Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Chalenge on July 20, 2012, 02:21:08 PM
-
Recently the P-51D has been questioned concerning the 1k eggs it carries. Well we can lay that to rest. However it also seems there are a few extra options that have been overlooked.
For one the drop tanks we have dont appear to be the most often used. In fact until the last months of the war they didnt see much use at all. Probably they were more popular in the Pacific as 110 gallon tanks but for the 8th A.F. it was 108 gallon paper tanks manufactured in England.
Second the P-51B/Cs (actually Mustang IIIs) also carried 1k eggs but they dont have them as an option. I believe this option should be made available so I am adding them to this wish. Also adding the 500lb bomb and one drop tank to the B/C model wouldnt hurt.
The P-51Ds also used the Bazooka rockets particularly in India but I believe the HVARs we have is sufficient.
I would like to see 110/108 gallon drop tanks added to the P-51s and 1k eggs added to the B/C packages.
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/FlyingBazooka.jpg)
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/108gallon.jpg)
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/110gallon.jpg)
-
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/Anti-Personnel.jpg)
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/1kEggs-1.jpg)
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/p51-italy.jpg)
-
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/img037.jpg)
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/img038.jpg)
-
If the P-51D was given the bazooka rockets as an ordnance option, players will never use it and will continue to use the HVARs.
ack-ack
-
Please read again what I said about that ack-ack.
-
Please read again what I said about that ack-ack.
I know what you said about that but was just saying if the bazooka launchers were ever added they would not be used.
ack-ack
-
How common and when were the 1000lbers on the P-51Bs?
-
Recently the P-51D has been questioned concerning the 1k eggs it carries. Well we can lay that to rest.
I don't recall people questioning the 1000lb bombs, it's the combination of rockets and 1000lb bombs that were questioned.
-
I agree adding the bazooka would be a waste of time since nobody would ever take them due to the drag it would add, however as everyone points out - lose the 1000lb bombs and rockets.
+1 for more DT's although not sure if they are really needed?
-
As pointed out the 1000 lb bombs and rockets were used. I know you want them gone FSL but they were used obviously and your desire to have them removed on the basis of none use is ridiculous.
Karnak read the last two pages posted. As noted in there this was a common load on RAF Mustang IIIs. Both the Bazooka types and 65lb rockets (8 per plane) were used also as noted. So the P-51s could also have 8 rockets added.
Butcher the larger tanks come in handy on the larger maps when escorting bombers. There have been many sorties where I have landed on fumes at minimum power settings even when flying up high where less fuel is burned.
-
I was just reading some GI documentation on the mustang's fuel system last week, it refered to the 75 gal and one size up (I think 85 or 95) combat drop tanks and made a seperate reference to larger paper ferrying tanks.... I was busy with the task at hand but just made a mental note of it. I haven't had any time to follow through since unfortunatley.
Also I stumbled across an original wiring spec for the electrical system that solely dealt with the rocket ignition system, when they upgraded to the HVARs from the tubes (6 rocket capacity) the new launch system was a 10 rocket capacity, standard (5 each wing, odds one side evens the other).
So Challenge may be on to something with his request, if our mustang is that early it should have the tube option, otherwise it's a later model and is missing 4-rockets.
-
Does this mean that RAF and German aircraft fans should go wild posting loadouts that aren't in AH?
Don't pretend the P-51 is singled out in its lack of all loadouts.
-
No Karnak... it means I am wishing for more options as I requested.
This is a P-51A with bazooka type rockets and 1000 lb bombs. As someone noted previously (years ago) that the photographic units didnt fight. Well this is the 10th Combat Camera Unit (8th Recon Group) in India. They also used P-51s (you know the ones with cannons everyone is afraid of) in combat roles.
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/P-51A-2.jpg)
-
Does this mean that RAF and German aircraft fans should go wild posting loadouts that aren't in AH?
Don't pretend the P-51 is singled out in its lack of all loadouts.
Shhhhh...... :pray :x :angel: :devil :banana: :airplane: :joystick:
-
As pointed out the 1000 lb bombs and rockets were used. I know you want them gone FSL but they were used obviously and your desire to have them removed on the basis of none use is ridiculous.
Actually I pointed out numerous times they wern't used in WW2, you wanted it I showed the source and proof in the other forums - even in Korea they did NOT use 1,000lb bombs and rockets even when the target was CAS less then 100 miles from Seoul.
Find me a photo of a D mustang with 1,000lb bombs and HVAR rockets or some source on who used it.
-
+1 for more DT's although not sure if they are really needed?
There is only ONE plane in AH that has a longer range than the P51D. In other words, the P51x needs no more attention. Period. Save maybe a reduction down to 3 ENY, just like the Spit16. :aok
-
No Karnak... it means I am wishing for more options as I requested.
This is a P-51A with bazooka type rockets and 1000 lb bombs. As someone noted previously (years ago) that the photographic units didnt fight. Well this is the 10th Combat Camera Unit (8th Recon Group) in India. They also used P-51s (you know the ones with cannons everyone is afraid of) in combat roles.
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/P-51A-2.jpg)
It was common for other armed recce planes to escort other recce planes. For example, the 7th Photo Recce group would use its own Mustangs to escort other 7th recce planes and also for ground fire suppression. I wouldn't be surprised if other photo recce units did the same and could explain why you see them with bombs and rocket launchers.
Also, the 10th Combat Camera Unit of the 8th Reconnaissance Group was a non-flying support squadron so that Mustang in the picture must have been from one of the photo recce or tactical recce squadrons of the 8th Reconnaissance Group.
ack-ack
-
Just to get chalenge to collapse over his keyboard. CBI 51D with rocket tubes and 110 gallon tanks
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/DGS%20Scenario%20bits/CBIP51D.jpg)
The 110 gallon tanks would be nice for Scenarios.
-
As pointed out the 1000 lb bombs and rockets were used. I know you want them gone FSL but they were used obviously and your desire to have them removed on the basis of none use is ridiculous.
Karnak read the last two pages posted. As noted in there this was a common load on RAF Mustang IIIs. Both the Bazooka types and 65lb rockets (8 per plane) were used also as noted. So the P-51s could also have 8 rockets added.
Butcher the larger tanks come in handy on the larger maps when escorting bombers. There have been many sorties where I have landed on fumes at minimum power settings even when flying up high where less fuel is burned.
Just clarifying. Are you suggesting that 1000 pounders and rockets combined were commonly used? The RAF MTO birds didn't carry both. They did carry 1000 pounders. Korea it was 6 rockets and 2 500 pounders or 6 rockets and napalm in 110 gallon tanks. No 1000 pounders and rockets together.
I'd like to see more evidence beyond that one photo of the P51A in India. I've seen that same image in a number of books, with different unit IDs too including 311th FBG and 1st ACG. but I sure can't find others. The bombs are also ID'd as 500 pounders in the photo captions which makes more sense.
-
All you have to do is take the bazooka tube size into account. The difference between a 500lb bomb and a 1000lb bomb is a mere 2.9 inches. Those rocket tubes are 4.5 I.D. with a wall size of between 1/4" and 3/8" (even your picture indicates this). Given the length of the tube is forward of those bombs it is obvious some degree of adjustment would have to be taken into consideration but one thing is evident right off: the bomb is bigger than 13".
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/P-51A-1.jpg)
-
I would like to see bazooka rockets on me p51d , since the hvars are useless against the gvs.
-
I'd like to see more evidence beyond that one photo of the P51A in India. I've seen that same image in a number of books, with different unit IDs too including 311th FBG and 1st ACG. but I sure can't find others. The bombs are also ID'd as 500 pounders in the photo captions which makes more sense.
Info from the archives on that photo.
http://www.fold3.com/image/#47649415
http://www.fold3.com/image/#47649445
-
And the 10th combat camera unit would have been the unit that handled the photography developmment, not the unit that did the combat flying, which supports the 311th FBG ID or 1st ACG being the Mustang unit.
-
As pointed out the 1000 lb bombs and rockets were used. I know you want them gone FSL but they were used obviously and your desire to have them removed on the basis of none use is ridiculous.
I never said that option should be removed. Ridiculous would be better used to describe your reading comprehension
and your emotional response to polite disagreement. :lol
-
And the 10th combat camera unit would have been the unit that handled the photography developmment, not the unit that did the combat flying, which supports the 311th FBG ID or 1st ACG being the Mustang unit.
1000 lb's correct?
-
1000 lb's correct?
According to the caption. Again I'd like to see more then the one image and something to document it's common use in combat. I can't find anything to suggest common use and that's the only photo I've come cross. The more common photos of CBI Mustangs show 500 pounders being carried without rocket tubes.
As an example. I can post photos of Spitfire XII with bombs loaded. I could use those to suggest they carried them in combat. I can tell you the dates the two squadrons flew practice runs with bombs. Despite this evidence, I also know they never carried the load operationally.
Personally I'd just like to see more proof that the 1000 lb, rocket tube set up was more then just a single photo op of what could have been a test run.
-
Well the bazooka may be a cool addition to the P51-D but I think the tube stays on the plane after they are fired kind of like the tubes on the B-pony. That is a lot of drag so I for one mostly would never use the Bazookas because of that just like I don't use the B-Pony's rockets. But I did not look this up because I am lazy and maybe the tubes can be jettisoned?
-
Also, the 10th Combat Camera Unit of the 8th Reconnaissance Group was a non-flying support squadron so that Mustang in the picture must have been from one of the photo recce or tactical recce squadrons of the 8th Reconnaissance Group.
ack-ack
That Bird belongs to the 1st Air Commandos. I just posted it recently.... twice as a matter of fact.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,328441.50.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,328441.50.html)
-
I would like to see bazooka rockets on me p51d , since the hvars are useless against the gvs.
The HVARs are much more effective than the bazooka rockets at killing ground vehicles. The bazooka rockets had a lower velocity, range and punch than the HVARs.
ack-ack
-
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/Anti-Personnel.jpg)
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/1kEggs-1.jpg)
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/p51-italy.jpg)
I have to say...that last image..........is the baddest looking WW2 bird I have ever seen.........
my favorites have always been the flying tigers from when I was a kid......but damn that 51 is awesome looking.....
I am not sure but it reminds me of one I am skinning....same squad? an info on it.....
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w246/fieldsofink/ScreenHunter_02Nov141844.jpg)
never mind I found it.... :aok
-
There is only ONE plane in AH that has a longer range than the P51D. In other words, the P51x needs no more attention. Period. Save maybe a reduction down to 3 ENY, just like the Spit16. :aok
Ok the 51 was fine at 8 ENY considering we have planes like the LA7, which out performs it in every way in the AH world and most situations, so nerfing, and or lowering its ENY too keep people from flying it is stupid, perhaps you should try looking around and checking your tail before you post this cause you're tired of being cherry picked.
-
Ok the 51 was fine at 8 ENY considering we have planes like the LA7, which out performs it in every way in the AH world and most situations, so nerfing, and or lowering its ENY too keep people from flying it is stupid, perhaps you should try looking around and checking your tail before you post this cause you're tired of being cherry picked.
Besides it's speed, the ENY is there for the ords it carries. If it wasn't for it's speed and combination of ords, no one would use it. If you take away those two qualities, F4U1D, 47N, and P38L becomes the new "51D".
-
Ok the 51 was fine at 8 ENY considering we have planes like the LA7, which out performs it in every way in the AH world and most situations, so nerfing, and or lowering its ENY too keep people from flying it is stupid, perhaps you should try looking around and checking your tail before you post this cause you're tired of being cherry picked.
You're flat out wrong. The P-51D is used more than the next two planes, the much whined about Spitfire Mk XVI and La-7, combined. It alone is used more than all marks of Spitfire combined. Its usage has done nothing but increase year after year. It has the ENY of 5 for a reason.
-
I would like to take Titanic's reply and thank him, as he is not telling me I'm flat out wrong. This is my opinion, if you don't like it, too bad. Besides I would like to know where you get these numbers. I see more spits than 51s, might be different for you but how would I know unless I'm in your shoes.
-
Besides I would like to know where you get these numbers.
Ah stats pages.
Spits kills & deaths are in a steady decline for a long time now. In fact, where years ago you could find a small group of planes resonably close together at the top, the P-51D totally stands out today.
-
the P51 never existed, its just our imagination
-
the 1k bombs on fighters is a big reason medium bombers and proper attack aircraft are not used as much as they would otherwise. Why take anything else if you can take a 51, dhog or a 47 with 2k bombs and 10 rockets!!
Do I use it, yes, it makes CVs especially potent, but it also breaks the game.
So more toys for the 51? Sure, as long as it is not equivalent to 1k bombs and 10 rockets.
I am really surprised people think this is even debatable - the 1k ords + rockets setup is game breaking, and the historical rational, while secondary, is also weak.
-
Breaks the game? Really? Or is it just another reason to cry on the BBS? When people land dozens of kills in the 262 no one complains that it breaks the game.
No... this is pony envy pure and simple!
Lusche points out that the P51 gets a lot of kills but it also sees a lot of use. Why? Because it is a symbol of WWII and air superiority. Despite how other planes like the F4U fly in the game they were never that good in real life. Even the P51 exceeds its capabilities because of the nerfing of physics. We all know its true. Hitech and company have done a wonderful job with AH of making it playable for people of any background. For that reason we dont have random failures and weaknesses like you would in real life (although Im not absolutely positive I dont think any of these planes could really keep their engines wide open all the time). But every side has the same possibility in choosing planes in the hangar. What I can load my plane with you can also load your plane with. The only difference is in actual range capabilities and here I think the P51 get slighted a lot. I am not under any illusions that it is alone there but I do know that it actually did run with larger fuel tanks and should have them.
As pointed out in the pages I posted the P51 actually flew with the RAF regularly with rockets and 1000 lb bombs. All arguments to the contrary should be ignored now that documentation has been posted.
And my wish should go forward. On the larger maps the extra fuel would be a big help.
-
Breaks the game? Really? Or is it just another reason to cry on the BBS? When people land dozens of kills in the 262 no one complains that it breaks the game.
No... this is pony envy pure and simple!
Lusche points out that the P51 gets a lot of kills but it also sees a lot of use. Why? Because it is a symbol of WWII and air superiority. Despite how other planes like the F4U fly in the game they were never that good in real life. Even the P51 exceeds its capabilities because of the nerfing of physics. We all know its true. Hitech and company have done a wonderful job with AH of making it playable for people of any background. For that reason we dont have random failures and weaknesses like you would in real life (although Im not absolutely positive I dont think any of these planes could really keep their engines wide open all the time). But every side has the same possibility in choosing planes in the hangar. What I can load my plane with you can also load your plane with. The only difference is in actual range capabilities and here I think the P51 get slighted a lot. I am not under any illusions that it is alone there but I do know that it actually did run with larger fuel tanks and should have them.
As pointed out in the pages I posted the P51 actually flew with the RAF regularly with rockets and 1000 lb bombs. All arguments to the contrary should be ignored now that documentation has been posted.
And my wish should go forward. On the larger maps the extra fuel would be a big help.
Can you point to a source showing an RAF 51 carrying both rockets and 1000 pounders at the same time? I can't find anything to show me both at once. The most recent book on the shelf is the massive "Southern Cross Mustangs" covering the RAAF and RNZAF Mustangs. It covers armaments for those MTO birds and makes no reference to both together. It showed me my first ever image of an RAF MTO Mustang with a Malcom hood, but no 1000 pounders and rockets together and that includes Korea.
-
I cant show you a picture of Hartmann shooting a plane down. Didnt happen.
Get it? :x
-
Not asking for a picture, just a source :)
-
I have the wartime pilot notes and instructions for the Mustang III and Mustang IV from RAF as well as field manuals for the pilots, nothing mentions carrying both bombs and rockets.
They go into great detail of adding bomb racks, HVAR racks, reloading 50 cal machine guns, taking them out - everything shows either Bombs....or HVar rockets, both manuals DO not say both.
This Manual covers the: P51-D-5, -10, -15, -20, -25, P51-K,-1,-5,,10,-15 from the American Army
And British Model Mustang IV.
This is the manual a mechanic would use to repair/maintain and arm a P-51 Mustang, why does it have no reference to loading both bombs and rockets? Its either one OR the other.
I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but Chalenge you showed no proof what so ever yet of your claim, as I pointed out the only photo's I can find are mustangs in korea with any load that consists of bombs AND rockets.
Pretty sure if I go hunt for korean war material I can probably drum up more photos and information, but I am sticking to strictly WW2 here.
-
Korean era Mustangs carried 500 pounders and 6 rockets regulary for ground attack. That or napalm tanks and rockets. No 1000 pounders and rockets however.
-
Not asking for a picture, just a source :)
:airplane: Does this help with this thread?
The Second World War ended before the RAAF could employ the Mustang operationally, but it was used extensively by 77 Squadron RAAF in a ground-attack role in the early months of the Korean War. After serving with 15 RAAF squadrons - 3, 4, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 84, 86, and 450 - the last Australian Mustangs were retired in June 1960.
Specifications:
Mustang P-51 D (Mk IV)
Type:
Single-engine fighter aircraft
Entered service:
October 1943
Crew:
1
Wing span:
11.28 m
Length:
9.83 m
Weight (unladen):
3,463 kg
Ceiling:
12,770 m
Endurance:
Maximum range 2,655 km
Speed:
703 km/h
Armament:
6 x .50-in machine-guns
907 kg of bombs or 6 x 12.7-mm rockets
Source: Austrilian Air force records. The P-51K was used extentisively during early Korean war by both USAF, British and South Korean Air Force. Standard ground attack load was 2 500lbers and 6 rockets. While the stats say 907kg of bombs OR 6 x 12.7 rockets, was told by old heads that drop tank attachments were modified to accept 2 500 lber's so as to be more effective against tanks and trains, along with the 12.7mm rockets.
-
Korean era Mustangs carried 500 pounders and 6 rockets regulary for ground attack. That or napalm tanks and rockets. No 1000 pounders and rockets however.
I'm seeing dozens of mustangs with 500lbs and rockets in the Korean war, No 1,000lbs either - I wonder why.
-
I'm seeing dozens of mustangs with 500lbs and rockets in the Korean war, No 1,000lbs either - I wonder why.
:airplane: Weight has always been a limiting factor in aircraft.You can usually carry a lot of weight(in the 51D), or you could carry a lot of fuel, but you can't carry both a lot of weight and a lot of fuel. Max allowable take-off weight being 12,100 lbs, in the D or K model ponie, with empty weight of 7,635(roughly), you only have 4,365lb's avaiable payload weight to play with. That is assuming you have a paved, asphalt or concrete runway, of at least 6,000 feet and it is not to much above sea level. With fuel for the ponie weighting 6.5 lbs per gallon and an average flight time of 4 hrs per mission,(estimate), at 60 gallon per hour flight planning time, that is 390X 4 hrs flight= 1560 lbs. The big problem in Korea were runway lengths and condition of runway material, runway gradiant and etc, which usually limited total takeoff weights around 10,000 lbs. So that leaves us with a takeoff weight of 9,195 pounds, which leaves only 805 pounds for ords. Don't forget pilot weight of 180lbs average, and 350 lbs for bomb and rocket racks, leaves us 275 lbs for ords. 6 "holy Moses" rockets weighted 45 pounds each,(270 lbs), hence you have a total weight of 5 pounds left for bombs. Now if you take off at maximum allowable takeoff weight of 12,100lbs, then you could, in theory, add 2 1,000lber's, but you better have a looooong runway in front of you when takeing off. Now if you only load 2 500lber's, that is only11,100lbs at takeoff, but do able with proper runway lenght and pilot skill. South Korean Air Force lost a good many pilots due to takeoff accidents because of heavy loaded ponies. Understand now why usually only rockets or bombs loaded out, but usually not both?
-
ET,
How do you feel about P-51D's taking off from carriers with 2x1000lb bombs and rockets?
:bolt:
-
ET,
How do you feel about P-51D's taking off from carriers with 2x1000lb bombs and rockets?
:bolt:
:airplane: Can't happen for real, but in here, what ever the planner wants, the planner gets!!
-
:airplane: Can't happen for real, but in here, what ever the planner wants, the planner gets!!
Hahahahahahahaha
:rock :salute
-
(http://www.militarymodelling.com/sites/1/images/member_albums/49076/dsc06738.jpg)
Hrmmmm.... anyone care to take a stab at the above?
-
This one is definitely Korea:
(http://www.142fw.ang.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/070316-F-1234S-004.jpg)
-
(http://www.militarymodelling.com/sites/1/images/member_albums/49076/dsc06738.jpg)
Hrmmmm.... anyone care to take a stab at the above?
It looks like a RAAF Mustang from 77 Squadron during Korea.
*EDIT* on second thought, it's probably a RNZAF Mustang, the roundels look more like RNZAF markings than RAAF ones.
ack-ack
-
I would think of anything Guppy or Ack-Ack would easily jump in if there was proof one way or another, if they haven't its best to say you probably are gona have a slim chance of finding something anytime soon.
-
(http://www.militarymodelling.com/sites/1/images/member_albums/49076/dsc06738.jpg)
Hrmmmm.... anyone care to take a stab at the above?
:airplane: 2 500lber's with 4 "Holy Moses" 12.7mm rockets in New Zealand markings?
-
Challenge, pictures and source for P-51D carrying 6 HVAR rockets and 2 1000lb bombs.
-
Challenge, pictures and source for P-51D carrying 6 HVAR rockets and 2 1000lb bombs.
Sorry kid. Your squelched for life for lack of comprehension skills.
-
I have the wartime pilot notes and instructions for the Mustang III and Mustang IV from RAF as well as field manuals for the pilots, nothing mentions carrying both bombs and rockets.
You guys did see the very first image I posted right? Thats straight out of NAA. Read it.
-
You guys did see the very first image I posted right? Thats straight out of NAA. Read it.
Still waiting for that source on RAF Mustangs carrying rockets and 1000 pounders. An advertisement doesn't fill that request.
-
It looks like a RAAF Mustang from 77 Squadron during Korea.
*EDIT* on second thought, it's probably a RNZAF Mustang, the roundels look more like RNZAF markings than RAAF ones.
ack-ack
SAAF.
-
:airplane: 2 500lber's with 4 "Holy Moses" 12.7mm rockets in New Zealand markings?
I think you mean 12.7cm not mm, right?
-
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avp512.html
Traditionally, Mustangs had two pylons for bombs or drop tanks, but late production P-51Ds also had streamlined stubs for 7.62 centimeter (5 inch) "High Velocity Air Rockets (HVAR)". These rocket-firing Mustangs could carry ten HVARs, or six HVARs plus two bombs or two drop tanks.
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2000/01/stuff_eng_p51late.htm
These aircraft were remanufactured from existing F-51D airframes but were fitted with new V-1650-7 engines, a new radio fit, tall F-51H-type vertical tails, and a stronger wing which could carry six 0.50-inch machine guns and a total of eight underwing hardpoints. Two 1000-pound bombs and six five-inch rockets could be carried. They all had an original F-51D-type canopy, but carried a second seat for an observer behind the pilot. Although these new Mustangs were intended for delivery to South American and Asian nations through the Military Assistance Program (MAP), they were delivered with full USAF markings and were allocated new serial numbers.
Last one was from the 60's, odd that it highlights the incorporation of stronger wing to afford the ability to carry that much ord.
-
I think you mean 12.7cm not mm, right?
:airplane: Rockets used on ponies in Korea were called "Holy Moses"! Why, don't have a clue! 6 or 10× T64 5.0 in (127 mm) H.V.A.R rockets (P-51D-25, P-51K-10 on. My bad on decimal in quote.
-
I'm not sure what this wish is for. Is it for larger drop tanks with rockets? or just larger drop tanks?
If it is for larger drop tanks and rockets ...why not just post some pictures of 51's with 165 gal P-38 tanks with rockets?
If it could carry 165 gallon tanks and rockets, 165 gallons of gas is 1002 lbs.
:cheers:
-
I'm not sure what this wish is for. Is it for larger drop tanks with rockets? or just larger drop tanks?
If it is for larger drop tanks and rockets ...why not just post some pictures of 51's with 165 gal P-38 tanks with rockets?
If it could carry 165 gallon tanks and rockets, 165 gallons of gas is 1002 lbs.
:cheers:
It seems to be more about wanting rockets and thousand pounders together.
-
It seems to be more about wanting rockets and thousand pounders together.
Dare I say it? Another wish granted! :lol
-
It seems to be more about wanting rockets and thousand pounders together.
:headscratch: we have that.. the single P-51D in game is all variants from 5-30, which is lame..but another story. The -1 had no fin fillet.. it didn't get its super sight till -10 or -15? rockets came with the -25 or -30?
OH I see ...the powers that fug with every 1's plane are on the loose... ahhh I see ya'll want to strip the 51 of some of its ord? ...like the 109F4 ...Huh? you all are 51phan's now. I'll see if I can dig up some pictures.
I wish some of you would put as much energy getting stuff in the game as you do getting it out.
Nov 44
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/p51dbombsandrockets2nov44.jpg)
Just for good measure how bout we get 165gal drop tanks in the game?
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/P51d165galtnaks.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/P51d165galtanks2.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/P51d165galtanksandrocs.jpg)
Why not just ask Earl?
Earl in WWII <in theater> did the P-51D <any version> carry 1k bombs <or any bombs> and 4-6 rockets?
Just getting started,
-
I could care less in the end. All I asked for was a source from chalenge regarding the use of rockets and 1000 pounders by the RAF cause I've never seen any.
Fin, in an ideal AH Mustang world for me we'd have the following and I'm only referring to Merlin Mustangs.
P51B/C with the original canopy
P51B/C with Malcom and fin fillet
P51D-5 without the fillet and no option for rockets and N-9 gunsight
P-51D-10 with the fillet and K-14
P51D-25 with the K-14, fillet and rocket option.
P-51K with the aeroproduct props just to cover all those RAF Lend lease birds and give more skinning options
That's probably asking for too much however so I'd live with the B/C and early canopy, B/C with Malcom and fillet, D as is.
No one is arguing the DT bit. 110 or 108 gallon DTs would be a nice option, in particular for scenarios like the one we are running now. The 165 gallon tank we could probably get by without. That being said, the issue on that one is getting correct dimensions for modeling it if I remember right since it's the tank that should be on the 38. Obviously some of the PTO Jugs and 51s used them late too.
-
Sorry kid. Your squelched for life for lack of comprehension skills.
So basically you either can't or won't back this up either.
-
I could care less in the end. All I asked for was a source from chalenge regarding the use of rockets and 1000 pounders by the RAF cause I've never seen any.
So you lined up on the wrong side simply on a bet that I didnt have the right book? Not much of an historian as I have pointed out before.
@Tank-Ace: Read the entire thread kid and keep quiet until the adults are finished talking.
-
@Tank-Ace: Read the entire thread kid and keep quiet until the adults are finished talking.
I have. Not one picture of a P-51D with 6 HVAR's and 2 1000lb bombs. Saw one link that referenced them, but again no picture.
And I didn't interupt any of the adults, I only interupted you.
-
Tank-Ace whenever you post this is what I see:
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/Tank-Ace.jpg)
-
I could care less in the end.
Fin, in an ideal AH Mustang world for me we'd have the following and I'm only referring to Merlin Mustangs.
P51B/C with the original canopy
P51B/C with Malcom and fin fillet
P51D-5 without the fillet and no option for rockets and N-9 gunsight
P-51D-10 with the fillet and K-14
P51D-25 with the K-14, fillet and rocket option.
P-51K with the aeroproduct props just to cover all those RAF Lend lease birds and give more skinning options
110 or 108 gallon DTs would be a nice option, in particular for scenarios like the one we are running now.
I don't care less..
Tiff,
Okay ...here's what I would like to see , In a perfect AH world of course and I'm talking Allison and Merlin.
Allison
XP51 with 8 guns 4-50's 4-303's<Na73-83, Mustang I>
P51 with 4 20mm <Na-91, Mustang IA, 60 served as U.S. Tactical recon>
A36 with dive brakes 2 bombs 6-50's < 2 chin and 4 wing>
P51A with 4-50's bombs and bazookas<Na-99, Mustang II>
Merlin
P51B/C with the original canopy, (with Malcom and fin fillet as Hanger option) <Na-102 103 and 104, Mustang III>
P51D-5 without the fillet with bombs and no DT's no option for rockets and N-9 gunsight
P51D-25 with the K-14, fillet and rocket and bomb all drop tank's option.
This makes 2 additions of the 51D and only 1 more than your list and covers the whole spectrum of 51's!
How many 47's do we have?
More options for 51's, the greatest plane of the war, only makes sense.
All of these are 51's and all were made in more numbers than at least 3-4 of the planes all ready in the game.
As far as the DT's ... options....Yes the 165 gallon tanks were 38 tanks also used on Jugs <early and late> (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/tbell/SleepyTimeGal.jpg)
and long range 51's -25's
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/P51d165galtanks3.jpg)
and should be offered.
There were also 300 gal tanks used on your bomber err 38 :eek: What do you care?
I feel that any options that were available for the plane type should be offered.
-
Fin, I'm trying to look at it as to what's reasonable to make the case for to HTC. 300 gallon ferry tanks for 38s would not fit the bill for me. They weren't combat used. They used a 170 gallon tank to ferry Spits from England to Malta. Probably a bit much for AH I'd think.
There are many more Spits to fill out the Spitfire line up as well, and being an absolute Spitfire XII fanatic/historian, for my own personal fun, I'd like the XII. Is it a priority? Nope as there are too many other birds from other countries or that aren't represented at all that would be way higher up my list. I understood this to be your wish as well?
In a perfect AH world we'd have every option ever made. The irony is about 95 percent of them would never be used outside of the few guys who took the time to find out they existed.
In the end this thread by chalenge isn't about what he thinks would benefit the game, so much as what he wants that benefits the way he flies his 51. Up high, with all the bang he can carry and as much fuel as he's allowed. He wants more bang and more fuel for himself so he can stay up as long as possible and do more damage.
I'd be more supportive if I saw it as a wish that had some benefit to the game overall.
Again I'm speaking of Merlin 51s. Your shortened list would fit the most logical update to that line. My using more was also a way to get more skins into the game since the 51 covers a lot of theaters, air forces and markings.
In the end the easiest request is the DT options as that doesn't involve any modeling to the plane itself. And there I think the 110 and 108 would be a reasonable request. The 165 would be nice for the 38s and late PTO Jugs. The Mustangs only carried them when they took rockets to Iwo as the drag from the rockets increased the fuel demand. I don't know how often that's really an issue in the MA :)
-
This is not the document I was talking about, Im still looking for it. If I recall that document was for a ~1944 field modification that did have a 10-rocket capacity, but I'm still looking...
However, this one technicaly supercedes it and adds a lot of clarity to the debate on this issue. How HiTech and Pyro wish to proceede with this information is their complete discretion, as usual... but one can assume they are aware of this information.
USAAF HQ Technical Order #01-60JE-27
October 18, 1945
http://p51h.home.comcast.net/~p51h/sig/TO/01-60JE-27.pdf
Figure 2, 5 and 12 within are of key interest.
This is from October '45, after the war, but still, it is an order issued by the USAAF to NAA Inglewood and Dallas factories to set the (and a very familiar) standard. Prior, all rocket kits were installed by USAAF crews after delivery.
This doucmentation seems to proove, although not affirmatively due to being issued post-war to the factories for installation prior to further deliveries, what the USAAF standard is/was as intended or otherwise. It implies (Figure 2) that 1000lb AND 110gal Combat Drop Tanks (with a whopping 1/2" clearance :uhoh ), in combination with a standard load of six (6) post-type rockets (5" HVAR). Maybe more importantly is what this diagram shows a definitive lack of, and that is any wiring or fire control system capacity for more than 6-rockets total.
NOW!... let's have a look at the wiring diagram for this instalation (Figure 5)... we have, to each wing - 1, 2, and 3 circuits - with 6 total. This does not include the bomb control switches and relays that drop the eggs and tanks (and that - looking at this diagriam and some of the AP ordnances Chalenge showed in the first post of this thread - alone was developing to be more complicated (salvoed or chemical weapons). Further down you will see that only hardware was provided and described for the instalation of 6 rockets (3 each wing).
So... now we know what the army standard for new mustangs was.. in October of 1945... so what IS the standard!?!?!... field kits and, as was likely a problem, a wide array/vareity of field modification kits. I'm pretty sure one was for 10-rocket, but how sure (and how common, and when), I don't know for certain yet.
If the 6-rocket standard IS THE standard, I wish the use of 1000lb bombs and 110gal combat drop tanks were retained/included for consistency. If a change is decided though, to go with a much wider and vaster variety of field modifications as was done during WWII (it seems), I think it will mean a lot more changes/time will need to spent on it.
-
So you lined up on the wrong side simply on a bet that I didnt have the right book? Not much of an historian as I have pointed out before.
@Tank-Ace: Read the entire thread kid and keep quiet until the adults are finished talking.
Not taking sides. You claimed to have info on RAF Mustangs lugging 1K bombs and rockets together. The historian in me would like to see that as I've never come across it before. As I mentioned only recently did I see proof of a Malcom hood on an MTO Mustang. As it was a field mod in the ETO, the general consensus was that it never made the MTO. The recent mammoth effort on RAAF and RNZAF Mustangs turned up evidence of two RAF Mustangs with the Malcom hood there. You made it sound like you had proof of routine RAF use of 1K bombs and rockets together. I was curious. As yet you've offered no proof beyond an NAA advertisement.
I was assuming when you made the claim you had info to support it.
-
Not taking sides. You claimed to have info on RAF Mustangs lugging 1K bombs and rockets together. The historian in me would like to see that as I've never come across it before. As I mentioned only recently did I see proof of a Malcom hood on an MTO Mustang. As it was a field mod in the ETO, the general consensus was that it never made the MTO. The recent mammoth effort on RAAF and RNZAF Mustangs turned up evidence of two RAF Mustangs with the Malcom hood there. You made it sound like you had proof of routine RAF use of 1K bombs and rockets together. I was curious. As yet you've offered no proof beyond an NAA advertisement.
I was assuming when you made the claim you had info to support it.
I inquired with the Royal Air Force Museum in London, and here was the response:
Dear Mr Foster,
Though RAF Mustangs carried loads of up to 2 x 1,000 lb bombs or 8 x 60 lb rockets I have never seen anything to suggest that they carried both bombs and rockets at the same time.
Sincerely,
Gordon Leith
Curator
Department of Research & Information Services
gordon.leith@rafmuseum.org
-
Fin, I'm trying to look at it as to what's reasonable to make the case for to HTC. 300 gallon ferry tanks for 38s would not fit the bill for me. They weren't combat used. They used a 170 gallon tank to ferry Spits from England to Malta. Probably a bit much for AH I'd think.
There are many more Spits to fill out the Spitfire line up as well, and being an absolute Spitfire XII fanatic/historian, for my own personal fun, I'd like the XII. Is it a priority? Nope as there are too many other birds from other countries or that aren't represented at all that would be way higher up my list. I understood this to be your wish as well?
In a perfect AH world we'd have every option ever made. The irony is about 95 percent of them would never be used outside of the few guys who took the time to find out they existed.
In the end this thread by chalenge isn't about what he thinks would benefit the game, so much as what he wants that benefits the way he flies his 51. Up high, with all the bang he can carry and as much fuel as he's allowed. He wants more bang and more fuel for himself so he can stay up as long as possible and do more damage.
I'd be more supportive if I saw it as a wish that had some benefit to the game overall.
Again I'm speaking of Merlin 51s. Your shortened list would fit the most logical update to that line. My using more was also a way to get more skins into the game since the 51 covers a lot of theaters, air forces and markings.
In the end the easiest request is the DT options as that doesn't involve any modeling to the plane itself. And there I think the 110 and 108 would be a reasonable request. The 165 would be nice for the 38s and late PTO Jugs. The Mustangs only carried them when they took rockets to Iwo as the drag from the rockets increased the fuel demand. I don't know how often that's really an issue in the MA :)
Tiff,
The Mustang D had fairy tanks as well (http://d1kqib0uq4v1gs.cloudfront.net/wp-content/gallery/p-51d_ferry_tests/p-51d_oversized_ferry_tanks_17.jpg)
but I wont be asking for those.
The 165 gallon tanks were used on at least 3 different aircraft in WWII. 3! Most used on the P-38, there is no question they were used in combat. Also used on the mid war Jug from the D-15/16<birdcage> forward? <Where is Stoney?> there are just to many pictures to post many more than the late war Jug.
<It was also used on the p-80 wingtips and a couple other planes>
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/P80-1_300.jpg/300px-P80-1_300.jpg)
The Jug could also use the 108 gal tank and the flat 200 gal centerline tank.
As far as the Mustang... I believe there were only 4-6 planes :) that used the 165 gallon tanks.
Also as far as I know the RAF either used bombs or rockets not both.
EDIT: see tunnelrats post above
..and yes my wish would be to bring new Countries planes or Ground Vehicle's before adding another plane or GV from an existing country why? I would like to see htc adding 1 or 2 Australian planes or a Polish plane or 2 or 3 French planes? Some countries only had 20 planes at the start of hostilities. Get some new countries in the game.
-
I asked a while ago about the correct tanks for the 38, the issue was finding the correct dimensions to model them. I can't find anything with that info. I even asked the guys who own Ruff Stuff when I visited. They had a number of the real tanks in thier hanger. No go. If you can find that info it might help the cause.
-
I asked a while ago about the correct tanks for the 38, the issue was finding the correct dimensions to model them. I can't find anything with that info. I even asked the guys who own Ruff Stuff when I visited. They had a number of the real tanks in thier hanger. No go. If you can find that info it might help the cause.
Here is a set <2 halves> for sale 7k.
http://www.warbird-parts.com/index.html
http://www.warbird-parts.com/invent/p-38.html
"P-38 drop tank, 165 gal., these are (2) brand new halves, never assembled,approx 10' x 6" long by 27" wide, steel, always stored indoors, no rust or dents, excellent condition $3,500 ea"
Maybe you could get in touch,
:cheers:
-
Here is a set <2 halves> for sale 7k.
http://www.warbird-parts.com/index.html
http://www.warbird-parts.com/invent/p-38.html
"P-38 drop tank, 165 gal., these are (2) brand new halves, never assembled,approx 10' x 6" long by 27" wide, steel, always stored indoors, no rust or dents, excellent condition $3,500 ea"
Maybe you could get in touch,
:cheers:
You could turn those tanks into a Lake Racer.
ack-ack
-
Here is a set <2 halves> for sale 7k.
http://www.warbird-parts.com/index.html
http://www.warbird-parts.com/invent/p-38.html
"P-38 drop tank, 165 gal., these are (2) brand new halves, never assembled,approx 10' x 6" long by 27" wide, steel, always stored indoors, no rust or dents, excellent condition $3,500 ea"
Maybe you could get in touch,
:cheers:
Not sure what I'd do with two drop tank halves. I thought there would be some diagram somewhere of the dimensions as it would be nice to have those modeled, and the 108 paper tank for the 51. The flat tank for the Jug would be nice as well.
-
Not sure what I'd do with two drop tank halves. I thought there would be some diagram somewhere of the dimensions as it would be nice to have those modeled, and the 108 paper tank for the 51. The flat tank for the Jug would be nice as well.
I am thinking you could make some pretty awesome jungle juice in those... or maybe turn them into a smoker, that would be the best smoker in the world hands down.
OR, rig it as an aux tank to your Trans Am!
-
... Or maybe you could have it measured and then you would know the dimensions.... Hark!
since there are so hard to find and all,
-
... Or maybe you could have it measured and then you would know the dimensions.... Hark!
since there are so hard to find and all,
Fin you never change. It is not a priority of mine. It never has been a priority of mine. So spending the time to track down and measure drop tanks isn't in the cards for me.
I'm agreeing with you on it would be nice to have more DT options. You said you care about this stuff so I tell you what I understood was the reason we don't have the correct shape for the 165 tank, and you still want to be cranky.
-
I am thinking you could make some pretty awesome jungle juice in those... or maybe turn them into a smoker, that would be the best smoker in the world hands down.
OR, rig it as an aux tank to your Trans Am!
Why rig is at a auxiliary fuel tank when you can turn the 165g drop tank into this?
(http://image.turbomagazine.com/f/8894919/0512tur_11z+p38_drop_tank+right_rear_view.jpg)
ack-ack
-
Why rig is at a auxiliary fuel tank when you can turn the 165g drop tank into this?
(http://image.turbomagazine.com/f/8894919/0512tur_11z+p38_drop_tank+right_rear_view.jpg)
ack-ack
That is AWESOME.
:rock
-
This is the rocket wiring diagram I was looking for to show. Interestingly, there is no "older" or "newer" wiring diagram for the P51s Rocket system in this maintenance book, whereas many many many other systems do have at the least an older and newer variation in the book.
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/Babalon84/AH%20Junk/IMAG0123.jpg)
The question forming in my search is when did the optional rocket loadout option with a standard for up to 10 change to the superseding standard of 6 (which may not of happened until after the war) in the USAAF?....
-
So.... 10 rockets?
Edit: and 110gal tanks?
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/Babalon84/AH%20Junk/01-60JE-27.jpg)