The Allison V-1710 did have a supercharger, but it was a single-stage single-speed one.

@wilburfinnigan2142

7 ай бұрын

Just like the early Merlins so what is the big deal ??? The Hurrycane served the whole war with the early Merlin and it is slobbered and drooled over for the whole war !!

@keithstudly6071

7 ай бұрын

This is correct and I would add that P-51A was faster at low altitude than the first generation of Merlin powered ones. The Merlin powered ones didn't have an advantage below 12 to 15 thousand feet early on. The US Air force never really excepted the idea of a single engine bomber and always, until this very day believes that fighters can do the job of ground attack better. The P-47 was better at ground attack than the P-51 anyway. The A-10 is a plane that the Air Force never really wanted and equipped National Guard with them when they were new aircraft, something they never did with any other aircraft. That demonstrates that the Air Force has never lost their dislike of ground attack aircraft.

@SoloRenegade

7 ай бұрын

and North American had fully intended to install a 2 stage supercharger to the Allison, they actually preferred the Allison over the Merlin. But Allison never got the gov support to develop a compatible 2 stage supercharger, so they went with the Packard Merlin. The P-51A was VERY fast at low altitudes. In 1942 a US General sent a letter to Washington detailing how US P-40 and P-51A pilots were pushing their Allison engines to 72-75 inches of Manifold Pressure, and Allison tests in teh US showed they were getting 1750HP at 70inches. But no one ever officially tested a P-40 nor P-51A at 70inches to see how fast they were going. P-51A tests with teh Allison never broke 1400hp yet reached speeds of 415mph, and the P-40N at 2200hp was capable of 410mph at low altitude. Imagine what the P-51A could do with 2200hp? And the Allison was 300lb lighter than the Merlin, had fewer parts, was more durable, more reliable, easier to work on, more fuel efficient, and when paired with a proper forced induction system like the P-38 was, vastly outperformed the Merlin at high altitude (in terms of horsepower). The Allison also had a smaller frontal profile than teh Merlin and thus was more aerodynamic. The P-51A had lower drag than a P-51B/C/D.

@jeffsiegel4879

7 ай бұрын

Yup. And was a solid motor. Just wasn't designed for the high=altitude war. Using Turbo-supercharging, the P-38's Allisons didn't suffer at high altitude. I think that the British Mustang with 4x .50 and 4.x30 caliber guns were effective, but the way the guns in the wings were laid at a 45 degree angle until the D/K models, promoted jamming. Interesting how they managed to fit the extra gun in each wing on the D/K model without enlarging it.

@luvr381

7 ай бұрын

@@SoloRenegade I've often wondered if they ever explored fitting the Merlin's supercharger to the Allison, if that was even possible. After all, they were already producing RR's superchargers for Packard Merlins.

Glad we're finally seeing more vids on the early Allison powered Mustangs.

Everybody seems to forget that there was a need for fighters at lower altitudes. Until the advent of high-altitude strategic bombing in WWII most of what fighters did was short range low to medium altitude combat over the battlefield. The fighter advocates and the bomber advocates competed for funding and doctrinal support throughout the interwar period. Forward thinking USAAC officers like Ben Kelsey pushed for fighters that could do battle at high altitudes, leading to the P-38 and P-47. The revolutionary daylight precision bombing campaign is what drove the need for long-range high-altitude escorts, which had previously been thought impractical. But even so there were still variants of planes like the Spitfire and others optimized for low altitude performance at the expense of high-altitude performance.

My father's Squadron (RAF 225) had the Allison powered Mustangs. They liked them for the excellent (for the time) low level performance which helped for Army co-op missions.

@sim.frischh9781

6 ай бұрын

"Army co-op missions"... do you mean "Close Air Support" or "CAS"?

@johnf3f810

6 ай бұрын

@@sim.frischh9781 No - Army Co-Operation. Could be ground attack could be Photo Recon, maybe just Recon. I should say that my father was the Squadron Doctor so he wasn't too familiar with specific missions, he was more concerned with putting the pilots back together.

@sim.frischh9781

6 ай бұрын

@@johnf3f810 I will certainly not complain that a doctor is more concerned with patching pilots back together than how said pilots co-operate with other armed forces. Respect to you dad.

@landenschooler6726

6 ай бұрын

As

Ah... no... The Mustang Mk 1 had a supercharger, but they were just single speed and tuned for better lower altitude performance. Tell you what, my Father saw the first prototype of the Mustang fly for it's first flights from the airfield NAA used in El Segundo. The Brits really liked the Mustang for it's fantastic speed and maneuverability, especially when used as a ground attack aircraft, often sent out on Rhubarb missions across the Channel. Fitted with a pair of Hispano cannons in the wings, they were a decent airplane that served for nearly the entire length of the European theater. Also the bubble topped D models used as bomber escort were equipped with Packard made Merlins and were actually a little better than the Merlins used in the Model C.

@wilburfinnigan2142

7 ай бұрын

ALL Merlin engined Mustangs used the Packard built V1650-3 or -7 merlin, NO RR Built merlins were ever used in a production Mustang!!!!

@wilburfinnigan2142

7 ай бұрын

The difference between the Packard V1650-3 and the V1650-7 was the gearing in the supercharger The -3 was a little better lower and the -7 a little better up higher !!!

@mustangtmg

6 ай бұрын

That's backwards ... the Dash 3 was better higher up, as compared to the Dash 7. @@wilburfinnigan2142

Two days ago, I was at the Dayton Air Force museum and stumbled upon the A-36. I was shocked that I never knew about this plane, or its history. Today, I fire up KZread and this video pops up, without me even doing a search.

I must correct you on the repeating of the myth that the A-36 was called the Apache. According to the book, 'Mustang: The Untold Story' by Mathew Willis, a book principally about the early Allison-engined Mustangs, the name Apache was mostly an in-house name given to the project by North American management. It was used in documents and appeared on a lot of their promotional material, but was never officially accepted by either the government purchasing commission or indeed the USAAF itself. In service the A-36 was known either as the Mustang, or more simply, the A-36. Similarly, it was also never called the Invader. This story stems from a press article covering the invasion of Sicily, when a photograph of an A-36 was used, with the title to the effect of 'An invader over the sky's of Sicily.'

@SoloRenegade

7 ай бұрын

The US A-36 pilots officially petitioned the US gov to name the A-36 the "Invader". However, the US gov had already officially assigned that name to the A-26. Many of the A-36 pilots called their aircraft the Invader, even if never officially accepted. The Apache name comes from the Army Air Corps. Upon completion of the P-51-1NA with 20mm cannons and acceptance by the USAAC, the name "Apache" was assigned to the recon P-51s. But by the time those airplanes had reached their assigned units, the P-51 had been redesignated the F-6A (F for photo/recon), and the name "Mustang" was used instead since it was already in use by the British and recognized. And when the initial P-51B prototypes came about, it was initially believed that they would keep the 4x 20mm cannon armament of so many A-36 and P-51A models. And so when the news media reported on the new P-51B variant, they referred to it as teh Apache as well, per the original US military designation. You have to read a few more sources to get a full grasp of the story.

@andrewfischer8564

7 ай бұрын

i have an aircraft spotters guide from 44 calls it an apache

@saddletramp6935

7 ай бұрын

I read about them being called the apache in the 1960s. But I think that story was sort of lost on purpose. History really likes heroes or I should say the media.

@krautyvonlederhosen

6 ай бұрын

In a clip of A36s flying out of Italy, pilots refer to them as Apaches so I’ll go with their description if you don’t mind.

@SoloRenegade

6 ай бұрын

@@krautyvonlederhosen you're not wrong to do so. The Apache name is most commonly used for the A-36, more than any other, by many sources, including pilots. And most reference materials will call it the Apache as well.

It was a great design. It stood the test and with tweaks it excelled. ! 👊💛👍

Even the P-51B and D had the problem of wing failure. Thanks for the video.

Thanks for sharing another great history of planes👍

Great video! I did learn a lot, thanks.

Doug Champlin had a pristine A-36 in his Phoenix collection.The dive brakes were deployed out of the top of the wing as it sat with the Allison engine. Each of the aircraft in his unique museum were airworthy and it was a shame upon his death the money grubbers sold it all off. I hope their Ferraris run like crap. There is a clip of these A-36s flying out of Italy on KZread if you wish.

The Mustang was never used from aircraft carriers. The Navy and Marines never took it into service. There was a brief test in using modified Mustangs on carriers, but never succeeded. The P-51 Mustang proved itself much more than a "one trick pony"! 😊

@budwyzer77

7 ай бұрын

Still, though- the Navy really should have explored navalizing the A-36 during the long SB2C delays.

@wilburfinnigan2142

7 ай бұрын

The Mustang like so many other fighters were transfered overseas on carriers and flown off them to land bases, there were test for use on carriers but the stall speed of the Mustang was almost the same speed as required to land, and the Mustang wasdeemed not suitable for carrier use,

@budwyzer77

7 ай бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 That makes sense. Still, though, you'd think enlarging the A-36's wings would have been easier than unfucking the nightmarish Helldiver. Then again, the Navy didn't like inline engines and the aircrews had little experience with them. Oh well.

@keithstudly6071

7 ай бұрын

If you saw a Mustang on a carrier it was likely being delivered to land bases and on an escort carrier. They launched these and P-47's with a catapult assist so they could fly to their new base. Landing on the carrier was not part of the plan or even likely to succeed. The Navy was very unlikely to operate A-36 from carriers as the amount of logistic support for an liquid cooled engine would be very large and packing all the extra spare parts for the Alison engine would have been a problem. The A-36 would have taken a lot of deck space on the ship as well as it was without folding wings.

@SoloRenegade

7 ай бұрын

the Sea Horse tests were a HUGE success, it was simply deemed unnecessary with the coming jet fighters.

The Mustang is a perfect example of just how formidable the USA and Britain are when they work together.

Very interesting and educational keep going 👍🏿.

brilliant video

Interesting and entertaining. Subscribed.

I’m digging the content. One critique though, drop the whole Tricia Takanawa reporter voice and just speak to us, your audience, like we’re all friends.

Interesting these airplanes first equipped the 27th Fighter Bomber Group, 522nd, 523rd and 524th Fighter Squadrons (Ftr Sq). My last base in the USAF before I retired was with the F-111F's, 523 Ftr Sq, 27 Fighter Wing, Cannon, NM. The patch is/was very similar. It is now, the 27th SOW (Special Operations Wing)

Great video, and great pic at 10:00! 16:45 is a D model. Note dog. Love the cool logo!

Supercharger was the Achilles heel the army's brass saddled the warhawk and airacobra with.

The A-36 was also used by the 311th Fighter Group in the CBI theatre. IIRC, they only had 2 A-36 Squadrons, and the 3rd Squadron was equipped with P-51As, which was also used by the 1st Air Commando Group, that supported Galahad(Merrill's Marauders) and the Chindits in the Spring of 1944. By May, they were being replaced with P-51Cs.

I have read that the Allison engine, non-bubble canopy A/C was used as a dive bomber in the Italian theater.

The nice thing about warfare back then was that you didn't understand how violent things were until you saw it first hand. What kept you going was that you survived.

Thanks. Early P51 versions limited due to underpowdered by engine and by extension manufacturing limitations

I believe there is one of these at EAA Museum in Oshkosh. Remember seeing it when I was a kid

Didn't know about this,model!

"Both fun and stupid." That's military procurement for you.

Cinema Air at KCRQ way back in the early 80's-Tommy Frediken the owner had among other warbirds a beautiful A-36.

ThankU

although it was glaringly obvious, the picture of the I-16 without wings *could* have been cheekily identified as such... yaknow "not a mustang" or "a generic single seat fighter with its wings ripped off"

So IHYLS, do you respond to questions or errors?

I'm pretty sure that the A-36A was the only Mustang variant to have the 2 fuselage-mounted 50 caliber guns located in the lower nose and their firing synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. Once the Merlin-powered Mustangs were the primary long range figher, many P-47 Groups were relegated to dive bombing and ground attack in the Mediterranean effectively replacing the A-36. They could carry more weigh and 2 additional guns.

@SearTrip

7 ай бұрын

No, the Mustang prototype, the NA-73x, was the first to have the chin-mounted .50 calibers. It also had four .30 cals in the wings. Then the RAF’s Mustang Mk.I had the chin-mounted .50s, plus one more .50 in each wing, as well as four .303s, two in each wing. Those, and the Mustang MkIB/P-51, with 20mm cannon, all came before the A-36.

I think a video about the P/F-82 twin mustang, as it is a very intresting plane!

Excellent and informative content as always 👌🏼 👏🏼 Please keep it up!

19:53 Sort of like how there's three Lightning's the P.38 ,the English Electric Lightning and the F.35. EDIT: Do you like the Lightning, the Lightning or the Lightning?

@kimvibk9242

7 ай бұрын

Yes I do!

I love that u think about all the non-combatants that die in these wars

@r.ladaria135

7 ай бұрын

As I share my surname with 354 of the Auschwitz inmates I would like to thank these brave young men their efforts and sacrifice. We were out of that mess but still it's impressive.

The Allison Mustangs while not great at high altitude due to the lack of the Allison having a two speed/two stage supercharger, was nevertheless, a very good low and medium altitude fighter aircraft. Love it! And the Merlin engined Mustangs were not roughly equal to Luftwaffe fighters; the P-51 was superior in almost all categories.

The American made 20mm cannons all suffered from an incorrect headspacing that made them very prone to jamming (unlike the British HS 20mm cannon that were more carefully built from the same plans). In something of repeat of the scandal of the Mark 14 torpedo, the American ordnance officers and the manufacturers of the defective 20mm guns, kept blaming the users and doing ineffective changes that did not fix the problem, and huge supplies of the unreliable guns were never issued. A few planes where the 20mm could be reached to manually clear the jam (A-20, P-38, P-61and B-29 tailguns) got good service with the 20mm, but most just stayed with the .50 cal MG. The biggest problem withthe A-36 as a dive bomber was that the dive brakes were too small. Compare the pictures of the SBD and of the profile of the dive bombing attack with the SBD versus the A-36. Note the much larger dive brakes on SBD. The dive brakes were supposed to limit the diving speed to one where the pull-out would not cause the pilot to black out when pulling up as sharply as the wings would let him. That let the slower-diving SBD press home its attack much closer to the target and get much better accuracy, than the A-36 which had to release its bombs and start the pull-out much higher above the ground. Many people think having a higer dive speed was good - but really it was not, and the USMC having more dive bombung experience than any other group insisted on the slower (and more vertical) attack of the SBD. The other big problem withthe A-36 was that the "Bomber Mafia" who controlled the USAAC were determined to win the war with strategic daylight bombing, using B-17, B-24, B-29 and B-32 heavy bombers. They saw attack aircraft like the A-20, A-24, A-25, A-27, A-31, A-35 and A-36 as not only a a waste of money they wanted spend for heavy bombers, but as giving in to the US Army high command by providing air support to the Ground Forces instead of bombing cities. They hated the dive bombers in particular, as they demonstrated that a bomb from an SBD would be roughly 100 times as likely to hit a small target like a tank, bridge, factory or even an aircraft carrier as one bomb from a B-17! And SBDs were Navy planes! How embarrassing!

The P-51 was evaluated on carriers successfully, but was NEVER deployed on a carrier outside of testing, EVER.

@Zajuts149

7 ай бұрын

Not flown from or to carriers operationally, but they were transported on the decks of escort carriers to frontline airfields in the Pacific before being winched down on barges to be floated ashore. I know some P-47s actually took off from carriers to frontline airfields, but how many there was that did that I don't know.

@SoloRenegade

7 ай бұрын

@@Zajuts149 as I said. P-51s Never deployed on a carrier. being transported is not "deployed" aboard. P-38 were also transported via escort carriers. P-40 and P-47 were transported and launched. F4U, F6F, F4F, and many more were also transported without launching nor landing. Little birds of many types, like the L-4 Grasshopper, actually launched and landed from ships throughout WW2.

What does IHYLS stand for?

Yyyeeesss. Yes. Yes. Yes. My Grand Uncle flew Apache's in N.Africa

"A water-cooled airplane makes as much sense as a air-cooled submarine"

USAAF planes on USN (and other carrier, were "ferry flights", mainly using CVE's to get the planes to the theater, launched (most often by catapult) at a reasonably safe distance from shore. This meant you wouldn't have a freighter tied up at a pier unloading planes for hours and vulnerable to enemy attack! (Only the last few planes would have a chance of taking off without a "cat shot"! Of course, the airplane could be either one of those last planes, or an earlier plane taxing to the "cat".)

The A-36 Apache is the proper nomenclature for this version of the Mustang. There was at least one Mustang modified for carrier duty. The 'Seahorse' plan was abandoned, most likely due to the needs of the liquid cooled fighters. Maintaining Mustangs was hard enough at a land base, let alone on the deck of a carrier.

@SoloRenegade

7 ай бұрын

The Sea Horse tests were a success, only abandoned due to the up coming jet fighters. The Sea Horse was actually well suited with a few modifications, but just didn't offer enough over existing prop fighters to justify the effort when they would already be surpassed by the jets by the time it was in production. The US A-36 pilots officially petitioned the US gov to name the A-36 the "Invader". However, the US gov had already officially assigned that name to the A-26. Many of the A-36 pilots called their aircraft the Invader, even if never officially accepted. The Apache name comes from the Army Air Corps. Upon completion of the P-51-1NA with 20mm cannons and acceptance by the USAAC, the name "Apache" was assigned to the recon P-51s. But by the time those airplanes had reached their assigned units, the P-51 had been redesignated the F-6A (F for photo/recon), and the name "Mustang" was used instead since it was already in use by the British and recognized. And when the initial P-51B prototypes came about, it was initially believed that they would keep the 4x 20mm cannon armament of so many A-36 and P-51A models. And so when the news media reported on the new P-51B variant, they referred to it as teh Apache as well, per the original US military designation.

@Purvis-dw4qf

7 ай бұрын

I have never seen any actual World War II sources that used the name Apache for the A-36. If you know of any let me know.

@wbertie2604

7 ай бұрын

It wasn't ever called the Apache.

@SoloRenegade

7 ай бұрын

@@wbertie2604 Wrong. The US A-36 pilots officially petitioned the US gov to name the A-36 the "Invader". However, the US gov had already officially assigned that name to the A-26. Many of the A-36 pilots called their aircraft the Invader, even if never officially accepted. The Apache name comes from the Army Air Corps. Upon completion of the P-51-1NA with 20mm cannons and acceptance by the USAAC, the name "Apache" was assigned to the recon P-51s. But by the time those airplanes had reached their assigned units, those P-51s had been redesignated the F-6A (F for photo/recon), and the name "Mustang" was used instead since it was already in use by the British and recognized. And when the initial P-51B prototypes came about, it was initially believed that they would keep the 4x 20mm cannon armament of so many A-36 and P-51A models. And so when the news media reported on the new P-51B variant, they referred to it as teh Apache as well, per the original US military designation. Apache was the original US military designation, but was changed to Mustang by production since that name was already in widespread use by the British and widely recognized and accepted.

@wbertie2604

7 ай бұрын

@@SoloRenegade petitioning doesn't mean it was called the Invader officially at any point. Whilst there was a very brief period that the umbrella P-51 project was called Apache it was just for a handful of weeks and the A-36 didn't exist as a designation at that point in time. The name had changed to Mustang just before the A-36 designation was assigned. Thus no -A-36- was an Apache or Invader even if some members of the P-51 family were, but AFAIK, none of any version were actually delivered to USAAC/F during the period when Apache was the official name which was under 6 weeks, IIRC

You blew it. The A-36 was officially named Mustang. In Europe its pilots called it the Invader, so much so that it became semi official. There is no contemporary document referring to it as an Apache. Apache was the original factory name for the P-51 before Mustang was officially adopted. The earliest factory adverts referred to it as such. It's likely that, post war, someone was confused by these adverts and came to the wrong conclusion. Somehow it caught on by the 1980s, so much so that professional sources started referring to 'A-36 Apache'. Even the one in a museum was mislabeled. This error is now known and starting to be corrected.

Supposably the British actually asked for more Allison-powered P-51s for ground support roles, but that would have interfered with production of the Merlin-engined variants which already were entering production

dive bomber for infantry support? The American Stuka

Well, now this Mustang story comes to a conclusion, the mystery has been unlocked.

We have a 26 Squadron (RM) Mustang 1 at the 1:10 mark. And at the 4:15 mark with had 4 Mustang IIIs from 19 Squadron (QV and who were also the first to be equipped with the Spitfire I). As for the USAAF Squadrons we have at 1:32 the 375th Fighter Squadron (E2) of the 361st Fighter Group from the 67 Fighter Wing of the 2nd Air Division, 8th Airforce. And at 1:56 we have an aircraft from the 374th Squadron (B7) of the same group, wing and division. At 4:52 we have an aircraft from the 9th Airforce, with a 356th Squadron (AJ) Mustang (354th Fighter Group).

You did a fair job of telling the Mustang story. My problem is that you and others who put together like videos use non related pictures just to fill space. Shame on you.

The gun pods would totally fit with WW2 tech. Don't know why they didn't think of it.

Nice Gee-Bee wreck.

1.06 Less intensive these were the backbone of G/A low low G/A and CAS before the US were there. They served with distinction with ADGB ,2TAF ,Bomber Command, Coastal Command and Med. Command

Originally the A-36s had four 20mm cannon, but these were not popular with the crews

@tauncfester3022

7 ай бұрын

Except when used in ground attack roles in France, they did use 2 Hispanos.

@PeteCourtier

7 ай бұрын

It’s the P-51Mk1A that had 20mm cannons.

@wbertie2604

7 ай бұрын

@@tauncfester3022 No P-51s had 2 20mm cannon.

@pascalchauvet4230

7 ай бұрын

Oh okay@@PeteCourtier

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

7 ай бұрын

The available Hispano Mk IIs ran out, they were supposed to be made in the U.S. but the U.S. factory got all the tolerances wrong until the very end of the war.

Wasnt the brits a-36, the "apache"?

It could still deal out air to air violence at lower altitudes

You know what, I’m NOT going to ignore the gun pods and want to know about any use of them in WWII single engine US fighters.

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

7 ай бұрын

P-39s. The Soviets removed them.

Drinking game for this video, take a shot every time IHYLS says "Mustang"

@zombiehero1442

7 ай бұрын

Died of alcohol poisoning roughly 3 minutes in

The A-36 was officially named Mustang. Apache was a name that was not used to refer to the aircraft until after the war.

@kennethhamilton5633

7 ай бұрын

Isnt it that the brits called them mustangs from the beginng, US called them A26 or Invaders yeah????!!!!🤔

@zechariahlea2317

7 ай бұрын

@@kennethhamilton5633 The USAAF actually did not assign official names to aircraft until 1942. NAA referred to the P-51s as Invaders in early marketing material, but eventually the USAAF officially named both the P-51 and A-36 “Mustang” after the aircraft’s RAF name.

@zechariahlea2317

7 ай бұрын

@@kennethhamilton5633 It should also be noted that the name “Invader” was officially assigned to the A-26, so it is likely that they didn’t want there to be any confusion with the P-51/A-36.

The A-36 was briefly usef by the Air Corps asa dive bomber

@SoloRenegade

7 ай бұрын

the A-36 WAS a dive bomber, the best dive bomber of WW2. And the ONLY Allied dive bomber allowed to do Danger Close drops of 500lb bombs to troops in contact due to its high level fo precision.

@lorrinbarth1969

7 ай бұрын

The story as I remember it was that congress had allocated money for fighters and that money was all used up. North American, having fulfilled the British contract was ready to scrap the tooling. Congress had also allocated money for a dive bomber, a dive bomber the US Army didn't want so that money was available. To keep the Mustang tooling intact the army ordered some dive bombers. Good decision.

The Allison engine was replaced with the Merlin in 1942, not 1944.

@mustangtmg

6 ай бұрын

The first production Merlin Mustang (P-51B) did not even get BUILT until the Spring of 1943. The two XP-51Bs *DID* fly in late 1942, but they were not actual P-51Bs.

@Nastyswimmer

6 ай бұрын

@@mustangtmg Which means that the first Merlin-powered Mustang flew in 1942, and production models were flying in 1943, not 1944.

I have been flamed by WW2 pilots who flew the A36 in North Africa. I would say "oh you flew the A-36", they just about came unglued and heatedly pointed out they flew P51 mustangs. This is a WW2 issue that have run into in other areas. The A36 was the bastard brother of the later P51 and most of the pilots who flew the A36 will not acknowledge it.

I always heard that the A-36 was called Apache, not Mustang.

You missed out the variant made by Ford 😉

A-36 Apache is different than the P-51. Ground attack version.

Ridge back stang ... Just needs an engine upgrade...An a few extra parts ...

🎉you forgot that p47s and p 38s were used for escort. With belly and wing tanks the p47s could go all the way to Berlin and back. History Always seems to overlook the p47s role in Europe

@paulholmes672

7 ай бұрын

And the P-47M and the P-51H (final Mustang), the P-47N was a wet wing with over twice the range of the P-51s of all types. As the P-47 was a big tough plane that provided sterling service in all theaters from 1942 on, and aces in all theaters as well, the P-51 like a lot of 'famous' planes was sexier, so it continues to get all the press.

@jimh6763

7 ай бұрын

@@paulholmes672 I agree!!! The 56th fighter group was the only group to get the p47m. Much faster than the mustang, with good range to boot!

@jimh6763

7 ай бұрын

I love the looks of the later bubble top p47s. Good lines. A beast of a plane. I think I'd be terrified if I saw one behind me. Not made axis planes could escape a well flown p47 in late WW2

And before the A36 there was the RAF Mustang Served with them from 1941 to 1945

The old Razorback Mustang

Guess how much IHYLS said Mustang

The images of A-36 Baby Carmen and the head-on shot of the A-36 with dive brakes extended are my copyrighted property and you do NOT have my permission to use them for the A-36 video you have released on KZread. Remove these images from this video IMMEDIATELY, or find yourself being sued for copyright infringement.

The P-51A (british MkI, MkIa, MkII) Mustang predated the A-36. The A-36 was just a P-51A with dive brakes. The F-6A Apache also predated the A-36. The A-36 never received a formal/official designation. The US A-36 pilots officially petitioned the US gov to name the A-36 the "Invader". However, the US gov had already officially assigned that name to the A-26. Many of the A-36 pilots called their aircraft the Invader, even if never officially accepted. The Apache name comes from the Army Air Corps. Upon completion of the P-51-1NA with 20mm cannons and acceptance by the USAAC, the name "Apache" was assigned to the recon P-51s. But by the time those airplanes had reached their assigned units, the P-51 had been redesignated the F-6A (F for photo/recon), and the name "Mustang" was used instead since it was already in use by the British and recognized. And when the initial P-51B prototypes came about, it was initially believed that they would keep the 4x 20mm cannon armament of so many A-36 and P-51A models. And so when the news media reported on the new P-51B variant, they referred to it as teh Apache as well, per the original US military designation. The Dive angle of the A-36 was never restricted, and the dive brakes were never wired shut. The A-36 was in fact THE best dive bomber in all of WW2, and the Only Allied dive bomber allowed to perform danger close bomb drops to troops in contact in WW2. The A-36 was Not "descent enough a fighter", it was an AMAZING fighter, and faster than anything else at low altitude. It was the same as the P-51B/C, but with a lighter, lower drag, more fuel efficient, more reliable, more powerful Allison engine. The Claim the fighter was not as good as the Bf109 of FW190 is ludicrous bull crap. This video was so poorly researched. It's like a child's impressions of what the P-51/A-36 was, with all the myths and lies included. The idea of countering dive bomber attacks with wires is a lie, and a tactic almost impossible to implement. The A-36 only stopped dive bombing when teh last serviceable A-36 crashed on a post-maintenance flight. The P-47 was inferior to the A-36 in ground attack, and the A-36 pilots preferred the A-36 over teh P-47. P-47 also suffered extremely high loss rates in ground attack. P-47 pilots considered an attack against a German airfield to be a suicide mission for example.

@dukecraig2402

6 ай бұрын

Everything in your post is as wrong as your claim about the A36 being superior at ground attack compared to the P47 is laughable, even your referring to the Army's air arm as the Air Corps during WW2 is wrong, it ceased being the United States Army Air Corps (USAAC) in June of 1941, a full 6 months before Pearl Harbor, and became the United States Army Air Force's (USAAF) then, at no point during the US's involvement during WW2 was it the USAAC, and that's about the least that's wrong with your claims. The dive angle of the A36 was restricted to 70° maximum, one look in the pilots manual and the training manual for the A36 and you'll see that, the reason it was restricted was because trying to pull out of a dive at too high of a speed and it would rip it's wings off, that was happening to them and is exactly why it's dive angle was restricted, even when it went into service as the P51B they were ripping their wings off when the pilots were attempting too high of G maneuvers in combat, as a result the entire fleet of P51B's in Europe was grounded until retrofit kits with the stiffener's that were added to the P51D's design were sent to over and installed, and even then they'd still rip the wings off if pulled on too hard, this was a particular problem with the pilots of P47 units that switched to the P51, their reflexes in combat had them pulling back on the stick in amounts that the P47 could easily handle but was ripping the wings off of P51's including D's, even after the upgrade they weren't nearly as strong as the P47's which is why you'll never find an example of one of them ripping it's wings off while maneuvering or pulling out of a dive, you'll never find an example of a P51 that returned to it's base with the top 3 feet of a telephone pole embedded in the leading edge of a wing like was documented with P47's, between having a notoriously tougher airframe and it's air cooled engine the thought that the A36 was tougher and could absorb more punishment and get it's pilot home under circumstances that the P47 couldn't is laughable, the only reason the A36 was made in the first place was a trick to get Congress to pump money into the program so when it came time to start ordering P51 fighter's a production line would already be set up complete with tooling and experienced workers, and the only reason the USAAF even used the A36 is because they'd bought and paid for them so they had to use them, but their record was so dismal as soon as their number's were being depleted they were removed from service, they weren't "the best dive bomber of the war" nor were they "an amazing fighter" by any stretch of the imagination, their record in both realms is horrible, as a fighter the A36 only had one ace and suffered terrible losses against enemy fighter's, as a ground attack aircraft they were horrible like any other one with a liquid cooled engine, and any aircraft that can have it's wings ripped off by pulling out of a dive too hard doesn't make for the best dive bomber, your claim about it and the P47, an aircraft that as a fighter is credited with breaking the Luftwaffe's back in the first six months of 1944 by shooting down 573 of the 890 German fighter's downed in that period, in the ground attack role the P47 destroyed over 9,000 locomotives, over 6,000 armored vehicles and over 86,000 trucks, overall with aircraft it destroyed over 7,000 with over half of that number being in air to air combat, and there was no specially modified version of it for ground attack, it could just do it and was vastly tougher and more survivable than the A36. Another claim of your's that's laughable is the one that is was the only aircraft cleared to drop bombs close to friendly troops, that's a real hoot there, it was the P47 pilots of the 9th Air Force in Europe that pioneered and developed the very close air support tactics still in use by US ground and air forces today, they literally wrote the book on it, that nonsense claim of your's may have been some trick with words that Lt Benjamin Kelsey and the others in Army procurement came up with to get Congress to cough up the money to fund setting up the P51 production line but it's far from the truth. Also wrong is your claim that they didn't wire down the dive flaps on A36's, yes they most certainly did, the original hydraulic circuit that deployed the dive flaps of the didn't have the kind of valving to assure that the flaps deploying evenly, when they didn't it caused the A36 to roll, sometimes violently, which was especially dangerous for the inexperienced pilots causing some of them to get killed, the A36 training unit along with some of the deployed units wired them shut as a safety precaution until the proper work around was developed and retrofitted to them. If the A36 was half of what you claim they were they'd have had North America Aviation making them like crazy, the truth of the matter is as a dive bomber and a fighter it couldn't hold a candle to any of the other aircraft that were used in that role and is why when the initial batch of them was worn down they removed them from service instead of making more, the only thing it had going for it was it's low speed altitude that gave it the ability to egress fast at tree top level after a dive bombing run but P47's could do that just as well and wasn't nearly as fragile as the A36 in any regard, and at the same time it had more aces than the P51 itself did much less the A36 that only had 1, I sure don't know how that translates into the A36 supposedly being some kind of "amazing" fighter, you definitely made up those claims because they sure don't align with facts.

@SoloRenegade

6 ай бұрын

@@dukecraig2402 "Everything in your post is as wrong as your claim about the A36 being superior at ground attack compared to the P47 is laughable" objectively false. Nice nitpicking over unrelated and unimportant details of air corps status, Red Herring fallacy. You knew full well what I meant and nobody cares. "The dive angle of the A36 was restricted to 70° maximum," this is not true at all and has been refuted by the pilots themselves and actual documents. Many people have addressd this lie. "the reason it was restricted was because trying to pull out of a dive at too high of a speed and it would rip it's wings off, " utter lie. it was given die brakes to avoid exceeding Vne, but with dive breaks could go straight down. Hence why the A-36 book written by A-36 pilots was titled, "Straight Down". "even when it went into service as the P51B they were ripping their wings off when the pilots were attempting too high of G maneuvers in combat," not true at all. cite your sources. A-36, P-51A, and more came back with wings wrapped in ft of cables. One P-51D in France was jumped by germans on takeoff and was hit with 20mm cannon, lost an aileron, all engine oil, and damage to other parts of the airplane like the tail. Pilot went on to shoot down 3 germans before landing back safely without oil or an aileron. A-36 pilots, in their own words, hated the P-47 and preferred the A-36 for its toughness and reliability. And it was FAST at low altitudes where CAS occured. P-47 is slow and sluggish below 15k ft. Even P-47 ace Robert Johnson flew an A-36 and praised it. Also, the P-47 pilots considered a ground attack mission against a German airfield for example, a suicide mission, as so many P-47 pilots died doing it. One time a P-47 flight of 8 left on a CAS mission, only 1 returned and suffered a mental breakdown and never flew again. There is a recent P-47 documentary on youtube full of P-47 pilot interviews, and none thought they'd survive the war flying P-47 in ground attack. Whereas A-36 pilots were supremely confident in themselves and their aircraft. "If the A36 was half of what you claim they were they'd have had North America Aviation making them like crazy" they did, called P-51A, MkI, MkIa, MkII, and they flew CAS and Recon over germany for 12months before teh first P-47 ever saw combat, only suffering 8 losses in RAF hands. "as a fighter the A36 only had one ace and suffered terrible losses against enemy fighter's" becasue they were not tasked with air combat duties, they were assigned CAS duties. Same for the RAF mustangs scoring few kills since they were doing recon and CAS too. The A-36 suffered rather low losses. they were used until the airplanes literally fell apart. They were flown on so many sorties that they would eventually be shot down. Few other airframes were made to last as long in combat as the A-36. Many were lost in accidents. Keep in mind, only 300 were ever built. But far more MkI and P-51A,a nd F-6A were built. "Also wrong is your claim that they didn't wire down the dive flaps on A36's, yes they most certainly did" no they did not. This NEVER happened. this has been debunked so many times it's not even funny any more. the truth is Very well documented. You're like an ignorant child. You need to read more sources. "If the A36 was half of what you claim they were they'd have had North America Aviation making them like crazy, " they did, the very next orders were all P-51B/C/D in mass quantities and went on to replace the P-47, P-38, and more including in ground attack roles. "P47's could do that just as well and wasn't nearly as fragile as the A36 in any regard," not true. one hit to one of the P-47's 3x unarmored radiators and the engine would seize in under 5min. Flight controls are equally vulnerable on the P-47. The wing spar was equally vulnerable. The pilot was equally vulnerable from the side and other angles. The Fuel lines were equally vulnerable. etc. P-51A/A-36 suffered a FAR lower loss rate to the P-47. "Another claim of your's that's laughable is the one that is was the only aircraft cleared to drop bombs close to friendly troops," DANGER CLOSE. do you even know what Danger Close means? I have recieved danger close drops of 500lb bombs from a B-1 bomber in actual combat. Learn to read.

@dukecraig2402

6 ай бұрын

@@SoloRenegade Yea your claims are as laughable as they are false, "name your sources", I already told you to just look in the pilots and training manuals for it. "Danger close blah blah blah", yea I know exactly what danger close is and I'm sure that was before you were born kid, but I wouldn't pull out my military experiences trying to give credence to anything about what happened in WW2 because I wasn't there and neither were you, you probably weren't even in the military, people who were don't pull that kind of nonsense over something like this because it's irrelevant since you weren't involved with the A36 and it's operations were you? Your claims about it are laughable, yea, exactly after they banged them up they were done with everything about the A36 that's just the point, they didn't make any more did they? If they were both the greatest dive bomber of the war and the greatest fighter at the same time don't you think they'd have made more of them? And explain to everyone how the P51A with an engine that has a single stage supercharger was deemed unfit as a fighter in Europe, just the same as every other fighter with a single stage supercharger engine, but for some reason changing the nomenclature to A36 magically transformed it to an "amazing" fighter, explain that. Also explain exactly how the name of a book disproves that the A36 was restricted to a 70° dive angle, the only book that's the final say on that matter is the pilots manual, go ahead, have a look in one, you'll see it is, just because not all of the pilots ignored the restriction doesn't mean that it wasn't restricted to a 70° dive angle, the pilots that exceeded it knew that they needed to keep their speed down or they'd rip the wings off of them? Proof that the wings would rip off of them? The fact that they were and is why the dive angle of the A36 was restricted to 70°, the USAAF grounded all the P51B's until the strengthening kits were installed in the field, they were breaking across where the machine gun compartments in the wings were, strengthening them in that area was part of the improvements made for the D variant, try learning about the history of the P51. Hub Zemke the leader of the 56th Fighter Group, the most successful USAAF fighter group in Europe that had more aces in it than any other and who refused to turn in their P47's and convert over to P51's, was ordered to take over a new P51 unit when it's commander was shot down, he ripped the wings off he was flying while trying to out maneuver a German fighter that chased him into a cloud, as a result he bailed out and was taken prisoner, the wings tore off it because in the heat of the moment he tried flying it like the much tougher and vastly superior fighter/bomber the P47, which by the way you can find all kinds of testimonials from ground troops in WW2 about calling in P47's to drop bombs "danger close" to them right here on KZread, there are so many testimonials in books, here in interviews on KZread including P47 pilots who were assigned as ground controllers with the troops and even in after action reports about from ground troops who called in P47's, and F4U's in the Pacific, to drop bombs in close proximity to them that makes your claim that the A36 was the "only one cleared" to do it possibly the most ridiculous claim anyone's ever made about WW2 aircraft. And quit going around in life claiming you're a veteran "SoloRenegade", real men who've stepped up to the plate instead of daydreaming about it don't go through life making those claims using an anonymous name, especially one that's a dead giveaway that some kid who thinks something like that makes him sound like a dangerous individual, to people who know better it's a joke. Stolen valor is a serious thing subject kid.

Say mustang again.

@thatotherguy6231

7 ай бұрын

If I had a drink every time it was said, I'd be dead

They were never used because no one could land them .

They had a long range high altitude escort fighter in 1943. The P47. The fact that the bomber faction wouldn't admit the bombers couldn't defend themselves is a salient point. Once they allowed the P47 to carry the drop tanks it was designed and built by Republic originally to have, at Republic's own expense it became the the Aircraft it was designed to be. Fact is by the time the P51 entered the escort role the P47 already had done most of the dirty work already. By the way the British were producing a drop tank for the P47 and pilots used them at the risk of being lambasted by the bomber mafia controlling the USAAF at the time.

@ME-xh7zp

7 ай бұрын

That's mostly untrue. P-47 lacked the plumbing and later the internal fuel capacity to be a useful escort fighter until the D-25. That didn't arrive in numbers until D-Day, well after the Mustang had already succeeded.

@haveraygunwilltravel

7 ай бұрын

Suggest you watch Greg's planes and automobiles. He has an 8 part series with documentation.

@ME-xh7zp

7 ай бұрын

@@haveraygunwilltravel I have, it's incorrect and honestly quite egregious. I can give a full explanation if desired, with references within his video.

@gort8203

6 ай бұрын

"the fact that the bomber faction wouldn't admit the bombers couldn't defend themselves is a salient point. Once they allowed the P47 to carry the drop tanks it was designed and built by Republic originally to have, at Republic's own expense it became the the Aircraft it was designed to be. You have bought into the internet myth and your facts are all wrong. The drop tanks were repeatedly requested by General Eaker, as was long-range fighter escort. The 8th Air Force bomber missions were typically escorted to the limits of fighter range, which was hardly the way to prove that bomber could defend themselves without assistance. They knew deeper escort would be necessary during the coming critical phases of the air war. The P-51 became good at altitude because of the Merlin, but what increased its range was the auxiliary fuselage thank that was added to the plane after Hap Arnold mandated immediate production of a fighter that could fly all the way to Poland and back. The P-47 was not originally designed with fittings for drop tanks. In fact, the first Army request to develop them for the P-47 was resisted for a time by designer Alexander Kartveli, who did not want to spoil the clean aerodynamics of his beautiful fighter with ugly drag producing pylons under the wings.

@ME-xh7zp

6 ай бұрын

@@gort8203 What's your source for Kartveli's resistance? I've never managed to track down any original memos regarding it.

This wasn't a Mustang but an Apache. The British called their LATER P-51's Mustangs.

@jacktattis

7 ай бұрын

we called our Mustangs-Mustangs from Nov 41

@jacktattis

7 ай бұрын

Apache is not mentioned in Bill Gunston Combat Aircraft P51 single seat fighter A36 attack bomber F6 recon NO Apache

@user-po3ev7is5w

7 ай бұрын

irrelevant. It is with the manufacturer and the USAAF@@jacktattis

@user-po3ev7is5w

7 ай бұрын

"we"? You weren't there. AND they weren't rolled out until 1942. Run along child and stay off of the internet without parental permission.@@jacktattis

@jacktattis

7 ай бұрын

@@user-po3ev7is5w No it was not there are plenty of posts here that say it as well.

Sadly it had an appalling accident rate according to records, worst of all Army Airforce Aircraft. General Arnold considered it obsolete before the last aircraft was built. The debate has raged since the war it was to keep the production line going until the Merlin 65 mustang could be produced and arguably the failure was not to fit the Merlin XX to the original airframe, than continue to fit it to the Warhawk F model. Image a Merlin xx P51 mustang over Guadalcanal.

@jacktattis

7 ай бұрын

Yes the A36 did but NOT the RAF Mustangs

@DC.409

7 ай бұрын

@@jacktattis indeed the RAF had a A36 delivered for test only, not impressed. Also they cancelled the Rolls Royce Merlin 65 conversion kits for their Mustang A fleet, not sure that was a good idea on reflection.

@jacktattis

7 ай бұрын

@@DC.409 Source please verifiable.

@DC.409

7 ай бұрын

@@jacktattis Rolls Royce Heritage Trust Book 9 on Mustang it covers everything regarding the fitting of the Merlin, first the Merlin XX then the Merlin 61, ultimately the Merlin 65. Also Wilfrid Freeman: The Genius Behind Allied Survival and Air Supremacy 1939 to 1945 Hardcover - March 1, 2001, it is available in North America.

@mustangtmg

6 ай бұрын

@@DC.409 Sorry, but the "Merlinization" of Mustangs took a lot - a LOT - more modification than just "pulling out the Allison and sliding in a Merlin." There were THOUSANDS of changes (sure, some were tiny, but still there were MANY) that allowed a Merlin to be fitted to the Mustang. There was no such thing as a "Conversion Kit."

I subscribed and started binge watching this channel but I don't think I'm the target audience. I liked it at first but too many confused images of the wrong aircraft. For instance using a polikarpov I-16 to represent a mustang with the wings torn off? A pile of smouldering wreckage would probably suffice. Also instead of comparing the A-36 to an image of a P-51B, it would make more sense to compare to a RAF Allison engine Mustang, since the Merlin engine came later The terminology "body" "frame" and "explosives" make me cringe. I think he means "fuselage", "airframe", and ordinance or payload. Also the comment about the Mustangs being responsible for civilian casualties baffles me. WW2 was Total War. Geneva Convention aside, ALL sides killed civilians intentionally or unintentionally.

"pulling OUT" from a dive this title is incorrect, The Mustang Before The P-51 Mustang: North American A-36 Mustang. A 36 was never a Mustang. There is a point of 'climbing up,' better range, less AA

@mustangtmg

6 ай бұрын

It always MUSTANG ... never anything else!

Firstly, I congratulate you on even ADDRESSING the mostly ignored A-36. With that being said, some of the stuff in your video is just HORRIBLE. Lt. Ben Kelsey, who WAS the "Office of Fighter Development" in 1940 and 1941, almost single-handedly kept the Mustang production line open with his 'stroke of the pen,' in coordination with "Dutch" Kindelberger, creating the A-36, as you correctly explain, due to a lack of further funding for fighters so early in the war. You show ONLY "C" series V-1710 Allisons, which WERE used in the P-40 TOMAHAWKS (and the P-38 prototype), but the Mustangs ONLY used "F" series Allisons. You also show a slide that says "Mustangs sometimes operated off aircraft carriers"...ugh...ONE P-51D was modified and tested aboard USS Shangri-La for a short period of time by the Navy, but P-51s were NEVER used off carriers in combat. And the reason A-36s didn't last long in combat is because they were simply USED to the point of being WORN OUT...as you correctly point out, only 500 were produced, but they were just WORN OUT in service, and, by then, the later marks of the type, along with Typhoons and Jugs, the A-36 just was, basically, retired (or, really, just discarded), and the service just moved on to more developed and available types. And you also have to remember that SO MUCH of the procedures and tactics were being worked out "on the fly." NO ONE IN THE WORLD had even come CLOSE to fighting a conflict like WWII, so the employment of airplanes like the A-36, or, for that matter, of the B-17, P-47, and P-38, was being MADE UP AS THEY WENT ALONG!! NO AIR FORCE IN THE WORLD had EVER possessed ANY fighter capable of 400 mph, and, in 1939, very FEW pilots had ever been ABOVE 30,000 feet!!! They had to just FIGURE IT OUT, and they were FIGURING IT OUT UNDER FIRE. Operational development, like what was going on at Wright Field, and later Muroc, were just doing EVERYTHING THEY COULD to keep up. The guys IN THE FIELD were REALLY 'writing the books'...so your almost 'tongue-in-cheek' treatment of how 'dives were restricted to 70 degrees' but 'some pilots deviated from that limitation' is both ELEMENTARY and MISLEADING. There were SO MANY MORE dynamics at play, but, I guess, that doesn't make for as "dramatic" or seemingly "pithy" scripting for your video. And your play on names is irritating also..."Mustang" was the original name given to the type by the British with the earliest NA-73s and NA-83s...."Lend Lease" RESTRICTED the sale of aircraft to other countries that were ONLY in use or under development for the U.S. military, and, to ACCOMODATE the sale of the Mustang to the Brits UNDER Lend Lease, the U.S. War Department designated the NA-73 as the "XP-51 Apache" (ONE OF THE TWO ORIGINAL XP-51s STILL EXISTS at the EAA Museum!!...and notice how "P-51" does NOT have a letter following it, such as "P-51A" or "P-51B"..this is TOTALLY CORRECT in 1940 and 1941 nomenclature specifications! ..both the P-40 and P-51...and, I believe, the A-20 Havoc also...had production variants that had NO model suffix letters!), and then the A-36 was OFFICIALLY given the name "Invader" by the War Department, but the type, because of its initial RAF service, and, probably, just because the name was more "catchy," became UNIVERSALLY known as "Mustangs." I know...all BORING details for a KZread video. I'm a REALLY OLD GUY, and I have paid attention to these things probably WAY LONGER than is healthy (and probably WAY LONGER than you've been around!), but we have a RESPONSIBILITY to HISTORY to not MUCK AROUND WITH IT just so it sounds better on KZread. Because PEOPLE ARE LISTENING, and the guys and gals that WERE THERE, and that figured all of this stuff out, DESERVE to have the TRUTH told about what happened. Just saying. PLEASE do more research next time!! DO NOT give up though!! ...just do better! Those that went on before AND those that come here to LEARN about them deserve better.

Never forget the US promised us a supercharged Alison and went back on the promise. The name apache was purely post war.

@edwardpate6128

7 ай бұрын

It did have a supercharger, it was a single stage / single speed one. The Allison was designed to be used in conjunction with the supercharger and an external turbo-supercharger as used in the P-38 which worked very well.

@neiloflongbeck5705

7 ай бұрын

Nope, it was an internal NAA name that was dropped after the RAF adopted the name Mustang.

@tauncfester3022

7 ай бұрын

You got a supercharger it was just a single stage and tuned for lower altitudes.

@wilburfinnigan2142

7 ай бұрын

@@tauncfester3022 Just like the majority of 20 series Merlins !! ONLY the 60 series Merlins late 1942 early 1943 had the 2stage supercharger. as an example of the 20,000+ $hitfires built only 7,000 had the LATER, get that LATER 60 series 2 stage supercharged merlins !!!!! AND none of the Hurrycanes or Lancaster bombers ever got the 60 series 2 stage merlins.People like to compare the Allison to JUST the 60series 2 stage merlins, but remember there were over 35.000 Allison engined fighters that served the whole war, it was not a bad engine, P38 P39's P40's. and the P40was the third most produced US Fighter be hind the P47 and the P51 with 14,000 being built. P38 P39 p51A A36 P63

@wilburfinnigan2142

7 ай бұрын

womble BULL$HIT ALL Allisons had a supercharger, a single stage just as most of the merlins had and was usual for the day,. The Allison engined Mustangs the Mk I &IA and The Mk II were both 30 MPH faster than the then latest mark $hitfire MkV's LATER get that LATER merlin in the $hitfire got the 60 series 2 stage merlins , You run your ignorant mouth without a cue !! !Do the damn research on the planes and engines and do NOT rely on gossip !!! DUUUUHH!!!!

You got quite a bit wrong.

Looks like a b...