Nor its training, most likely. Defending yourself against the occasional attacker is quite different from going out looking for kills.
Cheers,
Wes
Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Cheers,
Wes
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Good find Schweik, I'll have to snag one off Amazon or Ospreys site, the A model always interested me but also confused me for the exact same reasons listed, never understood why it didn't have a better air to air record. Although as Wes says, training for a different type of mission has a lot to do with it I'm sure.
XBe02Drvr said:
Yes but there are some problems with these theories.
- of the ~1700 Allison Engined Mustangs, only 500 were A-36. Another 80 were recon F6. But what about the other 1120 planes?
- Most Anglo-American fighters (P-40s, Hurricanes, P-47s, even Spitfires) were flying mostly Fighter-Bomber missions in the Med or CBI from mid 1942. But they still got victories.
- Non turbo Allison engined P-40s, notably from the 80th and 51st Fighter Groups, and I think 23 FG too, were flying escort missions over "The Hump" successfully.
Or maybe there are other reasons, but I don't think you can explain this by saying that they were all A-36s. We should try to make the theories fit the data instead of the other way around.
S
Last edited:
Maybe they just needed to develop slightly different tactics for the Mustang that they didn't get around to in the comparatively low density air to air environment most were operating in. The Merlin engined Mustangs with 8th AF were in the mix pretty quickly as high altitude escorts for the heavy bombers, so they had to work out how to fight with them pretty fast. It's a little more murky with the 9th or 15th AF.
For the British to have a 400 mph fighter in early 1942 is pretty interesting to me, I'm surprised they didn't do more with it. The book didn't say much about what they in fact did except for some action at Dieppe and some individual Rhubarb (etc.) raids such as one mentioned where they strafed German planes at an airfield near Paris. Seems like they could have done more with it, like escorting Mosquitoes or Beaufighters say.
It's possible the plane wasn't properly exploited.
Some questions I still have:
- Why did the USAAF decide to make the NA-73 into a dive bomber?
- What are the performance differences, if any, other than altitude and top speed, that set P-51A and B/C apart?
- Was Russo really the only Ace? Maybe there were some in the English squadrons that just got ignored in the summaries for some reason. Wouldn't be the first time.
- How did the Merlin engined P-51s do in the CBI? I always assumed well but I haven't really drilled down into it. I have some sources for that that I can check. I know most pilots liked the Mustang.
- Why were P-40s still doing so well in the CBI, even at high altitude, as late as 1944?
- Why didn't the British use Mustang I or IIs against Fw 190s when they were having all that trouble with low level 190 raids in 1942? Or did they?
Last edited:
If you were as studious as you have claimed, you would have known the A-36 and the P-51A were not the same a/c. Noobs make that mistake all the time.
This has already been commented on.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
There also seems to be a little confusion to the Mustang types.
The NA-73 (and NA-83) were RAF Mustang Mk.I and only two were retained by the USAAF for evaluation (XP-51)
The NA-91 was the P-51/Mustang Mk.IA and was the type first accepted into service with the USAAF.
The NA-99 was the P-51A/Mustang Mk.II and saw improvements to the Allison and armament, etc.
The NA-97 was the A-36, intended to be a dive-bomber from the onset (for reasons explained many times in this thread).
Lt. Russo was the only Ace who made all his victories while flying the A-36 (NA-97). The A-36 only saw service with the USAAF, the RAF only had one NA-97 aircraft for evaluation (s/n EW998).
The NA-73 (and NA-83) were RAF Mustang Mk.I and only two were retained by the USAAF for evaluation (XP-51)
The NA-91 was the P-51/Mustang Mk.IA and was the type first accepted into service with the USAAF.
The NA-99 was the P-51A/Mustang Mk.II and saw improvements to the Allison and armament, etc.
The NA-97 was the A-36, intended to be a dive-bomber from the onset (for reasons explained many times in this thread).
Lt. Russo was the only Ace who made all his victories while flying the A-36 (NA-97). The A-36 only saw service with the USAAF, the RAF only had one NA-97 aircraft for evaluation (s/n EW998).
Hmmmm. Can you point out where I claimed that A-36 and P-51A were the same a/c? In all my posts on this subject I was referring to a book (which I linked in case anyone was confused) called "Allison Engined P-51 Mustang" which combined the history of both (or technically, all four or five aircraft types since you also have Mustang I and II, F-6A and B and so on). Both P-51A and A-36 were actually used in many cases for the same missions, apparently though there were certainly differences. I explicitly spelled out all of the a/c subtypes upthread by transcribing a page from the Osprey book, precisely to avoid any such confusion, maybe you missed it?
I pointed out that my first post on the Allison Engined Mustangs was off the cuff and from memory, which I followed up with a more precise post with data from the book when I got home from work. I thought people in the thread would find the book interesting. Did something about this data displease you?
The notion that it was just due to funding seems a bit thin to me. But you are right I should have mentioned it.
S
Last edited:
Well not by me. Forgive me for reposting from Post 936 in this thread, this is from the Osprey book:
320 x Mk I (NA-73) Nov 41 to May 42. Serial Nos AG345 to AG664
200 x Mk I (NA-83) Apr to Aug 42. Serial Nos AL 958 to AM257
100 x Mk I (NA-83) Jul to Aug 42. Serial Nos AP164 to AP 263
92 x Mk IA (NA-91) Sept 42 to Jan 43 Serial Nos FD438 to FD 567
148 x P-51 (NA-91) Serial Nos 41-37320 to 41-37469
500 x A-36 (NA-97) Serial Nos 42-83663 to 42-84162
100 x P-51A-1 (NA -99) Serial Nos 43-6003 to 43-6102
55 x P-51A-5 (NA-99) Serial Nos 43-6103 to 43-6157
155 x P-51A-10 (NA-99) Serial Nos 43-6158 to 43-6312
Of the English models 51 were converted to F-6A and 35 converted to F-6B recon planes.
Yes, my question was did any other (American or Commonwealth) pilots flying (non A-36) Allison Engined Mustang variants reach Ace status, or was Russo the only one?
S
Hey, it was still peacetime (in the US), and under the rules of peacetime capitalist economics you don't hold a production line open if you have nothing for it to do, no matter how promising its potential future product. The costs and timeloss of retooling, rehiring and retraining are just too great. And in a country still recovering from the depression, breaking the penny pinching rules by playing fast and loose with budget categories wasn't an option.
Cheers,
Wes
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Here:
The USAAF didn't make the NA-73 into a dive bomber. North American decided to make it and it was based on the NA-91 (developed in parallel with the NA-99).
And I thought I'd also touch on this while we're at it:
The main performance difference between the P-51A and the P-51B/C, is the Merlin engine in the B/C...there's more, obviously...
Ok fair enough, but I think they were still making some A-36 after Dec 1941 right? This could certainly be all chocked up to bureaucracy / corporate bottom line etc., there was certainly a lot of that in WW2 and in the US in particular. It just seems like a wasted opportunity if that was indeed the case.
The explanation of why they went with A-36 initially does make sense but I still smell a bit of a mystery here (maybe my Noooob instincts are off!)
S
My understanding is that the A-36 was built to hold the production line open until: 1) the USAAF could get more fighter funding and 2) the Merlin Mustang was sorted out.
Production momentum would carry A-36 production on for awhile after December 7.
Cheers,
Wes
Sorry brother, but that is not even close to me saying P-51A and A-36 are the same aircraft. If you are claiming that it is I call BS. If that is not what you are claiming then I apologize. I am trying to operate on the assumption that people I'm discussing planes with here are competent, on the level and of goodwill, and I'd appreciate reciprocation. After all we are all just some guys who really like WW2 planes right?
My reference to the NA-73 is to the original design and by extension, the NA-73X prototype which famously crashed. That is the most succinct way I can think of to refer to this family of army co-operation / dive bomber / fighter bomber / low altitude fighter / recon aircraft which goes by Mustang I and II, P-51, P-51A, F-6 and F-6B. I guess I could say "Allison Engined Mustang" but that isn't entirely accurate either since the A-36 was called 'Apache' and sometimes unofficially as 'Invader'.
Going forward, if you or others in the Thread want to suggest a shorthand name for this whole family of aircraft other than the NA-73 or P-51 family then I'll go along with the consensus. I realize differentiating between NA 73 or P-51 as a family of planes vs. individual subtype requires sussing out the context. "Allison Engined P-51 / Mustang / Apache variants" seems a little too long to me though.
Actually they did - they developed the original NA-73 design into the very similar NA-91, which was a "combat ready"* derivation of the original NA 73 to which was added dive brakes and a few other minor changes. But was a very similar plane.
I apologize, I thought that was implicit when I said speed and altitude. I referred to Merlin engined variants to distinguish from Allison engined variants repeatedly in my posts so I thought it was clear.
S
According to Wikipedia, A-36 production was actually based on a contract in April 42, started up in Sept 1942, and went on well into 1943 and I think 1944. The last 310 A-36 were apparently ordered by USAAF without dive brakes per the Wiki. The wiki has some more information, notably that A-36s were still being used until June 1944 when they were replaced by P-40s and P-47s. They mention that the center body radiator was considered an 'Achilles Heel' in ground attack missions, maybe they should have put some protection on it.
All in all, it does sound like the A-36 was misdirected somewhat by military / corporate bureaucracy. But the other possibility is that a high speed low altitude dive bomber was very useful particularly during the more fraught days of the Italian campaign (finishing up Tunisia, invasion of Sicily, invasion of Italy, Anzio etc.) and they really needed it for that job.
Similarly as others have pointed out, a recon plane fast enough not to get shot down is certainly a valuable asset. I still don't really have a complete grasp of what the British did with the Mustang I and II but Tac /R and other types of recon mission seems to be part of it.
S
Last edited:
Since you like on Wiki so much,
"No funds were available for new fighter contracts in fiscal year 1942, but General Oliver P. Echols and Fighter Project Officer Benjamin S. Kelsey[4] wanted to ensure that the P-51 remained in production.[5]
Since appropriations were available for an attack aircraft, Echols specified modifications to the P-51 to turn it into a dive bomber."
So there was 810 A-36s ordered not 500?
"No funds were available for new fighter contracts in fiscal year 1942, but General Oliver P. Echols and Fighter Project Officer Benjamin S. Kelsey[4] wanted to ensure that the P-51 remained in production.[5]
Since appropriations were available for an attack aircraft, Echols specified modifications to the P-51 to turn it into a dive bomber."
So there was 810 A-36s ordered not 500?
69 were wrecked in training accidents
I think Wuzak provided us with answers (to several of my questions anyway). The memo linked above is an August 1943 report to the commanding Air Force general in North Africa, summarizing English use of the P-51A / Mustang I & II or whatever you want to call it. Several key passages stand out particularly toward the end.
If you want to know, as I did, why they didn't use the P-51A more as a fighter, and why did it have trouble with Ki-43, here is your answer I think:
" 34. Actual combat has proven that the aircraft can run away from anything the Germans have. It's only inferior points are that it can't climb as well as the ME-109 and FW-190 and that at the slower speeds of close combat it loses effectiveness of aileron control and therefore has a poor rate of roll – but its turning radius with a slight amount of flap is shorter than either of the German aircraft. "
The use of flaps for sharper turns was also done with P-40s and many other aircraft too, in fact IIRC the German planes had 'maneuver' flap settings and Ki-43s had automatic flaps that engaged when in bank. Interesting that they say it allowed them to out-turn Bf 109s though. Did they ever fix this aileron problem with P-51 B/C and D etc.? I thought P-51 rolled pretty well.
If you are wondering why Spitfires may not have the same range as some other aircraft types in spite of having a lot of fuel (as was speculated upon recently in this forum by Shortround though I can't remember if it was in this same thread)
" 33. This aircraft is powered with the Allison 1710-39 engine having a rated power of 1150 H.P. at 3000 R.P.M. and 44" Hg. at 12,000 ft. The engine was originally equipped with an automatic boost control limiting the manifold pressure at the lower altitudes to 44". The British remove this so as to get the vastly increased performance at lower altitudes thru the judicious use of over-boost. As has been mentioned before, they have had exceptionally good service out of these engines and due to its smoothness at low RPM's, they are able to operate it so as to obtain a remarkably low fuel consumption giving them an operational range greater than any single engine fighter they possess (the fact that the Merlin engine will not run well below 1600 prevents them from obtaining an equivalent low fuel consumption and therefore limits its usefulness for similar operations). "
Did they ever figure out this problem with the low RPM on Merlins? I would guess P-51B and later had some way to run 'economical' eh?
If you are wondering a little bit about that overboost mentioned above and perhaps looking for some comfirmation of that infamous 1942 Allison memo about overboosting to 70" ... this is highly applicable because it refers to the V-1710-39 which is the same engine as the P-40E / Kittyhawk IA so widely used in the Middle East, Africa and the CBI especially in 1942
" 36. In view of the British operation and the fact that we have an approved war emergency rating on the 1710-39 engine of 56", it is suggested that immediate steps be taken to remove the automatic boost controls from our P-51 airplanes in this theatre and that the instrument dials be marked with the proper lights. The British have operated at full throttle at sea level (72" Hg) for as much as 20 min. at a time without hurting the engines. According to them, the Allison is averaging 1500 hours between bearing failures as compared to 500 to 600 hours for the Merlin. The Allison, they have found, will drag them home even with the bearing ruined. "
Wow. 20 minutes at 72 Hg!? No wonder Fw 190s couldn't catch those things. How fast does a P-51 go at ~1750 hp?
S
I'm well aware of this - in fact, I referred to it repeatedly upthread when I noted that I'm not convinced this is the whole story. I also posted the link to the wiki, right?
But I think it's quite clear now that there were other reasons.
Don't assume what I like and don't like, or what I think, or how new I am or anything else. We don't know one another.
I was just quoting what the Wiki said, though my best guess would be that is a subset of the A-36 order. I really don't know though and to be clear, am not pretending that I do.
S
Last edited:
