The last "Uber" Plane?

[Former_Older]

Now now

Whether the reports are accurate or not- I can't say. These seem legit, but I am the first to say: don't use one source in research

I have to admit though:

a P-51B-5-NA going at this level of performance:


Maximum speed at critical altitudes. (67" Hg. man. pressure & 3000 RPM)

Low Blower at 16,600 feet 430.0 MPH
High Blower at 29,400 feet 442.0 MPH

Is not something that I have seen in the sim allowing for airspeed correction, maybe I'm doing something wrong. On a 55* day, you'd need over 300 mph indicated @ 16000 feet to correct your airspeed to close to 430 mph

RoC also seems interesting to me for that aircraft:


Rate of climb at critical altitudes. (67" Hg. man. pressure & 3000 RPM)

Low Blower at 13,800 feet 3450 ft/min.
High Blower at 25,500 feet 2660 ft/min.

that is, I presume, initial climb. It's nice to note that these tests were done as follows:

"High speed and climb performances have been completed on this airplane at a take-off weight of 9205 lbs. This loading corresponds to the average P-51B combat weight with full oil, 180 gallons of fuel and specified armament and ammunition."

I doubt very much that 3450 f/min was sustainable for anything like an extended period- that data is not on the report that I can see

Now naturally there are better P-51 jocks around than some people are willing to admit, and of course good tactical control and flying discipline were real-life aspects of combat that were used to great effect..I see no reason that the same should not apply to the sim

Now personally I make any P-51 wallow and stall 50% of the time at high alt. I'm not patient enough. But I do see, when I'm being ham-fisted, Luftwaffe aircraft flying rings around me as I fight to keep from a spin. Should I conclude that those German planes are too uber? The rope-a-dope tactic is embarrassing but I certainly do not let that from preventing my own use of it to win ACM

And Bosh's point is excellent. You can't assume that respective climb rates in a dogfight are like a race to alt from co-E, and so must fall back to a black and white chart. if one plane climbs great but is low and slow, but another climbs OK but has tons of E, what is it that's going to make the low and slow plane out-climb the E-hog?

[ElAurens]

The razorback P51s were the fastest of the series owing to their better aerodynamics. The bubble top D models suffered because of turbulence behind the canopy which created more drag. They also suffered a loss of stability in the yaw axis which was partially addressed by the fillet on the vertical stabilizer leading edge. The H models and later TF 51s had higher v-stab and rudder assemblys to deal with this.

And please look closely at the "clean" configuration of the D in the tests posted by Former_Older, these aircraft had the wing bomb racks in place. Try to achieve these speeds with our in game P51D with the racks in place. LOL!!!

[robtek]

who cares about a few mph here or there? in rl almost no plane reached the specifications
which were set with new or at least good cared for planes.
@elaurens, see it that way that wear and tear is simulated

[Brain32]

Actually those speeds are perfectly attainable in-game, the IAS read-out on the speed bar has an error(ask TAGERT If you don't believe me) I tested many planes in game for speed and climb rate and P51's were among to most correct ones in-game.
The P51B and C do reach the speeds mentioned and even surpass it but not by a lot, actually by a very low %, while P51D is in same error at alt as is the 190D9 '44
Generally I most certainly wouldn't say either P51B, C, or D in game is either overmodelled or undermodelled

[VMF-214_HaVoK]

The P-51 as with most fighters in the game comply with real world data performance give or take a small %. The test are there to be done and you received some of the negative post you have because for years we have seen many complain and ask for a change but offer no facts, just assumptions.

S!

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

The razorback P51s were the fastest of the series owing to their better aerodynamics. The bubble top D models suffered because of turbulence behind the canopy which created more drag. They also suffered a loss of stability in the yaw axis which was partially addressed by the fillet on the vertical stabilizer leading edge. The H models and later TF 51s had higher v-stab and rudder assemblys to deal with this.

The Bs and Cs had the same yaw problem and many of them had the fillet added.
Not all the B/Cs received the -7 engine the D got. The -3 had a higher FTH than the -7.

The H also got an extended fuselage.