Could the P51A been made available for the Battle of Midway?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Just a little summary on what we're talking about. From the interception of that incoming wave (0616) to the first bomb dropped (0630) only 14 minutes had elapsed. That incoming wave was a locomotive. Here's the source for the summary:

THE ENEMY ATTACK ON MIDWAY
The Battle of Midway June 3-6, 1942.

0415 Search planes take off.
0545 Patrol plane reports "many planes heading Midway."
0552 Two enemy carriers sighted.
0600 All Midway planes in air.
0616 Fighter group intercepts enemy bombers.
0630 First bomb falls on Midway.
0715 Our fighter planes called in.
 
I thought the Bedford Forrest quote added some 'color' to my attempt to point out that it's not the level speed of the aircraft that's important but how fast it goes up hill to get thar fustest. The fastest airplane is clearly the P-51, an attribute that certainly yields significant benefits. However, its climb to intercept altitude (~ 17k' according to Ch 6 of Cressman et al.'s Glorious Page) takes about the same time as the F2A so it doesn't get there any faster than the F2A with the following considerations about the time line. That was one of my main points.

With respect to the time line it was tighter than I think you may realize and the tactics they evidently used might have pleased Chennault, at least up to a point...

Although Bates states that the aircraft were launched at the RADAR report of 0553, when the IJN aircraft were at 93 miles, Chapter 6 of the later Cressman book, says they began launching at 0600. According to Prange, the delay from the 0553 warning to the 0600 initial A/C launch was due to the fact that the Fighters had their engines running and couldn't hear the siren so a pick up truck had to run down the flight line to provide the order to launch. 24 fighters (21 F2A-3 and 3 F4F-3, 2 more F4F-3 followed later) launched (and rendezvoused by division) before heading to intercept. Cressman reports that 2nd Lt Hughes finds he is lagging passing 16,000 ft and aborts. Bates says that the VALs and Kates were at 11,000' with escorts at 14,000 while the Marines apparently reached 17,000' before 1st contact. At 0605, the FDO vectors the fighters to an intercept. However, as ordered, 13 A/C of the 2nd and 3rd divisions briefly hold and maintain their altitude at below 14,000', while the remaining three divisions of 11 A/C lead the intercept. According to Bates, the first group makes contact at 0615. Figure the time to climb to 17k' for the F2A and P-51 is about 8 minutes with perhaps a slight edge to the F2A in terms of T/C, based on interpolations in part from AHT and other sources. So with time consumed to launch 24 fighter A/C and then perhaps a few minutes to form up as divisions once airborne, followed by a climb of something less than 8 minutes while perhaps making a bit over 3-4 miles per minute ground speed, the marines meet the Japanese about 30-40 miles out, having just reached Angels 16.5 to 17 (depending on the source) the first one calls out "Hawks at angels 12!" Escorts are agreed by all sources to be about 3K' above and behind the bombers. So it appears you are correct that there was sufficient time, but it was a very close thing as the fighters have evidently just reached their somewhat superior altitude in time to engage the bombers. Park's First division of 5 F2A-3s inflicts some serious harm on the Hiryu Kates, but not one of his first division pilots survives (save one who aborts). The second group consisting of Carey's division of three F4Fs does well in their one pass but is forced to retire by the escorts. Likewise for the two F2As of the 4rth division. So the 'AVG'-like tactic they were able to employ works about as well as might be expected until the Marines attempt to reengage for a second pass. The second group of 13 fighters belatedly enters the furball trying to climb to meet the enemy who have apparently now climbed to 14k' during their approach to Midway.

With respect to the relative maneuverability of the two aircraft, i based my statement on two perceptions. The first is the report by the USAAF that judged the original P-51 as slightly inferior to the P-40F in a dogfight. P-51 Mustang (Allison Engine) Performance Trials

The second is the perhaps unwarranted assumption that some element of the F2A's heritage of reputed superior maneuverability survived in its bloated progeny.

With respect to acceleration you may be right, but it seems the Allison is putting out a bit over 800 hp at 15k' while I believe the Wright is still ~ 900+ hp. The bluff Buff is a lot lighter airframe (~ 3/4 of a ton) so it seems something that might require a detailed analysis to reveal.

In general, I think a detailed analysis indicates the June 4 air battle over Midway went about as well as might be expected and would not have changed substantially by the replacement of F2As by P-51s except in one important aspect. I expect many more of the pilots would have survived in P-51s, assuming they used their speed wisely to disengage after their first pass, which is apparently what the surviving pilots did , and that more P-51s would have been operational at battle's end although I understand the P-51 was a somewhat fragile airframe/powerplant combination, due to its cooling system while the radial engine showed itself to be fairly resilient with battle damage.

It seems to me tactics employed (and Pilot experience) played a huge role, larger than aircraft quality in the lopsided outcome. So you have to assume that the P-51s would be deployed differently than were the VMF aircraft to significantly change the outcome... But that would also be true for the aircraft that actually fought the battle, including the F2A.
 
Last edited:
although I understand the P-51 was a somewhat fragile airframe/powerplant combination, due to its cooling system while the radial engine showed itself to be fairly resilient with battle damage.
Click to expand...

people on this site constantly harp on this dubious "flaw" of the Mustang, yet it somehow never caused it to suffer crippling or disproportionate losses or prevented it from becoming the most decisively advantageous fighter of the war.
 
stug3 said:
people on this site constantly harp on this dubious "flaw" of the Mustang, yet it somehow never caused it to suffer crippling or disproportionate losses or prevented it from becoming the most decisively advantageous fighter of the war.
Click to expand...

Without better supercharging, the Allison powered P-51 wasn't going to be a war winner whatever its strengths. The Packard-Merlin Powered Mustang had strengths to overcome whatever flaws may have been inherent in its engine system. The P-51 was a design at the very beginning of its long and illustrious career. The F2A was at the end of its life with thankfully no where else to go but the training command.
 
Last edited:


I was referring to the "fragility" of the radiator/cooling system, not the performance of the Allison.
 
just noticed reading the first hand accounts that apparently the third division lead by Capt. Armistead, that had their intercept delayed by a few minutes were able to climb to 17k' to make an initial high speed attack from above. The second division, also delayed, evidently was the one that didn't get to the same advantageous altitude and apparently suffered nearly the same fate as the first division with only one aircraft and two pilot survivors.
 
Last edited:

Looking over the AHT drag and acceleration tables 96 and 104, it looks like you are right, the P-51D is, as expected, much cleaner with a drag coefficient of 0.0176 (I assume the P-51 would be similar) compared to the F2A-3 with 0.3, nearly a factor of two. For acceleration at SL, the Allison P-51 has drag of about 800# while the F2A-3 is at just over 1,100#. However, I note that the F2A has 50 more HP at SL and I estimate (without good data) on the WAC engine, ~100 hp more at 17k ft. The AHT also cites the heaviest weight for the F2A I've ever seen, by about 1-200#. So while the P-51 exhibits a SL acceleration of about 2.13 ft/sec2, compared to the F2A of 1.44 ft/sec2. I would expect the margin to be a bit narrower at 17,000 ft but still advantage to the P-51. However, acceleration of the F2A was better than the P-40E and F4F-4 at SL. Max diving speed of the F2A was probably a good bit over 400 mph and it is reputed to accelerate quickly in a dive. The ceiling of course of the F2A was higher than that of the P-51 but , as acknowledged, that was not a factor in this Pacific air battle. I really can't find much else in the way of numbers quantifying other performance attributes of the F2A but assume that, in general, the P-51 would shine in comparison.

One decided advantage of the P-51 would have been its armament. The 4 20mm cannon might have contributed significantly to a an improved USAAF vs IJN score.

But the bottom line is that the time-line barely allows either of the two aircraft types to achieve altitude superiority which either could then use effectively in essentially the same way. The slow speed of the F2A in comparison to the P-51 was not a significant a factor in the initial intercept since both would probably have been moving at over 400 mph during the initial attack. Attempts to boom and zoom with the F2A during the interception were apparently frustrated by the rapid climb rate of the A6M. Perhaps, having built up more speed in the initial interception, the P-51 would have been a bit more successful in evading the A6Ms during a re-attack, but I don't see this as changing the outcome in any significant way.
 
oldcrowcv63 said:
One decided advantage of the P-51 would have been its armament. The 4 20mm cannon might have contributed significantly to a an improved USAAF vs IJN score.
Click to expand...

Didnt the Americans experience many problems with the 20mm of 1942 being prone to jamming and otherwise not very reliable? I think they would have been better of with the 4 .50s of the P-51A/B. Those models certainly got good results with them.

From P-51 Tactical Trials posted by drgondog below-

h. Armament.

(1) The present armament is considered adequate, but is functionally unsatisfactory. It is believed that four (4) caliber .50 (high rate of fire) guns would furnish ideal fire power for the P-51 airplane.
 
Last edited:

You need to re-read the entire report....

P-51 Tactical Trials
 
The issue was the preceding statement(s) which most importantly stated that the P-51 could disengage at any time - which followed the several stated attributes of speed, dive, climb (except for P-38) advantages over P39D, P-38F, P40F and P-47C up to 20000 feet where the P-38 and P-47 were faster.

In the same context, nothing the US had, or would have, would have been a good choice to linger with a Zero when not choosing to 'leave the dogfight' if it could.. or a P-40 lingering with an Me 109F when the 109F could do everything except out turn(maybe) the P-40.
 

With respect to the report's statement of the P-51's ability to disengage at will, that's why I used the word 'persisted'. To me, that indicated a conscious choice by the two pilots NOT to disengage. I assumed the ability of the P-51 to disengage at will to be common knowledge and needed no further comment.

I also assumed it would be understood that I wasn't arguing that the F2A was a better fighter than the P-51. That actually never occurred to me (unthinkable?), although in retrospect it may seem that's what I was arguing. Given a choice about which aircraft, I'd have preferred in that, or any other situation, hands down, the P-51. My point was that, used strictly as an interceptor at Midway, in the critical climb capability, the F2A was comparable (and perhaps slightly better?) than the Allison powered P-51 leading to my conclusion that introduction of the P-51 would not have significantly changed the outcome.

If that seems to contradict my comment about the advantage that might accrue with the use of 20mm armament, I didn't anticipate more IJN aircraft being hit with the 20 mm (assuming that, in a perfect world, the cannons worked at least as reliably as the 0.5" guns), just that those many that were hit may have been more likely to have suffered fatal damage.

I've acknowledged my error in assuming the lighter aircraft would be able to overcome its drag deficit and accelerate more quickly.

With respect to the relative maneuverability of the two types (F2A vs P-51), I don't think we know for sure except that its obvious from the report that ithe P-40F and P-51 appear to have been fairly similar. I have been unable to uncover any quantification on F2A-3 maneuverability but assuming that it retained some of the reputed extraordinary handling qualities of the earlier F2A-2 seemed reasonable and to a limited extent supported by some reports from SE Asia for the export version. However, the latter reports are at best confusing because there are so many variants flown by pilots of different nationalities with a wide range of experience. The weights of the F2A-3 fighter is about 300# heavier than the F2A-2 (in overload fighter configuration) but then of course, there are the impact of changes in the airframe to consider. In what weight-configuration did the Marine pilots at Midway fight and how did that effect their expectations going in to the fight? I don't know. As long as I have chosen to be an apostate, I'll risk offending our commonwealth cousins and say, to me, the question of relative maneuverability was somewhat similar to choosing the more maneuverable aircraft between the Gloster Gladiator or the P-51. I'd expect the Gladiator to be more maneuverable. It doesn't mean I'd ever prefer to fight in a Gladiator instead of a P-51 .

Reconsidering my prioritized list of interception performance attributes, I'd insert level speed into the number 3 spot assuming any aircraft with decent dive capability can efficiently convert altitude to excess airspeed.

In any case, I completely agree with your last statement.
 
Last edited:
oldcrowcv63 said:
I thought the Bedford Forrest quote added some 'color' to my attempt to point out that it's not the level speed of the aircraft that's important but how fast it goes up hill to get thar fustest.
Click to expand...

I didn't intend to criticize you in your use of Bedford Forrest's commonly accepted quote (I was just trying to correct history), but rather point out that he favored speed to allow him to get there first.


One of the problems the F2A/F4F was their inability to disengage with the Zero. Initial attacks with high energy were generally successful, however, the escorting Zeros were quickly on their tail and they could not get separation. The Zero was faster, climbed better, and turned better and quickly dispatched the defending fighters. Other than its speed, the major advantage of the P-51 was that it would have been able to disengage at any time from the Zero by diving and accelerating away (the P-51 could out accelerate the Zero, even in level flight) climb unimpeded back to attacking attitude, re-establish initial high energy level (the P-51 could always establish higher energy levels than the zero) and re-enter the conflict. This could be repeated many times and do severe damage to the Japanese attack aircraft.

although I understand the P-51 was a somewhat fragile airframe/powerplant combination, due to its cooling system while the radial engine showed itself to be fairly resilient with battle damage.
Click to expand...

I think this opinion is more subjective than objective. While I do think the radial engine fighters were generally tougher than liquid cooled fighters, especially during ground attack missions, it is often more than offset by performance increases. I'm not sure statistics support this strong a conclusion.

Here is an interesting general comment (by the author?) in AHT,
Below 22,000 feet the Allison P-51 had the best all-around fighting qualities of any fighter.
Click to expand...
While reasonably overshadowed by the Merlin powered P-51, it is easy to see why Britain, and America, after they realized the performance of the Allison P-51, wanted to get some high altitude power into the P-51.
 
Late edit: this post entitled: "Dawn breaks over marble head"

davparlr said:
I didn't intend to criticize you in your use of Bedford Forrest's commonly accepted quote (I was just trying to correct history), but rather point out that he favored speed to allow him to get there first.
Click to expand...

No worries on that account.


As you suggest, and as emphasized in drgondog's earlier post, the ability to disengage at will is certainly an important attribute whose lack was evidently a factor in the deaths of too many of the Marine pilots at Midway. Upon reading the pilot reports more carefully, I noted that virtually all the surviving VMF pilots, like their USAAF P-40E flying counterparts in the PI, Java and Oz used the apparently superior diving ability of the US aircraft to effectively disengage when they quickly realized how badly the odds were stacked against them. What surprised me and has caused my belated conversion was the unexpected number of F2A pilots who successfully or nearly so reengaged after their first attack! Humberd alone nearly got three passes in before being dispatched by the Zekes. If an F2A could do that well, what would a P-51 have done? Clearly much better. That lead me to the conclusion that you may actually be underselling the re-attack capability of the bird which I was ready to question because of how fast an air battle seems to move on, leaving some participants behind. Diving away? How is a Zero going to catch a P-51 going flat out (exploiting an initial altitude advantage) through the formation with a little nose down attitude? As you indicated, convert that speed to altitude and its back in business for another go. I'd expect three successful and uninterrupted passes from a section or division of P-51s would not be out of the question and in the end damage done limited by ammunition supply more than anything else. No bigger zealot than a convert.

dunno... was just a thought in making the comparison, there aren't too many advantages one can list for an F2A and that seemed a potentially unconsidered aspect.


indeed.
 
Last edited:
The most important fact that has been overlooked in this thread is the fact that the Navy HAD requested Army fighters for its outlying island bases and the Army said they couldn't do it because their pilots were not trained in over water navigation.
Plus they were extremely reluctant to part with anything that would slow down the build up for the offensive against Germany. Throughout 1942 the Army consistently shortchanged the promised commitment to the Pacific.
 
An interesting what if, the Corsairs first flight was May 1940, two years before the big carrier battles of 1942. What if more priority and funding was put into the development, and it was deployed to the Fleet and Marines, in time for Coral Sea and Midway.
 

As a land-based aircraft?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
2
Views
443
fubar57
FW-190 and The Battle of Britain
2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ivan1GFP
I
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
13K
EwenS
E
S
State-of-the-art Japanese fighters with western engines
Replies
2
Views
87
spicmart
S
Menu
Log in
Register