RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109

RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

RangerJoe -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/4/2018 4:31:55 PM)
quote: Fighters did have a button to inject something into the engine that gave them a sudden boost in power, but it was very hard on the engine and very short-lived in boost. I don't recall what it was that they injected into the engine. "During WWII water/methanol injection was used by both the Allies and Axis powers to increase the output power of their supercharged aircraft engines. By spraying a fine mist of a water/methanol mixture into the intake of these large engines, gains of 350-500hp were achieved. This allowed fighters and bombers to carry heavier loads at increased speeds. . . " http://www.alkymethinjection.com/index.html I continues on to say that NASCAR no longer allows it as well as describing how it works. If I recall correctly, once the "war emergency boost" was used then the engine had to be rebuilt. Maybe for safety reasons but it is better than getting shot down. That could ruin your whole day. Here is a document describing what was needed for a water injection system for the P-47: http://wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_Water-Injection_3feb44.pdf

rustysi -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/5/2018 4:05:59 PM)
quote: Fw 190D had the same wing as A-8, And so it was. Never realized how short the 190 wing really was.

Rusty1961 -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/5/2018 4:14:32 PM)
The short wingspan of the 190 is what allowed it to have the best, quickest roll-rate of the European war.

rustysi -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/5/2018 4:37:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rusty1961 The short wingspan of the 190 is what allowed it to have the best, quickest roll-rate of the European war. True, but what does that have to do with the price of coffee? IOW how much does that effect its usefulness in combat. Of course other than it spinning into the dirt like a top.[:D]

Dili -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/5/2018 7:06:09 PM)
Roll rate is important to change direction.

crsutton -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/9/2018 3:18:45 PM)
I have always found arguing over the relative merits of WWII fighters somewhat silly. They all had their strengths when flown in the correct envelope for that specific aircraft. The P51 was a very good aircraft that had the capability to fly a very long distance. This is the key. You win modern wars by projecting air power deep into enemy airspace. This is what the Mustang did better than any other WWII production fighter. That is the reason why is was the best fighter. It had nothing to do with performance. Excellent first generation planes such as the spit and ME109 had virtually no offensive role to play in the later half of the war. They were defensive fighters and the war had moved on from the need for short ranged single purpose aircraft. In the mid 1970's I had a BSA motorcycle. That is when the US was moving away from leaded fuel and octane ratings dropped a bit. My bike was a single cylinder machine that had a 10.1 to 1 compression ratio. I just could not get it to run well on gas from the pump. I had a five gallon jerrycan and would hike it out to the local air park with the can strapped to my seat and buy 100 octane aviation gas for it. Ran like a champ on that stuff.

Zorch -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/9/2018 3:41:36 PM)
Octane rating was also key to plane performance. Published stats don't say what gas was used.

witpqs -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/9/2018 3:44:36 PM)
I suggest the success of the P-51 had to do with the combination of range and performance: without the additive of range it would have been just another fighter; without the performance it would have been chewed up and spit out on those deep missions.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/9/2018 5:16:07 PM)
Well, if you're going to bring a logical argument to this thread, I'll have to move on.

AcePylut -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/9/2018 8:34:39 PM)
P51 was the best because it was the best energy fighter in the war... he who runs out of energy first, loses. Pretty simple.

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/9/2018 8:42:32 PM)
All what have been said before, but I will add: - numbers: by 1943/44 Allies has a strong numerical advantage, - Soviet recovery: by 1943/44 the Soviets were becoming competitive in the air; LA-5s, YAK-9s, YAK-3s were almost as good as any German/ Allied plane, it was no longer feasible to maintain superiority in the East with outdated BF-109 models

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/9/2018 8:46:13 PM)
Symon/JWE, in several threads long ago, commented that the Japan plane stats used in the game came from refs that cited post-war Allied testing using high-octane avgas. Thus giving them performances the IJA/IJN never saw in combat. But those numbers got baked into the game. It was one reason as I recall that he re-did the performance data for DBB and the add-on files available in the forum. Not the only reason, but one. From memory.

Dili -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/10/2018 12:23:51 AM)
Put a Mustang at lower level and see it trashed by several WW2 fighters. High octane avgas in aircraft that have engines not prepared for high octane avgas is not relevant. So if he did it it is wrong.

witpqs -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/10/2018 12:43:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 Symon/JWE, in several threads long ago, commented that the Japan plane stats used in the game came from refs that cited post-war Allied testing using high-octane avgas. Thus giving them performances the IJA/IJN never saw in combat. But those numbers got baked into the game. It was one reason as I recall that he re-did the performance data for DBB and the add-on files available in the forum. Not the only reason, but one. From memory. It was revised downward and - IIRC - the non-high octane numbers were used.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/10/2018 2:44:13 PM)
My memory was faulty. I found the thread on the aircraft stats. Octane was discussed and some posters stated what I had recalled, but Symon stated he adjusted speed and climb on other bases, and that in fact higher octane would have hurt rather than helped in engines not designed to use it. Alfred referenced a long, technical octane thread elsewhere inside the stat thread.

Dili -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/10/2018 3:00:04 PM)
Yep that is correct.

wdolson -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/11/2018 7:51:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Put a Mustang at lower level and see it trashed by several WW2 fighters. High octane avgas in aircraft that have engines not prepared for high octane avgas is not relevant. So if he did it it is wrong. I have read that when the US evaluated Japanese planes they did retune the engines for the higher octane gas. Bill

Denniss -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/11/2018 10:34:10 AM)
A better fuel typically results in higher performance unless it's too good so it's potential gets either wasted or leads to engine problems like spark plug fouling, improper combustion or even engine damage.

rustysi -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/11/2018 6:06:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Denniss A better fuel typically results in higher performance unless it's too good so it's potential gets either wasted or leads to engine problems like spark plug fouling, improper combustion or even engine damage. Recall reading sometime back in the day that Patton captured 100,000 gallons of German aviation fuel and dumped it in his tanks. Never found a corroborating source, but if true I wonder what affects that may have had.

Dili -> RE: OT: P-51 and Bf-109 (7/11/2018 7:52:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Put a Mustang at lower level and see it trashed by several WW2 fighters. High octane avgas in aircraft that have engines not prepared for high octane avgas is not relevant. So if he did it it is wrong. I have read that when the US evaluated Japanese planes they did retune the engines for the higher octane gas. Bill I doubt a re-tune is enough.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984375