P-51 Mustang, best Allied fighter or not ?

Hi Woody, welcome to the forum!

There has been a lot of debate over the effectiveness of 20mm vs .5 cal - basic conclusion is that both are fine for any task up to knocking down heavy bombers (which the USAAF never had to do).

Maybe those pesky Russians had too big a bias!

 

The effects altitude on performance shouldn't be discounted. AFAIK, Soviet (and Japanese) palnes really needed to be below 10,000 feet to be effective. To much emphasis is put on dog fighting in most discussions of this type, and the truth is dog fighting hardly mattered after 1938.

 

"Corsair"

I once worked with a guy who flew both Corsairs in WW! and Sea Furies in Korea. He told me that the Corsair was never taken up in the numbers hoped for by the US Navy because its undercarriage was so stiff that the plane bounced very badly on all deck landings. The worst of its problems was its long nose with effectively obscured a carrier's deck. The British Fleet Air Arm ( in which my pal flew ) got over this by making a curved approach which kept the deck largely in view, at least long enough to get the approch right. This, coupled with the angled deck and the mirror/lights landing system (both of which were invented by the British ) largely sorted out their problems with the Corsair.
Malladyne.

 

Spit v Mustang

As a Brit I have a natural pride and admiration for the Spitfire, which amongst other claims to fame was the only aircraft to have entered production before WW2 and stayed in production long afterwards.
However, there is little doubt that the Mustang was the better "war winning airplane" largely because of its phenomenal range. Mind you, as we already know, it was not much use until the Brits offered and fitted the Rolls Royce Merlin to it !
However, there is a large body of both service and technical opinion that declares that the "Hawker Tempest" was without doubt the finest fighterplane to come out of WW2, especially when used as a low to medium level fighter. Not only was it poweful and fast but its handling was exceptional and its acceleration without equal, a fact testified by Pierre Closterman in his book "The Big Show", when he found himself chased by three TA 152's at very low level over Germany late in the war. He pushed his throttle through the retaining 'Emergency Only" wire and then left the German fighters ( amongst the best of their types) standing.
Malladyne.

 

To start off, first the claim that the Spitfire was the only fighter aircraft to be in production before during and after the war is to me incorrect, the Bf109 also shares this claim as the Bf109 was in production before and during the war but also afterwards as the Czech Avia S.99 and the Spanish Hispano Buchon. Different name and engine maybe, but the S.99 and Buchon probably still had as much in common if not moreso with the Bf109D and E of the war's outset as the Spitfire F.24 did with the MkIs of the war's begining (i.e. practically nothing! :lol: ).

The claim that the Mustang was more of a war-winning aircraft is equally open to debate. The devastating losses of their most skilled pilots that led to such a dramatic decline in pilot quality happened before the arrival of the Mustang, at the hands of the P-47 and P-38 pilots, further the range of the Mustang without droptanks was not much greater than the range of the Spitfires with centreline tanks. Yes the Mustangs could take bigger droptanks but as these had to be jetissoned by the time they reached the Dutch border the extra fuel in these tanks was of debatable value.

As for the Tempest, definitely one of the best, I wouldn't like to try and escort a batch of Flying Fortresses at 25,000ft in one though, and it is worth pointing out that Mr Closterman is not in a position to know whether the tailing Ta152s were using full boost or not. That he escaped is an equal indicator that they may have been low on fuel or simply did not wish to engage in a long drawn out chase in skies which the enemy dominated.

Interesting annecdote about the Corsair, I had equally read that ground based Corsairs used to zig-zag when taxi-ing as the pilot had absolutely no view directly ahead.

 

You are quite right about the Corsair needing to either zig zag or get assistance from someone sitting on the wing when taxying, but the same can be said of the Spit. and many other liquid cooled engine types because of the length of the nose.
I deliberately refrained from mentioning the post war Spanish built 109's since they were horribly obsolete even in 1944-5, let alone 4 or 5 years later when the Spitfire was still in front line use and may well still have been in production for all I know.

You contend that the loss of German pilots to T'bolt and Lightning pilots before the intro. of the Mustang threatens the claim that the Mustang was the better aircraft. I just cannot see the sense in that argument since it was the numbers of -47's and -38's that help kill Luftwaffe pilots and not the quality of the American planes, good though they were (even the -38 could be an accomplished killer due to its combat flaps, not to mention the concentrated killing power of its snoot full of guns ! ). As for the need for the Mustang to drop its exterior tanks, well, that of course is exactly what they were designed for, and being generally made of paper had no bearing on anything other than to get the -51 to where the killing had to be done.........and what is wrong with that ?
I am glad that we agree that the Tempest is a great aircraft, and it is no consequence that it might have been crap if used as an escort of American heavies at 25,000 feet, it was, after all, designed to a specification for an interceptor, a role it carried out supremely well, even when up against those little buggers the Doodlebugs !
Of course, one can speculate ad infinitum as to why the TA 152 pilots failed to connect with Clostermann's Tempest- maybe they were all rookie pilots who bottled out at the odds of 3 to 1, but I doubt it. Even though the quality of Luftwaffe pilots late in the war was extremely variable, I'd doubt that all three of them, and each all in a bloody good German fighter, would have all been either rookies, or low on petrol, or just keeping their heads down. I may not like the Germans, but even I have too much respect for them to say that- nope, I am confident that the Tempest just blew 'em all into the hedges when it came to whanging the throttle forward hard in that baby !
Malladyne.

 

No I didn't, I contended that the loss of the German's experienced pilots in 1943 makes the claim that the P-51 was in your words more of a "War winning airplane" debatable. It didn't win the airwar, but it did help complete the destruction of the Luftwaffe which had already had the experienced core of it ripped out of it by the P-47s and P-38s.

I know that the drop tanks were supposed to be dropped on contact, and IIRC the paper ones were found to leak terribly especially at altitude and were subsequently replaced with metal ones by the time of the Mustang's introduction. The point I was trying to make was that usually Mustang protagonists claim the Mustang had a hugely superior range to all Spitfires, usually based on the range figures with drop tanks. The fact is however much extra external fuel they carried it rarely extended the range by more than about 50 miles due to the necessity of dropping the tanks on contact with the enemy, and Spitfires when equipped with centreline tanks such as some MkIXs and MkXIVs had had range in terms of internal tankage close to the P-51 and could carry enough external tankage to make it to the Dutch border too, so in practical terms the Centreline Spits could have carried out the same role as the P-51s.

On the issue of the the Bf109s, what I was really taking issue with is the often repeated claim that the Spitfire was the only fighter aircraft produced before during and after the war, whether it or the Bf109/S.99/Buchon was obsolete or not is largely irrelevant as you cannot discount that they were being built and used. In the case of the S.99 they even saw post-war combat usage too.

As for the Tempest, a multi-role capability is important when discussing contenders for any kind of "Best Fighter" discussion. The Tempest was a superb low level fighter, a superb low level interceptor, and a superb fighter-bomber. As an Escort fighter or high level interceptor it was lacking, mainly due to relatively poor performance at altitude.

Regarding Closterman, you are confident that he out-accelarated the Ta152s? OK, fine, but as I have said without knowing why the Ta152s did not chase him you cannot realistically say that this is evidence that the Tempest could out accelerate the Ta152. As you said, we could speculate for ever, but the belief that the Closterman's Tempest "just blew 'em all into the hedges" is speculation just as much as the other possibilities I mentioned.

 

When first fitted with the Merlin it was noted by the test pilot that the Mustang was significantly faster than the Spitfire.


I can give you links, but trust me I am right.


Dig this

Here is my Great Grand father


http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/dunne.html

John W Dunne

He patented the 'swept' wing.

and sold many aircraft to the RAF and US military



MY grand Father

John E Dunne was an aeronautical engineer..

He worked for Vickers on the Spitfire wings..and later for the Skunkworks where he worked on the U2 wings


The laminar wing was designed to be very efficient, hence the range and speed..

The Mustang was second best to the Spitfire in maneuverability as far as Allied aircraft.


It is called a trade off.


There are reports of P-51 D 's going 500 mph...in level flight, but this is believed to be an instrument error, in the pitot tube.

However, when using 151 octane fuel, the daamn thing was faster than its stated 437 mph top speed.




Oct. '42 - Merlin Powered Mustang
As early as May, 1942, Ronald Harker, a Rolls Royce test pilot, first recommended mating the Mustang airframe to the Merlin engine, an idea which would transform the P-51 into a decisive weapon, capable of escorting American bombers all the way to Berlin. Harker test-flew an RAF Mustang on April 30, 1942, and noted that it was 30 MPH faster than the Spitfire Mk V and had almost double the range. Harker's memo recommending the Merlin-Mustang combination (in which he erroneously identified Edgar Schmued as a former Masserschmitt employee) got the attention of Rolls Royce management, who borrowed five RAF Mustangs to test the idea. The British flight-tested the Mustang X in October, and found that the experimental craft significantly out-performed the Allison at high altitudes, generating 200 more horsepower at 20,000 feet and almost 500 more HP at 30,000 feet. While the British research was valuable, the American Merlin Mustang program proceeded almost independently.
In the summer of 1942, Packard Motors was negotiating with Rolls Royce to license-build the Merlin engine at its Detroit plant. Learning of Rolls Royce' Merlin-Mustang plans, Major Thomas Hitchcock, the American military attache in London, and others, pushed for the development of a Mustang powered by the Packard-built Merlin. Authorized in July, 1942, North American began its Merlin Mustang development in August.
The XP-51B included these changes:

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p51_mustang.html











I love the Spitfire , but fitted with the same horsepowered engine the Mustang was faster.

 

additionally the Me 109 was considered obselete by Galland

galland interview


Galland: I had been telling Hitler for over a year, since my first flight in an Me-262, that only Focke Wulf Fw-190 fighter production should continue in conventional aircraft, to discontinue the Me-109, which was outdated, and to focus on building a massive jet-fighter force.


http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/wwii_int.htm




The P-51 was immediately recognized for superb performance at low altitudes. Tests at Boscombe Down in Britain, however, revealed it quickly ran out of power above 10,000 feet. This lack of performance at high altitudes severely restricted the plane’s use for escort and interception work. A Rolls-Royce test pilot, Ronald Harker, was among the first to conclude that what the Mustang needed to realize its full potential was the “Merlin” engine. Calculations by engineers at R-R suggested that speeds over 440 mph at 25,000 feet could be achieved using the Merlin 61 (high altitude version). Some reports of the history of this incident argue that it was known from the start the Allison engine would only provide good performance below 15,000 feet and the R-R Merlin engine would be eventually needed.

another source..

at this time no Spits could hit 440 mph

(only 400+/-)



http://www.airventuremuseum.org/collect ... ustang.asp

 

...and of course that bloody great centre line tank had nothing to do with it all...

 

About P51 and laminar flow wing:
I'd like you all to read some articles about it:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199906/ai_n8870829
"With respect to the Mustang, many tests-including some in recent years-have shown that extensive laminar flow was not developed on the Mustang wing and that the drag of the wing was probably no less than that of conventional wings of the same thickness and taper ratio."

And

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap2.html
"In application, the laminar flow airfoil was used during World War II in the design of the wings for the North American P-51 Mustang, as well as some other aircraft. Operationally, the wing did not enhance performance as dramatically as tunnel tests suggested. For the best performance, manufacturing tolerances had to be perfect and maintenance of wing surfaces needed to be thorough. The rush of mass production during the war and the tasks of meticulous maintenance in combat zones never met the standards of NACA laboratories."

Opinions?

 

range 2100 miles


top speed, faster than a Spit with the same engine

numerous reports of over 500 mph, discounted as instrument and gauge errors- using 151 octane

other aircraft with the same pitot tube did not report this problem however

I love the Spit,



grandad, who worked on the Spit wings at Vickers (Speke) and on the U2 (Skunkworks)

My grand father mostly focused on his aircraft crashes, a friend being sucked into a propeller and his home being bombed.

My own early recollections of his work are faded except for his tears, limp and scars.. That and his love for tinkering. I believe his engineering work was more sanding, milling, jigs and filing than protractors and such.


He was always building model aircraft from scratch, fiddling with wings, he never had fewer than 50 of them in his garage. I gather he started as a boy in his fathers workshop and continued to his death.

I always had the best 'kites'.. and toy gliders..


Ever notice how fast the Typhoon was ? an 'up engined' (Griffen /phin) sp? Hurricane fuselage with a Mustang wing

 

Centreline tank :roll:

That's nonsense. The Typhoon didn't even use a RR engine, never mind Mustang wings.

 

Schemes for the utilization of the Griffon IIB and the Griffon 61 engines accounted respectively for the Tempest III and Tempest IV designations, neither passing the project stage. Nor did an alternative armament proposal based on the use of 0.5-in. machine-guns. The final Tempest variant was the Mark VI, which, appearing in 1945, was powered by the 2,700 hp Sabre VA engine and, except in having small intake ducts in the wing roots, was outwardly

upengined


While Hawker and the RAF were struggling to turn the Typhoon into a useful aircraft, Hawker's Sydney Camm and his team were rethinking the design. The Typhoon's thick, rugged wing was partly to blame for some of the aircraft's performance problems, and as far back as March 1940 a few engineers had been set aside to investigate the new "laminar flow" wing, which the Americans had implemented in the P-51 Mustang.


what ever

 

The new wing cramped the fit of the four Hispano 20 millimeter cannon that were being designed into the Typhoon. The cannon were moved back further into the wing, and the wing was extended into an elliptical shape to accommodate the cannon. The new elliptical wing had greater area than the Typhoon's. Camm, who was noted for a sharp sense of humor, later remarked: "The Air Staff wouldn't buy anything that didn't look like a Spitfire."

Another important feature of the new wing was that radiators for the new Sabre IV engine were fitted into the leading edge of the wing inboard of the landing gear. This eliminated the distinctive "beard" radiator associated with the Typhoon and improved aerodynamics, but also displaced fuel tanks that had been fitted into the leading edge of the Typhoon's wing at the same location

 

up engined with a laminar wing

 

The first Tornado flew on 6 October 1939 with a 1,313 kW (1,760 HP) Vulture II. (RR)

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avcfury.html#m1

IF THIS ENGINE CATCHES FIRE ON STARTING,
DON'T JUST WAVE YOUR ARMS AT THE PILOT --
TRY PUTTING THE BLOODY THING OUT AS WELL


Sabre :angry:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftpehttp://www.wwi ... 12093.html


pretty fast

600 mph with 150 octane

gotta be a mistake

 

The Napier-Sabre engine on the Typhoon was started by a 'Kaufman Starter' (spelling might be off) which basically used a shotgun cartridge to kick the engine over. If it did not catch then it would catch fire, so it was standard proceedure to have an airman standing by with a fire extinguisher 'just in case'.

As a point of ignorance - can laminar-flow wings be elliptical? I thought that the design meant they had straight edges (like those on the Mustang). Note though Notmi's links about the effectiveness of the P-51 wing...