North American P-51 Mustang

Love the Bearcat, Mustang, Sea Fury in that order. When I was Mirage RAAF pilot our Tech Officer 77 Sqn had flown P51 in Korea. He said in practice combat they lost big time to the RAN Sea Furies and even the RNZAF Corsairs as lost energy in sustained turning fight compared to the bigger more powerful aircraft with a different airfoil wing section.

reply

Glad to see I have some support here. I have decided to build a working v12 model engine and airframe. I don't know if I will finish it or even get it started as it is just a dream right now. Has anyone out there built a model like thuis or know of one? Thanks John

reply

Some of the last changes made to the aircraft, including the new Rolls Royce Merlin V-1650-9 engine, either decreased the weight, or increased the speed, making it the fastest production P-51ever with a clocking of 487 mph at 25,000 feet. The last P-15H-10NA rolled out of the Inglewood factory in November of 1945.
A further update, the XP-51, was shipped to the United Kingdom for testing in February 1945. This plane was also named Mustang V, and bore the RAF serial number FR410. It is widely reported to have achieved a speed of 495 mph during tests at the A&AEE at Boscombe Down in February 1945

reply

Some of the last changes made to the aircraft, including the new Rolls Royce Merlin V-1650-9 engine, either decreased the weight, or increased the speed, making it the fastest production P-51ever with a clocking of 487 mph at 25,000 feet. The last P-15H-10NA rolled out of the Inglewood factory in November of 1945.
A further update, the XP-51, was shipped to the United Kingdom for testing in February 1945. This plane was also named Mustang V, and bore the RAF serial number FR410. It is widely reported to have achieved a speed of 495 mph during tests at the A&AEE at Boscombe Down in February 1945

reply

The Mustang was originally designed to satisfy a British request that NA build P-40s under license for the RAF. NA persuaded the British that they could build a better fighter than the P-40, and they came up with the Mustang. Because of the Allison engine it was originally employed as a specialized low-altitude fighter for low-level fighter sweeps, ground attack and photo-reconnaissance sorties. It was considered to be the best low-level fighter available at that time.

The substitution of the Rolls-Royce Merlin, with two-speed supercharger, for the Allison engine made all the difference. With it the Mustang could operate as effectively at high altitudes as it could at low level.

Originally, the USAAF was not interested in the Mustang, which was considered to be strictly an RAF project. The AAF wanted more P-40s and P-47s. However, Hap Arnold, who was no fool, saw a demonstration of the Mustang, and insisted upon ordering it for the AAF as the P-51.

Incidentally, Curtiss did develop a version of the P-40 fitted with the Merlin engine, the P-40F. I believe they built about 800 P-40Fs, and they were used extensively over North Africa and the Med. They did have better high-altitude performance than the Allison-engine P-40s, but not so good as the Mustang.

reply

Red Baron, you obviously have a love for the P-40, I can relate since I have a love for several as well. One of my favorites is the Vought F-4U Corsair. This was a great sircraft but it had many short-cummings. When studying the effectiveness of any airframe it is important to consider the design mission of the designers. This is why the P-40 could never be compared to any other aircraft. You are right, it isn't always about speed or maneuverability. The P-40 more than satisfied it's original mission design making it a very successful airframe. The P-51 was designed for a completely different mission. It is true the Merlin engine completed the design of the P-51 but it is also true the P-51 had a design mission the P-40 designers had never considered. The P-40 excelled for ground attack operations but was not as effective at higher altitudes because it was not designed to operate there. The reason the P-40 had incredible climb and turn performance was because when youi fly close to the ground yuou need to be able to avoid obstacles and / or ground fire. The P-51 was designed as a fast escort that had the range to go into Germany and back. Once in service it's pilots found the P-51 to provide excellant low altitude performance and handling as well. Reno racers have preferred the P-51 for a reason, it is strong, aero-dynamic and extremely maneuverable throughout it's operating envelope. I suggest as I have in the begining that you do more research and not depend on your love for the P-40 as much. You will find it is more fun to realistically compare aircraft on a scientific level. Whatever you do keep in mind I love the magnificent P-40 as much as you do. John

reply

There is more too it than just speed, which is what aerodynamics gives them.

That huge cowling on the p-40 was very aerodynamic, lol. But who needs aerodynamics when you have power! Lol

Well the P-40 would of been a heck of a lot better fighter if it did have the engine. You can't deny that.

reply

you seem to be locked into the idea the P40's performance can be compared to the P51. You have a right to that belief but I would rather be more scientific about it. American and British aircraft were fine machines but in fact were obsolete when the war began. Aero-dynamically the P40, Spitfire, Aircobra etc. simply could not compete with the P51.

reply

John.

I am not talking about the P-40 taking over the Mustangs role of escorting the B-17's.

But given the better engine it could of performed better in a fight than a mustang.

The P-40 would of also made more of a difference in the pacific campaign had it had a two-staged supercharger.

reply

There were amazing fighters both during and after the war but they all had the same problem, range. The P38 was the only other WW2 fighter that had the speed and the range to get into Germany and back. In any event, your claim the P51 sucks has no merit. The P40 as I said was a great airplane but it's aero-dynamic profile caused too much drag for it to provide the range it would have needed to compete. The Rolls-Royce Merline V-12 would have definitely made it a better aircraft but remember the Spitfire (another great fighter ) had the Rolls angine and it could not compete with the P51.

reply

What I mean too say is this. What were the P-40's setbacks?

Performance at high altitudes. What if the P-40 could perform as well as it did at low altitudes but in high altitudes. Sure, the P-51 had new features that the P-40 lacked.

But there were other great fighters that didn't have "laminar flow wings" etc.

Why not try a twin-stage supercharged Rolls-Royce engine in a P-40, true they had a shortage. But if they had enough for the production of lancasters, spitfires and mustangs couldn't they spare a few for trail?

reply

Frank Russel, you sound like you have piloted a P51, did you? John

reply

The Mustang P-51D had it all!! Loved it!!

reply

PS,Brillant info and site...thank you

reply

Zacvolmer !!! ...speed and range...what else wins in a air war... but you have only have to read as i have from those who know...AND LEARN before you put your size 9 boot in your size 10 mouth

reply

RM Mardiko, the crash at the Reno air races was caused when a piece of the aircraft's tail surfaces separated fromt he aircraft causing a loss of control. It should be noted that aircraft operated as Reno racers have been modified through the years to improve their performance. Unfortunately sometimes a modification or even a repair may result in a structural failure. The extreme g - loads an airframe experiences during an air race would severely challenge any aircraft design. Now add to that an airframe that is 60 or more years old. Unfortunate accident, fantastic aircraft. Sincerely John

reply

It is sad that someone would make such a statement without checking his facts. The aerodynamic design of the wings and fuselage made the P51 extremely fast and agile, the original Packard engine could not deliver the required performance at higher altitudes. The excellant Rolls Royce engine did indeed make the aircraft a winner. However, the Rolls engine would have done nothing to make the P40 Warhawk a contender because the P40 did not have the laminar flow wing provided to the P51. Both were great aircraft but could not be compared. I love both of them and have built several flying models of both aircraft. Sincerely John

reply

P-51 mustangs suck, all they had going for them was speed and range. The only reason they even had that was because they were given a better engine by the british.

If the P-40 was given that same engine it would've made a much better fighter than the P-51.

reply

I still confused regarding of the last air show accident around 3 or 4 weeks ago in parts of USA that a P-51 crashed and killed its pilot. Is there anybody that can inform me or us , what was wrong with those P-51. I know precisely that for the "Battle over London / Britain" , The Supermarine Spitfire or Hurricane were mostly famous than The P-51's since at that time USA were not yet entered the Second WW, but after The American joint WW-II, P-51 Mustang were dominated nearly around the world ( in Pacific against Japan and also during the Korean War ). So that once again, would some body tell me / us, what is the matter regarding the Accident that happened around a month ago.. Thank you.

reply

The Australian built version equipped the 1st non-USAF Squadron to serve in the Korean War - 77 Sqdn RAAF, and the pilots claimed at least 2 or 3 MiGs. They later re-equipped with Australian-buil;t Avon 'Sabres'

reply