of the differences in oil cooler size, main gear size, bulges, etc.
Gaps in the planeset are there for all countries, not just the Axis rides. Expecting one side to make do with what we have now, but stating a need for additional planes for the other side gets old after a while (well, like 8, going on 9 years now).
I'm in favor of more variants for all aircraft, not just 109s.
-
"I'm in favor of more variants for all aircraft, not just 109s"
Then we're in agreement.
-
Agreed. Diehard's off his rocker on this one.
Oh, and please note the Mustangs didn't start showing up in numbers until early 1944, so your claims of having a 1943 version are baffling.
Also, "optional 6-guns on P-51C"???
Bs and Cs are identical. They were just made at different plants, each with their own designation.
Facetious request.
Oh oh, agreeing with Krusty :)
What is this 6 gun P51B/C you speak of. Never seen or heard of it.
As for a 1943 version, it wouldn't have a fuselage fuel tank, and would suffer from a lot of gun problems, engine problems, icing etc. Took a while to work out the bugs.
I think the 51s are represented quite nicely for 44-45.
-
The P-51's we have now are only representative for a 1943 and early-1944 Pony, contemporaries of the 109G-6 . We lack the 109G-14's and K-4's contemporary P-51's.
I've always maintained that the 51 is not a very good ride compared to other late war planes.
-
It's an excellent ride. I could hold my own against bighorn in a K4, 1:1. And we know that 1:1 isn't where the 51 really shines.
-
It's an excellent ride. I could hold my own against bighorn in a K4, 1:1. And we know that 1:1 isn't where the 51 really shines.
Two things: you are an exceptional stick so you skew the norm. Did you win?
-
Lmao!!
Perk the 150 octane fuel!!
I don't think aircraft that weren't designed with 150 octane fuel in mind would fare too well in the long run, or at all without modifications.
It would be like putting racing fuel in my stock Northstar engine. Boom!!
No it wouldn't. 150 octane fuel is not more explosive than 130 octane fuel. In fact it is slightly less explosive since they had to add PEP additives to increase the octane rating. Perhaps you should google what octane actually means in this context.
When did 150 octane get introduced? Was it available to all Western Allied ac or just a few modified ones?
You see where I am going here? If the 51 gets it would all late model Western ac want it?
Like I said in my initial post I'm not really a huge P-51 fan, but I am of the impression that 150 octane fuel was standard on the Merlins in late 1944. I know the Ponies and Spits used it; don't know about other engines/aircraft.
There are substantial differences in the handling and performance of the Bf109G-2, Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-14...
Ok, which handling differences (that are modeled in AH) are not a direct result of engine or armament changes (weight, bulges, torque, CG etc.) ?
I hate to fall back upon such a simple argument, but if you think that engine performance and armament are the only differences in the Gustav lineup, you're just not familiar enough with the airplane to draw an assessment of any value. Sorry.
I've flown the 109, sometimes exclusively, for the last 5 years. So I'll just disregard your comment.
Me being a 109 fan is actually part of the reason I made this thread; every time I up a 109K and run into a Pony I feel like I'm cheating. The early-1944 Ponies had about 1,700 hp available at WEP on 130 octane fuel. In late-1944 that same Pony would have about 2,000 hp running on 150 octane fuel. That's a huge performance gain that simply isn't modeled in AH.
-
When did 150 octane get introduced? Was it available to all Western Allied ac or just a few modified ones?
You see where I am going here? If the 51 gets it would all late model Western ac want it?
iirc it was standard issue to RAF fighter squadrons in late '44. Spits, Mossies and Tempests all showed big performance increases with 150, imagine the whines :lol
-
Two things: you are an exceptional stick so you skew the norm. Did you win?
No.. it was slightly in bighorn's ("another" exceptional stick) favor. Something like 7 out of 10 for him, with 1-2 of his wins neck and neck. The P51D's an excellent fighter. Freez and I winged up with it after something like months of non stop luftwaffe stuff. We were just speechless over vox.. :lol The sky is the pony pilot's canvas.
With late war mods like 150 octane, you could really rock the skies.
-
An aircraft that served for a year and half in the ETO is more important than two that served nearly 5 years?
:lol
P51 was the best fighter in the european theater so i think its got to be pretty important :salute
-
P51 was the best fighter in the european theater so i think its got to be pretty important :salute
The "best fighter" honor would have to go to the Me-262, and it's not even close. ;)
-
NVM.
-
I've flown the 109, sometimes exclusively, for the last 5 years. So I'll just disregard your comment.
Your previous statements suggests otherwise.
Try turning the stall limiter off, maybe?
-
Your previous statements suggests otherwise.
Try turning the stall limiter off, maybe?
You're a funny guy. Instead of your lame one-liners how about explaining why you think I'm wrong?
-
The "best fighter" honor would have to go to the Me-262, and it's not even close. ;)
Hardly. The 262 was a piece of junk.
-
How so? It had the same advantages over it's contemporaries as the Pony when it was introduced, except for much more pronounced.
The only 'junky' thing about the Me 262 was the reliability of it's engines (or lack thereof).
-
You're a funny guy. Instead of your lame one-liners how about explaining why you think I'm wrong?
The planes are different. They're not redundant.
-
Ok, which handling differences (that are modeled in AH) are not a direct result of engine or armament changes (weight, bulges, torque, CG etc.) ?
If you're talking about going from the G-2 to the -6, there are none. The G-6 is a G-4 with MG131 cowl guns, the G-4 being an improved version of the -2 (bigger landing gear etc.). They both use the DB 605A engine in, from what I understand, the exact same configuration. However the difference that this causes between the G-2 and the -6 is significant. The G-2 is faster, climbs better, and turns better. The G-6 has a noticeably heavier armament, is more docile, and the version we have in game has the Gallandpanzer head armor which provides a significant improvement in visibility (more than the Erla Haube canopy IMO).
The differences between the G-6 and the -14 are even more pronounced, with the G-14's MW-50 boost system providing superb performance on WEP (though the added weight makes it the slowest Gustav on MIL). The G-14 also incorporates the Erla Haube canopy which again improves visibility.
You can't really sub one in for another, and all of them represent an aircraft that played a significant role in significant numbers.
-
The planes are different. They're not redundant.
When did I say they were redundant?
-
If you're talking about going from the G-2 to the -6, there are none. The G-6 is a G-4 with MG131 cowl guns, the G-4 being an improved version of the -2 (bigger landing gear etc.). They both use the DB 605A engine in, from what I understand, the exact same configuration. However the difference that this causes between the G-2 and the -6 is significant. The G-2 is faster, climbs better, and turns better. The G-6 has a noticeably heavier armament, is more docile, and the version we have in game has the Gallandpanzer head armor which provides a significant improvement in visibility (more than the Erla Haube canopy IMO).
The differences between the G-6 and the -14 are even more pronounced, with the G-14's MW-50 boost system providing superb performance on WEP (though the added weight makes it the slowest Gustav on MIL). The G-14 also incorporates the Erla Haube canopy which again improves visibility.
You can't really sub one in for another, and all of them represent an aircraft that played a significant role in significant numbers.
So all handling changes (that are modeled in AH) from the G-2 to the G-6 and to the G-14 are direct results of changes in engine or armament, just like I said. Thank you. And the only change I'm proposing for the Pony is a 300 hp increase in WEP engine power in a late-1944 model.
-
The G-14 also has redesigned wing bulges from the 4/6 (cut down on drag I imagine) and a taller v-stab and rudder. But yes all of the changes are the result of changes on the demands on the airframe, just like differences between the variants of every aircraft that ever flew.
-
The G-14 also has redesigned wing bulges from the 4/6 (cut down on drag I imagine) and a taller v-stab and rudder. But yes all of the changes are the result of changes on the demands on the airframe, just like differences between the variants of every aircraft that ever flew.
Exactly. Strange that some people find such a simple concept so difficult to understand.
-
So all handling changes (that are modeled in AH) from the G-2 to the G-6 and to the G-14 are direct results of changes in engine or armament, just like I said. Thank you. And the only change I'm proposing for the Pony is a 300 hp increase in WEP engine power in a late-1944 model.
If there were a later P-51D block that HTC could model and give it performance based on 150 octane fuel, sure, add it and perk it. Add the 150 octane fuel to the Spitfire Mk XIV while they're at it too.
-
When did I say they were redundant?
You didn't because you're after splitting hairs, not the big picture. The 109 was the workhorse of the luftwaffe. You can't have Aces High without an at least semi-fleshed out 109 family. Germany was pretty much the lead actor in WWII. It wasn't a sidekick actor in the air war of WWII.
The G6AS is a big hole in the luftwaffe planeset, and so would the G14 or K4, or any other single 109 we have now, the same way a 150 octane P51 would be, if what we have really are only pre-'45 ponies. HTC putting the P51H in the (very) old "next aircraft" poll alongside the P47N/M, Ta152, etc, is a clue that there is a gap to fill.If there were a later P-51D block that HTC could model and give it performance based on 150 octane fuel, sure, add it and perk it. Add the 150 octane fuel to the Spitfire Mk XIV while they're at it too.
Not without a higher boost 190A-5, an A-9, and a D-11.. And a 152H with the GM1 ballast removed :lol
-
Not without a higher boost 190A-5, an A-9, and a D-11.. And a 152H with the GM1 ballast removed :lol
Sure, so long as they get perked.
-
You didn't because you're after splitting hairs, not the big picture. The 109 was the workhorse of the luftwaffe. You can't have Aces High without an at least semi-fleshed out 109 family. Germany was pretty much the lead actor in WWII. It wasn't a sidekick actor in the air war of WWII.
The G6AS is a big hole in the luftwaffe planeset, and so would the G14 or K4, or any other single 109 we have now, the same way a 150 octane P51 would be, if what we have really are only pre-'45 ponies. HTC putting the P51H in the (very) old "next aircraft" poll alongside the P47N/M, Ta152, etc, is a clue that there is a gap to fill.
The USAAF and the P-51 were not "sidekick actors" in the air war either. This thread is specifically about the P-51 plane set, not the 109; if you what to advocate the addition of the 109G-6/AS then start your own thread. The fact remains that in the game there are four 109's and four Spits covering 1943 to 1945, but only two P-51's. And the two we have really only cover 1943 and early 1944 in terms of performance.
-
Hardly. The 262 was a piece of junk.
Sour grapes. :lol
-
The USAAF and the P-51 were not "sidekick actors" in the air war either. This thread is specifically about the P-51 plane set, not the 109; if you what to advocate the addition of the 109G-6/AS then start your own thread. The fact remains that in the game there are four 109's and four Spits covering 1943 to 1945, but only two P-51's. And the two we have really only cover 1943 and early 1944 in terms of performance.
Three Spits, Mk VIII is 1943, Mk XIV is 1944 and Mk XVI is 1944, but there are reasons to have all three. The Mk IX is from mid 1942.
-
The Mk IX is from mid 1942.
...and was still a front line fighter in 1943+
...but there are reasons to have all three.
Is there really no reason to have 2,000 hp late-1944 P-51's that historically match up to the 109K-4 and Spit XIV?
-
Calling the G-2 a 1943 aircraft is a bit of a stretch as well, it was being replaced by the -6 by February of that year.
-
Calling the G-2 a 1943 aircraft is a bit of a stretch as well, it was being replaced by the -6 by February of that year.
109G-2's were still flying in late 1943 and early 1944 (upgraded to G-4) and was still in production in July 1943. It takes time to replace an air force.
-
...and was still a front line fighter in 1943+
No, the Merlin 61 Spitfires were not in frontline service in 1944 and they were rare in 1943 compared to Merlin 66 Spitfires.
Is there really no reason to have 2,000 hp late-1944 P-51's that historically match up to the 109K-4 and Spit XIV?
Refer to my earlier post where I said it was fine, if perked.
-
G-2 production by all factories (WNF, Erla, and Mtt.-Reg. produced 109's) ended in February. The G-4 was still in production until July, but I don't know where they went- even RVG units had been re-equipped with the G-5/6 by this time. I would expect that most G-4's produced in July went to recce units.
-
G-2 production by all factories (WNF, Erla, and Mtt.-Reg. produced 109's) ended in February. The G-4 was still in production until July, but I don't know where they went- even RVG units had been re-equipped with the G-5/6 by this time. I would expect that most G-4's produced in July went to recce units.
So the G-2 was still in production in February 1943. G-4 still in production in July 1943. Why is that so difficult to accept?
(http://www.sturmovik-commander.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/megerfin7.jpg)
Newly received Bf 109G-2’s at Malmi airfield on 16 May 1943
(http://www.michael-reimer.com/CFS2/CFS2_Profiles/ETO_AXIS_Luftwaffe_JG51-Dateien/Messerschmitt%2520Bf%2520109G-2_400x150.jpg)
1943, Summer - Messerschmitt Bf 109G-2/Trop - Sardinia
-
No, the Merlin 61 Spitfires were not in frontline service in 1944 and they were rare in 1943 compared to Merlin 66 Spitfires.
Rare or not, they were there.
-
Rare or not, they were there.
You are being very, very disingenuous with your arguments, FYI.
-
You are being very, very disingenuous with your arguments, FYI.
No I'm not. You can't seriously argue that the late-1944/1945 P-51's are properly represented in the game. They clearly aren't. What is disingenuous are all these off-topic sidetracks and pointless bickering over details.
-
No I'm not. You can't seriously argue that the late-1944/1945 P-51's are properly represented in the game. They clearly aren't. What is disingenuous are all these off-topic sidetracks and pointless bickering over details.
Show me where I argued that. You can't, because I didn't.
-
Show me where I argued that. You can't, because I didn't.
No, but others have, and you sure as hell took part in the off topic pointless bickering. Why did you even bother to comment in this thread?
-
No, but others have, and you sure as hell took part in the off topic pointless bickering. Why did you even bother to comment in this thread?
Because of your gross misrepresentations.
The late war P-51s are as well represented as the late war Bf109s and Spitfires. There was a greater variety of those two, even late war, than of P-51s.
-
Die Hard's got no idea what he's talking about. Let me counter with P-51Bs flying well into 1945 right alongside P51Ds in mixed formations, having little to no trouble keeping up with their later brothers. Kind of casts doubts on your comments about not representing the performance differences between late/early P51s. We've got 'em.
Only thing we don't have is 150 octane, and IMO that's not really something we need. It's already one of the top 5 fastest prop planes in the game.
-
Die Hard,
I usually don't get involved in these types of arguments, because for the most part, it's a matter of opinion not fact. You initiated this discussion, and asked for others opinions in a very odd way. You stated that you only wanted to hear from people who had the same thoughts, without allowing for any discussion.
Anyone else have the same thoughts on this subject?
From that point on, you should have just ignored any opinion that you disagreed with. It was clear to me that you had no intention of changing your opinion or looking for a discussion. So while many of the responses provided valid points of disagreement with you opinion, you continue to engage them as if they are wrong and you are right. So to make this very clear, to this point in the discussion, no one has completely agreed with your opinion. Some have agreed that any additional planes are good. A few, myself included, have agreed that the early versions of the Mustang are not represented properly.
Almost every other response is directed at the position that many other aircraft are need, BEFORE any further late war Mustang's would need to be added. I concur with that opinion, and suspect that you would have an extremely difficult time trying to convince any of us, otherwise.
You have done nothing to support your original position, and instead have chosen to react to the comments you should be ignoring. Perhaps if you posted some documentation to support your original position you'd do more to help this discussion. Because your current approach to responding, is only going make this worse.
Just a thought,
<S> Baumer
-
The USAAF and the P-51 were not "sidekick actors" in the air war either. This thread is specifically about the P-51 plane set, not the 109; if you what to advocate the addition of the 109G-6/AS then start your own thread. The fact remains that in the game there are four 109's and four Spits covering 1943 to 1945, but only two P-51's. And the two we have really only cover 1943 and early 1944 in terms of performance.
Baumer beat me to it. You initiated this discussion, and asked for others opinions in a very odd way. You stated that you only wanted to hear from people who had the same thoughts, without allowing for any discussion.
-
Fark it. There is no longer any point in making any form of discussion on this bbs; there are just too many pedantics and people who just argue for argument's sake.
Feel free to argue amongst yourselves.
-
Fark it. There is no longer any point in making any form of discussion on this bbs; there are just too many pedantics and people who just argue for argument's sake.
Feel free to argue amongst yourselves.
Hehe, you're finally learning. But this bbs isn't full of pedants, rather, it's full of people who defend the AH status quo. :devil
-
Regardless, this POST is full of people calling bullchit when they see it, and letting the original poster know when they see it.
-
Perhaps your using a different definition of the word discussion?
dis·cus·sion
Pronunciation: di-ˈskə-shən
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discussion (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discussion)
I can't have a discussion (informal debate) with you, if you only want to hear your own opinion parroted back at you. There is certainly no reason for you to take your ball and go home, what you should do is provide some evidence to support your opinion. I doubt you'll be able to sway many of the people who have responded so far, but that doesn't matter. If you are able to provide enough evidence that might sway HTC, then you've really done what you wanted to do. Also, I do not see anyone in this post saying that Aces High should not continue to add more aircraft to the game. No one is defending the status quo (in this case), what they are stating is that in their opinion, there are other aircraft that should receive a higher position on the priority list.
-
Sour grapes. :lol
Truth is truth. If AHII also had realistic failure rates you would never fly a 262.
-
Nor a number of other planes, as well!
-
I love how thread thread exploded as soon as the 109 was attacked. :D
-
I love how thread thread exploded as soon as the 109 was attacked. :D
Well, I am not even a 109 fan and I defended it against the inaccuracies he was stating.
-
Perhaps your using a different definition of the word discussion?
dis·cus·sion
Pronunciation: di-ˈskə-shən
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discussion (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discussion)
I can't have a discussion (informal debate) with you, if you only want to hear your own opinion parroted back at you. There is certainly no reason for you to take your ball and go home, what you should do is provide some evidence to support your opinion. I doubt you'll be able to sway many of the people who have responded so far, but that doesn't matter. If you are able to provide enough evidence that might sway HTC, then you've really done what you wanted to do. Also, I do not see anyone in this post saying that Aces High should not continue to add more aircraft to the game. No one is defending the status quo (in this case), what they are stating is that in their opinion, there are other aircraft that should receive a higher position on the priority list.
But,But,But...150 octane fuel would be so cool :cool:
maybe we can have a disk us ion about that ;)
-
Well, I am not even a 109 fan and I defended it against the inaccuracies he was stating.
How pedantic!
-
Well, I am not even a 109 fan and I defended it against the inaccuracies he was stating.
And which inaccuracies would that be, specifically?
-
No I'm not. You can't seriously argue that the late-1944/1945 P-51's are properly represented in the game. They clearly aren't. What is disingenuous are all these off-topic sidetracks and pointless bickering over details.
Explain to me again which late 44-45 Mustang we are missing? The H wasn't involved. You want a P51K? That was just a D with the aeroproducts prop, produced in Dallas and was considered a bit inferior to the D model due to prop issues. YOu want the Dallas style flatter bubble canopy?
You want a non Malcom hood B/C model? B made in Inglewood CA, C in Dallas TX. Same bird otherwise. Performance would be the same if not a bit less then the Malcom hood bird as for some reason the airflow over the Malcom hood actually increased performance a bit. We had the 'coffin hood' previously and many of us suggested the B/C would get more use if the visibility of the Malcom was there.
Consider that we have rocket rails on the D Pony. They didn't see use in 44-45 in the ETO, that's a very late in the game PTO addition.
Please use the search function and read all the threads on higher octane fuel. There was some very good and useful information posted there the last 20 times that was discussed. It wasn't so simple as to say all the Mustangs and Spits were using it. There was a lot more involved.
IF you want an Allison Mustang, we're not talking 44-45 as outside of some used for Army Co-op or Recce work they were for the most part gone.
So again, help me out here. What Mustang are we missing?
-
We are missing P-51D and B (or K and C if you prefer) running on 150 octane fuel like they did in late 1944 and 1945. We're also missing a B/C with the Packard-Merlin V-1650-7 and a birdcage B/C. We could also use an early Allison powered one as some people have suggested.
As for 150 octane gas: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,254161.0.html
-
And which inaccuracies would that be, specifically?
That it wasn't justified to have so many when there are only cosmetic differences and when we only have two versions of the P-51 Mustang, the greatest WWII fighter ever.
You casually dismissed any and all explanations of the differences almost as though you didn't read anything anybody actually posted.
As to the 150 octane discussion, there was a very lengthy thread about it when the Spitfires were updated and the Spitfire Mk VIII and Spitfire Mk XVI were added. My take at that time was that the Mk VIII should have been added at +18lbs boost on 100 octane and the Mk XVI should have been added at +25lbs boost on 150 octane. HTC thought that the +25lbs boost would have made the Mk XVI too powerful to bu uncontrolled (i.e., no perked) in the MA, something that is true.
I would have no problems with them changing the P-51D we have to an earlier block and taking off the rocket rails and limiting it to two 500lb bombs while, at the same time, adding a perked later block P-51D with rocket rails, 1000lb bomb capability and 150 octane fuel. At the same time they should raise the Spitfire Mk XIV's boost setting to +21lbs boost as it ran on 150 octane so that it might actually justify being perked.
An Allison engined P-51A would be nice at some point, but given the huge disparity in aircraft numbers for each nation, I have to think that is a pretty low priority.
As to the P-51 being the best fighter, I'll leave you with a quote from an American pilot who flew first Spitfire Mk VIIIs and later P-51Ds, both in the USAAF. "The P-51 can't do what the Spitfire can do, but it can do it over Berlin." There is no "best" fighter in all circumstances, but the best all round fighter of WWII was the F4U series, not the P-51, Spitfire or Bf109 series.
-
Truth is truth. If AHII also had realistic failure rates you would never fly a 262.
Do I need to make a list of all the teething problems that other fighters had before they became reliable? Heck, that the Germans even got the Me-262 flying while we bombed the snot out of them is impressive. Why magnify its one shortcoming to obscure the fact that it was years ahead of anything else in the sky? I still say sour grapes. You wish it had been designed in the United States, and if it had been, you would be the first to sing its praises. ;)
-
HTC thought that the +25lbs boost would have made the Mk XVI too powerful to bu uncontrolled (i.e., no perked) in the MA, something that is true.
Why oh why couldn't they add the +25lbs alongside the regular one, as a perk...
-
That it wasn't justified to have so many when there are only cosmetic differences and when we only have two versions of the P-51 Mustang, the greatest WWII fighter ever.
There's your mistake: I've never ever said that it wasn't justified to have so many 109's or Spits. In fact I think we need more of them like a 1943 Spit LF IX and a 109G-6/AS.
I was saying it isn't justified to have so few P-51's, and compared it to other important planes in the game that are better represented throughout the war. I also mentioned the P-47's and F4U's; did you also think I was being mean to them? lol
If you're reading all my posts like they are slights then there is something wrong with your reading comprehension. That goes for the rest of you 109 and Spit fanbois too.
You casually dismissed any and all explanations of the differences almost as though you didn't read anything anybody actually posted.
What differences? You never answered that question at all, so I'll ask it again: Which handling differences (that are modeled in AH) are not a direct result of engine or armament changes (weight, bulges, torque, CG etc.) in the 109G-2, G-6 and G-14?
As to the 150 octane discussion, there was a very lengthy thread about it when the Spitfires were updated and the Spitfire Mk VIII and Spitfire Mk XVI were added. My take at that time was that the Mk VIII should have been added at +18lbs boost on 100 octane and the Mk XVI should have been added at +25lbs boost on 150 octane. HTC thought that the +25lbs boost would have made the Mk XVI too powerful to bu uncontrolled (i.e., no perked) in the MA, something that is true.
I've already posted a link to one of the most recent threads on the matter posed by Widewing with lots of new documentation being presented. Go read it.
As to the P-51 being the best fighter, I'll leave you with a quote from an American pilot who flew first Spitfire Mk VIIIs and later P-51Ds, both in the USAAF. "The P-51 can't do what the Spitfire can do, but it can do it over Berlin." There is no "best" fighter in all circumstances, but the best all round fighter of WWII was the F4U series, not the P-51, Spitfire or Bf109 series.
Have anyone in this thread said the P-51 was the "best fighter"? I don't think so. Again you seem to be making up arguments and attributing them to me. I don't even like the bloody plane.
-
What differences? You never answered that question at all, so I'll ask it again: Which handling differences (that are modeled in AH) are not a direct result of engine or armament changes (weight, bulges, torque, CG etc.) in the 109G-2, G-6 and G-14?
This question paraphrases as "Besides all the differences that make different versions of an airframe, different, how are they different?"
It is an impossibly loaded question in the same way that "When did you stop beating your wife?" is an impossibly loaded question.
Even then, it was answered at least once when somebody posted about the different cockpit hoods each of the three have in AH.
You can't just take the engine differences off of the table. They are huge and are usually the single biggest performance indicator of an aircraft.
The P-51s are just as well represented in their service period as the Spitfires are. Basic coverage is there, but significant holes remain. I am sure that is true of the Bf109 and Fw190s too, but am not that well versed in those aircraft.
The fact is that the P-51 only came into it after the work had already been done, first by the Spitfire and Hurricane holding the line and then by the P-47 destroying the Luftwaffe. Yes, P-51s fought, but it was all but over when they showed up in significant numbers. It had a much shorter combat career as a first line fighter in WWII than did the P-47, F4U, Spitfire, Bf109, Fw190, Yak, Ki-43 or A6M series and thus in AH is represented by a smaller number of versions.
-
It had a much shorter combat career as a first line fighter in WWII than did the P-47, F4U, Spitfire, Bf109, Fw190, Yak, Ki-43 or A6M series and thus in AH is represented by a smaller number of versions.
Ya but it's so pretty... does that count?
-
We have several versions of the 109G which differ only in armament and engine performance
You forgot something that is very different and _very_ important for game performance between the versions.... weight.
-
i love the pony , maybe the p51A at some point. there are more obvious planes that need adding first though IMO.
-
We are missing P-51D and B (or K and C if you prefer) running on 150 octane fuel like they did in late 1944 and 1945. We're also missing a B/C with the Packard-Merlin V-1650-7 and a birdcage B/C. We could also use an early Allison powered one as some people have suggested.
As for 150 octane gas: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,254161.0.html
So this isn't really about 51s so much as 150 octane fuel?
Which Merlin are you believing our P51B/C has, just out of curiosity and how much of a difference do you think it makes?
Clearly asking for an Allison Mustang isn't a late war issue. I like 51s but I'm hard pressed to see them as under represented with the B and D that we have.
If you want to argue for higher octane fuel, that's a different issue and the LW guys, RAF guys and everyone else could do the same. At this point it seems a minor issue when you've got two very good performing Mustangs in the game. I can't believe you really think the canopy is that much of an issue
-
This question paraphrases as "Besides all the differences that make different versions of an airframe, different, how are they different?"
It is an impossibly loaded question in the same way that "When did you stop beating your wife?" is an impossibly loaded question.
Even then, it was answered at least once when somebody posted about the different cockpit hoods each of the three have in AH.
You can't just take the engine differences off of the table. They are huge and are usually the single biggest performance indicator of an aircraft.
So in other words when I said "we have several versions of the 109G which differ only in armament and engine" I was correct (disregarding the Erla hood obviously) and you now agree that the engine differences are "huge and are usually the single biggest performance indicator of an aircraft." So if you still think I was wrong in my initial post I ask you again, what changes other than engine and armament has any relevancy on the performance of the 109G-2, G-6 and G-14 in AH?
If you can't answer that then why did you start this argument in the first place?
The P-51s are just as well represented in their service period as the Spitfires are. Basic coverage is there, but significant holes remain. I am sure that is true of the Bf109 and Fw190s too, but am not that well versed in those aircraft.
From spring 1944 to fall 1944 the P-51 gained 300 hp, that's almost the same engine power increase that the 109G-14 got over the G-6 ... but for some reason this is not important to you? Even when you've just blatantly stated that engine differences "are usually the single biggest performance indicator of an aircraft."
-
You forgot something that is very different and _very_ important for game performance between the versions.... weight.
Really? The weight increase in the 109G-6 over the G-2 is mostly due to the changes in armament. The weight increase in the 109G-14 is mostly the changes in engine (MW-50 equipment).
-
Which Merlin are you believing our P51B/C has, just out of curiosity and how much of a difference do you think it makes?
The V-1650-3 was a high altitude engine based on the Merlin 63 and is the engine currently powering our Malcolm-hooded P-51B. However later in the P-51B/C production run they switched the engine to the -7, a medium altitude version based on the Merlin 66. Most of the P-51C production run had the -7 engine. The -7 had 100 hp more on WEP and a lower critical altitude. A -7 powered B/C in AH would gain about 10 mph at 25k and be as fast, or probably a little faster than a P-51D on the deck.
I can't believe you really think the canopy is that much of an issue
It's not really an "issue" at all, but it would be the appropriate canopy for an early -3 engined B/C. I bet the guys that run the historical scenarios would appreciate it. The Malcolm hood was initially an improvement of the British Mustang III that was later adopted by the USAAF.
-
I have nothing to offer to this debate about Pony models and their addition, so I will just add this:
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i253/plague_06/Mustang1.jpg)
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i253/plague_06/Mustang2.jpg)
-
(http://project.sveno.net/thefew/code/710.php?pid=241)
-
If we can have pretty much every spitfire and 109, 190's then why not all the Ponies?
-
We don't have anywhere near every 109, 190 and spit.
-
All aircraft designers/manufacturers during WW2 were constantly refining/tweaking the airframes for more performance and reliability, not just the Messerschmitt or Focke-Wulfe ones.
The knee jerk reaction from the LW section here gets old sometimes, as their way of thinking seems to be that P-51B's were all the same, P-51D's were all the same, when in reality there were probably as many subtle changes and variations during a production run as you'd find in a run of 109G-2's, G-6's, G-10's, and down the line.
So, IMHO, if the P-51's is well represented as is, so are all of the 109 series, 190 series could use an earlier version and perhaps a D-11 or later. Saying that a generic P-51B or -51D is well and good, then trying to justify another 109G with a specific engine is nonsense.
Perhaps someone with a copy of America's Hundred Thousand could chime in with a list of the changes to each USAAF fighter during their production runs. Mine won't be here til the 17th so I can't do it myself.
-
If we can have pretty much every spitfire and 109, 190's then why not all the Ponies?
Thrila is correct, we don't have anything close to every Spit, 109 or 190.
In the case of the 109, there are about as many variants that could be meaningfully added to the game as the number of variants we already have. In the case of the Spitfire, the number of missing variants is probably greater than the number we have in the game.
-
From spring 1944 to fall 1944 the P-51 gained 300 hp, that's almost the same engine power increase that the 109G-14 got over the G-6 ... but for some reason this is not important to you? Even when you've just blatantly stated that engine differences "are usually the single biggest performance indicator of an aircraft."
So did the Spitfire, and likewise it isn't shown in the game. Thus, they have equal representation. The Bf109s we have are unsuited to bomber interception because of the engines they have, until we get to the Bf109K-4 which only arrived for combat in Sept., 1944.
You seem to think that the issue you are talking about is disproportionate to the P-51. It isn't.
All aircraft designers/manufacturers during WW2 were constantly refining/tweaking the airframes for more performance and reliability, not just the Messerschmitt or Focke-Wulfe ones.
The knee jerk reaction from the LW section here gets old sometimes, as their way of thinking seems to be that P-51B's were all the same, P-51D's were all the same, when in reality there were probably as many subtle changes and variations during a production run as you'd find in a run of 109G-2's, G-6's, G-10's, and down the line.
So, IMHO, if the P-51's is well represented as is, so are all of the 109 series, 190 series could use an earlier version and perhaps a D-11 or later. Saying that a generic P-51B or -51D is well and good, then trying to justify another 109G with a specific engine is nonsense.
Perhaps someone with a copy of America's Hundred Thousand could chime in with a list of the changes to each USAAF fighter during their production runs. Mine won't be here til the 17th so I can't do it myself.
The P-51 series is, if anything, better covered than the Bf109 and Fw190 series and about the same as the Spitfire series.
-
If you can't answer that then why did you start this argument in the first place?
Sorry... who started the argumentative portion of this journey, again?
-
So did the Spitfire, and likewise it isn't shown in the game. Thus, they have equal representation. The Bf109s we have are unsuited to bomber interception because of the engines they have, until we get to the Bf109K-4 which only arrived for combat in Sept., 1944.
This thread isn't titled "More Spits !" or "More 109's !", but "More Ponies !". Start your own thread on the Spit if you want.
And no, there is no "equal representation"; true, the Merlin Spits also lack 150 octane fuel, but the Spitfire Mk. XIV is modelled, and the BF 109K-4 is modelled. Both are late-1944 birds that the P-51's in the game simply can't compete with, but could historically.
-
No, it isn't, but you keep arguing from a standpoint that the P-51 is under represented compared to the Spitfire and Bf109 (your choices of contrast) and thus people who know better and are argumentative picked up their keyboards and responded.
I have no issue with the idea of more P-51s, but I do have an issue with people making claims that are false.
And no, there is no "equal representation"; true, the Merlin Spits also lack 150 octane fuel, but the Spitfire Mk. XIV is modelled, and the BF 109K-4 is modelled. Both are late-1944 birds that the P-51's in the game simply can't compete with, but could historically.
Yes, we have the Mk XIV. Spitfires were more varied than P-51s, deal with it. As a percentage representation the late war Spits and P-51s are about equal and if they added an Allison engined P-51A the early war would also be matched up. Actually, thinking it over, I think the P-51 has a higher percentage representation than late war Spitfires.
FYI, the Spitfire Mk XIV is also running on 100 octane, not the 150 octane that it was quickly rated for.
And no, the P-51 could not compete as a fighter with a Spitfire Mk XIV just as the Spitfire Mk XIV could not compete with the P-51 as an escort. A Griffon 65 running on 150 octane puts out more power than any WWII Merlin and the Spitfire XIV is significantly lighter than the P-51D. You do the math.
An example, the RAF used Meteor Mk Is, Tempest Mk Vs, Mosquito Mk VIs, Mustang Mk IIIs (D Ponies), Spitfire LF.Mk IXs and Spitfire F.Mk XIVs to intercept V-1s. Only three of those could do so without diving to get overtake speed, the Meteor Mk I, Tempest Mk V and Spitfire F.Mk XIV. All of the piston fighters on that list were running on 150 octane for that role. This information comes from an RAF Mustang pilot who said he didn't know how fast the +21lbs boost Mk XIV was, just that it was faster than his Mustang.
-
As for the topic of fuel changes and/or the representation of the P-51 series I think the 51 is well represented. And I'm a huge 51 fan.
If the matter of fuel grade and quality is a real issue then perhaps we should add in mechanical failures, and bird strikes perhaps even a hung over ground crew member who forgot to tighten an oil line.
Yes, I'd like to see an early Allison powered 51, but I'd all like to see the Buea and the 61 A/B. The 51 seems fine the way it is...
-
So, the missing models are an early Allison 51-A, a late war -D with 150 octane fuel, and a 51H - would that cover it?
-
P-51H didn't see combat in WW2, so it's out of the equation.
-
It was in one of the polls HTC put up asking for votes on the planes players would want most.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,26277.0.html
Note that e.g. the 47N only showed up 5 years later.. And they may have changed their plans since that poll was suggested, so take it with a grain of salt.. But the 51H, 47M, and Yak9UT are the only three out of eleven missing.
-
P-51H didn't see combat in WW2, so it's out of the equation.
Did the P-51H see combat... anywhere? Ever?
IIRC Korea was P-51Ds. (With 150 octane gas?)
wrongway
-
Did the P-51H see combat... anywhere? Ever?
IIRC Korea was P-51Ds. (With 150 octane gas?)
wrongway
Nope, never saw any action in any conflict. They were considered to 'fragile' to be used in combat in Korea so the D model was used instead.
ack-ack
-
The two current Mustangs would be quite sufficient thank you, if their odd lack of maneuverability is looked into. Fix that, and the D might already deserve to be a perk plane, with no performance enhancement.
And we could also bring the performance of the D more in line with what the P-51D-15NA could do at 67'' MAP (375 or so on the deck) before we start fooling around 150 octane and even higher MAP settings. That WOULD deserve to be lightly perked. I'd be all for it, but it might be a bad business model for every noob to log in, only to see "you don't have enough points for that model" when they tried to fly THE most famous plane.
The Mustang does fairly okay in the MA anyway, the "Planes of Fame" that really need a looking at and possible revamp for MA competitiveness are the 190A's...
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-level-67.jpg)
-
"Planes of Fame" that really need a looking at and possible revamp for MA competitiveness are the 190A's...
Why is this?
The Fw 190 series does quite well in its role. It is not a 1v1 lone wolf fighter. However, when put in a group on group setting and flown by competent pilots, the Fw 190 is not only competitive but dominant.
The Fw 190 was not a turner. It was well liked by its pilots in many cases because it was more nimble and better built than the Bf 109. In game it is more nimble and more durable than the Bf 109.
The Fw 190 is not a good MA plane, this is true. However I don't understand why it would be revamped simply for MA competitiveness despite having a reasonably accurate FM. I think that would be unfair, really.
-
I think he means the line-up. Adding an early A model, a higher boost A5, and an A9 ought to do it.. An option to have only wingroot guns on the A5 (was a factory option IIRC) would be nice and even better if available with the higher boost option.
-
I do not desire a Fw unrealistically modeled to be a "t'n'b" aircraft or what have you.
A-5 with extra boost, A-6, A-9, all would be desirable. BUT, how about simply having an A-5 that performs to specification?
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5-level.jpg)
The SLOWEST level deck speed quoted for an A5 from the reports compiled at wwiiaircraftperformance.org is 348mph, the others give 351-352. Our 190A5 tops out at 340mph on the deck, 4mph slower than a SpitXVI *without* a center-line rack. Also, I did a quick comparison at DokGonzo's, and our 190A5 is basically out-accelerated by the P-51D at low alt.
EDIT: Sorry Die Hard, I'll start a new thread for anymore 190 talk.
-
Our 190a5 performance closely models some test data from a captured a-5 variant, like (if I recall) a 190G-3. They added ballast to replace the missing cowl guns during testing. The problem is many claim the climb angle, rate, and speeds are all wrong. Might explain why top speed is off as well.
I don't think a 190a9 will be needed if we can bloody fix the magic weight on the a-8.
-
Sorry Die Hard, I'll start a new thread for anymore 190 talk.
No prob. The thread topic is done, and after reading the inane posts of people like 5PointOh I've realized the Pony-dweebs and Spit-dweebs don't deserve to get 150 octane. Next time I see a Pony through my Revi sight I'll just laugh at the stupidity of it all. :)
-
An example, the RAF used Meteor Mk Is, Tempest Mk Vs, Mosquito Mk VIs, Mustang Mk IIIs (D Ponies), Spitfire LF.Mk IXs and Spitfire F.Mk XIVs to intercept V-1s. Only three of those could do so without diving to get overtake speed, the Meteor Mk I, Tempest Mk V and Spitfire F.Mk XIV. All of the piston fighters on that list were running on 150 octane for that role. This information comes from an RAF Mustang pilot who said he didn't know how fast the +21lbs boost Mk XIV was, just that it was faster than his Mustang.
Correction Karnak, the Mustang III was a P-51B/C. The Mustang IV was the P-51D/K.
-
With +25 lbs boost on 150 octane fuel the Mustang III's were more than fast enough to catch the doodlebugs which flew at 2,000 - 4,000 feet at less than 400 mph. The Mustang IV on the other hand was not fast enough, or just barely so.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-level-150-2.jpg)
-
I think he means the line-up. Adding an early A model, a higher boost A5, and an A9 ought to do it.. An option to have only wingroot guns on the A5 (was a factory option IIRC) would be nice and even better if available with the higher boost option.
Higher boost A-5? It's running at 1.42ata per specs as it is now. Sea level speed is a mystery, 10-12mph short of speeds from test documents, but I'm sure somewhere back down the road someone already questioned it or brought it to HTC's attention. Figure out where the sea level speed losses are coming from and the A-5 should be good to go.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html
"Following completion of Fw 190 A-5 serial production, brief trials were carried out from 30.8.43 – 1.9.43 of a Fw 190 A5 equipped with a BMW 801D engine operating at 1.58/1.65 ata erhöhte Notleistung. Charts prepared by BMW dated 26.11.43 presenting the results of these trials show maximum speeds obtained were 578 km/h (359 mph) at sea level and 680 km/h (423 mph) at 5.2 km (17,000 feet). However, the Fw 190 A-5/A-6 aircraft handbook issued in December 1943 notes the engine limitations for Start und Notleistung (3 minutes) as 1,42 ata with maximum speeds being 560 km/h (348 mph) at sea level and 660 km/h (410 mph) at 6300 meters (20,669 feet). It should be noted, however, that Part 7 of the handbook (Triebwerksbedien- und Versorgungsanlage) contains the possibility of the C3 injection with the higher boost pressure. By using the ÄAnw 104 the C3 injection could used for 10-15 minutes up to the height of 1 km with the A-5. It is also apparent from the Fw 190 A-5 Flugzeug-Entwicklungs-Blatt dated 1 November 1944 that 1.58/1.65 ata was not cleared for service use for this varient up to the date of this publication"
From what I got from reading this (and many thanks to Mike Williams for taking the time to gather and organize these documents), it was tested, but never cleared for use.
-
As a side note to this discussion...
I would like to see water injection/ADI/All additional boost enhancements reflect reality. In other words, when the fluid or gas agent is consumed, that's it. No more. No recharging while in flight.
This would be separate from WEP time limits. If water injection fluid carried is enough for 15 minutes, you get three periods of 5 minutes.
Also, there was no override for WEP. You could keep engines in WEP until they blew up. If after 5 minutes, a reliability factor variable was introduced, pilots could use WEP for as long as they needed it. However, with the ever increasing risk of failure.
Is this feasible to code into the game? I can't say. It would not be simple though.
What about cooling down times? This is currently outside of pilot control. Yet, if we had control of cowl flaps, radiator flaps and oil cooler doors we could control cool-down time to some degree, with a corresponding increase in drag. As it stands now, some aircraft cool down faster than others.... For no obvious reason (at least to me).
P-51 radiator and cooler doors were thermostatically controlled (automatic), but could be overridden by the pilot. Yet, the P-51s have the same cool-down time requirement as the R-2800 in the P-47, F4U and F6F, which were only manually controlled. I can see why it is simplified, but it is extremely artificial.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I think there is a very good reason why one is not able to over-ride WEP time limits in the game.
Some of these engines could probably be run at their WEP settings for *hours* without blowing up. Modeling an R-2800 to fail after 30 minutes on WEP for instance, would likely be highly unrealistic. A bigger concern was engine life and reliability over the course of many missions. Obviously this would *not* be a concern in AHII, since we get a "new" plane every time we up and someone else is buying the engines. So if both engine control and engine durability were modeled with full realism, it would likely be equivalent to just giving most aircraft unlimited WEP.
-
Here's something else that I find over-simplified..
P-51D has 5 minutes of WEP before max temperature is reached.
Cool-down time to normal operating temp is 10 minutes. This is a 15 minute cycle.
What I find bothersome is that reducing power does not reduce cool-down time. It should as the engine is making much less heat.
After 5 minutes at WEP, it still takes 10 minutes to cool down to normal temp even with power reduced to 35 in/hg @ 2,200 RPM. Even if you shut off the motor and restart it two minutes later, the temperature jumps up to where it would be if I had left the engine cooling down at MIL power. This doesn't encourage anyone limit power unless fuel is an issue.
I'd like to see cool-down times based upon power settings, for all aircraft.
My regards,
Widewing
-
An example, the RAF used Meteor Mk Is, Tempest Mk Vs, Mosquito Mk VIs, Mustang Mk IIIs (D Ponies), Spitfire LF.Mk IXs and Spitfire F.Mk XIVs to intercept V-1s. Only three of those could do so without diving to get overtake speed, the Meteor Mk I, Tempest Mk V and Spitfire F.Mk XIV. All of the piston fighters on that list were running on 150 octane for that role. This information comes from an RAF Mustang pilot who said he didn't know how fast the +21lbs boost Mk XIV was, just that it was faster than his Mustang.
According to this test data... A P-51B/Mustang III running 25lb boost is significantly faster than the Spit MK.XIV running 21lb boost from sea level up beyond 10,000 feet.
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14at21.jpg)
This next chart shows the Mustang III still faster than the Spit Mk.XIV below 4,000 feet when both are running 25lb boost.
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14+25lbs.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
The last time I asked for more realistic engine management HT nearly blew a gasket. :lol
-
Here's something else that I find over-simplified..
P-51D has 5 minutes of WEP before max temperature is reached.
Cool-down time to normal operating temp is 10 minutes. This is a 15 minute cycle.
What I find bothersome is that reducing power does not reduce cool-down time. It should as the engine is making much less heat.
After 5 minutes at WEP, it still takes 10 minutes to cool down to normal temp even with power reduced to 35 in/hg @ 2,200 RPM. Even if you shut off the motor and restart it two minutes later, the temperature jumps up to where it would be if I had left the engine cooling down at MIL power. This doesn't encourage anyone limit power unless fuel is an issue.
I'd like to see cool-down times based upon power settings, for all aircraft.
My regards,
Widewing
I couldnt agree more,and to add to this thedifference between manual and automatic controls might lead to players using planes with the auto controls.The FW's come to mind, having to control mixture,prop and cowl flaps could influence game play greatly.
Of course I think making this a user option like stall limiter would be the way to go.The benefit of manual control could be as WW said,improved cool down times and thus would be a worthy task to master. :aok
-
It was a pilot comment I had read, and I very likely remembered the incorrect mark of Mustang, which I understood to be the RAF's name for the "D". That said, the pilot in question also could have been in error as well.