P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ... (1 Viewer)

[Erich]

since you guys have mentioned the performance charts on the net then please also visit the P-51 pilot accts as well and read them all ! The Stang did what it did and the 109's/Fw's tried. Clearly the Allies had the upper hand in control of the skies over the Reich had it been even keel then it would of been interesting but that is all what - if's isn't it ?

 

[Smokey]

I have heard that the octane rating of allied fuel was different to axis fuel. Did anyone test axis planes with allied fuel after the war or were the axis engines not geared for allied fuel?

 

[GregP]

A point to make here. It was stated, quite correctly, that it was tough to tell by asking pilots.

Let's examine that.

Let's take a American pilot who was trained in the U.S.A. and then was posted to Europe flying P-51's. And let's say he has lived and flown 15 missions. The P-51 is his sum total fighter experience and he is till alive, so the P-51 is "tops!"

Talk to a British Spitfire pilot and the Spitfire is "tops."

Talk to a German and whichever of the main fighters HE was assigned to was "tops."

Then we have people like Capt. Eric Brown of the RAF who flew more different types than any other test pilot. He may or may not have been a normal squardron pilot, and so may or may not have been in air combat. If he WAS in air combat, my bet is that he was mostly in one type of fighter. That is, he probably didn't do a tour in Spits followwed by a tour in Hurricanes followed by a tour in Tronados followed by a tour in Mustangs.

When test flying, the test pilot rarely achieves complete knowledge of the flight characteristics of the type. He is much more concerned with flight at the edges of the performance envlope. That is, top speed, best rate of climb, best angle of climb, stall speed, max speed in a dive, etc.

So ... I contend we'll never reach a consensus of which was the best.

The Mustang had some great characteristics and I am American, so I like it. I still don't think it was quite the dogfighter that the Spitfire was and didn't have the armament of an Fw 190. If usually had an edge in SOME area against almost any opponent and that edge was used by the Mustang drivers to win fights.

The same can be said of La-5's, Yak-3's, Fw 190's, Bf 109's, etc.

It is a TOUGH thing to pick a "best" when all the designers were striving for that exact thing, and all were coming very close!

The fun is in the trying!

I volunteer at a museum every weekend taht flies WWII warbirds every week. We fly Mustangs more often than most, but that is because we have more spare Mustang parts than any other parts. We only fly the P-47G about once or twice a year, and the Spitfires (a Mk IX and a Mk XIV) are privately owned and fly when the owner wahts them to fly. Our P-38 flies 5 - 10 times per year depending on what is happening, and the P-40 flies more than most others.

these are all old fighters in civilian hands and we don't fly them at the edges of the performance envelope, so we'd NEVER know which was the best when pushed to the limits because we don't push them to the limits on purpose!

It makes these threads all the more fun!Cheers to you.

 

[davparlr]

A point to make here. It was stated, quite correctly, that it was tough to tell by asking pilots.

Let's examine that.

Let's take a American pilot who was trained in the U.S.A. and then was posted to Europe flying P-51's. And let's say he has lived and flown 15 missions. The P-51 is his sum total fighter experience and he is till alive, so the P-51 is "tops!"

Talk to a British Spitfire pilot and the Spitfire is "tops."

Talk to a German and whichever of the main fighters HE was assigned to was "tops."

Then we have people like Capt. Eric Brown of the RAF who flew more different types than any other test pilot. He may or may not have been a normal squardron pilot, and so may or may not have been in air combat. If he WAS in air combat, my bet is that he was mostly in one type of fighter. That is, he probably didn't do a tour in Spits followwed by a tour in Hurricanes followed by a tour in Tronados followed by a tour in Mustangs.

When test flying, the test pilot rarely achieves complete knowledge of the flight characteristics of the type. He is much more concerned with flight at the edges of the performance envlope. That is, top speed, best rate of climb, best angle of climb, stall speed, max speed in a dive, etc.

So ... I contend we'll never reach a consensus of which was the best.

The Mustang had some great characteristics and I am American, so I like it. I still don't think it was quite the dogfighter that the Spitfire was and didn't have the armament of an Fw 190. If usually had an edge in SOME area against almost any opponent and that edge was used by the Mustang drivers to win fights.

The same can be said of La-5's, Yak-3's, Fw 190's, Bf 109's, etc.

It is a TOUGH thing to pick a "best" when all the designers were striving for that exact thing, and all were coming very close!

The fun is in the trying!

I volunteer at a museum every weekend taht flies WWII warbirds every week. We fly Mustangs more often than most, but that is because we have more spare Mustang parts than any other parts. We only fly the P-47G about once or twice a year, and the Spitfires (a Mk IX and a Mk XIV) are privately owned and fly when the owner wahts them to fly. Our P-38 flies 5 - 10 times per year depending on what is happening, and the P-40 flies more than most others.

these are all old fighters in civilian hands and we don't fly them at the edges of the performance envelope, so we'd NEVER know which was the best when pushed to the limits because we don't push them to the limits on purpose!

It makes these threads all the more fun!Cheers to you.

Chino??

 

[syscom3]

Yeah..... You from Chino?

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Unless this chart is wrong, the FW190-A has a far wider turning circle than the Mustang P-51C. I don't know if the P-51D kept as tight a turn as this or if the canopy and tail stabilizer made it more sluggish.
Probably it still would have outturned an FW190-A, unless at low altitudes like the Russian test shows.

This test does not list the Bf 109. It's turn rate would probably be alongside the Spitfire.

Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft


This test, if accurate, shows why the Tempest is not as highly regarded I thought it could be.

And good post Greg.

 

[GregP]

Hi guys,

Actually I live in Irvine but, yes, I volunteer at the Planes of Fame Mueum in Chino, California, U.S.A. We have a LOT of volunteers!

A couple of weeks ago, we had TWO P-38's in the air at the same time! We had our own "23 Skidoo" (P-38J) and "Glacier Girl" (P-38F) flying together! It was magic. Earlier in the year, the first Saturday in January actually, we had a Spitfire Mk IX, Mustangs, P-40N, F8F, two AD Sjyraiders, a big-engine T-28, and several other warbirds all flying on the same day! It was a great photo op, to say the least.

An R-3350 makes a wonderful sound at startup ...

We are currently restoring a Bell P-59A Airacomet to flying status and it SHOULD fly around the end of the year, at which time it will be the world's oldest flying jet aircraft. I am not currently working on it, but it is progressing well thanks to some very qualified volunteers.

We will also have our Northrop M9MB Flying Wing back running at about the same time (working on a blown cylinder on the port Franklin engine).

For you Brits out there, we have a Meteor but no engines for it, a Vampire (not sure of status ...), and a flyable Folland Gnat among other types. Our Spitfires include a Mk IX, a Mk XIV, plus a flyable Hurricane, and a Grumman F6F in British markings.

Our Mitsubishi A6M5 Zero is the only one in the world still flying on the original Japanese Sakae engine, and it flies every so often. We have an original Shusui rocket palne, but you'd have to go a LONG way to find anyone who actually wanted to fly it! So, we do not have it in flyable condition.

We also have a static Mitsubishi J2M Raiden. We WOULD like to fly it, but the wing spar has too much corrosion and we really don't want to fabricate a new wing spar. As an aside, our Bell P39 has the same problem ... corroded wing spar plus many missing parts. The wing spar is the big ticket item.

Our Warhawk is a P-40N and it flies regularly. The P-47 is a "G" model built by Curtiss. It should fly this coming Saturday as well as at the annual airshow in mid May. Our B-25 flies regularly. We have a flyable Grumman F3F, F4F, soon a flyable TBD Avenger, and one of the few flying Douglas Dauntlesses.

We also have a flyable Boeing P-25 Peashooter and a Seversky AT-12 Guardian (export version of the P-35).

In the jet area, we have two flyable F-86 Sabres, a flyable MiG-15, a flyable PZL TS-11 Iskra and a Lockheed T-33 that is used to start the Reno air races every year. Out MiG-21 is "flyable" but doesn't fly at this time.

In unflyable state we have a MiG-17, Douglas Skyrocket, a P-80 (no engine) and F9F Panther (no engine), a Ryan Fireball (piston installed but no jet). These are the hangared jets.

In outside storage we have quite a few older jets including F8 Crusader, F-104 Starfighter, A Thunderflash that was part of the FICON project and still has the trapeze hook on it, a standard F-84F, some A-4 Skyhawks, an F-100 and a few others.

Our B-17 is the one used in the Movie "12 O'Clock High" as "Picadilly Lilly" and only needs money to fly again ... anyone have a spare $1.4M? At the rate we are cashing in pop cans, we'll have the funds for the B-17 in only 7,652 years!

More planes but a bad memory coupled with a few beers ... so, all for now.

Cheers!

If you are anywhere NEAR Southern California, U.S.A. next month, our airshow is right in the middle of the month of May and almost all the flyable planes will fly. Stop in and have some fun!

If you show up, ask for me, Greg Pascal and I'd love to help you have a good visit.

Here are a few images:

Mitsubishi Raiden ... Nice looking! Looks very aggressive ...

100% Scale Wood Mockup of a Heinkel He-100D! Rare .... only one, in fact! Quick! Snap some pics for the propaganda department ... wait, repaint the number first ...

A6M5 Zero with Original Sakae Engine ... sounds sweet!

Boeing P-26 Peashooter .. and it FLIES! .. as long as you can get someone to volunteer to wind up the inertia starter ...

Business End of a Spitfire XIV. Maybe not quite enough propeller blades? Needs 2 - 3 more? Nnahhhh ...

Northrop N9MB Flying Wing ... back flying again about the end of the year! Need to fix an engine.

 

[GregP]

I also wanted to comment on the turning circle chart above. What a piece of wartime propaganda!

In a level turn at a particular speed and "g" loading, all aircraft turn with the same radius. A "3 g" turn is a 3-g turn if both aircraft are at, say, 250 knots.

The important curve is the "g-availble" curve. Since the Spitfire had a lower wing loading than most of its opponents, it could pull more "g" without stalling, and so could turn tighter, but at the cost of higher g-loading.

The turning circle chart makes it appear as though the Spitfire could turn tighter easily as a matter of course, but tThat is true ONLY if the Spit driver is pulling more g's and is only one aspect of dogfighting.

The other aspects are altitude of the engagement, rate of roll, instantaneous and sustained rate of turn - both are important, armament, available "emergency power," the current traiing level of the pilot (can THIS pilot fly it at the edge of stall?), and last but not least ... range.

You might well ask, "What in blazes has RANGE to do with it?"

Ask any Messerschmitt pilot over Great Britain. He KNEW he only had maybe 15 - 20 minutes of flying time over England, and LESS if he was in a dogfight due to higher power settings. MANY were lost in the channel trying to get home after "stretching" a dogfight, sometimes with no real alternative to it except to get shot down if he broke out of the fight at the wrong time.

Another possible factor might be how many pints of Ale the pilot had the night before ... and whether or not he smoked (interferes with breathing at altitude ... and pulling g's is hard work!).

Just pointing out the obvious ... I'm sure the members in here KNOW all that without my post, but the turning circle graph is only accurate at one altitude, one speed, and one level of "g." Any change alters the chart.

 

[mkloby]

Excellent pics, Greg. I particularly liked the He 100! Think you could get some from other angles???

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

What a piece of wartime propaganda!

Thanks.

In a level turn at a particular speed and "g" loading, all aircraft turn with the same radius.

So a Spitfire and Boeing 747 are actually turning exactly the same, except that since the Spitfire is smaller it appears to be turning tighter?

Wouldn't the Boeing have more problems with air pressure, slower speed, and heaviness turning on the same radius as the Spitfire?

I'm really don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[Hop]

I also wanted to comment on the turning circle chart above. What a piece of wartime propaganda!

It's actually a post war piece from T S Wade, former head of the AFDU.

The important curve is the "g-availble" curve. Since the Spitfire had a lower wing loading than most of its opponents, it could pull more "g" without stalling, and so could turn tighter, but at the cost of higher g-loading.

The turning circle chart makes it appear as though the Spitfire could turn tighter easily as a matter of course, but tThat is true ONLY if the Spit driver is pulling more g's and is only one aspect of dogfighting.

It's also true about sustained turns. The diagram is meant to show overall turning performance, though.

 

[lesofprimus]

It's also true about sustained turns. The diagram is meant to show overall turning performance, though

.And not very well I might add.... Those kind of diagrams suck and do nothing more than incorrectly inform the general public....

 

[bryce]

Be very careful using the WWIIaircraftperformance site as reference for German fighter performance as it has a habbit of presenting the very lowest of figures obtainable in this area - the author being known for his bias toward Allied a/c.

Nontheless it is a good source for info on allied a/c, but please draw your conclusion(s) from the originial data available and not from what someone says !

As to the P-51 maneuverability, well at low to medium speeds it was clumsy compared to the German fighters while at high speed it could compete.

If we ignore the German aircraft in this diagram, can we take this as a good comparison of the Allied aircrafts turning circles on this table then?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg

 

[mad_max]

It's pretty hard to get anything out of that diagram to be honest. I've never
seen any description of the "test" parameters that should accompany a chart
like this.

This is my thoughts from years of reading, studing documents, data, pilots
accounts, etc. It may not be what some want to hear, but in my honest
opinion this is what I've come to the conclusion of.

Best bet is to figure the spits to the spit XIV, P-51's, 109's, 190's to be real
close to each other in the 10 - 20K range in altitude at a speed of around 200
- 300 mph. The jug would at 250+ be able to hang, but under 250 it better
dive out and run.

Over 25k the P-51 and Jug will have an upper hand. Over 32k and the Jug is
the one to beat.

At lower altitudes under 8k the Spit and 190 would be close with the 109
alittle wider.

See there is just to many variables to say this airframe out turned that one
and no reliable tests have been done in the past. We sure won't have them
done in today's age.

Taking everything into account....the old adage...It's the Pilot not the aircraft
has lots of merit to it.

Best,

 

[GregP]

Tell you what ... when I go there tomorrow, I'll try to get a few shots of the He-100D from several angles. Maybe post next week after I doctor and upload to PhotoBucket. Most of our German stuuf are 100% replicas, but the Fiesler Storch and the He-162 are real. The only reason the Storch isn't flying is lack of a working Argus V-8 engine. The rest of the airframe is ready to fly right now.

We also have a real Horten Ho.IV glider ... see below: (the elevons are off the wing being worked on ...)

I'll also try to get a shot of our P-47G starting up with smoke and spinning prop blades ... we'll see ...

 

[GregP]

Hey Mr. Soundbreaker Welch (love that handle!),

Yes, a Spitfire and a Boeing 747 will fly the exact same radius level turn if both are at the same speed and pulling the same g ... a 2g turn is a 2g turn and will have the same radius if flown at the same speed.

Most Boeing 747's try to never get to a 45° bank because the paying passengers get upset about it ...

Also, a 747 looks like a lumbering giant though it will easily outspeed any Spitfire. It also has a considerably higher ceiling and hauls more than TWICE as much fuel!

Ha ha ha ha ...

It probably hauls an entire squadron's worth of Spitfires in fuel, include the Spitfire airframes, pilots, drop tanks, crew chiefs, and squadron vehicles ... but that's another story.

Cheers!


For those who like numbers I offer the following.

1) In a level turn, the g load can be figured as 1 / cosine of the angle. For a 60° angle, the g = 2.

2) The stall speed increases as the square root of the g load.

3) In a level turn, the radius of turn equals the square of the velocity divided by the value of g times the tangent of the bank angle.

How does this help?

Suppose we have a Spitfire that stalls at 80 mph in level flight. Further suppose we are in a 60° bank. The cosine of 60° is 0.5 (one half). 1 divided by 0.5 = 2, so we will be flying in a 2g turn. The square root of 2 is 1.414, so our new stall speed is 1.414 time 80 mph, or 113.13 mph.

Further, suppose we are not the best pilot in the world, so we need a 10% margin to avoid a stall. 110% of 113.13 mph is 124.45 mph.

OK, so we want to know the radius of turn of the Spitfire flying at 124.45 mph while banking at 60° and pulling 2g.

The tangent of 60° is 1.732 .

124.45 mph is 182.5 feet per second. Square 182.5 and divide by (32.174 * 1.732) to get a turn radius of 598 feet. (the value of 1 g is 32.174 feet per second squared).

Notice there is no calculation for wing loading. We have only speed and angle of bank or g load.

How does this help the question?

Well, a lower wing loading means a lower stall speed. So, the radius of turn decreases as the square of the stall speed.

Finally, let's make a comparison.

Suppose we have a Spitfire that is stressed for 8g and it has a level flight stall speed of 80 mph.

We pit the Spitfire against an Fw 190D that is also stressed for 8g but it has a level flight stall speed of 85 mph.

Suppose we want to have a level flight turning battle between tehse two aircraft (would WE want that?). Further, suppose we want both planes to have a 10% buffer in speed.

Spitfire: 80 mph + 10% = 88.0 mph. Now, suppose we pull 8g. The stall speed will be 248.9 mph. The radius of turn is 521.8 feet.

Fw 190D: 85 mph + 10% = 93.5 mph. Now, suppose we pull 8g. The stall speed will be 264.46 mph and the turn radius will be 589.1 feet.


Doesn't seem like much of a difference, and it isn't. But the Spitfire can turn inside the Fw while traveling 16 mph slower. That means the Spitfire can gain a lead and get bullet into the Fw at this close-to-maximum performance, assuming a good starting position.

In the reverse situation, the Spitfire can get away for the same reason ... assuming the very competent German doesn't hit the Spit with a single cannon round first, thus decreasing the Spit's performance critically ... and maybe fatally.

Not much of a difference, but please remember I made up these numbers. I don't KNOW the level flight stall speed of the Spit or the Fw and I don't know the design load factor either. I doubt seriously if either could pull 8g.

A Mustang has a stick-force-per-g of about 30 pounds. To pull 8g, the pilot would have to apply 240 pounds of force in pulling the stick. Remember he is sitting down in the seat, not standing braced for a pull, and he has been in a VERY cold cockpit for hours and is no doubt stiff, sore, and cold ... at least in WWII Europe. For a modern airshow, he is probably well conditioned, comfortable, just swallowed some Gatorade, and is ready to pull quickly and hard.

For the case of a wartime Mustang, 4g is more likely.

The point is, if the speed is the same and the g load is the same, the turn radius will be the same.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I got a quite a bit of what you were saying. And thanks for noticing my odd name!

Basically, the chart is wrong in that all the aircraft are going in a 45 degree angle, thus pulling the same g's, but the chart makes the false impression that some aircraft aren't turning as well or as much when in fact they all are.

Though a Spitfire going at a 45 degree angle can turn tighter than a FW-190A going at a 45 degree angle, but it's not because the FW is turning less, It's because the FW can't stall as slow as the Spitfire. It's higher speed makes it turn wider. So no matter how fast or slow the FW is going, the Spitfire will always turn slower than it and thus come on the inside.

Thanks. I'll study your points more to understand them even better.

By that way, I had no idea that there was still a surving Horten Ho. That's really cool. Too bad nobody flies it. But then somebody might crash it and then no more Horten Ho on display for the world.

 

[Mike Williams]

Hi guys:

The Air Fighting Development Unit (AFDU) based at Wittering and Duxford was under the control of Fighter Command and the Air Ministry where it conducted comparative trials and developed and promulgated tactics effective against the enemy. Jeffrey Quill, Chief Test Pilot for Supermarine, wrote that the "Air Fighting Development Unit represented Fighter Command and […]did a most useful job in relating the various British fighters to those of the enemy and in developing tactics on behalf of the command."

The author of Comparative Performance of Fighter Aircraft, Sqdn. Ldr. T.S. Wade, D.F.C, A.F.C, R.A.F.V.R., had served as O.C. Flying at the AFDU. Those charts appear to be a product of AFDU evaluations.

The relevant portions from Wade's article relating to this thread's current direction are summarized below:

[…]What follows is intended to give the average non-technically minded reader some idea of how some of these aircraft compare with each other in the matter of performance and manoeuvrability.

Comparison does not mean obtaining results from an indiscriminate dogfight between two fighter types, but a practical assessment of the information gained as a result of specific tests in specific circumstances. These circumstances are standardized by dividing the tests up into two categories, namely, Factual Comparison, which includes speed, rate of climb, range, endurance and acceleration, readily measured against the stop watch, and Competitive Comparison, such as turning circles, rates or roll and dive zoom climbs. Rates of roll, of course be measured either way. The choice is a matter of opinion.

Turning Circles

In circumstances where the ability to turn quickly or tightly are infinitely variable, and where two aircraft are nearly the same, such as the Tempest V and Thunderbolt II, a great deal depends on the ability of the pilots. Speed must be taken into account if the results are going to be of any real value.

For example, if a Tempest dives on a Thunderbolt with an overtaking speed of only 50 mph, the Thunderbolt will easily be able to avoid the attack by turning, although at the same speed in the hands of equally competent pilots, the Tempest will outmanoeuvre the Thunderbolt. This advantage, however, is no by any means so apparent at high altitudes, due to the greater engine efficiency of the Thunderbolt above 25,000ft.

Similarly, where low-altitude and high-altitude fighters are compared any advantage shown by the former will be reduced as the high-altitude fighter gets nearer to its best operational altitude. After taking all these considerations into account, the position of the aircraft relative to each other will be seen from the diagram.

Once again, the Spitfire maintains top place, followed by the Mustang, Meteor, Tempest and Thunderbolt. Too much regard to this order should not be paid, particularly by the individual who will angrily recall the occasion when he out-turned a Meteor when flying his Tempest. This sort of thing is inevitable, but we can only repeat that where the circumstances are common to both aircraft, these positions are not far wrong. (my emphasis) ​

Before smearing S/L Wade with comments such as "wartime propaganda", "biased", "the chart is wrong in that all the aircraft are going in a 45 degree angle", it might be beneficial to read to read more closely what he wrote and note the context in which his conclusions were reached.

My opinion is that the article is interesting when viewed as a pilot's reflections (who happened to head up the trials) on what the comparative tests revealed.

With regards to the main thread subject of P-51 maneuverability; I have many/most of the wartime performance and comparative trials on the type which when taken together paint a fairly clear picture of the P-51's performance capabilities. I find the performance curves to most efficiently impart information such as level speed and climb. It must be said, however, that I had a completely different sense of flying the aircraft in combat and a feeling for how it performed after having read through all the Encounter Reports.

Its one thing for a Technical Report to state:

"The airplane is very maneuverable with excellent controllability at all speeds up to slightly over 400 MPH indicated, the highest speeds attained in level flight. Stability is good about all axes, and recovery from stalls is normal. The airplane has a fairly short radius of turn and an excellent rate of roll."​

That's useful and informative.

Tactical Trials further add to our understading with statements such as:

"The Mustang III is very similar to fly and land as the Mustang 1. It is therefore delightfully easy to handle. It is as easy to fly as a Spitfire IX with the exception that the rudder is needed whenever changing bank…"​

It's a whole other ballgame, however, when you read a pilot's Encounter Report such as that of Lt. Richard D. Bishop wherein he recorded:

"I'll never worry about meeting a FW 190 in a 51 since I was able to outturn, outdive and generally out-maneuver him at all altitudes, from 23,000 feet to the deck; I could follow him in anything and do a lot more besides."​

Read a couple hundred of these P-51 Encounter Reports, go ahead – set aside a few hours and do it, you won't regret the time spent - you can't help but be impressed with the P-51's capability.

Mike

 

[davparlr]

Suppose we want to have a level flight turning battle between tehse two aircraft (would WE want that?). Further, suppose we want both planes to have a 10% buffer in speed.

Spitfire: 80 mph + 10% = 88.0 mph. Now, suppose we pull 8g. The stall speed will be 248.9 mph. The radius of turn is 521.8 feet.

Fw 190D: 85 mph + 10% = 93.5 mph. Now, suppose we pull 8g. The stall speed will be 264.46 mph and the turn radius will be 589.1 feet.

I enjoyed your discussion on turn performance. It demonstrates the difficulty in comparing turning performance. It also shows the impact of wingloading on turn performance and is a good estimate for aircraft performance given similar airfoil designs. Soren has justifiable argued that wingloading discrepancy is somewhat offset by efficient airfoil design, as in the Ta-152 vs P-51H. Turn performance has a lot variables, many difficult to get a grasp on, especially old aircraft with little data.

On your example, I suspect that a WWII pilot pulling 8gs without a g suit would be in La La land. But the example was informative.

Read a couple of hundred of these P-51 Encounter Reports, go ahead – set aside a few hours and do it, you won't regret the time spent - you can't help but be impressed with the P-51's capability.

I agree with this. As noted in the "Report on Joint Fighter Conference", the P-51 was not selected as best fighter above 25k ft or the best fighter below 25k ft but it was selected as 2nd best in both. To me this says that the P-51 may not be the greatest in all situations but was very good in just about all situations and was the greatest in some, particularly in long range escort. All in all, it was a fine aircraft in which the pilots typically were proud to fly and were confident in its ability, much like many other aircraft in the war.

 

[Rapecq]

Hi

So after this which has Mike Williams presented us, I'm a little confused about real P-51 capabilities ...

The airplane is very maneuverable with excellent controllability at all speeds up to slightly over 400 MPH indicated, the highest speeds attained in level flight. Stability is good about all axes, and recovery from stalls is normal. The airplane has a fairly short radius of turn and an excellent rate of roll."

But this description reffers to P-51B. Does "D" have also excellent controllability and rate of roll?? And I have also one more question: why Bf 109 was difficult to controll at high speeds ??



Regards