Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: DEECONX on March 26, 2010, 07:13:16 PM
-
This is a neat little plane that I think would be a great addition to the game, the Mustang Mk I. There were a little over 600 of them made I believe. Only question I have is how much action did they see, and did they perform well? if it is anything like the B or D model PLUS the 4 20mm then it should've done quite well :devil
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee165/sonofwaranddeath/MustangMkI.jpg)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee165/sonofwaranddeath/MKIVmustang.jpg)
would give Hurri2Cs and typhoons a run for their money I think :aok
-
I suggest search. This one has been beaten to death in the past. Not many 4 cannon 51s were used. Just another excuse to shoot someone in the face in AH
And no they didn't perform like the B or D model Mustangs. If they had, there would have been no B or D model Mustangs :)
-
You do not need a Mustang MkI
You do not need a 20mm Gun
You don't need it to kill the Hun.
Or to ho-tard and ruin fun.
You Don't need it in Latewar
It's not needed to make the Pony Soar
You Don't need it in Midwar
Do not need it to score****
-
I suggest search. This one has been beaten to death in the past. Not many 4 cannon 51s were used. Just another excuse to shoot someone in the face in AH
And no they didn't perform like the B or D model Mustangs. If they had, there would have been no B or D model Mustangs :)
aight, will do :aok
-
You do not need a Mustang MkI
You do not need a 20mm Gun
You don't need it to kill the Hun.
Or to ho-tard and ruin fun.
You Don't need it in Latewar
It's not needed to make the Pony Soar
You Don't need it in Midwar
Do not need it to score****
:aok
-
Looks like a cool plane I think it was a P51B model with 4 20mms.
-
Looks like a cool plane I think it was a P51B model with 4 20mms.
No Merlin Mustang ever had 20mm cannons. The Mustang Mk I referred to herein was powered by an Allison engine of about 1300hp.
-
the a20 I think it was was watermelon in Warbirds, prolly the same here.
-
This is a neat little plane that I think would be a great addition to the game, the Mustang Mk I. There were a little over 600 of them made I believe. Only question I have is how much action did they see, and did they perform well? if it is anything like the B or D model PLUS the 4 20mm then it should've done quite well :devil
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee165/sonofwaranddeath/MustangMkI.jpg)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee165/sonofwaranddeath/MKIVmustang.jpg)
would give Hurri2Cs and typhoons a run for their money I think :aok
and denholm actually flew a zeppelin in LWMA :rofl
-
Isn't that an A36 Apache?
-
No Merlin Mustang ever had 20mm cannons. The Mustang Mk I referred to herein was powered by an Allison engine of about 1300hp.
The Mustang mk I did not have 20mm cannons either. 2 .50s in the nose under the engine and 4 .50s in the wings.
I think an Allison Mustang mk I would be a cool addition. Would you still be interested without the cannons or is this another L33T CANUNz wish?
wrongway
-
The Mustang mk I did not have 20mm cannons either. 2 .50s in the nose under the engine and 4 .50s in the wings.
I think an Allison Mustang mk I would be a cool addition. Would you still be interested without the cannons or is this another L33T CANUNz wish?
wrongway
No that would still be pretty sweet, we need more mustangs :aok
-
No that would still be pretty sweet, we need more mustangs :aok
(M-18 cough M-18 cough hack cough wheeze before P51s coughcough)
-
(M-18 cough M-18 cough hack cough wheeze before P51s coughcough)
:rofl we can throw em in together, how bout that :aok
-
:rofl we can throw em in together, how bout that :aok
DEAL!
-
:rofl
-
Isn't that an A36 Apache?
yes, I just couldn't think what it was at the time
-
These are not the droids you're looking for.......... :D
You do not need a Mustang MkI
You do not need a 20mm Gun
You don't need it to kill the Hun.
Or to ho-tard and ruin fun.
You Don't need it in Latewar
It's not needed to make the Pony Soar
You Don't need it in Midwar
Do not need it to score****
-
The Mustang mk I did not have 20mm cannons either. 2 .50s in the nose under the engine and 4 .50s in the wings.
I think an Allison Mustang mk I would be a cool addition. Would you still be interested without the cannons or is this another L33T CANUNz wish?
wrongway
I'm thinking there are other AC that were built in larger numbers, and served a much larger role in the war that should be added first...
-
I'm thinking there are other AC that were built in larger numbers, and served a much larger role in the war that should be added first...
(M-18 cough M-18 cough hack cough wheeze before P51s coughcough)
M-18...cough wheeze etc. etc. yadda yadda
-
11000+ Wellingtons
10000+ Pe-2s
7000+ He111s
5000+ Beaufighters
5000+ Ki-43s
-
3500+ B29's
2500+ A26's
:D
-
3500+ B29's
2500+ A26's
:D
All below the top 5, and how many of those were post war?
-
Most B-29s were post-war. Definitely less than 2000 were war-time, but what number I can't recall. About half of those produced were after JV-day, and production ceased late in 1946.
-
This is a neat little plane that I think would be a great addition to the game, the Mustang Mk I. There were a little over 600 of them made I believe. Only question I have is how much action did they see, and did they perform well? if it is anything like the B or D model PLUS the 4 20mm then it should've done quite well :devil
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee165/sonofwaranddeath/MustangMkI.jpg)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee165/sonofwaranddeath/MKIVmustang.jpg)
would give Hurri2Cs and typhoons a run for their money I think :aok
Mustang Mk IA or P-51. I WANT! :aok
Amazing how the 'experts' dont want this added because of HO fears and yet get HOed in everything already.
-
Mustang Mk IA or P-51. I WANT! :aok
Amazing how the 'experts' dont want this added because of HO fears and yet get HOed in everything already.
If I am one of your "experts" you have it wrong. I don't want it yet because it was such a minor player compared to aircraft still missing from the planeset.
-
If I am one of your "experts" you have it wrong. I don't want it yet because it was such a minor player compared to aircraft still missing from the planeset.
Doesn't fly well at 30K and lacks the fuselage fuel tank as well as DTs on many examples. Not sure why it would appeal to Challenge based on that :) And yes, it was such an insignificant player for real, it would have to be way down the list with other much more deserving aircraft making the game first.
-
I sense great bias in this one. :old:
-
I sense great bias in this one. :old:
Yes, your bias.
Trust me on this, if the P-51D were not in the game I'd be demanding it be added ASAP and I am sure Dan would as well. Don't interpret our disinclination towards an aircraft that played almost no role in WWII as a bias against the Mustang.
-
The "it didn't do much in WW2" criterion eh?
-
Most B-29s were post-war. Definitely less than 2000 were war-time, but what number I can't recall. About half of those produced were after JV-day, and production ceased late in 1946.
PLEASE........ it VJ day :aok :lol
-
The "it didn't do much in WW2" criterion eh?
I have no problem with it being added, I just think that it should be a low priority as compared to aircraft that played a much larger role which are also missing from the game.
-
I move for a new rule that all rebuttals to future requests for B-29s/Nooks/P-51Hs/F7Fs/F8Fs/Do335s/Horton flying wings/Ta-183s/submarines/etc *must* be in rhyming form. Anyone second?
-
I move for a new rule that all rebuttals to future requests for B-29s/Nooks/P-51Hs/F7Fs/F8Fs/Do335s/Horton flying wings/Ta-183s/submarines/etc *must* be in rhyming form. Anyone second?
I!
-
OK then, those who say the 51 with 4 cannon is a must, should know their argument is a bust, that shouldn't be seen again til it's covered with rust and even then add a fine layer of dust.
So there! :)
-
Of the cannonarm'd 51
requestors shall be shunned
Of small numbers used,
only HOers be bemused,
Can't even climb, turn or run!
-
Yes, your bias.
Trust me on this, if the P-51D were not in the game I'd be demanding it be added ASAP and I am sure Dan would as well. Don't interpret our disinclination towards an aircraft that played almost no role in WWII as a bias against the Mustang.
I believe our allies would disagree with you. After the introduction of the Mk IA the earlier Mk Is were converted to IAs (in that the Hispanos were mounted) and these aircraft were used throughout the war as interdiction types. Just because you dont see books or movies about an airplane doesnt mean it 'played almost no role in WWII.' The British found these planes to be vital to the war effort. Sorry about your bias (aka ignorance).
-
I believe our allies would disagree with you. After the introduction of the Mk IA the earlier Mk Is were converted to IAs (in that the Hispanos were mounted) and these aircraft were used throughout the war as interdiction types. Just because you dont see books or movies about an airplane doesnt mean it 'played almost no role in WWII.' The British found these planes to be vital to the war effort. Sorry about your bias (aka ignorance).
Neither the Mustang Mk I or the Mk IA were considered by the RAF as 'vital' to the war effort and was considered fo rtrhe most part by the RAF as a minor player in the RAF' war effort. While the RAF thought the Mk I and IA were effective in the ground interdiction role, the RAF declared it unsuited for fighter duties and felt the Mosquito and later the Typhoon and Tempest to be better suited in the ground interdiction role.
BTW- We're still waiting on the stuff about the Iwo birds... I take it since it's been this long and still nothing that you've thrown in the towel and finally realized that Dan was right about the Iwo Mustangs? Does crow taste like chicken?
ack-ack
-
BTW- We're still waiting on the stuff about the Iwo birds... I take it since it's been this long and still nothing that you've thrown in the towel and finally realized that Dan was right about the Iwo Mustangs? Does crow taste like chicken?
ack-ack
Not that you would know but he has been out of country for a spell.
-
Of the cannonarm'd 51
requestors shall be shunned
Of small numbers used,
only HOers be bemused,
Can't even climb, turn or run!
:rock
-
Not that you would know but he has been out of country for a spell.
Flying F-16s in Afghanistan?
ack-ack
-
Flying F-16s in Afghanistan?
ack-ack
:rofl :aok
-
:rofl :aok
Is your in game name Bronk as well?
-
Is your in game name Bronk as well?
Since 1997. :aok
Any particular reason why you'd like to know? ;)
-
Since 1997. :aok
Any particular reason why you'd like to know? ;)
Yes. The Australian called Bronk that flew Bish at some point back in time? That is why.
-
:rock
:rock
Quad hizzos fill the void.
No skill imbued/implied,
Up HO and die.
You're not paranoid.
They all chase you to ground,
They are hunting you down!
P.S. why did you put Tom Selleck in your avatar? :neener:
P.P.S. In case you never saw it: (http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/4/19/128846228904199621.jpg)
-
Yes. The Australian called Bronk that flew Bish at some point back in time? That is why.
I think that was Bronc as in Brisbane Broncos
-
I believe our allies would disagree with you. After the introduction of the Mk IA the earlier Mk Is were converted to IAs (in that the Hispanos were mounted) and these aircraft were used throughout the war as interdiction types. Just because you dont see books or movies about an airplane doesnt mean it 'played almost no role in WWII.' The British found these planes to be vital to the war effort. Sorry about your bias (aka ignorance).
I'd be curious as to where you found that info. I'd also like to see some photo evidence of this in RAF units. You are suggesting it was a simple thing to swap out mgs for 20mm in the Mustang wings. Again show me some documentation of this. I've never come across this conversion of Mk I to Mk IA anywhere. I don't believe for a second they just took out the MGs and put in 20mm.
The RAF ordered 150 and got 93 as the USAAF took back a few. The number was made up with 4 50cal winged Allison Mustangs. Of the roughly 700 Allison Mustangs the RAF got, less then 100 were 4 cannon birds.
The MG equipped Allison Mustang was a far more important Mustang for the RAF. It also was far more important to the USAAF and if the wish was a desire for the MG equipped Allison Mustang, I'm all for it.
But this isn't. It's another give me a 4 cannon bird request hidden in the guise of a Mustang. It was an insignificant variant of the Allison breed.
-
I believe our allies would disagree with you. After the introduction of the Mk IA the earlier Mk Is were converted to IAs (in that the Hispanos were mounted) and these aircraft were used throughout the war as interdiction types. Just because you dont see books or movies about an airplane doesnt mean it 'played almost no role in WWII.' The British found these planes to be vital to the war effort. Sorry about your bias (aka ignorance).
I'd like to see some support of that. So far as I know, the Typhoon and Tempest were not seen as vital to the war effort. Typhoon was nearly canceled in its infancy, only being saved by its ability to run down the low level Fw190 nuisance raiders. If the Typhoon had been canceled, well, no Tempest would have been. I think you are putting words in the RAF's mouth about what was vital to the war effort as a shockingly low number of said Mustangs were ordered for an aircraft that was so vital to the RAF.
-
I used to live on Red Baron Pizza, and now we have WWI, so I went with it.....more apropo than the Kurgan, at any rate.
:rock
Quad hizzos fill the void.
No skill imbued/implied,
Up HO and die.
You're not paranoid.
They all chase you to ground,
They are hunting you down!
P.S. why did you put Tom Selleck in your avatar? :neener:
P.P.S. In case you never saw it: (http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/4/19/128846228904199621.jpg)
-
Just so you guys know, Im cool with also getting the Allison pony, rather than the quad cannon. Would make a nice addition to early war and special events. :aok
-
Just so you guys know, Im cool with also getting the Allison pony, rather than the quad cannon. Would make a nice addition to early war and special events. :aok
51Bs an allison
edit: wrong wrong wrong... so wrong on me
-
:huh
You might want to recheck that.
-
:huh
You might want to recheck that.
shutting up :D
-
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/funny-pictures-cats-deny-request.jpg)
Sorry, I just had to, it was begging me to use it.
Wurzel
-
Just so you guys know, Im cool with also getting the Allison pony, rather than the quad cannon. Would make a nice addition to early war and special events. :aok
Just so you know, the RAF and USAAF had Allison Mustangs in action until the end of the war in recce and Army Coop roles. USAAF used Allison Mustangs in the CBI as well.
More of a midwar-latewar bird, not early war as the Allison Mustangs got into the war in 42
-
I myself (being a pony driver 90% of the time) would much rather have a 51A vs any four cannoned bird. Most of the other aircraft in AH have 3+ variants, about time for the first Mustang to be avalible.
(http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/p51pics/military/pacific/6.jpg)
-
I myself (being a pony driver 90% of the time) would much rather have a 51A vs any four cannoned bird. Most of the other aircraft in AH have 3+ variants, about time for the first Mustang to be avalible.
(http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/p51pics/military/pacific/6.jpg)
And that would make sense with the RAF Mk I and the 4 MG USAAF P51s used either as tac recon or as fighters in the CBI.
-
Most of the other aircraft in AH have 3+ variants, about time for the first Mustang to be avalible.
I don't think that is true.
Spitfire: 7 (counting Seafire)
Bf109: 6
Fw190: 5 (counting Ta152)
F4U: 5
P-47: 5
Hurricane: 3
P-38: 3
A6M: 2
A-20: 2
B-25: 2
Bf110: 2
C.2: 2
F4F: 2 (counting FM2)
La: 2
P-39: 2
P-40: 2
P-51: 2
Yak: 2
Ar234: 1
B6N: 1
B-17: 1
B-24: 1
B-26: 1
C-47: 1
D3A: 1
F6F: 1
Ju87: 1
Ju88: 1
Ki-61: 1
Ki-67: 1
Ki-84: 1
I-16: 1
Il-2: 1
Lancaster: 1
Me163: 1
Me262: 1
Mosquito: 1
N1K: 1
SBD: 1
TBM: 1
Tempest: 1
Typhoon: 1
As you can see, most types do not in fact have 3+ variants. While the list includes aircraft like the Ar234 that had no other variants, it also includes the Ju88 and Mosquito at one each, and those two aircraft had more variants that saw combat than any other types. The B-17, B-24, Ki-61 and N1K all have strong claims to other significant versions while only having one model of their types in the game.
I don't object to the P-51 getting another model, but don't paint it as a red heading step child as it certainly is not.
-
I don't think that is true.
Spitfire: 7 (counting Seafire)
Bf109: 6
Fw190: 5 (counting Ta152)
F4U: 5
P-47: 5
Hurricane: 3
P-38: 3
A6M: 2
A-20: 2
B-25: 2
Bf110: 2
C.2: 2
F4F: 2 (counting FM2)
La: 2
P-39: 2
P-40: 2
P-51: 2
Yak: 2
Ar234: 1
B6N: 1
B-17: 1
B-24: 1
B-26: 1
C-47: 1
D3A: 1
F6F: 1
Ju87: 1
Ju88: 1
Ki-61: 1
Ki-67: 1
Ki-84: 1
I-16: 1
Il-2: 1
Lancaster: 1
Me163: 1
Me262: 1
Mosquito: 1
N1K: 1
SBD: 1
TBM: 1
Tempest: 1
Typhoon: 1
As you can see, most types do not in fact have 3+ variants. While the list includes aircraft like the Ar234 that had no other variants, it also includes the Ju88 and Mosquito at one each, and those two aircraft had more variants that saw combat than any other types. The B-17, B-24, Ki-61 and N1K all have strong claims to other significant versions while only having one model of their types in the game.
I don't object to the P-51 getting another model, but don't paint it as a red heading step child as it certainly is not.
I think you could make the argument that the B25 has possibly 3 types when you turn it into the solid nose?
-
I myself (being a pony driver 90% of the time) would much rather have a 51A vs any four cannoned bird. Most of the other aircraft in AH have 3+ variants, about time for the first Mustang to be avalible.
(http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/p51pics/military/pacific/6.jpg)
Well... the P-51 (20mm armed Mustang) was the first variant used by the USAAF. :D
-
Well... the P-51 (20mm armed Mustang) was the first variant used by the USAAF. :D
Are you sure about that? The first fighter version of the Mustang procured by the USAAF was the P-51A equipped with 4x .50 cals, not even the A-36 was equipped with 20mm cannons.
ack-ack
-
Well... the P-51 (20mm armed Mustang) was the first variant used by the USAAF. :D
The A36 was the first USAAF Allison Mustang to see combat and it was in the MTO. Seems to me you tried this argument before too.
-
Are you sure about that? The first fighter version of the Mustang procured by the USAAF was the P-51A equipped with 4x .50 cals, not even the A-36 was equipped with 20mm cannons.
ack-ack
He just wants his 20mm cannons and damn all honesty to get them.
-
He just wants his 20mm cannons and damn all honesty to get them.
Yeah, it sure looks like that's his main motivation. Though, what good are 20mm cannons if you fly at 35,000ft in this game? Nothing to shoot at other than the clouds.
ack-ack
-
I would not mind seeing a Mustang I/P-51A at some point (non 20mm model) just to fill it out. It was used in Burma and in the ETO as a Tac R fighter. Its not about if its "better" to me, I would like it in the game just because it was an interesting fighter, and I can see its use in SEA setups. Should be there for the same reason we have the P-38G and the F4U-1 and the P-39D. I have no doubt it would get a niche crown in the MA as well.
-
I would not mind seeing a Mustang I/P-51A at some point (non 20mm model) just to fill it out. It was used in Burma and in the ETO as a Tac R fighter. Its not about if its "better" to me, I would like it in the game just because it was an interesting fighter, and I can see its use in SEA setups. Should be there for the same reason we have the P-38G and the F4U-1 and the P-39D. I have no doubt it would get a niche crown in the MA as well.
This I agree with.
-
Yes,I've refrained from commenting in this discussion mostly because I think this A/C should be included at some point.
Do we need it before the Japanese planeset is filled out,I think not,do we need more Russian planes first,of course.
This said I'd think that an Allison powered A36/P51 would be a disired addition.
:salute
-
I would not mind seeing a Mustang I/P-51A at some point (non 20mm model) just to fill it out. It was used in Burma and in the ETO as a Tac R fighter. Its not about if its "better" to me, I would like it in the game just because it was an interesting fighter, and I can see its use in SEA setups. Should be there for the same reason we have the P-38G and the F4U-1 and the P-39D. I have no doubt it would get a niche crown in the MA as well.
I agree completely.
ack-ack
-
This plane was dogchit.
-
You are probably right Kazaa and you have good reason to fear a plane you could not fly well.
-
You are probably right Kazaa and you have good reason to fear a plane you could not fly well.
Oh, just like the majority of players in this game, I don't think Kazaa would have any troubles shooting you down. While you claim to fly at 30,000+ to conserve fuel, we all know the real reason is that you're just not very good. So I wouldn't be throwing the "you could not fly well" bit around when you're incapable of flying anything with what could be considered any sort of skill.
BTW- We're still waiting on the stuff about the Iwo Mustangs...but like I mentioned in a previous post that is probably something we'll be waiting for many years. I would ask you to post anything that supports your claim of the first fighter version of the Mustang the USAAF received were equipped with 20mm cannons, but again, I feel that we'll be waiting many years for something you can't provide.
I'm sure glad you never made TAS, it horrifies me how you would have modeled planes in that fraudware game.
ack-ack
-
the P51a was very important to the RAF . They provided a longer range fighter bomber for the RAF that had a higher speed at low level than the Spit V. With full load out (4X .50 with 2X .303 and 2X 500lb , or 4X 20mm and 2 X 500lb) it was 35mph faster than the spit Vb. In fact it was the first RAF fighter to fly over Germany in 1942 while attacking Dortmund-Ems with No. 316 squadron (polish).
while Most of the P51a's with the .50 load out the quad 20mm WAS used by the RAF at squadron level over Europe. it was faster on the deck and up to 15K than the contemporary German machines apart from the FW190 . The P51A was also noted as having a much smoother flight controls than the P51B/C/D's . it also had better directional stblity due to the different shape of the engine cowling and narrower radiator intake.
I am Not referring to the A36 which although was similar had different arrangements of weapons to that of the P51A. Also of note P51A's armed with cannons in USAAF service were called F-6A re-con aircraft and over 150 of these were ordered and delivered (not the ones retained after pearl harbour) which fought in the front line.
-
the P51a was very important to the RAF . They provided a longer range fighter bomber for the RAF that had a higher speed at low level than the Spit V. With full load out (4X .50 with 2X .303 and 2X 500lb , or 4X 20mm and 2 X 500lb) it was 35mph faster than the spit Vb. In fact it was the first RAF fighter to fly over Germany in 1942 while attacking Dortmund-Ems with No. 316 squadron (polish).
while Most of the P51a's with the .50 load out the quad 20mm WAS used by the RAF at squadron level over Europe. it was faster on the deck and up to 15K than the contemporary German machines apart from the FW190 . The P51A was also noted as having a much smoother flight controls than the P51B/C/D's . it also had better directional stblity due to the different shape of the engine cowling and narrower radiator intake.
I am Not referring to the A36 which although was similar had different arrangements of weapons to that of the P51A. Also of note P51A's armed with cannons in USAAF service were called F-6A re-con aircraft and over 150 of these were ordered and delivered (not the ones retained after pearl harbour) which fought in the front line.
The Allison Mustang was important. the 93 Cannon armed 51As were not in comparison to the 600+ machine gun armed birds. of the RAF.
-
To be fair, that's 1 in every 6, and the US used them for armed recon and light attack work (strafing) in the MTO. I can't recall if they were called F4s or F5s or what, but essentially the same plane with a camera mounted behind the pilot's headrest and a bubbled for the lense to look out.
On the one hand, I wouldn't want to see them abused as badly as I bet they would be. On the other hand, I bet folks that generally would HO and run wouldn't get too far because of the atrocious performance. It would be like a P-40 with cannons. Sure, it's got the cannons, but so does a typthie/tempest!
If HTC ever gets the perked ord working, and we get the A-36/Mustang Mk.I, I'd like to see the 50cal option and then a slightly perked 20mm option. It would have its uses, including taking towns down.
Out of curiousity, anybody know how much ammo they stored per gun? The C-hog has craploads of ammo, but the british planes tend to be really conservative. It's a US plane, but built for the RAF, so I wonder whether it leans to the light ammo load or the heavy ammo load.
-
To be fair, that's 1 in every 6, and the US used them for armed recon and light attack work (strafing) in the MTO. I can't recall if they were called F4s or F5s or what, but essentially the same plane with a camera mounted behind the pilot's headrest and a bubbled for the lense to look out.
F5'S :aok
-
To be fair, that's 1 in every 6, and the US used them for armed recon and light attack work (strafing) in the MTO. I can't recall if they were called F4s or F5s or what, but essentially the same plane with a camera mounted behind the pilot's headrest and a bubbled for the lense to look out.
On the one hand, I wouldn't want to see them abused as badly as I bet they would be. On the other hand, I bet folks that generally would HO and run wouldn't get too far because of the atrocious performance. It would be like a P-40 with cannons. Sure, it's got the cannons, but so does a typthie/tempest!
If HTC ever gets the perked ord working, and we get the A-36/Mustang Mk.I, I'd like to see the 50cal option and then a slightly perked 20mm option. It would have its uses, including taking towns down.
Out of curiousity, anybody know how much ammo they stored per gun? The C-hog has craploads of ammo, but the british planes tend to be really conservative. It's a US plane, but built for the RAF, so I wonder whether it leans to the light ammo load or the heavy ammo load.
Krusty there were 150 built total. the USAAF ones were the ones that they kept from the RAF order.
-
Yes, I know.
150 compared to 600+
That's still 1 out of every 6 or 7 planes having the cannon armament. I know, less than 20%, but not something to totally forget about ;)
-
Yes, I know.
150 compared to 600+
That's still 1 out of every 6 or 7 planes having the cannon armament. I know, less than 20%, but not something to totally forget about ;)
That is the number of RAF mg armed Allison 51s. There were 500 A36s for the USAAF and 310 P51A for the USAAF. So you are talking about 150 out of 1400 or so birds.
Look at it this way. I love the Spitfire XII. It's been a passion of mine as a history project since 1980. Did it have a significant role in Spitfire history? Sure did. Got the Griffon engine into combat in the Spitfire. Highest scoring Spit Wing in the Fall of 43 was the Tangmere Wing made up of the two Spit XII squadrons. Would I like it someday in AH? Sure. I think the whines would be tremendous since it was such a good low alt performer. Think AH Spit XVI but in 1943 instead of 45. But there were only 100 built, and in the overall scheme of things it is way down the list in my mind of planes that HTC should work on for the game.
-
That is the number of RAF mg armed Allison 51s. There were 500 A36s for the USAAF and 310 P51A for the USAAF. So you are talking about 150 out of 1400 or so birds.
Ah, I getcha now. I thought that was total :)
-
Dan I agree with you whole heartily,at some point I'd like to see the spit XII and the P51A/A36 but like you I think there's much more important planes that need adding long before these 2.The limitations of the planeset make it rather difficult for the CM's to put together certain scenarios.
:salute
-
Krusty there were 150 built total. the USAAF ones were the ones that they kept from the RAF order.
that not true the USAAF ordered 150 themselves not including the RAF with quad cannons. . the USAAF kept only 53 of the 150 sent to europe. and it was the F-6A was armed recon mustang
-
Not many, if any, 20 mm cannon armed p51s existed. and why use 20 mm cannon when 6x50 cal can do the same damage at longer range.
-
The early Mustangs only had 4x .50 cals, not 6.
ack-ack
-
You are probably right Kazaa and you have good reason to fear a plane you could not fly well.
If I should be scared of not flying it well, then you should be wetting your pants just at the thought of trying to take-off in one. :aok
-
Not many, if any, 20 mm cannon armed p51s existed. and why use 20 mm cannon when 6x50 cal can do the same damage at longer range.
Because six .50 cals can't do the same damage at longer range..... Six .50 cals are the equivalent of two 20mm Hispanos, not four, and their range is the same.
-
The early Mustangs only had 4x .50 cals, not 6.
ack-ack
4 in the wings plus 2 under the nose = 6. British had 4 .50s and 4 303s.
wrongway
-
4 in the wings plus 2 under the nose = 6. British had 4 .50s and 4 303s.
wrongway
The first fighter version of the Mustang the USAAF received (P-51A) had 4x .50 caliber machine guns, two on each wing.
ack-ack
-
They had 2 .50cals under the nose. as well. From the earlist version I thought they always had this. Later it was removed in the P-51B because of difficulties accessing them and reduced space due to the new engine setup.
It's also one of the reasons the Italians dropped them on the G.55 -- too hard to service and get to under there.
-
They had 2 .50cals under the nose. as well. From the earlist version I thought they always had this. Later it was removed in the P-51B because of difficulties accessing them and reduced space due to the new engine setup.
It's also one of the reasons the Italians dropped them on the G.55 -- too hard to service and get to under there.
The A36 had he two 50s under the nose for the USAAF. The Allison P51 used by the USAAF had 4 50s. The RAF got a few of those designated Mustang II.
-
They had 2 .50cals under the nose. as well. From the earlist version I thought they always had this. Later it was removed in the P-51B because of difficulties accessing them and reduced space due to the new engine setup.
It's also one of the reasons the Italians dropped them on the G.55 -- too hard to service and get to under there.
The P-51A only had 4x .50 calibers.
Model - P-51A
Production - 310
Length - 32.25
Height - 12.2
Wingspan - 37.04
Weight - empty - 6433
Weight - normal T.O. - 8600
Weight - max G.W. - 10600
Powerplant - Allison V-1710-81
Horsepower - 1200
Propeller - Curtiss 3-bladed electric 10'9"
Max Speed - 390 @ 20k
Service Ceiling - 31,350
Fuel Capacity - 180
Drop Tanks - 2x 75 gal
Range - 750 / 1375+
Guns - 4x .50 cal - 1260 rounds
Bomb / Rockets - 2x 500 lb bombs
I think the confusion lies with the designation that the USAAF used for the Mustang I (P-51), which leads a lot to think that this was the first fighter production model of the Mustang for the USAAF, when none of the P-51s saw operational service save for those that were converted to tactical recce planes (F-6A). As I mentioned already, the first fighter production model for the USAAF was the P-51A, which in the RAF service was the Mustang II. The P-51A had the .303 caliber machine guns removed as well as the two nose mounted .50 cals and added two more .50 cals to the wings to give the P-51A 4x .50 cals.
ack-ack
-
The P-51A only had 4x .50 calibers.
Model - P-51A
Production - 310
Length - 32.25
Height - 12.2
Wingspan - 37.04
Weight - empty - 6433
Weight - normal T.O. - 8600
Weight - max G.W. - 10600
Powerplant - Allison V-1710-81
Horsepower - 1200
Propeller - Curtiss 3-bladed electric 10'9"
Max Speed - 390 @ 20k
Service Ceiling - 31,350
Fuel Capacity - 180
Drop Tanks - 2x 75 gal
Range - 750 / 1375+
Guns - 4x .50 cal - 1260 rounds
Bomb / Rockets - 2x 500 lb bombs
I think the confusion lies with the designation that the USAAF used for the Mustang I (P-51), which leads a lot to think that this was the first fighter production model of the Mustang for the USAAF, when none of the P-51s saw operational service save for those that were converted to tactical recce planes (F-6A). As I mentioned already, the first fighter production model for the USAAF was the P-51A, which in the RAF service was the Mustang II. The P-51A had the .303 caliber machine guns removed as well as the two nose mounted .50 cals and added two more .50 cals to the wings to give the P-51A 4x .50 cals.
ack-ack
Ack! (double meaning :))
You sir are correct. I just looked it up again.
The P-51A deleted the two chin guns and the dive brakes of the A-36. It retained the four .50-caliber machine guns in the wings as its only internal armament. However, the P-51A also kept the under-wing pylons of the A-36. External fuel tanks, or bombs up to the 500-pound class, could be loaded on these external hardpoints. This variant was called the Mustang II by the British.
Off to eat crow.
:salute
wrongway
-
I don't think that is true.
Spitfire: 7 (counting Seafire)
Bf109: 6
Fw190: 5 (counting Ta152)
F4U: 5
P-47: 5
Hurricane: 3
P-38: 3
A6M: 2
A-20: 2
B-25: 2
Bf110: 2
C.2: 2
F4F: 2 (counting FM2)
La: 2
P-39: 2
P-40: 2
P-51: 2
Yak: 2
Ar234: 1
B6N: 1
B-17: 1
B-24: 1
B-26: 1
C-47: 1
D3A: 1
F6F: 1
Ju87: 1
Ju88: 1
Ki-61: 1
Ki-67: 1
Ki-84: 1
I-16: 1
Il-2: 1
Lancaster: 1
Me163: 1
Me262: 1
Mosquito: 1
N1K: 1
SBD: 1
TBM: 1
Tempest: 1
Typhoon: 1
As you can see, most types do not in fact have 3+ variants. While the list includes aircraft like the Ar234 that had no other variants, it also includes the Ju88 and Mosquito at one each, and those two aircraft had more variants that saw combat than any other types. The B-17, B-24, Ki-61 and N1K all have strong claims to other significant versions while only having one model of their types in the game.
I don't object to the P-51 getting another model, but don't paint it as a red heading step child as it certainly is not.
Didnt mean to paint as a European Step Child, I should have said many. Still, the Allison powered 51 (non cannon) would be nice to have.
-
Didnt mean to paint as a European Step Child, I should have said many. Still, the Allison powered 51 (non cannon) would be nice to have.
Agreed.
-
Didnt mean to paint as a European Step Child, I should have said many. Still, the Allison powered 51 (non cannon) would be nice to have.
Yes it would be a nice mid-war edition to the plane set.
ack-ack
-
I don't think that is true.
Spitfire: 7 (counting Seafire)
Bf109: 6
Fw190: 5 (counting Ta152)
F4U: 5
P-47: 5
Hurricane: 3
P-38: 3
A6M: 2
A-20: 2
B-25: 2
Bf110: 2
C.2: 2
F4F: 2 (counting FM2)
La: 2
P-39: 2
P-40: 2
P-51: 2
Yak: 2
Ar234: 1
B6N: 1
B-17: 1
B-24: 1
B-26: 1
C-47: 1
D3A: 1
F6F: 1
Ju87: 1
Ju88: 1
Ki-61: 1
Ki-67: 1
Ki-84: 1
I-16: 1
Il-2: 1
Lancaster: 1
Me163: 1
Me262: 1
Mosquito: 1
N1K: 1
SBD: 1
TBM: 1
Tempest: 1
Typhoon: 1
As you can see, most types do not in fact have 3+ variants. While the list includes aircraft like the Ar234 that had no other variants, it also includes the Ju88 and Mosquito at one each, and those two aircraft had more variants that saw combat than any other types. The B-17, B-24, Ki-61 and N1K all have strong claims to other significant versions while only having one model of their types in the game.
I don't object to the P-51 getting another model, but don't paint it as a red heading step child as it certainly is not.
although he already corrected himself in the above statement in this thread, i need to say that out of the planes with only one model, only the bombers, the F6F, and the N1K, (and maybe the SBD and TBM?), can have more models. am i correct? btw i think a new Allied CV flown bomber could be a nice TBD Devastator? yeah ik it isnt as good as the TBM or used like the SBD but itd be cool to have it. Out of the 2 version planes in game- The yak :aok , a6m :aok , P51, and P40 could have new game models. We're all set for spits, 109s, and the 5 counts and 3 counts i think.
-
although he already corrected himself in the above statement in this thread, i need to say that out of the planes with only one model, only the bombers, the F6F, and the N1K, (and maybe the SBD and TBM?), can have more models. am i correct? btw i think a new Allied CV flown bomber could be a nice TBD Devastator? yeah ik it isnt as good as the TBM or used like the SBD but itd be cool to have it. Out of the 2 version planes in game- The yak :aok , a6m :aok , P51, and P40 could have new game models. We're all set for spits, 109s, and the 5 counts and 3 counts i think.
You are not correct.
The aircraft that have only one model and have others available that would bring significant differences:
B-17
B-24
D3A
F6F
Ju87
Ju88 (many, many models, some of them fighters, some of them bombers)
Ki-61 (many models)
Ki-84
Lancaster
Me262
Mosquito (many, many models, some of them fighters, some of them bombers)
N1K
SBD
-
This is a neat little plane that I think would be a great addition to the game, the Mustang Mk I. There were a little over 600 of them made I believe. Only question I have is how much action did they see, and did they perform well? if it is anything like the B or D model PLUS the 4 20mm then it should've done quite well :devil
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee165/sonofwaranddeath/MustangMkI.jpg)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee165/sonofwaranddeath/MKIVmustang.jpg)
would give Hurri2Cs and typhoons a run for their money I think :aok
I would like it, throw in the C model and it's a done deal :aok +1
-
I would like it, throw in the C model and it's a done deal :aok +1
I'm going to be kind this time because I'm home sick and the medicines are making me loopy. There is no need for the C model. Why do you ask? Well, the C model is the same exact plane as the B model. But why is the C called the C and not the B if they are the same plane with no differences? That's because the B was built in Inglewood, California and the C was built in Dallas, Texas. If you want to fly the C, just pretend the plane was made in Dallas.
ack-ack
-
You are not correct.
The aircraft that have only one model and have others available that would bring significant differences:
B-17
B-24
D3A
F6F
Ju87
Ju88 (many, many models, some of them fighters, some of them bombers)
Ki-61 (many models)
Ki-84
Lancaster
Me262
Mosquito (many, many models, some of them fighters, some of them bombers)
N1K
SBD
so.... a Me262 bomber? dont think many would like that. ok i agree with the Ki-61 and Ki-84, but everything else is as i listed. The (B17, B24, D3A, Ju-87, Ju-88, Lanc)<-bombers as i said, N1K, F6F and SBD<bomber-as said, and i even said put the TBD to add a predecessor to the TBM. Would another Mossi really affect the game? The bomber mossi has the same role as the attack mossi in game.
-
You don't think a Mosquito with a 57mm cannon would bring anything different? How about one that can do 430mph? How about one that can carry a 4,000lb bomb at 415mph and drop it using a bomb sight from 27,000ft?
How about a Ju87 armed with two high velocity 37mm cannons?
What about a Ju88 with a solid nose and armed with four MG/FF 20mm cannons? How about a Ju88 with a solid nose that can do more than 400mph and is armed with multiple MG151/20 20mm cannon?
How about a D3A that is almost as fast as the F4F?
-
Might be time to unleash a Mossie development thread for the uninformed Karnak :)
Did you catch the thread on the Flypast Forum where the guy posted photos of the three Mossies at the Dehaviland Heritage Center? They have their FBVI on it's wheels now. Throw in the prototype and their B35 and that's a nice Mossie collection :)
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=99287
-
You don't think a Mosquito with a 57mm cannon would bring anything different? How about one that can do 430mph? How about one that can carry a 4,000lb bomb at 415mph and drop it using a bomb sight from 27,000ft?
How about a Ju87 armed with two high velocity 37mm cannons?
What about a Ju88 with a solid nose and armed with four MG/FF 20mm cannons? How about a Ju88 with a solid nose that can do more than 400mph and is armed with multiple MG151/20 20mm cannon?
How about a D3A that is almost as fast as the F4F?
i already said ok to the Ju87 and 88 in my original post man... and the Val's fine the way it is...
-
I'm going to be kind this time because I'm home sick and the medicines are making me loopy. There is no need for the C model. Why do you ask? Well, the C model is the same exact plane as the B model. But why is the C called the C and not the B if they are the same plane with no differences? That's because the B was built in Inglewood, California and the C was built in Dallas, Texas. If you want to fly the C, just pretend the plane was made in Dallas.
ack-ack
The C model was improved with the guns and didn't have the jamming in the guns most of the time like the B model did. If we have all spit models, why not add all the P-51 models. Plus all of them saw action, unlike spit 16 had only seen 23 hours of combat service but didn't have 1 kill recorded. :airplane:
-
The C model was improved with the guns and didn't have the jamming in the guns most of the time like the B model did. If we have all spit models, why not add all the P-51 models. Plus all of them saw action, unlike spit 16 had only seen 23 hours of combat service but didn't have 1 kill recorded. :airplane:
Plus, ANYWHERE you look for spit 16 records, nothing but a plain picture and/or from the 1938 version spit comes up. I don't see any where at all where spit 16 records of killing one single fighter is.
-
Thrash, please go back and get a clue first on both the P51B/C and the Spitfire LFIXe/XVIe.
Your comments are so off the mark, I don't know if it's even worth trying to explain it
-
We'll start with an easy one Thrash.
One of these is a P51B-15NA built in California. The other is a P51C-10NT built in Texas. Which is which. How can you tell.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/868.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/148.jpg)
-
The C model was improved with the guns and didn't have the jamming in the guns most of the time like the B model did. If we have all spit models, why not add all the P-51 models. Plus all of them saw action, unlike spit 16 had only seen 23 hours of combat service but didn't have 1 kill recorded. :airplane:
The only difference between the P-51B and the P-51C is the location of production. B = Inglewood, California and C = Dallas, Texas. That's the only difference.
The C model's guns were just as prone to jamming as the B model guns because they were the same plane. The .50 cals on the A, B and C models were mounted at an extreme side angle to allow access to the feed chutes from the ammunition trays. This angled mounting had caused problems leading to frequent complaints of jamming during combat maneuvers. This wasn't fixed until the D model came out with the .50 cals mounted upright instead of a side angle. Some P-51B/C models were upgraded with the new .50 cal mounting layout but not sure if it was common to all P-51B/Cs or just a few that did the upgrade on the field.
Also, Spitfire Mk XVI had more than 23 hours of combat service and did record kills in combat. Where ever you got your information, that source is widely inaccurate as your claim that all Mustangs saw combat action. Hell, the Spitfire Mk XVI saw more combat action than the P-51H ever saw while in service.
ack-ack
-
We'll start with an easy one Thrash.
One of these is a P51B-15NA built in California. The other is a P51C-10NT built in Texas. Which is which. How can you tell.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/868.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/148.jpg)
:headscratch: Top one Texas.
-
Better not tell folks that Grumman and and General Motors made Avengers.. Of course this may call for Ford built B24s, Vega built B17s and of course Brewster, Vought and General Motors made Corsairs too :)
-
The only difference between the P-51B and the P-51C is the location of production. B = Inglewood, California and C = Dallas, Texas. That's the only difference.
The C model's guns were just as prone to jamming as the B model guns because they were the same plane. The .50 cals on the A, B and C models were mounted at an extreme side angle to allow access to the feed chutes from the ammunition trays. This angled mounting had caused problems leading to frequent complaints of jamming during combat maneuvers. This wasn't fixed until the D model came out with the .50 cals mounted upright instead of a side angle. Some P-51B/C models were upgraded with the new .50 cal mounting layout but not sure if it was common to all P-51B/Cs or just a few that did the upgrade on the field.
Also, Spitfire Mk XVI had more than 23 hours of combat service and did record kills in combat. Where ever you got your information, that source is widely inaccurate as your claim that all Mustangs saw combat action. Hell, the Spitfire Mk XVI saw more combat action than the P-51H ever saw while in service.
ack-ack
Yes the H model saw action, I'm pretty sure it even scored more kills then what you say spit 16 had some kills, to me the P-51H was just a reconnaissance plane instead of a fighter, and I really don't care were the 51B and C were manufactured, if they saw action then they should be included. What's the website you got the info off of the Spit 16, cause I sure as hell didn't see anything of recorded kills by it. I googled, yahoo, WWII searched it, and I found nothing but pics of the plane.
BTW: The only difference with the B and C was an engine change in which it had made it been able to go to high alt escorts for the B-17s, and better fuelage was then added for longer range. Not because of a state difference
-
We'll start with an easy one Thrash.
One of these is a P51B-15NA built in California. The other is a P51C-10NT built in Texas. Which is which. How can you tell.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/868.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/148.jpg)
First off both look the same, second you can't even tell with a view like that!
-
Yes the H model saw action, I'm pretty sure it even scored more kills then what you say spit 16 had some kills, to me the P-51H was just a reconnaissance plane instead of a fighter
Please, tell us in which war the P-51H saw any combat action, let alone shot down any planes. I'm very curious to know since the P-51H never saw any combat action in WW2 and was deemed unsuitable for combat operations in Korea.
and I really don't care were the 51B and C were manufactured, if they saw action then they should be included.
And there is the reason for your ignorance. If you had cared to find out this little nugget of information, you wouldn't sound like such an ignorant tool when you post about airplanes.
The B and the C are in the game as the C is the exact same plane as the B model. If you want to fly the C model in the game, just take off in a B model and pretend it was built in Texas instead of California. Now, you've got your C model.
What's the website you got the info off of the Spit 16, cause I sure as hell didn't see anything of recorded kills by it. I googled, yahoo, WWII searched it, and I found nothing but pics of the plane.
You can find that information very readily in this forum. I believe it was the Canadian squadrons that had the most success with the Mk XVI and the ones that scored most of the kills in this Spitfire.
By the way, the mistaken belief that the Spitfire Mk XVI only had less than 30 hours of combat service total is incorrectly based of the flight record of a single Spitfire Mk XVI (pictured below). This particular Spitfire Mk XVI only had 24 hours of combat operations before the war ended, this is where the mistake stems from.
(http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/images/Spit16s1.jpg) (http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/images/P4100246.JPG)
BTW: The only difference with the B and C was an engine change in which it had suffered from high alt escorts, and better fuelage was then added for longer range. Not because of a state difference
*sigh*
P-51B specifications
Model P-51B
Production 1988
Plant Inglewood, California
Length 32.25
Height 13.67
Wingspan 37.04
Weight - empty 6985
Weight - normal T.O. 9,800
Weight - max G.W. 11,800
Powerplant Packard (Rolls Royce) V-1650-3, -7
Horsepower 1380, 1490
Propeller - Hamilton Standard 11'2" 4-blade
Max Speed 439 mph at 25k feet
Service Ceiling 41,800
Fuel Capacity 180, 269
Drop Tanks 2x 75 or 2x 108
Range 1,180 and 1,900 w/DT
Armament 4x .50 cal. - 1260 rounds
(2) 1,000 lb bombs or rockets
P-51C specifications
Model P-51C
Production 1750
Plant Dallas, Texas
Length 32.25
Height 13.67
Wingspan 37.04
Weight - empty 6985
Weight - normal T.O. 9,800
Weight - max G.W. 11,800
Powerplant Packard (Rolls Royce) V-1650-3, -7
Horsepower 1380, 1490
Propeller - Hamilton Standard 11'2" 4-blade
Max Speed 439 mph at 25k feet
Service Ceiling 41,800
Fuel Capacity 180, 269
Drop Tanks 2x 75 or 2x 108
Range 1,180 and 1,900 w/DT
Armament 4x .50 cal. - 1260 rounds
(2) 1,000 lb bombs or rockets
Looking at the specifications for both the P-51B and the P-51C, tell us where the difference between the two planes are other than point of manufacturer. In case you can't see it, I bolded your statement about the B and C having two different engines in the quote from you. As you can see in the highlighted portion in the plane specifications, they both used the same Packard (Merlin) engine.
Seriously, can't you take some time to learn about the planes you fly in this game?
ack-ack
-
First off both look the same, second you can't even tell with a view like that!
That's the point he's making....other than being made in two seperate places there is no difference between the B and the C.
ack-ack
-
That's the point he's making....other than being made in two seperate places there is no difference between the B and the C.
ack-ack
It's enough to make ya weep sometimes AKAK. Absolutely amazing. I think he's mixing up P51A with B and B with C.
OK which one is the Spitfire IX an which one is the Spitfire XVI?
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Spit1-2.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Spitfire4.jpg)
-
what about one of those mustangs that have that bulge in the birdcage canopy?
-
what about one of those mustangs that have that bulge in the birdcage canopy?
Do you mean the Malcom Hood that was fitted to many of the B and C Mustangs that went to England? That replaced the original canopy to give better visibility.
-
yes give us one of those
-
Dude, have you even TRIED flying the P-51 in-game?
Seriously? Based on your reply, I'm going to say "no"
So please don't make comments like that unless you really care enough to up a P-51B in game once. JUST ONCE.
Because if you had, you'd never have made such a stupid comment.
-
yes give us one of those
I don't think there is a "facepalm' big enough for this.
-
I was being sarcastis. WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER PONY!!!!!!
-
I don't think there is a "facepalm' big enough for this.
The Jesus face palm.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3032/3012262430_1095f7b0d8.jpg?v=0)
ack-ack
-
The Jesus face palm.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3032/3012262430_1095f7b0d8.jpg?v=0)
ack-ack
Right back at ya
-
What the people seem to want is a p51 with cannons because they are frustrated that the few hits they land dont frag their target and thus cannons would not hinder their timid bnz but simply enhance it in their mind. I say this because most p51's will extend much to far away before coming back in to be effective and their gunnery is generally botched. I also almost never see these mustangs perform any sort of acm like a rolling scissors they just pick and run so cannon would slow them down a couple mph and remove some roll they weren't using anyways. These cannons will merely give them more punch and less lead needed to land the kill. I for one say throw that bad boy in I want to see a perked 51 that every bnz mustang pilot saves his perks to fly and then die terribly in because the plane is just that much slower to accelerate or turn or hell just has less ammo so they rtb sooner cause quite frankly I not afraid of a cannon bird any more than a 303 bird infact I am more afraid of planes like a spit1 or yakU because their small or weak ammo loads mean the pilot is confident in his gunnery and acm. I love my American planes like the f4u but for the most part I don't see alot of top tier players rolling face in them. Exception being the 38 which quite frankly is so American and yet so much more graceful than most of the American equipment. [sorry if I just became captain obvious in why so many oppose this plane idea.]
-
My guess as being a 51-B driver 90% of the time, is that Trash and Kingcobra have never even flown a B-model. You both need to give up, as many have said the only real difference is point of origin.
Some 51 drivers will fight it out, I enjoy the low and slow fights in the 51. Its very gratifying for me at least. IMO those who do complain about BnZ tactics have yet figured out how to counter them.
As I have stated before, I'd love to see the Allison Powered 51 in AH, but no cannon birds.
-
The Jesus face palm.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3032/3012262430_1095f7b0d8.jpg?v=0)
ack-ack
Now from his perspective.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/63968446_-1_666430c-1.jpg)
-
i already said ok to the Ju87 and 88 in my original post man... and the Val's fine the way it is...
There were more D3A2s built than D3A1s, fyi.
-
I was being sarcastis. WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER PONY!!!!!!
I'll answer it for you. The reason they are reacting that way is because the P-51B in AH has the Malcolm hood already, which if you'd ever looked at it you'd already know.
-
I want the P51 with the 37mm gun package. :rock I surprized no one has ever mentioned that model :headscratch:
-
What the people seem to want is a p51 with cannons because they are frustrated that the few hits they land dont frag their target and thus cannons would not hinder their timid bnz but simply enhance it in their mind. I say this because most p51's will extend much to far away before coming back in to be effective and their gunnery is generally botched. I also almost never see these mustangs perform any sort of acm like a rolling scissors they just pick and run
I'm not saying you're wrong but I love this mindset.
... I'll just do a hard break turn and that sissy 51 will go right by me. Hah! There he goes, sissy! No way would he yoyo back down on my 6, coward 51!. Wait, it almost looks like he chopped throttle and dropped flaps and is staying behind me. No way, that's a 51, they always run. Oh shi... *boom*
**Steve has shot you down**
:rock
-
But C comes after B so it must be better. :devil
-
It's enough to make ya weep sometimes AKAK. Absolutely amazing. I think he's mixing up P51A with B and B with C.
OK which one is the Spitfire IX an which one is the Spitfire XVI?
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Spit1-2.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Spitfire4.jpg)
Looks like the bottom one is the 16 model
-
Please, tell us in which war the P-51H saw any combat action, let alone shot down any planes. I'm very curious to know since the P-51H never saw any combat action in WW2 and was deemed unsuitable for combat operations in Korea.
And there is the reason for your ignorance. If you had cared to find out this little nugget of information, you wouldn't sound like such an ignorant tool when you post about airplanes.
The B and the C are in the game as the C is the exact same plane as the B model. If you want to fly the C model in the game, just take off in a B model and pretend it was built in Texas instead of California. Now, you've got your C model.
You can find that information very readily in this forum. I believe it was the Canadian squadrons that had the most success with the Mk XVI and the ones that scored most of the kills in this Spitfire.
By the way, the mistaken belief that the Spitfire Mk XVI only had less than 30 hours of combat service total is incorrectly based of the flight record of a single Spitfire Mk XVI (pictured below). This particular Spitfire Mk XVI only had 24 hours of combat operations before the war ended, this is where the mistake stems from.
(http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/images/Spit16s1.jpg) (http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/images/P4100246.JPG)
*sigh*
P-51B specifications
Model P-51B
Production 1988
Plant Inglewood, California
Length 32.25
Height 13.67
Wingspan 37.04
Weight - empty 6985
Weight - normal T.O. 9,800
Weight - max G.W. 11,800
Powerplant Packard (Rolls Royce) V-1650-3, -7
Horsepower 1380, 1490
Propeller - Hamilton Standard 11'2" 4-blade
Max Speed 439 mph at 25k feet
Service Ceiling 41,800
Fuel Capacity 180, 269
Drop Tanks 2x 75 or 2x 108
Range 1,180 and 1,900 w/DT
Armament 4x .50 cal. - 1260 rounds
(2) 1,000 lb bombs or rockets
P-51C specifications
Model P-51C
Production 1750
Plant Dallas, Texas
Length 32.25
Height 13.67
Wingspan 37.04
Weight - empty 6985
Weight - normal T.O. 9,800
Weight - max G.W. 11,800
Powerplant Packard (Rolls Royce) V-1650-3, -7
Horsepower 1380, 1490
Propeller - Hamilton Standard 11'2" 4-blade
Max Speed 439 mph at 25k feet
Service Ceiling 41,800
Fuel Capacity 180, 269
Drop Tanks 2x 75 or 2x 108
Range 1,180 and 1,900 w/DT
Armament 4x .50 cal. - 1260 rounds
(2) 1,000 lb bombs or rockets
Looking at the specifications for both the P-51B and the P-51C, tell us where the difference between the two planes are other than point of manufacturer. In case you can't see it, I bolded your statement about the B and C having two different engines in the quote from you. As you can see in the highlighted portion in the plane specifications, they both used the same Packard (Merlin) engine.
Seriously, can't you take some time to learn about the planes you fly in this game?
ack-ack
Then explain to me how and why spit 16 can be in the game with that little of combat hours, that's only a day and a few hours past. Every other plane in the war saw over atleast well over a year of combat. What's the name of the website? I want to see it, I've seen nothing at all when I search spit 16.
-
Looks like the bottom one is the 16 model
You'd be wrong on that. It's a Spitfire LFIXe. The top one is a Spitfire LFXVIe. Same airframe. Only difference being the engine is an American made Packard Merlin 266 while the IXe had a Rolls Royce made Merlin 66. Same performance, same bird.
The XVI went into service in late 44 btw seeing service with numerous squadrons of 2 TAF.
-
Lol steve thats what I want the 51's to do I want them to scrub E mercilessly to try and stay with me. I can do a many a useful tactic to out turn or overshoot and land on their 6 for a bit just landing the hits from that super accelerating runstang is oh so difficult.
-
Lol steve thats what I want the 51's to do I want them to scrub E mercilessly to try and stay with me. I can do a many a useful tactic to out turn or overshoot and land on their 6 for a bit just landing the hits from that super accelerating runstang is oh so difficult.
Well if we're 1v1 I'll stay behind you and kill you. If there's a group of bad guys around, I won't bother fighting you, I'll just shoot you down real quick and reset for the next guy. :D
-
Then explain to me how and why spit 16 can be in the game with that little of combat hours, that's only a day and a few hours past. Every other plane in the war saw over atleast well over a year of combat. What's the name of the website? I want to see it, I've seen nothing at all when I search spit 16.
Again, that was the service life of one Spitfire Mk XVI. Do a search for the story of 'The Manston Spitfire - TB 752' and you'll see that you are incorrect about everything you posted about the Spitfire Mk XVI, especially the part on the kills.
ack-ack
-
Right back at ya
hes a nickel member in less than a month!!! :O how is this possible!!!??? ohh....wait... :rofl
-
hes a nickel member in less than a month!!! :O how is this possible!!!??? ohh....wait... :rofl
How can that be when he hasn't even added in a decent two cents yet?
-
Cost me a lot more than two cents in time reading.
-
Again, that was the service life of one Spitfire Mk XVI. Do a search for the story of 'The Manston Spitfire - TB 752' and you'll see that you are incorrect about everything you posted about the Spitfire Mk XVI, especially the part on the kills.
ack-ack
And again, anything that sees less than 30 hours of combat shouldn't be in a game, that's like saying put the centurion tank in the game even though it didn't see any action in WWII.
Nice job finding it on the website, still saw no kills recorded.
-
And again, anything that sees less than 30 hours of combat shouldn't be in a game, that's like saying put the centurion tank in the game even though it didn't see any action in WWII.
Nice job finding it on the website, still saw no kills recorded.
Numpty the XVI is an LFIXe. The LFIXe was in service in early 43. The only dif is the XVI has an American made engine. Now go play in traffic.
-
You'd be wrong on that. It's a Spitfire LFIXe. The top one is a Spitfire LFXVIe. Same airframe. Only difference being the engine is an American made Packard Merlin 266 while the IXe had a Rolls Royce made Merlin 66. Same performance, same bird.
The XVI went into service in late 44 btw seeing service with numerous squadrons of 2 TAF.
And how can you tell that the 9 model is on the bottom just by looking at the outside of the plane?
-
And how can you tell that the 9 model is on the bottom just by looking at the outside of the plane?
.303s instead of .50s.
-
.303s instead of .50s.
Congrats, I think I know that. You can't just tell which is which, both planes and guns look the same.
-
And again, anything that sees less than 30 hours of combat shouldn't be in a game, that's like saying put the centurion tank in the game even though it didn't see any action in WWII.
Nice job finding it on the website, still saw no kills recorded.
Seriously, do you read anything about the planes in this game? I don't know why you keep insisting that the Spitfire Mk XVI only had less then 30 combat hours, when it maybe true that individual planes may not have had more than 30 combat hours but as a type, the Spitfire Mk XVI did have more than 30 combat hours.
In addition, your claim that the Spitfire Mk XVI had no kills is also proven wrong if you look at the history of TB 752.
TB 752 scored 4 kills before the war ended, Me 109, FW 189, FW 190 and He 111.
Here is a painting of TB 752's last recorded kill.
(http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/aircraft/spitfire4.jpg)
ack-ack
-
Congrats, I think I know that. You can't just tell which is which, both planes and guns look the same.
I can see the difference in the guns.
-
Congrats, I think I know that. You can't just tell which is which, both planes and guns look the same.
Numpty see the little squares on lower plane outer wings? .303s
None on the top plane.
Care to guess where the .50s are located?
-
Numpty see the little squares on lower plane outer wings? .303s
None on the top plane.
Care to guess where the .50s are located?
He's still unable to tell which one of the P-51s Guppy posted is a B and which one is the C.
ack-ack
-
Congrats, I think I know that. You can't just tell which is which, both planes and guns look the same.
That would be the point. They are identical. Unless you know the timeframe of the photo, squadron and serial number, you won't be able to tell a Spitfire LFIXe from an LFXVIe. Again the only difference is where the engine was made.
With the P51B vs P51C, again there is no difference outside of which production plant made them, Inglewood or Dallas.
This just can't be that tough to comprehend.
-
He's still unable to tell which one of the P-51s Guppy posted is a B and which one is the C.
ack-ack
With an angle like that you won't be able to tell anything, the side view makes them look to alike for the 5th time now
-
With an angle like that you won't be able to tell anything, the side view makes them look to alike for the 5th time now
Please post photos of a P51B and P51C showing me the differences please.
-
.303s instead of .50s.
The bottom one is a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe, so no .303s on it, the two aircraft are visually identical. Spitfire LF.Mk IXe entered service in early 1944. Spitfire LF.Mk IX with the "universal" wing (two .303s, one 20mm cannon per wing and no underwing bombs) went into service in early 1943, with the same engine as the LF.Mk IXe In AH our Mk XVI is actually an LF.Mk IXe as its full throttle height is that of a Merlin 66, not a Merlin 266.
TRASH99,
Most of us don't use searches on the internet for data, but rather books from our personal libraries. You are revealing your ignorance about the subject quite dramatically. Guppy knows what he is talking about in regards to the P-51B and P-51C. The only function of having one of each would be to have one with the Malcolm hood, as our P-51B does in the game now, and one without it.
As to what Ack-Ack is saying about the Spitfire Mk XVI that you seem to be missing is that the 23 hours of combat time you are quoting was for a single example of the 1053 Spitfire Mk XVI's that were built. A great number of other Spitfire Mk XVI's also saw combat and the total combat time for Spitfire Mk XVIs would be in the tens of thousands of hours.
If you want to read over a good site for WWII aircraft information, try:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/
Contrary to its name, it has primary source documentation for many different WWII aircraft.
-
With an angle like that you won't be able to tell anything, the side view makes them look to alike for the 5th time now
Wonder why that is?
ack-ack
-
try this fellas
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7zZ7hOSxWPs/SYezAudcXEI/AAAAAAAAABQ/-bTVx-oAiX8/s400/bang+head+here.bmp)
-
there is a small difference between Mk IX Lfe and the XVI. the tail of the XVI is more pointed and has and extra fuel cell behind the cockpit . but that's it . Mind you the Packard merlin was 30-70bhp low on power until they re-bored the engine. but after the first 100 that was no longer needed.
-
there is a small difference between Mk IX Lfe and the XVI. the tail of the XVI is more pointed and has and extra fuel cell behind the cockpit . but that's it . Mind you the Packard merlin was 30-70bhp low on power until they re-bored the engine. but after the first 100 that was no longer needed.
False. Spitfire LF.Mk IXes built at the same time the Spitfire Mk XVI was in production have those same features.
-
The bottom one is a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe, so no .303s on it, the two aircraft are visually identical. Spitfire LF.Mk IXe entered service in early 1944. Spitfire LF.Mk IX with the "universal" wing (two .303s, one 20mm cannon per wing and no underwing bombs) went into service in early 1943, with the same engine as the LF.Mk IXe In AH our Mk XVI is actually an LF.Mk IXe as its full throttle height is that of a Merlin 66, not a Merlin 266.
My mistake then, looks like "tape" over .303 gun ports.
-
False. Spitfire LF.Mk IXes built at the same time the Spitfire Mk XVI was in production have those same features.
Not false the later MkIX did have an extra fuel tank in the the rear but was not as large as the XVI . also of note the Power of the XVI was more than that of the IX due to the new super charger that was fitted and gave more power allowing it to keep it's performance similar to that of the IXLFe but with extra weight and range. Also note that the oxygen bottles for the pilot were moved out to the wings outside the 20mm cannon to allow extra fuel into the main fuel tanks and keep CoG in the best place.
weight for Mk IX was 7500lb ,
Mk XVI is 7900lb.
The spit IX also only had 25 rounds of .50cal for each gun compared to the load out for the XVI OF 250 rpg due to modifications to the internals of the wings.
The tail on the Spit IX was kept at a blunter shape that that of the XVI too.
The IX LFe should never be said as the SAME as the LF XVI as though they share the same engine there is a difference in power output of the engines , internal fuel load , CoG aswell as other minor but important differences .
-
Not false the later MkIX did have an extra fuel tank in the the rear but was not as large as the XVI . also of note the Power of the XVI was more than that of the IX due to the new super charger that was fitted and gave more power allowing it to keep it's performance similar to that of the IXLFe but with extra weight and range. Also note that the oxygen bottles for the pilot were moved out to the wings outside the 20mm cannon to allow extra fuel into the main fuel tanks and keep CoG in the best place.
weight for Mk IX was 7500lb ,
Mk XVI is 7900lb.
The spit IX also only had 25 rounds of .50cal for each gun compared to the load out for the XVI OF 250 rpg due to modifications to the internals of the wings.
The tail on the Spit IX was kept at a blunter shape that that of the XVI too.
The IX LFe should never be said as the SAME as the LF XVI as though they share the same engine there is a difference in power output of the engines , internal fuel load , CoG aswell as other minor but important differences .
Please show me some documentation of this. In particular the rear fuel tank and the ammo loads.
You do understand that there were also low back IXs produced. As for rear fuselage tanks. You would be talking about lowback vs high back. Also note that the use of this fuselage tank was limited and I've yet to come across a WW2 photo of a Spit IX or XVI with it installed in a combat setting.
Also understand if you take the engine out of a Spitfire LFIX and swap it with the engine of a Spitfire LFXVI, you will change one to the other as the designation was purely based on engine type, Packard or Rolls Royce Merlin. They came off the same production lines.
Go read the pilots notes for the Spitfire IX, XI and XVI. They are combined as they are all essentially the same airframe. The E wing is the E wing on both the IX and XVI. The rear fuselage tank in the high back versions of the IX and XVI carries 75 gallons while the low back carries 66. Their Type designation at Supermarine were the same, 361 as they were built from the same production drawings. The VIII for example was Type 360. The Spit I was Type 300.
The ony difference was the engine, Merlin 266 vs 66. Packard vs Rolls Royce
-
And again, anything that sees less than 30 hours of combat shouldn't be in a game, that's like saying put the centurion tank in the game even though it didn't see any action in WWII.
Nice job finding it on the website, still saw no kills recorded.
http://rcaf.com/
If you want to see some of the kills and or the amount of sorties that the spitfire XVI flew look here!
I can't be bothered to direct you to the squadron simply because that would be too easy.
Now that the hijack is over,an allison powered 51 would make a great addition,if HTC could through it together like they did with the 47M that would be fine. Otherwise I'd like to see many others added before this if it would require a complete new plane developement.
:salute
-
They can't do it like they did the P-47M, morfiend. The geometry on the P-47M is identical to that of the P-47D-40 whereas the Allison engined P-51A would need a fair amount of changes to the geometry of the P-51B.
-
The air frame may be the same but weapon loads (.50 rounds ) fuel loads and CoG were different. You also didn't comment on the difference of tail profile. The different supper charger also kept the power to weight ratio the same ( to compensate for the extra 500lb of weight ) . They are not interchangeable as designations though they are similar.
recognition of spit IX LFe are: clipped wings, high back ROUNDED tail fin.
Spit XVI LFe : clipped wings , low back , bubble canopy , POINTED TAIL and mounts to carry 50gl torpedo tank.
-
The air frame may be the same but weapon loads (.50 rounds ) fuel loads and CoG were different. You also didn't comment on the difference of tail profile. The different supper charger also kept the power to weight ratio the same ( to compensate for the extra 500lb of weight ) . They are not interchangeable as designations though they are similar.
recognition of spit IX LFe are: clipped wings, high back ROUNDED tail fin.
Spit XVI LFe : clipped wings , low back , bubble canopy , POINTED TAIL and mounts to carry 50gl torpedo tank.
Trust me on this one. It's the same airframe. The Spitfire LFIXe also used the pointed tail. Both were produced in low and high back profiles. Both used normal and clipped wings. Both had E wings that had mounts for bombs and could carry a single rocket. Both could carry slipper or torpedo tanks.
Spit HFIXe with pointed rudder
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/HFIXe.jpg)
Spitfire LFIXe supplied to the Russians. Note pointed tail, clipped wing etc
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Spitfire3.jpg)
High back Spitfire LFXVIe with 45 gallon slipper tank.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Spitfire2.jpg)
-
From the official Air Ministry publication on the Spitfire IX
Note the line "The Mk XVI is the designation given to the Mk IX airframe when fitted with an American built Merlin engine."
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/email0214.jpg)
-
I do find it entertaining that someone is trying to out spitfire Dan.
:)
-
I learn alot about Spitfires when someone challenges him :lol The man does know his spittys
-
Just to kill the Spit 16 is completely different then the IX bit.
Which one is the IX and which one is the XVI? Note the serial numbers. They came off the production line right next to each other literally. The color shot is a surviving Spit. It's missing the cannon shroud so no one should get bent out of shape by the look of the cannon. One is a 9 and one is a 16. Purely engines being the difference.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/TE214.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/TE215.jpg)
-
They can't do it like they did the P-47M, morfiend. The geometry on the P-47M is identical to that of the P-47D-40 whereas the Allison engined P-51A would need a fair amount of changes to the geometry of the P-51B.
I suspected that Karnak,it was just some wishfull thinking on my part and the only way I'd support it's inclusion before the much needed planeset round out!
:salute
PS: Dan would the top be the IX??
-
According to "Spitfire: The History" the top one, TE214 is the Spitfire Mk XVI.
I had to cheat and look it up though.
-
TE215 was the lowback Spitfire LFIXe of S/L G.R.S. McCay of 130 Squadron after the war. TE214 survives in a Canadian Museum and is a Spitfire LFXVIe
-
thanks guppy . So how come there is a 500lb weight difference in my reference book between the all up weight of the spit IX LFe and the XVI LFe?
-
Which book is it?
-
thanks guppy . So how come there is a 500lb weight difference in my reference book between the all up weight of the spit IX LFe and the XVI LFe?
Karnak's question is a good one. Which reference are you using? Spit the History has 9500 for both as the overload weight, as does Bruce Robertson's "Spitfire-The Story of a Famous Fighter" and Phillip Moye's "Profile-Supermarine Spitfire Mk IX" which also includes data on the XVI as they were the same airframe.
All three have different normal take off loads for the IX and XVI varrying from 7500 to 8200 for both. Again the key is all three are clear that the XVI designation was purely to differentiate between the English and American built Merlins that went into the Spit IX airframe.
-
read about the ground attackmustangs in a book on the 31st fighter group. used in italy in "43". so they saw action in the mid war.
-
All three have different normal take off loads for the IX and XVI varrying from 7500 to 8200 for both. .
this would suggest an identical dry weight but a different wet weight which would make them different. :bolt:
-
this would suggest an identical dry weight but a different wet weight which would make them different. :bolt:
<Smacks Phatzo with a Beaufighter wingtip>
Actually it suggests that it depends on what source you read :)
No arguing the XVI was a Mk IX airframe with an American made Merlin :aok
-
this would suggest an identical dry weight but a different wet weight which would make them different. :bolt:
He means the each book gives a different set of weights, but each book has the LF.Mk IXe and the Mk XVI as identical. The books just don't agree with each other as to what the weight is, but they don't have different numbers within the same book for the LF.Mk IXe and Mk XVI.
-
it's spitfire flying legend .
it quotes the weight for 1944 spit IX LFe as 500lb less .
just thinking would that be with the original 50 rounds of .50 cal not the updated 500 rounds from the MK IXLFe that had the same load out as the XVI?
so in reality they should be the same?
-
LOL how did we get from a conversation about an A36 Apache to a talk between Spit 9s and 16s..... anyhow I dont really care either way Id fly it if it was placed in the game with any thing else they would like to add.
-
P-51A -> P-51C, which is the same as P-51B, -> Spit9/16 being the same as well.
Just in case that wasn't rhetorical ;)
-
it's spitfire flying legend .
it quotes the weight for 1944 spit IX LFe as 500lb less .
just thinking would that be with the original 50 rounds of .50 cal not the updated 500 rounds from the MK IXLFe that had the same load out as the XVI?
so in reality they should be the same?
No Spitfire ever carried 50 rounds of ammo for a gun. 60 rounds per Hispano Mk I was as low as it got. Also, 450 rounds of .50 cal ammo wouldn't come close to 500lbs.
The obvious explanation for the 25 vs 250 rounds is a typo/editor failure.