Regarding the Mustang (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

According to Freeman's biography p.236
By February 1944 more than 100 9th Air Force Merlin mustangs were escorting 8th air Force bombers, destroying three to five times as many German fighters per sortie as the more numerous P-47s between January and March, Before the end of March Doolittle asked for all his p-47s and P-38s to be replaced by Mustangs as soon as possible.
P.239
the performance ofthe German twin-engined fighters was never adequate against day fighters, but the speed and manoeurability of the modified FW 190s an Me 109s had been impaired by the weight of their new guns and armour. Until the D-9 version of the former was available, belatedly re-engined with the Jumo 213, they could not compete with the Mustang.
And p.241
Monthly losses, which included most of the experienced German fighter pilots, averaged 450 in the first five months of 1944, only 246 of Germans's single-engined day fighters remained operational.
 
According to Freeman's biography p.236
By February 1944 more than 100 9th Air Force Merlin mustangs were escorting 8th air Force bombers, destroying three to five times as many German fighters per sortie as the more numerous P-47s between January and March, Before the end of March Doolittle asked for all his p-47s and P-38s to be replaced by Mustangs as soon as possible.
P.239
the performance ofthe German twin-engined fighters was never adequate against day fighters, but the speed and manoeurability of the modified FW 190s an Me 109s had been impaired by the weight of their new guns and armour. Until the D-9 version of the former was available, belatedly re-engined with the Jumo 213, they could not compete with the Mustang.
And p.241
Monthly losses, which included most of the experienced German fighter pilots, averaged 450 in the first five months of 1944, only 246 of Germans's single-engined day fighters remained operational.

The last comment is overstated (no. of S/e fighters remaining during May 1944 as an example) pretty significantlty.

LuftFlotte Reich alone stated ~450 s/e 'effectives' and the LW showed 1,063 serviceable s/e Day Fighters.

Having said this, the situation regarding experienced pilots was pretty severe relative to number of a/c available.

Jan-May, 1944 was the death knell for German air superiority over Germany.
 
The P-38 was much more expensive to produce, to maintain and much more difficult to fly on the edge.
Those things were true during 1941 also and yet the U.S. Army Air Corps persisted with the P-38 program. For that matter the P-47 was also expensive to produce. Aircraft cost was apparently not a major consideration for the WWII U.S. Army Air Corps.
 
The Messerschmitt 109 Emil's slats snatched and sometimes even jammed, and this almost killed Rall once, hence he was quite vary of them from that point on. But a new slat design introduced with the Friedrich series and onwards solved the problem and these a/c experienced no snatching or disturbance to the flight path in any way during hard maneuvering turns. This is made clear by both verteran LW pilots as-well as modern pilots.
 
The Mustang solved many problems in one nice package. It had range, it performed equal to or better than most, it was quicker to build, cheaper to build, and easier to learn to fly and fight. And on top of all of those its timing was almost perfect, maybe a bit late.

The USAAC needed a plane that could do all of those things, and the Mustang provided it in spades!

If you have 3 planes in the inventory (P-38, P-47, P-51) that can all perform the same mission. (only speaking of the needs in the European theatre) It only makes sense to go with the Mustang. And in reality, the P-47, at that time, did not have the range to match the Mustang or Lightning. So it was either Mustang or Lightning. I love the big Lockheed, but the choice to go with the P-51 was obvious.
 
The Mustang was indeed what the Allies needed, and at the time of its introduction into service it was actually the fastest fighter in the skies at most altitudes. The Mustang was fast, rolled turned well, had good control forces at most speeds and most importantly it had a very long operating range.

Now the Mustang wasn't without disadvantages to enemy fighters ofcourse, the Bf-109 could mostly outturn and outclimb the P-51 Mustang pretty effortlessly, and the FW190 generally turned climbed a little bit better as-well at low to medium alts while it was the other way around at high altitudes (And thats where the bombers flew). But overall I'd have to say that by the time of its introduction the P-51 was one of the hottest birds in the sky, and it remained so until the end of the war. The Dora-9 was the P-51's equal in many ways, featuring slightly better performance at low to medium altitudes while the Mustang was superior from 20kft and upwards, and this while having almost double the range.

In short the P-51 is one of the greats within the history of fighters, and it certainly helped save the Allied airforces from utter defeat. The P-51 levelled the playing fields for the Allies in many respects while it gave them the advantage in others. The Spitfire was being mauled pretty badly by LW fighters, esp. by the FW190, at the time the P-51 showed up; The P-51 changed this and took the fight to the Germans, and you gotta give some credit for that.
 
Last edited:
The Mustang solved many problems in one nice package. It had range, it performed equal to or better than most, it was quicker to build, cheaper to build, and easier to learn to fly and fight.
I agree with all of this. But the fact remains that the U.S. Army Air Corps took their time adopting the P51. They were betting the P-38 and P-47 would be war winners. Only when the P-38 and P-47 fell short of the mark was the P-51 pushed to the front of the pack.
 
I think you are forgetting the amount of time needed to tool-up and start producing aircraft in large numbers. And the amount of time it took to design and develop certain aspects of engine performance.

WHile it is ceratinly true that the P-51 was designed in the Spring of 1940, it took until the end of Oct 1941 to get the first one to fly in England. Just about ONE month after the TWO-stage Merlin first flew in a Spitfire and that was the converted MK III protoype. ANd this was around 15 months After Stanley Hooker started working on the TWO-stage project. THE PRODUCTION TWO-stage Merlins didn't enter service until June of 1942. At this time around 612 Allison powered Mustangs had been built with more to come.

But Allison powered Mustangs won't do the USAAF any good. Or at least they can't replace P-38s and P-47s. THE USAAF wants fighters than can Fly at high altitude. While they may still believe that unescorted bombers can operate over Europe in 1942 at least the P-38 and P-47 can operate at the same altitude as the bombers.

British built two-stage Merlins are in short supply, initial production is around one per day until ALL development problems are sorted out. THE US starts manufacture of the two-stage engine at the Packard plant. 5 are produced in 1942.

Contract for the First Merlin powered Mustang protoypes is given at the end of July 1942. By the end of August 1942 a contract is placed for 400 P-51Bs, please note that this about 3 months before the first protoype P-51B actually flies. By Jan of 43 somewhere around 4700 Merlin Mustangs are on order according to the account I am reading. Packard is only able to Deliever 2792 Two stage engines in 1943 and a fair number of them were to British contracts.

Without re-writting history the Merlin powered Mustang wasn't going to show up in combat much before it did.
 
Packard V-1650 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In June 1940, Henry Ford had offered to manufacture 1,000 aircraft a day if the Government would let him do it his way, and during a discussion with Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. regarding what the Ford company might produce, Ford's son Edsel tentatively agreed to make 6,000 Rolls-Royce liquid-cooled engines for Great Britain and 3,000 for the U.S.[2] However, at the beginning of July Henry Ford stated that he would manufacture only for Defense, not for Britain, and the entire deal was declared off.

I am under the impression the Packard Merlin engine was a British program. The American government turned down a July 1940 offer by Ford Motor Company to produce the Merlin engine for American use.
 
The Mustang was indeed what the Allies needed, and at the time of its introduction into service it was actually the fastest fighter in the skies at most altitudes. The Mustang was fast, rolled turned well, had good control forces at most speeds and most importantly it had a very long operating range.

Now the Mustang wasn't without disadvantages to enemy fighters ofcourse, the Bf-109 could mostly outturn and outclimb the P-51 Mustang pretty effortlessly, and the FW190 generally turned climbed a little bit better as-well at low to medium alts while it was the other way around at high altitudes (And thats where the bombers flew). But overall I'd have to say that by the time of its introduction the P-51 was one of the hottest birds in the sky, and it remained so until the end of the war. The Dora-9 was the P-51's equal in many ways, featuring slightly better performance at low to medium altitudes while the Mustang was superior from 20kft and upwards, and this while having almost double the range.

In short the P-51 is one of the greats within the history of fighters, and it certainly helped save the Allied airforces from utter defeat. The P-51 levelled the playing fields for the Allies in many respects while it gave them the advantage in others. The Spitfire was being mauled pretty badly by LW fighters, esp. by the FW190, at the time the P-51 showed up; The P-51 changed this and took the fight to the Germans, and you gotta give some credit for that.

Pretty darn good summary Soren..
 
Hello Soren
Quote:" The Spitfire was being mauled pretty badly by LW fighters, esp. by the FW190, at the time the P-51 showed up.."

Now on what you based your claim. Fighter Command had taken beating from LW fighters in 41-42 but in 43 situation was much more even, sometimes LW roughed RAF sometimes it was other way around, and IIRC P-51Bs began their operations in ETO near the end of 43, so situation was already rather even in fighter combat when Stangs appeared. The range was the virtue which made P-51 so important and of course the bomb loads of US heavy bombers, which meant that LW fighters didn't have anymore the privilege to decide, engage or not depending on tactical situation, but their had to try to disturb the bombers.

And on Rall, I doubt that a man who claimed 174 aerial victories while flying Bf 109F or later was "was quite vary of" the slats of his 109, at least according to his memoirs many of his fights were classical turning fights.

Juha
 
Last edited:
Hello Soren
Quote:" The Spitfire was being mauled pretty badly by LW fighters, esp. by the FW190, at the time the P-51 showed up.."

Now on what you based your claim. Fighter Command had taken beating from LW fighters in 41-42 but in 43 situation was much more even, sometimes LW roughed RAF sometimes it was other way around, and IIRC P-51Bs began their operations in ETO near the end of 43, so situation was already rather even in fighter combat when Stangs appeared
Tend to agree
once the RAF got over the initial shock of the Fw190A, they and the Luftwaffe more or less traded blows
 
Hello Colin
In fact, after checking July and Nov 43 from Caldwell's The JG 26 War Diary it seems that during July 43 it was rather even, LW had a slight advance but in Nov 43 Spitfires seemed to have won all the bigger combats. I was a little bit surprised myself on that. Of course only 2 months but I have not more time now.

Juha
 
I am under the impression the Spitfire Mk IX was more or less equal to contemporary German Me-109 and Fw-190 fighter aircraft. The new Spitfire version plus adoption of air combat tactics similiar to those Germany used evened the odds.
 
Packard V-1650 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I am under the impression the Packard Merlin engine was a British program. The American government turned down a July 1940 offer by Ford Motor Company to produce the Merlin engine for American use.

Not, quite. Ford bailed. Packard got the drawings and a sample engine that was in the country and started work in June of 1940 even though formal contracts weren't signed until September.

Ford offered/boasted about 1000 aircraft a day but spring/summer of 1940 was cash and carry time, not lend lease so it was a British program but the US would only allow programs that would expand the US ability to make US designs or things the US could use in it's own programs. Notice that no british tanks were made in the US:) In order to OK the order for 6000 engines for England the Americans got to tack on an initial order for 3000 engines NONE of these were two stage engines.
THe Ford company did a fantastic Job Making P&W R-2800s after signing a contract in Sept of 1940 but it took them until some time in 1944 to peak at 186 engines in one day.
 
One has to examine both doctrine and tactics to get a perspective of the differences between 1941/42 and late 1942/1943 for RAF Fighter Command.

My perspective is the the Fw190 set the RAF back on its heels and RAF did not achieve true parity with the 190 until the introduction of the Mk IX.

Additionally, the RAF became more aggrssive in their fighter sweeps over France and Holland - therby regainging some of the lost initiative.

Second factor - the Mk IX in my opinion was a better dog fighter than the Fw 190A5 (and subsequent), particularly at high altitude, but the battles were largely at low to middle altitudes making it very even contests between the two fighters.

Taking it further, the Spit IX was also a better dogfighter than the P-51 at low to medium altitudes. At high altitudes the Mustang regained some capability due to outright speed, dive and roll at high speeds.

The essential difference in rate of scores and air to air superiority between the 51 and the 190 is simply the 190 had to engage the bombers, could not simply pick and choose whether to fight, at high altitude - and placed itself in the exact strike zone where the Mustang was clearly superior (except for roll) until the 190D.

When I publish my new book I will be including tactical discussions by Zemke, Stewart and other 8th FC leaders in which they discuss the do''s and don'ts for battle against the 190 and 190. In every case they will concede that the US fighters should always strive to manuever in ways to not lose the speed advantage.

The Spit XIV was nearly superior (as a dogfighter) in every key tactical category to either the 51D or 51B - it just couldn't fly to the fight.
 
Last edited:
Juha said:
And on Rall, I doubt that a man who claimed 174 aerial victories while flying Bf 109F or later was "was quite vary of" the slats of his 109, at least according to his memoirs many of his fights were classical turning fights.

Well in that case he just didn't push his aircraft to the limit whilst out-turning and shooting down his foes, which I have no problem believing either. But I can tell you that all other 109 pilots disagree with him regarding the snatching, they all make it quite clear that this just doesn't happen. Rall almost got killed when one slat jammed whilst flying an Emil, explaining is relationship with the slats.
 
The Spit XIV was nearly superior (as a dogfighter) in every key tactical category to either the 51D or 51B
Shouldn't the Spit XIV be compared to the P-51H? Hardly any of either type aircraft made it into operational service by May 1945.
 
I am under the impression the Spitfire Mk IX was more or less equal to contemporary German Me-109 and Fw-190 fighter aircraft. The new Spitfire version plus adoption of air combat tactics similiar to those Germany used evened the odds.
They were remarkably equal

The supremacy of the Fw190 lasted from September 1941 until July 1942 when 64 Sqn started receiving their Spitfire Mk IXs. The Mk IX was fitted with the Merlin 61, employing a two-stage supercharger with two centrifugal impellors in series. The new engine gave substantial improvement in high altitude performance over the Merlin 46 as fitted to the Spitfire Mk V; at 30,000ft the M46 developed 720hp whereas the M61 developed 1,020hp - an increase of 40%.
This extra power was sufficient to close the gap with the Fw190. As this AFDU report shows, the performance of the Fw190 vs Spitfire Mk IX was about as close as it could be, considering they were two quite different aircraft.
The Fw190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000ft. The Spitfire IX at most heights is slightly superior to the Fw190 and the approximate differences in speeds at various heights were as follows:

Speed
2,000ft - the Fw190 is 7-8mph faster than the Spitfire

5,000ft - the Fw190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same

8,000ft - the Spitfire is 8mph faster than the Fw190

15,000ft - the Spitfire is 5mph faster than the Fw190

18,000ft - the Fw190 is 3mph faster than the Spitfire

21,000ft - the Fw190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same

25,000ft - the Spitfire is 5-7mph faster than the Fw190

Climb
During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000ft with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two fighters although on the whole the Spitfire was slightly better.
Above 22,000ft the climb of the Fw190 is falling off rapidly whereas the Spitfire's is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from a dive.
It must be appreciated that the differences between the two aircraft are only slight and that in actual combat the advantage in climb will be with the aircraft that has the initiative.

Dive
The Fw190 is faster than the Spitfire in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as it was with the Spitfire Mk V.

Manoeuvrability
The Fw190 is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire except in the turn, where it is out-turned without difficulty.
The superior rate of roll of the Fw190 enabled it to avoid the Spitfire if attacked when in a turn by flicking over into a diving turn in the opposite direction and, as with the Mk V, the Mk IX had great difficulty in following this manoeuvre. It would have been easier for the Spitfire to follow the Fw190 in the diving turn if its engine had been fitted with the negative g carburettor as this type of engine with the ordinary carburettor cuts out very easily.

The Spitfire's worst heights for engaging the Fw190 were between 18,000 and 22,000ft and below 3,000ft. At these heights the Fw190 is a little faster.

Both aircraft bounced one another to ascertain the best evasive tactics to adopt. The Spitfire could not be caught when bounced if it was cruising at high speed and saw the Fw190 while still well out of range. When the Spitfire was cruising at low speed its inferiority in acceleration gave the Fw190 a reasonable chance of catching it up and the same applied if the position was reversed and the Fw190 was bounced by the Spitfire, except that the overtaking took a little longer.

The initial acceleration of the Fw190 is better than the Spitfire under all conditions of flight except that in level flight at altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, provided the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the acceleration of the two fighters.

The general impression gained by the AFDU pilots taking part in the trials is that the Spitfire IX compares favourably with the Fw190 and that provided the Spitfire had the initiative, it undoubtedly has a good chance of shooting down the Fw190.


Spitfire at War
Alfred Price
Ian Allan Press
ISBN 0 7110 0560 5
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back