RAF Mustang mods for V-1 interception

[drgondog]

The RAE's Technical Note No.Aero.1501(Flight) on Improvement of Performance of Fighter Aircraft Operating Against the German Flying Bomb dated August 1944 describes improvements and results for the Mustang III:

View attachment 716758

I don't know to what extent these improvements were adopted by operational squadrons.

Also, ADGB decided to retard the ignition timing on the Mustang III's V-1650-7 engine. (ADGB/S.36777/Eng.4.).

Hi Mike - I believe the enhancement's order were mistaken. The cumultive effect of Mustang III/P-51B bomb rack removal should be 12mph, enhanced finish 8mph. The latter seems high as more than a few experiments to refnish/polish airframe and wings seldom achieved more than a couple of mph reduction. to achieve even 8mph ponts to a REALLY ratty Mustang III. That said FX 858 had a lot of miles on her by August 1944.

 

[Mike Williams]

Hi Mike - I believe the enhancement's order were mistaken. The cumultive effect of Mustang III/P-51B bomb rack removal should be 12mph, enhanced finish 8mph. The latter seems high as more than a few experiments to refnish/polish airframe and wings seldom achieved more than a couple of mph reduction. to achieve even 8mph ponts to a REALLY ratty Mustang III. That said FX 858 had a lot of miles on her by August 1944.

Hi Bill,

Maybe, the RAE report did note the separate effects of improved finish and rack & aerial backet removal were estimated. Of interest, the P-51 Tactical Planning Characteristics & Performance Chart notes that the P-51B & C racks decrease high speed 12 mph, while the new type P-51D racks decrease high speed by 4 mph. Presumably the P-51B could be fitted with the new type racks? It's unknown to me what type of racks Mustang III FB.377 was fitted with when tested.

The RAE report also noted that Mustang III FB.377 was received from an operational squadron, and that "the paintwork was in very bad condition. The paint on the leading edge and inboard surfaces of the wings was badly chipped. This is most serious in the case of the Mustang due to the thickness of the paint layer. As least six separate coats of paint had been applied."

 

[drgondog]

Hi Bill,

Maybe, the RAE report did note the separate effects of improved finish and rack & aerial backet removal were estimated. Of interest, the P-51 Tactical Planning Characteristics & Performance Chart notes that the P-51B & C racks decrease high speed 12 mph, while the new type P-51D racks decrease high speed by 4 mph. Presumably the P-51B could be fitted with the new type racks? It's unknown to me what type of racks Mustang III FB.377 was fitted with when tested.

The RAE report also noted that Mustang III FB.377 was received from an operational squadron, and that "the paintwork was in very bad condition. The paint on the leading edge and inboard surfaces of the wings was badly chipped. This is most serious in the case of the Mustang due to the thickness of the paint layer. As least six separate coats of paint had been applied."

Mike - the B/C rack was not interchangable with the D rack. The D rack/mounts were beefed up for #1000 capacity and much cleaner - drag wise.

FB 377 had the draggy B rack.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

There is a pic on IWM's site where a RAF P-51B/Mustang III was carrying a 1000 lb bomb under each wing per caption, though I doubt that description is accurate given what you've just posted, as well as maybe size of the bomb. Did the RAF do things differently, or was the caption in error?

 

[drgondog]

There is a pic on IWM's site where a RAF P-51B/Mustang III was carrying a 1000 lb bomb under each wing per caption, though I doubt that description is accurate given what you've just posted, as well as maybe size of the bomb. Did the RAF do things differently, or was the caption in error?

Actually - many 1000 pound bombs were carried by B/C, as well as 160gal tanks. Wartime dictated less safety margin. What you didn't want with 1000 pound bomb was to perform a high g pullout.

 

[Mike Williams]

There is a pic on IWM's site where a RAF P-51B/Mustang III was carrying a 1000 lb bomb under each wing per caption, though I doubt that description is accurate given what you've just posted, as well as maybe size of the bomb. Did the RAF do things differently, or was the caption in error?

This one? ROYAL AIR FORCE: 2ND TACTICAL AIR FORCE, 1943-1945. Are they 1,000 pounders?

Or maybe this one? ROYAL AIR FORCE: 2ND TACTICAL AIR FORCE, 1943-1945. This shows the rack nicely.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Those are the photos, and both captions say 1000 lbs.

 

[Mike Williams]

I'm all for air support to ground troops, but it strikes me that strapping bombs to a Mustang that can fly 400+ mph at low level seems a waste of an aircraft's potential.

 

[drgondog]

How about mission versatility? F-86 carried bombs/napalm, ditto F4U and F9F. How about a s/e fighter ale to carry napalm on one pylonand 110 gal tank on the other - and go much father than P-47 for thatmission?

 

[pbehn]

When the situation needed it it is justified, like destroying aircraft on the ground or helping support land forces in trouble. When used for missions like randomly dropping a small bomb on London from 25-30,000 ft every pilot and plane lost is pilot and plane wasted.

 

[MIflyer]

I'm all for air support to ground troops, but it strikes me that strapping bombs to a Mustang that can fly 400+ mph at low level seems a waste of an aircraft's potential.

What if that is the only airplane that can get there? Using heavy bombers for CAS did not work out too well. Ask Gen Leslie J. McNair.