Spitfire Combat Radius (range) evolution, limitations?

[SaparotRob]

Ok how about, has the mission of shooting down enemy aircraft.

Killjoy.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Hey anybody who fought a Bf 109 in an Anson is a hero in my book...

 

[SaparotRob]

Although the basis of my aviation knowledge is from documentation provided by Martin Caidin and DC's Johnny Cloud -Navajo Ace, you might want think a bit before trashing the Buffalo.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Well I'm not actually trashing it, I know the Finns loved it, some British and Commonwealth pilots in the Pacific did fairly well with it. But I am confident it doesn't rate as one of the top fighters of the war no matter how many faces somebody posts.

 

[SaparotRob]

Don't go there. Someone will post them all.

Hey, what are your opinions on the P-39?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I try to avoid it, but I respect the pilots who flew it!

 

[Shortround6]

The British were looking to have more range, that is why they got heavily involved with NAA and the Mustang with its 180 gallons of internal fuel ordered in 1940, it was known as a P-51 when the USA eventually started using it.

Actually NA told the British they could build a better plane than the P-40 Tomahawk instead of building Tomahawks under license.
Using the same engine as the the P-40D The Mustang did do even better

A lot of confusion and overlapping in 1940-41. The British signed several contracts for Tomahawks while still talking to NAA. NAA was supposed to deliver the prototype Mustang in the fall of 1940. The British would not see a Tomahawk until Sept of 1940(?) and then it was an ex French aircraft. Meanwhile, Curtiss had come up with the P-40D & E and the XP-46. Those two use the same engine the Mustang did. The P-40D starts delivery in April/May of 1941.

Now we have coincidence or planning or............???
The Mustang (better plane than the Tomahawk) held exactly the same amount of fuel as the Tomahawk without protected tanks. The tanks don't get protection on the production line until late summer of 1940 and until Sept or later to even get better protection planned for the P-40C and late Tomahawks. As the Tomahawks get protected tanks the fuel capcity falls from 180 us gallons to about 160 gallons and then to under 140 gallons in the later Tomahawks and P-40Cs. The Late Tomahawks and P-40Cs get teh 52 US gallon drop tank to basically bring them back up to near the 180 gallon mark. The P-40D and E also had the 52 gallon drop tank and total fuel was about 196-200 gallons.

However "normal" fuel was 120 gallons. Pilots weren't supposed to use the behind the seat tank in combat with the tank full. Also note that performance specifications at listed gross weights were for 120 gallons or less fuel.

Going back to the Mustang, somehow they managed to get 180 gallons into a pair of protected fuel tanks. However the "normal" fuel load was 120 gallons according to some sources. 105 gallons is sometimes given but one wing tank had two different fuel taps and 15-16 gallons were kept as "reserve". The Mustangs had no drop tanks.

FWI the early P-40s with unprotected tanks and 180 gallons had a "book" range of over 1000 miles.

NAA kept their promise about building a better fighter than the P-40/Tomahawk. Using the same engine (or close to it) and the same amount of fuel it was faster and longer ranged due to less drag, not because of any large amount of extra fuel. It would take over 1 1/2 years for a Mustang (A-36) to carry more fuel than a P-40.

The F8F and some of the other stuff is just chaff/window.
The F8F used an engine that didn't exist until late 1944. It used the same basic engine as the P-47M.
NO interchangeable parts with earlier R-2800 engines.
So yes you can find a "sweet spot" using an engine (and supercharger) that did not exist earlier. In an airframe that was kept low weight by relaxing the stress standards.
And by using everything that had been learned over two-three years about aerodynamics, propellers and how to cool air cooled engines.
The R-2800 'C" series engine needed 10% less airflow through the cowling at the same power as older engines for the same amount of cooling due to better fining and baffles.
Which means less drag.

You could not build an F8F in 1942 that would perform nearly the same as the 1944 prototypes because the knowledge didn't exist.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I never once said, implied, or suggested that anyone could build an F8F in 1942. In fact I said exactly the opposite of that.

I brought up the F8F as an example of a late war fighter that was closer to a 'sweet spot', noting that this was hard to achieve, and that examples such as the F8F came too late. In a previous post I noted this could just as easily be P-51H or some other "really good but just a bit too late" bird (take your pick).

The Mustang was a very good fighter, it just wasn't finished as such until they merged it with the Merlin engine (and did a few other significant updates at the same time)

If it was, they wouldn't have had to use inferior fighters in all the theaters where the big land and sea battles were taking place in 1941-43.

 

[GregP]

I never once said, implied, or suggested that anyone could build an F8F in 1942. In fact I said exactly the opposite of that.

I brought up the F8F as an example of a late war fighter that was closer to a 'sweet spot', noting that this was hard to achieve, and that examples such as the F8F came too late. In a previous post I noted this could just as easily be P-51H or some other "really good but just a bit too late" bird (take your pick).

The Mustang was a very good fighter, it just wasn't finished as such until they merged it with the Merlin engine (and did a few other significant updates at the same time)

If it was, they wouldn't have had to use inferior fighters in all the theaters where the big land and sea battles were taking place in 1941-43.

That kind of funny since the last version of the Mustang used an Allison. That would be the F-82 Twin Mustang.

But, you knew that.

 

[ThomasP]

Only because they did not want to pay royalties to Rolls-Royce (and maybe some corporate greed and national pride thrown in).

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

In 1939? French contract number 273 for HK-75A-4 (P-36) has 100 HK-87A (P-40/Tomahawk) added and the last 130 HK-75A-4 changed to HK-87A, according to Air Arsenal North America Britain had a proposed P-40 order, contract number 84, pre war but that was put on hold while the joint British-French purchasing arrangements were created. In early 1940 Anglo-French letters of intent for 500 more P-40 signed. After the collapse of France arrangements became contract number 273 covered the first 100 Tomahawk built, while contract A-84/BR-84 was for 630 aircraft (130+500), ultimately the contract became 1,080 aircraft, with later orders for another 150 then another 300 added to it. Overlaying the contractual arrangements is production by mark was 140 Tomahawk I, 110 Tomahawk IIA and 930 Tomahawk IIB.

May 1940, British sign contract number 250 with North American for 320 NA-73, P-40 production begins.
June 1940, Tomahawk I/HK-87A production begins, under French then British contract 273.
August 1940, First Tomahawk export from US and import into Britain, 1 sent and received
September 1940, First Tomahawk delivered to RAF (in week ending 14th), no imports for month. British sign contract 1493 for a further 300 Mustang. Acceptances from Tomahawk contract A-84 begin.

October 1940, 69 Tomahawks imported into Britain, none delivered to RAF. NA-73 first flight 25 October 1940. P-40 and Tomahawk I production end, Tomahawk IIA production begins, it has as standard fuel and pilot protection.

November 1940, 50 Tomahawks imported into Britain, 26 delivered to RAF, Tomahawk IIA production ends, IIB begins.
February 1941, first Tomahawk ex USA arrive Takoradi, West Africa (week ending 14th), 2 February 1941 XP-46 first flight, P-40B production begins.
March 1941, P-40C production begins
May 1941, P-40D first production, P-40B and C production ends.
June 1941, P-40E first production
August 1941, NA-73/Mustang I first production, monthly total 1, first XP-51 officially accepted.
September 1941, First Mustang exported from US
October 1941, First Mustang arrives in Britain.

That kind of funny since the last version of the Mustang used an Allison. That would be the F-82 Twin Mustang. But, you knew that.

Ah yes, the F-82E, kind of funny since first production was in September 1947, using a version of the Allison not available during the war and well after Merlin production in the US had stopped. But, you knew that.

In the quest for knowledge could you tell us where on the net you found the incorrect Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane production figures you used?

 

[drgondog]

Only because they did not want to pay royalties to Rolls-Royce (and maybe some corporate greed and national pride thrown in).

It was combination of AAF/Royalty distaste for continued purchase of Merlins and political interference by Secretary of War. The Air Force gave the contract for P-82D and subsequent on the basis that Allison deliver the same performance as the boosted/water injected. The delivered 1710-143/145 did not have the backfire screen which limited boost without detonation - but Allison refused to fix it and was supported by AAF Secy.

 

[drgondog]

I wouldn't be so certain. But I don't want to derail this thread. Maybe we can start another one for the B-70?


I am well aware there were tons of (Merlin series) P-51 Aces. I was talking specifically about the Allison engined P-51s.


Actually P-40s shot down the largest number of enemy aircraft (or at any rate, had the highest number of claims) in the CBI at 973, followed by P-51 (Merlin) at 345, then P-38s at 157, then P-47s at 16.

The MTO VC for A-36/F-6 totaled 67. The CBI P-51A/A-36 victory credits through D-Day totaled 53 (air). Consider the very short span of time during which the Allison Mustang replaced P-40 which had been operational from May 1942 through Nov 1943 in 51st FG. The P-51B/C replaced the P-51A/A-36 in May 1944. For the 311th FG, The A-36/P-51A had a similar operational history. Two A-36 squadrons and one P-51A. The 311th only had 4 aces - all Mustang, two P-51A aces (England/Mulhollem) and two P51C aces (Reeves, Arasmith).

The 23rd FG had P-51A as 'bridge Mustang' for one squadron for five months, and the P-51As when replaced became Recon F-6.

I don't know what your source of VC by type, by theatre, but if it's not Frank Olynyk or USAF 85 - then dubious.

Right. So two? There were at least 37 US pilots who made ace while flying P-40s in the CBI, including Tex Hill who you mentioned. A large proportion of those were AVG pilots who had relatively few aircraft and were only in action for a comparatively short time. I don't know the exact count of P-38 aces in the PTO, but I just counted more than 70 on this list here, in spite of a relatively small number of P-38 units, at least initially.

Your link opened to a Facebook page? Using the P-38 ace count, or even P-40 ace count in CBI and SW Pacific is not logical simply on available force counts and total number of sorties flown. The quantities of each delivered the fight against Japan was at least 20:1 in sheer numbersand deployed for multiple yeas vs multiple months.

The P-51A sorties in CBI were far fewer than P-39 in SW Pacific, and miniscule compared to P-40 in CBI and less than P-38 in CBI. I get your disdain for Allison powered Mustangs if your criteria is the number of aces that attained that status in that airframe - probably about the same as Ta 152 or He 162, maybe even the FW 190D-9. Which, by many discerning historians, are considered 'Fighters'. Ditto for Ki 84 and Ki 100.

'Acedom' is more about pilot skill and target rich environments than vastly superior performance.

No objective pilot that has flown Allison powered Mustangs and P-40s cite the P-40 as a 'superior' fighter (or Pursuit as used in WWII to define type).
.

Clearly the P-51 was a great design, it ended up being the best fighter of the USAAF in my opinion, and certainly in the top 5 fighters of the war in my book. But it did not seem to reach it's potential until after conversion to the Merlin.

Well, that is a no brainer. But that judgment may also apply to Spit V to Spit IX or FW 190A to FW 190D for similar reasons - upgrade of engine to an already excellent airframe/fighter.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Your link opened to a Facebook page?

Sorry, not sure what happened there, multi-tasking I guess

P-38 List of Aces

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

That kind of funny since the last version of the Mustang used an Allison. That would be the F-82 Twin Mustang.

But, you knew that.

I did not, though I knew there was an Allison with a two stage supercharger.

 

[GregP]

In 1939? French contract number 273 for HK-75A-4 (P-36) has 100 HK-87A (P-40/Tomahawk) added and the last 130 HK-75A-4 changed to HK-87A, according to Air Arsenal North America Britain had a proposed P-40 order, contract number 84, pre war but that was put on hold while the joint British-French purchasing arrangements were created. In early 1940 Anglo-French letters of intent for 500 more P-40 signed. After the collapse of France arrangements became contract number 273 covered the first 100 Tomahawk built, while contract A-84/BR-84 was for 630 aircraft (130+500), ultimately the contract became 1,080 aircraft, with later orders for another 150 then another 300 added to it. Overlaying the contractual arrangements is production by mark was 140 Tomahawk I, 110 Tomahawk IIA and 930 Tomahawk IIB.

May 1940, British sign contract number 250 with North American for 320 NA-73, P-40 production begins.
June 1940, Tomahawk I/HK-87A production begins, under French then British contract 273.
August 1940, First Tomahawk export from US and import into Britain, 1 sent and received
September 1940, First Tomahawk delivered to RAF (in week ending 14th), no imports for month. British sign contract 1493 for a further 300 Mustang. Acceptances from Tomahawk contract A-84 begin.

October 1940, 69 Tomahawks imported into Britain, none delivered to RAF. NA-73 first flight 25 October 1940. P-40 and Tomahawk I production end, Tomahawk IIA production begins, it has as standard fuel and pilot protection.

November 1940, 50 Tomahawks imported into Britain, 26 delivered to RAF, Tomahawk IIA production ends, IIB begins.
February 1941, first Tomahawk ex USA arrive Takoradi, West Africa (week ending 14th), 2 February 1941 XP-46 first flight, P-40B production begins.
March 1941, P-40C production begins
May 1941, P-40D first production, P-40B and C production ends.
June 1941, P-40E first production
August 1941, NA-73/Mustang I first production, monthly total 1, first XP-51 officially accepted.
September 1941, First Mustang exported from US
October 1941, First Mustang arrives in Britain.

Ah yes, the F-82E, kind of funny since first production was in September 1947, using a version of the Allison not available during the war and well after Merlin production in the US had stopped. But, you knew that.

In the quest for knowledge could you tell us where on the net you found the incorrect Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane production figures you used?

All aircraft built 3 or more years after the first version used engines not available when the first unit was built. Kelso said the P-51 was not completed until the Allison was replaced with a Merlin. I was pointing out that later versions had an Allison. I didn't say or imply it was during WWII.

I was using this:

But you can also find lists with different numbers. For instance, at: K5083 - Aircraft Production Summary , the list totals 14,053 instead of 14,570 Hurricanes. Another generally-accepted number is 14,487 Hurricanes, but if you add up the breakout shown in that source, it doesn't tally if you add up the numbers by variant. Several sources for Spitfires have different totals, depending on whether or not they include Seafire, Spiteful (I show 22 built), and Seafang (I show 18 built) as "Spitfires" and just general slight disagreement. Sometimes they include conversion as part of the production and sometimes not. Some lists show production only and do not show prototypes and/or conversions.

In any case, there were somewhere around 20,000 Spitfires built exclusive of similar-shaped airplanes that were called by other names, and there were about 14,500 Hurricanes built. The exact numbers seem to change with the source, even when seemingly-exhaustive detail is given.

I have a source for U.S. production, U.S. Army Aircraft 1908 - 1946, SC-AEF-AAS-AAC-AAF by James C, Fahey, First Edition 1946 that has totals slightly differing from some other sources, but it was generated using official source numbers in 1946 from the people who bought and tracked airplane production in the U.S.A.. It shows 14,066 for P-51s built through 1946, but that number is not what is generally used today. The number we generally use today is 15,586. Yes, I have the breakouts by variant.

You can find similar discrepancies for almost any aircraft built by almost any nation, depending on which source you are looking at, particularly for German aircraft production since many records were lost during the war and there is no evidence that all werknumers assigned by the RLM were built as assigned.. Even some sources that give the starting and ending serial numbers for each variant disagree with each other ... but, the totals aren't usually too far apart.

If you have a purported completely-accurate source for Spitfires and Hurricanes, maybe you can share it and also why you think it is exactly accurate.

Because I guarantee I can find another source in print that disagrees with it.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The MTO VC for A-36/F-6 totaled 67. The CBI P-51A/A-36 victory credits through D-Day totaled 53 (air). Consider the very short span of time during which the Allison Mustang replaced P-40 which had been operational from May 1942 through Nov 1943 in 51st FG. The P-51B/C replaced the P-51A/A-36 in May 1944. For the 311th FG, The A-36/P-51A had a similar operational history. Two A-36 squadrons and one P-51A. The 311th only had 4 aces - all Mustang, two P-51A aces (England/Mulhollem) and two P51C aces (Reeves, Arasmith).

The 23rd FG had P-51A as 'bridge Mustang' for one squadron for five months, and the P-51As when replaced became Recon F-6.

I don't know what your source of VC by type, by theatre, but if it's not Frank Olynyk or USAF 85 - then dubious.


Your link opened to a Facebook page? Using the P-38 ace count, or even P-40 ace count in CBI and SW Pacific is not logical simply on available force counts and total number of sorties flown. The quantities of each delivered the fight against Japan was at least 20:1 in sheer numbersand deployed for multiple yeas vs multiple months.

The P-51A sorties in CBI were far fewer than P-39 in SW Pacific, and miniscule compared to P-40 in CBI and less than P-38 in CBI. I get your disdain for Allison powered Mustangs if your criteria is the number of aces that attained that status in that airframe - probably about the same as Ta 152 or He 162, maybe even the FW 190D-9. Which, by many discerning historians, are considered 'Fighters'. Ditto for Ki 84 and Ki 100.

'Acedom' is more about pilot skill and target rich environments than vastly superior performance.

No objective pilot that has flown Allison powered Mustangs and P-40s cite the P-40 as a 'superior' fighter (or Pursuit as used in WWII to define type).
.


Well, that is a no brainer. But that judgment may also apply to Spit V to Spit IX or FW 190A to FW 190D for similar reasons - upgrade of engine to an already excellent airframe/fighter.

Lets get a couple of things clear.

I never said that P-40 was a 'superior fighter' to the Allison Mustang. I think the Mustang was clearly a better design.
I never "disparaged" the Allison mustang.
Nor the pilots flying it.
I never said that Allisons were bad engines.

My numbers for victory claims are correct. The 973 figure comes from Molesworth among others. The P-40 was the Allied type with the highest number of claims in the CBI by far. I don't think that is exactly news. But the CBI was a tertiary Theater and there weren't a lot of the more high performing Allied types in action there especially early on (in the mid-war).

The AVG probably had fewer planes operational (less than 100 total) in the CBI than the number of early Mustangs (later) operating there, and the AVG was not operational for that long, nor did the 23rd FG have a massive air contingent either. Nor was there a dearth of targets. The same outfits flew missions with different aircraft and got different results.

Although the Mustang was clearly an excellent design, very fast, long ranged, and quite agile in it's later incarnations, the record of the Allison engined Mustang, as a fighter, wasn't so great. This is worth figuring out, I am not sure precisely why but I suspect it does have something to do with the metal control surfaces, the strengthening of the tail, and / or the rigging of the ailerons. It may have also been other things such a training, maintenance, or specific Theater conditions. Maybe the different configurations of the guns too. Gunsights?

But it's pretty clear the P-51A / A-36 and various British Allison Engined Mustang variants did not perform as well as fighters as they could have. As the later merlin-engined variants did. This is why they were used more for recon and as dive-bombers. And I don't think that is entirely down to the merlin engine either.

 

[GregP]

The P-51A / A-36 / F-6 had a decent record and was well-liked. It just wasn't a high-altitude fighter. They DID perform as well as they could have. They did better when a higher-altitude engine package was fitted for the higher-altitude operations generally seen in the ETO. Only the A-36 was used much as a dive bomber since the non-A-36 Mustang didn't have dive brakes and got going too fast on the way down to be good dive bombers.

Almost all units transferring into the war from stateside were, by definition, "rookies," and required some combat time before learning the things that only veterans knew, despite any training they received.

 

[Zipper730]

Fuel capacity is not the only issue, but clearly without the 90gal drop tank it has more internal fuel than P-51B without 85 gal fuselage tank. The combat radius of Spit powered by 1650-3 or -7 equivalent, and using same set of assumptions AAF set for CR, it should be able to go ~ 300 miles and fight for 20 minutes. Better than P-47 with 108gal combat tank.

That's an interesting observation, but it's an apples to orange one: A Spitfire VII/VIII/IX as described here*(see footnote 1) with the aft tanks filled is tantamount to a P-51B with it's center/aft tank filled as well

Aircraft	P-51B/C​	P-51B/C​	Spitfire VII/VIII/IX​
Configuration​	All Tanks Filled​	Wing & Center Tanks Filled​	All Tanks Filled​
Fuel Load (US Gallons)​	184 Gallons​	269 Gallons​	225.8 Gallons​

​

With externals on a full load, you end up with either 419 gal. for the P-51B and 285.8 or 333.9 gal*(see footnote 2) for the Spitfire VII/VIII/IX.

As for 90 imp. gal slipper tank, it seems like it probably was if they operated routinely above 14000'.

Footnote
1. I was looking through some FM's on avialogs, and there wasn't any mention of the Mk.IX having 13 gallon tanks in the wings interestingly. That might have been something that evolved into being, but the aft tanks were definitely present as described.
2. There was a proposed 50 imp. gal. tank to be carried in lieu of the 90 imp. gal. slipper tank.

Note the difference between the early, rounded fin and rudder (mostly converted Mk.V airframes with a 2-stage Merlin (61 or 66) and the Late Mk VII / IX fin and rudder. Center bottom is the stab and elevator change for late Mk. IX. The counterbalance area had been increased to make the pitch forces a bit lighter.

I'm not sure if I missed this earlier, but why weren't these backfitted to the VII/VIII models?

VIIIs and XIVs had the 96 gallon main tank, plus 2 x 13.5 gallon tanks in the wing leading edge (inboard of the guns).

Okay, that leaves me with three questions

1. Did the leading edge tanks used on the VII/VIII have 13 or 13.5 gallon capacity?
2. Did the VII/VIII have the aft tanks in any sub-variant?
3. Did the IX have the leading-edge tanks?

2 hours cruising is about 360 - 390 miles if you are flying escort since the escorts stayed with the bombers who were on economy cruise at 185 - 190 mph or so. It might be 500 - 600 miles if the mission didn't involve escort but, since we're talking about long-range airplanes, most of the long-range missions WERE escort.

I remember it mentioned that fighters were used to cover the bombers during the lead-up to D-Day, as well as mentions made by Leslie "Willie" Hay (RAF, Bomber Command) in his book about fighter sweeps occurring ahead of his position.

From what it seemed, during Korea, fighter sweeps were usually set-up so that they would R/V with the bombers as they'd approach enemy territory, surge ahead and clear-out the way and head-on back. The USAAF largely used s-weaving over the formations, but there were fans, race-track patterns, and some did appear to just surge ahead to plow out the way.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I was looking for my book on the 23rd Fighter Group, which I failed to locate, but i did find the 2012 Osprey "Air Vanguard' book "Allison Engined P-51 Mustang" by Martyn Chorlton. There are a few interesting tidbits of operational history in there, which I'll repeat here in no particular order

*During the Dieppe raid RAF Mustangs (I believe it says RCAF 400 Sqn) claimed a Fw 190 destroyed. They also comprised 11 of the 119 RAF aircraft lost that day, from 26, 239, 400 and 414 sqds. I didn't see any other claims.
*On Oct 22 1942 RAF Mustang Mk1 and 1As escorted Wellington bombers on a raid into Germany - against Dortmund and Essen. The raid was considered a partial success though the targets were obscured by clouds. All the aircraft returned to base. [It's unclear to me why they didn't do more of these escorted raids.]
*An RAF mission on June 29, 1943, a pair of Mustangs (one I and one IA) flown by Archibald MacLachlan and Geoffrey Page (the former flying with a prosthetic arm) flew a daylight raid all the way to Paris. They destroyed six enemy aircraft (four HS 126s and two Ju 88s).
*Twenty three (23) RAF Squadrons were equipped with Allison Mustangs (Mks I and IA)
*On June 6 1944 three RAF Mustangs were active over the D-Day beach, two flying cover for a Tac-R fighter, when they were attacked by four plus then another two FW 190s. One Mustang was destroyed and the other two managed to disengage. Three Mustangs were lost that day in total out of 86 Tac-R and spotting sorties.
*A-36 aircraft flew 23,000 sorties and claimed 86 enemy aircraft in combat (this would be both in USAAF service both in China / India and the MTO)
*311 FBG based in India attempted to use A-36 as transport and bomber-escort but found that (this is a direct quote from the Osprey book) "the deficiencies of the A-36 in one-on-one aerial combat were soon highlighted. On one of the early sorties to provide fighter protection for a formation of C-47s flying from India to China, three A-36s were lost, presumed shot down."
*This unit flew both A-36 and P-51A. Both types were used for transport and fighter escort.
*Operations with P-51A began in Oct 1943 for both 23rd FG and 311 FBG
*On Oct 18 1943, P-51A of the 530 FS, 311 FG flew escorts for B-25s in a raid against Rangoon. This was a 450 mile trip coming from Kurmitola, India, the P-51A were using two 75 gallon drop tanks. They were attacked by four Ki-43 from the 64th Sentai, 2nd Chutai based out of Mingaladon. Quoting from the Osprey book: "A frantic low-level combat ensued at very low altitude, resulting in two Mustangs being shot down." There were no claims against the Japanese.
*A second raid (no date given) to Insein in Burma resulted in the Mustangs being bounced by Ki-43s from the 64th Sentai again, one mustang shot down in the initial bounce, then 3 more including the 311 FG CO, Colonely Harry Mehon. One Ki-43 was shot down and another made a forced landing.
*On Dec 1, 1943 31 FBG escorted B-24s to Rangoon. Mustangs were bounced again and one was shot down by a Ki-43, another ran out of fuel and crashed on the return trip.
*Feb 14 1944, 1st Air Command Group (ACG) under Philip Cochran (with 30 x P-51As) escorted a formation of B-25s against Zaundaing. They were bounced by Ki-43s of the 50th Sentai while strafing the target. Two Mustangs were shot down and three more damaged, for no claims.
*ACG 1 had a successful raid from forward Burmese base at Chowringee" (no date given) against the bases at Shwebo and Onbauk with "several" Ki-43s claimed shot down and "more than 30" on the ground for no losses.
*On March 16, 1944 however the same unit was bounced by 50th Sentai and 3 x Mustangs were shot down, with no claims against the Japanese.
*On April 4, 1944 1st ACG encountered 50th Sentai again and "enjoyed complete success", resulting in 50th Sentai being moved to Saigon for a refit. No figures for claims / losses are given here.

These were all the specific combat actions I could find in the book though I might have missed a couple. Now I can compare these actions to those of various P-51 (Merlin), P-40, P-38 and Spitfire units in the Theater and I can promise you they did better, at least in terms of claims made. Hurricanes did not do so well in the CBI and were probably worse than the P-51A / A-36. These are from Osprey books so fairly little effort is made to verify the claims via Axis records. Maybe Bloody Shambles provides a more accurate picture I don't have that book yet.

Overall though, I cannot escape the impression that the Allison Mustang did not reach it's full potential here as a fighter.