My Father flew 86 missions over Europe in a Mustang and lived to tell about it. I remember in the late 70's he heard a P51 was in town at the airport. ( Fairbanks, AK ). I went with him to go see it. The only time I ever saw my Dad with tears in his eyes.

@byloyuripka9624

Жыл бұрын

gat

@kevinb3812

Жыл бұрын

I sense gratitude in him.

@steveperreira5850

Жыл бұрын

That is a sweet story! God bless your dad for killing Nazi bastards. Those evil sons of bitches.

@doraexplora9046

Жыл бұрын

I'm obviously younger than you or your dad. But I built and flew model AC as a teenager. I was in to WWI planes. Everyone else was into Spitfires, but the one I loved the most was my P51.

@joeblowjohndoe206

Жыл бұрын

What's your dad's name

My good friend Hank flew one in W.W.II at first escorting bombers in Europe where he said Command was always asking them to see how many parachutes got out when one went down so they could alert the ground to try and help them. Then fighting in Africa and finally in the Pacific going up against Zeros. Got shot down twice. Was kept over in occupied China and then occupied Japan. He said we might have been crazy but we couldn’t wait to get back up. I truly and sorely miss my good friend Hank. A man’s man like all those others, who fought and won this horrific war for us.

@jacktattis

6 ай бұрын

The P51 did not see service in North Africa They came on the scene after Jun 44 with the 15th A/F and was in Italy .

My Dad was a BTG in B-17F's. He made his first 8 missions before the Mustangs arrived. One day a Mustang B model landed at Thorpe Abbots and the pilot told them to take a good look and remember it. As he climbed back into the cockpit he stopped, smiled and said "Oh, one more thing", and he hinted at the new range and said, "See you over Berlin". Dad said half the guys whooped and hollered and the other half simply began to cry. He said the Mustang was the only reason I was here.

@loneranger5349

Жыл бұрын

I'm glad we wouldn't want to do without you.

@scootergeorge7089

Жыл бұрын

What does BTG stand for? Flying Forts had pilot/copilot, navigator, radio operator, gunners...

@ToIsleOfView

Жыл бұрын

That is the most significant thing about the mustang. It saved American lives!

@nathanhernandez6769

Жыл бұрын

@@scootergeorge7089 probably ball turret gunner

@scootergeorge7089

Жыл бұрын

@@nathanhernandez6769 - Bingo!!! Sounds correct to me.

The p-51 shows just what a well run, yet small company can do. It was quick to develop, didn't go over budget, and flew very well.

@davidwong825

Жыл бұрын

😂the same case TESLA, circa🎉 2010s

@ZFilms11

Жыл бұрын

@@davidwong825 what?

@davidwong825

Жыл бұрын

@@ZFilms11 Tesla was formed back @ 2006`~2008? BY 2011, had first mass production S & X still a relatively small company comparing to The big 3! today, not so much as A small/dynamic company, already decadeS ?ahead of any competitors

@augustuslunasol10thapostle

Жыл бұрын

@@davidwong825unfortunately it will be slaughtered by competitors considering the og founders we’re basically deposed in a coup and the new one well the new one is a idiot

@bobgordon1754

Жыл бұрын

We can still do that. We do need some good leadership.

If I had a nickel for every time the USA ended up using a weapon they were making primarily for England more than England itself, I'd have two nickels, which isn't a lot, but it's strange that it happened twice.

@jameslewis1833

Жыл бұрын

Which was the second

@Rose.Of.Hizaki

Жыл бұрын

Thats alright. The Yanks ended up building and using a lot of Rolls Royce Merlin engines in their aircraft so their aircraft were basically British anyway.

@no-legjohnny3691

Жыл бұрын

I was referring to the M1917 rifle, which was an Americanized P14 Enfield. The Merlin in American service basically lived and died with the P-51, plus the USA wasn't making those engines for England like they were the P-51 or P14 enfield.

@superskullmaster

Жыл бұрын

@@Rose.Of.Hizaki I’ll give Germany much more credit for affecting the trajectory of the US aviation/space industry. How’s your British aviation industry doing again?

@georgeo162

Жыл бұрын

3 nickels…. I’d put the Harrier on that list.

Comparisons between the Spitfire and Mustang need to be tempered with care, as the two planes were conceived and designed for completely different purposes. The Spitfire was intended to be used in a defensive role, within easy range of home airfields, and to be able to accommodate high sortie rates, some pilots flying 5-6 sorties in a day. The Mustang, by contrast, was conceived as a very long range escort fighter, flying slow and far most of the time, with a frantic fighting phase over enemy territory. Each of them excelled in their respective roles, becoming iconic and indeed legendary.

@glennfalzo3718

6 ай бұрын

I agree👍 2 different fighters, built for 2 different roles.

@jacktattis

6 ай бұрын

Try these Mk VII F / HF, Mk VIII F/LF / HF, Mk IX F/LF/HF Supermarine and the Air Ministry were always trying something, those Marks were within two years of each other The Mark IX Jun42 Mk VIII Oct 43 Mk VII May 44 The Mark VII had three different engines, the Mark VIII two and the Mark IX five .

@glennfalzo3718

6 ай бұрын

@@jacktattis So, they find an engine that worked!😂

@jacktattis

6 ай бұрын

@@glennfalzo3718 Well they tried something NAA and the USAAF in general sat on their bums

@glennfalzo3718

6 ай бұрын

@@jacktattis I always think what could have been if the US had gotten their heads out of their A$$ and evaluated the Mustang from the beginning. I believe politics had a hand in it, always does. Look what happened with the P38, they wanted to test 1 with 2 Merlins after seeing what it did for the Mustangs performance, but politics prevailed, Allison Aircraft Engines, which is owned by GM, CRYED to the government because of the money they would loose, so the government said NO!

I have been a Mustang fan for as long as I can remember. As a Marine stationed at Miramar I walked out of my shop door and was nose to nose with a Mustang! I almost cried! I was looking it over in awe when the pilot walked up and asked me if I liked it. He was a WW2 veteran pilot. That Mustang had been in his squadron flown by his friend in Europe. We must have talked for an hour.

@scootergeorge7089

Жыл бұрын

When were you at Miramar? I did two tours there with the Navy, Hanger 2, VC-13 and redesignated VFC-13. They flew the A-4 and TA-4. Top Gun was in Hanger 1 and beyond that, the "Hush House."

@phillipallen3259

Жыл бұрын

@@scootergeorge7089 '98-02. After it turned to MCAS.

I got the chance to rebuild several P-51 Mustangs as a young aircraft mechanic and let me tell you that I have never seen a better built aircraft in the 30 years of working on all sorts of airplanes since then. Also, let me give a real shout-out here to Rosie the riveter. I drilled out a lot of her rivets and they were almost all perfect. Even the impossible to get to fasteners looked wonderful! Thanks again for your channel.

@bcm1567

Жыл бұрын

My grandmother as one of those "Rosie's" we went to Long Island where they had an event honoring the women that worked on the planes, the planes she had worked on the P47 Thunderbolt, they had one on display and even in a wheelchair, we got to take pictures of her with the plane.

@IHUTCHI

Жыл бұрын

@@bcm1567 Oh man that is AWESOME!!! P47 was another amazing product of the time.

@warehousejo007

Жыл бұрын

👍🏾🇺🇲

@warehousejo007

Жыл бұрын

@@bcm1567 👍🏾🇺🇲

@touristguy87

Жыл бұрын

Not really anything in this comment worth reading. At all.

Nothing to do with WWII, but I lived in Colorado Springs for 4 years. The Air Force Academy is in Colorado Springs and on graduation day they have many flight exhibitions. I was driving down the mountain pass from Woodland Park to Colorado Springs and heard this terrible, beautiful roar. It was a flight of 5 P-51's coming down the pass prior to participating in graduation exhibitions. What a Freaking sound!! Absolutely awe inspiring! Always one of my favorite aircraft! I will never forget that sound!

@ianjardine7324

Жыл бұрын

Being British I know exactly what you mean the roar of a Merlin sends shivers down your spine. I've never been sure if it's psychosomatic due to it's place in history or something inherent to the engine but the feeling reminds me of the drone of bagpipe's which recordings never seem to capture. Thanks from old blighty for all the times you've had our backs when of really mattered.

All aircraft using liquid cooled engines had the same vulnerability. This hazard was known before the P-51 was designed. In the Korean War the USAF used Mustangs for bombing and strafing. While the Navy and Marines flew the less vulnerable Corsair.

@jds6206

Жыл бұрын

"air-cooled" radial engined Corsair. Yea, buddy.....

@garygiumarra7751

Жыл бұрын

You’re correct in a way but the difference with the P-51 is that it’s coolant line had a far longer run from radiator to engine, therefore it was indeed more vulnerable to ground fire than the typical liquid cooled engine just because there was so much more of the “piping” to hit.

@philgiglio7922

Жыл бұрын

Some Skyraiders were flying also, & would still be in service through Vietnam

@Idahoguy10157

Жыл бұрын

@@philgiglio7922 … I know the navy used Skyraiders in Korea

@MegaBIGJOE64

Жыл бұрын

@@philgiglio7922 Tanks with wings the Skyraiders, ground attack and observation for close air strike or bombardments and rescue mission first responder.

In 1954 when I was 6 years old, I won a tiny model of a P51 in a game of marbles with a school mate. It was solid cast aluminium and no more than 2 inches across the wingspan. I kept that tiny model in my pocket for many years and was always getting admonished by my mother because the sharper edges always made holes in the inside of my pockets. Somewhere along the way, I eventually lost it when it slipped through a hole in my pocket unnoticed and it broke my little boy heart. I'm now 74 and fly remote controlled aircraft as my hobby and the pride of my hangar amongs over 20 aircraft is a 1700 mm wingspan P51 Mustang in Red Tail livery.

@glennfalzo3718

3 ай бұрын

I have 12 R/C planes, 5 of which are Mustangs ranging in size from 25 to 58 inch wingspans.

My father was a WW2 pilot, and he LOVED P51. He said the plane was designed by engineers AND pilots. It flies like a part of you, and responds exactly as expected. Every instrument is perfectly positioned. (He cared a lot about this because he was teaching flight-by-instruments to the younger generations.) It’s indeed an engineering marvel.

@richardmorrow8077

Жыл бұрын

If they didn't have the input of pilots, it would have turned out to be a flying turd.

The P-51 Mustang took advantage of the Meredith effect to increase the flow of air thorough the scoop over the water and oil radiators without excessive drag. It is a miracle of efficiency. Since it had such a high kill rate any disadvantage from vulnerabilities was far outweighed by it's increased performance Many have mentioned the P51 was not the first to use the Meredith effect as many planes did use it but the research on the P-51's use was extensive as outlined in the book P-51B Mustang by James Marshall and Lowell Ford. There are loads of diagrams and pictures of the various inlets they tested. I highly recommend it in both Kindle and paper versions as it shows the development leading to the finished products. over 500 pages.

@jds6206

Жыл бұрын

No, not really.

@huiyinghong3073

Жыл бұрын

What about fitting a P-51 airframe with a Me 262 jet engine?

@kittymervine6115

Жыл бұрын

all planes have flaws, ask any pilot. Especially one that has flown in any war or conflict. There was a top jet in the USAF, that it's a well known secret pilots put a small mirror in one "blind spot".I'm sure pilots share stories still to help each other out with the little problems with each plane. And how to fix them also!

@TheMonkey747

Жыл бұрын

@@huiyinghong3073 Didn't they try that?

@just_one_opinion

Жыл бұрын

you support azovnazis as well as small hat who dealt with bidos to impeach trump. NPC.

Isn't it great that 2 countries could work together and between them make one of the most formidable fighter aircraft of WW2. We can all feel proud of the people who in my instance kept my parents safe while they did their part to defeat the Germans

@huiyinghong3073

Жыл бұрын

What about fitting a P-51 airframe with a Me 262 jet engine?

@kittymervine6115

Жыл бұрын

How many of us are here and alive because of the nations working together to defeat the Germans?

@vashcrimson4395

Жыл бұрын

this channel needs to make a correction to the title. it lumps all the mustangs together for the “fatal flaw” when it was just an early model issue.

@nigelalderman9178

Жыл бұрын

Well 3 nations the designer Edgar Schmued was German

@martinwarner1178

Жыл бұрын

Now defeating the Russians? I am sort of mixed up about this, and the Ukraine nazis are attacking Russia? So....USA now backing nazis!! Peace be unto you.

I think the fact that it was designed and built in such a short period of time, and that it turned out to be so successful is an engineering miracle.

@Hellsong89

Жыл бұрын

Or they already had rough plans and some testing done prehand to see how original competitors airframe could be improved and as a marketer just went "hey we can design and build better plane in 100 days, interested?" while plane was essentially ready to be built with few things to iron out. I wonder how many working models companies these days have that they keep in backpocket to stick out when opportunity arrives.

@wilburfinnigan2142

Жыл бұрын

1958PonyBoy The real fact is Dutch Kindelberger had for a couple years researched a new fighter, the Laminar flow wing the Meridith radiator, the super aerodynamic fuselage, was in fact in hand when the Brits showed up BEGGING for the P40 and Dutch SOLD them his fighter instead, Brits had no choice as Dutch refused to build the obsolete P40 !!! He had a better design and he was right !!!

@peter.a.langan5872

Жыл бұрын

That and the use of the High Altitude (British) Merlin engine. Great airplane.

@petegarnett7731

Жыл бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 The Brits presented a requirement which was virtually the basis of the design. DK took advantage of the recent NACA research on laminar flow sections and combined his ideas with the proposed spec. Unfortunately the result was disappointing until the Merlin was fitted. It then became a great plane as a result of a combination of ideas and features. They were not begging for the P40. They saw it as the best available compromise at a time when their production capacity was at its limit. Your interpretation of this is somewhat skewed.

@jacktattis

Жыл бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 Hello Wilbur still around Eh You Know Laminar flow was a myth Meredith Radiator Hurricane and Spitfire were using it before Dutch was out of school If it had such a super aerodynamic fuselage how is it the Spitfire had a superior Tactical Mach ,better roll rate, Climb Faster and go higher that pee weak wing could not hold the air like the Spitfire could and you do know the Spitfire could get to 49000 ft . If the Brits had not shown up N/A would have gone broke did you ever think of that? The Spitfire creamed your wonderful P51 in everything

My 3rd favourite Allied pane of WW2, the Spitfire and the Mosquito being 1 and 2. I love the fact that it was given a second life by the British made Merlin engine. One of the greatest Piston engine sounds ever

@richardmorrow8077

Жыл бұрын

Yes!!! That Merlin engine coupled with the fantastic body designs, made a lot of German and Japanese widows during the war.

@hellskitchen10036

11 ай бұрын

It also shows that together , the US and Britain could never be beaten!

@brianives838

10 ай бұрын

airframe designed to Air Ministry specs no specs no P51 Mustangs

@jacktattis

6 ай бұрын

@@brianives838 No I do not think so. Give NAA its due thei plane was American designed and built The only thing that the Brits had any say in it was what they wanted it to do.

@TheGroundedAviator

6 ай бұрын

@@jacktattis That basically is specs. NAA and NACA (forerunner of NASA) developed the wing, and all agreed it was the way to go, the RAF provided extra data from their experiences with stuff far more advanced than the US had and were in contact from the start, even requested the undercarriage wheels be bigger!

Not the most meaningful contribution, but one incredible story was that of the pilot (can’t remember the name off the top of my head) escorting a bomber formation in a lone Mustang, and got into a dogfight with 30 luftwaffe fighters and shot down 6 until running out of ammo, who then somehow still managed to keep them away by feinting attack runs and scaring them away; he was the only fighter pilot of the European theater to be awarded the Medal of Honor iirc

@philgiglio7922

Жыл бұрын

All within sight of the amazed bomber stream. No problem finding witnesses to write up the AAR and Medal recommendations

@kdrapertrucker

Жыл бұрын

James Howard, he had been a Navy pilot, volunteered for the American volunteer group (flying tigers) when disbanded he came back to the states and was rebuffed by the Navy, and the Army Air Force eagerly accepted him. He named his plane "Ding HAO" which is Chinese for very good. Howard's parents were missionaries and he grew up in China.

@ozymandias1758

Жыл бұрын

I seen my duty and I done it.. what he said when questioned by reporters afterward. What a legend you are, James Howard. Dark Skies also made a video featuring his daring feat over Europe, with stirring music, well worth watching. I love the production quality and presentation of this series and the other affiliated Dark videos.

@touristguy87

Жыл бұрын

...he did not literally get into a dogfight with 30 fighters. I'm not even sure that he shot-down 6 of them. Here's the text of his MoH citation from Wiki: Medal of Honor citation The citation accompanying the Medal of Honor awarded to Lieutenant Colonel James H. Howard on 5 June 1944, by Lieutenant General Carl Spaatz reads: Howard receiving the Medal of Honor from Lieutenant General Carl Spaatz Howard presented with a plaque at a 1982 reunion of Air Force Medal of Honor recipients For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with the enemy near Oschersleben, Germany, on 11 January 1944. On that day Col. Howard was the leader of a group of P-51 aircraft providing support for a heavy bomber formation on a long-range mission deep in enemy territory. As Col. Howard's group met the bombers in the target area the bomber force was attacked by numerous enemy fighters. Col. Howard, with his group, at once engaged the enemy and himself destroyed a German ME. 110. As a result of this attack Col. Howard lost contact with his group, and at once returned to the level of the bomber formation. He then saw that the bombers were being heavily attacked by enemy airplanes and that no other friendly fighters were at hand. While Col. Howard could have waited to attempt to assemble his group before engaging the enemy, he chose instead to attack single-handed a formation of more than 30 German airplanes. With utter disregard for his own safety he immediately pressed home determined attacks for some 30 minutes, during which time he destroyed 3 enemy airplanes and probably destroyed and damaged others. Toward the end of this engagement 3 of his guns went out of action and his fuel supply was becoming dangerously low. Despite these handicaps and the almost insuperable odds against him, Col. Howard continued his aggressive action in an attempt to protect the bombers from the numerous fighters. His skill, courage, and intrepidity on this occasion set an example of heroism which will be an inspiration to the U.S. Armed Forces. So he shot down 4 planes, it's a stretch to call a Me110 an enemy "fighter" though one could call it that (I believe the Nazis called it a "zerstorer", an armed twin-engined heavy fighter) Then he shot down 3 fighters and then he just sort of hung around and harassed the fighters attacking the bombers until he either ran out of fuel or got shot down himself or decided to leave them to their fate and return to England or perhaps northern Italy (this being early in or just before Big Week, months before Normandy). The irony is that everyone says this is such a big deal but the truth is that whenever there are enemy fighters there's a chance that can get blown-up or shot and killed, certainly seriously wounded. He could have run away from the fight. He still would have been a single plane, on his own. Whether he stayed or left, as long as he didn't have someone to leave with him, the result would be the same. So why not take some of the low-hanging fruit? I mean, 30 planes is a lot of planes to shoot at, and he's there already. It's pretty hard for 30 planes to line up on his tail all at the same time and the odds that one of them would hit him with a high-angle deflection shot were pretty low. His big risk was getting into a head-on with an up-armored Nazi fighter...or getting shot-up by one of the bombers. Or a collision. So he was safe attacking the planes attacking the bombers as long as he stayed close enough to the enemy to shoot them effectively but out of the line of fire and effective range of the bombers. If even 5 of the enemy fighters had been dispatched to dogfight him, he would have been in real trouble as his only escape then would have been to run or dive away and eventually they would have tracked him down. Low on fuel, a long way from home. Apparently they never focused on him, so he was never in any real threat. A lone Mustang in a sky full of enemy fighters and friendly bombers...easy to miss, easy to ignore. So as usual, "not all that dangerous if he survived".

@cassiespencer6134

Жыл бұрын

@@touristguy87 James Howard was credited with six Japanese kills and six German kills. He continued in the Air Force and retired in 1966 as a Brigadier General. He was also the only pilot in the European theater who was awarded the Medal of Honor.

I was visiting an old late 1700s church (The church on the hill) in the small town of Lenox Massachusetts, walking through the old graveyard full of old marble stones, when I came across an unusual one. It had a beautiful P51 mustang carved into it, beneath a cured top arch, riding in clouds. The worn marble stone had the date, mid 43, name of the pilot who flew the plane, in loving memory, from his family. Eloquent and very touching.

Escorting the bombers to Germany was a major friend of mine a navigator on a Lancaster said they brought tears to the eyes of bomber crew. My dad a lance corporal in the desert with the RAAF was on air frames on kittyhawks. He also looks after dakotas and liberators, really enjoyed it. He often said without the yanks the war was lost

@johnburns4017

Жыл бұрын

Your Dad was wrong.

@23davil

Жыл бұрын

Give us the evidence then

@johnburns4017

Жыл бұрын

@@23davil If you now how WW2 went, the military side, economic side, the USA was not vital at all. The USA shortened the war.

@sgbh8874

Жыл бұрын

Russia ????

@jacktattis

Жыл бұрын

Why would a RAF bomber crew have tears in their eyes because the Mustangs were there. No Mustangs were with the Lancs at night. The US were vital but not the whole shebang You forget we had been in it in 1940 NOT 1944

People can never hear enough of the legends of WWII, and the Mustang was a legend among legends.

@jacktattis

Жыл бұрын

No that was the Spitfire 1936 TO 1950 and still competitive and during the War the P51 could not touch it.

The Allison engine had a single stage supercharger, it was effective only to altitudes up to 17,000 feet however. The Merlin had a two-stage supercharger which made all the difference up high.

@markir9

Жыл бұрын

Yes, in the vid I recall he says 'no supercharger'. A bit sloppy. The Merlin + 2 stage supercharger arrived at the perfect time. I believe it was being developed for the Spitfire IX to finally get one over the FW 190A and just happened to be ideal for the Mustang.

@amaclach

Жыл бұрын

Actually - to be pedantic - it was a 2 stage, 2 speed supercharger, which meant that it could maintain ideal manifold pressure throughout a very wide range of altitude, and yes, it was a game changer.

@huiyinghong3073

Жыл бұрын

What about fitting a P-51 airframe with a Me 262 jet engine?

@monza1002000

Жыл бұрын

@@huiyinghong3073 Rubbish, under powered engine

@shadovanish7435

Жыл бұрын

@@monza1002000 A much more sensible choice of replacement would have been a turboprop engine, which some Mustangs were equipped with in the '60's or early '70's (I believe), for use in counter insurgency trial roles. The turboprop engine was probably lighter & more powerful than the Merlin engine, & thus should have yielded better aircraft performance, but nothing much seemed to come of this upgraded engine Mustang design.

Don't forget the Jug. With the PW r-2800, the jug had the same speed as the -51. With a low marginal rate of climb and acceleration, these drawbacks were offset by superb maneuverability at altitude and eight (Count 'em 8) BMG with 425 rounds a gun. The Bad Guy simply couldn't dive away from the -47. Weighing 12,00 pounds it would dive like a falling safe. It was easy, really easy to make a good, I say again, a Good Jug pilot. Incredibly strong, one (Robert S. Johnson ??) came back with 420 counted bullet holes. If you want to fly something sexy that will excite all the girls, fly a -51. If you want to get home to your girl, fly a Jug

@edwardpate6128

Жыл бұрын

Above 30K feet nothing other than a jet could touch it!

My grandfather William (Bill) North deserves mention in this video he was the vice president of Packard head of engine production. And was sent to England to assist rolls Royce building their own engine. And he also met my English grandmother Sheila More. Respectfully Chris Living ,Ventura California

@dave4882

2 ай бұрын

I have heard a story where a packard employee went to the docks to meet the ship, bringing the RR plans for the merlin. He had brought a briefcase to carry the plans back in. He was astounded to find the plans needed several large shipping crates to transport.

@jacktattis

2 ай бұрын

Rubbish assist Rolls Royce building their own engine???? Gross Arrogance Hell your Engineers did not know Ist Angel Projection so how was he going to tell anyone what to do?.

@chrisliving6438

Ай бұрын

Maybe so but we do know how to build a bunch of em! Lol no offense kind sir!

Combining long range bomber escort with dog fighting firepower was the breakthrough that saved many men in the bomber crews. Instead of rushing to get the bombs dropped and turn tail they now had the confidence to loiter over the target and perfect the drop accuracy. The fact that most bombers survived to return again allowed for a dramatic increase in bombs dropped per day. German industry was decimated in a short time after the D was flying escort. James Kindleberger should get a medal for his outstanding sales effort that was then blessed by the gifted engineers at North American Aviation. It was a miracle in the making.

The P-51D was the first model I assembled. My father gifted me the model, but didn't lead me to paint it. Later, I comissioned an acquaintance, an accomplished modeller to paint it. If I had painted it, I would be another model addicted old man.

@michaelgautreaux3168

Жыл бұрын

Lol.....& 👍

@jds6206

Жыл бұрын

Nothing wrong with being a "Model-addicted Old Man"....

@Nucl3arDude

Жыл бұрын

SAME! My dad found an old kit, can't even remember the manufacturer, and I loved every second of the process of that P-51D. 5 years later I fell in love with 40k Eldar, then served some time in the reserves, and made an Imperial Guard regiment to capture that old timey modelling experience after that. I still have that assembled, unsanded and messy plastic model sitting around, and I can't bring myself to paint it even though now I'd be able to do a great job with an airbrush and panel lining washes with 15 years of growth since then. I cannot make any changes to that model now that I know it, combined with my grandpa Hooligan's stories (admittedly a Rhodesian Air Force Pilot, but having any fighter pilot from Africa as an inspiration is a big deal for me - he did once safely land a Vampire into arrestor barriers at Salisbury air force base after mechanical issues in the 60's) sparked the love I have of aviation and flight in general to this day.

@marcondespaulo

Жыл бұрын

@@jds6206 indeed. The issue is that I barely manage my time without that addiction.

@VivyX2

Жыл бұрын

damn

George Loving, WW2 ace and author of "Woodbine Red Leader," explains that the jamming issue of the P51B was because of the thinness of the wing which meant that the Browning 50 cal had to mounted on an angle. This caused the jamming issue. The D version had a re-designed thicker wing to enable an upright install of the Brownings, as well as going from 4 to 6 total.

@ISAFSoldier

Жыл бұрын

True, Its was the feed angle of the guns along with how ammunition belts acted like...belts. By late war however, that was also remedied with a addition of something of a feed shoot that kept the belts inline with the guns even during high G maneuvers.

@drgondog

Жыл бұрын

The airfoil NAA/NACA 45-100 was EXACTLY the same for A-36, P-51, P-51A, P-51B, P-51D and P-51K. The angled gun mount originated with prototype experiments for NA-91 (P-51 and Mustang IA) in which the belt fed 20mm Hispano II was installed. The mount wasn't changed until the new P-51D was designed 3/43 through 9/43 with three 50cal/wing. There wasNEVER a problem in mounting the guns upright,

@wilburfinnigan2142

Жыл бұрын

@@drgondog P51D/K used a different airfoil and the wing was thicker to be able to stand the MG upright !!!

@drgondog

Жыл бұрын

George Loving was mistaken. The NAA/NACA 45-100 airfoil for ALL Mustangs until the XP-51F/G/J and P-51H and P-82 wing designs. The latter all had the NACA 66 Series. The myth of the thinner wing was inexplicable canted mount in A-36, P-51A and P-51B but they all had the same wing as the earlier Mustangs as well as the NA-91/Mustang 1A which had 4x20mmHispano II cannon - which DiD need to be canted. During 1942 and 43 the debate of 4x 20mm versus 50 cal armament was debated and finally concluded (no) in November 1943 - at which point the gun mounts were permanently changed for upright configuration for NA-109 P-51D--NA BEFORE the gun jamming problems were reported in ETO.

The thing that most impresses me about the P-51 is the fact that North American aviation had only been in existence for 5 years, but designed and flew the P-51 in 100 days. I have seen many P-51s up close, and even on the ground, they look like a plane waiting on a pilot to lift them off. I remember once I saw a P-51 do a low-level flyby on San Francisco Bay at full throttle. That Merlin engine was all-out awesome. Live on, Mustang.

@W1ldSm1le

Жыл бұрын

They have to be the most aesthetic plane ever

@jacktattis

10 ай бұрын

@@W1ldSm1le No the Spitfire is great from any perspective In side elevation the P51 looks like a pregnant goldfish

@jacktattis

10 ай бұрын

Dont forget NAA were getting back info from the War from 1940 The US Embassies Military Attaches before Dec 41 were all sending info on everything . So NAA would have been well aware what the other companies were doing.

@glennfalzo3718

6 ай бұрын

it's like a Ferrari, once you hear the "Musical Roar" of the engine, you will NEVER forget!

@glennfalzo3718

6 ай бұрын

​@@jacktattisGeneral Chuck Yeager said in an interview, and I have it, "What a spitfire can do for 30 minutes, the Mustang can do for 8 hours"! I love IDIOTS who compare fighters that were designed to do DIFFERENT roles!

My grandfather Ned helped build these at Martin's Airport in Middle River. I've acquired one of the 24" Delta wood planers at a military surplus auctions. Built like a tank, and still running flawlessly today.

Nonsense. Liquid cooling was no more a "Fatal Flaw" of the mustang than it was for the Spitfire, P-40, P-38, ME-109, etc. That's why almost all of the naval aircraft in WWII were air-cooled.

@larryowsowitz2274

Жыл бұрын

I was hoping someone would point out that fact.

@ottovonbismarck2443

Жыл бұрын

The "liquid cooled fighters" were indeed more vulnerable, but I don't think it is only because of their engines. They were a factor, though. Yes, radial engines are more rugged when it comes to battle damage, but they usually don't withstand hits from anything between 12,7 and 30 mm either, at least not for long. It's because they tended to be more reliable on an overall basis. The lesser things in it, the lesser things could possibly break. 109Gs were famous for leaking oil coolers. Main argument for a radial, besides a little more ruggedness, is the tremendous increase in power output (BMW801 produced about 50% more HP than the contemporary DB engine). This pretty much kills any streamlining advantage of an inline engine. There seems to be a close relationship between radials and the overall toughness of the very aircraft using them, which can't be reduced to the type of engine only. It was a choice by philosophy these days; you could have an agile aircraft or you could have a tough aircraft. I guess we both have seen pictures of serious structural battle damage on 190s or P-47s, but still the aircraft made it home. There is a reason why there are less pictures of 109s, Spits or Mustangs coming home with the same amount of damage. The A6M Zero clearly shows that the things behind the engine are way more important for ruggedness than the engine itself. The US Navy wanted durability above all, that's a) why they went for radials, and b) why Grumman carved aircraft out of solid steel.

@Ford_Raptor_R_720hp_V8

Жыл бұрын

*The Mustang was designed as an Air Superiority Fighter, not a Ground Attack Aircraft.*

@larry648

Жыл бұрын

The navy also liked radial engines because they mad more compact fuselages, saving room for more aircraft on limited hanger decks.

@2007MXV

Жыл бұрын

Naval airplanes were air cooled.

Reducing fatalities while escorting a bomber formation is the one l think p51's best contribution to the war effort

@thezoomguys385

Жыл бұрын

Very true. However, the allies could have easily utilized the Mosquito for this task much earlier in the war. The mosquito was also a very fast, capable, versatile and effective plane, with very long range. It could easily handle anything the luftwaffe had at that time & the allies had lots of them. Send several dozen mosquitos as escorts and another several dozen about 15-20 min ahead of the bombers to clear out the Anti-aircraft nests. Then, the bombers would have had very, very low casualties. If the allies had uses the mozzies for escorts, starting when daylight bombing campaigns started, I believe European war would have ended 1-2 yrs sooner and no need for D-day. Germany would have collapsed by 1943 or 44 at the latest. Also, Russia wouldn't have been able to capture all of East Europe & the iron curtain would have never happened.

@wilburfinnigan2142

Жыл бұрын

Actually the fact the Mustangs went to the Germans over Berlin and DESTROYED the Luftwaffe is why their kill numbers were so high !!! Over 9,000 German planes destroyed in the air and on the ground !!!

@wilburfinnigan2142

Жыл бұрын

@@thezoomguys385 WRONG !!!! The mosquito was a light bomber adapted to other roles. it was not that fast as only the LATER versions with the 2 stage supercharged merlins were able to top 400 MPH !!! top was only about 410 for some special models. the Mustang topped out at 440 and the Griffon spitfire about the same. Mosquito about 30 MPH slower!!!

@3canctheayr

Жыл бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 Dude - let's try a little reading comprehension, shall we? The Mustang didn't show up until waaay late in the war. The bombers had no real protection during 42-44. The Mosquito could have easily provided effective escort as it had the range, speed & handling and could easily handle the German fighters in that period. It was also well armed & could have easily been adapted for more.. The first mosquitoes were easily as fast as an ME109 & later variants only got faster, such that they could tangle with the Focke Wulfs. It's a glaring oversight that the allies didn't use the Mosquitoes as escorts for German bombing campaigns in 42, 43 and early 44. That would have cut bomber losses dramatically.

This guys force in his voice is the perfect reinforcement for any military video, it’s just the perfect old school sound for WW2..

This is the very best short documentary I have seen yet on the subject of World War II air power. Looking forward to more episodes! Two thumbs up!👍 👍

As told to me by WW2 Mustang pilots it had another nasty flaw. The 50 gallon fuel tank behind the pilot was out of the CG cone and until you used up that fuel the aircraft was dangerous and unstable. The Luftwaffe never caught on to this and the pilots hopefully used up most of the fuel in that tank before crossing the European coast.

@vinceq1036

Жыл бұрын

Aerobatics were prohibited with more than 25 gallons of fuel in the fuselage tank according to the pilot's handbook.

@deplorable_bitter_clinger7482

Жыл бұрын

The Spitfire had the same issue with it's fuselage fuel tank also behind the pilot. The Mustangs could not drain their under wing tanks till most or all of the fuel was out of that fuselage tank.

@tplyons5459

Жыл бұрын

@@vinceq1036 By aerobatics I assume they mean dog fighting. As any pilot knows take off consumes a disproportional amount of fuel so they use the rear tank first Still 25 gallons is 178 pounds which is now sloshing around outside the CG envelope. Weight to the rear of the CG envelope makes raising the nose difficult.

@imtruth69

Жыл бұрын

@@tplyons5459 I think that more weight to the rear of CG makes the nose want to rise and makes it harder to hold the nose down.

@tomjones4318

Жыл бұрын

Could the fuel be dumped in emergency? Doesn't necessarily sound like a "flaw". Just another tool to be used properly.

It took the legendary British Merlin engine to make the P51 Mustang a truly great aircraft!

@JetsBauer

Жыл бұрын

The Merlin was the key

@no-legjohnny3691

Жыл бұрын

Too bad the British Hispanos didn't cut it though lol. Those were nixed by the AAC and replaced with the .50s on further P-51s in light of their awful tendency to jam.

@highdfire

Жыл бұрын

Yep, the Merlin was a mechanical work of art. But it took American innovation to make it a truly great engine, such as the Bendix pressure carburetor (actually a TBI injection system, early Merlins didn't like doing aerobatics) and let's not forget Packard's role in helping RR with production standards. It was Packard who introduced geometric production tolerancing to Rolls Royce, since Packard was building V1650's under license prior to the US entering WWII. I say the best wartime innovation that RR engineers introduced to large bore V12's was the two stage mechanical super charger. If USAAF engineers hadn't been stuck on the turbo supercharger and slapped a RR like unit on an Allison V1710 it would have been every bit as good as if not better than the Merlin.

@gregmuon

Жыл бұрын

Mostly it took the Merlin's dual stage dual speed supercharger.

@superskullmaster

Жыл бұрын

@@gregmuon this, and what the guy above you said.

The greatest contribution of the P-51 was its ability to accompany heavy bombers like B-17s and B-29s from home to target and back. Having the capability to wreak further havoc after the bombers were safely on their way home was like hot fudge on the sundae. It wasn't only the Luftwaffe who felt the Mustang's kick -- they flew in the Pacific with great effect too, and were still in service in the early days of the Korean conflict, alongside Corsairs and their offspring, the F-82 Twin Mustang.

@ridleymain9234

11 ай бұрын

Wanna know a plane that has more rage than a P-51? The p-47N had 1000 miles of escort range

@SilntObsvr

11 ай бұрын

@@ridleymain9234 Yeah, those Thunderbolts were especially angry because everyone kept calling them "Jug" and "Razorback". ;)

I would say that having the range to escort & protect bombing raids was its most important contribution.

The P-51 is a masterpiece of engineering. US aviation production during WWII is simply amazing. It produced dozens of iconic aircraft, and countless innovations. There was definitely a dark side, but the designs of 70, 80, years ago, that are still iconic today, say a lot about how on top of their game those designers were, back then.

@Alan-in-Bama

Жыл бұрын

...Not to mention the absolute ENORMOUS numbers of which the USA produced in all primary aircraft, and all other machines of war. Staggering amounts, especially when compared to all other countries during that time ! This massive production of Quality machines that were shared with all allied countries is what truly won WW2.

@philgiglio7922

Жыл бұрын

Necessity is the mother of invention, and war is the whip.

@christophertownley9441

Жыл бұрын

Those were the days that people then designed and built aircraft because it was their passion and there was a real need, now it seems there is too much focus on profit making focus, and the people who do the work with the same passion as then are shackled to the Spivs, Promoter, Bankers, Accountants and Economists, that seem more interested in Bank Accounts you need an orbit capable rocket to get over, not for Flights sake ,Technologies sake, not their Nations Sake, even their fellow man. Can we get back to that? My Dad worked on the P51 Mustang in Japan, then Korea, to be replaced by the Meteor, and his favourite was the Mustang, but he also liked the DC3 Dakota, Skytrain, the first model he gave me as a Kid. The Mustang is beautiful, the CAC Kangaroo, would have been a fit replacement had it not been for the Jets.

@weasle2904

Жыл бұрын

American innovation, manufacturing, and production was the biggest decider in WW2 for the allies. The US not only had much higher quality manufacturing with better quality control compared to the rest of the world, but was also able to manufacture in unbelievable numbers. One country alone was responsible for the majority of the world's production. At the end of WW2 80% of all naval vessels in the world were American manufactured. And 70% of all vehicles and trucks the Soviets were using were American, not to mention their aircraft, tanks, materials, gunpowder, food, metal, etc.

@RustySax1949

Жыл бұрын

@InfoScholar - No computers, either, all done with slide rules!

1.300 Me-262 were built; that's more than a few. The industry was still quite capable. There was even enough fuel for the 262s, they just couldn't get the fuel to where it was needed. One should not forget that Bf-109G-10 and K were faster than P-51 at high altitude and about as maneuverable; though later 109s were famous for killing unexperienced pilots due to bad handling qualities on the ground. Allied pilots had the overall edge in training, which is way more important than climb rate, top speed and turn radius. P-51 was very vulnerable compared to P-47 (well, every aicraft seems vulnerable next to a Thunderbolt). The Mustang still was one of the most outstanding aircraft of WW2, but it was not the only one.

@jamesburns2232

Жыл бұрын

America and its allies lost more aircraft to all causes, (69,500) in WWII than the Germans, (63,500). The difference is the Americans could afford to lose more aircraft. The Germans could not. 🌍

@bnghjtyu767

Жыл бұрын

Yes The jug was definitely a backbone.

@brentdallyn8459

Жыл бұрын

Compared to the production numbers of prop fighters, 1,300 is a few

@haroldhahn7044

Жыл бұрын

You are overlooking the built in fatal flaw of the Me-262! If it flew at top speed, the engine would over heat, and it's heat treated parts would lose temper, crack as they cooled, and fail on the next flight. The Germans knew about this problem, but they did not have access to the metals they needed to solve it. Their only solution was frequent engine replacement.

@philgiglio7922

Жыл бұрын

Additional training was given on arrival in country. The saying was "fly 5 and stay alive". It took time to be able to "see" the enemy

My grandfather loved these planes. He landed on sword Beach and head led to Caen and then bypassed it on route to reach market garden. When often pinned down under enemy fire and heavy fog. When the fog these planes would come to the rescue often turning the Tiger tanks completely over. They would all be cheering ❤

This corrects a lot of things I thought about how the Mustang came about. Thank you!

Brilliant fighter, watched one over Lincolnshire a couple of weeks ago on national armed forces day. Still an awe inspiring sight and the whistle of the air going over the gun ports makes the hair stand up on the back of the neck.

When you stop and think about it the P-51 was a combined effort. The American's built the mustang and the British made suggestions to make it better. Together, they made history.

@philgiglio7922

Жыл бұрын

It was a time when a commander could have a brainstorm and could implement it without higher higher preventing it. Field expedient modifications weren't frowned on. Perfect example is the 8 gun solid nose modification to the B 25...hell they even mounted a M 4 Sherman tank 75mm cannon in other B25's

@jamesfisher4326

Жыл бұрын

Yet the people at Wright field tried hard to block the Mustang. First they insisted on making it a dive bomber, something that it wasn't suited for. Then they tried to stop production in favor of the P-40.

@drgondog

Жыл бұрын

@@jamesfisher4326 - true that Echols tried toStop Mustang production and ask NAA to convert to B-25 production, but HQ Planning and Requirements and CAS Directorate SAVED the Mustang with the Low Level Attack Pursuit (A-36) contract because ONLY money for dive ombers remained in FY 42 budget. That contract was quickly followed by P-51A contract as the Close Air Support Directorate changed philosophy away fro dive bombing. That contract in turn had provision to convert to P-51B-5.

Thank you for brevity with great information - Thanks again for posting !!!

Whilst the spitfire stole the show here in Britain, it's limited range restricted it to a home defence role. The P51 on the other hand, could escort bombers all of the way to Berlin and back and must have saved the lives of many air crews. An asset of course, was the fitting of the Merlin engine and increased propeller size with four blades.

@vodaredhill1704

Жыл бұрын

And drop tanks.

@todd4866

Жыл бұрын

Very true but what made the R/RvMerlin's even better preformers was the aviation gasoline supplied by American refineries . It was 100 octane compared to the best the Germans could produce was about 85 octane. It made a huge difference in performance.

@swanseajaffa

Жыл бұрын

They were designed at different times for different roles. The Spitfire could out climb, dive, turn and out gun the P51, but there again it was designed purely to be a out and out interceptor fighter unlike the P51. Both were the best in their own specific roles.

@artrandy

Жыл бұрын

The RAF bombed by night, and it was a successful strategy. It also allowed the USAF to bomb by day. Therefore, the RAF never required a long range single engined fighter, unless you think Spitfires should have had dog fights in the dark, with unseen Luftwaffe night fighters, risking collisions with friendly and enemy aircraft alike, for no fruitful reason whatsoever, which is a about as crazy an idea I've heard............

@bruceross9521

Жыл бұрын

True.. Then again , I have seen a Spitfire and a Mustang take off together and both roll into a climbing left hand turn , the Spitfire was on the Mustang ass within one turn .. lol..

30 mm cal? I understand what you mean, but I keep hearing people make this mistake. 30mm is different from .30 cal. In the US .30 cal is .3 inch, and 30mm is 1.18 inch which is almost 4 times bigger.

@vashcrimson4395

Жыл бұрын

all p15 models had .50 cal, even the A-36. the difference is the merlins had 6 instead of 4. this channel is designed to change history lil bits at a time.

@Ziiphyr

Жыл бұрын

.30 cal is smaller than .50 cal

@barrygrant2907

Жыл бұрын

@@vashcrimson4395 I don't think it is "designed" to change history; it is just lazy in its study of history.

@ohgary

Жыл бұрын

@@barrygrant2907 as when, while talking about B-17s, they use footage of a B-29.

@speedandstyletony

Жыл бұрын

Some of you need to check facts too! Early P51s did have 30 cal machine guns! 4 of them in the wings with 2 50 cal in the nose. The early merlin engined P51b and c had 4 50 cals and the later p51d and k models had 6 50 cals.

The tougher air-cooled P-47 fought the Luftwaffe a year before the P-51s ever arrived in numbers against far tougher Hermann pilots. It had a far better survival rate per mission than the P-51 at 0.7% vs the P-51's much worse 1.2% per mission. The P-47 was America's "workhorse" who flew 746,000+ missions, more than the P-38, P-40 and P-51...combined! The P-47 was the far better high-altitude fighter with its TURBO-supercharged engine, and with its electric dive brakes was the best piston-powered diver of the war, was #2 in the roll, only beat by the Fw 190, and the P-47M model was the fastest piston powered aircraft of WWII with some hot-rodded aircraft of the 56th FG hitting an honest 500 mph, 60 mph faster than a P-51D. The P-47N long range model with internal wing tanks became the best escort of the war with a 2,300 mile range, better than the P-51D's 1,650 range, shepherding the B-29s from the Marianas to Japan and back. The P-51D had six .50s and 1800 rds and could carry 1000 lbs of bombs and rockets. The P-47 had EIGHT .50s and 3400 rds and could carry 3000 lbs of bombs and 10 5"HVAR rockets. It took 4 P-51s to carry the same bomb load as a single P-47. "Dogfighting", despite what inaccurate videos like this and Hollywood pedal by 1943 was NOT in vogue as it scrubbed off your speed and altitude, leaving you too vulnerable. Diving ambush attacks, "boom and zoom" and "energy" tactics were used, what the P-47 excelled at. If you found yourself "dogfighting" you had done something wrong. "Dogfighting is a waste of time."-Erick Hartmann. Even tough the P-47 cost $83,000 too the P-51's $51,000 and you get what you pay for, the P-47 was America’s most built fighter at 15,683 units.. It was given credit for destroying 86,000 German railway cars, 9,000 locomotives, 6,000 armoured fighting vehicles, and 68,000 trucks. It did untold damage to German infantry, and sadly untold numbers of the horses and wagons that truly propelled the Wehrmacht, not to mention German artillery pieces/machine-gun-emplacements/pillboxes.

@petefeigal8118

Жыл бұрын

Correction: "Loss rate per-mission."

@ED-ti5tc

Жыл бұрын

Looks like you done you research on the P-47. My favorite also, other than the Hellcat and P-38.

@petefeigal8118

Жыл бұрын

@@ED-ti5tc we're on the same wavelength. I love the P-51, too, but it was an escort fighter, nothing more, and too much worship has mistakenly gone into it. Love it for what it was, not for what Hollywood says it was. Take care.

@scottinohio701

Жыл бұрын

It also had the most air to air kills,and 7 of the top ten aces(american)in the ETO,including the top 2!!!!!!!!!!

@jds6206

Жыл бұрын

Give me a P-47 any day, for any mission, anytime!

Great documentary! Thank you!

Great video as Always. Keep up the good work.

I recall a story of a family member during WW2, a ground master sergeant in the Air Corp who was tasked to ready "chase" P-51 planes for target practice. An overzealous lieutenant on the mission training waist gunners on B17 was giving directions and the 50BMG guns had rubber projectiles for practice. The phrase *whole 9 yards* alludes to the fact that the waste guns were usually equipped with a 27-ft belt of 50BMG ammo, so the whole nine yards meant empty the full ammunition load out of a waist gun. The lieutenant instructed one trainee to fire at the P-51 holding the trigger until either all 27 ft were used or the gun overheated. When the B-17 landed my family member, the ground crew master sergeant, ran up to the B-17 asking who the idiot was that emptied all 27 ft of ammo. The lieutenant got in the face of my family member telling him to be careful or face disciplinary action when the base commander came up in a Jeep and yelled at the lieutenant trainer for shooting down the P-51 because one of the bullets pierced the radiator.

@huiyinghong3073

Жыл бұрын

What about fitting a P-51 airframe with a Me 262 jet engine?

@buknekkit3084

Жыл бұрын

@@huiyinghong3073 that would be sick, but you'd probably hafta reinforce the wings

@BogeyTheBear

Жыл бұрын

You know, there's a reason why the Pinball target planes had screens installed over their intakes-- it was to keep fragments of the frangible ammunition from getting into the scoops.

@j.griffin

Жыл бұрын

@@huiyinghong3073 Both of them? There were 2 engines on that aircraft. I’m not sure why you would even want to do that. They weren’t very good engines. Given the lower-quality steels used in the 004B, those engines only had a service life of 10-25 hours, perhaps twice this in the hands of a careful pilot. They burned a lot of fuel so they wouldn’t have made it anywhere- Me262’s just took off,fought and landed. They had a maximum cruising range of about 650 miles while Mustangs could travel over twice as far with drop tanks. The 262’s used roughly twice as much fuel as the P-51 when cruising but they REALLY gobbled up fuel in combat. Fuel was very crucial for the Germans at that point as were production resources so ultimately both the Me262 and V-2 were very poor uses of time&material. Modern 262 reproductions typically use American J85’s. They entered into service in 1959 and are still in major service with the USAF to this day- now,that’s an engine. The J85-powered T-38 is STILL the USAF's primary pilot training aircraft and is expected to remain in operational service until 2040… and beyond. Back to your engine swap idea, the only way such a thing might be appealing would be on a video game. The Russians converted one piston fighter (the Yak-3) to a jet fighter (the Yak-15) but if you want maximum results you need to start from scratch and build so as to integrate all design aspects into the ultimate demonstration and exercise of cohesive efficiency… as well as durability AND practicality,of course. For example, Miss Ashley 2 was an impressively zealous undertaking… until they had to call the undertaker. She was a Reno bird with Learjet wings… hard to recognize as a P-51 when they were done. Hard to even recognize as an airplane after she disintegrated immediately at Turn 1 in her last race in ‘99. RIP. That’s what usually what happens when fantasy meets reality.

@huiyinghong3073

Жыл бұрын

@@j.griffin The Mig 9 is an example of an aircraft that uses the Me 262 engines

Actually the Allison had a supercharger. The Merlin has a 2 stage supercharger which made it a high altitude fighter.

@kenneth9874

Жыл бұрын

Pratt and Whitney invented the two stage supercharger, the wildcat was so equipped

@wilburfinnigan2142

Жыл бұрын

bcurren yes ALL Allisons had a single stage mechanical supercharger !!! But you are wrong as ALL merlins were NOT 2 stage supercharged, only the 60 series 1943 and later were, ALL 20 series 1940 on had a single stage with a second higher SPEED for above 20,000 FT altitude and all early merlins before the 20 series were a single stage supercharger only !!! Becareful painting the merlin with a wide paint brush because YOU are wrong !!! DO the research !!! only 7,000 of the 20,000 spitfires were the 2 stage Mk VII & MKIV's !!!

@wilburfinnigan2142

Жыл бұрын

@@kenneth9874 WRONG !!!! PW was the first to use a 2 stage as the patent was issued to an individual American in 1938 and PW used it on the R1820and the PW R2800 in the F4U Corsair, Navy recognized its benefitswhile the USAAF had their heads up their (where the sun don't shine" )

@kenneth9874

Жыл бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 check again nitwit

great video mate. was very informative.

With the addition of the Packard version of the Merlin engine, the ability to fly and fight from ceiling to tree top level was the most important aspect of the aircraft. When a fighter aircraft can do that, it's a huge addition to the inventory of an air force.

@rodneypayne4827

Жыл бұрын

The Allison engine Mustang was actually faster than the Merlin at lower altitudes due to better streamlining.

@johnburns4017

Жыл бұрын

Packard made a RR Merlin. The only difference was a locally sourced carburettor and using American threads. Packard never made a different version.

@jacktattis

Жыл бұрын

@@rodneypayne4827 No due to a better P/W ratio which petered out at about 18000 ft

@jacktattis

2 ай бұрын

@@johnburns4017 No Rolls Royce specified British threads BSW BSF and BSP

I read despite the bombing and fighter escorts into Germany, Germany produced a record # of planes in 1944; what they lacked were capable pilots.

@yamatokurusaki5790

Жыл бұрын

And quality parts and fuel Alot of sabotages happened to many of parts used in German machines

@ottovonbismarck2443

Жыл бұрын

That's true; German industry was at its peak in Oct./Nov. 1944. The Luftwaffe started running out of pilots with the start of 1944 and the introduction of long-range escorts. It wasn't all down to P-51, though. P-47 did a lot of escort work, too.

@mrbig4532

Жыл бұрын

The octane of fuel that was being used by the Germans was something like 92 octane and the Americans were able to produce a crazy high 150 octane that just put Germany in a no win situation but they had one more trick up their nazi sleeves and that was the jet engine which could run on any type of fuel but the Germans used diesel because thats all they had in large numbers . But post WW2 bombers ran on jp4 which is a mix of low octane gas mixed with kerosene so it was dirt cheap.

@Hawk1966

Жыл бұрын

From what I've read the Axis powers would keep feeding their best pilots into combat while the US at least pulled a number of exceptional pilots back to train the next generation.

@cowboybob7093

Жыл бұрын

There's a KZread channel for people like you. Search for _Greg's Planes and Automobiles_ He covers parts, octane, P-47, production, why the P-38 had two booms (that's a full hour) Daimler's inverted V and so on

The AAF was interested in turbos during the development of the Allison, that's why the Allison only had a single stage (yup it actually did have a supercharger) that was never fully developed and integrated into Allison powered aircraft other than the lightning. The chief benefit of the mustang was cost. It was incredibly cheap due to a large number of stamped parts. This also reduced weight. The P-47 was available with drop tanks of sufficient range for the schwinfort missions, but the decision to omit escorts was a political/doctrinal issue, not an equipment issue. The range was the scapegoat when that didn't work out. By the time the Merlin mustang was available, most of the veterans of the Luftwaffe we're shot down, and training/fuel was getting critical, so yes the mustang had more victories, but it was also facing a depleted Luftwaffe, while other aircraft were given ground attack because they were less vulnerable to ground fire than the mustang (the liquid cooled engine and light construction). Same story in the Pacific. PS By 1943 doctrine was to avoid dogfighting. Read up on what aces such as Richthofen and Hartmann thought of dogfighting. Around 1943, the P-47 had reached the performance potential of it's prop. When it got the new one, it's performance jumped dramatically. Though it was still more than double the cost per unit of the mustang, it was faster, dove better, better high altitude performance, more firepower, could still get to Berlin, and was FAR more durable.

@brianmoore1164

Жыл бұрын

Thank you!! I came to the comments section to say the same things! The Allison bashing is founded on myth and legend. History should be taught with facts. The horrifically wrong commanders that were convinced that bombers didn't need escort are responsible for the range myth. No big trick to mount drop tanks on a P-47 and right to the end of the war it had better high altitude performance than the Mustang, but since it was tougher too it is thought of as only capable of ground attack.

@ottovonbismarck2443

Жыл бұрын

In 1943 P-47 didn't have the range yet. They already had drop tanks, but no long range drop tanks. It's also not true that the bombers flew un-escorted. In fact the Schweinfurt mission was escorted by P-47s up to the Dutch/German border. In 1943 the Luftwaffe would usually send out a fighter group to intercept US bombers over the North Sea to force the escorts to jettison their drop tanks early.

@drudgenemo7030

Жыл бұрын

@@ottovonbismarck2443 it British were using 115 gallon tanks on the P-47 3 months before the first schwinfort mission. And even the B model was plumbed for ferry tanks.

@brianmoore1164

Жыл бұрын

@@ottovonbismarck2443 Those larger drop tanks were forbidden by the bomber mafia. They were utterly convinced that escort wasn't needed. They didn't change their minds until the choice was change their minds or face court-martial. They were only to happy to embrace the Mustang legend then.

@drudgenemo7030

Жыл бұрын

@@ottovonbismarck2443 my thing isn't that the mustang wasn't a good fighter. It was. It also was the fighter of choice if you are doing a war of attrition. 5 squadrons of mustangs or 2 squadrons of thunderbolts? And the mustang wasn't far below the thunderbolt in performance, in some aspects is was indeed superior, but overall it was indeed less capable than the thunderbolt. Post war head to head clashes between the two prove it. And those clashes show the Corsair to be better than either. Which leaves the question, which gets the bronze, the hellcat or the mustang?😜

The P51D........the most beautiful prop driven plane I have ever laid eyes on.

@covertcounsellor6797

Жыл бұрын

Agreed. Superb aircraft.

@neilparnell5712

Жыл бұрын

Late models of Griffon engined bubble canopy Spitfire are even more beautiful for me, but P51D is a very close second.

I think the most important contribution was the fact it served its purpose so well as a long-range bomber escort. It did exactly as it was designed and saved many lives. It definitely hastened the German's demise.

I think that the Mustsngs greatest attribute came when it could hang with the bombers the entire mission...

@hurch1915

Жыл бұрын

indeed

@thezoomguys385

Жыл бұрын

Very true. However, the allies could have easily utilized the Mosquito for this task much earlier in the war. The mosquito was also a very fast, capable, versatile and effective plane, with very long range. It could easily handle anything the luftwaffe had at that time & the allies had lots of them. Send several dozen mosquitos as escorts and another several dozen about 15-20 min ahead of the bombers to clear out the Anti-aircraft nests. Then, the bombers would have had very, very low casualties. If the allies had uses the mozzies for escorts, starting when daylight bombing campaigns started, I believe European war would have ended 1-2 yrs sooner and no need for D-day. Germany would have collapsed by 1943 or 44 at the latest. Also, Russia wouldn't have been able to capture all of East Europe & the iron curtain would have never happened.

@David-bf9ux

Жыл бұрын

@@thezoomguys385 The subject is on The P-51... it's all I was asked to comment on.. 😀

@thezoomguys385

Жыл бұрын

@@David-bf9ux As indicated in my earlier reply, I agree with the P51s role and success, etc. However, I think the allies could have used the mosquito for the same role much earlier. Food for thought, that's all. .

@David-bf9ux

Жыл бұрын

@@thezoomguys385 ok..

Escort and ground support for the advancing Allied armies. The sweet sound of a Merlin was like The sweet sound of success. My father in law worked on both the P 40 and the P 51. More Mustangs came back from sorties than the P 40’s. Easier to tweak and smoother to change out parts. Once the Allison’s were replaced with Merlin’s… “the war was over “ as he put it.

Thanks Dark Skies for you outstanding channel. Your work here is of the highest quality!.

Yet another very well done documentary, a fabulous aircraft in all its guises but the late models were an absolute wonder machine beloved by its pilots. Thank you for this wonderful video and the beautiful images it contained.

@wilburfinnigan2142

Жыл бұрын

This doco was a piss poor doco, waaaay toooo many errors and misstatements, see my comments on it above !!

The Allison was the inline water cooled engine available in the US , everything else was a low powered radial , so that had to do as the manufacturing of engines at Rolls was extremely limited by bombing . The UK had already developed the Harvard ( T6 Texan) trainer from NAA and insisted on the inline configuration as part of the design as shown by the successful Spitfire and Hurricane in the Battle of Britain in 1940 , when Britain had destroyed the Luftwaffe and gained air superiority . The P40 ( The USAs front line fighter/interceptor ) was also limited in performance and was consigned to coastal defence and raiding . The Apache played a role in ground attack raids . The RAF noting the Apaches ability at low altitude and loved by the pilots, took the Apache and fitted the Merlin at the experimental airfield at RAF Duxford here in England. A Monster was born ! The combination of Schmeud's ( ex Messerschmidt ) design developed with the British baseline spec and the Merlin transformed the aircraft into an air superiority high altitude fighter . Schmeud's design of the water/oil cooler intake was inspirational . The duct could b closed during take off to stop grass etc entering (We had mainly grass airfields , hence the Goodyear diamond pattern tread fitted instead of the simple rib pattern ) and then opened when airborne . The exit of the duct could be adjusted to add a jet effect developed from the cool air passing through the hot radiators , expanding and being forced out of the rear . This effectively reduced the Cd of the aircraft despite its frontal area . The Rolls Royce engines ( and then subsequently Packhard , Buick and Ford ' Merlin's- Yes Ford had rolled out a number of Merlin type units later in WW2 ) had rear swept exhaust stubs whose outlets were 75% of the area of the actual exhaust port in the cylinder heads as it was proven that the resonator type fitted on earlier Merlin's were totally unsuitable . Rolls Royce's development of the exhaust and supercharger at Boeing's High Altitude facility in the US , found that this exhaust stub added another jet effect to the aircraft at high altitude by squirting hot gasses rearward , therefore contributing further to the performance of the Mustang . The combination of the early laminar flow wing which changed with subsequent models up to the lightweights like the P51K ( faster and cheaper to build ) , meant that the aircraft was efficient and able to achieve transonic speeds when diving , which gave them parity with the Me 262 , and several 262s were shot down using this diving from high altitude technique . Several other developments like the hollow bladed steel Rotol props changing from the forged aluminium Aero Products were not successful . Therefore the cooling duct design in combination with the Merlin development was a positive boom to the P51 and not the drawback considered by many as high performance outweighed the vulnerability due to damage by a long chalk . From the USAs limited number of low powerd engines in 1942 , due the Churchill/Roosevelt agreement the UK handed over all intellectual material to the US in order to supply UKs limited manufacturing ability . This information included Rolls Royce and De Havillands development work on Whittles jet engine , radar ( which the UK had gifted to the US before Pearl Harbour - but sadly did not understand how to use it ) ,asdic and the UKs work on fissile materials . This gave the US with its unhindered manufacturing ability , a huge advantage in development of aircraft and technology during and after the war and a huge leap into the 20th century . Unfortunately communist Labour Prime Minister Clement Atlee elected immediately after the war , gifted Rolls Royce jet engines to Stalins Russia ! There is stupidity and then that........ Sadly many of the P51s built were tested to destruction by NACA post war after a number were purchased by allied nations and neutral countries like Sweden as front line fighters . The wings were of particular interest which tended to fail at the spent case ejection ports , which led to guns being mounted in the fuselage at the nose on the first experimental jet powered aircraft in the US . The later development of the laminar flow wings were used on the F86 Sabre but now were swept back . The P51 is a great symbol of UK/USA collaboration which continues today but to a lesser extent ( we no longer share everything with the US and the US has been caught out many times trying to hack into our defence companies by GCHQ ) but we still supply composite armour for the new MBTs ( Lancaster armour superior to the old Chobham stuff) , the now infamous M777 artillery piece now licence built in the US etc., and BAe Systems ,Thales etc work closely with Boeing UKs British engineers on defence development such as the JSF F35 etc . The UK has just won a contract to supply our variant of the Typhoon Eurofighter over the F35 to Spain with a much more developed system than other early variants ( now in Spain's inventory) and more than capable against anything amongst current front line fighters .

@raybame5816

Жыл бұрын

Good show!.

@DavidPeebles-hi3sk

2 ай бұрын

An old guy I used to paddle kayaks with (that's over 20 years ago) flew P40s in China. Weren't they the ones called "Flying Tigers"?

My favorite plane of all time. Such a beautiful piece of engineering

My Dad flew as a waist gunner in a B17 at a time when the aircraft loss rate was every 3 1/2 missins and he flew 35, He just said it was the best feeling to know you had friends. He meant Thunderbolts and Mustangs,

Great vid! I'm glad to know the evolution of this plane. It's always been a favorite but all I had ever considered was the D. I had no idea there were others.

Laminar-flow wings had only been a lab curiosity for some time, despite their great advantage for increasing range, because they have to have nearly flawless surfaces. What made the difference? A new invention now called Bondo for the rivet heads.

@jacktattis

Жыл бұрын

Mate it was a theoretical assertion and did not work in fact. If it was so great why did the Spitfire go higher, climb Faster have a better Tactical Mach and a better roll rate albeit at a lower speed

@bobsakamanos4469

10 ай бұрын

The Meredith Effect and excellent aerodynamics of the radiator ducting contributed to most of its speed.

Despite this flaw the P51 together with the Spitfire can be considered as two of the most stunning and beautifully deadly allied fighters within the European theatre.

@kittymervine6115

Жыл бұрын

well and both coming at a time, when Britain was not ready or capable of fighting off a full invasion, even flawed aircraft were welcome. The belief that they had to have air superiority, kept Germany from their only real chance of invasion as the UK just became stronger and stronger.

@urbanmidnight1

Жыл бұрын

The Hurricane was the true hero of WW2 not the P51 or Spit.

@andrewtadd4373

Жыл бұрын

@@kittymervine6115 you discount the Dowding system at your peril just as the Germans did.

@slbathi_wt8528

Жыл бұрын

@@urbanmidnight1 absolutely not the hurricane got more kills than the spit in battel of Britain because the RAF had the hurricane in many numbers other than the spit . The spit could have won the war alone but the hurricane couldn't. I have a great respect to the hurricane pilots rather than the Spitfire or Mustang pilots because they were given a much inferior plane to go up against the mighty bf 109 and fw 190 and other Luftwaffe fighters and they knew that

@sbg911

Жыл бұрын

@@urbanmidnight1 That claim is often stated due to the numbers of aircraft the Hurricane shot down vs the Spitfire in BoB. Certainly there were far more Hurricanes in service during the battle, so that number by maths alone was bound to be larger... But within that statistical argument, I don't think enough relevance is given to the general British doctrine of leaving the Spits to deal with the escorting fighters while the Hurricanes dealt with the bombers (when both types entered the same engagement of course). Though shooting down 109's & 110's was clearly preferable, the main Spit aim was to keep them 'busy' while the Hurri's could then focus on the Heinkel & Dornier formations 'non'-harrassed - IMO this approach, as much as anything, allowed that numbers disparity to be maintained throughout the battle.

Great video... Thanks!

P-51"s accompanied my dad's B-17 from the 379th Bomb Group based in Kimbolton, UK. The Motto of the Mighty 379th was Potentas et Accuratum. Power and Accuracy. That also described the P-51's. My dad flew from June 1944 until the end of the war. In those days, there were far fewer German fighters and much more highly accurate German 88 Flak. A waist gunner in the B-17, my dad made it back safely after about 30 missions over Germany. I love watching the gun camera footage of P-51's strafing big German trains carrying armor and troops. The explosions of the massive steam powered engines mimic the modern HIMAR rockets destroying Russian ammo dumps in the Ukraine!!

The P-51 was indeed a great fighter, but the P-47 was an amazing fighter itself, and much loved by pilots for it’s ability to bring’em back alive. 🇺🇸🦅

@studlydudly

Жыл бұрын

I agree, my vote for Best all round fighter of WW2 would go to the P-47N

@wadebenham7411

Жыл бұрын

I spent my first six years on Long Island in the early '40s. My youngest uncle, Douglass S. Benham joined the Army Air Corps in 1941 and after training received a P47. Coming from MN he would buzz our Manhasset home and dad would go pick him up at La Guardia. Doug flew 17 years in fighter planes and 23 years in transport aircraft such as a C-130 type. He flew 50 missions in Europe (I remember my parents nervously counting) and when done, received another 50. He flew through WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. Told me that since 7 yrs. old all he wanted to do was fly airplanes and he got to do that. He retired from the MN ANG in 1983 the day he turned 60 and could no longer fly for the US. He said he earned Colonel but retired as a Brig. General. By the 1950's we lived in the Pasadena CA area and around 1953 I got to see Doug take off in a P-51D from an adjacent field to Hughes Airfield in L.A. I will never forget the glorious sound of the RR Merlin Engine as long as I live. Doug passed away a few years ago at age 95. He was the youngest of six kids ( my father the eldest). He will always be my hero and in my heart. He loved this country. The Mustang was his favorite plane.

@russellbrown4078

Жыл бұрын

😀😀

@russellbrown4078

Жыл бұрын

If I had my druthers I`d druther the T-Bolt over the Mustang , I would prefer having both wings to return on, check it out.

@mylanmiller9656

Жыл бұрын

The only problems with the P47, it was expensive to build, and it drank too much gas. Other than that, it was a great fighter.

Flaw on Spitfires was their engine used to splutter and almost stop doing a 360 roll, puffing out smoke before they recovered. Noticed it? Cough! Every aircraft has it's own certain daft quirk that escaped in development.

@brentdallyn8459

Жыл бұрын

Fuel would drain out of the carb and starve the motor during any manoeuvre that involved pulling negative G no matter how brief, solved it quickly with a small diameter washer placed in the Carb, it restricted the flow of the fuel as it tried to escape allowing pilots to maintain negative G manoeuvring during dogfights

@joeylawn36111

Жыл бұрын

@@brentdallyn8459 A lady engineer designed the part to help with the problem. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_Shilling

Whoever is doing the voice for this video is a voice of a matter of fact... Very instructional.

The P51 was and is perfection. If it looks right it is right. Thank you American. From Britain 🇬🇧

Hurricanes and P-47’s did most of the heavy lifting. Spitfires and Mustangs took the glory.

@philiphumphrey1548

Жыл бұрын

Indeed. In "I flew for the Fuhrer", German ace Heinz Knocke describes how it was P47s that did for him and his squadron before the P51 appeared in numbers. The P47 was transferred from escort duty to fighter bomber/ground attack role in 1944 because there was increasing need for that. The P47 was better at it than the P51, being much less vulnerable to ground fire and capable of carrying more bombs, as well as having more guns.

@bobsakamanos4469

10 ай бұрын

LOL, not the Hurricane.

By the standards of the time, the P-40 at launch could probably be considered as pretty sleek and aerodynamic, but the Mustang surely outclassed it.

@jds6206

Жыл бұрын

Maybe.....it's a stretch, but maybe.

@Right-Is-Right

Жыл бұрын

Yes, throwing Rolls Royce engines on everything won the war, next.

@grapegod6646

Жыл бұрын

@@Right-Is-Right 🤣🤣🤣 Someone didnt do their homework

@Right-Is-Right

Жыл бұрын

@@grapegod6646 Wel it was not me, so go do your homework, slow brain.

@navyreviewer

Жыл бұрын

Which p-40? I get a headache thinking of all the p-40 variations.

Great video. Thanks

Seem this group did get way better as it adds some know fats and is allround good info. Thanks - a mustang fan!!!

My Paternal Grandfather was a Co-Pilot for B-17 bombers from 42-45 then C47 for the Berlin Airlift. He spoke well of the P-51 but he liked the P-38 Lighting a lot more. Said it was a more powerful airplane, better to fly, and would stay around longer to protect the B-17s.

@philgiglio7922

Жыл бұрын

The aircrew of the C47's & C 54's had, for the most part been men who had actually dropped bombs on the city. Sadly Halvorsan, the "candy bomber" died not too long ago

@huiyinghong3073

Жыл бұрын

What about fitting a P-51 airframe with a Me 262 jet engine?

@drgondog

Жыл бұрын

He must have finished his tour of operations before D-Day. The 8th AF gave all of its P-38s to the 9th AF by July 1944 (save 479th FG) and each P-38FG (20, 55, 364th and 479th) converted to P-51s. The P-51B/D had greater combat radius, greater speed at all altitudes, greater dive speed, greater manueverability, cheaper to buy ad cheaper to operate - than the P-38. On or about April 1944, the P-38 began middle range target escorts to places like Brunswick and Ulm whereas the Mustangs were going to Berlin, Stettin, Brux, Munich and Prague. The P-47s were flying medium range Penetration and Withdrawal escorts, where the P-38s would take over.

@PHXDOG

Жыл бұрын

@@drgondog Interesting. I wish he was still alive to ask. He passed away in 96. I am remembering conversations he had with me as a pre-teen and young teen in the late 70s and 80s.

I heard the Allison was intentionally built as "naked" engine, the idea being to be universal, and for each application you add the additional specific and tailsored equipment you need. The Lightning also had Allisons, and no problems at height - because they added a giant turbocharger system

@bobsakamanos4469

10 ай бұрын

The Lightnings had plenty of problems at altitude, hence they were replaced in the ETO until late 1944. Even then, they were restricted in their dive speed.

My first ride was in a P-51D piloted by a gentleman called Red... my father, a marine Lt Colonel knew him and set up the ride for me at the EAA flyin in 1966... been in love ever since. It was the inspiration for me to get my pilots license...

I've subscribed to your channel , i,m glad your not talking so fast now so keep it up please ,best wishes.

-- Reading the title, going to watch this close. I fly the Mustang and several other WWII fighters. Dark Skies, let's see how you do. They had the specs for the Mustang, and getting into wing design, you're right on aerodynamics, overall the Zero beat it. At 4:57 here, I'd say you're spot on. One half wrong thing here. The latter Allison's were supercharged, but tuned for low alt. They'd been around a while. The Flying Tigers ran supers. The Allison was a good engine on paper only, sure you would agree. The Merlin, and wouldn't it have been nice to see the Griffon in extended action, that would have been something. Flown both Merlin and Griffon (Granted with the Griffon you need five paddle props) It's not so much for speed, but jump off, but you can break the SB with that, you'll die doing it, but you can. Your fatal flaw is true. Of all LC engines. But the true flaw was the carburetor. One G negative dive lifts the floats, choking the aircraft of fuel. I believe it was a woman that solved that problem, and it was later refined into the 360 carb. See, German pilots knew this, but they're in BF-109s, with inverted engines, and more importantly, port fuel injection, so they'd dive straight down to strangle the Mustang on their tail. Little fact: The Pacific, as you say Burma Mustangs had real problems with the .50 cals locking up due to the humidity, and temp changes at alt. Not that you're wrong, just something to know. 8:41 The Packard Merlin had two inline superchargers, not one, and as above, we Americans are a bunch of jokers and beefed the heck out of them. And you're talking more like 1200hp on the ground, and upwards of 1700 escorting bombers. The whole point was outperform the 109 which performed poorly at alts around 22000 feet. It forced them to perch and dive. That worked without escort, but when the Mustangs came along, no longer. Another interesting fact for you: To keep it short as possible, did you know the drop tanks were made of 'paper'? We fly composite now, and it's illegal to drop for obvious reasons. Your fuel tank capacity is subjective, but I'm not yelling at you. Jump seat or no. Discharge into the left wing, the aircraft isn't in ideal sport/combat mode with the fuselage tank full (why pilots to this day drink that first) and then play the fuel swap game from wing to wing, it's a vacuum thing. Currently solved. Vintage, no. Won't tell you how I know, but I will give you a tip. Never top off the fuel tank in your vehicle, and never let your tank go below one quarter. Practical knowledge when you're headed to the store. The best thing about the Mustang D to me, is every control is right were you need it. Compared to a Spit you have a lot of room for your body. Fun fact I can't prove. Chuck Yeagar I strongly believe, broke the sound barrier in the Mustang. I didn't write a novel to S post you. I'd say in 14 minutes you did a damn good job. I love the Mustang. I've been in combat, with boots, not an aircraft. And to your question: What is the greatest contribution the Mustang made to the war effort? It's still making it, when my daughter (3 years old at the time) is sitting on my lap telling me I suck at flying because we have to go home and she wants to keep flying. Gonna have to teach her about 110 octane in this economy.

@andyc3088

Жыл бұрын

The woman who solve the problem with the carburetor was Beatrice Shilling the item she invented was Miss Shilling's orifice, before the war she used to race motorbikes

@chrisbraid2907

Жыл бұрын

Yeah quite an essay reply …

@MarkJacksonGaming

Жыл бұрын

@@chrisbraid2907 -- Long as you learned a thing or two. I'll spend the time.

@stephenwalton9646

Жыл бұрын

Fun fact from a friend who grew up in Germany during the war. As a kid, he and his buddies would watch for the escorts to pickle their drop tanks . Then the kids would race into the woods to find them as most of the tanks didn’t actually break on impact. The kids would scavenge the fuel and trade it to farmers for food. Farmers were the only group that didn’t have to produce ration coupons/records to account for their fuel. Hunger was the dominant memory of my friend growing up. He got his US citizenship by joining the US Army and then became a chef. He said that is where to food was and he never wanted to be that hungry again.

@heathclark318

Жыл бұрын

Great insight into a plane I love and have studied since I was a kid. Appreciate your time and insight

The fatal flaw you mentioned, the vulnerable radiator, was sorted out but you never mentioned its contribution to the Mustangs remarkable performance. The radiator became so well designed it became a bit of a "ramjet" using the merideth effect it gave a 100+lbs of thrust. Very handy to have.

@treatb09

Жыл бұрын

Sounds like that is the reason they could out maneuver the jets. That meredith effect was like a primitive thrust vector

@stoopingfalcon891

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for that little tid-bit. I learned something new today. I will look it up later. 😊

@gregmead2967

Жыл бұрын

I believe I've read that it was something like 500 lbs of thrust. But it wasn't "like a primitive thrust vector", it was straight back, just like the thrust from the propellor.

@hexadecimal7300

Жыл бұрын

@@gregmead2967 I was under the impression it was about 160lbs. No expert though, just what I read.

@gregmead2967

Жыл бұрын

@@hexadecimal7300 Without references both of us are just blowing smoke, so I googled "how much thrust did the p51 get from the meredith effect". If you look at the results from that, you'll get a huge variation, from around your 160 lbs up to one mention of 600 lbs. Unless I see some definitive articles at some point, I'm just going to avoid quoting ANY values for the magnitude of the Meredith Effect. Thanks!

Eric Brown commented that in a dogfight he would prefer the Spitfire over a mustang …. Unless it was over Berlin otherwise he wouldn’t make it back. One thing DS omitted was that the UK underwrote the Mustang with 12$M dollars, which given the UK’s finances at that point was a huge commitment.

I had a professor that worked on the Allison engine. Even he said it was a poor engine. It was unreliable, under-powered, and had high maintenance. He also added that both the Allison and Merlin engines had 90 seconds between a cooling system puncture and engine lock-up. The air cooled engines could tolerate much more damage.

I unwind watching your videos, excellent storytelling. As for contribution... Hands down, the P-51 being used as a bomber escort changed the war.

It was my second rc aircraft...I loved building it, and it was a joy to fly!

No mention of the spark plug issue. The fighters did not have the ability to defend the bombers flying to Berlin because the engines overheated. That left the bombers unprotected. An engineer at the Wright Field in Dayton Ohio determined the problem was with the spark plugs and designed a new one that allowed the fighters to escort the bombers deep into Germany, dramatically improving the success of the missions

@drgondog

Жыл бұрын

The British spark plugs were better. The iniial combat mission overheating was due to faulty production QA on the radiator matrix - which was sorted out December 1943. R-R shipped 100K sparkplugs to Packard until US production quality sparkplugs replaced the British ones. An issue that DID come up, surfaced (July 1944) when the 150 octane fuel was found to foul sparkplugs sooner. The missions 'to Berlin' were never a problem due to either the radiator matrix or sparkplug fouling as those were sorted late 1943/early 1944. The missions to Berlin however were not planned until sufficent P-51B and P-38Js were equipped with added internal fuel tanksage - circa Feb 1944 - although first Berlin mission was March 4, 1944.

Magnificent aircraft and a great marriage of Brirish engine and American airframe.There were some amazing aircraft in WW2 on all sides and amazing men that fought in them.

In the video you mentioned Apaches and Invaders. In point of fact the dive-bomber variant, the A-36, though often misquoted, was never officially called Apache, either by the USAAF or the government purchasing commission. The name did appear in a few North American in-house documents as their own preferred name for a short while but in service it was always known as either the Mustang or, more simply, the A-36. As for Invader, this name was coined by the media of the time during the allied Invasion of Sicily. One news writer referred to the A-36 as 'Invaders' and other news outlets picked up on it, but again this name was never used by any member of the armed forces themselves.

The P51 H came on the scene near the very end of the war, increasing performance even more with hp up around 2,000+. Some were employed in the Korean Conflict.

@wilburfinnigan2142

Жыл бұрын

The main advantage of the H was it was LIGHTENED and the engine did not make 2,000 HP and NO H models used in Korea, as there were too few only 555 made and they were with the National guard units !!! The P51 D was used in Korea because they had so many of them....

@KCrucis

Жыл бұрын

the extra power came mainly from methanol injection wich was worth 4 minutes, after that it was worse than a bf109 kurfurst, wich isnt a low bar, but still.

@drgondog

Жыл бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 The P-51H with Packard 1650-9 and Water Injection produced 2200 Hp at 90"MP. The P-51H also increased length by 13", had larger empennage, different wing, 600 pounds less than P-51D and 30kts faster at FTH.

@drgondog

Жыл бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 - nope. The P-51Hs were all assigned to Air Depense Command - The National Guards had P-51Ds and -47s - but only the P-51D/K equipped Guard units were deployed to Korea. Yes the H was lower design Gross Weight - same as fully loaded P-51B, but stronger than both the P-51B/D

@englishpassport6590

Жыл бұрын

Shame you didn't get to enjoy the 2400hp Rolls Royce Griffon or De Havillands engine genius Frank Halfords 24 cylinder 4000hp and more Napier SabreV..you used his Jet engine designs in the Sabre. and plenty other transonic jets.

"The day I saw Mustangs over Berlin, was the day I knew the jig was up" Herman Goering. For the first time in the entire war, he was right about something. The most beautiful fighter ever produced.

They are the highlight of any airshow I go to. The jets are cool, but there is nothing like the Mustang.

One thing mentioned by Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles channel is that the Mustang was one of US's lesser expensive fighter planes to produce compared to P-47 Thunderbolt & P-38 Lightining, and is another reason why so many Mustangs were produced.

@scriptsmith4081

Жыл бұрын

$20,000! Can you believe that? Compared to $200,000,000 for an F-35 (which helps explain a 30 trillion national debt and a disintegrating dollar.)

@erichvonmanstein6876

Жыл бұрын

@@scriptsmith4081 thats not even close to what they cost, and the cost of them have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the national debt🤨

@tonyunderwood9678

Жыл бұрын

@@scriptsmith4081 Sir, an F-35A (or B or C models) doesn't cost ANYWHERE NEAR that much. Each time an F35 rolls off the line it costs $110M and each time another country orders up more F-35s the price drops accordingly as the fleet expands. The prototype XF-35, yes it was Very expensive, F-35A, NO when all things are considered with any other 5th gen strike fighter A/C. And, that $200M figure included R&D/Development for the prototype and NOT production models. And let's look at that 1940 figure of $20k... How much is that in today's dollars, for an airplane that couldn't go 400mph and with a radius of (initially)550 miles and had numerous issues before the problems were sorted and the first P-51A's began coming out of Inglewood? And what about the prototype, which ended up in a cornfield upside-down after systems failure forced a crash landing? One of the things concerning the Mustang's initial introduction that wasn't talked about in this video was that a lot of people in the War Department weren't pleased with the P-51's initial capabilities/costs/long-run, and many of these same people weren't all that sure about including it in the USAAF inventory. Thus, the P-51 had its issues from the beginning. And the F-35? People love to talk crap about it... but Loc-Mart isn't bothered a bit because they know that the more the A/C is viewed as a POS the more likely it's going to be viewed as a very unpleasant surprise by any enemy forces if a SHTF scenario happens and NATO finds itself in a full blown war. The partner nations chomping at the bit to buy F-35s (including NON-NATO countries) know this, they've analyzed the airplane and they know what it can do and they want it. And with a half-century+ service life it's gonna be around a while and it's gonna be continuously uprated and improved along the way. Talk Trash about the F-35 all you want. Our allies know better. And NO, the F-35 costs have NOTHING to do with the US national debt. The government spends more on foodstamps and welfare and unfunded entitlements than it does on the F-35. And each one sold to NATO alliance partners lowers that initial cost, and THAT was part of the initial purpose of this airplane in the first place... to offset expenses in manufacturing in the long run, just like the F-16 and C-130 Herc and F/A-18 and a variety of others.

@tempestfury8324

Жыл бұрын

Yet there were still more P-47s produced. As for cost effectiveness, Greg rightly points out the best "bang for the buck" was the F6F Hellcat.

@mylanmiller9656

Жыл бұрын

The Mustang was Smaller and more streamlined, because of that, it burned less fuel. You could buy 1 mustang for the cost of 2 P38's or 5 mustangs for the price of 3 P47's and a Mustang drank half the gas.

The Mustang's fatal flaw as mentioned early in the video is what made it's stay in Korea short and more or less ended it's military service. Even with improvements it was still susceptible to ground fire. Much of the fighting in Korea required an aircraft to shift from air patrol to close air support so the Mustang was less capable than other aircraft in that role.

@drgondog

Жыл бұрын

Too simple an explanation, The loss/sortie rate of the P-51 was the same as the F4U. Further the range of the P-51 with full external bomb/rocket load was FAR higher that F4U, or any USAF/USN jet like F-80, F-84, F-86

My dad used to rebuild P 51s it's a total monster.its really fast and looks really good.

As was said that same Allison was AMAZING in the P-38 with whatever Chargers it was fitted with!

I think the range played the biggest factor in the P-51's success. Who knows if the success of the bombing raids could have lasted without them. Would love to see a head to head comparison of the P-51 and Spitfire. I don't disagree the P-51 was an amazing aircraft but the Spitfire is right up their in my books as well. Great Video!

@jacktattis

Жыл бұрын

Greg from Gregs Airplanes and Autos has a video debunking that assertion of the superior P51 range He asserts and proves that the figures put forward to choose the P51 over the P47 was purely sleight of hand

I think the most important factor was its range along with its manoeverabilty allowing them to escort long range bombers in daylight raids then attacking secondary assets once the bombers had gone.

Great stuff!!!👍

Cool video, Thank you.