NOT the definitive P-51/Spitfire Guide...

[Colin1]

Innaccurate
and for that reason, unwelcome usually, but this one's almost funny eg

Spitfires that take 113 years to build (I based his estimate on an 8-hour day); lots of other googlies in there - see how many you can spot

Most Successful Fighters of WWII: the P-51 and Spitfire

 

[Njaco]

Woah, I hurt my eyes! If you can't take off witha full tank and you can't land with an empty tank, WTF?

 

[Aaron Brooks Wolters]

Woah, I hurt my eyes! If you can't take off witha full tank and you can't land with an empty tank, WTF?

Over!

 

[Wildcat]

Innaccurate
and for that reason, unwelcome usually, but this one's almost funny eg

Spitfires that take 113 years to build (I based his estimate on an 8-hour day); lots of other googlies in there - see how many you can spot

Most Successful Fighters of WWII: the P-51 and Spitfire

Look at the caption for the bottom picture.

 

[rochie]

 

[GrauGeist]

WHAT the...?

This guy is about as factual as a YouTube comment...

Some real gems of information in there, like:
"A P-51 was designed to move through the air with minimum effort, a fairly new concept at the time..."
"Early-war fighters, like the Me109 (later called the Bf109)..."
"The German war machine was being helped by all that steel and aluminum falling onto their territory for use in their factories..."

And my personal favorite:
"Fighters never approached healthy bombers from behind, as they were then tail-gunner food moving at only a 50 to 150 mph net speed difference (lots of time for the tail gunner to aim and fire, and his bullets get a tailwind while the bogey's bullets face a headwind)."

FAIL

 

[mkloby]

Woah, I hurt my eyes! If you can't take off witha full tank and you can't land with an empty tank, WTF?

That doesn't sound unreasonable. Many aircraft have prescribed loads and burn sequences. I have no idea if it was true for this aircraft, but it doesn't sound out of the question. Many squadrons also place their own SOPs as far as fuel load too.

Where did he get 330,000 man-hours to build a Spit though? Maybe he was talking about total design and tooling setup?

I'm not an expert by any stretch, but I thought that early Spitfires consumed about 12,000-13,000 man-hours, with 109E's taking about 4000... going up to 6000 plus in later G aircraft.

 

[Njaco]

I agree, Mk, and I'm far from a P-51 expert but I seem to remember Chuck Yeager saying that you had to use the fuel located behind the seat first or you would have some problems or maybe it was the other way around- save the fuel in the fuselage for last. Which would then make me question whether that was the ONLY fuel tank as the article suggests. I do believe there were some in the wings.

That last paragraph killed me though.

 

[Airframes]

The fuselage tank on the P51 was used first Chris, to counter CG problems, though I'm sure Bill will explain this better than I. The writer, whoever he/she is, seems to have missed the fact that the P51, in it's B/C form, didn't have the fuselage tank from the start, but had, as did all versions of the Mustang, wing tanks as the main fuel supply. The fuselage tank, useable capacity I believe 85 gals, was added as a requirement for extra range, along with drop tanks, in the ETO.
I couldn't finish reading the article, as there were so many mistakes, inaccuracies, and downright b*ll*cks, that I gave up!
For instance, when did the Spit IX get a Griffon engine? And, without going back to the pic posted to check, I think it was a Spit 24 anyway!!

 

[Colin1]

...I think it was a Spit 24 anyway!!

An 80 Sqn a/c based in Kai Tak, Hong Kong, judging by the codes and fuselage bands

 

[Njaco]

Terry, I think so too, the last MK of the Spit I think had a Griffon.

But not just that. The reasoning for certain things - i.e. "The extra metal from shot down planes supplied the war industry" ???

 

[drgondog]

The writer, whoever he/she is, seems to have missed the fact that the P51, in it's B/C form, didn't have the fuselage tank from the start, but had, as did all versions of the Mustang, wing tanks as the main fuel supply. The fuselage tank, useable capacity I believe 85 gals, was added as a requirement for extra range, along with drop tanks, in the ETO.

The P-51B-1 arrived in ETO without the fuselage tank. The first production models carrying the 85 gallon tank was the P-51B-5 and C-1. Kits were provided to re-install in earlier versions of the -5 and -1 shipped. Also changed was the replacement of the 1650-3 engine with the 1650-7. Slightly less high altitude but better low to mid altitude performance.

The 85 gallon tank when full not only created the aft cg issue but one of the problems was the 'porpoising' effect which wasn't fully solved until the metal elevators and kits were introduced in the P-51D-10 - and ultimately solved with P-51H's 14inch fuselage extension

I couldn't finish reading the article, as there were so many mistakes, inaccuracies, and downright b*ll*cks, that I gave up!
For instance, when did the Spit IX get a Griffon engine? And, without going back to the pic posted to check, I think it was a Spit 24 anyway!!

You're right about the 85 gallon capacity. The P-51H later only had 50 gallons in the fuse tank.

PS. I had to fight hard to not 'send comments' as requested by author. Pitiful collection of disjointed drivel.

 

[Airframes]

Thanks for the confirmation Bill. Like you, I had to strongly resist replying with comments to the effect that the person had written a load of b*ll*cks!
I think our sentiments are the same, but you expressed them in a more polite fashion!
Colin, you're right, it's a current restoration in 80 Sqn. markings.

 

[Njaco]

The sad thing is, spend only 2 hours searching and reading through this forum and you'll have all the correct answers for a good guide.

 

[Catch22]

Hehe, this is great. I didn't even need to read it, looking at the captions was enough for me.

 

[Waynos]

But wait! I have a question! How did we carefully avoid cathedrals whilst Blanket bombing? What is this technological marvel I know nothing of?

 

[Colin1]

But wait! I have a question! How did we carefully avoid cathedrals whilst Blanket bombing?

Taa daaa!
One of the ones I noticed

No-one's picked up on the 500mph Spitfires yet though
They'd almost be worth waiting 330,000 man-hours for...

 

[Airframes]

The guy obviously hasn't seen the stump of the Alte Kirke spire in Berlin!
Colin, it was things like the 500mph Spit that made me say to myself, 'Aw, f**k this!' and sign out!
Now, I feel like replying on his site, and telling him to do some research - but he could end up here, so I won't!!!

 

[Colin1]

...it was things like the 500mph Spit that made me say to myself, 'Aw, f**k this!' and sign out

lol fair do's mate, and no-one can blame you for that
There was another German cathedral rebuilt recently, wasn't there? They used original blocks mixed with new blocks which will apparently give it a speckled effect until the new blocks age. I can't remember where it is though, big article on it, all the German towns-folk were really pleased to see their cathedral back up.

 

[Njaco]

Here are the 2 lines that killed it for me...

Early-war fighters, like the Me109 (later called the Bf109)....

......but were also losing aircrew and machines at about 15% per mission. The German war machine was being helped by all that steel and aluminum falling onto their territory for use in their factories......

It was Bf first............