# F4U-4 vs P-51D



## jedi391 (Mar 1, 2010)

Here is the scenario, a P-51D and a F4U-4 meet off the California coast on a nice clear day. They are both within range of their home base and have a full tank of fuel. Pilot skill is equal, who do you think wins and why.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 2, 2010)

The P-51B/D and the F4U-4 may have had similar performance below 10k but certainly above that the F4U-4 had quite an advantage in speed and climb. However the F4U-4 was deployed a good year and half after the P-51B/D. A better comparison would be the F4U-4 vs. P-51H or the F4U-1D w/water to the P-51B/D. In either case, the performace margin switches to the P-51s.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 2, 2010)

You forgot to mention altitude in your match up. 

I would say the F4U is gonna have the advantage in speed, maneuverability and climb under 20k, and above that the gap in speed between the planes would slowly close. 

If they both have full tanks, i've repeatedly heard the P-51D was a real monster to handle with a full load. 

With that said, i think the F4U could match most if not all maneuvers capable in the P-51D. 

I often wondered why the F4U was not used in the escort roll in the ETO given its range and performance capabilities. 

Perhaps the P-51D has a better edge at higher altitudes?


Bill


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 2, 2010)

billswagger said:


> If they both have full tanks, i've repeatedly heard the P-51D was a real monster to handle with a full load


I doubt the P-51 jock would be out and about within earshot of his base with an escort fuel load


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 2, 2010)

Corsair F4U-4 *:Name:* Mustang P-51B/C
41ft *:Wingspan:* 37ft
33ft 8in *:Length:* 32ft 3in
16ft 1in *:Height:* 13ft 8in

9,205lbs *:Empty weight:* 6,985lbs
12,420lbs *:Take-off weight:* 9,800lbs
14,670lbs *:Max take-off weight:* 11,800lbs

446mph @ 26,200ft *:Max speed:* 440mph @ 25,000ft
41,500ft *:Service ceiling:* 42,000ft
3,870ft/min *:Initial rate of climb:* 3,950ft/min
1,560 miles *:Max range:* 2,080 miles

Pratt Witney R-2800-18W 1,950hp @ 23,300ft; 2,450hp WEP *owerplant:* Packard Merlin V-1650-7 1,450hp; 1,695hp WEP
6 x .50cal mg *:Armament:* 4 x .50cal mg


----------



## drgondog (Mar 2, 2010)

billswagger said:


> You forgot to mention altitude in your match up.
> 
> I would say the F4U is gonna have the advantage in speed, maneuverability and climb under 20k, and above that the gap in speed between the planes would slowly close.
> 
> ...


If the implication of 'within range of base' is immediately after rotating and climbing out, the 51 will be marginally stable with an aft cg due to the 85 gallon fuel tank. If at a medium rangs - say 100 miles, the 51B will have burned off all or most of the 85 gallons and be down to the 192 gallon wing tank plus the 'external/droppable'.

So, a couple of questions and a statement: The P-51B dash speed from flight test is at that altitude after taking off with full load of internal fuel and climbing to the critical altitude then pouring the coals to the engine at max boost. So the 51B has burned maybe 10-15 gallons and now has 255-260 gallons of internal fuel.

Question - are you specifying the 1650-3 or 1650-7 Merlins, at 67" with 130 or 72" w/150 Octane. That makes a significant difference in several altitude profiles as well as initial climb rate.

Question - what gasoline octane and boost are you thinking about for the F4U-4 in June 1944? The 51B would have that capability (150 octane and 72-75" boost) in June 1944.

Question, what load out, internal and external, are you suggesting for the F4U-4 and what reference do you want to point to that specifies gross weight and engine performance and dates for the F4U-4 to make sure you have apples to oranges.

These two airplanes are so closely matched that these factors are important to nail 'potential' combat performance based on altitude and the location of the fight (i.e. how much internal fuel has been burned)

And, I agree with Dave that the P-51H is a better comparison date wise for the F4U-4 and the F4uD-1 for the P-51B.

My opinion - jump ball based on altitude, starting position of the fight, who sees whom first, which one is looking and which one is thinking about getting laid, etc.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 2, 2010)

billswagger said:


> You forgot to mention altitude in your match up.
> 
> I would say the F4U is gonna have the advantage in speed, maneuverability and climb under 20k, and above that the gap in speed between the planes would slowly close.



Actually the F4U-4 has very good high altitude performance and will outperform the P-51B/D in speed and climb from 15k to ceiling. The difference is not overpowering, however. Below 10k, the P-51D and certainly the “B” is faster and has roughly equivalent climb as the F4U-4.



> [If they both have full tanks, i've repeatedly heard the P-51D was a real monster to handle with a full load.



Comparing aircraft at max weight is, in my opinion, distorting actual performance. It would be very dangerous for the P-51 to dogfight with the “extended range’” tank full and would not have been done by an experienced pilot. My comparisons are at identified “fighter weight”.



> I often wondered why the F4U was not used in the escort roll in the ETO given its range and performance capabilities.



The F4U-1 had the range to perform the escort job but performance at bomber altitudes was typically below the level of the German opposition, certainly below the Fw-190 although similar to the Bf-109. The F4U-1D w/water did improve performance at those altitudes but did not have the overpowering advantage the P-51B/D had nor did it have the range required (wing tanks were removed). The F4U-4 had the performance needed at those altitudes but, again did not have the range required. Also, it was not available until the war in Europe was basically over. 

The F4U-1 would have been better than nothing, although it loss rate would have been pretty high, and it probably would have been more reliable than the P-38.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 3, 2010)

i was sticking to the P-51D comparison, although the H model is probably the better comparison. 

In a recent comparison of the F4U-4 to the P-47N, it was discovered the max climb of the F4U-4 met 4800ft/min up to 10k ft. 

Also in a clean configuration, ie no rocket pylons or external tanks, the F4U-4 reached a top speed closer to 460mph at about 22,000ft. 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4.pdf


Bill


----------



## davparlr (Mar 3, 2010)

billswagger said:


> billswagger said:
> 
> 
> > In a recent comparison of the F4U-4 to the P-47N, it was discovered the max climb of the F4U-4 met 4800ft/min up to 10k ft.
> ...


----------



## renrich (Mar 7, 2010)

According to Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand," the F4U4 was the fastest US fighter that served in WW2 at sea level. I believe the high altitude performance of the F4U1 would have been superior to the FW190 but not the ME109 in 1943. The F4U1 with the internal wing tanks during 1943 would IMO, have been significantly better overall at long range escort than the P47 of that time period. In a mock dogfight between contemporaneous Mustang and Corsairs, the outcome would be just as Bill says, dependent on pilot skill, pilot awareness, perhaps altitude and maybe luck.


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 8, 2010)

its all going to depend on who can sucker the other one into his kind of fight....

heres a link all about aircraft performance...allied, axis, etc

WWII Aircraft Performance

there is a cool link at the bottom of the page of P 51 encounter reports ( combat reports..from ww2 )


----------



## davparlr (Mar 10, 2010)

renrich said:


> According to Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand," the F4U4 was the fastest US fighter that served in WW2 at sea level.



While I am a huge fan of his book, I am more leery of his performance data. I am sure it was limited by the massive effort to research all available performance data. For instance, for the P-51D, he identifies Combat Power as 67” Hg and it appears for the performance charts that this is the power used. Beginning in May, 1944, the P-51B and D were authorized operation at 75” Hg, a significant increase in power. The AAF, in testing 44-1 fuel, recorded a P-51B, without racks, was capable of 386 mph, 380 mph with racks, all at SL.



> I believe the high altitude performance of the F4U1 would have been superior to the FW190 but not the ME109 in 1943.



I have some German data that shows pretty similar performance for the Fw-190A-5 at 20-25k ft.



> The F4U1 with the internal wing tanks during 1943 would IMO, have been significantly better overall at long range escort than the P47 of that time period.



Certainly. Up through about May, 1944, when the P-47D-25 came along, the P-47 did not have the internal range to be an effective long range escort, whereas the F4U-1 did. The one advantage the P-47 had in escorting was good performance above 25k. This gave them the high ground. Below 25k, it was at a disadvantage to the F4U and Germans.



> In a mock dogfight between contemporaneous Mustang and Corsairs, the outcome would be just as Bill says, dependent on pilot skill, pilot awareness, perhaps altitude and maybe luck.



I agree with this, but I must point out that at any specific timeline after the advent of the P-51B, the P-51 pilot will have an advantage in airspeed and climb from SL to ceiling, except at a few discrete points, over its contemporary F4U. This is comparing the P-51B with the -3 and pre 44-1 fuel -7 engine to the F4U-1, the post May ’44 (44-1 fuel), P-51B/D to the F4U-1D(W), and the P-51H to the F4U-4.


----------



## baldpuki (Mar 10, 2010)

First post but I couldn't help myself. My father was a Mustang driver in WWII and an ace at that. If you google Alden Rigby, it has lots of stuff. After the war, he was stationed at a naval base in Kansas and had access to all the Navy birds. I asked him which plane was better in a fight between the Corsair and his Mustang (D model). He said it was too close to call but he would prefer his Mustang because he was more familiar with it. He really loved the Corsair, though and enjoyed flying it quite a bit. He really like the Bearcat also and said that he didn't fly it...IT flew him!


----------



## renrich (Mar 10, 2010)

Dav, upon looking at the performance figures for the FW190A5, it appears that the critical altitude for that model was around 20000 feet where it's Vmax and climb started dropping off significantly. The 109G looks like it's critical altitude might have been a couple of thousand feet higher but it was only able to reach around 386 mph at it's critical altitude so I believe you are correct. The F4U1a had a critical altitude of close to 25000 feet so it would have probably been able to cope well with both German fighters in an escort role. Above 25000 feet the P47 would have come into it's own but the F4U1As would have been able to escort at least a hundred miles further.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 10, 2010)

baldpuki said:


> First post but I couldn't help myself. My father was a Mustang driver in WWII and an ace at that. If you google Alden Rigby, it has lots of stuff. After the war, he was stationed at a naval base in Kansas and had access to all the Navy birds. I asked him which plane was better in a fight between the Corsair and his Mustang (D model). He said it was too close to call but he would prefer his Mustang because he was more familiar with it. He really loved the Corsair, though and enjoyed flying it quite a bit. He really like the Bearcat also and said that he didn't fly it...IT flew him!



Welcome aboard! Great story about your dad, I think he was included in the Dogfight TV show about that battle. I am sure there will be a lot of questions to you about your dad. How is he doing?

The three planes you mentioned were certainly thouroughbreds. It would be amazing to fly one, not to mention all three.


----------



## baldpuki (Mar 10, 2010)

Thanks for the kind words. Yes, dad was in the Death of the Luftwaffe series. He said it was pretty accurate. There have been a lot of magazine and newspaper articles about him. He is probably America's last ace in that he was officially recognized by the American Ace's Association for the last 2 planes he shot down. He is doing well. He is 87 and is going to help me put some brakes on his car tomorrow. I hope to do as well at his age. Any questions are welcome. We need to never forget these great patriots.


----------



## renrich (Mar 11, 2010)

It is good to hear about a WW2 vet alive and doing well. Congratulations on your father. All of my uncles (6) who served in that war have now passed away. I regret a great deal not making a record of some of the conversations I had with them about their experiences and also not having more conversations. I hope you are taking advantage of your father's good health, if it is comfortable for him, to record as much of his remembrances as possible.

Dav, as far as performance figures of WW2 AC is concerned, I read on the Williams site that an F4U1 was clocked at 431 MPH at critical altiude which is much better than is in Dean's book and almost up to the level of F4U4 performance. Boone Guyton's book says that the F4U1 had a vmax of 417 mph at 19900 feet whereas Dean has the critical altitude of the F4U1 at about 23000 feet with a vmax at military power of around 395 mph. Dean shows the F4U1A with WEP at military power to have a critical altitude of around 24000 feet with a vmax of around 417 mph and the F4U1A and 1D to have a critical altitude at combat power of only about 19000 feet but with a Vmax of almost 420 mph. I guess where I am going with this is that a lot of performance figures are available for all WW2 AC and some of them may be from specialy prepared AC. In addition, often times manufacturer numbers are different from AAF or USN numbers. Incidently, in reviewing Guyton's book, the F4U5 was finally equipped with automatic blower operation which I had forgotten.


----------



## renrich (Mar 12, 2010)

Some other performance numbers rediscovered from Guyton's book: "After several engine "run in" flights we began a series of engine cooling and carburetor tests, finally inching up to water-injection speed runs at an incredible 75 inches MP. I approached this awesome power with due apprehension and vivid remembrence. The violence of those overheated, disintergrating engines, the crashes, and the long hospital days were stark reminders of an earlier unpleasantness."

"The trepidation was unwarranted. The new engine ran with satisfying smoothness at all power conditions-cause for celebration. Along with the second F4U4X, # 50301, which was soon ready for tests, performance data were obtained which exceeded estimates. Top speed was now 450 mph at 26200 feet, versus the F4U1D's 425 mph at 20000 feet. Rate of climb was extended to nearly 4000 feet per minute from 3100 feet per minute. Important was the F4U4's service ceiling of 41500 feet-an astonishing increase of nearly 5000 feet."


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 12, 2010)

There is really something about the R-2800 
Now, how about P-51 with those useful 2000 HP in early 1943...750 km/h perhaps?


----------



## davparlr (Mar 12, 2010)

renrich said:


> Dav, upon looking at the performance figures for the FW190A5, it appears that the critical altitude for that model was around 20000 feet where it's Vmax and climb started dropping off significantly.



After another look at my data on the Fw-190, I agree with you, however the performance of the F4U-1 and early (pre-water) F4U-1A would be very close as both drop off performance pretty quickly above 25,000 ft.



> Dav, as far as performance figures of WW2 AC is concerned, I read on the Williams site that an F4U1 was clocked at 431 MPH at critical altiude which is much better than is in Dean's book and almost up to the level of F4U4 performance.



I believe this airspeed is a calculation based on the use of water injection, which was not available beyond test samples until the 1D became operational in the first half of ’44.



> Boone Guyton's book says that the F4U1 had a vmax of 417 mph at 19900 feet whereas Dean has the critical altitude of the F4U1 at about 23000 feet with a vmax at military power of around 395 mph. Dean shows the F4U1A with WEP at military power to have a critical altitude of around 24000 feet with a vmax of around 417 mph and the F4U1A and 1D to have a critical altitude at combat power of only about 19000 feet but with a Vmax of almost 420 mph. I guess where I am going with this is that a lot of performance figures are available for all WW2 AC and some of them may be from specialy prepared AC. In addition, often times manufacturer numbers are different from AAF or USN numbers. Incidently, in reviewing Guyton's book, the F4U5 was finally equipped with automatic blower operation which I had forgotten.




I have never seen such variables in performance in one airplane. Researching F4U performance gives me a head ache.

I think the top end of non-water F4U-1s, was about 417 mph. For water F4Us a top speed of about 422 to 425 mph is reasonable. 

One of the problems with the test data is that they often do not refer to the aircraft version beyond the -1. A person has to read the document to see if it is a pre-1944 F4U-1 or a later water-injected plane, -1A or -1D.

The referenced document seems to be pretty good for water injection F4Us, but, who knows.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-50030-final.pdf


----------



## davparlr (Mar 12, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> There is really something about the R-2800
> Now, how about P-51 with those useful 2000 HP in early 1943...750 km/h perhaps?



I assume you are talking about a P-51 with the R2800. That would be a entirely new aircraft.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 12, 2010)

davparlr said:


> I assume you are talking about a P-51 with the R2800. That would be a entirely new aircraft.



Or get the 1650-9 w/150 octane, 90" hg and WI out sooner!


----------



## davparlr (Mar 12, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Or get the 1650-9 w/150 octane, 90" hg and WI out sooner!



What would that have required technology wise and how much sooner could it have been accomplished.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 12, 2010)

baldpuki said:


> Thanks for the kind words. Yes, dad was in the Death of the Luftwaffe series. He said it was pretty accurate. There have been a lot of magazine and newspaper articles about him. He is probably America's last ace in that he was officially recognized by the American Ace's Association for the last 2 planes he shot down. He is doing well. He is 87 and is going to help me put some brakes on his car tomorrow. I hope to do as well at his age. Any questions are welcome. We need to never forget these great patriots.



Could you ask your dad a few of questions for me?

1. What kind of preparations did he have as far a intelligence on the German fighters and their performance against the P-51 as he was assigned to the ETO, i.e., for the Pacific, I am sure the main theme was don't turn with the Japanese planes?
2. What was the requirements for boost levels at his squadron and how did he personally feel about using boost power.
3. What kind of confidence did he have in the P-51 in dogfighting the German aircraft? Of course I understand the loyality of a pilot to a plane that took him into combat and brought him back.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 12, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Or get the 1650-9 w/150 octane, 90" hg and WI out sooner!



You Dad flew the P-51, right? What would be his answers to the same questions?

1. What kind of preparations did he have as far a intelligence on the German fighters and their performance against the P-51 as he was assigned to the ETO, i.e., for the Pacific, I am sure the main theme was don't turn with the Japanese planes?
2. What was the requirements for boost levels at his squadron and how did he personally feel about using boost power.
3. What kind of confidence did he have in the P-51 in dogfighting the German aircraft? Of course I understand the loyality of a pilot to a plane that took him into combat and brought him back?


----------



## baldpuki (Mar 12, 2010)

I'll have a chat with him about these questions. I spent a couple of hours with him today changing brakes on his car. I wish I had seen this sooner. I did ask him again about the Corsair. He said he had about 100-200 hours in it. He loved the plane and especially how well it landed. Wide gear with geat shocks.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2010)

davparlr said:


> I assume you are talking about a P-51 with the R2800. That would be a entirely new aircraft.



Yep, the P-51A would evolve into something like LaGG3 -> La5, or Ki-61 -> Ki-100.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 13, 2010)

davparlr said:


> billswagger said:
> 
> 
> > Data on the climb rate of the F4U-4 varies with the source. The one you quote does not match other flight test data or Dean’s America’s Hundred Thousand. Looking at other flight test data and correcting for horsepower variables, I calculated the climb at SL of the F4U-4 at about 4430 ft/min which is also about the number Vought arrived at (4380 ft/min at 12400 lbs). Dean had less, but I think it is in error, possibly listing Mil power performance as Combat power. I think the 4800 number is high.
> ...


----------



## drgondog (Mar 13, 2010)

davparlr said:


> You Dad flew the P-51, right? What would be his answers to the same questions?
> 
> 1. What kind of preparations did he have as far a intelligence on the German fighters and their performance against the P-51 as he was assigned to the ETO, i.e., for the Pacific, I am sure the main theme was don't turn with the Japanese planes?
> 2. What was the requirements for boost levels at his squadron and how did he personally feel about using boost power.
> 3. What kind of confidence did he have in the P-51 in dogfighting the German aircraft? Of course I understand the loyality of a pilot to a plane that took him into combat and brought him back?



1. I suspect that at Goxhill where all the new ETO pilots transitioned, there were discussions based on opinions and tribal knowledge from the veteran check out pilots. The 8th AF also published a handbook from multiple group, squadron leaders and aces discussing tactics - including match ups against Fw 190 and Me 109.

2. The boost levels prior to June 1944 were 67" EWP for ~ 5 minutes but the new 150 Octane stuff arriving in June enabled 72". I don't know what he felt about full boost but I do know he ran it through the gate on at least a couple of chases.

3. He had a great deal of confidence. From his encounter reports he turned, dove, climbed and in one occasion on August six, looped inside his opponent by deploying flaps - on the deck. He came out of the loop in position to fire and the 109 failed to pull out in time.

He was aware that a.) the 109 had very good comparative perfromance at middle speeds and altitudes, b.) that a 109 could climb faster at a steeper angle, c.) that a Fw 190 was also tough at medium to low altitudes.

In his 109 scores, he out turned two 109s, out dove two, out looped one, closed on two from behind - and had a 'draw' in one turning fight at 15,000 in which he did not get deflection in 720 degrees and his wingman cut the corner and shot him down.


----------



## baldpuki (Mar 15, 2010)

Wow, drgondog...you tell the story better than my father! ha. I think you are correct on all answers. Dad can't quite remember the boost levels, but I am sure your analysis is correct. Well said sir! Dad said he would be happy to answer any questions.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 15, 2010)

davparlr said:


> What would that have required technology wise and how much sooner could it have been accomplished.



Dave - I simply don't know the development cycle on the fuel but believe it was Shell. Curiously, Doolittle was not only 'close' to Shell before the war but very close after the war.

On the 1650-9 it was heavier due to the thicker wall and had additional features such as end to end oil feed on the crankshaft, simmonds boost control as well as water injection system adapted to the pressure inection carburetor. The original design had some issues with the Simmonds boost control at high altitude that rendered it back to -7 performance when it wasn't working properly - and not fully solved until late 1946.

The original boost limit was 80" w/water injection but raised to 90" after the war was over. 

Simple answer - the 1650-9 development probably could not have been accelerated any more.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 15, 2010)

baldpuki said:


> Wow, drgondog...you tell the story better than my father! ha. I think you are correct on all answers. Dad can't quite remember the boost levels, but I am sure your analysis is correct. Well said sir! Dad said he would be happy to answer any questions.



Which group did he fly with? my father was with 355th out of Steeple Morden and post VE day Gablingen.


----------



## baldpuki (Mar 15, 2010)

Dad was in the 352nd (the BlueNosers) under Col. Meyers. They were first in England and then transfered to Asche Belgium right before Christmas 1944.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 17, 2010)

baldpuki said:


> Dad was in the 352nd (the BlueNosers) under Col. Meyers. They were first in England and then transfered to Asche Belgium right before Christmas 1944.



I am sorry about being a pest, but these heros are becoming more rare and lots of knowledge is lost. Maybe you have, but if you have not you should sit down with him and gather as much info as possible. Some more questions from me.

1. What were the main operational maintenance issues with the P-51.

2. Was there any concern about the Germans because of their Dec offensive. He must have arrived just as the tide was turning. Asche appears to only be about 100 miles from Bastogne.

3. What was his opinion of command in the ETO? What were some of the dumbest procedures?

4. Did he fly any escort missions? If so, what did he think of them?

5. What did he like about the Mustang and its cockpit? What bothered him?

6. What was his opinion of the gunsight? How did he feel about the effectiveness of the 50 cal.? Was there problems with jamming?


----------



## baldpuki (Mar 17, 2010)

No problem. I'll answer some of your questions and get answers to the others when I can.
Dad was a bit concerned about the German air offensive in that he was caught on the ground on Jan 1, 45 when the Germans bounced their field. He and the other 11 pilots got off the ground and ended up shooting down 23 German planes. Dad got 4 that day. Google Y-29 and you can read all about it. 

Dad flew mainly escort missions. He had the greatest respect for bomber crews. He has never felt so helpless, though, as when he would sit off to the side and watch bomber after bomber go down from flak.

I don't know his opinion of the gunsight, but his bulb burnt out after his first kill on Jan 1, 45 and he had to shoot the rest down without the gunsight. The second plane he shot down was at quite a long distance, too.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 17, 2010)

I read the report and watched the Dogfight episode. Excellent!


----------



## drgondog (Mar 19, 2010)

baldpuki said:


> No problem. I'll answer some of your questions and get answers to the others when I can.
> Dad was a bit concerned about the German air offensive in that he was caught on the ground on Jan 1, 45 when the Germans bounced their field. He and the other 11 pilots got off the ground and ended up shooting down 23 German planes. Dad got 4 that day. Google Y-29 and you can read all about it.
> 
> Dad flew mainly escort missions. He had the greatest respect for bomber crews. He has never felt so helpless, though, as when he would sit off to the side and watch bomber after bomber go down from flak.
> ...



Sanford Kenneth Moats? DSC for 1/1/45


----------



## baldpuki (Mar 19, 2010)

Dad got the Silver Star for shooting down 3. It was later confirmed that he actually got 4, so missed out on the DSC at the time. Moats got 4 that day, I think, and was awarded the DSC.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 20, 2010)

baldpuki said:


> Dad got the Silver Star for shooting down 3. It was later confirmed that he actually got 4, so missed out on the DSC at the time. Moats got 4 that day, I think, and was awarded the DSC.



So, twenty questions time? Whisner and moats got four, stewart got three, rigby got three. Rigby had one more in November for a total of four air, Stewart had one also in Novemeber for a total of four air and moats had 8.5 air including 1/1/45

Stewart and Rigby also got one on the ground to become 8th AF combined aces.

Respect for all of them.


----------



## baldpuki (Mar 21, 2010)

Also, dad got credit for both of the planes he put in 1/2 for on jan 1, (no one else claimed the other 1/2's) later to be awarded an official "air Ace" a few years ago. Always bugged him that he didn't pursue it at the time, but he figured there were more fish in the pond. Nice to see him finally recognized by he American Aces Association. He is still going the rounds with the Air Force for them to correct their records. They seem to be stalling until dad dies of old age.


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 21, 2010)

davparlr said:


> I am sorry about being a pest, but these heros are becoming more rare and lots of knowledge is lost. Maybe you have, but if you have not you should sit down with him and gather as much info as possible. Some more questions from me.
> 
> 1. What were the main operational maintenance issues with the P-51.
> 
> ...



dav, i can give you a few answers on this as well. my father flew 51s out Leiston and primarily escort missions. i recall some of this info from his comments and stories.
51s ( or his at least ) seemed to go through spark plugs at a pretty hefty rate. perhaps it was the high octane fuel or use of EWP. but said he didnt go through too may missions with out a plug change. and more than a few guys (him included) bent the wings pulling out of a high speed dive. but that isnt a fraility of the aircraft but a testiment of how well they were put together...some of the EA they were chasing broke apart where as they didnt.

as far as flying escort...he said after flying for 6 hours you could feel the threads in your underwear. the seat had a bladder that you could inflate/deflate for comfort but still it was a long time to sit. he had a lot of respect as well for those bomber crews. they would escort them to the target then break off as they did their run. he commented that the flak was "so thick you could walk on it" and that the bomber would have to weather it....he was happy to be in a fighter.

He liked the cockpit. everything seemed to be where you wanted it and it was fairly roomy and had a good field of view. 

He thought the K14 gunsight was great. it took a lot of the guess work out. if i recall...you first dialed in the aircraft or wing span...cant remember which....then cranked it to where the circle just touched the tip of the wing...that ranged it. the pipper was gyro controlled so if factored in lead. 

at the bottom of this site is accounts of the K14.
Mustang Encounter Reports


----------



## davparlr (Mar 21, 2010)

Thanks for the input. If they were using 44-1 fuel, spark plugs would have to be replaced often. I still wonder how long it takes to replace 24 spark plugs on a Merlin. When did he fly the Mustang?


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 21, 2010)

bobbysocks said:


> My father flew 51s out of Leiston and primarily escort missions


Was he there at the same time as Anderson and Yeager?


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 21, 2010)

he had 62 missions in by the end of the war.  i am still doing reseach but think he joined up with the 357th in july/aug 44?? yeah he was in the same time as yeager and anderson...and had the chance to meet both at their last reunion in 2001. cant honestly say what plugs they used ( almost want to say they were AC brand but could be 100% wrong) but would imagine it would all night to change them out. i found my dads crew chief who lives near where i have a camp and hopefully if he is still alive i will have a chance to talk to him. i have a ton of questions...and i will ask that one as well. 
dave asked about the 50 cals. they did pretty well with the armor piercing incendary rounds...you can see hits clearly on gun camera footage. they didnt jam often. i do remember dad saying they ( either the 357th or usaaf) had some sort of reward for the armorer if the guns fired so many thousands of rounds ( cant remember the number) without a jam. dad was real close to that number and wanted his armorer to get whatever it was and burnt the rest of his ammo coming across the channel when he was real close to home. but one gun jammed so it was all for naught.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 21, 2010)

baldpuki said:


> Also, dad got credit for both of the planes he put in 1/2 for on jan 1, (no one else claimed the other 1/2's) later to be awarded an official "air Ace" a few years ago. Always bugged him that he didn't pursue it at the time, but he figured there were more fish in the pond. Nice to see him finally recognized by he American Aces Association. He is still going the rounds with the Air Force for them to correct their records. They seem to be stalling until dad dies of old age.



Did his score get adjusted by USAFHRS. I noted that the USAF 85 study had him for 3 ful scores - no half credits in their original study - and you can go online to look at the victory credits section of their webpage to get the very latest updates.

Sounds like they did because that is the source for 'Fighter Aces Association'.

Suggestion - contact Frank Olynyk who is THE authority and has personally submitted documentation which caused USAFHRC to correct their victory credits.

Regards,

Bill Marshall


----------



## baldpuki (Mar 23, 2010)

Thanks, drgndog. I'll pass that along. I am going to dad's house this afternoon, I'll get up to speed on the exact situation.


----------



## Violator (Mar 25, 2010)

Hi baldpuki -- I had the pleasure and honor of meeting your dad 3-4 years ago at the Museum of Flight in Seattle. He was one of the guest speakers for an aces' panel discussion. He was kind enough to sign a drawing I did of a P-51. Glad to hear he's doing well!


----------

