354th FG updates and progress

Captain Kurt

Captain Kurt

Administrator
Staff member
View attachment 31342View attachment 31341View attachment 31340View attachment 31339
Work is going slowly forward on upgrading the Alphasim P-51D and Donationware P-51B models to use in my planned 354th Fighter Group campaign. This is going to take a while, but I thought I'd occasionally post an update on progress.

This is a new P-51D cockpit panel for the Alphasim. I've used bits and pieces of other cockpits in addition to some new artwork (credit will be given of course). I am trying to get as close as I could to the real thing. Check the panel layout against the panel layout drawing. The engine controls panel window mimicks the real layout to a degree. The autopilot and radio / nav windows are pure poetic license but some guys like to use 'em so they are in there as well.




​
 
Reply...

Captain Kurt,

I sent you a PM. I'm looking forward to this project! :salute:

Good work on those 'Stangs as well! :ernae:
 
354th FG P-51B progress update

View attachment 31748View attachment 31747View attachment 31746

The base aluminum skin is finished finally. Bare metal is a serious pain to paint, so unless you all don't think this skin is up to par, I'm calling this good. I'll be applying 354th FG markings to it later.

Im starting on the olive drab counterpart skin today.

I now have the flight model where it will hit 440 MPH at 20,000 feet per spec. It has a bit too much range as a side effect.

On my test mission I have the waypoints at 135 miles, 464 miles, and 585 miles and I land with 6% fuel remaining, total distance 1184 miles. That's about 100+ miles too much. I can bring that down but it will likely affect top speed. Since it is so close and the speed is OK I think I should leave it. What do you all think?

The game is funny about adding drop tanks though. When I add the two 75 gal. drop tanks in the aircraft config I can suddenly fly forever. My test mission is 4352 miles long and I can complete that with 35% fuel remaining. Maybe it's a game bug, I don't know. More research is needed.

More later.
 
They look pretty great to me, Captain!:salute:

If all my planes were + or- 100 miles, I'd be very happy!:ernae:
 
You've worked your magic again Captain K! :) I think they look superb.

And I agree with you. Getting the top speed right is far more important than cutting down the range of the aircraft. I could certainly live with a 100 mile variation.
 
Reply...

Captain Kurt said:
I now have the flight model where it will hit 440 MPH at 20,000 feet per spec. It has a bit too much range as a side effect.

On my test mission I have the waypoints at 135 miles, 464 miles, and 585 miles and I land with 6% fuel remaining, total distance 1184 miles. That's about 100+ miles too much. I can bring that down but it will likely affect top speed. Since it is so close and the speed is OK I think I should leave it. What do you all think?

The game is funny about adding drop tanks though. When I add the two 75 gal. drop tanks in the aircraft config I can suddenly fly forever. My test mission is 4352 miles long and I can complete that with 35% fuel remaining. Maybe it's a game bug, I don't know. More research is needed.

More later.
Click to expand...

Kurt,

I noticed that as well. I relied on that extra range for the long Frantic flights from Foggia to England and from England to the Ukraine. I knew it wasn't quite right, but it meant that the missions could be completed without a problem.
 
354th FG P-51B drop tanks update

After lots of testing I can say that CFS2 only recognizes the fact that a plane has drop tanks and adds to the aircraft range. But it does not calculate fuel quantity or fuel burn.

The size of the fuel tanks has amost ZERO effect on the aircraft range. I even put 1 gallon of fuel in the 75 gallon wing tanks in the aircraft.cfg and I still could fly 4325 miles and arrive with 35% fuel. When I put in the full 75 gallons in each tank the result was exactly the same. Since I don't know how, or if, the problem can be fixed I'll have to live with it. It's better than not being able to get enough range.

Speaking of drop tanks, here is the VB 75 gallon tank repainted and will be used with the Donationware P-51B and Alphasim D.

View attachment 31838
 
Hey There Captain Kurt,

Sweet looking set-up with the VB tanks.

On the matter of fuel quantity for the DT's, check out what is in the airfile. Records 525 thru 535.
Any entries in the aircraft.cfg will not be read by the CFS2 engine.

IIRC, this bird had 110 gallons in each.

This may account for your exquisite range. :salute:

Dave
 
Man, than plane is looking better every time I see a new photo of it. I just got the nerve to start mucking about in the air files. I had a P-40 that would fly forever. I THINK I fixed it. I must give it a run with a drop tank and see what happens. Thanks for updating us Captain K, I seem to learn something new by following your progress. :salute::ernae:
 
Reply..

The FDG Mustang comes with either 75 gallon or 110 gallon tanks as selectable options.
 
I'm using aired and airwrench plus editing the aircraft.cfg by hand. I can get + / - 100 or so miles playing around with the 75 gal drop tanks but that's it.

There were actually 3 types of drop tanks the the P-51 could carry during WWII. (This gets really nit-picky)

The ubiquitous 75 gallon drop tank was the most commonly used in all theaters. Both P-51B/C and P-51D used them

The 110 gallon metal tank was almost never used in the ETO. It was shipped to the Pacific and Italy because a local alternative was available in England. It was used by P-51Ds.

The locally made in England ETO alternative was a plastic resin impregnated paper tank holding 108 gallons. Definitely one time use as the fuel would eventually dissolve the tank. I can't say categorically that the P-51B never used the 108 gallon tanks, but I can't ever recall seeing a photo of a B/C with one of these tanks under the wings. Anybody have a pic of one? Unless someone can help here, I won't be providing the 108 gallon tanks for the B/C model.

The P-51Ds used these tanks for very long missions, but you most commonly see the 75 gallon tanks under the D wings too. Evidentally the 75 gallon tanks got them in and out as far as they needed to go most times.

Probably bored you all to tears, but there you have it. Have a good evening.
 
Feedback...

Kurt,

I've flight tested the P-51b Mustang per your request, and I must say that you've done an outstanding job with this, making her much more realistic in flight, especially at altitude. She may be a touch on the hot side, but only incrementally so. Great work!

So in short: Flight-tested, Rami approved. :salute:
 
Rami,

Thanks for testing her. I spent many hours on it, so I am pleased that you think I am hitting the mark.

And it was a hot ship after all. One of my uncles flew the P-51D in WWII as a 20 year old F/O, and he talked to me a bit about what it was like to fly it. Hard to slow her down, throttle control essential in turns and dives and very touchy at low speeds. It stalled at 102 mph without flaps. That would wake you up while landing wouldn't it? All because of the so called laminar flow wing. But it was fast, turned fast and tight, climbed like a bat and it had range. He thought it was a thoroughbred in every sense of the word and he loved it.

I'll send you the D model to wring out once I have the base skin finished :jump:
 
Smooth Baby, Smooth......

She's looking great, Multi-Res? Yes?

I've spent the whole day sorting out all of my old aircraft before I start playing catch up, still going at it, but this will make replacing all of the old 51D's real easy..... I see a mass painting spree in the near future from our commumity skinners....
 
Reply...

Pen32Win,

No, unfortunately that model is not multi-res.

Captain Kurt,

One element of this P-51d concerns me. The maneuverability (particularly, the roll rate) seems a bit too good. By many accounts I've read, the P-51d's maneuverability was inferior to the P-51b. This stems primarily from the cutting down of the rear fuselage and the addition of a dorsal fin to increase stability. Additionally, the P-51d's wing was redesigned at the root, which altered its flight characteristics, and the addition of two more .50-cals in the wings served to increase the wing loading.

These, though minor, should make it so the P-51b is more maneuverable than the "D" model. Everything else was ship-shape during flight testing.

I'm happy to be of service to you.

Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top