Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
it is easy to see how the P-51 had the second highest score against enemy aircraft for US fighter types. (#1 was the F6F Hellcat which was slower than the Mustang, but was fast enough to do what it had to do.)
You're right. Nothing magical about it at all. But it was stated and they didn't do it in the real, actual war.
Greg - slooooooowly. It was stated that it Could cruise at Max Continuous Power at 380, when in fact with just racks it Could cruise at 404-410 mph TAS.
Repeat once - It Could Cruise at what is described in AN 01-60JE-1, dated September 1944 for the P-51D-5, as Emergency Cruise, at 2700RPM, 46" MP at 25,000 feet at 410mph with a fuel burn rate of 115gph. Page 54.
Capability to do it aside, why the heck would anyone escort someone while flying twice the speed of the escorted planes? You'd be more than doubling your plane's actual flown range, and a 1,200 mile mission is long enough.
Sloooooooooooowly Greg, 'No One' would escort at twice the speed of the escorted planes if they were flying close escort.
Slooooooooooowly, Greg, 'No One' would fly at Max Continuous Cruise settings if the mission was to provide, say target escort at Berlin for a roundtrip of 1100-1200 miles.
Slooooooooooowly, Greg, YOU are the only one that keeps connecting '380mph Cruise at Max Continuous' with the second phrase 'Escort to Berlin'. Nobody but You.
Pushing up the speed when you expect combat is reasonable, but cruising there isn't. Might be different if you were escorting B-29s and if they were crusining at 230+ mph, then there would be at least SOME justification for flying faster in the ETO, but we din't use B-29s in the ETO , and there was NO point in going faster in the PTO most of the time becuase the weather was mostly severe clear and you could see your enemies a long way off.
If the weather was bad that's another story since you were better off engaging faster against Japanese fighters. If you fought them slow, the'd likely get you.
Happy you enjoyed it, another comment or subject about zoom climbing real quick.
Maybe I'm barking up a tree that has already read these documents, but i always found the F4U vs FW 190 A4 documentation interesting,
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf
Specifically the part where the FW 190 A4 being noted as having much better performance in high speed zoom climbs (although worse at any fairly low/medium speeds.) I'll assume this is mostly down to drag, although more specific aspects of it would be interesting to know. If nothing else the ideal climbspeeds of the F4U and FW 190 alone indicate a FW 190 has low enough drag but also high enough wing loading it just works better at high speed (about 160mph on Corsair vs 180mph on FW 190 iirc. Quite large frontal area of the F4U probably being a factor.
Anyways i find it interesting because considering both the FW 190 A4 and F4U-1 (with Water Injection apparently) jockied for similar speeds, acceleration, and climbrate at various altitudes i would normally suspect that with built up inertia a F4U due to excess weight it would be close to the FW 190 A4 in a high speed zoom climb, but apparently the aerodynamics are such that the 190 would just pull away in any high speed zoom climb.
Any comments on this subject?
Bill,
You and I are gonna' disagree forever on how fast the Mustang cruised. Just a fact. You think anybody in 1943 - 1944 took off at under 10,500 pounds?
Greg - this is a good illustration of one of many reasons why I move from debate to scorn when any conversation goes past ONE exchange.
On Post #16, my VERY first post on this subject, I said this following SR's post of the p-51D Operating manual...
Don't understand the debate about the Official Pilot's Operating Manual. They are straight from the Flight Tests to optimize range for P-51D-15 with racks only, fully loaded internally, and also with 110 gallon fuel tanks and also 500 and 250 pound bombs... 11,700 pounds at take off with the 110's, 10,200 with full internal load, clean wing with racks only
From the Flight Tests - also available on Mike Williams' site, at 2700 RPM and 46" MP - a Safe Continuous Power setting for all Merlin Mustangs.
25K Rack only 404mph cruise@100 gallons per hour
25K 110 Gallon 371mph cruise@89 gallons per hour
25K 500# Bombs 357mph cruise@100 gallons per hour
25K 250# Bombs 381mph cruise@92 gallons per hour
Those are not optimal cruise settings. The optimal settings for maximum Range (normal deep escort profile to say Poland) for 110 gallon tanks at low recommended Lean mixture was for25K 110 gallon tanks 303mph@57 gallons per hour for 2250 RPM and 29" MP. That is the TAS they flew at 25000 feet while they were linked to close escort (i.e. Essing while connected to a specific Box). It was not the speed and settings used to fly to the R/V or Sweep or return home after BE unless the mission profile was Extreme Range requirement such as Posnan with a 1480 mile round trip.. Speed was life and the mission commander set the profile.
At normal Warbird cross country cruise altitudes of say 10,000 feet, without racks and externals, the P-51B/C/D with a 1650-3, 9 or -7 can be safely run at 46" and 2700 RPM all day long but it also burns 90GPH. At lower RPM and leaner mixture 40" with 2200 RPM and it will scoot along at 325mph with a burn of 66 GPM. That is conservative because Warbirds do not carry Guns, ammo or aft fuel tank so the flight is conducted at 900-1000 pounds less than the War TIME recommendations.
ANY of those cruise settings discussed above at 46" is safe for Warbird operations - even without yanking the guns, ammo and fuselage fuel... for 130/150. So for crappy expensive stuff today the settings will change to optimize burn quality without going too Lean.
In fact, we can disagree and it's fine. I know what the guys I know who own them say and what the veterans who flew them say, and that's good enough for me. If it isn't for you, well then - OK.
If you knew what to ask, and if you comprehended the answers to each specific question - they (the veterans and the Warbird pilots) would agree what I posted then and what I just posted in this reply. "They" operated by the 'Book' rather than each seek a 'different approach for safe operations and economy. I posted the wartime RANGES of cruise options, I (Shortround first) posted the Recommended Cruise options to maximize range and posted them for Ranges of Take OFF Gross Weights ranging from 10,200 pounds to 11,600 pounds
Let's say we both think it was a very good fighter, even great, and let the details alone betwen us. I'll continue to think what I do and so will you. Neither one detracts from the combat record or the legacy, so let it go at that.
I'll allow they cruised fast on fighter sweeps away from bomber escort, but I'll just laugh at the thought 410 mph cruise. Didn't happen as far as I know. But out of completeness, I will ask next weekend when the vets show up again for the "Little Friends" event.
Please take the time to read, then re-read what I posted. Print off Post 16 or this post. Take what I posted, and re-posted, on a sheet of paper and ask - "Do you believe this? Is it contrary to your experience - if yes, what is different and what were the circumstances? Write the differences down as well as the author of the comments.
Please quit being condescending. It's all I can do to be civil already. Just say what you're going to say and leave out the barbs and put downs. Things will be much friendlier that way.
I love this quote from Johnson about his climbing duel with the Spitfire. Later in Thunderbolt, (page 176 according to Google book search) he talks about how the paddle-blade propeller helped the Thunderbolt's performance. He said after he got the paddle-blade propeller he had a climbing dual with a Spitfire 9b - the same model that out-climbed his P-47 earlier, and this time the Thunderbolt was the faster climber.
Friends,
I think we're too hung up on a number. There is nothing magical about 380 MPH.
Only one person can't shake the '380 mph' emergency cruise speed notion or why it is one of many points of data in the P-51D Operating manual.
The tactical advantage doesn't come in a number it comes in the status of being "fast enough". My premise is that entering into the combat area fast, before contact with the enemy is a huge tactical advantage.
No question here but a typical tactical scenario in the ETO is that a fighter Group of three squadrons were 'normally' deployed around one and maybe two 'boxes' of bombers. In mid 1944 a box would be approximately 50 B-17s or B-24s with one full Bomb Group and part of another from the same Bomb Wing.
That Could look like - one squadron flying as much as 4-5000 feet above the box, one flying off to one side and one flying on the other side if the Box is in an interior position. If the Box is a lead box, the one of the squadrons might be running from one side to 5-10mi out in front and back. Any squadron tethered to the bombers is running approximately 220IAS, which at 25000 feet is ~320-350mph TAS, which forces P-51s to 'Ess'
At 220IAS the fuel burn rate is about 10% higher than 'max cruise with 110 tanks and fully loaded P-51D - at 11,600-700 pounds GW at TO. in order to stay with the bombers they are assigned to. Any fighter squadron on a Sweep or an Area Patrol to block inbound enemy fighters will still fly around 200-220mph IAS but more in a straight line and covering a lot more ground. As the fuel is burned down the cruise speed (as you know) will increase at same power settings.
'They' can't afford the luxury of running much above Max Range Cruise on a long mission, and they have to really try to hold on to the external tanks to empty if possible and reserve all internal fuel except 25+ gallons of burn off, plus some 10 gallons on warm up and take off in the left main. If they get in a fight too early and have to punch 110's with a lot of fuel remaining, they have to go home before completing the escort assignment.
The squadron commanders were disciplined and sent flights or sections frequently when bouncing smaller numbers of 109s or 190s, holding the rest of the squadron in reserve and not punching tanks. Occasionally a really large batch of enemy fighters are spotted and sections, then whole squadrons engage while calling for help from the other squadrons.
At this stage, you aren't going to be be using any fluid injection, and you are not going to be using a power setting that requires a tear-down at the end of the flight. In other words, you aren't going to uses "war emergency" power.
Unless the situation is dire Military Power was the first run up on the throttle and RPM. Everybody was aware of not getting home on a bad engine after WEP..
You also aren't going to use a power setting that doesn't give you enough endurance to do what you want to do. You will use the highest power setting that allows you to do what you need to do. You might call that a "fast cruise". You might call it something else. The Mustang, because of its low drag, could go faster per unit of power and fuel consumption than most or all of its peers/adversaries. Going into the battle fast in a Mustang is crucial because the plane is heavy in relation to its power. Not being caught low and slow is crucial to survivability in a P-51. If a P-51 is bounced while in eco-cruise, all of its performance advantages are gone. Conversely, if the P-51 maintains a continuous speed (none dare call it "cruising") in the combat area which is above the maximum continuous speed of its adversary's, the adversary will be at a significant disadvantage unless the adversary has a substantial altitude advantage. It is unlikely the adversary will have a position advantage at the Mustang's 6 because the Mustang already passed that area faster than the adversary could go. If you start with that speed advantage, add in a numerical advantage and the advantage that the P-51's main job is to protect bombers, and the Luftwaffe's main ob was to shoot down bombers, it is easy to see how the P-51 had the second highest score against enemy aircraft for US fighter types. (#1 was the F6F Hellcat which was slower than the Mustang, but was fast enough to do what it had to do.)