Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The "N" Thunderbolt flew very few B-29 escort missions. I think I have read one group's unit history that recorded one escort mission. Of course there may have been others by the few other groups. The P-47N was still a hell of a plane and if the US had invaded Japan, the "N" would have been a true star.
Going off on another tangent, I spoke to a veteran once who worked on the ground crew for a B-17 unit in Italy. He said late in the war they stripped their B-17s down so they could fly bombing missions from 30,000, like the early (Pre-E) B-17s. I have never read any unit histories or confirmations on this. If anybody has any info please post. I wish I knew the number of the bomb group.
Oh, I thought one would want to burn out the whole tank; then switch to the drop-tanks until you had to punch 'em off?if they didnt burn down the fuse tank the center of gravity was off and they were limited on some of the maneuvers. that is why they ran it down to 25-30 gallons right after take-off.
I though the center tank was had the CG just on the aft limit...All subsequent Mustangs had the 85 gallon tank until the P-51H - which carried a 50 gallon tank, and had increased fuselage length and re-designed tail to eliminate the stability issues inherent in the Merlin powered Mustang combined with increased gross weight and 85 gallons/500+ pounds aft of the CG on take off.
Oh, I thought one would want to burn out the whole tank; then switch to the drop-tanks until you had to punch 'em off?
Regardless from what I remember the P-38J you had to burn off a little bit of the wing tanks first before switching to drp-tanks
I though the center tank was had the CG just on the aft limit...
Dynamic stability has to do with oscillations like phugoids, Static stability is what most people think of with stability (i.e. if I pull back on the stick, g-load goes up to 1.5 fro 1.0 it should return back to 1.0 if the stick is centered), and neutral point I just checked... its the point where stability becomes neutral.Zipper - find one of the texts I recommended earlier. Look up Neutral Point, Static and Dynamic Stability and Static Margin.
One of the major design changes for the P-51H was to design it with a Neutral Point aft (relative to P-51 through P-51K) as well as increase the tail areas to address the stability issues the earlier Mustang experienced even prior to the 85 gallon fuselage tank introduced into the Merlin Mustang.
So the P-51H was more docile for long-range operationsAs to static margin. I don't have the data on the stated aft cg location as percent of MAC for either. What Was different is that the center of mass for the 50 gallon fuselage fuel tank was closer to the normal take off CG AND within the static margin (and neutral point) for All load outs - contrast with all 85 gallon fuel tank installations.
Are the control surfaces the same size on the D/K and H? I haven't checked. But it might make a difference.
Two factors - difference between the P-51B thru K had adjustable aileron throw from 10, 12 to 15 degrees, whereas the P-51H was 12 degrees max. The P-51H ailerons (and tail surfaces) were also larger. The Roll rates were approximately the same in flight tests but rigging data is not available for the tests that I have looked at, nor in NAA Performance Calculations.
As to static margin. I don't have the data on the stated aft cg location as percent of MAC for either. What Was different is that the center of mass for the 50 gallon fuselage fuel tank was closer to the normal take off CG AND within the static margin (and neutral point) for All load outs - contrast with all 85 gallon fuel tank installations.
Oh, I thought one would want to burn out the whole tank; then switch to the drop-tanks until you had to punch 'em off?
Regardless from what I remember the P-38J you had to burn off a little bit of the wing tanks first before switching to drp-tanks
I though the center tank was had the CG just on the aft limit...
It was called an interceptor to circumvent armament restrictions that the USAAC put on pursuit planes, as well as possibly allow two engines.The P38 was never designed for dog fighting. It was an interceptor.
Wait, I thought the P-51D was listed?A couple of observations - the P-38J tested at 15000 pounds is 2699 pounds under full internal combat load. -------> 85% of full internal GW. If you 'grow' the P-38J GW to Normal full combat load you divide the recorded turn radius of 838 ft by 0.85 ------------>985 ft
The P-51B at 9000 pounds GW is 611 pounds under full internal combat load - the equivalent of flying without 85 gallon tank fuel ----------> 93% of full internal GW. If you then divide the presented turn radius of 883 ft by 0.93 -------> 949 feet, less than the comparably loaded P-38.
The B was a little cleaner with the razorback and had a slightly different wing; the P-51B was lighter also.It is further documented in Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand". He also documents the turn performance of the P-38J/L as less than the P-51D - and the P-51B outperforms the P-51D.
Why did it fly so little?The "N" Thunderbolt flew very few B-29 escort missions. I think I have read one group's unit history that recorded one escort mission. Of course there may have been others by the few other groups.