Spitfire better than P-51D for online matches?

[Tomsk]

The only place I could even imagine that it would make a noticeable difference would be in a chase on the deck.

 

Sure. Of course high deck speed is a really nice attribute in a BnZ fighter, and increasing to 75" MP would likely make it the fastest plane on the deck, or very close. A damage boost for the 50 cals should also hopefully be coming, and that will help it a lot too.

 

I don't think it's ever going to be a super plane. Nor should it really, the allies had such an advantage in numbers, and complete aerial dominance at this stage why sink more resources into better planes? However, it would make it a little bit more competitive, which would make things more interesting :)

[Hermit713]

The one topic most have not brought up is: Can I see him/her?

I use the track IR. And have one heck of a time picking up visual of most planes in the air!

Perhaps EVERYONE has a better monitor than me? A faster ms would most likely help me , but can it make me see ALL? Especially if you are up high 10,000 ft and higher , picking up visuals of fighters from up there is very difficult, at least for me anyway.

 

AI see you no matter what, So it is all in the machine at that Point. And they fly those mustangs perfectly.

In fact they can shoot down me down when I am in a F5-E tigerII.

So I'm not sure how the mustang in its current form is not a very good fighter online.

It seems pretty much unbeatable When flown by AI at almost any altitude it will win.

Do the AI not have to follow the same physics and such, that I have to when it's flown in DCS?

[Tomsk]

Do the AI not have to follow the same physics and such, that I have to when it's flown in DCS?

 

Nope they have their own (really very forgiving) flight model. That said, a P-51 doesn't stand a chance against a F-5E Tiger ... as long as you don't try and turn with him. You are a lot faster than he is (like twice), and climb a lot better (like more than 5 times as fast) .. employ BnZ and take the fight vertical and he doesn't have a hope in hell of getting near you. Turn fighting is not the only way to fight.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Tomsk

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

The one topic most have not brought up is: Can I see him/her?

I use the track IR. And have one heck of a time picking up visual of most planes in the air!

Perhaps EVERYONE has a better monitor than me? A faster ms would most likely help me , but can it make me see ALL? Especially if you are up high 10,000 ft and higher , picking up visuals of fighters from up there is very difficult, at least for me anyway.

 

AI see you no matter what, So it is all in the machine at that Point. And they fly those mustangs perfectly.

In fact they can shoot down me down when I am in a F5-E tigerII.

So I'm not sure how the mustang in its current form is not a very good fighter online.

It seems pretty much unbeatable When flown by AI at almost any altitude it will win.

Do the AI not have to follow the same physics and such, that I have to when it's flown in DCS?

 

 

short answer...NO

[HeadHunter52]

Pretty sure the new fuel has already been confirmed. And a whole new mustang.....

 

Hate to break it to ya but I'm pretty sure the main downside of the P-51 is not the fuel it uses. Try out the TF-51 in a mock fight and see for yourself...

 

Seems to be in the line of the usual answers to this request... "It won't help much, so don't be too worried if you never see it..." Silly answer.

 

If I can push it a little harder, I can run a lil faster and live a lil longer. That's MY choice, not somebody else's.

 

I'd like that ammo, too. "But but.... incendiary won't work well against the 109...." Again, my choice.

 

If it shows up, I'll be happy. Not looking to "even it up." Just true it up.

[HeadHunter52]

Sure but I doubt that the extra 200HP and corresponding speed difference will make a hugely noticeable difference. Those who bnz now with enough energy advantage will still survive the ordeal, those who don't won't. The only place I could even imagine that it would make a noticeable difference would be in a chase on the deck.

 

Bingo. Diving away at speed.

 

But also, some altitude performance. It all works for the better.

[DieHard]

(re: Message #1)

 

Well, it doesn't really matter which plane I use; I stink at dogfighting! I just enjoy playing DCS.

 

Figure Rickenbacker was considered an old man at age 25, his reflexes were that stale compared at age 18.

 

How about us old farts on here playing against the kids?

[Dunravin]

Yeah Of course the Spitfire in Dogfight at low altitude

 

Not really, the Spit is an energy fighter, it depends on trading potential for kinetic, how do you do that at 500-1000ft as per the current offerings of the online airquake servers?

 

At sea level 109's will piss all over you with unrealistic amounts of MW50 on tap which would probably of been used up in their scramble to combat altitude irl. The fuel concern was always a big issue for 109 pilots IRL, not an issue online which again make the game ridiculously unbalanced. You stand a much better chance with 190's if they decide not to run away.

 

Anything over 260mph in the Spit and you will black out trying to keep up the pressure on a 109 who suffers something like a third less G. And you cannot afford to idle throttle and time a turn and burn (avoids G issues) as that technique depends on trading several thousand feet of altitude.

[Hiromachi]

Oh yeah, thats what I noticed too. As a pilot in Spitty, when maneuvering between 240-320 mph I just cant maneuver as much as I would like to or need to since I'm in constant overload and darkness. Too many times this cost me life since I had to release stick, thus lower turning rate and 109 could easily keep up with me.

 

In this way Spitfire really feels like an aircraft of huge extremes - neither can you maneuver as close to your maximum lift capability at high speeds as you will break wings before your pilot even blacks out nor can you maneuver hard at lower speeds since you are too close to black out.

[Rogue Trooper]

During world war II the mustang engaged 109s with a massive height advantage, they arrived on target with the bombers cruising high and loud.

The 109s had to climb to get to them and the bombers were the 109s priority.

In this scenario the Mustang performs superbly, more so it was the ideal machine at the right time. It had range and it had speed and the right design to deal with that speed.

It could easily retain its energy every time it attacked. it was the right machine at the right time.

 

The 109 is a knife fighter and so is the Spitfire. They like it tight and nasty, a mustang does not belong here without friends.

[Solty]

During world war II the mustang engaged 109s with a massive height advantage, they arrived on target with the bombers cruising high and loud.

The 109s had to climb to get to them and the bombers were the 109s priority.

In this scenario the Mustang performs superbly, more so it was the ideal machine at the right time. It had range and it had speed and the right design to deal with that speed.

It could easily retain its energy every time it attacked. it was the right machine at the right time.

 

The 109 is a knife fighter and so is the Spitfire. They like it tight and nasty, a mustang does not belong here without friends.

 

Germans knew the bombers were coming as soon as they crossed the English Chanel. They would observe them and if they had enough data scramble fighters from many airbases and climb up to a meeting point where they would regroup and hit the bomber formation head on. Most of the fighters attacking the bombers were Fw190A and twin engine 410s. 109s and Dora's would go as top cover.

 

They were countering that sending P-51's ahead of the formation. And if they stumbled on not yet formed Germans they would attack them, dispersing them.

 

Most German pilots did not stay to dogfight, having their experience through the war they would dive away, and that's a mistake when fighting the Mustang.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Solty

[VagTech]

I feel like the P51 is still better in a dogfight (turn fight with massive energy bleed) than the FW190. You will lose a turnfight to a 109 but if you are high enough, even 2500 meters is high enough you can dive down and pull up the last second hoping he follows and 9/10 times his controls will lock and he will hit the ground, if he does not follow he knows better already.

[VagTech]

I do not see all that much whining going on in this thread. I personally am only driving home the point that the P51 is completely outclassed by the axis planes. That's not whining at all. It's just the facts. In DCS there has to be a strongest, and a weakest. The P51 is the weakest. I believe that many here feel that way.

I'm not asking ED to fix the issue because it doesn't need fixing. It is what it is. And for ED to make it the superior plane because of complaints would only create the void of another plane becoming the weak plane. And then people would complain about that. I personally have no issues with the P51 being what it is in DCS. Edit: I do have issue with the fact that you can run out of ammo trying to kill an enemy plane, even when your pounding them with lead. That's a bit much, and certainly should be corrected in my opinion. But I believe that many people know the Mustang as the heroic plane that won the skies of WWII for America from movies and documentaries and to have it be the way it's portrayed by DCS kind of berates that in their eyes. Whether it is true to history, I really could not say as I was not there. But I do know how it measures up in DCS. And there's nothing wrong with that. I just don't fly it. And if asked, I give my honest assessment of the plane. It's underpowered and does not perform as well as any of the other 3. That's all.

 

You mean the 109 at low alt in a turn fight? I have yet to see someone say it is outclassed by the 190. The 190 seems to have it's own issues and right now is likely the worst of the ww2 birds.

[Tomsk]

You mean the 109 at low alt in a turn fight? I have yet to see someone say it is outclassed by the 190. The 190 seems to have it's own issues and right now is likely the worst of the ww2 birds.

 

Well .. I don't agree :) I love the 190 and have great success with it, it is by far my best plane in terms of K/D. The reasons I like it are: it is the fastest plane on the deck, it is the plane most tolerant of high speeds (even more so than the P-51). It has the hardest hitting weapons IMO. It dives like nothing else, and has the best roll rate at most speeds. It is a boom-and-zoomer's dream.

 

It does however have one rule that I find I need to follow religiously: never turn fight with anything, ever (well there are some situations but they're not common). You can energy fight if you have a small advantage, but if I don't like the fight I dive away and re-position. And I do that a lot. As such I always like to either have a few Km underneath me, or I've just dived down and I'm now flying along like a bat out of hell. The Dora mantra: "Stay fast, hit hard, and disengage when in a bad situation".

 

I agree with Zimmerdylan, the P-51 is the weakest plane IMO. Both German planes are faster low, the 109 is faster at most other altitudes as well. They both also climb better (the 109 a lot better, the 190 a little better) and the 109 turns better. The P-51 has an advantage in high-speed maneuverability and dive compared to the 109, but that's a slim advantage at best ... and it has no such advantage over the 190. I also agree the guns are just too weak on the P-51, and it really inhibits its usefulness as a BnZ plane. It's not hopeless flying the P-51, you can do well with it and people do, but I do think it is the weakest plane.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Tomsk

[OutOnTheOP]

Sure but I doubt that the extra 200HP and corresponding speed difference will make a hugely noticeable difference. Those who bnz now with enough energy advantage will still survive the ordeal, those who don't won't. The only place I could even imagine that it would make a noticeable difference would be in a chase on the deck.

 

Except, it really does. When the RAF tested the difference between +18 (67" )and +23 (75") boost on the Mustang, they observed a +17 mph improvement in top speed (pretty significant), but even more importantly, they noted a +900 ft/min increase in climb rate, and the critical altitude for the engine went up 4000 feet. Those are huge, HUGE improvements.

(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/AL_963.pdf)

 

When we get the new fuel I doubt people will stop saying 'Mustang sucks ED screwed it up etc etc'

 

You're probably correct, but the extra boost would give a massive improvement to climb rate, top speed, and acceleration (and therefore sustained turning). Re-designing the in-game Mustang to an earlier model would help too, because (despite Kurfurst's assertions otherwise), the late Pacific models have inferior performance- simply because they're carrying a bunch of extra avionics weight on-board, most of which isn't even modelled in-game (Uncle Dog, Detrola, IFF, etc).

 

That and theoretically multiple fuel types will be available for all AC. That means 109s with C3 fuel and 2000HP instead of 1850. Assuming it is something set in the mission editor it then depends on who is designing the mission.

 

Why? The C3 wasn't used on the K4 that widely (it's arguable that it was ever used with MW50 at all), while allied 44-1 fuel was well-documented and widely used. And just as importantly, 44-1 fuel brings the game into better gameplay balance, while C3 fuel on the K4s just further breaks the competitive aspect of the game.

 

Look, the "everything must be completely historical with all historical options" argument is a bit... well, wrong. If we're doing everything fully historically, then the Kurfursts and Doras should be outnumbered 10:1, should have limited fuel available at the field, and should have random failures or random performance degradation to reflect the poor state of the German industry at the time.

 

The problem is that the luftwaffe fans on the forum like to point out history when it pertains to the ideal performance of their aircraft, but ignore how the historical strategic situation plays into it. Yes, historically the Kurfurst had better performance than the DCS-modelled variants of the Mustang and Spitfire IX. However, that is because the RAF and USAAF were already dominating the Luftwaffe so badly that they didn't *need* to improve their aircraft performance. In 1943-early 1944, the USAAF developed lightweight short-range interceptor versions of the Mustang (P-51F) that would have been a pretty even match for the Kurfurst, but never put them into production because the Luftwaffe was not a threat. They had the P-51H ready to go by mid 1944, but again did not rush it into service because the Luftwaffe was not a threat.

 

By early 1944, the allies could have been pushing their Merlin engines to +25/ 81" hg, but they chose not to (and didn't boost the Tactical Air Forces engines over 67") because the Luftwaffe was not a threat. Kurfurst loves to point out that the DCS Mustang should not have higher than 67" hg, because only the 8th AAF Mustangs used 44-1 fuel... ok, but if the Luftwaffe had been capable of putting up serious opposition in late 1944, the USAAF and RAF would have had to re-calculate their decisions on risk. In the real history, the Luftwaffe was a shattered shell, and the risk to allied aircrews from engine failure from higher boost levels was much, much more significant than the fairly insignificant risk the Luftwaffe posed to any given fighter pilot. So the allies chose not to overboost their engines.

 

The Luftwaffe, on the other hand, was desperate, and chose to over-boost their engines even though it meant a great increase to the risks of engine failure. To the Luftwaffe, that didn't much matter in the real history: the aircraft probably wasn't going to survive a sortie anyway.

 

The problem is that right now, we have aircraft that are configured in they way they are configured due to the REAL situation in 1944, but we are fighting simulated battles that do not reflect that situation. We are fighting battles in-game that reflect a situation of strategic parity between RAF/USAAF and Luftwaffe. If that had actually been the case, the RAF/USAAF would have cleared higher boost levels (if Luftwaffe action is a bigger threat to aircrew and aircraft than is engine failure due to high boost, you put the boost in!) and would likely have re-configured some of it's Mustangs with field modification kits to optimize them as short-range interceptors (probably through removal of the fuselage tank and associated plumbing, maybe 2x .50 cals, and anything else to lighten it), would have cleared the TAFs for 44-1 fuel, and quite possibly would have brought in P-51F and P-51H before the end of the war. Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe would have been far more hesitant to risk losing it's Bf109K4s through ludicrous amounts of over-boost, and would probably not have approved the boost levels seen on the K4 if it had not been such a desperate situation.

 

TL;DR: you can't pedantically insist on sticking to historical performance values and air-force-approved boost levels if you don't ALSO pedantically stick to the real-world strategic situation (not without being a huge hypocrite, anyway).

 

BLUF: The Mustang and Spitfire IX LF need to have +25 lb/ 75" hg boost levels, because that would make online play more balanced (and therefore more fun), while ALSO being historically valid configurations for the real-world history, AND would be more realistic configurations for the make-believe strategic context (Luftwaffe-Allied parity) in which everyone plays DCS online.

 

I'm actually very disappointed in ED for failing to take the opportunity presented by the Spitfire IX LF development cycle to code a +25 lb/ 75" hg Merlin. They could have used the development cycle to code the higher-boost version for the Spit, then port the new code to the Mustang... but instead appear to have just stuck with what was already developed for the Mustang, to get the Spitfire out the door more quickly. I am hopeful the intent was to get the Spitfire out as quickly as they could so people could start enjoying it, then working on an update to both the Mustang and Spitfire to bring them up to higher boost as the next step. Community consensus seems to be that the +18/ 67" Merlin-engined allied aircraft just aren't a fair match for the super-late-war Luftwaffe birds in-game now.

Edited January 23, 2017 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

The one topic most have not brought up is: Can I see him/her?

I use the track IR. And have one heck of a time picking up visual of most planes in the air!

Perhaps EVERYONE has a better monitor than me? A faster ms would most likely help me , but can it make me see ALL? Especially if you are up high 10,000 ft and higher , picking up visuals of fighters from up there is very difficult, at least for me anyway.

 

This is another thing that bothers me: the way the new rendering works, the Mustang can be spotted from 3-4 times farther away than a Kurfurst. Yes, the K4 was smaller, but not THAT much smaller.

 

It also doesn't help that all of the skins for the Kurfurst and Dora are subdued camo, while almost all of the ones for the Mustang are shiny hi-vis bare metal schemes.

 

Yep, I got it, the bare-metal schemes are historical. They are historical for 8th air force, in the real-world strategic situation of late 1944, operating at high altitude in near-total air superiority. The bare metal was chosen because leaving the paint off and just giving the A/C a wax coat saved around a hundred pounds of paint in T/O weight (a weight bonus which we are not given in-game to counterbalance the ease of spotting us), and leaving the paint off slightly reduced drag (and of course saved on production cost and time)

 

However, in the situation the DCS games are played, I would like to see the server owners give the Mustangs more subdued paint schemes so we aren't constantly being spotted before the Germans, and I would love to see ED include more subdued schemes for the Mustang (even if they are semi-fictional; IE create P-51D skins based on historical P-51A/B/C schemes from 1943 when air superiority was still strongly contested and the allies actually saw value in having camouflaged aircraft)

 

If the real-world strategic scenario was what we see in DCS multiplayer servers, they would NOT have left the TAF fighters in bare metal. The SINGLE biggest advantage you can have in a fight is seeing the enemy well before he sees you, so leaving the Mustangs in bare metal schemes on the server is just giving yet another advantage to the German side.

Edited January 17, 2017 by OutOnTheOP

[LeCuvier]

... the Luftwaffe was not a threat. They had the P-51H ready to go by mid 1944, but again did not rush it into service because the Luftwaffe was not a threat....

...the Luftwaffe was not a threat...

...the risk to allied aircrews from engine failure from higher boost levels was much, much more significant than the fairly insignificant risk the Luftwaffe posed to any given fighter pilot...

 

I take some of these statements with a big grain of salt.

Correct: The Luftwaffe was no longer a threat strategically for reasons we all know. But it was still a threat to the individual allied airmen and there was a lot of suffering. I hadn't understood that until I recently read Pierre Clostermann's book "le Grand Cirque". Clostermann was a French fighter pilot serving first under the Free French Airforce and later under the RAF, with 33 kills to his credit so his account is highly credible.

 

And frankly some of the posts in this thread sound like people are trying re-win or not re-lose WW II. Why don't we simply consider this a phantastic game and behave like a brotherhood of airmen (not to exclude airwomen).

[OutOnTheOP]

I take some of these statements with a big grain of salt.

Correct: The Luftwaffe was no longer a threat strategically for reasons we all know. But it was still a threat to the individual allied airmen and there was a lot of suffering. I hadn't understood that until I recently read Pierre Clostermann's book "le Grand Cirque". Clostermann was a French fighter pilot serving first under the Free French Airforce and later under the RAF, with 33 kills to his credit so his account is highly credible.

 

And frankly some of the posts in this thread sound like people are trying re-win or not re-lose WW II. Why don't we simply consider this a phantastic game and behave like a brotherhood of airmen (not to exclude airwomen).

 

And you will note I am talking in strategic terms. In the overall all-up scheme of risks to western allied fighter pilots in late 1944, you were statistically more likely to die in a mishap or equipment failure than being shot down by a Luftwaffe fighter. Light caliber (15-37mm) AAA was much more statistically dangerous than Luftwaffe fighters, as far as enemy action goes

While there is no doubt that the RAF/ USAAF risk/benefit analysis on engine boost and aircraft modernization really cost a tiny handful of pilots that found themselves on the wrong side of the performance envelope, STATISTICALLY it saved lives and aircraft to not push the engines too far.

 

To reference the excellent "Cost of WW2" post by Tusler:

 

43,581 (sic: USAAF) aircraft were lost overseas including 22,948 on combat missions (18,418 against the Western Axis) and 20,633 attributed to non-combat causes overseas.

 

Almost half of the overseas losses (all types, all theaters) were non-combat accidents and mechanical failures, even WITHOUT the USAAF risking more engine failures with increased boost levels. Note that the statistic includes bombers, which had a higher combat loss rate, and includes the early days of the USAAF combat operations, when combat loss rates were MUCH higher than in late 1944. This means the losses by cause for Mustangs in late 1944 are probably skewed even more toward "accidents" than "enemy fighter action" than is indicated in the above statistic.

 

I will see if I can look up the Mustang-specific losses by cause for 1944 later, but I haven't the time right this instant. Suffice to say that mechanical failure was a VERY significant threat, when compared to enemy fighter action.

 

edit: from what I can quickly find, 41% of all 8th AF Mustang combat losses were lost to AAA; only 23% of combat losses were to enemy aircraft- meaning that out of total Mustang losses in the 8th AF including accidents, only around 13% were lost to enemy aircraft. Around 40% of the total were lost to accidents and failures.

Edited January 17, 2017 by OutOnTheOP

[HeadHunter52]

Oh yeah, thats what I noticed too. As a pilot in Spitty, when maneuvering between 240-320 mph I just cant maneuver as much as I would like to or need to since I'm in constant overload and darkness. Too many times this cost me life since I had to release stick, thus lower turning rate and 109 could easily keep up with me.

 

In this way Spitfire really feels like an aircraft of huge extremes - neither can you maneuver as close to your maximum lift capability at high speeds as you will break wings before your pilot even blacks out nor can you maneuver hard at lower speeds since you are too close to black out.

 

Those damned wings

[HeadHunter52]

Except, it really does. When the RAF tested the difference between +18 (67" )and +23 boost on the Mustang, they observed a +17 mph improvement in top speed (pretty significant), but even more importantly, they noted a +900 ft/min increase in climb rate, and the critical altitude for the engine went up 4000 feet. Those are huge, HUGE improvements.

(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/AL_963.pdf)

 

 

........................SNIP

 

I'm actually very disappointed in ED for failing to take the opportunity presented by the Spitfire IX LF development cycle to code a +25 lb/ 75" hg Merlin. They could have used the development cycle to code the higher-boost version for the Spit, then port the new code to the Mustang... but instead appear to have just stuck with what was already developed for the Mustang, to get the Spitfire out the door more quickly. I am hopeful the intent was to get the Spitfire out as quickly as they could so people could start enjoying it, then working on an update to both the Mustang and Spitfire to bring them up to higher boost as the next step. Community consensus seems to be that the +18/ 67" Merlin-engined allied aircraft just aren't a fair match for the super-late-war Luftwaffe birds in-game now.

 

This was one of the best summations of the boost issue I've read. Perfectly sensible.

 

The 21" Spit config was a disappointment. Surely they have the data to model the higher level. It's not like they are taking their bird out, and pushing it and measuring things, right? Performance data is researched, calculated, figured - not actually flown and measured.

[shaunwallis21]

My observation. the people saying the p51/mkix is outclassed are bad at the P-51/mkix.

 

i roffled when people say they cant maneuver with the p51 and its sluggish. the p51 is the definitive teamwork tactical superiority fighter.

[IronJockel]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/AL_963.pdf

 

I wonder, if anbody of the +23 fraction has read page 4 of that paper.

 

"...... some severe handling tests to check rapid opening up and acceleration, an internal mechanical failure of the pump occurred, ......."

 

It isn't all sunshine with higher boost settings.

 

And about the P51 H thing: If it was so great, why didn't it replace the D even after the war????

[Zimmerdylan]

My observation. the people saying the p51/mkix is outclassed are bad at the P-51/mkix.

 

i roffled when people say they cant maneuver with the p51 and its sluggish. the p51 is the definitive teamwork tactical superiority fighter.

 

"Sluggish?" :megalol: Where are you reading that it's sluggish? I haven't seen anyone call it sluggish. It's just not as agile as the axis planes.

After flying the Spitfire more, I'm beginning to wonder how the allies ever won the air war. If these planes are actually true to their real world counterparts. Somebody must have been really lucky........:lol:

 

We'll all have to wait for the Normandy map I suppose, But I don't see how it will change much. If it's anything like the servers are now, the axis planes will all be occupied while the allied planes will be mostly sitting in a hanger somewhere because no one want's to be constantly out done. From my understanding, the allies had superior numbers on their side going for them. That won't be so in the servers. It's hard to tag team the enemy when you can't find a wing man.

I'm glad to see that some people are getting something out of the P51. And you are correct, I suck at flying it. But I can fly the 109 very well, and the 190 pretty well too. I can fly the Spitfire fine also, but people are correct in saying that the axis planes will just fly away from you if you get them to trailing. That's happened to me time and time again.

And again, I'm not complaining about the difference. I'm merely pointing it out. The axis planes are clearly superior in the ways that seem to count most. Is it true to life??? Who knows, but it's the way it is in DCS.

[Solty]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/AL_963.pdf

 

I wonder, if anbody of the +23 fraction has read page 4 of that paper.

 

"...... some severe handling tests to check rapid opening up and acceleration, an internal mechanical failure of the pump occurred, ......."

 

It isn't all sunshine with higher boost settings.

 

And about the P51 H thing: If it was so great, why didn't it replace the D even after the war????

 

More expensive and jets became a thing. So USAF chose to scrap the P47 and keep the cheaper P51D as the in between solution. They had more of them and had lots of spare parts.

 

Those Merlin engines are now overboosted to 3000hp with additional cooling for Reno races. I think they can handle 72'. Btw all engines can fail.

 

BTW, this is a Merlin 65 (special) test. Not Merlin 66 which is standard for P51D.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Solty

[IronJockel]

Those Merlin engines are now overboosted to 3000hp with additional cooling for Reno races. I think they can handle 72'.

 

Doesn't really matter on what setting these engines can run with post war cooling systems.

Nobody sad they can't handle it. However, according to that paper the higher setting came with a price and this should not be ignored.

 

Btw all engines can fail.

And everybody can get cancer. What's the point?