What did the P51s have over the German fighters?

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

drgondog said:
The 51 was no more, or less durable than the Fw 190 or bf 109..
Click to expand...

Mr Drgondog
I am not going to answer your answers to my post, since we have discused them extensively in the past and we only agrre that we disagree at everything.( What can i tell about your claim that LW... outnumbered the americans??)
I will only tell you that even the great manouverability that you claim for the P51 was in great part a reult of superior fuels that provided P51 with power loading advantage in comparison with the german fuels
But the statement that 51 was as durable as 190 i would never expect it by a person with great knowledge as you
A radial engined fighter , with a lot of armour , and very strong construction ( too strong in my opinion) equal with the 51? Ask the opinion of the australians that flew them in Korea. I think your emotional involvement with P51 ,influences you great technical expertise
Typicaly the p51 lovers can not accept a single area that 51 was not top
Exceptionally agile despite its low drag wing and small engine, exceptional durable despite the liquid engine and mediocre armor, exceptionally accelaration despite the mediocre power loading without 150 fuel, exceptional effective weapons (12,7 mm vs 20and 30mm weapons) , exceptional climber even if other aircrafts had better power and wing loadings, exceptional diver, exceprional turner despite factors already mentioned
Could you tell me a sinlgle area that you accept 51 to be inferior? All aircrafts, at least of the axis, were compromises, P51 was best at EVERYTHING .
 
drgondog said:
The 51 was more vulnerable to an engine overheat failure dur to lack of coolant -
Click to expand...
That's interesting. That big scoop almost defines that aircraft. I don't doubt you. It just kind of surprises me it would have an issue like that.
 
drgondog said:
The 51 was no more, or less durable than the Fw 190 or bf 109..
Click to expand...
Common sense would seem to suggest otherwise, at least in the case of the 190. There was a thread a while back discussing the degree to which a radial engine is more battle resistant than an inline, but I don't think anyone doubted that the radial was ultimately tougher. And the 190's airframe should have been at least as tough as the P-51's. Tank designed it that way.
The P51 had a reputation for being vulnerable to fire from below hitting the cooling system, though whether it was in fact more vulnerable than other liquid cooled fighters, or whether the reputation came about because then straffing duties it assumed later in the war more often placed it in harms way, I don't know. In either case, it's a problem the 190 wouldn't have had.
 
There must be somewhere who can tell us the weight of the armour on the P-51.

Kris
 
Civettone said:
There must be somewhere who can tell us the weight of the armour on the P-51.

Kris
Click to expand...

There don't seem to be many sources of information on the weight of the P-51's armour, in general or for specific sub-types; pilot's manuals etc didn't give weights but did show the angles of protection afforded to the pilot against .30 cal: 5/16" and 7/16" for back and head of pilot, 1/4" bulkhead

P-51A Gunnery Manual:


P-51D Erection Maintenance Manual:


I doubt if the weight was as much as the 145.7 kg quoted for the 190A-8. I'll continue digging.
 

And this was the post I was replying to:

P-51s arrived in quantity during spring 1944. About the same time Germany became critically short of aviation gasoline.
Click to expand...

Please not the bold text in the quote which is 6 months before the time you state. In the fall of 1944, stock was down to 1/3 of what was available 6 months earlier.
 
On one of my first posts in this forum, I stated that I was afraid to say anything bad about the P-51. I may be cowardly, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Almost everybody is familiar with the term "to back into a buzzsaw", which is what would probably happen to me if I got involved in this thread.
On a related topic, have any of you heard about the delicatessen worker who accidently backed into the meat-slicing machine?
He go a little behind in his work.
Man, it was hard to set that joke up!
Gotta go before anyone starts throwing stuff at me for that one. Bye!
 
It just was a very good plane.

Good mach limit, good dive, fast, reasonable climber (not in the Me-109/Spit class, but good), good ailerons(especially above 250mph, better than a Spit or a 109 at that speed, though not a 190), fair armament (better in the 51D, but ok for anti fighter stuff). Good vision (woth Malcolm hood in the B), excellent in the 51D.

Cheap to make (half the price of a 38 or 47) , easy to fix and maintain.

Not too many 'nasties' in its handling (though there were a few, but not many, there were a lot worse).

Fair turner, competitive enough against 109s and 190s for it to depend on the pilot and the situation. Good zoom climb.

Excellent height envelope (arguably the best of the WW2 prop jobs). Fast low down, fast high up, fast in the middle (best engine the -7, which was the Packard equivalent of the 66).

And that wonderful range, which was not just a strategic advantage it was a tactical one. It could (and did) chase Luftwaffe planes right back to their bases, even if they had managed to get away. Plus, combined with speed and dive meant you could disengage then reengage at will (compared to a 47, a one dive wonder, dive once then go home because climbing back for another fight would use up too much fuel).

So overall a wonderful package, like them all it has its strengths and weaknesses, but (overall) it weakness were few and not really, with even just a reasonable pilot, significant. Even an average pilot could hold their own with a lot of confidence against the opposition.
 
OldSkeptic said:
[...] Plus, combined with speed and dive meant you could disengage then reengage at will [...]
Click to expand...
I'm seeing that reiterated throughout this thread as the decisive advantage.

I believe that, too. Yes.
 
Explain the state of the Luftwaffe from mid'ish 1944 up, in way of tactics, doctrine, fuel supplies, pilot training, etc., etc., etc. Compare that to the East front with no heavy bombers to contend with. There's more to the success of the P-51 then its aerial dominance, it was a combination of many, many events. In the east the Luftwaffe was wildly successful for the most part. In the west, without the B-17, the P-51 is nothing, without the P-51, the B-17 was nothing. Those two aircraft complimented each other very well. It wasn't that the P-51 was a great aircraft at anyone thing, it was good aircraft at almost everything, which overall made it a great aircraft. Combine all those factors, and that's why the P-51 was so successful. Just my honest opinion.
 
If you look across the P-51 in it's various marks (excluding the Allison powered versions) it's difficult to identify any area in which it wouldn't get a good to excellent grade. Maybe the armament of the early models, being of average firepower and having a tendency to jam, might warrant a C-, to be upgraded to C once the latter issue was resolved, then a solid B with the P-51D. Aside from that it would seem to be A's (speed, dive, visibility) and B's (turn, climb, firepower) right across the board. Perhaps a B- for survivability?
In any case, looking at the opposition there doesn't seem to be any Axis piston engine fighter that wouldn't find itself at a significant disadvantage against the Mustang in at least a couple of areas, whereas the P-51, while somewhat outperformed in some situations (such as low speed manovuering against a 109, for example) was generally at least competitive, or offered a competent pilot alternatives to playing the opponents game. The exception may have been the Fw190D, but by the time it appeared the tactical situation was such that it never got to be a factor.
At the end of the day it is pointless to talk of the Mustang without reference to range. By 1944-45 there were other Allied fighters that had the opposition pretty well covered; the Tempest and Spit XIV for instance. The magic of the P-51 was that, like those fighters, it could, as a package, outperform pretty much anything it came up against, and that it could do it over Berlin having taken off from England. That's what made it unique.
 
Last edited:
The Mustang was by far the most aerodynamically advanced fighter when it first appeared and for some time after; much research was put into drag reduction through careful design of its fuselage and wings. Although the Allison engine was a suitable powerplant in the Mustang (contrary to popular belief) It was most definitely an airframe in search of a better engine than the one it had - a slight reference to another thread - to take advantage of its superior aerodynamics. As I mentioned earlier, It was bigger and heavier than its principal enemies, but could out run them and out range them, and the fact that it could mix it with fighters with bigger, more powerful engines than its 1,680 horses under the hood was because of this.
 

Most advanced, maybe, maybe not. Very very good definitely.

But a lot of the clean aerodynamics was due to Art Chester. Who for quite a few years been involved in air racing and had made his own planes. He applied for a job at NAA and it was Edgar Schmued that gave him a job and later made him head of the power plant design group (responsible for everything from the firewall forward). And it was he that was responsible for the beautiful clean front end.

Now a lovely design does not mean that production aircraft would be as good, but NAA's quality control was superb therefore they came out being very slick. Given that even small things could cause significant changes in speed Art's design was inspired by his racing experience.

You look at how big an impact even little changes or imperfections could have: such as the Spit, the 20mm cannon ones were 5mph slower than the all .303 ones. Bulletproof front glass on the fighter Mosquitos meant 5 mph lower speed compared to the equivalent bomber version.

And that was Art's genius, not a trained engineer but a veteran of actual real world experience. One of the Mustang's unsung heroes.
 
Last edited:
Most advanced, maybe, maybe not.
Click to expand...

I don't think there was another fighter that was as aerodynamically sophisticated as the Mustang in 1940 when it first flew, or, for that matter for a year or so afterwards, hence the assertion. Lee Atwood did much research into the aerodynamics of the aircraft, going to NACA for aerofoil research and the RAE at Farnborough, where he learned about low drag radiator cooling. The results of its fineness are evident when you consider what I posted about its powerplant.

Here's a quote from a memorandum produced by Major Thomas Hitchcock Jr, Assistant Air Attache at the American Embassy, London dated 8 October 1942;

"In the Air Fighter Development Unit Report No.43, dated May 5, 1942, the Mustang is described as "an excellent low and medium altitude fighter and certainly the best American fighter that has so far reached this country." Comparisons were made with the Spitfire Vb in which it was faster than the Vb at all altitudesup to 25,000 ft. At 25,000 ft it went about the same speed as the Spitfire Vb, although at this altitude the Allison engine was developing 290 less horsepower than the Merlin engine in the Spitfire. Estimates have been made that with the same horsepower Mustang is twenty to twenty five miles per hour faster than the Spitfire Vb."

Atwood himself has commented on the drag reducing radiator and its impact on the Mustang's performance on numerous occasions.
 
Atwood took credit for much of the aero, including the drag reducing radiator's touted exhaust thust of a 'couple of hundred pounds' - notably after Schmued passed away. Ed Horkey took notable exception to Atwood as well as the rest of the Mustang design team.

OldSkeptic - Ed Horkey, the chief aerodynamicist, is credited with the compound 2nd degree curve lines of the nose - and logically should be. Chester would logically be charted with stuffing everything inside.
 
Ed Horkey took notable exception to Atwood as well as the rest of the Mustang design team.
Click to expand...

Bill, do you mean, "Ed Horkey, as well as the rest of the Mustang design team took notable exception to Atwood"?

Riding on the coat tails of others? Shame...
 
Excellent lecture gentlemen.
Right plane at the right time in the right place.
Well... it would had been more than welcome a couple of months earlier than its historical introduction and immediate impact in the air war over Europe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
10
Views
317
eagledad
E
M
So The Germans Really Did Have Flying Saucers in WW2
Replies
15
Views
2K
GregP
Why did the US ww2 fighters have 50 cals instead of 20mms like their european cousins
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
7K
BarnOwlLover
The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
7K
GrauGeist
T
Average sorties/kill for German night fighters
Replies
16
Views
2K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Menu
Log in
Register