The "new" P-51D model. What can we expect?

Pretty sure, information on the BF 109G and FW190A are much accessible than the BF 109K and FW 190D, seeing as the G and the A are the most produced version after all.

the p-51d30 would have laid the smackdown on both of them, even the b/cs and early Ds had no problems with those german models. guess they figured later war german models would be a better match, im still for them giving us a couple more ibs of boost in the future, (not that im having any trouble with these germans anyways :gun_rifle:)

Hell the G-14 would be just as hard for the Mustangs to deal with, it turned even better than the K, made as much power as the P-51 but was much lighter and climbed better. It seems like the pony drivers here won't be happy until they have a D model stang vs a box stock 1943 G-6.

But regardless by Jan 1945 the K amounted to 1/4 of all 109's in service right? I wouldn't call that rare.

Uh Oh.. You have just triggered the allied sleeper cells.. :lol:

Turn performance is not everything. And P-51D's performance doesn't change with blocks, unlike the 109's.

109G6 and 109G14 are different airplanes with different airframe and different engine.

P-51D15 and D30 are the same airplane with the same airframe and same engine. Only little changes are present such as tail radar, K14 gunsight, different elevator coating, changes in radio equipment, and all P-51D's can be converted into another block with very little effort.

Therfore there is no difference in performance of the P-51D30 and P-51D10. Exception would be the early D5 that didn't have the tailfin which actually hit the performance due to instability it projected. But otherwise even between late P-51B and P-51D performance gap is very small. That's because the engine is the same. The only thing that matters is that P-51D was supplied with 44-1 fuel to get a higher boost.

P-51 development could have went beyod P-51D but the airplane was deemed satisfactory and new models of German airplanes didn't require a fast transition.

P-51H was developed within that time and featured a different engine and airframe, that plane was built in only 500 units and not a single one took part in combat missions. All of them were delievered to Pacific units as Germany was nearly beaten, and it would have been the enemy to the 109K if America had to desperately push an airplane into production right after the prototype flew without failures.

When first P-51D's flew the 109G6 was the standard version, then the G14 was developed and it was still insufficient and then the K version was made. P-51D's flew with 72'hg during the G6 phase and during the G14 phase and during the K4 phase. Even P-51B flew with 72'hg. So why shouldn't our P-51D?

----------------------------

G14 wouldn't be a bigger problem. You know why? Because even 67'hg Mustang would be faster. That would be one main advantage that the P-51 should and would have against any 109. It will always loose in a turn, but it will always be faster.

Uh Oh.. You have just triggered the allied sleeper cells.. :lol:

The only trigger is the one I'm pulling:matrix:

How different do they look between European D and Late war Pacific D? Anyone got a pic to share?

They don't look different. It's the equipment inside that is different.

Hell the G-14 would be just as hard for the Mustangs to deal with, it turned even better than the K, made as much power as the P-51 but was much lighter and climbed better. It seems like the pony drivers here won't be happy until they have a D model stang vs a box stock 1943 G-6.

But regardless by Jan 1945 the K amounted to 1/4 of all 109's in service right? I wouldn't call that rare.

You don't really understand what the 51 drivers, the ones that know the plane, are talking about.

First of all, you have to know that you don't fight with fuel in the center tank. It throws the CG too far back and makes it a beast to fight in. Having said that, the P51 we have has IFF equipment AND a center fuel tank so that even if the center fuel tank is empty, you still have that weight there, throwing the CG off. That is one of the complaints about the P51 we have. Even if we have no fuel in the center tank it doesn't change the fact that we have the iff equipment there. In reality it should be one or the other but it still screws up the CG. It's an awful version of the P51 IMO.

the P51 we have has IFF equipment AND a center fuel tank so that even if the center fuel tank is empty, you still have that weight there, throwing the CG off.

Every WWII P-51D had center fuel tank.

Yes, DCS P-51D has control box for 7th AF IFF, but SRC-522 and battery are behind armor like in all Mustangs except 7th AF Mustangs. No IFF itself is here.

So, no changes will be there if ED release "new" ETO Mustang. Only IFF control box will be replaced with different one with minimal effect on Mustang`s weight.

The other question is actually if in the flight model the equipment is even modeled. Afaik the FM is based on some sort of weight distribution charts and I highly doubt there was one for an Uncle Dog PTO version available given the exotic nature of the version. 3D model is one thing, flight model another really. Maybe the IFF is included, maybe not.

The other question is actually if in the flight model the equipment is even modeled. Afaik the FM is based on some sort of weight distribution charts and I highly doubt there was one for an Uncle Dog PTO version available given the exotic nature of the version. 3D model is one thing, flight model another really. Maybe the IFF is included, maybe not.

Well they might have modeled it after the P-51K.

A K just has a different prop and a crapy one at that, that doesnt make any sense.. The D model including prop type has much more documentation around. I am saying we currently have most likely an Iwo Jima model externally with a normal type FM. Just based on documentaion available thats the best guess.

A K just has a different prop and a crapy one at that, that doesnt make any sense.. The D model including prop type has much more documentation around. I am saying we currently have most likely an Iwo Jima model externally with a normal type FM. Just based on documentaion available thats the best guess.

I am saying that because there are many uploads of D/K Manual around. Also, D and K are almost the same, except for the prop.

Just as you are, I am speculating about where did they get their data. :pilotfly:We do not have certainty at this point (yet?)

Hell the G-14 would be just as hard for the Mustangs to deal with, it turned even better than the K, made as much power as the P-51 but was much lighter and climbed better. It seems like the pony drivers here won't be happy until they have a D model stang vs a box stock 1943 G-6.

But regardless by Jan 1945 the K amounted to 1/4 of all 109's in service right? I wouldn't call that rare.

On Jan 1 1945 only 10.9% of the fighter force participating in Bodenplatte were K-4s. G-14s made up 30.2 %.

I agree that having a G14 woudn't make much difference.

The "Poney drivers" would be happy if they got historically accurate boost ratings, and a proper DM that would allow their .50 cals to do some damage in those 109s ;)

You have pretty much hit every nail on the head there reflected :thumbup:

+1

when are likely to get the new model P51? Because we need it to deal with the k4 UFO :)

G14 wouldn't be a bigger problem. You know why? Because even 67'hg Mustang would be faster. That would be one main advantage that the P-51 should and would have against any 109. It will always loose in a turn, but it will always be faster.

Paper faster (top speed) is not the same as real life faster, aka when factoring things like acceleration and the time required to actually achieve paper speed. Thing is, the Mustang is a slippery plane that is somewhat underpowered for its weight. It can be fast but it takes it a while to achieve that top speed. Too long time to be a practical advantage, and then again even the speed advantage is not much, cc 30 km/h is not a big deal.

Unless you want to talk about things like the Runstang keeping running away from disadvantage for 10 minutes, after somehow surviving loooong minutes while still being in firing range and then trying to come back, at which point at best you can achieve a head on.

And in any case, the P-51D is already most optimistically modelled for 67". So much so that its practically 72".

As for the G-14, you probably have it worse, seeing that most fights are on the deck. Compared to our K-4, its just a lighter, better turning, better climbing and more explosive little brother with a long range 20 mm, and its like just 15 km/h slower, which it probably more than makes up in acceleration.

Paper faster (top speed) is not the same as real life faster, aka when factoring things like acceleration and the time required to actually achieve paper speed. Thing is, the Mustang is a slippery plane that is somewhat underpowered for its weight. It can be fast but it takes it a while to achieve that top speed. Too long time to be a practical advantage, and then again even the speed advantage is not much, cc 30 km/h is not a big deal.

 

Unless you want to talk about things like the Runstang keeping running away from disadvantage for 10 minutes, after somehow surviving loooong minutes while still being in firing range and then trying to come back, at which point at best you can achieve a head on.

 

And in any case, the P-51D is already most optimistically modelled for 67". So much so that its practically 72".

 

As for the G-14, you probably have it worse, seeing that most fights are on the deck. Compared to our K-4, its just a lighter, better turning, better climbing and more explosive little brother with a long range 20 mm, and its like just 15 km/h slower, which it probably more than makes up in acceleration.

I flew long enough in all the other sims and DCS to know what I am talking about. The P-51D currently is able achieve its top speed during a dive quick enough, so you can disengage quite effectively and drag the 109K4, but the K4 will catch up to you if you fly uncoordinated or run out of altitude too quickly.

G14 wouldn't be able to do that. Therfore your argument is invalid.

Also, G14 has very similar turn/climb capablity to K4 but it is slower. In your effort to discredit the Mustang you have painted the pinacle of 109 development as inferior to its predecesor. :doh:

K4 is better than G14, no doubt about that. And we have shown we can still run from them and even dogfight them even if our Mustangs are underpowered.:pilotfly:

The above discussion exceeds my limited historical knowledge but I find it very fascinating. While I consider Kurfurst vastly more knowledgeable than me on all things Messerschmitt, did he possibly mean the G-10 not G-14? I thought the G-10 also used the same DB-605 as the K-4 but was in fact slightly lighter.

From my own sim experience I find the P-51D lacking in the power department too. I do believe if 72" helps the P-51D in the airquake then I'm all for it.

To the Wikipedia I suppose....

What's this thing about pacific theatre? I have heard about normandy and nevada, not about pacific...

my 2 favorite modules: the Mustang and the Sabre.

My favorite modules as well :) Though I do not own the P51D yet, only the version without weapons for now, so I just learn to fly, not to fight yet ^^

What's this thing about pacific theatre? I have heard about normandy and nevada, not about pacific...

Leatherneck Simulations is developing the F4U Corsair, and although I cannot find the reference at the moment, they are supposedly releasing it with an Iwo Jima map.

If, or what, aircraft carrier would also be included, I haven't heard at all. There were also some speculations that LN would have to develop an A6M Zero, but I've never heard anything nearly official on that.

My favorite modules as well :) Though I do not own the P51D yet, only the version without weapons for now, so I just learn to fly, not to fight yet ^^

I still practice landings and take-offs in the P-51 a couple times a week, and I've had the P-51D for about a year and a half, so...

I practice with the TF-51D as well for real life training ;) Yesterday evening I have read a chapter of my flight lessons, then I practised landing a few times in the TF-51D ^^

Sure should be better to practice in x-plane with the robin DR400 as this is the plane I fly IRL, but x-plane does not support VR, so... ^^

The above discussion exceeds my limited historical knowledge but I find it very fascinating. While I consider Kurfurst vastly more knowledgeable than me on all things Messerschmitt, did he possibly mean the G-10 not G-14? I thought the G-10 also used the same DB-605 as the K-4 but was in fact slightly lighter.

 

From my own sim experience I find the P-51D lacking in the power department too. I do believe if 72" helps the P-51D in the airquake then I'm all for it.

 

To the Wikipedia I suppose....

Not at all a mistake. The G-14, compared to our lowered powered DCS K-4 module would be indeed VERY competitive, if not outright superirior in many ways, provided the engagement stays at low and medium altitudes. Just because the K-4 is later, its not automatically better in every way, far from it.

Not wishing to derailing the thread, and as I find this question commonly re-occuring, I have dedicated some time and effort to clear up the issue for good.

See my finding here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2894732&posted=1#post2894732

Yes. We have a plan to make special version of the Mustang for Europe 44-45. It’s production will start after Spitfire will be complete.

Thanks to remind me about new pilot's suit.

 

New damage model is in production now. When the system itself will be ready we'll start to make new component models for every plane (WWII at least).

You guys are awesome! Can't wait for 1944 and all that comes with it!