Jump to content

P-51B/C Maybe?


Ercoupe

Recommended Posts

I know we already have a Mustang. But the earlier models have always been my favorites. Is there any love out there for the B and C? Same airplanes, of course. Only difference was that the B models were built in Los Angelos and the C's in Dallas. Not sure why that warranted a designation change.

I would think you could get that out with your eyes closed. You've already done most of the work. Would love to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we already have a Mustang. But the earlier models have always been my favorites. Is there any love out there for the B and C? Same airplanes, of course. Only difference was that the B models were built in Los Angelos and the C's in Dallas. Not sure why that warranted a designation change.

I would think you could get that out with your eyes closed. You've already done most of the work. Would love to see it.

 

Oh, there's plenty of love. Just not a high likelihood of getting a full fidelity module. Higher priorities out there for ED (they can only work one module at a time) and I doubt a 3rd party would pick it up as there would be a limited return on investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 my the most favourite plane

:thumbup:

F-15E | F-14A/B

P-51D | P-47D | Mosquito FB Mk VI |Spitfire | Fw 190D | Fw 190A | Bf 109K |  WWII Assets Pack

Normandy 2 | The Channel | Sinai | Syria | PG | NTTR | South Atlantic 

F/A-18 | F-86 | F-16C | A-10C | FC-3 | CA | SC |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is/was a model for a B/C in the game files. It's old though, iirc it was from before ED decided to do the 'D.
+1 I've opened up the model. It's extremely rudimentary. Basically just the model. Very very few nodes and empties. Surprised ED has never removed it.

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, I guess for the user it would be a too similar aircraft to the one we already have while for the devs it'd be probably not that much and would need a lot of work. But I'd buy a B/C the same I'd buy other variants of the other models.

 

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's hope for it to be finished one day, as least for AI:

 

I had toy'd w/ texturing and re-enabling it to play with, which showed merit, but some things need to be done in 3DS Max for it to be fully functional:

 

Early Texture Test (Shares a lo of the P-51D UVWs)

attachment.php?attachmentid=144512&d=1468900923

 

Exported new UVW's to Correct the rear fuselage textures

attachment.php?attachmentid=183989&stc=1&d=1525632556

1107270598_ModelViewer2017-09-1514-47-36-39.thumb.jpg.44ffe4c50e2b40ea5a038e0ebbcd845d.jpg


Edited by SkateZilla

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been doing some searching to try to figure out the differences between the B/C and D variants (or the Mk III and Mk IV, as the RAF seem to refer to them). One site I found was: http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/variants There is also a comparison chart here: http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/specifications

 

From what I can tell, the primary difference is in the reconfiguration of the canopy. There also seem to be some technical modifications to improve reliability. And the armament has been upgraded from 4x.50cal to 6x.50cal. The engine and basic aircraft configuration is the same though

 

There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for the B/C over the D variants, but the differences to me seem minimal. Have I missed something? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Weight.

P-51B was quite a bit lighter without that radar, two more brownings and couple other things while operating at same engine ratings.

 

But if we speak of P-51B then I think best visual differences are in the cockpit and tailfin area. Personally I wish for a P-51 with Malcolm hood.

AMD Ryzen 5900X @ 4.95 Ghz / Asus Crosshair VII X470 / 32 GB DDR4 3600 Mhz Cl16 / Radeon 6800XT / Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSD / Creative SoundBlaster AE-9 / HP Reverb G2 / VIRPIL T-50CM /
Thrustmaster TPR Pendular Rudder Pedals / Audio Technica ATH-MSR7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been doing some searching to try to figure out the differences between the B/C and D variants (or the Mk III and Mk IV, as the RAF seem to refer to them). One site I found was: http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/variants There is also a comparison chart here: http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/specifications

 

From what I can tell, the primary difference is in the reconfiguration of the canopy. There also seem to be some technical modifications to improve reliability. And the armament has been upgraded from 4x.50cal to 6x.50cal. The engine and basic aircraft configuration is the same though

 

There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for the B/C over the D variants, but the differences to me seem minimal. Have I missed something? :huh:

Well, it's pretty much the same as stated before, same wings, mostly same engine operating @same manifold IIRC. But, central tank was an option (at least from Mustang III manual) and not mandatory, so less maximum range meaning also a different weight and balance hence I guess something similar to actual TF-51D we already have which is clearly a lighter and more agile aircraft (a bit, not that much). AFAIK B/C model was also a bit faster than D, I guess due to lighter weight. And tail fin was added after centre tank appeared to enhance poor lateral stability, later retrofitted also to B/C models from D. So a fin-less B would be and interesting and probably more challenging ride with full fuel weight but even more agile and a bit faster than D with a same low fuel load. My guess but maybe the lower the fuel load the closer B and D performs.

 

 

S!


Edited by Ala13_ManOWar

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wings were not the same actually - the D has a deeper leading edge root extension, which, whilst apparent on the B/C in plan form, is not so obvious as that on the D.

 

B - https://aerofred.com/details.php?image_id=88469

 

D - https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot-restricted/ww2planes/ww2-north-american/north_american_p_51d_mustang-18563.jpg


Edited by DD_Fenrir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont get me wrong i would love a B/C , but personally i would prefer that they polish the ww2 modules we already have. work out how to fix the MW50 on the Dora because i believe you dont know how to at the moment.... ED that is at you, because how can the 109 use mw50 for hours on end?


Edited by Brigg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wings were not the same actually - the D has a deeper leading edge root extension, which, whilst apparent on the B/C in plan form, is not so obvious as that on the D.

 

B - https://aerofred.com/details.php?image_id=88469

 

D - https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot-restricted/ww2planes/ww2-north-american/north_american_p_51d_mustang-18563.jpg

Quite true :thumbup: .

 

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...........

 

I want to point out that the early variants of the Mustang are NOT the same plane. Less power, more problems.

 

There were four .40's instead of six, and they had feeding problems, suffering lams quite a bit under moderate to high G load - the guns were turned on their side to fit the wing and the links would break, rendering the guns worthless.

 

With the fuselage having a taller profile going back into the empenage the B/C was a lot more stable in a dive than the D model. The early D didn't have a fillet and was quite unstable in a dive/high speeds, and that was of course corrected very quickly, but it was never as good as the B/C in a dive.

 

Let's not get started on the gunsight and general cockpit layout.....

 

It isn't a simple matter of just putting a different tail on the D model and calling it a wrap, there are many differences in FM and little quirks specific to early Mustangs that would be absent if it were treated as a later D model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we already have a Mustang. But the earlier models have always been my favorites. Is there any love out there for the B and C? Same airplanes, of course. Only difference was that the B models were built in Los Angelos and the C's in Dallas. Not sure why that warranted a designation change.

I would think you could get that out with your eyes closed. You've already done most of the work. Would love to see it.

 

 

I'm still waiting for my 262 and my P-47.

 

 

Slowlee slowlee catchee monkee.......

 

 

I want a DH92 NFMkXVIII and I want it now. Who's with me??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like many other aircraft, there were quite a few variants. There is no single "P-51B/C" or "P-51D". With a little study, you will find that there was a bit of a "blur" between the P-51B/C models and the P-51D. While there are no bubble canopy B/C models and no razorback D models, that is about the only feature that truly distinguishes the two.

The most important aspect of the B/C series is which engine it has. Some had the same setup as the P-51D, but others had engines optimized for different altitudes and many would claim to be a better setup that the D.

One myth is that the loss of the razorback necessitated the fin extension on the D's vertical stabilizer. But the fact is that the P-51 always had yaw stability problems. The early Ds didn't have the extension while some B/Cs had it retrofitted.

The B/C gun jam problem due to guns being angled rather than vertical was a significant problem. The vertical installation of the D was retrofitted to some B/Cs in the field.

 

 

From one of the best online sources for US aircraft history:

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p51_8.html

"However, many pilots regarded the Malcolm-hooded P-51B/C as the best Mustang of the entire series. It was lighter, faster, and had crisper handling than the later bubble-hooded P-51D and actually had a better all-round view. Its primary weakness, however, was in its armament--only four rather than six guns, which often proved prone to jamming. Some of the modifications applied to the P-51D to improve the ammunition feed were later retrofitted into P-51B/Cs, which made their guns less prone to jamming. With modified guns and a Malcolm hood, the P-51B/C was arguably a better fighter than the P-51D, with better visibility, lower weight, and without the structural problems which afflicted the D. Its departure characteristics were also more benign. "

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make no mistake, I love the P-51D. If there were only one variant available to fly I would want it to be the P-51D with a K-14 gyro sight as we have in DCS World. But, I would like to see the P-51B/C as well. I would prefer the option to have the normal canopy or malcom hood rather than having to choose between the two.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like many other aircraft, there were quite a few variants. There is no single "P-51B/C" or "P-51D". With a little study, you will find that there was a bit of a "blur" between the P-51B/C models and the P-51D. While there are no bubble canopy B/C models and no razorback D models, that is about the only feature that truly distinguishes the two.

The most important aspect of the B/C series is which engine it has. Some had the same setup as the P-51D, but others had engines optimized for different altitudes and many would claim to be a better setup that the D.

One myth is that the loss of the razorback necessitated the fin extension on the D's vertical stabilizer. But the fact is that the P-51 always had yaw stability problems. The early Ds didn't have the extension while some B/Cs had it retrofitted.

The B/C gun jam problem due to guns being angled rather than vertical was a significant problem. The vertical installation of the D was retrofitted to some B/Cs in the field.

 

 

From one of the best online sources for US aircraft history:

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p51_8.html

"However, many pilots regarded the Malcolm-hooded P-51B/C as the best Mustang of the entire series. It was lighter, faster, and had crisper handling than the later bubble-hooded P-51D and actually had a better all-round view. Its primary weakness, however, was in its armament--only four rather than six guns, which often proved prone to jamming. Some of the modifications applied to the P-51D to improve the ammunition feed were later retrofitted into P-51B/Cs, which made their guns less prone to jamming. With modified guns and a Malcolm hood, the P-51B/C was arguably a better fighter than the P-51D, with better visibility, lower weight, and without the structural problems which afflicted the D. Its departure characteristics were also more benign. "

Take a look here, maybe you change your mind a bit.

 

http://vintageaviationecho.com/xp51a/

 

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Take a look here, maybe you change your mind a bit.

 

S!

 

If you meant to imply I would like to fly an early Allison P-51/P-51A/A-36 more than a P-51B/C, you may be right. The differences between the P-51B/C and P-51D are fairly minor other than the canopy compared to an Allison vs Merlin engined Mustang. I would love to have all the Mustangs modeled to the level of the current DCS P-51D. An Allison P-51 with 4x20mm would be quite the beast at sea level. I love the nose of the Allison P-51. There were even A-36 Apache's with Malcom hoods. Not to forget the F-6 photo recon variants. The Mustangs have a lot more to offer than just the ever popular P-51D.

 

Unfortunately, the DCS level of quality tends to drive having only one major variant of any one aircraft. The cost effectiveness of developing even somewhat major variants is almost always going to prevent having more than one variant of any given aircraft.

 

For example, a developer can produce a P-51 variant or a new aircraft like the P-38? For all the work involved, which one will generate more sales/profit? A completely new aircraft or a variant of one that most people that would buy it already owns?


Edited by streakeagle

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...