Are you a P-51 freak?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #42
I think that opinion goes both ways...I've seen people in here exaggerate in the other direction too, claiming the P-51 was inferior to planes it was actually superior to just to make a point...
I think those people are far and few between.
You have to remember that every aircraft (including the P-51) has advantages and disadvantages when compared to other contemporary aircraft.
- Thread starter
- #44
I don't see a Hellcat or a Corsair outflying a Mustang, though there may be certain performance aspects of those planes that are better, I'd still say overall, the Mustang is the better plane...now the Bearcat is a different story, unless you compare it to a P-51H model, which is at least a match in every category except for turn radius...
Every dog has its day, the Hellcat Corsair and Bearcat were carrier aircraft so that is a different discussion, the Bearcat never saw service in WW2. The Corsair and Hellcat did see service, many posts here argue which is better between them, it is much a question of personal taste and what various people consider to be the most important qualities. As an individual aircraft I would take the spitfire, in 1940 there were no P51s and for example a 1944 griffon engined spitfire would outperform a 1944 P51 B/C D. However the P51 was an escort fighter and if the LW were kitted out with Spitfires of any version not Bf109s and Fw190s I doubt they would have achieved a different result.
Last summer I went to Duxford museum, there was a twin seat spitfire doing short trips for the affluent which was nice to see, also there was a Bearcat parked close by, its the first time I have really taken notice of it as an aircraft, it just looked "right" in the way a ferrari or Porsche looks "right" beautiful lines and proportions. Sadly it didnt take off while we were there but really nice to see in open space. Every photo I have seen shows it to be stubbier than it actually appeared to be in the "flesh".
Last edited:
GregP
Major
The F8F Bearcat DID see service in WWII; it didn't see combat in WWII.
They actually got into service about 2 weeks before the war ended up in the front lines ... err ... Japanese waters. Not much combat flying happening right about then, and the little that was was being done by the units assigned where they knew it might be possible.
About the same as the P-80 Shooting Star. They got into service and we sent 2 to England and 2 to Italy. They flew a few missions but never saw an enemy plane, probably on purpose.
So they had no effect but did make the game.
They actually got into service about 2 weeks before the war ended up in the front lines ... err ... Japanese waters. Not much combat flying happening right about then, and the little that was was being done by the units assigned where they knew it might be possible.
About the same as the P-80 Shooting Star. They got into service and we sent 2 to England and 2 to Italy. They flew a few missions but never saw an enemy plane, probably on purpose.
So they had no effect but did make the game.
Sorry I meant combat nothing can be gained from reports of non combat operations which could be anywhere , I dont know if many US single engined fighters saw combat in the pacific in the last 2 weeks of the war. I believe the P 80 was grounded after a fatal engine fire, probably a sign that the USA was going over to a peacetime view of pilot operations.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
There was still a rush to get the F8F, P-47N and the P-51H into position for the big "push" that was going to be the invasion of the Japanese mainland. It wasn't until shortly after Hiroshima/Nagasaki that things started to relax.
Thankfully they weren't needed.
I am not a Mustang freak, more like WW2 aviation freak.
I am interested in technology, history, and operations of WW2.
That said, I consider the P-51 the best propeller driven fighter of the WW2.
Not best at anything. There were always a fighter, that could either out-run, out-dive, out-turn, out-climb, out-gun, or even out-range it, attributes that determine a good fighter plane. But it was the combination of these attributes where it was not really lacking, being close to the top in each category.
drgondog
Major
Timppa - not sure which fighter you had in mind to out range the P-51. Certainly the P-82 had a greater combat radius and even the post war P-61 with all the external fuel had a longer ferry range. The P-38 Could shut one engine down and limp along at 160 TAS for greater range but its combat radius was slightly less due to the necessity of maintaining higher cruise speeds (than max range boost/rpm settings)and having to drop externals in combat.
The other factor that is perhaps very important is that its optimal cruise speed for long range was 270mph TAS at 25000 feet with external (draggy)110 gallon tanks and 305+ with tanks gone - making it less vulnerable to surprise attack and less time to throttle up in MP to attack speeds.
The other factor that is perhaps very important is that its optimal cruise speed for long range was 270mph TAS at 25000 feet with external (draggy)110 gallon tanks and 305+ with tanks gone - making it less vulnerable to surprise attack and less time to throttle up in MP to attack speeds.
cough cough...... surely only the merlin variants get that accolade?
P-47N
drgondog
Major
Biff - I have never seen a written comparison but I remember my father and others discussing the relative merits. The summary was a.) more agile than the D, b.) better yaw stability characteristics - particularly on TO and in high speeds above 400 mph, and when the troubles were sorted on the 1650-9 carburation, much faster with much better climb rates, better visibility over the nose.
The one downside was a very slightly slower roll rate at high speeds due to less throw on the ailerons.
Statistically the P-51H had ~ 5% lower parasite drag even with more wetted area, 5-8% lower W/L due to lower gross weight and greater wing area, 20% more power at MP and WEP, 13" longer with greater horizontal and vertical stabilizer area.
He liked the flying qualities over both the B and D and remarked that is a 'higher performing B' with much better visibility and stability - and no problem with a full fuse tank.
Drgondog and Biff
The following can be found in Jeff Ethell's book Mustang A Documentary History on page 133.
It is part of a report released from Eglin in Oct 1946 titled Final Report of Service Test of the P-51H Airplane
Just another point of view to consider.
Eagledad
The following can be found in Jeff Ethell's book Mustang A Documentary History on page 133.
It is part of a report released from Eglin in Oct 1946 titled Final Report of Service Test of the P-51H Airplane
Just another point of view to consider.
Eagledad
drgondog
Major
Good catch. Two things should be noted. First the bug fixes to the 1650-9 pressure injection carb and the Simmonds automatic boost control weren't fully ironed out until late 1946, early 1947 causing a significant shortfall of spec performance with dry WEP at 80"Hg and the MP of the 1650-9 was the same as the 1650-3, both less than the 1670-7 in the P-51D.
The second issue noted in the test was some dive stability issues due to porpoising. However strangely, when the tall tail modification for the P-51H-5 occurred, the issue was allegedly solved, despite the greater sensitivity being assumed due to the greater horizontal stab area of the P-51H. All 20 of the P-51H-1's had the shorter/smaller P-51D tail.
Other than that the report seems to bear out the recollections I listened to long ago..
I'm not sure the tail wheel issue was ever fully solved.
The second issue noted in the test was some dive stability issues due to porpoising. However strangely, when the tall tail modification for the P-51H-5 occurred, the issue was allegedly solved, despite the greater sensitivity being assumed due to the greater horizontal stab area of the P-51H. All 20 of the P-51H-1's had the shorter/smaller P-51D tail.
Other than that the report seems to bear out the recollections I listened to long ago..
I'm not sure the tail wheel issue was ever fully solved.
Depends - when the Mustang I entered RAF service, its performance - except above 15,000 ft was exemplary. The official report on the Mustang tested at Boscombe Down by A AEE stated that its maximum range on 130 gals was "outstanding" and according to comparison charts between aircraft tested at Boscombe supplied in Tim Mason's book The Secret Years, the Mustang I was faster than the Spitfire V, although a direct comparison with the Bf 109F-3 from a different source shows the Messerschmitt to be faster at a higher altitude (19,00 ft) compared to both the Spit V and Mustang I. The Allison engined Mustang reigned supreme (Allied fighter, that is) at low altitude until the arrival of the Hawker Tempest and it is worth noting that their number did not diminish even with the arrival of Mustang IIIs and IVs (P-51C and D respectively) within the ranks of the RAF, mainly because they were used for different roles to the Merlin engine examples - tactical reconnaissance.
The Allison Mustang gets a lot of negative press that it doesn't deserve, frankly; it was an excellent aeroplane regardless of its lower altitude engine - there was little that could match it in service in early 1942 in terms of overall performance, nothing in range in the ETO/MTO. 27 RAF squadrons operated the Allison engine Mustang, with a total of 42 miscellaneous units equipped with it right until the end of the war, compared with only around 23 frontline squadrons for the Merlin engined Mustang; over 600 Mustang Is, Ias and IIs were operated, although there were 900 Mustang IIIs and only around 230 Mustang IVs in RAF service.
drgondog
Major
The Allison equipped Mustangs, and particularly the P-51A/Mk II with V-1710-81 was faster than B/D under 12,000 feet - except for the specially modified V-1 Mustang III's.
It was extremely well equipped to serve as armed recon and did so through the end of the war.
It was extremely well equipped to serve as armed recon and did so through the end of the war.
GregP
Major
The Allison V-1710 was a good, robust engine with long TBO (relatively) and smooth operation. Without the turbo it just wasn't a high-altitude engine. If you weren't flying high, who cared? Once a few issues were sorted out, it gave trouble-free service and still does today if serviced according to the book.
The Merlin/V-1650 was ALSO a good robust engine with a slightly shorter TBO but almost equally smooth operation. The single-stage Merlins were about the same as single stage Allisons, altitude capability-wise, give or take a bit. The 2-stage Merlin/V-1650 was the best liquid-cooled V-12 available to the Allies for most of the war, for altitude flexibility and general use without regard to altitude restrictions. Many people will say the best for the entire war and thereafter. Some like the Griffon better, but they have little to go on except personal preference. The Griffon had a bit more displacement, but the Merlin performed well until well after the end of the war, and still DOES if serviced according to the book. Ditto the Griffon. There are more Merlin parts around today and always were.
We fly two P-51Ds and 1 P-51A. They fly extremely well together anywhere they go but the P-51A starts to struggle a bit if they need to go high. They very rarely DO since these are airshow warbirds and fly in severe clear weather in VFR mode, so the P-51As / A-36s fly just fine alongside 2-stage P-51D/Hs. Actually "H" since we only usually see ONE H model. There may be another one or more around, but we don't usually see but maybe one H, and then only sometimes. I think he flies out of Paso Robles, CA these days. Could be wrong there; I don't follow it much except when it crops up.
Some P-51Ds have been retrofitted with V-1650-9 engines. Most of the Merlins are hybrids at this point, many with "transport" heads from the Merlin civil-series intended for transports after the war, like the Canadian North Star Merlin variant (Merlin 622). These heads are strong and long-lasting with respect to a wartime Merlin cylinder head, and they are in demand. Long-lasting beats best power for an owner-operator since they don't have 145-grade gasoline to use anyway. Flying with 100 LL, they aren't anywhere NEAR 1,500 HP engines. Maybe 1,100 / 1,200 tops before detonation sets in. Most of them take off at maybe 750-900 HP and throttle back when they get to 50 feet.
But when they DO get some 150-Octane fuel, they DO go rat racing / dogfighting every once in awhile. Where's the fun in having a P-51 if you NEVER get to let it loose?
All of the "Mouse" and "Rat" motors are racing half-breeds that aren't used in stock P-51s that are in the "Limited" category. You could use them in the Experimental category but, if your P-51D is stock, why spend the extra money? It isn't worth it and isn't as reliable anyway since it is a racing engine. If you have the money and don't mind the work changing engines, then have an "extra" racing engine just for Reno and go race it.
Hope to see you there!
The Merlin/V-1650 was ALSO a good robust engine with a slightly shorter TBO but almost equally smooth operation. The single-stage Merlins were about the same as single stage Allisons, altitude capability-wise, give or take a bit. The 2-stage Merlin/V-1650 was the best liquid-cooled V-12 available to the Allies for most of the war, for altitude flexibility and general use without regard to altitude restrictions. Many people will say the best for the entire war and thereafter. Some like the Griffon better, but they have little to go on except personal preference. The Griffon had a bit more displacement, but the Merlin performed well until well after the end of the war, and still DOES if serviced according to the book. Ditto the Griffon. There are more Merlin parts around today and always were.
We fly two P-51Ds and 1 P-51A. They fly extremely well together anywhere they go but the P-51A starts to struggle a bit if they need to go high. They very rarely DO since these are airshow warbirds and fly in severe clear weather in VFR mode, so the P-51As / A-36s fly just fine alongside 2-stage P-51D/Hs. Actually "H" since we only usually see ONE H model. There may be another one or more around, but we don't usually see but maybe one H, and then only sometimes. I think he flies out of Paso Robles, CA these days. Could be wrong there; I don't follow it much except when it crops up.
Some P-51Ds have been retrofitted with V-1650-9 engines. Most of the Merlins are hybrids at this point, many with "transport" heads from the Merlin civil-series intended for transports after the war, like the Canadian North Star Merlin variant (Merlin 622). These heads are strong and long-lasting with respect to a wartime Merlin cylinder head, and they are in demand. Long-lasting beats best power for an owner-operator since they don't have 145-grade gasoline to use anyway. Flying with 100 LL, they aren't anywhere NEAR 1,500 HP engines. Maybe 1,100 / 1,200 tops before detonation sets in. Most of them take off at maybe 750-900 HP and throttle back when they get to 50 feet.
But when they DO get some 150-Octane fuel, they DO go rat racing / dogfighting every once in awhile. Where's the fun in having a P-51 if you NEVER get to let it loose?
All of the "Mouse" and "Rat" motors are racing half-breeds that aren't used in stock P-51s that are in the "Limited" category. You could use them in the Experimental category but, if your P-51D is stock, why spend the extra money? It isn't worth it and isn't as reliable anyway since it is a racing engine. If you have the money and don't mind the work changing engines, then have an "extra" racing engine just for Reno and go race it.
Hope to see you there!
Last edited:
