Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Unfortunately, Bradley was either a little foggy on the details or he didn't realize that the 106-xxxxx drawings were complete for the Production D and that 43-12102 had already installed the prototype bubble canopy. Steve made several errors in his collection but the Bradley tale came from Bradley - not NAA. He also claimed to have flown the first 85 gallon tank but Chilton holds that distinction.I understand that a US liaison officer was the one who pushed for the bubble canopy on US fighters after seeing it on the Typhoon.
"A problem encountered with the Merlin-powered P-51B/C Version
was the poor view from the cockpit, particularly towards the rear. The
'Malcolm Hood' fitted to the P-51B/C was an early attempt to correct
this deficiency. However, a more lasting solution was sought. In January
1943, Col. Mark Bradley had been sent to England and saw how the new
'bubble' or 'teardrop' canopy had given Spitfire and Typhoon pilots an
unobstructed 360-degree vision. He returned to Wright Field in June and
began exploring the possibility of incorporating bubble canopies on
USAAF fighters.
Republic Aviation installed a bubble canopy on the P-47D
Thunderbolt in record time and Bradley flew it to Inglewood to
demonstrate its features. Following discussions with the British, and after
examination of the clear—blown 'teardrop' canopies of Spitfires and
Typhoons, NAA secured an agreement with the Army to test a similar
canopy on a Mustang in order to improve the pilot's View from the
cockpit.
P-51B-1-NA (43-12101) was selected to be modified as the test
vehicle for the new bubble canopy."
Ref:
Mustang: Thoroughbred Stallion of the Air
By Steve Pace
When the Spitfire was first seen in public, it didn't have a bulged canopy.
The prototype is shown above, complete with original canopy, 2-blade prop, and tail skid. No stealth at all!.
I have to disagree here a bit. Delta airspeed is an absolute function, not a relative one. A car that is going 60 mph sees a car going by 80, will say that car car is really going fast. A plane fly 400 mph sees a plane going by at 420 could say the same thing since the distance the 80 mph car over the 60 mph car in say one minute, will be the same as the 420 mph plane will have over the 400 mph plane in same minute. Separation rate of the two examples are based on the same value, 20 mph. What you say about the acceleration rate is true. Two planes in a turning fight, one is capable 400 mph top speed and the other 420 mph, the 420 mph plane is in the lead and decides to roll out and run counting on his top speed for separation. Unfortunately, for the lead aircraft, even though he can out accelerate the chasing plane he is likely not going to be able to out accelerate the rounds coming his way before he can get out of range, which is exactly a repeat what you have said.Somethings are relative, 20 mph to a 320 mph fighter is a bigger difference than 20mph to a 420 mph fighter. And in some cases it is the acceleration rather than the actual speed that allows the separation. I doubt that any piston engine fighter pilot decided to depart a fight while flying at top speed. He may well have been at full throttle but you are not at top speed even if banked let alone turning. If a 340mph fighter decides to "run" while doing 280-290mph with a 320 mph fighter behind him (also doing 280-290mph) but not in firing position the 340mph fighter may have better acceleration and be able to hit 320mph before the slower fighter does and then keep accelerating. What this looks like to the pilots involved may be a bit different than the actual physics. or even the actual top speeds of the planes.
Hi Eagledad,
I'll be sure to read that one since I have often heard about the fantastic rolling capability of the Fw 190 radial aircraft. particularly when they first came out and were such a surprise to the RAF. I figured the switch to the inline might affect pitch rate, but I didn't think it should affect roll rate by much. Perhaps that is incorrect. Everything I HAVE read indicates the Fw 190 D-9 was a good one, in every sense of the word.
Thanks! It will make a good read, I'm sure. And I can't disagree with it since I wasn't there.
Edit: Well. that certainly doesn't bear out what I said above, does it? I wonder if the example they flew was representative. It obviously had some issues, and may not have been entirely in good working order. I would THINK the D-9 to be better than that report indicated, but have no proof of same as I don't read German. Since the report was of flying a captured D-9 with some obvious difficulties, I'd not want to claim the conclusions as typical of the type without other corroboration.
What's even funnier is that report contradicts every other flight report of the radial units. They were supposed to stall with little to no warning and this D-9 gives plenty of warning. Something is fishy here ...
Steve Hinton flew Paul Allen's Fw 190 restoration and said the feel of the aircraft was first rate. That is, it was immediately apparent he was in a first-rate fighter that flew considerably differently from a Flugwerk replica (which he has also flown). He didn't explore the flight envelope very much as the test card was all about making sure it was airworthy, not about performance. That particular aircraft is BMW 801-powered.
Unfortunately, Bradley was either a little foggy on the details or he didn't realize that the 106-xxxxx drawings were complete for the Production D and that 43-12102 had already installed the prototype bubble canopy. Steve made several errors in his collection but the Bradley tale came from Bradley - not NAA. He also claimed to have flown the first 85 gallon tank but Chilton holds that distinction.
The lack of baffles was noticeable but not sure that it was destabilizing. That said, the 85 gallon tank received two lateral baffles following a December 22, 1943 Test report. The lack of longitudinal baffles were not deemed important.Another question if you don't mind, re Mustang stability with the 85 gallon tank, did stability issues stem from the lack of baffles in the tank or just the fact that it added all that weight where it did.
And, if it was a tank without baffles did they ever try it with baffles? I think I've read that postwar some of the 85 gallon tanks were removed to increase stability, yes or no?
Thanks as always.
I have also heard maybe 50+ WWII pilots way top speed was almost meaningless in a fight. None said it was meaningless when running away, just that it was in a fight. Perhaps what they were saying is, "If you weren't trying to escape, top speed was not all that important." Maybe most in here can see that as absolutely true. It's just that, in a fight, it can turn from a fight to escape in a heartbeat, and you have little control over when that happens some of the time.