P-51 options

[tunnelrat]

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.

[earl1937]

I think you mean 12.7cm not mm, right?

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.

[Megalodon]

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.


 

[Guppy35]

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.


 

It seems to be more about wanting rockets and thousand pounders together.

[FLS]

It seems to be more about wanting rockets and thousand pounders together.

Dare I say it? Another wish granted! 

[Megalodon]

It seems to be more about wanting rockets and thousand pounders together.

   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


Just for good measure how bout we get 165gal drop tanks in the game?




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,

[Guppy35]

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.

[Tank-Ace]

Sorry kid. Your squelched for life for lack of comprehension skills.

So basically you either can't or won't back this up either.

[Chalenge]

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]

@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.

[Chalenge]

Tank-Ace whenever you post this is what I see:

[Megalodon]

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>
and long range 51's -25's

and should be offered.

There were also 300 gal tanks used on your bomber err 38 What do you care?

I feel that any options that were available for the plane type should be offered.

[Guppy35]

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

[Babalonian]

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 ), 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.

[Guppy35]

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.