[Rjel]

In short, the P-51H is already being worked on, better means superior, and Rjel, come off it. You know we don't agree, so shut it. For all of you asking for performance improvement proof. I read somewhere, from a legitimate source, not Wiki, that the late Mustang IVa, the Brit re-named P-51K, in this case, Block 10, had a top speed of around 442-445mph at altitude as compared to the D's 437-440mph at altitude, so hah... I just can't find the link right now, so sorry...

Ouch. hock: lol
You can do better than that. You were the one who claimed to be the expert. If you didn't want opinions why put up a poll? Make your K man. I couldn't care less. But until we see definitive proof and I mean from sources with actual USAAF tests saying that it was a definite improvement (five MPH ain't much) you'll have a hard time convincing many here. But have at it.

[Guest]

USAAF tests on the subject said that both late and early versions were too close to make a big deal over. I don't consider "official" USAAF records to be totally accurate. That IVa info was gathered from field info. I still can't find the link, but it's out there somewhere. They had a tendancy to underate planes. The difference will be small, but it's for historical purposes and be assured it will be accurate.

[P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole]

Deac, please don't tell people to shut it, just because their opinion differs from your own. Keep it civil, please gents. Deac, if you want you K so much, build it -- it shouldn't matter what the community wants, so long as you want it yourself.

[Guest]

My apologies... I've had it out with this guy before, so I can get a bit frustrated. Good news guys! Someone by the name of VH_Rock has volunteered to donate their Aeroproducts prop model, so it looks like we'll be moving along rather quickly once I get all the stuff together. Since things already seem to be moving along rather quickly, who's interested in a P-75A-GM?

[P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole]

i think you might want to take this one step at a time. have a go at the two projects you now seem to have on the go; if and when they're successful, then's the time to think about more planes. Remember how long it takes to creat a new slot ac?

[Guest]

Yeah, I know... Just thinking about the future, not commiting myself to anything. Besides, if this goes up in flames, I'll probably be done for a long time.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

but as others point out the differences are so minimal as to be insignificant.

The same could be said about the majority of the 109s in the game.. but it didn't stop Oleg from including them. So if he wants to do a K that is only slightly different than a D, more power to him! My only point is I would rather see something that is noticable different, like the H

[ACE-OF-ACES]

In short, the P-51H is already being worked on,

Prob is the one I saw being 'work' on was a frakin plane, and a bad one at that!

better means superior,

Not nessacarly, in that as I all ready pointed out, one mans better is another mans worse, same goes for superior! Now if you don't have anything to support you claims of 'better' or 'superior' or 'neat-o' or 'bitchen' or 'groovy'. That's fine! You wouldn't be the first one to make fact-less, baseless, and un-supportable claims! But, just don't expect people like me to take your word for it. Oh sure, folks like me are not the norm, the norm is the flag waving cheer leaders that would be more than happy if you gave them a P-51 with the performance of a F-15, but me, I don't need that unrealistic edge over someone else to best them. Your mileage may vary.

I read somewhere, from a legitimate source,

Sorry, but most folks like me wont accept that either, in that again your asking us to take your word for it. Now if you want to do it the right way, go read that thing somewhere again, get the link or ISBN number of the book along with the title and author, or the report number of the test and post it here. And if it is not too much to ask scan it in and post it.

Otherwise guys like me are just going to list you and your claims under the category of myth. And that is not a threat, that is just the way it has been in the flight sim comunity for the past 15 years or so. Ever since the days of th use-net and sims like Air warrior guys have claimed to read somewhere or know someone that did this or that. Makes for neat campfire storys but does not mean squat here in the real world.

For example, here was a case of someone (Erkki) claiming he tested the in-game P-51D-5NA and found it to be 13kph too fast. He claimed to have all sorts of sorce that he never provided, cept the wiki one. I got tired of waiting for him to provide the sorces, so I found my own and did my own test. Turns out the 51 was actull much slower than the real thing. For an example of how to document your claims, check out this link

http://www.flightsimtesting.com/fst/il2 ... s_REAL.pdf

[Guest]

Great, so everything is speculative... At this point, the project will happen and I will do more research and base the FM on that. So, don't worry about it. It won't be a P-51 with an F-15 FM and it won't be a made up performance either. It will be as real as it can be, so relax... The only reason I can't give you my sources right now is because I can't find the link. Sorry...

One note on the P-51H and the P-47's since people keep asking why don't I do one of those instead... The P-51H, late P-47D, P-47M, and P-47N are supposed to be in the Mustang Collection.

Edit:

Found another source. This is about the stats for the P-51K-10NT. It was talking about the P-51K-10NT "Second Fiddle" that took 5th in the Thompson Trophy by using a special fuel, but gave the stock statistics for the late P-51K-10.

Type:
P-51K single-seat land based fighter
Powerplant:
One 1,680 hp Packard Merlin V-1650-7 piston engine
Performance:
Maximum speed 442 mph at 24,500 feet;
climb 10 minutes to 20,000 feet;
range (normal) 950 miles
Weights:
7,000 lb.; 9,200 lb. gross
Dimensions:
Span 37 ft.; length 32 ft. 3 in.; height 8 ft. 8 in.

Well, there's combat reports of it going faster, but I guess you wouldn't consider that legit so here's the most statistical proof of performance increase in the late P-51K-10NT.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Great, so everything is speculative...

And dont forget suspect!

At this point, the project will happen and I will do more research and base the FM on that.

Durring that research, if nothing else, save them links, save them ISBNs, save the field storys and or test reports. Not saying you have to do a write up, but yah have to at least provide your sorces.

So, don't worry about it. It won't be a P-51 with an F-15 FM and it won't be a made up performance either.

Again, dont expect us to take your word for it. Provide proof, or expect to be considered suspect. Its that easy! Than when your all done, Use SJacks mod (Infomod) to generate the IL2C data files showing the performance of your FM

It will be as real as it can be, so relax...

No need to relax, not un-relaxed in the least. Just tellin ya, if you dont provide sources all your work will be suspect.

The only reason I can't give you my sources right now is because I can't find the link. Sorry...

No problem! Only thing that maters is you find it before you release it

Found another source. This is about the stats for the P-51K-10NT. It was talking about the P-51K-10NT "Second Fiddle" that took 5th in the Thompson Trophy by using a special fuel, but gave the stock statistics for the late P-51K-10.

Type:
P-51K single-seat land based fighter
Powerplant:
One 1,680 hp Packard Merlin V-1650-7 piston engine
Performance:
Maximum speed 442 mph at 24,500 feet;
climb 10 minutes to 20,000 feet;
range (normal) 950 miles
Weights:
7,000 lb.; 9,200 lb. gross
Dimensions:
Span 37 ft.; length 32 ft. 3 in.; height 8 ft. 8 in.

That is the pritty standard 51D stats.. other than the 1680hp, that is a little low, max was like 1720hp on a -7 engine.

Well, there's combat reports of it going faster, but I guess you wouldn't consider that legit so here's the most statistical proof of performance increase in the late P-51K-10NT.

Depends.. most combat reports dont provide enough info to recreate the senario, thus you cant do a test under those same conditions. They may say something like "I got her up to 450mph" but they dont tell you what altitude or the config of the plane.. was it full fuel, or were they on feums, stuff like that you hardly ever see in a combat report, but, things like that you allmost allways see in a NACA or USAAF test.

[Guest]

Look, what you're asking for is an official performance stat or chart for the P-51K. Based on the performance going either way depending on late or early models, it was too close for anything to be detailed. There aren't any... Sorry, but that's just the way this is. This one will have to be based on the best stuff available. Those stats are pretty typical for what I've found so far, except the obviously underrated the engine and probably based the climb off that. I bet they were using the Merlin V-1650-3 for those stats... Anyways, the import thing on that list is the top speed. Top speeds are most often taken for planes fully loaded for combat with external stores, so there you have it. It says the K is slightly faster and points towards slightly smoother performance. They sometimes swapped out engines. Anyways, just have faith and trust me.

[akdavis]

Great, so everything is speculative... At this point, the project will happen and I will do more research and base the FM on that. So, don't worry about it. It won't be a P-51 with an F-15 FM and it won't be a made up performance either. It will be as real as it can be, so relax... The only reason I can't give you my sources right now is because I can't find the link. Sorry...

One note on the P-51H and the P-47's since people keep asking why don't I do one of those instead... The P-51H, late P-47D, P-47M, and P-47N are supposed to be in the Mustang Collection.

Edit:

Found another source. This is about the stats for the P-51K-10NT. It was talking about the P-51K-10NT "Second Fiddle" that took 5th in the Thompson Trophy by using a special fuel, but gave the stock statistics for the late P-51K-10.

Type:
P-51K single-seat land based fighter
Powerplant:
One 1,680 hp Packard Merlin V-1650-7 piston engine
Performance:
Maximum speed 442 mph at 24,500 feet;
climb 10 minutes to 20,000 feet;
range (normal) 950 miles
Weights:
7,000 lb.; 9,200 lb. gross
Dimensions:
Span 37 ft.; length 32 ft. 3 in.; height 8 ft. 8 in.

Well, there's combat reports of it going faster, but I guess you wouldn't consider that legit so here's the most statistical proof of performance increase in the late P-51K-10NT.

This climb and speed data is taken from North American testing of the P-51D, which can be seen here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... -chart.jpg
(edit to add: no, I read that wrong. The climb data is just plain wrong.)

During an AAF flight test at Wright Field June 15, 1945, a P-51D-15-NA reached a max speed of 442mph, but at the higher altitude of 26,000'.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... -level.jpg

[Guest]

Well, for testing they didn't fully load it up with tanks and everything, now did they?

[akdavis]

Well, for testing they didn't fully load it up with tanks and everything, now did they?

They most certainly did. Read the graphs. It's right there in front of you.

NA test: gross weight 9611 lbs. (but here 442mph is the calculated speed for 8,000 lbs.)
AAF test: gross weight 9760 lbs.

Those are combat take-off weights. Anyways, the table you brought forward is clearly nonsense. The dimensions are wrong (or at least oddly presented), the HP is wrong, the weights are wrong (probably P-51B), and now that I look at it again, the climb data is wrong (10 min. to 20000 ft??). The speed data conforms to two actual flight tests of P-51Ds. This is not surprising, as you could probably pick 5 random "stat" tables like this from various books and they would all have different numbers.

[Guest]

Read your own charts since you so willingly gave them. There were no external loads and the internal fuel was lightened by 89 gallons. Naturally, it's going to go faster than it would normally too. It's a test in a mostly controlled enviroment, not combat conditions. Oh yeah, now that you mention it, the hp is correct for take-off. My bad on the 1650-3 suggestion. I didn't read the numbers right. Okay, can we quit with the source thing now. I've given you proof that's legitimate to begin with and now I've backed it. Can we please stop this performance bashing too...