A2A P-51H released

Although I've never seen it stated anywhere as to the single factor/reason why, I was just thinking today that perhaps the ultimate reason why the USAF never deployed the P-51H to Korea, and only sent as many P-51D's as they could, was because the P-51H could only carry 500-lb bombs, where as in late-production of P-51D's (models of which were all those in service at the time), the wings were beefed-up to carry 1000-lb bombs. In Korea, with the Mustangs, it was all about the ground-attack/support role, which was not part of the design/planning behind the lightweights.
 
That makes sense John. The 'D' being able to carry double the payload would rank quite high in my thinking/planning too were I in such a position.

ATB
DaveB:)
 
Looked like a reasonable morning..
p51h3.jpg


..until my wheels left the deck!!
p51h4.jpg


Oh dear.. what's going on here??
p51h6.jpg


Got back down again but the tyre marks I left told the story!!
p51h7.jpg


The glass lights up as soon as you go into cloud. Odd.. very odd. I'm sure someone will have an answer.
ATB
DaveB
 
Thanks, John, for all these interesting details about the -H. I realize now how little I know about this plane. One thing I thought knew was that the old Allison engine was improved and given a new compressor and used in the -H. Were there never any plans for this?

Jan Kees, would you perhaps consider making a few 'what if WWII had lasted longer' paints? I would love to see, for example, a fictional 'blue-nosed bastard' P-51H!

And, Scott, the collimated gunsight is no waste of time at all. I like as much realism as possible. Warplanes happen to have gunsights. Nobody is obliged to use them or even to turn them on. I, for one, am glad that the difference between military and civil simulation in FSX is fading. To each his or her own.
Now I am off to download the plane.
 
Stickshaker,

When Edgar Schmued made his visit to England in early '43, Rolls-Royce was eager to show-off their new RM.14.SM engine, and both Schmued and Rolls-Royce wanted to see a Mustang designed to use this new engine (which could attain 2,200-hp).

The initial contract for the P-51F was for five aircraft, to be fitted with the British-supplied RM.14.SM engine. The first three XP-51F's were however completed with the easily available V-1650-3 engines, due to the fast pace at which the aircraft design/development/production came about. With the RM.14.SM engines eventually in hand, the remaining two airframes were completed with these engines as the XP-51G - requiring quite a bit of design differences to fit the engine, and the engine itself requiring special adjustments that took many trials to perfect. By the time NAA received the engines and began test-flights of the XP-51G, they were well into developing the P-51F design into next improved/heavier version, the P-51H. Around the same time, NAA were promised to receive the new Packard-built Merlin V-1650-9 engine by the end of 1944, by which point they would have airframes, in the form of the P-51H, ready to accept them. The V-1650-9 was enough to be impressed about, with water injection that allowed it to attain just over 2,200-hp, which was about the same as was advertised with the RM.14.SM engine. If I understand it correctly, the RM.14.SM is credited as leading to the development of the 100-series Merlins (fitted to aircraft such as the de Havilland Mosquito and Hornet) and that the Merlin V-1650-9 was a Packard-built version of a 100-series type Merlin.

The use of the Allison engine did come about with the XP-51J. Two of those were built, fitted with the Allison V-1710-119 engine and its infinitely variable two-stage supercharger, and the whole point of that project, as contracted by the USAAF, was to test the installation of that engine. From the firewall back, they were largely identical to the F and G. The first one flew in the spring of '45, and one was later provided to the Allison Division of General Motors for testing the F-82E engine.
 
Stickshaker said:
Jan Kees, would you perhaps consider making a few 'what if WWII had lasted longer' paints? I would love to see, for example, a fictional 'blue-nosed bastard' P-51H!
Click to expand...

I'm not Jan Kees and they're not Mustangs, but I have it on very good authority that someone has started doing similar what if paints using Lockheed P-80s for "Operation Downfall".


Ok, back to those slow P-51s....
 
Blade124 said:
Maik,
I do understand your thinking here, but many of the Warbirds we've flown have working gun sights, so we modeled it for that reason.

Scott.
Click to expand...

As i said, just my opinion ;-) , it's still a great aircraft.
I find it a pity that you do not try to place your great aircrafts with DCS, there they would feel safe right well. :wavey: I know a lot of work, DCS has other engine and there are a lot of other requirements and even fewer (money spending) fans, but would be nice to have another great developer there :encouragement:
 
sorry guys, no paints from me for this one anywhere in the near future, if at all.
Somehow I seem to have run out of time to do much painting....
 
John, you are a walking or flying) encyclopedia. Thanks for this very interesting information. Remarkable that the Merlin was developed to such a point that it was comparable to at least wartime production versions of the Griffon.
Maik, I agree. I like DCS and some A2A planes would be very welcome there. Some other FSX-developers have made the jump.
What a pity, Jan Kees. I hope some other talented painter will make some ‘what if’ paints. Willy, I like the P-80 too, so thanks for the good news.
 
Perhaps it's old news, but here is an interesting website about the P-51: http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/.

Scott or Lewis: would you consider TacPacking the P-51H (if only the guns)? I know there are ways to easily add guns to the A2A P-51D, explained on the VRS tacpac forum, but the sound and light effects are a but cumbersome. I think that you as the original designer could do a much nicer job, and I am sure many here would appreciate it. I would be prepared to pay for a Tacpac upgrade.
 
I love this plane. Flies nice. I'm definitely looking forward to some "What If" textures from some of the great texture artists here. :)
 
I'm with Sundog, the plane flies nice. In fact, it flies so extremely nice that I wonder about two things. First: the accuracy with which she reacts to control inputs. Hardly any latency, so precise as if on rails. Second: the stability. With the A2A P-51D, if I, for example, throttle back, only after a few seconds I see the descent angle increase, and I often have to throttle up again because she starts to descent too fast. This seems all so much easier with the -H. is this because the -H flew so much better, or is the flight model not of the same fidelity as the Accusim P-51D?
Anyway, it is a nice and interesting plane.
 
Stickshaker said:
I'm with Sundog, the plane flies nice. In fact, it flies so extremely nice that I wonder about two things. First: the accuracy with which she reacts to control inputs. Hardly any latency, so precise as if on rails. Second: the stability. With the A2A P-51D, if I, for example, throttle back, only after a few seconds I see the descent angle increase, and I often have to throttle up again because she starts to descent too fast. This seems all so much easier with the -H. is this because the -H flew so much better, or is the flight model not of the same fidelity as the Accusim P-51D?
Anyway, it is a nice and interesting plane.
Click to expand...


I would venture to say their's little to no flight model fidelity with the D .. so..

Don't have the H yet .. Maybe sometime this weekend.

- Joseph
 
Stickshaker said:
I'm with Sundog, the plane flies nice. In fact, it flies so extremely nice that I wonder about two things. First: the accuracy with which she reacts to control inputs. Hardly any latency, so precise as if on rails. Second: the stability. With the A2A P-51D, if I, for example, throttle back, only after a few seconds I see the descent angle increase, and I often have to throttle up again because she starts to descent too fast. This seems all so much easier with the -H. is this because the -H flew so much better, or is the flight model not of the same fidelity as the Accusim P-51D?
Anyway, it is a nice and interesting plane.
Click to expand...

Yes something like that, if you want we have several notable and high hour warbird pilots who are posters on our forums should you want to discuss some of this further with actual pilots. The H did in deed fly differently due to as Bomber has pointed out its tech tree being totally different to the B,C,D models.

thanks,
Lewis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top