Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Is the answer 'all of them'?While I have found much of the discussion here interesting most seem to ignore the simple truths of the reality.
The P-51 was an escort fighter without peer in WW2 because it was specifically designed to be one.
The P-51 was specifically designed to address the British Purchasing Commission's desire to buy new aircraft, NAA threw their hat into the ring and claimed they could build the BPC a better aircraft than the P-40. The RAF realised that range was an issue with their existing stock but no-one envisioned escorting heavy bombers all the way to Berlin, least of all the USAAF who at that stage were not even interested in the P-51.
An escort fighter protects a fleet of bombers at approx 25000ft, climbing isnt at all important.
Really? Would you care to elaborate on that? The simple truth of the reality seems to have escaped me.
The fighters of the Luftwaffe had to attack the bombers which required heavy armour and armament. An Fw190 attacking a fleet of bombers wasnt the same animal as was seen in France.
Some people here speak of the P-51 as if it could fight all over the channel, across Belgium and Holland and then on to Berlin.
Weasel statement. Please indicate, anywhere in the forum, where anyone ACTUALLY said that.
A Mustang with its full load of fuel and external tanks was only just airworthy small changes to the throttle at low altitude after take off could result in a crash.
Take-off is a particularly vulnerable time for an aircraft, esp if combat-loaded. Mustangs certainly were lost during take-off, but do you have any statistical data to support a notion that its 'only just airworthiness' made it more of a liability than any other type, on either side, during the war?
The P-51 was very late in the game it was very slippery in aerodynamics but heavy (the original Mustang was rushed into service)
Fw190A-8 MTOW 9,735lbs; P-51A MTOW 9,000lbs - no heavier than one of its principal adversaries it would seem. I don't recall the Mustang being 'rushed into service', the Brits got roughly half of their original order as a result of Pearl Harbour and the USAAF only really started to warm to it in 1942.
There was little use for the Mustang until the USAAF got hammered on unescorted raids. The Spitfire was the better air superiority fighter and gradually got the better of the 109 variants whereas the Fw190 was a fantastic plane which was pretty much neck and neck with the Spitfire untill the end of hostilities. In fact all these planes were at the peak of their development and jets were already being introduced....
I don't know where to begin with this. I think you'll find there was plenty of use for the Mustang, it was precisely this use that got the USAAF interested and the RAF thinking Merlin power. Mustangs with their decisive range and speed advantage over the Spitfire V were put to use over France, in their one of their earlier engagements vs the Fw190, one P-51 was shot down and the chasing Focke-Wulf of the second P-51 couldn't catch him after pursuing him all the way back to Folkestone.
As regards the Spitfire vs Bf109 debate, I don't think there was a period during the war when the Spitfire was decisively better than the German fighter. Late-war tribulations for German manufacture made it difficult but the Bf109K was a clear example that the Bf109 wasn't finished by any means.
When precisely are you referring to when you say that all of these planes were at the peak of their development, because at the time of the P-51's introduction, they most certainly weren't and jets were nowhere near introduction.
.......just remember most pilots didnt see the plane that shot them down in WW2. Additionally the Spitfire was never designed for absolute top speed its wings had a washout of (from memory) 1 1/2 degrees which induces drag but increases control at the limits of stall, a Mustang with straight laminar flow wings stalls with little warning. The Bf109 had automatic leading edge slats to improve turning performance but towards the end of the war many pilots didnt know how they worked and so didnt make full use of the plane thinking it was at the limit when the slats had only started to work (they made the 'plane vibrate)
That's pretty much a string of incoherent thoughts strung together into a paragraph but I'm interested to know why you think German pilots had forgotten how their wing slats worked.
As far as the P-51 is concerned it was its mass deployment with huge formations of bombers that was the reason for its success.
No it wasn't. There were several reasons, technical and tactical, the most fundamental being its range capability - the ability to put it over targets deep into Germany in the first place. Secondly, once there, it had the fighting qualities that enabled it to meet the best of the Luftwaffe on comparable terms. There was the quality of training of USAAF pilots and the soundness of tactics used to cancel any advantages held by the Luftwaffe. The .50cal allowed the P-51 to hit German fighters with a warhead big enough to cause critical damage, yet small enough to be carried in sufficient amounts to see out the mission. The P-51 generally held the initiative, it was on the side that was doing all the choosing of targets and usually met the defensive fighters at the P-51's best altitude.
Germany in 1944/45 was fighting on at least 4 fronts and running out of pilots fuel and equipment.
FOUR fronts? I don't know anything about that but there were two fronts that mattered to the exclusion of all else to the German High Command in the autumn of 1944; the one rolling in from the west and the one rolling in from the east
Regardless of the Me262 being vastly superior they had no chance. How many Sopwith camels could a Eurofighter cope with before being overwhelmed?
Are we splitting hairs or splitting stripes, the fact is they were black and white stripes to tell friend from foe! I presume the D Day stripes were seen as an improvement although I couldnt honestly be bothered to look it up.
for me a Hawker Typhoon looks nothing like a Fw190...
I'm confused and frightened......a Typhoon is bigger with a huge chin radiator and a different canopy and wing shape.....apart from that they are identical...
True enough MiloshColin,
MustangIA/P-51 > MGW 9000lb
Mustang IV/P-51D/K > MGW 11,600lb
Fw190A-8/R2 > 9822lb
You're definitely not here to make friends are you?Too many posters here think the protagonists in a war are involved in an intellectual debate...
True enough Milosh
but I was trying to nail down one period of the P-51's history; at the time of its introduction, it was comparable with the contemporaneous model of the Fw190
quote
By the end of February 1945 JG 7 had claimed around 45 four-engine bombers and 15 fighters, but at this stage of war this success rate had no affect whatsoever on the Allied air offensive. During March JG 7 finally began to deliver larger scale attacks against the heavy bomber streams. 3 March saw 29 sorties for 8 kills claimed (one jet was lost). On 18 March III./JG 7 finally managed their biggest attack numerically thus far, some 37 Me 262s engaging a force of 1,200 American bombers and 600 fighters. This action also marked the first use of the new R4M rockets. 12 bombers and 1 fighter were claimed for the loss of 3 Me 262s.
The total numbers of aircraft shot down by JG 7 is difficult to quantify due to the loss of Luftwaffe records, but at least 136 aircraft were claimed, and research indicates as many as 420 Allied aircraft may have been claimed shot down
unquote
I welcome drgondogs comments!!!!!!!!.
I remember reading it years ago with reference to the battle of britain, read pilots accounts, there were bullets and planes all over the place, pilots were exhausted and scared. To protect a fellow pilot under attack from the rear frequently involved firing in the enemys (and therefore your friends) direction. Not only did pilots shoot each other down they also collided with depressing regularity.
While I have found much of the discussion here interesting most seem to ignore the simple truths of the reality.
Simple truths of the reality? Bring facts to the table before establishing either 'truth' or reality. Friendly fire losses occurred - facts in evidence abound. Frindly fire occurances with 'depressing regularity? I suppose definitions are in order. How would you establish your metric for 'regularity' in context of FF losses per sortie and how does that definition or metric relate to 'all ops losses'?
I suspect that for the strategic forces like 8th, 15th and RAF BC that mid air collisions due to formation disciplines, heavily loaded and sluggish aircraft, cloud cover and terrible weather, fog and rain - that MACs were a far higher number than Friendly Fire due to mis identification or simply bad gunnery.'
The P51 was an escort fighter without peer in WW2 because it was specifically designed to be one.
As an escort fighter with few peers depending on altitude, the Mustang was a happy accident of a very nice airframe, designed high capacity internal fuel which was mated by the RAF with maybe the outstanding in line engine of WWII. It started as a 'better than P-40' proposal from NAA when the RAF inquired of NAAwhether it could tool up to deliver more P-40s. It evolved into a fast low to medium altitude armed Recon ship, medium altitude fighter and fighter bomber (A-36).
The P-51A was roughly superior to the P-40 and P-38 and P-47 at low to medium altitudes but not superior in all comparisons with each.
The Merlin in the P-51B-1 just happened to make it the fastest of the Allied inventory at the altitudes that 8th and 12th and 15th AF were attacking Germany - and its fuel capacity and high performance at that altitude made it equivalent to better than the Me 109 and Fw 190 at those altitudes - over Germany.
That role took two years to firmly establish from first combat ops.
An escort fighter protects a fleet of bombers at approx 25000ft, climbing isnt at all important. The fighters of the Luftwaffe had to attack the bombers which required heavy armour and armament. An FW 190 attacking a fleet of bombers wasnt the same animal as was seen in France. Some people here speak of the P51 as if it could fight all over the channel across belgium and hollan and then on to berlin. A Mustang with its full load of fuel and external tanks was only just airworthy small changes to the throttle at low altitude after take off could result in a crash.
As my Brit friends would say "Rubbish" in general with some valid points scattered within.
Climbing in a dogfight, climbing to intercept a force of German fighters (say Me 109's escorting Fw 190s) was crucial, climbing back to 25,000 feet from the deck to rejoin the formations were all important. What IS true is that the 109 climbed faster, the Spit climbed faster - the latter two probably superior interceptors for short range interception.
ANY combat aircraft loaded to max gross weight is on the ragged edge of unflyable - that is why the engineers state what the max gross weight is for their airplane in perfect condition at standard pressure and temperature.
As for small changes to throttle on a Mustang take off - there was no change - it was max power, throttle to the gate, 3000 rpm. Throttles were adjusted when IAS reached 160 as the bird was manuevered into flights and squadrons then set to cimb settings following the leader.
If you were a pilot you would better understand that speed is first and altitude is second and woe be unto the unworthy that fail to keep these in mind. You DON'T reduce power on take off.
The Mustang pilots burned the aft fuse tank to move the cg forward into the design static margin and permit higher rate of turn without losing control - about 10 minutes of take off and climb would yank 30-40 gallons - enough to achieve complete stability and swith to wing drop tanks.
When the bird reached Brunswick or Nordhausen of Fridrichshafen it was very nimble.
For my tuppence worth on the P51/ spitfire/ bf109/fw190 debate. The p51 was very late in the game it was very slippery in aerodynamics but heavy (the original mustang was rushed into service).
Until the F8F and P-51H, both 1945 production airframes ALL USAAF fighter were heavy - when compared to USSR or RAF or LW.. as to being rushed into service? had nothing to do with the weight and more to do with design structural limit and ultimate load factors. Both the Bearcat and the P-51H were designed to a slightly lower G factor. Having said that, the P-51H was approximately 600 pounds lighter airframe, but a lot more horsepower in the 1650-9 than the 1650-7.
As to late in the game? It entered combat ops (Mk I/P-51A) about the same time as the P-38, before the F6F and F4U and P-47 - only four months after the US entered the war. The first production Merlin Mustang entered combat ops against the LW on December 1 1943. Certainly later than all the key LW and RAF and USSR fighters but hardly 'late' in the battle over Germany. Seven months after the P-47 started combat ops w/56th FG. The Mk I was fighting the LW before the 8th AF started combat ops by four months.
There was little use for the mustang until the USAAF got hammered on unescorted raids. The spitfire was the better air superiority fighter and gradually got the better of the 109 variants wheras the fw190 was a fantasic plane which was pretty much neck and neck with the spitfire untill the end of hostilities. In fact all these planes were at the peak of their development and jets were already being introduced...........just remember most pilots didnt see the plane that shot them down in WW2. Additionally the spitfire was never designed for absolute top speed its wings had a washout of (from memory) 1 1/2 degrees which induces drag but increases control at the limits of stall, a mustang with straight lamilar flow wings stalls with little warning. The Me 109 had automatic leading edge slats to improve turning performance but towards the end of the war many pilots didnt know how they worked and so didnt make full use of the plane thinking it was at the limit when the slats had only started to work (they made the 'plane vibrate)
Back to the 'Rubbish' thing - with certain nuggets of fact. The Mustang was superior to the P-40 in North Africa, Sicily and Italy as well as CBI - with the Allison. The USAAF was slow to accept the Mustang until the Brits proved it was an outstanding performer with great speed, range, climb, dive and pretty good turner in 1942..
The Spitfire Mk IX was indeed a better air superiority fighter from UK to Belgium..but useless in the battle of Germany. The Me 109 was an excellent fighter but woeful range in comparison and not equal to the task of defeating the P-51B/D. The Fw 190 mathed well against the Spit at low and medium altitudes - as well as the Mustang - but woefully short in air to air at 8th AF bomber altitudes
The Spit WAS designed for speed but data on laminar flow wings was marginal so they selected the large chord/thin eliptical wing. As to wash out - ALL fighters were designed with wash out to enable tip/aileron control at low speed. ALL a/c have 'induced drag' without exception. The Mustang, the Fw 190, the Me 109 and Spit in this discussion ALL had washout, only the 109 had LE slats - which did give it a boost in CL at high angles of attack - as to pilots not knowing or not making use of the LE slats - that is presumptuous at best.
Pilot skills for the bomber pilots converting to fighters anbd low time recent graduates tend to force caution in turns. That caution goes away with familiarity gained through experience.
As far as the P51 is concerned it was its mass deployment with huge formations of bombers that was the reason for its success. I read one account of 44 Me262 being sent to intercept 1200 heavy bombers escorted by 600 P51s. Germany in 1944/45 was fighting on at least 4 fronts and running out of pilots fuel and equipment. Regardless of the Me262 being vastly superior they had no chance.
Until the end of the war the LW skillfully manuevered its intercepting forces to attack the bomber stream that either had no escort or relatively lightly defended at the point of attack. One may not put all of 8th FC cleverly on the one box of bombers that the LW chooses to attack that day. The reason for the Mustangs defeat of the LW fighter arm is simple - it had excellent performance and firepower over the German capital and beyond - as well as superbly trained and led pilots throughout its combat operations in ETO.
I explained the practical logistics above.
Regardless of the Me262 being vastly superior they had no chance. How many Sopwith camels could a eurofighter cope with before being overwhelmed?
rolls eyes and leaves the forum
Why because they countered you effectively?
As to Mustangs stalling w/o warning? not so - you can feel it in the stick and control surfaces. What does happen in a turning stall is that the bottom will drop out and generally pull you into a spin - you don't want this on the deck or any turning fight with an adversary but you are aware that you are at the limit.
no because they replied with nonesense I would have thought it was obvious that the luftwaffe was fighting on at least 4 fronts but some smart ass expert only knows of two
terribly sorry old chap I was only quoting german pilots who said the mustang would suddenly drop an wing and stallout into a spin during a turning fight....naturally they would bow to your eminence in all things
terribly sorry old chap I was only quoting german pilots who said the mustang would suddenly drop an wing and stallout into a spin during a turning fight....naturally they would bow to your eminence in all things
John - I have 56 hours of solo and a lot of back seat/dual control time in the 51D.
I learned to fly from an ace pilot who had, at the time he was teaching me, approximately 6,000 hours of single engine time. He was widely regarded as a superb pilot by his peers.
I use this only to acquaint you with the difference between 'reading about a thing' to 'experiencing the thing in real life'.
To the LW fighter pilots that caused a Mustang to spin out, I can perhaps find five Mustang pilots that caused a 109 or 190 to spin out in a turning fight - or simply yank too hard on the stick and depart the performance envelope. Control on the ragged edge takes a lot of skill and a delicate balance between the brute force caused by adrenaline and the sensitivity required to exercise complete control.
Imagine having to hold a stick as if it was a bird in your hand rather than a rope which you are climbing.
There is a very fine line between maintaining altitude and airspeed in a constant turning fight - and losing it. Skill is more of a factor than the airframe.
since my first post i have been accused of insulting the pilots involved lack of knowledge etc etc etc.....read your own post and you will see that you have shown the P51 was not superior to either a 109 or a 190. Oh and BY the way Mr expert aerodynamacist what is the washout on a mustang a 109 a hurricane or a P 38?
You dabble in aero when you clearly know nothing of the science, you dabble in history when you lack facts and context, you dabble in performance characteristics without either the knowledge or communications skills to put whatever 'snippets' of facts you may possess in context. You have made more than a couple of simple factual errors in more than a couple of bold statements.
It is difficult to place you - are you young, lacking in the lacking in the broad knowledge to debate the persons you are arguing with - or older and more assertive based on some sense of (misplaced) intellectual superiority??