P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

[Soren]

You used Km/h instead of m/s. That gives you the wrong result.

No it doesn't Hop, what we were looking for was the difference between both a/c and as you can see the difference is the same wether you use km/h or m/s.

Um, you can turn at different rates. You can most certainly turn at a CL of 0.5, if that provides more lift than you need for level flight.

Listen if Clmax is 1.36 then you're not really turning very well at 0.5 now are you ??

What we want to be looking at is CLmax, as this is the region both a/c are most likely going to reach when they turn fight each other.

Um, do you understand physics at all? If lift exceeds weight, the plane is going to be moving in the direction of lift.

Yes I do understand physics, however you're having big trouble indeed Hop. Ever wondered why a/c need to adjust pitch settings as speed goes up ?? Or are you under the impression that as speed increases lift stayes the same ??

Keep it coming Hop!

No. If you are generating more lift/weight, you are pulling more G. Go and look up the concept of bank angle and G.

For Christ's sake what is it you don't understand man ?!!

Yes like I said a higher L/W ratio gives you a higher INITIAL turn rate, however since the Spitfire has got loads more drag pr. lift its going to loose out quickly in a sustained turn fight.

In other words, you are guessing. You don't have Oswald efficiency figures for either aircraft, just rough figures for similar wing shapes.

Rough figures ?? No, exact figures Hop. But yes there is a little guesswork involved as we don't have the 'e' figure for both aircraft, however knowing the difference in 'e' of a completely elliptical with no twist and an AR of 6, and also knowing what approximate effect leading edge guns have on 'e' I can make a reasonable and educated guess.

The percentage difference is there, but absolute figures are not.

Like I said, we're calculating the difference between two a/c here, so therefore it doesn't matter wether its in km/h or m/s, the difference in percentages is the same.

International standard atmosphere density is 1.225 at sea level. It's not worth arguing over, though, as your figure isn't "wrong", just non-standard.

There can be many reasons why the international std. is different, but again wether we use the international std. figure or the other more regional one doesn't matter, the difference stayes the same.

 

[Hop]

No it doesn't Hop, what we were looking for was the difference between both a/c and as you can see the difference is the same wether you use km/h or m/s.

You could use cubits per sar, the proportion would still be the same, but you will not get even a roughly correct idea of rate of turn.

Look, Soren, you claimed I had my figures wrong. I didn't. You did so in an extremely patronising way, which is why I pointed out you had your units wrong. Accept it, move on.

Listen if Clmax is 1.36 then you're not really turning very well at 0.5 now are you ??

Depends on speed, doesn't it? Just doing the rough calc:

Spitfire - 37418 = 0.5*22.48*.5*1.164*125^2 = 2.7 G. So at 125 m/s, the Spitfire is pulling not far off 3 Gs at a CL of 0.5.

If we use the 600 km/h you used the first time:

Spitfire - 37418 = 0.5*22.48*.5*1.164*167^2 = 4.9 G.

What we want to be looking at is CLmax, as this is the region both a/c are most likely going to reach when they turn fight each other.

It really does depend on speed. You try reaching too high a Cl at too high a speed, you are going to rip the wings off.

For example, at the 600 km/h you originally used:

Spitfire - 37418 = 1.4*22.48*.5*1.164*167^2 = 13.7 G. Think you are going to be pulling that in a turn fight?

More to the point, CL max is usually unsustainable (think you can sustain 4.9 G in a WW2 fighter?)

Yes I do understand physics, however you're having big trouble indeed Hop. Ever wondered why a/c need to adjust pitch settings as speed goes up ?? Or are you under the impression that as speed increases lift stayes the same ??

No. What you wrote was:

Oh and btw generating a 2:1 lift to weight ratio is very normal in straight flight - so yes I do believe that.

If you are generating lift equal to twice you weight, you will not be flying in a straight line, it's a physical impossibility. If you increase speed, you decrease the angle of attack so that lift continues to equal weight. At least, if you want to continue flying straight you do.

For Christ's sake what is it you don't understand man ?!!

I don't understand what you believe. I only understand the physics. When someone approaches the discussion with a wrong concept, it can be very hard to understand what their concept is.

Yes like I said a higher L/W ratio gives you a higher INITIAL turn rate,

You gave calculations showing the Spitfire with a substantially higher lift/weight ratio. That means the Spitfire, in your calculations, was turning tighter.

It will, of course, generate considerably more drag than the Ta 152 if it is turning much tighter than the Ta152.

however since the Spitfire has got loads more drag pr. lift its going to loose out quickly in a sustained turn fight.

It doesn't have "loads" more, it has approx 3% more, a difference that is more than made up by the greater power (and much greater power to weight, incidentally) of the Spitfire.

Having written that, I have got a grasp on your wrong concept.

Induced drag increases with the square of the Cl. That means the tighter a plane turns, the less efficient its lift production becomes.

First, the Ta 152 as a baselineplease check all these calculations, I did them the first time using a CL of 1.42 for the Ta 152, and as I had intended to do them at the 1.45 CL you wanted, I redid them all, so please check if any mistakes have crept in)

Lift = 1.45 * 23.3 * .5 * 1.225 * 125^2
Lift = 323 333 N. That's 6.95 times weight.

Cdi = (1.45^2)/(3.142*8.94*.80) = 0.0936

Drag = 0.0936*23.3*.5*1.225*125^2 = 20,872

Lift/drag = 15.5/1

Now, you worked out the Spitfire at a Cl of 1.35:

Lift = 1.35 * 22.48 * .5 * 1.225 * 125^2
Lift = 290,440 N. That's 7.76 times weight.

Cdi = (1.35^2)/(3.142 * 5.61 * .83) = 0.1246

Drag = 0.1246*22.48*.5*1.225*125^2 = 26 807

Lift/drag = 10.8/1

From this you come up with the Spitfire having 43% more drag/lift. Fair enough.

However, the error is that the Spitfire is turning tighter here. It's generating more lift in relation to its weight, in other words it's pulling more G. When you reduce the turn to the same G as the Ta 152, you get a very different figure:

Lift = 1.21 * 22.48 * .5 * 1.225 * 125^2
Lift = 260 320 N. That's 6.95 times weight, the same turn as the Ta 152.

Cdi = (1.21^2)/(3.142 * 5.61 * .83) = 0.1

Drag = 0.1*22.48*.5*1.225*125^2 = 21 514

Lift/drag = 12.1/1

See how when it's only turning as tightly as the Ta 152, the lift/drag ratio for the Spitfire improves. But wait, there's more.

however since the Spitfire has got loads more drag pr. lift its going to loose out quickly in a sustained turn fight

Ok. The Ta 152 now has approx 30% lift/drag advantage over the Spitfire. So the Ta 152 still has a huge advantage, right?

The problem is, the Spitfire is LIGHTER. It doesn't have to generate the same amount of lift as the Ta 152 to match its turn. In fact, if you look at both planes making the same turn above, the drag figures are:

Ta 152 - 20,872
Spitfire - 21,514

The Spitfire has 3% more induced drag when making the same turn as the Ta 152.

Now, those figures are nowhere near exact, of course, and as we don't have exact figures for Oswald efficiency, and don't have parasitic drag figures at all, there's no point in trying to make them more exact. But the induced drag figures for the 2 aircraft are very, very close, and the Spitfire still has that power advantage.

Rough figures ?? No, exact figures Hop. But yes there is a little guesswork involved as we don't have the 'e' figure for both aircraft,

Exact figures, plus or minus a guess?

however knowing the difference in 'e' of a completely elliptical with no twist and an AR of 6, and also knowing what approximate effect leading edge guns have on 'e' I can make a reasonable and educated guess.

So a guess, as I said.

There can be many reasons why the international std. is different, but again wether we use the international std. figure or the other more regional one doesn't matter, the difference stayes the same.

No, it doesn't, which is why I didn't say you had the "wrong" density figure, just not standard atmosphere.

 

[Kurfürst]

No. I just generally believe that later tests tend to show a more accurate picture for later aircraft.

Hop, even if you rephrase it that just still means you're dismissing every single test apart from the one that's conditions are totally unknown, on the basis it has the highest figures for the Spitfire, and even if it is in conflict with all the others.

Besides if go by the latest test, I guess we have to go by this. It's in rather serious disagreement with the earlier one you're waving.

Apart from that, it's done with Mk XIIs, which were having the most advanced airframe the Spitfire ever got and the stiffest wings etc. Yet look at the conclusions and the characteristics - clipping the wing only seems to improve aircraft with poor ailerons (which are still not as good as normal wings with good ailerons), and it's not a linear improvement, appearantly having an effect at high speed but little at other speeds - quite unlike RAE's earlier trials(?) seem to show.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Spit_clipped.jpg[/IMG
[ATTACH=full]389360[/ATTACH]

Add to that the quoted Mk V pilot's opinion, the vast majority seems to disagree with your RAE's chart's notion that the clipped wing Spit can come even close to the FW 190A in terms of roll.

[QUOTE] Especially as the AFDU findings make no sense when using the figures you are trying to portray as typical for Spitfires, but do make sense compared to the figures in NACA 868.[/QUOTE]

Well, the ADFU trials often doesn't make much sense at all, even you've said it in the past.

For example, this compares the Mk XIV Spitfire at +18 to the Bf 109G-6/U2 with gunpods and 1.3ata :

[IMG]Climb
25.........When both aircraft are at 16,000 feet (the rated altitude of the Me.109), there is little to choose between the climbing performance of the two aircraft,

The problem is that 16 000 feet was never the 109G's rated altitude, and frankly it's the most flattering trials for for the 109G, if even the most draggiest version, burdened with gunpods, running at a mere 1300 HP output can match the Mk XIV Spitfire at 2035 HP output.

Yet if we look at the climb graphs, we find the XIV climbs at 3700 fet/min at 16000 feet, the 109G-6 with gondolas is around 2400 feet/min.

So who to believe, AFDU's 'rather vaguely expressed opinions', as you called them before, or the documented results of trials ?

I really don't wish to argue on this, after all, you showed numerous times that you can argue the facts indefinietely, and the I think he documents were posted and everybody can just make their own conclusions.

 

[Soren]

Hop,

Your new calculations are acceptable, however I have been given something by a friend that changes everything:

NACA 23000 series airfoil characteristics at AR = 6


Knowing this I think its safe to say that the Ta-152's real Clmax is a good deal higher than my assumption. This also explains the Fw-190 G-2's ability to turn with the Mustang Mk.III.

Lets plot in the new CL figure then:

Ta-152 H-1

Lift (L): 1.6 * 23.3 * .5 * 1.225 * 125^2 = 356781.25

Induced Drag (Cdi): (1.6^2)/(pi*8.94*.80) = 0.113936425

Total Drag (D): 0.113936425 * 23.3 * .5 * 1.225 * 125^2 = 25406.4876

L/D ratio = 14.04
L/W ratio = 7.49

Spitfire Mk.XIV

Lift (L): 1.36 * 22.48 * .5 * 1.225 * 125^2 = 292591.25

Induced Drag (Cdi): (1.36^2)/(pi*5.61*.83) = 0.126440729

Total Drag (D): 0.126440729 * 22.48 * .5 * 1.225 * 125^2 = 27202.5375

L/D ratio = 10.75
L/W ratio = 7.58

At Clmax this gives the Ta-152 H-1 a 30% advantage in Lift pr. amount of drag produced over the Spitfire Mk.XIV, and the Spitfire a 1.2% advantage in lift pr. amount of weight over the Ta-152 H-1.

At the same G the Ta-152 H-1 holds a 29% advantage in L/D ratio, and a 4.4% advantage in total induced drag.

Depends on speed, doesn't it? Just doing the rough calc:

Does a turn fight often take place at high speed ?? No.

Spitfire - 37418 = 1.4*22.48*.5*1.164*167^2 = 13.7 G. Think you are going to be pulling that in a turn fight?

No, exactly !

The reason I used 600 km/h was simply to illustrate that speed doesn't help the Spitfire.

More to the point, CL max is usually unsustainable (think you can sustain 4.9 G in a WW2 fighter?)

Which is why the L/D ratio is so important!

If you are generating lift equal to twice you weight, you will not be flying in a straight line, it's a physical impossibility. If you increase speed, you decrease the angle of attack so that lift continues to equal weight. At least, if you want to continue flying straight you do.

Man you're anal !

At 600 km/h for example I guarantee you that Lift is way higher than weight, that your wing needs to be pointed slightly downward is to keep you from sky rocketing (The engine helps alot pulling the plane down as-well), however you are going in a straight line - hence why many a/c have their wings pointing slightly downwards - to ensure good vision from the cockpit.

From this you come up with the Spitfire having 43% more drag/lift. Fair enough.

However, the error is that the Spitfire is turning tighter here. It's generating more lift in relation to its weight, in other words it's pulling more G.

Hop, it'll only be capable of pulling more G for a short while, which means it might just be capable of pointing its nose ahead of the Ta-152 for a very short while before losing too much speed - the Ta-152 having a higher constant turn rate.

Now, those figures are nowhere near exact, of course, and as we don't have exact figures for Oswald efficiency, and don't have parasitic drag figures at all, there's no point in trying to make them more exact. But the induced drag figures for the 2 aircraft are very, very close, and the Spitfire still has that power advantage.

Power advantage ? Hop, the Ta-152H-1 is faster on the deck than the Spitfire Mk.XIV and with less power.

Exactly why an advantage in engine power doesn't mean an advantage in thrust.

[qoute]Exact figures, plus or minus a guess?[/qoute]

Its experitmental figures from NACA Hop, so they should be exact.

So a guess, as I said.

A educated guess, yes.

 

[Jackson]

meebbe we should do a poll amongst the members

more manuverable?

Spit vs Bf 109


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/bf-109-vs-spitfire-3406-13.html

it has been done


the Spit won

 

[Jackson]

Mustang thread...the Ta 152 was immaterial as to combat

 

[davparlr]

Mustang thread...the Ta 152 was immaterial as to combat

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I guess he's means the Mustang saw combat in greater numbers.

 

[Rapecq]

Hi

Wow, i'm impressed - so many interesting information, statistics and technical characteristics. Guys, I've got one question related to P-51 maneuvrability - what about stall characteristics of P-51 ?? I've read that laminar wing could stall much more violently than conventional wing - is that true ?? I alse read words of Feldwebel(T/Sgt) Rudi Driebe form 10.Staffel, III/JG 301 who have flown Ta 152. He said:
"During dogfights the P-51 would turn very sharply and fire its a guns almost immediately(...)".
Well, I'm confused . So can P-51 turn sharply without violent stalling ?? and what about Bf 109 G in tight turning combat?? Which of those aircraft could stall earlier ??

Regards

 

[Soren]

Hi

Wow, i'm impressed - so many interesting information, statistics and technical characteristics. Guys, I've got one question related to P-51 maneuvrability - what about stall characteristics of P-51 ?? I've read that laminar wing could stall much more violently than conventional wing - is that true ??

Yes it is.

I alse read words of Feldwebel(T/Sgt) Rudi Driebe form 10.Staffel, III/JG 301 who have flown Ta 152. He said:
"During dogfights the P-51 would turn very sharply and fire its a guns almost immediately(...)".

Whats he's talking about here is a quick deflection shot, a tactic often used by the Fw-190 against the Spitfire.

Well, I'm confused . So can P-51 turn sharply without violent stalling ??

The P-51 can turn until its Clmax is reached, which it is at a rather low AoA, which means its got the nasty tendency of stalling suddenly, violently and without warning in turns.

and what about Bf 109 G in tight turning combat?? Which of those aircraft could stall earlier ??

The P-51 will stall much much sooner than the Bf-109G in a turnfight.

 

[AV8]

About the P-51 stalling much sooner in a turning fight, not true.

Our museum flies P-51Ds and Spanish Casas (Me 109G with a Merlin). The Casa loses energy quickly in hard turns. The P-51D doesn't.

In flight, the P-51D will easily turn with the Casa and close except at very low speeds, and low speeds are not included in combat maneuvers. So ... if the speed DID get very low, then yes, the P-51D will stall a few mph sooner. The message is clear to the Mustang pilot, don't turn with a 109 at 140 mph or less. Mustang pilots learned that early.

The only real advantage the Casa has is sustained rate of climb. In a zoom climb, the P-51D is better.

 

[davparlr]

About the P-51 stalling much sooner in a turning fight, not true.

Our museum flies P-51Ds and Spanish Casas (Me 109G with a Merlin). The Casa loses energy quickly in hard turns. The P-51D doesn't.

In flight, the P-51D will easily turn with the Casa and close except at very low speeds, and low speeds are not included in combat maneuvers. So ... if the speed DID get very low, then yes, the P-51D will stall a few mph sooner. The message is clear to the Mustang pilot, don't turn with a 109 at 140 mph or less. Mustang pilots learned that early.

The only real advantage the Casa has is sustained rate of climb. In a zoom climb, the P-51D is better.

Good posting.

Just like the US fighters fought the Zero in the Pacific, in ETO, if the Mustang used its speed and kept it up, it would lead the dance, i.e. it would initiate and depart the combat a will, or manipulate energy to take advantage. No wise Mustang pilot would fight at Max Cl, or close to stall. Its advantage did not lie there. It had much more powerful tools elsewhere.

 

[drgondog]

Kurfurst - if you want to bring in the 1945 models of Fw190s and Me109s, bring in the 51H which was in production in March 1945 - it was 900 pounds lighter and 30kts faster than the 51D, out accelerated the 51D, out turned, outclimbed it and rolled faster.

The problem with these discussions, as you say, is that the Luftwaffe also did not have the latest variants of allied fighters in good shape to compare against the 190D's and 109G-10 thru K4's... at least I have not yet seen such reports out of Rechlin.

The only sources for the comparisons that help us be objective are the Post War tests - Mike Williams website is the best collection I have seen so far - and still remain suspect because of all the variables and time it would take to map turn, roll, acceleration, speed, initial climb, etc at say 5 different altitudes

Your comments above - "Overall, probably the best desrcription of the Mustang would be a fair, good over-all fighter that's best quality was speed and range, and was not exceedngly great or poor in any other regard. A jack of all trades, master of none."

The one trait it had was to dominate the Luftwaffe in the skies over Germany, against, I suppose, Luftwaffe a/c that were superior in every way except speed and range?

Most historians would say they (P-51) fared exceedingly well against the best the Luftwaffe had to offer in places like Warsaw or Posnen or Ploesti from Italy or England - places where 109s and 190s (and Spits and Tempest and F4U's) could not ever be based similarly, and STILL fight on even or better conditions with a load of fuel that had to take them 500-600 miles more to return to base.

Last, if 51D acceleration at any altitude was close, say to a 109G-10 or Fw190D, and turning radius at HIGH speed was the same or slightly less than a 109G-10 or better than a 190D and dive acceleration and sustained speed was superior and aileron and rudder forces at high speed were superior for a 51D - then it was "only somewhere between Poor and Not Exceedingly Great"?? What is your standard for Exceedingly Great??

I will never say it was the best in anything - except taking on and defeating their "Betters" some 600 miles away from home. Imagine putting 250 gallons (or equivalent weight) of internal fuel in a 109G-10 of Fw190D9 and have it fight a 51D (or H) with 70-100 gallons of fuel or less? And have your guy fly 4 hours unders constant stress or boredome before fighting? Luftwaffe pilots did not experience that (nor did Brit or Russian - only Japanese)

These are tough debates but the performance of the Mustang should not simply be dismissed as somewhere between Poor and Exceedingly Great

Strictly my opinion, with respect to yours

Bill

 

[Rapecq]

So, to sum up - P-51D loses energy slower in turning at small AoA and much faster when the AoA is bigger ??

Regards,

 

[davparlr]

So, to sum up - P-51D loses energy slower in turning at small AoA and much faster when the AoA is bigger ??

Regards,

Your statement is basically correct but more like less drag at higher airspeeds (which requires lower AoA). Induced drag, drag caused by lift, is inversely affected by airspeed, that is, it affect on an airframe is reduced by the square of the airspeed. The faster you go, the less impact of induced drag. Parasite drag, drag caused by the airframe, increases by the square of the airspeed. The faster you go, the more impact it has on the aircraft. The P-51D, one of the cleanest of the common WWII aircraft, is affected less by higher speeds. In addition, higher airspeed limits the AoA that can be safely pulled due to excessive "g"s, which also benefits the lower drag P-51 wings. As a results, higher airspeeds, the Mustangs strength, is also its best friend.

 

[drgondog]

Yes it is.



Whats he's talking about here is a quick deflection shot, a tactic often used by the Fw-190 against the Spitfire.

What he is probably talking about is being out turned with the trailing Mustang getting inside him..



The P-51 can turn until its Clmax is reached, which it is at a rather low AoA, which means its got the nasty tendency of stalling suddenly, violently and without warning in turns.



The P-51 will stall much much sooner than the Bf-109G in a turnfight.

Not true unless in the 250 kts or lower range where a.) the stick forces for 109 ailerons are lower, and b.) where the leading edge slats are effective... or the 51 still had a LOT of fuel left in the 85 gallon fuselage tank.

The latter condition is responsible for a violent snap roll when aft cg condition took over.

At altitude and high speed the 51 would out turn a 109G or K - ditto the 190 (all versions) - and the 51 bled its speed slower because of the superior aerodynamics of the airframe and wing. Maybe a few Experten could out turn a low time Mustang pilot but it would have been all about pilot skill - not the airplane

The 109G (later models) would initially and sustained outclimb a 51 and would gain initially in a turn with a climbing turn to the right if the 51 was too close to pull deflection - that about summed up the advantage of late model 109s over 51s at altitudes above 15,000 feet.

Both the 109 and 190 were very formidable - pilot skill equal at low and medium altitudes - but that wasn't where most of the fights were.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Laurelix]

Yes that WWII Aircraft Performance site has enourmus amount of very usefull documents However please keep in mind that all those comparisons are made with captured axis planes in questionable condition and with pilots which were most certanly not as familiar with the planes of their enemy as they were with their planes

I have some Russian turn time numbers, however condition of both P51 as also the axis planes is again unknown(atleast to me)
Turns were made at 1000m
P51 - 23sec
FW190A8(3900kg) - 21-22sec
BF109G2 - 20-21,6sec

And yes P51 had very light controls at high speeds

Which P-51 tho. P-51D?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Which P-51 tho. P-51D?

Be advised that this post was from 2007 and the individual who you're posing your question to has not been on this forum in a long time.

 

[GregP]

..... late model Gs were capable performers and the well armed "Beule" was a easily a match for a Mustang.. in a 1 v 1 turning fight the P-51 has little chance ..it was heavier and in a tight turn the 109 could gain some height advantage, the pilot also being able to pull harder in the turn by adjusting the angle of incidence of the tailplane... easing off the throttle a little could easily bring the 109 around on the tail of the P-51..

.. Unfortunately for your average 109 pilot the P-51 was rarely encountered alone.

"...You always had to watch out for the wingmen, which many of us tended to forget. But above all the main thing was, never go into a dive with a Mustang on your tail!.."

( the above adapted from an account by a III./JG 300 pilot)

This is a joke, right?

The Bf 109 was a very good fighter at 180 - 280 mph but, at higher speeds was much less of a dogfighter than the P-51. Anything over 300 mph and the pitch rate of the Bf 109 falls off dramatically. At 400 mph, the stick is almost immovable fore and aft.

The Bf 109 also has no rudder trim, so the Bf 109 driver gets a sore right leg when flying fast. As a result, he rarely chooses fast combat. Of course, you only needs to coordinate the rudder when lining up for a firing pass ... so maybe the rest of the time, being uncoordinated didn't matter much.

If the Bf 109 driver can entice the P-51 driver to flight slowly, he has an advantage. If he can't, he's is some difficulty, maneuverability-wise, versus a P-51.

 

[drgondog]

This thread gives me headaches.

First, everyone dives into CLmax, Vmax, Turn, ROC , etc, etc., with zero context to flight conditions entering combat, with zero context to altitude and HPavail/HPreq, when most victories occurred when the victim either did not see his killer in time to execute an 'out move' and neither turn, nor climb nor dive advantage was sufficiently high to survive.

Lots of folks understand the fundamental equations of Drag and Thrust but few in the above discussion had a clue the the CDo values they picked from various journals were ALL low speed wind tunnel values for combined Friction and Profile/form drag - that were functions of Reynolds Number and decreased with Velocity and Altitude - so they were discussing Drag values from 80-100 mph, not 400+mph.. I have yet to find a lower drag CDP for any aircraft over the P-51D save P-80, Me 262 and Spitfire XXi near o.70 to o.80M.

Discussions about CLmax have zero context unless comparing highest angle of attack just before stall break. But CLmax for stall in level unpowered flight is different from manuevering flight. The Me 109 with slats at low to medium speed had a higher CLmax - bu even there, the assymetrical wing loading between upper and lower wing loading in turning light caused major issues with rudder trim in high G turns.

Counterbalancing the 109 issues in high G turns the P-51 pilot was constantly adjusting trim with throttle changes.

Last, talkng about a Mustang at 11,300 pounds at Take off with Max GW including 220 gal external fuel is a whole lot different over Berlin with both externals gone, 60 gal internal fuel in fuse tank gone and wing tanks down to 100 gal - over Berlin in a knife fight. THAT P-51D is flying at 9300 pounds. A wing loading of 39 psf with a Lot of HPavail for climb, turn and acceleration - THAT Mustang is a 450mph fighter at 67"MP, ROC near 4000 fpm and acceleration advantage throughout the the envelope.

Despite the extra 450 pounds GW over the P-51B empty,the external racks and the canopy translated the P-51D into a lower drag airplane.

It was all about the pilot skills but the P-51D was far better than a 'mediocre fighter'.