Now Hitler executed a number of generals, but that was late in the war, earlier he usually only dismissed generals with whom he strongly disagree e.g. When General von Sponeck was sentenced to death by a military tribunal in early 1943 for disobeying von Manstein the sentence was commuted by Adolf Hitler and reduced to seven years imprisonment.
Aviation myths that will not die
- Thread starter fastmongrel
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Now Hitler executed a number of generals, but that was late in the war, earlier he usually only dismissed generals with whom he strongly disagree e.g. When General von Sponeck was sentenced to death by a military tribunal in early 1943 for disobeying von Manstein the sentence was commuted by Adolf Hitler and reduced to seven years imprisonment.
If you take a look at this page at WW2 aircraft performance on the Fw 190A5, scroll down to the chart titled Fw 190A-5 level Speed performance in context 1943, you will see that by comparison to its contemporaries, the P-51A, equivalent to the British Mustang II had superior performance to a range of types up to 16,000 ft. Sources for this information are also listed.
FW 190 A-5 Performance
Yes, Tomo, the Mustang I did not have performance to match anything up to 20,000 ft, you know that I'm aware of that. I am also aware that its rate of climb was inferior to the German fighters, it was worse than the Spitfire V, too, although at low altitude the Mustang I could outrun the Spitfire V by up to 35 mph. At low altitude however, it could match and at certain low altitudes could beat the Fw 190A and Bf 109F in level speed and in range, at all altitudes. There was no other fighter in the world, with the exception of the Mitsubishi Zero that had the same range and endurance of the Mustang I at the time.
A few facts about the Mustang I, it first entered RAF service in January 1942, when 26 Sqn pilots based at Gatwick were detailed to pick up their new mount from Speke that month. At the time the squadron also operated Lysanders and Curtiss Tomahawks. The decision to place the Mustang in the Tac R role was not just about its inferior performance at height, but because by that time Fighter Command had standardised on the Spitfire V as its primary interceptor, which enabled the Mustang to be used in other roles. We also need to remember that the aeroplane the the British Purchasing Copmmission ordered when it got promised the NA-73 was the P-40, which the Mustang I could outperform in almost every respect, so a win for the RAF, receiving an aircraft which could outperform the one it was expecting.
The importance of tactical reconnaissance in warfare cannot be underestimated, although it frequently is based on some of the opinions being bandied about here. The Mustang I's Tac R ops were given high priority and the results it produced were exceptional and unable to be matched by any other type at the time owing to its good performance at low altitude.
The Mustang I's first long range recon op was on 27 July 1942, three weeks before the first Eightth Air Force B-17 raid, when 16 aircraft photographed the Dortumnd-Ems Canal. This quote from Mustang Aces of the 9th and 15th Air Forces and the RAF by Jerry Scutts (Osprey); "Such forays eventually generated a vast visual panorama of enemy territory, which quickly ran to thousands of high-quality prints for the target folders. These were distributed to RAF and USAAF Commands, the AAC Mustangs materially providing VIIIth Bomber Command with a great many of its early target photographs."
Prior to this first recon op, 26 Sqn carried out Rhubarb sorties, RAF terminology for small scale harrasing ops over enemy held territory from May 1942. Scutts again; "In general AAC pilots were briefed to avoid enemy aircraft rather than to endanger themselves and their precious intelligence data, by seeking combat. Although the Mustang Mk.I could give a good account of itself against the Fw 190 and Bf 109, it was pointless to risk pilots and aircraft unnecessarily. Naturall the recon pilot did not always have the choice if he happened to be bounced by the enemy." The first Mustang victory over an enemy fighter was, interestingly by Fg Off Hollis "Holly" Hills, an American flying with the RAF in 414 Sqn, shooting down an Fw 190 over Dieppe on 19 August 1942. By the end of 1942 RAF Mustangs were on strength in 17 squadrons.
Allison Mustangs were sent to the Mediterranean in RAF hands; these were six USAAF A-36s of the 12th Air Force that were transferred to 1437 Flight, commanded By S/L S.G.Welshman, RAF, along with USAAF operated F-6As, which were early production P-51s, were sent to Malta for tac recon ops over North Africa with the US Twelfth Support Command. 1437 Flight moved to Sicily in July 1943. Strictly speaking the A-36s were not on RAF books, but were USAAF assets.
It seems that, thanks to large doses of hindsight, general opinion of the Allison Mustangs are lower than what they were at the time by those who operated the type, which is often so easily forgotten considering the exploits of Merlin engined P-51s later in the war. Pilots and planners alike praised the Mustang's long range, enabling tac R sorties at previously unheard of distances from base. Its performance as a fighter was also highly regarded, being able to tackle enemy aircraft, including the Fw 190 on level pegging, something that RAF Fighter Command in early 1942 could not do, that is until the arrival of the Spitfire Mk.IX.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
You might be right, O GSXR rider. No piston fighter ever really replace either the Bf 109 or Fw 190 models, and tha could be due to either casue or partly due to both. I'll probably never know.
I have STRONG belief that the vicious stall characteristics of the Fw 190 could have rather easily been cured and made benign without a lot of trouble. I also think that the heavying up of the Bf 109 controls at higher speeds could ALSO have been cured along with adding a bit of range, even another 100 miles. I still wonder why they weren't.
If there was time to build the dizzying array of prototypes the Germans built, there was time to fix the front-line assets still coming down the line. Incredibly short-sighted not to DO it.
I have STRONG belief that the vicious stall characteristics of the Fw 190 could have rather easily been cured and made benign without a lot of trouble. I also think that the heavying up of the Bf 109 controls at higher speeds could ALSO have been cured along with adding a bit of range, even another 100 miles. I still wonder why they weren't.
If there was time to build the dizzying array of prototypes the Germans built, there was time to fix the front-line assets still coming down the line. Incredibly short-sighted not to DO it.
IIRC Tank used a great number of 190 prototypes to finalize the tail of 190 (and also to make his doctoral thesis) so probably the behavior of 190 was what he wanted. On the 109, at least some Finns thought that the heaviness of the controls of 109 at high speed was intentional to prevent overloading the airframe, which was fairly strong anyway. Maybe also to make a high speed stall unlikely. With heavy controls and LE slats 109 was almost spin-proof and could safely be flown to its limits. Very late in the war small patches were made with (argh what kevityslaippa is in English, maybe Flettner tabs) they were usually allocated to experten, who knew how to fly 109.
Last edited:
Juha,
I was under the impression that the leading edge slats of the 109 were gravity powered, and could come out individually as there was no "both or nothing interconnect". Rolling fights or g-forces would cause one to come out before the other, and if at low speed could cause a spin.
Cheers,
Biff
GregP
Major
The slats on a Bf 109 are completely unpowered. They come in or out independently as airflow forces them. It actually requires no great force and I can move one in or out with two fingers. I could use one, but one finger on each side makes it travel in or out much more controllably on the ground.
Assuming the slats are installed, I'll get pics tomorrow.
Assuming the slats are installed, I'll get pics tomorrow.
Asymmetric deployment caused the ailerons to snatch at the very least. They were also known to deploy when in the slipstream of another aircraft. Brown noticed this and considered it an undesirable feature of an otherwise good system.
Franz Stigler had other reasons to like them. When asked if pilots liked the feature he replied.
"Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling.....this was also useful when you were drunk "
Gunther Rall, when asked about the asymmetric operation of the slats, gave a sober assessment.
"Two meter slots on fore wings. The reason was to increase the lift during low speed take off and landing. To reduce the length of runway you need. In the air, if you make rough turns, just by gravity, the outer slot might get out. You can correct it immediately by release of stick, you know? Only little bit, psssssssht, its in, then its gone. You have to know that. And if you know it, you prevent it."
Mark Hanna, a modern war bird pilot doesn't seem to believe that the slats are problematic.
"As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manoeuvring turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally."
Though he contradicts Finnish fighter ace Antti Tani
"The fact is that when you pulled hard enough the wing leading edge slats slammed open. After that the pilot could not tighten the turn. The plane would have stalled."
Cheers
Steve
Franz Stigler had other reasons to like them. When asked if pilots liked the feature he replied.
"Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling.....this was also useful when you were drunk "
Gunther Rall, when asked about the asymmetric operation of the slats, gave a sober assessment.
"Two meter slots on fore wings. The reason was to increase the lift during low speed take off and landing. To reduce the length of runway you need. In the air, if you make rough turns, just by gravity, the outer slot might get out. You can correct it immediately by release of stick, you know? Only little bit, psssssssht, its in, then its gone. You have to know that. And if you know it, you prevent it."
Mark Hanna, a modern war bird pilot doesn't seem to believe that the slats are problematic.
"As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manoeuvring turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally."
Though he contradicts Finnish fighter ace Antti Tani
"The fact is that when you pulled hard enough the wing leading edge slats slammed open. After that the pilot could not tighten the turn. The plane would have stalled."
Cheers
Steve
You might have noted it before - I've already agreed that Allison Mustang was an excellent aircraft. It was not an ideal aircraft, however, ie. not suited to do all of the tasks equally good. Plus, there were differences between Allison Mustangs themselves.
The Mustang I and Ia did not have had drop tanks. The internal fuel tankage was 153 imp gals. That meant the Spitfire V with a 90 gal drop tank did have more fuel aboard (174 imp gals total). LW fighters were thereabout. RAF was probably using only 45 gal drop tanks when Spit Vs were on combat, vs. 90 gal drop tank for ferry (hence Mustang I has better range, for combat)? Help!
Mustang I was good for circa 360 mph at 25000 ft - or, 30-40 mph slower than LW opposition, when introduced in (spring/summer 1942).
Mustang II (P-51A) was outfitted with new engine version, that gave more power at altitude. 390 mph was attained at 25000 ft, without wing racks. Racks slowed the P-51A some 12 mph (smaller racks were installed with P-51D, only 4 mph speed penalty there). The drop tanks really improved range/radius. Still, the P-51A did have few things going against it - Fw-190 was cleared for greater power from late 1942 on, so the P-51A still had almost 30 mph disadvantage at 25000 ft. Second, the P-51A was a bit late in the fray, in service from second half of 1943 on.
USA did have a fighter with better range than P-51, that being the P-38. The Ki-43 was also comparable, though it's performance was not up to Western standards.
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
Tomo, I can't comment on the use of the P-51/P-51A at altitude, but the Mustang MkI/II in RAF service was not intended and not (generally) used at the higher altitudes. In the TAC R role, it operated where it performed best - below 15,000 feet, where it's extremely long range and superior performance to the Spitfire V, without drop tanks, enabled it to do the job it was employed to do and, if enemy aircraft were encountered, look after itself without a problem.
Roger that, Terry.
Radius requirements for the tac-R aircraft were not same for escort fighters, so where the Mustang I was indeed capable to get in, take photos, then return back (against a 'target' 300 miles distant), the escort fighter would need to be able to combat at least 15 minutes, involving both dives and climbs, prior returning home (so, maybe 200-250 miles of radius, for same plane?). The cruise at lower altitude was more fuel efficient for most of ww2 era aircraft, too. Radius was 200 miles at 10 kft vs. 150 miles at 25 kft for Merlin Mustang, on just internal fuel. The Allison Mustang was cruising probably around 15 kft.
Radius requirements for the tac-R aircraft were not same for escort fighters, so where the Mustang I was indeed capable to get in, take photos, then return back (against a 'target' 300 miles distant), the escort fighter would need to be able to combat at least 15 minutes, involving both dives and climbs, prior returning home (so, maybe 200-250 miles of radius, for same plane?). The cruise at lower altitude was more fuel efficient for most of ww2 era aircraft, too. Radius was 200 miles at 10 kft vs. 150 miles at 25 kft for Merlin Mustang, on just internal fuel. The Allison Mustang was cruising probably around 15 kft.
Hello Biff
Yes, the leading edge slats of the 109 were gravity powered, and could come out individually but I'm not heard that that was a problem but some British test pilots thought that that spoiled the aim if 109 got into slip stream of an enemy a/c. Also during the landing if the end pull for 3-pointer was done too early 109 began roll slowly to the left, that could be dangerous because 109 didn't like if one of the wheel hit ground before the other.
Hello Stona
Yes, asymmetric deployment caused an aileron snatch but that was clearly milder from F onwards than in E. The Finnish test pilot Kokko wrote more or less same as Hanna.
Juha
Yes, the leading edge slats of the 109 were gravity powered, and could come out individually but I'm not heard that that was a problem but some British test pilots thought that that spoiled the aim if 109 got into slip stream of an enemy a/c. Also during the landing if the end pull for 3-pointer was done too early 109 began roll slowly to the left, that could be dangerous because 109 didn't like if one of the wheel hit ground before the other.
Hello Stona
Yes, asymmetric deployment caused an aileron snatch but that was clearly milder from F onwards than in E. The Finnish test pilot Kokko wrote more or less same as Hanna.
Juha
Last edited:
Pilots could use lower rpm with Allison than with Merlin, that was with the better aerodynamics the reasons why Mustang had longer range than Spit with same amount of fuel.
Juha
Agreed about your points. We could use the data about real cruise regimes speeds for RAF Mustang Is, the low speed/low altitude cruise would be calling for troubles in the ETO.
Spit V still had 20 imp gals more when carrying 90 gal slipper tank; again - the 45 gal tank being far more used for combat than the 90 gal one?
Spit V still had 20 imp gals more when carrying 90 gal slipper tank; again - the 45 gal tank being far more used for combat than the 90 gal one?
Juhu,
I recently read Gunther Ralls book, "My Logbook". In it he spoke of the "higher than normal" accident rate of the Me-109, especially with the new guys. I can imagine that's true due to the check out procedure of fewer hours in training (as the war wore on), first flight being solo combined with the narrow gear / high power motor.
I've also read of of the harmonization of the flight controls in the 109, with it being sensitive in pitch (light control forces), and heavy in roll. In my opine that would make it a tough gunnery platform but Hartmann, Rall and others proved that if you flew it enough you could overcome anything.
Cheers,
Biff
Your synopsis is well considered, Tomo, but not entirely accurate, particularly with regards to the Mustang. In trials with Mustang I AG351 at Boscombe Down in November 1941, the aircraft's maximum range of 960 miles on 130 gallons was considered "outstanding". Owen Thetford in Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918 (Putnam) quotes the Mustang I's range as 1,050 miles. Mustang Mk.II's (P-51A) performance was considered "superior at low level" by Boscombe Down test pilots. I wouldn't consider mid 1943 "late in the fray" and at that time the Mustang II/P-51A's performance at low altitude better than all others in theatre at the time. See the graph I provided a link to at WW2 Aircraft Performance for evidence of this. After the P-51A entered service in numbers by the end of 1943 the majority of USAAF tac recon units converted to the Mustang, although the F-4 and F-5 Lightning was still in use, but the Allison engined Mustang became the dominant American tac recon aircraft for the rest of the war.
As for your claim that it was not suited to do all tasks equally good, I think you are missing the point; what the Allison Mustang did do well it could largely do better than anything else. Certainly at the time 1942/1943 the Mustang was regarded as one of the best fighters fighters in the world and yes, I do understand that you think the Allison Mustangs are excellent aircraft; the information I have provded is for general interest, not just for argument's sake, as is the following. Documentary evidence of how highly regarded the Mustang was at the time comes from paragraphs in a memorandum drafted by Maj Thomas Hitchcock, USAAC, Assistant Military Attache, dated 8 October 1942 titled History of the Mustang P-51 Aircraft;
"In the Air Fighting Development Unit Report No.43, dated May 5 1942, the Mustang is described as "an excellent low and medium altitude fighter and certainly the best American fighter that has so far rerached this country." Comparisons were made with the Spitfire VB in which it was faster than the VB at all alitudes up to 25,000 feet. At 25,000 feet it went about the same speed as the Spitfire VB, although at this altitude the Allison engine was developing 290 less horsepower than the Merlin engine in the Spitfire. Estimates have been made that with the same horsepower Mustang is twenty to twenty five miles per hour faster than the Spitfire VB."
"In Air Fighter Development Unit Report No.55 dated August 9 1942, on the Tactical trials of the Fw 190, in which comparisons were made of the fighting qualities of various English and American fighter planes with the Fw 190, in all respects except rate of climb the Mustang appeared to do the best against the Fw 190."
"The Mustang is one of the best, if not the best, fighter airframe that has been developed in the war up to date. It has no compressiblity or flutter troubles, it is manoeuvrable at high speeds, has the most rapid rate of roll of any plane except the Fw 190, is easy to fly and has no nasty tricks. Its development and use in this theatre has suffered for various reasons. Sired by the English out of an American mother, the Mustang has no parent in the Airmy Air Corps or at Wright Field to appreciate and push its good points. It arrived in England at a time when great emphasis was placed on high altitude performance, and because it was equipped with a low altitude engine, was of no particular interest to English Fighter Command. The Mustang was turned over to the English Army Co-Operation Command, for low altitude work. It performed well at Dieppe. The pilots who fly the Mustang are most enthusiastic about its performance."
As for its performance against German fighters at altitude, as Terry pointed out, tac recon was a low altitude task, almost entirely conducted below 10,000 ft, where the Mustang's superiorities were apparent.
I've never questioned the Mustang's abilities to fly fast under 20000 ft, nor the distance the fighter was capable to attain. The shortcomings (lack of performance above 20-25000 ft vs. LW, low RoC above 15-20000 ft, inability to carry drop tanks until second half of 1943) still stand, and, especially for Mustang I, were recognised as such by RAF. Hence pressing the Mustang I in tac R role, while retaining armament so it can hit targets that presented themselves under 15000 ft.
Maybe I've bashed Mustang II too much when using 'late in the fray' comment. It is really too bad that it was not produced in lieu of A-36, but that were the realities back then. The Mustang II was a fine all-around fighter, unfortunately, the goal post also moved, so the performance gap vs. Luftwaffe above 20-25000 ft was still felt. As you've noted, many of the P-51As were converted into tac R role - the user acknowledging limits and capabilities of the aircraft?
Hi Tomo, to a point you are right about its performance above 15,000 ft, but considering that the Mustang I was not likely to be flying at such altitude in the combat arena, these issues did not hamper it at all. As for the lack of drop tanks; with a range of 960 miles, did it need drop tanks? Much of its tac recon jobs took the aircraft into France and the Low Countries, with only a few forays into Germany, so long range, which it did possess without drop tanks, wasn't necessarily needed for tac recon; the RAF had PRU Spits and Mossies for long range recon. I've never seen anything that stated that the RAF were dissatisfied with the Mustang I's inability to carry drop tanks; on the contrary, its pilots and tacticians were rather astounded by its ample unrefueled range, which exceeded all expectations and enabled flexibility that the RAF had not had in such an aircraft before.
As for performance against the LW at altitude, by 1943, the RAF had the Spitfire IX - in service since June 1942, which could tackle anything the Germans threw at it at altitude at that time - again, the Mustang II was not likely to be operating at those heights and as we know, the Merlin engined Mustang was developed to rectify the Mustang's altitude shortcomings. Perhaps the biggest complaint the RAF had about Allison Mustangs was that it did not have enough owing to attrition and the seconding of Mustang squadrons away from pure photo recon jobs for ground attack ops.
I think my statement about the USAAF preferring the F-6 photo recon variants as its predominant tac recon platform right until the war's end over the Lockheed F-4 and F-5 proves the opposite of what you are asking, Tomo; The F-6's excellent low altitude performance and range gave it advantage in that role.
As for performance against the LW at altitude, by 1943, the RAF had the Spitfire IX - in service since June 1942, which could tackle anything the Germans threw at it at altitude at that time - again, the Mustang II was not likely to be operating at those heights and as we know, the Merlin engined Mustang was developed to rectify the Mustang's altitude shortcomings. Perhaps the biggest complaint the RAF had about Allison Mustangs was that it did not have enough owing to attrition and the seconding of Mustang squadrons away from pure photo recon jobs for ground attack ops.
I think my statement about the USAAF preferring the F-6 photo recon variants as its predominant tac recon platform right until the war's end over the Lockheed F-4 and F-5 proves the opposite of what you are asking, Tomo; The F-6's excellent low altitude performance and range gave it advantage in that role.
Much of the astounding with it's range comes from the people that were previously dealing predominately with short range fighters, typical for late 1930s/early 1940s outfit of European airforces.
Depends what you want to do with it. For tac R job, the fuel tankage was excellent. For proper escort (that includes essing, so escorts don't overtake the bombers, and at least 15 min of combat) and other long-range fighter job, the drop tanks can considerably increase the radius. Now, while RAF the did not have the requirements for that in ETO (LR and/or escort fighter), range/radius was a crucial asset in MTO and Asia/Pacific. So much that USAF was using it's A-36 to escort B-25s in MTO.
Timeline would look like this: 1st, the Mustang I was assessed as a good low-alt fighter, but bad hi-alt one. Then, it was modified into a tac R aircraft.
Agreed pretty much.
Not sure that the preference for the F-6 does proves opposite what I've stated: "the user acknowledging limits and capabilities of the aircraft?" For about the same limitations and capabilities of the aircraft (not that exemplary hi-alt performance, good/great low-alt performance, great range/radius) as the RAF with Mustang I, the USAF decided to convert some of it's P-51As into recce machines.
Depends what you want to do with it. For tac R job, the fuel tankage was excellent. For proper escort (that includes essing, so escorts don't overtake the bombers, and at least 15 min of combat) and other long-range fighter job, the drop tanks can considerably increase the radius. Now, while RAF the did not have the requirements for that in ETO (LR and/or escort fighter), range/radius was a crucial asset in MTO and Asia/Pacific. So much that USAF was using it's A-36 to escort B-25s in MTO.
Timeline would look like this: 1st, the Mustang I was assessed as a good low-alt fighter, but bad hi-alt one. Then, it was modified into a tac R aircraft.
Agreed pretty much.
Not sure that the preference for the F-6 does proves opposite what I've stated: "the user acknowledging limits and capabilities of the aircraft?" For about the same limitations and capabilities of the aircraft (not that exemplary hi-alt performance, good/great low-alt performance, great range/radius) as the RAF with Mustang I, the USAF decided to convert some of it's P-51As into recce machines.
Agreed with most of what you are saying Tomo, but the RAF did not have a requirement in the ETO for its tac recon Mustangs to be flying long range escort. With the range Mustangs had they could and did escort medium range bombers across the Channel, but since the RAF conducted its long range bombing ops by night, there was no requirement for their escort. Mustang Is were not hampered by the lack of drop tanks and I've never seen anything that states that the British considered this to be a flaw.
As for the USAAF converting P-51As into F-6s, as well as acknowledging their excellent performance attributes, I also suspect that, like the RAF, it did not have enough assets in this role; clearly with the Lockheed F-4s and F-5s, although good at what they did, there was room for improvement, so having another type carry out the role - in some ways more efficiently than the Lockheed, increases numbers of tac recon aircraft in theatre.
You are projecting a requirement onto the type that did not exist at the time.
As for the USAAF converting P-51As into F-6s, as well as acknowledging their excellent performance attributes, I also suspect that, like the RAF, it did not have enough assets in this role; clearly with the Lockheed F-4s and F-5s, although good at what they did, there was room for improvement, so having another type carry out the role - in some ways more efficiently than the Lockheed, increases numbers of tac recon aircraft in theatre.
I have a really interesting article on how and when various air forces adopted check lists and and standard procedures for flight training during WW 2. An extract is attached, describing how the Luftwaffe fighters suffered high accident rates because the Luftwaffe didn't adopt standard procedure for flight training operational conversion (quoting from Rall's "My Logbook"):
View attachment Checklist Procedures WW2.pdf
View attachment Luftwaffe flight training.pdf
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
