Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Joe - The P-51A/Mustang II was a much better performer than the Mustang I, IA, P-51, A-36. Without WI the P-51A-10 would climb (3800-4100fpm max ROC) with both a light P-38G/H and stay with P-38J with higher rated engines in climb - but tapered as critical altitude was attained.Why? The F-5 (P-38) fulfilled the role quite well and was the mainstay in the PTO until the F-6 came along. The F-5 was faster than the P-51A and had twice the range.
Joe - The P-51A/Mustang II was a much better performer than the Mustang I, IA, P-51, A-36. Without WI the P-51A-10 would climb (3800-4100fpm max ROC) with both a light P-38G/H and stay with P-38J with higher rated engines in climb - but tapered as critical altitude was attained.
It (P-51A) at MP out ran all P-38s under 10K by a significant margin. The P-38G/H/J was slightly faster at 22K, then the 38 was always faster than P-51A..
Don't know about Combat radius but would give nod to -38J/F-5E with LE tanks by considerable margin. But P-51A on 184 gal internal and 75gal combat tanks was probably slightly better than all P-38s with 150gal combat tanks, preceding the J-15 with LE tanks, as the P-51A never got the fuselage fuel tank. Recall that the Allison V-1710-81 (P-51A) had much more power than V-1710F-10 (-51/-55) of F-5A in the G/GF line. The late H through P-38J and Subsequent, were F-5E/F/G with largely V-1710F-17 (=-89/-91) were finally slightly more HP than P-51A with 1710-81 with WI,
Spitfireperformance (thanks Mike) has enough flight test data to make the same observations. Note that neither the F4 or F20 comparisons of Mustang II are tested with WI.
A point of comparison - the P-51A with W/I was running 1500+Hp on the deck at WEP (1300 at MP) and would outrun and outclimb the P-51B at low altitudes until the Merlin 1650-7 was fed 150 octane at 75" Hg. The P-51A never got the improved aileron throw so the Merlin Mustang always outrolled the A. The Allison Mustangs out turned both the Merlin Mustang and the P-38. Only with boosted ailerons did theP-38J/L out roll the Mustang - once it got going.
Except for high altitude recon the Allison Mustangs were very well suited for all tactical recon. The F-4/F-5 were always better for high altitude recon over P-51 and P-51A - but that accounted for much less tasking in Pacific than ETO. Even in MTO/ETO, the primary balance of recon was tactical in nature with the Recon groups. Both 67 and 68 TRG moved to mustang airframes in 1943, Ditto 10 TRG. 363rd FG equipped early with P-51B converted to F-6 post D-Day. Only the 7th PRG at Mount Farm, maintained some P-38 for recon throughout. Note - didn't check MTO or 9th AFvery closely
Regardless, in the Pacific I think either F-5 or P-51A would have been quite useful to have a few of earlier in 1942. A fast recon could have been very handy. PBYs were great and extremely long ranged but very slow.
Without a doubt making wooden airplanes is trickier and more difficult than making landing craft or say, furniture. But the British were able to make thousands of Mosquitos and the US had a much bigger population and a larger industrial capacity, and a huge amount of all different types of wood, plus access to South American sources. They also had large industry such as manufacture of furniture, boats etc. which did have skilled woodworkers and presumably could train the rest just like with any other factory process.You may be right; I'm not well-educated on the industrial requirements involved, but even that retraining is going to impose delays. Laminating and attaching wood to aeronautical standards is probably a bit more complex than building boats, given the higher-stress regimes the aircraft will be experiencing.
Well I don't think there was a direct competition for resources or labor here necessarily, but if there was then I agree there would be a problem.We disagree here.
Maybe they need to make the Merlins in England. So far as I know the only firm in the US which made Merlins was Packard, and I think that applies for Canada too. Due to the deal they made some of the Packard Merlins were going to the UK, the rest (once they got to the 60 series) mostly went into P-51s. Could Allison make Merlins? I don't know maybe. Probably. But somebody made all those Merlins going into a few thousand Hurricanes (and a bunch of other unneeded or unnecessary or failed aircraft designs, Defiants, Barracudas, Fulmars Hawker Henleys), and yes also Lancasters, Whitleys, Hallifaxes and other bombers. Either some of those engines or some of the capacity to make them could have been used to make Mosquitos instead.You're right regarding the Hurris -- if you're going to discontinue something, that plane would be the obvious choice to my mind. But retraining and retooling American factories/labor from R-1820s to Merlins will still take time and resources. And fewer Mustangs to fight these higher-performance LW fighters would probably delay the achievement of the air supremacy which allowed DDE to tell his troops "If you see a plane overhead, it will be ours", no matter how useful the Mosquitoes prove to be.
So I adhere to my point that having two separate engine requirements and logistical chains, one for bombers, one for fighters, allowed for (in a counterintuitive sense) more efficient exploitation of American industrial capacity. You're spending more energy building the engines you've been building all along, rather than taking months to shift machinery and training.
Be it said that though I don't agree with everything you've written, I do appreciate your pushing in this discussion. It's given me a lot to think about and that is always a good thing.
Different roles (tac vs strat recce), different airframes.
My main goal is just to open enough space to actually have the discussion instead of just shutting it down like we sometimes do here.
Right but they were using them to find enemy carriers such as at Midway
The very first F-4 (modified P-38E with pylons and fuel feed for unpressurized tanks made first recon flght out of Australia in April 1943. IIRC the Mustang I made first operationa sortie outof Britain in May 1942. Took awhile to get enough P-38E modified to F-4 to solve demand for high speed recon in every theatre. at that time the XP-51/Mustang I at Wright Field had been sitting idle for nearly five months - ignored by Materiel Command.Great post. There is also a memo from a US Officer observing the British use of Allison-engined Mustangs where he mentioned their routine use of very high overboosting as much as 70" Hg IIRC so I think they could go very fast indeed down low.
Regardless, in the Pacific I think either F-5 or P-51A would have been quite useful to have a few of earlier in 1942. A fast recon could have been very handy. PBYs were great and extremely long ranged but very slow.
Right. I thought I remembered they got some into Burma fairly early, and it took a while to get anything into Burma.The very first F-4 (modified P-38E with pylons and fuel feed for unpressurized tanks made first recon flght out of Australia in April 1943. IIRC the Mustang I made first operationa sortie outof Britain in May 1942. Took awhile to get enough P-38E modified to F-4 to solve demand for high speed recon in every theatre. at that time the XP-51/Mustang I at Wright Field had been sitting idle for nearly five months - ignored by Materiel Command.
Great post Bill as always, thanks!Joe - The P-51A/Mustang II was a much better performer than the Mustang I, IA, P-51, A-36. Without WI the P-51A-10 would climb (3800-4100fpm max ROC) with both a light P-38G/H and stay with P-38J with higher rated engines in climb - but tapered as critical altitude was attained.
It (P-51A) at MP out ran all P-38s under 10K by a significant margin. The P-38G/H/J was slightly faster at 22K, then the 38 was always faster than P-51A..
Don't know about Combat radius but would give nod to -38J/F-5E with LE tanks by considerable margin. But P-51A on 184 gal internal and 75gal combat tanks was probably slightly better than all P-38s with 150gal combat tanks, preceding the J-15 with LE tanks, as the P-51A never got the fuselage fuel tank. Recall that the Allison V-1710-81 (P-51A) had much more power than V-1710F-10 (-51/-55) of F-5A in the G/GF line. The late H through P-38J and Subsequent, were F-5E/F/G with largely V-1710F-17 (=-89/-91) were finally slightly more HP than P-51A with 1710-81 with WI,
Spitfireperformance (thanks Mike) has enough flight test data to make the same observations. Note that neither the F4 or F20 comparisons of Mustang II are tested with WI.
A point of comparison - the P-51A with W/I was running 1500+Hp on the deck at WEP (1300 at MP) and would outrun and outclimb the P-51B at low altitudes until the Merlin 1650-7 was fed 150 octane at 75" Hg. The P-51A never got the improved aileron throw so the Merlin Mustang always outrolled the A. The Allison Mustangs out turned both the Merlin Mustang and the P-38. Only with boosted ailerons did theP-38J/L out roll the Mustang - once it got going.
Except for high altitude recon the Allison Mustangs were very well suited for all tactical recon. The F-4/F-5 were always better for high altitude recon over P-51 and P-51A - but that accounted for much less tasking in Pacific than ETO. Even in MTO/ETO, the primary balance of recon was tactical in nature with the Recon groups. Both 67 and 68 TRG moved to mustang airframes in 1943, Ditto 10 TRG. 363rd FG equipped early with P-51B converted to F-6 post D-Day. Only the 7th PRG at Mount Farm, maintained some P-38 for recon throughout. Note - didn't check MTO or 9th AFvery closely
The F-5 showed up when the P-51 did in the PTORegardless, in the Pacific I think either F-5 or P-51A would have been quite useful to have a few of earlier in 1942. A fast recon could have been very handy. PBYs were great and extremely long ranged but very slow.
Well they can be in all places at once North American P-51ARight. I thought I remembered they got some into Burma fairly early, and it took a while to get anything into Burma.
So if some of those Mustangs meant for Britain ended up in say, New Guinea, the Solomons, or Midway, that might have been helpful. Even just a couple dozen.
Well they can be in all places at once North American P-51A
310 P-51As were built. Of that number, 50 went to the RAF, where they were known as Mustang IIs, and 35 were fitted with cameras as F-6Bs. The remaining P-51As were used by the 311th FBG, based at Dinjan, India, from mid 1943. It was also used by the 23rd FG, based in China, where it did act as an escort fighter.
A few? 225 already is a few. How many logistics chains do you want for an aircraft that has ceased production?Right. Send a few of those to Port Morseby.
Milne Bay was in August 1942, which was when the very first Mustang Mk Is were first operational in UK (at Dieppe).Well, the number of aircraft in action in places like Port Moresby was quite small. The Battle of Milne Bay was basically won thanks to about twenty P-40s and a two squadrons of Lockheed Hudsons and a few other aircraft*. Henderson field in the early days had sometimes less than a dozen fighters, dive bombers and other types on hand at any given moment. I'm not sure how many P-51s would be needed to make a difference, but if you had say, 50, that might be enough to keep two small recon units going for a few months.
The challenge is in getting aircraft to these remote battlefields, which was no easy task.
*US B-25s and B-26s and B-17s also helped at a few points in the battle.