P51 wing loading

[Steve]

The last flight model change to the P-51 was in the flaps and that was almost 3 years ago.  I challenge you to go load up an old version and show the difference in performance.

This has already been done. 

[moot]

I'm not going to get any sympathy in this crusade am I. 

Crusade, yeah..

I agree HTC does an outstanding job at getting these planes close to actual performance specs. But I have a suspicion they "dumb down" some models to keep alot of folks out of certain planes to promote the use of only aircraft.

It's a couple of % off the official numbers. You're comparing it to just one data point. I haven't sorted through enough historical trials, but I'm pretty sure every plane was different.. Every day had different weather, the test was done a little differently.. and 1 or 2 mph or inches of manifold pressure is worth being suspicious that they skew the planeset?

[uptown]

Well if Pyro says the performance of the 51s wasn't changed, I'm not going to disagee with him. Although I'd love to have a old version of AcesHigh to set my mind more at ease.

But on the issue of the flaps. Why was it felt that a change was needed in the modeling? I'm I correct in assuming that the old configuration was incorrect and what we have now is modeled right?

[Cajunn]

ok wise guys  Yes maybe 1 or 2 mph is nit-picking. But I also noticed that at 24,500ft the pony should produce 67" of MP. The game model is only putting out 65" MP. And that costs the pony 2 mph and it 438mph when it should go 440 at that altitude. And it takes 2 sectors to get to that speed.

I'm just asking for the right specs is all. If it takes perking to do that, so be it. I'm all for it. I'd just like to see it the way it used to be modeled. I agree HTC does an outstanding job at getting these planes close to actual performance specs. But I have a suspicion they "dumb down" some models to keep alot of folks out of certain planes to promote the use of only aircraft.

But I got into this game as an alternative to Microsoft Flight Simulator. I wanted a correct flight model to fly. I don't mean to sound harsh, but I don't care what the other planes can or can't do. I just want my chosen ride to do what it was built to do. As I said before, if that means perking then by all means perk it. I'd rather see people not fly it because of the perk cost rather then because it doesn't perform as it should.

Yea but 1 or 2 mph at sea level is a lot when your running from the LALA masses!

[dtango]

Uptown:

Anecdotes are terribly unreliable as a basis for aircraft relative performance.  This includes our squaddies who have been flying the Mustang for years in AH .

Regarding the perceived flaps issue with Mustang, I've seen nothing that anyone has produced here that causes me to take it seriously.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Murdr]

But on the issue of the flaps. Why was it felt that a change was needed in the modeling? I'm I correct in assuming that the old configuration was incorrect and what we have now is modeled right?

2.07 Release Notes:

Made several changes to the flight model affecting static thrust, propeller slipstream effects,
ground effect, flaps and slats.  This affects all planes to one degree or another.  Due to this change, the
table that controls combat trim had to be redone for all planes.

They did not "change" the P-51 model specifically.  They made a sweeping change to the flight model that affected all planes.

[Murdr]

Although I'd love to have a old version of AcesHigh to set my mind more at ease.

http://downloads.hitechcreations.com/AH2061.EXE

Knock yourself out.

[Anaxogoras]

http://downloads.hitechcreations.com/AH2061.EXE

Knock yourself out.

Ooohhh!  Does that have the 109G-10 with a 20mm cannon?

[uptown]

Alright Murdr! thank you sir 

[BnZs]

2.07 Release Notes:
They did not "change" the P-51 model specifically.  They made a sweeping change to the flight model that affected all planes.

Yeah, yeah, all planes lost some turn performance, already knew this.

But it has been demonstrated that some planes were effected more deleteriously than others, Mustang among them.

Widewing made some good posts on it if anyone cares to search, no real need to repeat all that stuff here.

The one thing no one has ever explained to me was how Allied pilots could be so completely and totally wrong about the relative turning qualities of the Mustang, relative other Allied aircraft with which they had familiarity, like the Typhoon and Jug, and relative enemy aircraft in combat. It was realized very quickly that the Zero had P-40s and Wildcats completely outclassed in turning. It was also realized that 109s had the advantage over P-47s in this regard. But if the AHII modeling of relative turning capacity is correct, the Mustang is even less of a turner than the P-47. Thus, we are to believe that pilots were handed a new ride that was less maneuverable than the old one, flew it, somehow formed a completely wrong conclusion about its relative maneuverability vs the Jug, took it into combat, managed (as can be indisputably demonstrated) to win many turning contests against 109s with a machine less maneuverable than the P-47 they thought was unsuited for such a task. Not only that, but apparently German pilots also managed to form a completely wrong impression about the turning qualities of the P-51 relative the P-47. Does this make any sense to anyone?

[RTHolmes]

gonzoville.com shows the pony has smaller turn radius than the jug in AH without flaps, which is consistent with your info. the jug wins with full flaps, but this is irrelevant to acm. turn performance using 1 or 2 notches (ie as designed to assist manouvering rather than landing) might be a more useful measure.

the problem with pilot accounts is they use use terms like "agility" or "manouverability" which are qualitative and composed of a whole bunch of factors which are relevant to the kind of fights the pilot or plane were used for. "agility" might include turn rate and radius (instantious and sustained), roll rate (at speeds depending on usage), control response, acceleration, high AoA stability, e-retention, dive speed, feedback on impending stall conditions etc. etc.

[Anaxogoras]

When I tested the sustained turn rate of the P-51 and P-47, I was able to complete a 360 degree turn almost a half second faster in the 51D than in the 47N (both with 50% fuel):

P-51D: ~20 seconds
P-47N: ~20.4 seconds

The P-51D's best turn rate seems to be with one notch of flaps, while the 47N does best with two.  When I tested the other 47s with 75% fuel (to better compare them to the N, which is a flying gas tank), they turn more slowly than the 47N...even the D11 (the D-25 was the worst).  The extra thrust of the N overcompensates for its extra weight.

On the other hand, even with full flaps deployed, the 51D still has a huge turn radius.  Its turning circle is larger than all the 47s.

In combat that extra .4 seconds of turn rate isn't worth much.  So long as a 47N has a little altitude to play with, a good low-yo-yo with flaps is going to haul the jug around on the 6 of the 51 without too much difficulty.

[Stoney]

The one thing no one has ever explained to me was how Allied pilots could be so completely and totally wrong about the relative turning qualities of the Mustang, relative other Allied aircraft with which they had familiarity, like the Typhoon and Jug, and relative enemy aircraft in combat.

What we don't experience in game are the things that no computer simulator will be able to ever produce.  For example, perhaps (and I emphasize "perhaps" as a method to frame annecdotal evidence in context) a real-life P-51 could enter a 3-G turn at 350 mph with very little stick force.  If another plane required 3 times the stick force to make the same turn, then a real-life pilot might say that the P-51 "turned" better than plane X, even though both aircraft were mechanically/aerodynamically capable of performing the same turn at the same rate.  HTC's modelling presents what is mechanically/aerodynamically possible, based on performance equations and real life dimensions. It does not present what was palatable/comfortable to actual human pilots during those maneuvers.  The anecdotal judgements of pilots cannot be taken as writ law without considering the context of those judgements.

Like everything else in aerodynamics, many performance characteristics are impossible to accurately and precisely model.  The best we can do in those cases is create approximations.  The fact that HTC's models are so close to actual tested performance criteria is amazing to me, and a testament to what they've achieved so far.  Additionally, if you consider that each aircraft represented in game uses the same performance equations, then there's no reason to consider any one aircraft as "porked"--merely that the equations used to model the performance of all the aircraft may make some facets of some planes more conspicuous. 

[BnZs]

What we don't experience in game are the things that no computer simulator will be able to ever produce.  For example, perhaps (and I emphasize "perhaps" as a method to frame annecdotal evidence in context) a real-life P-51 could enter a 3-G turn at 350 mph with very little stick force.  If another plane required 3 times the stick force to make the same turn, then a real-life pilot might say that the P-51 "turned" better than plane X, even though both aircraft were mechanically/aerodynamically capable of performing the same turn at the same rate. 

P-51 had higher stick forces than the P-47.

Basically, you're still arguing that test and combat pilots of the WWII era didn't have a *clue* about turn performance, not even so much as the average AHII pilots knows. Not only that, one has to argue that the Germans, including those who tested captured Allied aircraft, also did not have a clue about the qualities of P-51 vs. P-47.

Walter Wolfrum, a Luftwaffe ace with 137 victories, remembered of his encounters with American fighters that "the P-47 wasn't so bad because we could out turn and outclimb it, initially. [...] The P-51 was something else."

[BnZs]

gonzoville.com shows the pony has smaller turn radius than the jug in AH without flaps, which is consistent with your info. the jug wins with full flaps, but this is irrelevant to acm. turn performance using 1 or 2 notches (ie as designed to assist manouvering rather than landing) might be a more useful measure.

1. The P-47D-11 out-turns the P-51 *without* flaps, despite having a significantly higher wingloading (43 lbs vs. 39 lbs/foot, loaded for the same flight time.)  By comparison, this is greater than the wingloading disparity between a P-51 and and an F4U-1A loaded for similar flight times.

2. Full flaps are *NOT* useless in ACM in AHII since it is more than possible to use them successfully. Moreover, A P-47 of any stripe will gain on the pony in an angles fights with only 1 or 2 notches of flap. (It would be impossible to win an angles fight with a Pony if this were not so, since the Jug would be beaten before it could get full flaps out.) Note that the Fw-190 D9 will turn a smaller radius than the Pony on full flaps, which is absurd, considering that the wingloading of that bird is 48 lbs/foot and is equipped with inefficient split-type flaps. The low speed at which these flaps deploy keep this from being an effective strategy however.

3. A Typhoon also beats a P-51 in the turn in either flaps in our flaps out configuration, again in conflict with historical testing.