72"

I'm far from being a Mustang expert, but reading through the forums most seem to agree that our Mustang should have a 72" manifold clearance. That would be more representative of the machine that faced the 109 K and the 190 D.

My questions is: do we know if it's being fixed, or panning to be fixed? If not, perhaps those more knowledgeable than me could post some sources and open a case for ED to fix it?

Thanks! :pilotfly:

Thanks for the info Racoon!

This is starting to become the A2A-missiles-for-the-BS topic of the WWII community. :P

We do know the topic. We don't have final decision. What I can say now is that we will make proper "european" configuration of the plane. And MAY BE we could update its engine at that time. Now our efforts are all about Spitfire.

Thank you Racoon for this post. It gives us a beacon of hope that some day, we will see the new rating. We have waited this long, we can wait a bit longer.

BTW... Is the "new" Mustang block known, or there is no decision which P-51D is it going to be?

Thx.

This is starting to become the A2A-missiles-for-the-BS topic of the WWII community. :P

72" MP for the P-51 has been a thing in the WW2 community since Air Warrior.:yes:

BTW... Is the "new" Mustang block known, or there is no decision which P-51D is it going to be?

P-51D-25NA would be the logical choice. They were delivered to England late Oct/early Nov 1944 and assigned to the 8th AF. The K-14 gunsight was factory fitted to that block so no change needed there. And that block is contemporary with the K-4 and D-9.

I think the 20NA was introduced in October 44 and the 25NA arrived in Europe not before March 45. So if we want a contemporary to the axis planes we have currently a block 20NA would be a good choice. It would be the first type to be equipped with the K-14 gyro gunsight from the factory (mid/late production) and wouldnt need too many adjustments 3D wise to the current model. If you guys want help on what these changes are exactly, feel free to open a topic. :)

The only real loss would be the HVAR rockets, but those werent really used in the european theatre at all by Mustangs. The three cell "christmas tree" launchers instead were used in the anti armor role. I also think the ass saving radar was introduced later, maybe mid 25NA production. I would need to check up on this though.

As for 72" boost, it may turn out to be really complicated finding good hard data on this rating. Maybe thats also the reason for hesitation on EDs side here.

I think the 20NA was introduced in October 44 and the 25NA arrived in Europe not before March 45. So if we want a contemporary to the axis planes we have currently a block 20NA would be a good choice. It would be the first type to be equipped with the K-14 gyro gunsight from the factory (mid/late production) and wouldnt need too many adjustments 3D wise to the current model. If you guys want help on what these changes are exactly, feel free to open a topic. :)

Had some trouble finding the exact dates associated with the block numbers but I did find this:

http://warbirds-eaa.net/p-51-swamp-fox/

History:

US Army Air Force and US Air Force History of P-51 Mustangs 44-15660 & 44-74202

P-51D-25NA, s/n 44-15660 (the original “Swamp Fox”)

According to USAF records, the P-51D, s/n 44-15660, was manufactured by North American Aviation, Inglewood CA and delivered to the USAAF on 20 Oct 1944. It departed the US by sea on 30 Oct 1944 and was assigned to the Eighth Air Force, England, on 10 Nov 1944. It was disposed as surplus overseas on 16 Jul 1946.

Mhh weird.. Different source tells me this. I cant find anything on the s/n 44-15660 but the SN tells me its not a 25NA. :o

1945: May 07, delivered, USAAF 44-74202

1945: May, assigned, 445th FS, 4th AF, Bakersfield CA

1945: Jul, assigned, Santa Maria AAF CA

1945: Oct, assigned, 412th FG, Santa Maria AAF CA

1945: Dec, assigned, 420th AAF Base Unit, March AAF CA

1946: Feb, stored, 4160th AAF Base Unit - AMC, Hobbs AAF NM

1947: Jun, stored, San Antonio Air Materiel Center, Kelly AFB TX

1948: Jul, assigned, 27th FG - SAC, Kearney AFB NE

1949: Mar, assigned, 120th FS - CO ANG, Buckley Field CO

1950: Nov, assigned, 140th FW - CO ANG, Buckley Field CO

1951: Apr, assigned, 140th FBW - TAC, Buckley Field CO

1952: May, assigned, Clovis AFB NM

1953: Jan, assigned, 50th FBW - TAC, Clovis AFB NM

1953: Jul, assigned, 165th FBS - KY ANG, Standiford AP KY

1956: Oct, stored, Sacramento Air Materiel Area, McClellan AFB CA

1957: surplus, McClellan AFB Sacramento CA

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

1958: N5420V, black w/ red lightning stripe, Oakland CA

1966: N5420V, Michael Coutches, Hayward CA

1984: N5420V, sale, Mike Bogue, Oakland CA

1990: N5420V, sale, Michael Coutches, Hayward CA

1999: N5420V, reg, Robert Coutches, Hayward CA

2007: N5420V, sale, N5420V, Jack Croul, Chino CA, restoration

2010: P-51 on the gear nearing completion

2012: May, first-flight, airworthy in plain stars and bars

2012: Jul 05, N5420V, sale, FOX51 LLC / Robert Dickson Jr, Concord NC

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

2012: Dec 02, "Swamp Fox" was flown in WWII by Lt. Col Will Foard, who enjoyed a P-51 formation flight in 44-74202

Edit: http://www.mustang.gaetanmarie.com/documents/serials.htm

looking for the SN 44-15660 it says its a 15NA.

So apparently the 25NA 44-74202 delivered May 07 45 now has the painting scheme of the 15NA 44-15660 which arrived in Europe on 10 November 44. The 25NA 44-74202 has never seen Europe and was delivered to the USAAF one day before the war ended in Europe.

Yep looks like a few sites have their restored planes listed as 25NA but they were actually older blocks. Here's another one where they call it 25NA that was delivered in Jan '45 but the block number is actually 20NA:

http://www.warbirdheritagefoundation.org/WHF_AC_P51_1_Hist.html

Seems like the 20NA would be the more appropriate block for late '44 / early '45.

44-15660 was from block 900 P-51D-15, 44-14853 - 44-15752

D-25 were 1945 planes, no 1944....

D-25 started with S/N 44-72627

according to Malcolm V. Lowe book P-51 Mustang and mustangmustang.com page

Which version of the F-51D did the US use in the Korean War? We have the F-86F and the Mig-15bis. It would be great if we had a Mustang in DCS that fit the Korean War time frame. If the Ed team is going to go through the trouble of considering introducing a better performing Mustang, it may make more sense to introduce a Korean War era F-51D and sell it as an upgrade add-on for owners of the DCS P-51D. A Korean War F-51D also opens up the introduction of a Yak-9P and other Korean War era prop planes. :thumbup: MJ

Ok, well, given the serial numbers for several F-51D's that I had time to check on, I suspect that the F-51D's used in Korea were in part or whole of the P-51D-30-NA version. I don't know the particulars of the differences between that version of the Mustang when compared to the Mustang we currently have, other than it may have used the mg type found in the F-86F instead of the M2 used in our Mustang. :thumbup: MJ

44-15660 was from block 900 P-51D-15, 44-14853 - 44-15752

 

D-25 were 1945 planes, no 1944....

D-25 started with S/N 44-72627

according to Malcolm V. Lowe book P-51 Mustang and mustangmustang.com page

Fw190D9 with MW50 +EZ42 were also January 1945 airplanes.

D25 though, would be the "European standard" and would require little changes to the 3d model.

P-51D20 would probably be more appropriate, but I don't have anything against the D25. It would totally fit the timeframe with K4 and D9 beeing the "standard" German airplanes.

D25 though, would be the "European standard" and would require little changes to the 3d model.

 

P-51D20 would probably be more appropriate, but I don't have anything against the D25. It would totally fit the timeframe with K4 and D9 beeing the "standard" German airplanes.

Thats simply not true. 25NA models first arrived in Europe around March, by the time these were assembled and distributed it was April. These were the earliest 25NA types, so they already had metal elevators, most likely wing rack hard points, but no AN/APS-13 radar yet. So the very first planes were operational maybe a month before the war ended. These can hardly be called the "european standard".

Now I am pretty sure you are quickly going to yell at me how every P-51 could easily be modified for the newest Block in the field. And indeed, that did happen, but only during planned overhauls and only if there was a technical order around. I have an extensive collection of technical orders on my HDD and am certainly willing to check the validity of everything you come up with. Furthermore the parts needed for field-modification mostly were shipped with the newer block planes that had these modifications already installed.

Which version of the F-51D did the US use in the Korean War? We have the F-86F and the Mig-15bis. It would be great if we had a Mustang in DCS that fit the Korean War time frame. If the Ed team is going to go through the trouble of considering introducing a better performing Mustang, it may make more sense to introduce a Korean War era F-51D and sell it as an upgrade add-on for owners of the DCS P-51D. A Korean War F-51D also opens up the introduction of a Yak-9P and other Korean War era prop planes. :thumbup: MJ

It would of been the D-30. Last production block of the Mustang.

It would of been the D-30. Last production block of the Mustang.

Thank you for clearing that up for me, RofLSeal! Much appreciated. :thumbup: MJ

It would totally fit the timeframe with K4 and D9 beeing the "standard" German airplanes.

K4 was standard for JG26 starting from mid november 1944 . Don't know about other squadrons.

This site had squadron numbers:

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bjagd.htm

When looking at the make-up of all the squadrons that operated in late '44 the K4 doesn't appear to have been present in large numbers during that period. Most squadrons had G14s and A-8s on the books. The main exceptions with K4s being present I could see were:

• II./JG2 - got 2 K4s in Nov '44 and then a further 16 in Dec and had 9 by year end losing 3 in combat in Dec . They had 55 G14s on the books at that time but that number had dropped to 20 by year end with 23 of those being combat losses
  
• III./JG3 - got 10 K4s in Nov '44 but don't appear to have used them much as only lost 1 to overhaul that month. They had 5 G14 combat losses that month and still had 58 G14s on the books going into Dec. They then lost 1 K4 to combat in Dec while also losing 22 G14s
  
• III./JG4 - got 15 K4s in Oct '44 but don't appear to have used them as still had 15 next month (maybe arrived late in the month). They then got a further 35 in Nov '44 and lost 7 in combat that month while also losing 14 G models. By Dec they had mostly transitioned into K4s (had 36 compared to 16 G models) and lost 17 K4s in combat that month compared to 6 G models
  
• IV./JG4 - got 7 K4s in Dec '44 but don't appear to have used them that month as still had 7 at year end. They lost 28 G models in combat during Dec
  
• II./JG11 - got 12 K4s in Dec '44 but don't appear to have used them much as still had 11 at year end with 1 out for overhaul. They lost 28 G14s in combat during Dec
  
• III./JG26 - got 44 K4s in Nov '44 and lost 3 in combat that month. They also lost 6 G14s in combat that month. They got a further 17 new K4s in Dec and lost 7 in combat. They also lost 6 G14s that month. They had about 2/3 K4s by the end of the year
  
• I./JG27 - got 1 K4 in Oct '44 but likely not used. Got 14 more in Nov with no combat losses. They did suffer 28 G14 combat losses in Nov so would guess the K4s were not heavily used. They got 19 more K4s in Dec and suffered 12 combat losses. They lost 24 G14s to combat that month too.
  
• II./JG27 - got 2 K4s in Oct '44 but likely not used. Got 3 more K4s in Nov and lost 1 in combat. They also lost 17 G14s in combat that month. They didn't receive any K4s in Dec and lost none to combat. They lost 29 G14s and 18 G10s in combat in Dec however
  
• III./JG27 - they got 75 K4s in Oct '44 and lost none to combat that month. They lost 14 G14s in combat that month. In Nov they had transitioned to K4s completely and lost 30 in combat in Nov and 33 in Dec
  

From reviewing that site's data for combat losses though it would appear to me that an allied pilot in Oct - Dec '44 would have been more likely to have run into a G10/G14 or A-8/A-9. If thinking scenarios with the K4 I think it fits early '45 much better than any '44 scenario. And 150 grade fuel was in use by the 8th AF on the continent by that time... ahem.

That site only has this info up to the end of 1944. Would be interesting to see this data for early 1945 (if it exists) to see how the K4 became more common. Does anybody have it?

So what exactly does the 72" or new fuel do? I'm having a hard time understanding.

In-game when I go wep I'm able to get 70-72" on the gauge, would new fuel or whatever enable you to be at 72" for longer?

Any help would be appreciated, put it in simple terms if you can.

Ron, the end of Oct had 133 K-4s with JGs and had risen to 167 end of Dec. Some 212 had been written off (combat and non-combat).

Of the serviceable fighters taking part in Bodenplatte, ~31% were A-8s, ~2.5% were A-9s, ~20% were D-9s, ~30% were G-14s, ~5.5% were G-10s and ~11% were K-4s.

The ~11% K-4s were 92 serviceable out of 167 onhand. There had been 854 K-4s produced.

There was no other K-4s but many A-8s, A-9s, D-9s, G-14s, G-10s in other theaters.

Neubau 109 numbers can be found here, http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=2462&highlight=neubau+109&page=3 Post #28.

So what exactly does the 72" or new fuel do? I'm having a hard time understanding.

In-game when I go wep I'm able to get 70-72" on the gauge, would new fuel or whatever enable you to be at 72" for longer?

Any help would be appreciated, put it in simple terms if you can.

Running higher octane fuel allows more boost without risking detonation/pre-ignition (also known as 'knocking' or 'pinging').

What'''s detonation/pre-igniton? Prepare for an explanation.

When the piston compresses the air/fuel mixture in the cylinder it gets heated: if the gas is heated to a temperature above the autoignition point of the fuel, it will explode. Diesel engines exploit this effect by compressing the air until it is above the autoignition point of diesel fuel and then injecting the fuel into the cylinder. The fuel spontaneously ignites, and drives the piston down on the power stroke.

In an Otto cycle engine (such as the engine on the Mustang) the fuel is mixed with the air before it enters the cylinders and ignited by a spark plug. This turns compression heating into a big problem, because if the fuel's octane rating isn't high enough it may reach its autoignition temperature and explode before the spark plug would usually set it off- this is called detonation or pre-ignition (depending on the exact circumstances), and it causes the engine to make a 'ping' or 'bang' noise, which is why it gets called knocking or pinging. The engine then has to fight the pressure of the hot exhaust gas in order to finish the compression stroke and start the power stroke, which wastes power and puts excessive strain on the piston, connecting rod, crankshaft and all the bearings that allow them to move.

Now on to the supercharger.

The supercharger on your engine is a big air compressor. It compresses incoming air and pumps it into the inlet manifold, which then feeds it into the cylinders (the 'boost' gauge indicates the pressure inside the manifold in inches of mercury). Because the air has already been compressed it is already hot when it goes into the cylinders, which moves everything closer to the autoignition point. Thus, the more boost you have, the higher the octane rating you need. The engine on the Mustang has an intercooler, which cools down the compressed air before it enters the cylinders (the Bf109's MW50 injection does a similar job) but even that isn't enough unless the octane rating of the fuel is high enough for the increased boost.

Running higher octane fuel allows more boost without risking detonation/pre-ignition (also known as 'knocking' or 'pinging').

 

What'''s detonation/pre-igniton? Prepare for an explanation.

 

When the piston compresses the air/fuel mixture in the cylinder it gets heated: if the gas is heated to a temperature above the autoignition point of the fuel, it will explode. Diesel engines exploit this effect by compressing the air until it is above the autoignition point of diesel fuel and then injecting the fuel into the cylinder. The fuel spontaneously ignites, and drives the piston down on the power stroke.

 

In an Otto cycle engine (such as the engine on the Mustang) the fuel is mixed with the air before it enters the cylinders and ignited by a spark plug. This turns compression heating into a big problem, because if the fuel's octane rating isn't high enough it may reach its autoignition temperature and explode before the spark plug would usually set it off- this is called detonation or pre-ignition (depending on the exact circumstances), and it causes the engine to make a 'ping' or 'bang' noise, which is why it gets called knocking or pinging. The engine then has to fight the pressure of the hot exhaust gas in order to finish the compression stroke and start the power stroke, which wastes power and puts excessive strain on the piston, connecting rod, crankshaft and all the bearings that allow them to move.

 

Now on to the supercharger.

 

The supercharger on your engine is a big air compressor. It compresses incoming air and pumps it into the inlet manifold, which then feeds it into the cylinders (the 'boost' gauge indicates the pressure inside the manifold in inches of mercury). Because the air has already been compressed it is already hot when it goes into the cylinders, which moves everything closer to the autoignition point. Thus, the more boost you have, the higher the octane rating you need. The engine on the Mustang has an intercooler, which cools down the compressed air before it enters the cylinders (the Bf109's MW50 injection does a similar job) but even that isn't enough unless the octane rating of the fuel is high enough for the increased boost.

So basically it lets you go higher power for longer? or am I misunderstanding?

I'm just wondering because I know I'm able to push the mp up to 70-72" in game already so I was wondering what the big deal was with this fuel.