Jump to content

P-51 D mismatch


TEOMOOSE

Recommended Posts

Exactly what are you trying to point out? Please don't try to make us guess. There are a lot of data points you've posted.

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC i saw Erich Hartman say in a video that he think that the p-51 was better then a bf-109g above 5km,and the opposite below 5km.Anyway in the low alt fights we have in MP the p-51 feel very slugish,which might represent the correct behavior of the plane.

 

Anyway i just wanted to put here links for a very interesting youtube videos from Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles channel,that might be related to op post.

 

 

 


Edited by Dodly

My rig:I7 4970 3.5 GHZ,GTX 970,16G RAM,MSFFS2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the first link (P51 Mustang Manifold Pressure) in my first post in 6:23 there is a table that support what you say.

 

By the way you dont have to be rude.

My rig:I7 4970 3.5 GHZ,GTX 970,16G RAM,MSFFS2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Engine Packard Merlin V-1650-7

Power 1,590 hp (1,185 kW) at 8,500 ft (2,590 m) (61" Hg, low blower, 3,000 rpm)

1,720 hp (1,280 kW) at WEP (67" Hg )

 

Maximum speed 438 mph (705 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,620 m)

Rate of climb 3,510 ft/min (17.8 m/s) at 7,000 ft (2,133 m)

 

Power/mass 0.15 hp/lb (0.22 kW/kg)

Fuel type: 100 Octane, from mid 1944 150

 

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang_variants#P-51D_and_P-51K

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang#Surviving_aircraft

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html

 

Now take a look at Dcs P51D manual;

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/documentation/dcs-p-51d_flight_manual_en/

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471378759900069928/471379519320752139/unknown.png

 

Dont hate me, but it seems what we have in dcs isnt correct! All source included so you can read all about yourself :P

 

AFIK, the P-51 in DCS is 44-84847, an P-51D-25-NT, which they had access to from the Fighter collection.

http://fighter-collection.com/cft/tf-51d-mustang-miss-velma-2/

Now you saying you Wikipedia links are more accurate, but which P-51D are the links referring to?

P-51D-5/20/25/30-NT or P-51D-5/10/15/20/25/30-NA?

What are the differences between this P-51D and should we contact the Fighter Collection to let them know they have the wrong information on the P-51D they are flying?

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The data we have in the manual seems closer to the v-1650-3,but im no expert, just saw that video and its seems that the guy knows what he is talking about


Edited by Dodly

My rig:I7 4970 3.5 GHZ,GTX 970,16G RAM,MSFFS2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to explain what you are trying to say.

 

Giving us the engine specs with a few links and what not does nothing.

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance.

"Me, the 13th Duke of Wybourne, here on the ED forums at 3 'o' clock in the morning, with my reputation. Are they mad.."

https://ko-fi.com/joey45

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this video -

at 6:00 there is a chart that says that the v-1650-7 should have 1720 hp at 6200ft in 3000 rpm and 67 manifold pressure which seems not to match the dcs manual.

 

Anyone care to explain?

976970418_.thumb.PNG.eee0a93b1832a0bfcee1df5d2b5c92a7.PNG

My rig:I7 4970 3.5 GHZ,GTX 970,16G RAM,MSFFS2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was hoping that i can set things in motion to fix this issue.

 

I wish you guys also investigate this! i`ve done enough research on this.

 

All evidence is out there, and here on the forum. You dont need a Phd to understand the differences so Why is it so difficult to make it right ?

 

This does sound very familiar to me. Does Maverick Su-35S has a brother?:lol:

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?

 

Look here, you will find similarities on style and way of expressing that make one wonder if it couldnt be the same person:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=216695

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you tested DCS V-1650 engine with that lower result? How did you get results, please?

Or, could it be only mistake in written DCS manual? (not first, not last) :)

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

Anybody that would make a FM change based on what somebody saw on wikipedia should be shot. That's not a reliable source. Second, as others pointed out there are myriad subvariants, which it's unlikely you accounted for. You haven't done ANY research. You typed ''P-51'' into Google, the first thing you read was different from the manual in DCS and rushed here straightaway to create a thread about, with no testing or deeper investigation conducted.

 

''You all need to investigate I've done enough''. It doesn't work like that. You have done nothing and want other people to do the footwork. You're the one concernedTM, you're the one that does the research.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody that would make a FM change based on what somebody saw on wikipedia should be shot. That's not a reliable source. Second, as others pointed out there are myriad subvariants, which it's unlikely you accounted for. You haven't done ANY research. You typed ''P-51'' into Google, the first thing you read was different from the manual in DCS and rushed here straightaway to create a thread about, with no testing or deeper investigation conducted.

 

''You all need to investigate I've done enough''. It doesn't work like that. You have done nothing and want other people to do the footwork. You're the one concernedTM, you're the one that does the research.

 

 

I agree, the whole issue is very haphazard without concrete facts that try it ...

 

 

:thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh oh! I just imagined it now...

 

(wherever Wags lives) 4:32am...

*yawn scratch scratch, reaches for phone*

''Time to see what the guys have been up to, I guess.''

*browsing changelogs*

''Mmmhmm... mmhmm... Oh, P-51 manual is ready, let's have a look.''

*perusing manual*

''Oh! Specs!.... mmhmm... mmhmm... Ok, let's verify that.''

*One finger pecks WIKIPEDIA into Google*

''Ooookaaay... P-51... specifications...''

*Comparing*

''Don't like second guessing people, but somebody WHAAAAAT?!!1!''

*spews coffee*

 

--90 minutes later--

 

''Am I the only one with eyes? Nobody thought to check the wiki on this shit? Where's Yo-Yo? GET HIM IN HERE! NOW!!1!!1''

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we do not exaggerate with the comments, those you posted seem to me quite out of place....

 

 

:thumbup:

 

You may not understand it but Zhukovs comment is very funny. LOL!

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy and I've had both.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may not understand it but Zhukovs comment is very funny. LOL!

 

 

I understood that he wanted to make a witty comment, but he seems to me the same exaggerated.

 

What then is fun is a matter of points of view ....

 

 

:thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we do not exaggerate with the comments, those you posted seem to me quite out of place....

 

 

:thumbup:

 

Sometimes - just sometimes - some things earn ridicule. IMHO this is one of those times. And in the post zhukov posted before the ridicule, he posted exactly why.

 

That teomo doesn't know all the different blocks and field modifications of the P-51D, I don't blame him at all. Hell, I would not have dreamed of how many there are, before reading some very informed forum members, who also posted references.

 

The issue zhukov has, is not that teomo is uninformed, but his attitude, which zhukov already summed-up quite well.

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@falcoblu

This isn't a 'points of view' or 'discussion' sort of thing. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. My 'comments' are hyperbole, that is exaggeration to make a point, and also be funny, because I'm a sarcastic ass. Maybe you don't agree, that's ok.

 

I'll humor you, though. Take even a casual perusal of wikipedia and you'll find best case it is useful only for broad information. Say development history on an aircraft. There is very little specific info on specific subvariants. That's too dialed in and people interested in that can go to tech manuals. It's an online encyclopedia, with all the non-specifity that implies.

 

I'll also give another example: I once read something I deemed 'inaccurate'. I edited it. Somebody else edited my edit. Then they deleted it. Then somebody else deleted the entire paragraph. Anyone can edit, you don't need an account. Anybody can create a page. Believe it or not I have stumbled across pages written by neo-Nazis explaining why genocide is necessary and Hitler was just misunderstood. ANYBODY can write/edit/create on wikipedia. As a result... it's usefulness is limited.

 

Now, I'm done, this is one of those 'every two weeks' sort of occurences, so I'm off to fresh meat :p

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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