Thank you Squarespace for sponsoring this video. Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com/megaprojects for 10% off on your first purchase of a website/domain.

@Cassiel75

13 күн бұрын

I have heard that a p51 mustang broke the soundbarrier in a violent dive.. Anyone is this a fact or is this just a rumour?

@davidhetzman5821

13 күн бұрын

Can you do a video for the a1 skyraider from the veitnam war in the roll of a cas prop aircraft

@genericusername5909

13 күн бұрын

Is that Music for a forgotten future playing behind Simon in the intro? Clearing that would have to be expensive

@chrisb9960

13 күн бұрын

Has the channel ever done a video on the Brooklyn Bridge inclusive of its updates and maintenance?

@sparky6086

12 күн бұрын

North American wasn't completely new to the fighter game. Before they were Norrh American, they were a company called Fokker. They were the American branch & spun off from the Dutch company.

On May 17, 2024, Col Bud Anderson passed away in Auburn, California at the age of 102. Col. Anderson was a WWII triple Ace. The plane he flew was a Mustang named “Old Crow.” Rest easy Colonel…

@waynesimpson2074

12 күн бұрын

That's saddening news, I can only say thank you to him and his fellow pilots. The shear aggression and bravery of those young flyers was desperately needed by the Allies at that time, they took the War straight into the Nazi's front garden. They even stopped camouflaging their 'Stangs later in the war, polishing them to a highly visible aluminium sheen to goad the Luftwaffe to come up and fight. We will never see a generation like them again. RIP.

@fredbishop9434

12 күн бұрын

Sad to hear. Have a model of his old crow fighter and have many of his interviews in magazines. He was always a fantastic interview and I learned a great deal from that cool old gent. Very classy and humble man.

@jacktattis

12 күн бұрын

@@waynesimpson2074 No that was not to goad the Luftwaffe to come up. It was to show the bomber crews that they were on their way. Germans had cammed planes and the Brits only had cammed planes and there had been too many friendly fire incidents.

@JaimieB.DogJack

11 күн бұрын

I've heard of Old Crow. Cool to know who flew it.

@imapopo2924

11 күн бұрын

O7 Colonel. Rest easy.

My grandfather was a gunner on a half-track (whenever they could get the thing to run) during WWII and would always glow a little when bringing up the P-51. He says that plane absolutely saved his life. When things looked grim, he heard the Mustangs coming and knew everything was going to be alright. He spoke of the Mustang the way today's soldiers talk about the A-10. High praise.

@noreply-7069

11 күн бұрын

A-10 has caused lots of friendly fire incidents despite its reputation.

@Bidimus1

10 күн бұрын

@@noreply-7069 All close air support does. A-10 Thunderbolt II was named for the best Fighter/Bomber the USAAF had the P47 Thunderbolt.

@TheRedneckRoman16

10 күн бұрын

Only the Mustang has less Blue on Blue.

@ianbabcock6802

10 күн бұрын

The OG freedom dispenser.

@lucasfragoso7634

9 күн бұрын

​@@Bidimus1 im sprry but whats your source? Because the F16 takes the roll of the US's best CAS aircraft currently. The F111 was the best during the Gulf war. The A10 was never that good and the fact its being replaced by a crop duster proves this

As an American, my favorite brit plane has to be the Mosquito. That thing was nuts 2 merlin engines and made of a widely available resource at the time. *chef's kiss*

@wtbanation6268

13 күн бұрын

For sure man I’m right with you. Wish it had a scarier name, mosquitos are dangerous but don’t conjure images of terror the way the aircraft did

@Alan-gx8gf

13 күн бұрын

Canadian Spruce I believe ?

@SoloRenegade

13 күн бұрын

When operating at low altitudes, teh Mosquito would have been a far superior design using two Allison V12s (lighter, lower drag, more HP, more fuel efficient, more reliable, easier to manufacture and maintain).

@CoreyBrisson

13 күн бұрын

Shit. Canadian? Geneva wants to know your location.... 😂

@Legitpenguins99

13 күн бұрын

​@@wtbanation6268 mosquitos have killed more humans than any creature in history. Malaria is a bitch. To me at least mosquito is a scary name

We live near a small airport west of Calgary, Alberta where someone has a P51 Mustang. The owner will fly it often during the summer months. It’s amazing to see and hear! A couple of times I’ve seen the P51 and another plane (I think it’s a Spitfire) playing around and pretending to dog fighting. Very enjoyable to watch while sitting on our deck sipping on a lemonade. Peace.

@Crioten

13 күн бұрын

Some are scaled down models that are about 2/3 the size and perfrom amazing... ask if it's a real one and you may get a ride... in the US they have awesome programs for pilots to take kiddos up for free to gain hours etc

@dbf1dware

12 күн бұрын

I do especially love the sound the P51 makes.

@gregedwards1087

12 күн бұрын

"Another Plane, I think it's a Spitfire", ?????????? How can you not know if it is a Spitfire, one of the most recognisable aircraft on the planet?

@LeeBrown-zi4bh

12 күн бұрын

Sophisticated growl of the Merlin

@MisterKnightly

12 күн бұрын

Springbank! And you're right, there's a Spitfire out here too.

As a Brit we were taught that it was the Spitfire that won the air battle over the uk, However it was actually the hurricane which was made in far greater numbers usually flown by pilots whose country was occupied by Axis forces, at the break out of the battle of Britain we had over 18 squadrons also by the end of production in July 1944, 14,487 units had been built.

@darkraven8103

13 күн бұрын

Sorry to say but you are just straight up wrong. The Spitfire was built in much higher numbers (around 5000 more) and at least during the battle of Britain it is true that the Hurricane got more kills than the Spitfire but the thing is there were WAY more Hurricanes compared to Spitfires and even then their kill ratios were about the same. Also I'm pretty sure Hurricanes were often sent after the bombers and Spitfires after the fighters which just goes to show what plane was better at dealing with the enemy fighters. Though I will say obviously it was important to stop all the Axis planes not just the bombers or fighters but all types.

@JC-fz2pv

13 күн бұрын

@@darkraven8103 So 5000 more Spitfires were built, but there were "WAY more hurricanes"? Not being a smart ass but im confused.

@kendutchess

13 күн бұрын

My Uncle who flew them in WW2 Swore by them. He loved them until he passed.

@jacoblongbrake8230

13 күн бұрын

And the p fifty one finished it

@darkraven8103

13 күн бұрын

@@JC-fz2pv Dude surely you are not that dumb. What I mean is during the battle of Britain there were more Hurricanes compared to Spitfires but ultimately by the end of the war around 5k more Spitfires were built compared to the Hurricane. (roughly 20k Spitfires vs 15k Hurricanes)

My late grandpa flew this plane. He loved being in it. He did not talk about the war, but he would talk about this beautiful machine. Thank you for making this video. His plane name is California Coaster.

I want to thank our British allies for help making that airplane what it is today. Without the Merlin, I do not believe the Mustang would be NEARLY as successful and legendary as it is held to today. That pairing of the Merlin with an US airframe makes it just as much as your aircraft as it is ours. Be proud!

@4literv6

13 күн бұрын

Nope read the story on the Packard built licensed Merlin engines! Us Americans took it, simplified it AND mass fkn produced it=winning! 😎 And at low altitude as others have said the A-36 kicked ass!

@conroypawgmail

13 күн бұрын

@@4literv6- ...and if the Brits didn't let Packard build the Merlin, the P-51 would have had what? Packard built Alison engines?

@ald1144

13 күн бұрын

​@@4literv6Packard improved it, sure, and mass produced it. Still a Brit engine though. We would have been stuck with the Allison otherwise.

@GankbotShuk

13 күн бұрын

We did what we always do. They gave us a solid engine, we took a look at it and slapped a turbocharger on it for MOAR. If you go through WW2 planes more than a few times our solution was just to strap a bigger engine on it. Kinda amusing but does not take away from the joint effort to make the P51 a monster.

@waynesimpson2074

12 күн бұрын

@@GankbotShuk Please look up the Merlin engine development when you get a moment, its a great way to spend your time. The Merlin had a supercharger not a turbocharger. In fact it morphed into a 2 speed, 2 stage supercharged engine with outstanding performance and efficiency which owed a great deal to the supply of high octane fuel from the USA. The Packard built Merlins were superior to the Rolls Royce units due to improved pressurized Bendix carbs, excellent main bearings using improved US metalurgy and unhindered( by Nazi bombing) production runs. Commonality between different RR engineered parts was rare whereas the US war machine could school Heinz on rapid, high volume, mass produced, production engineering; hence the P51 gaining the nick-name Spam Can.

One of the great ironies of history is that North American Aviation had its roots in Fokker, the Dutch aircraft manufacturer for Germany in WWI, and the lead engineer for the P-51 was German immigrant Ed Schmued. Amazing.

@rodrigorincongarcia771

8 күн бұрын

Not such a great irony if you think the dutch (fokker planes included) were fighting against the german in WWII

@talltale9760

8 күн бұрын

And Russians. P-35 and P-47 along with a lot of our helicopters.

@steveperreira5850

8 күн бұрын

I was told by Greg’s airplanes and others. No possibility of finding the truth here on this channel. Boiler plate lobster, that’s all timing is good for

@bobsakamanos4469

6 күн бұрын

@@steveperreira5850 LOL, take Greg's info with a grain of salt.

The Mustang and the Corsair were not only high-performance with good range but were beautiful planes. Some like the Hellcat, but it was not the same beautiful machine, although beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If one was a Navy aviator whose life had been saved by a Hellcat, they would find it beautiful. Goering said it all when he first saw a Mustang over Berlin. He knew the war was over for Germany.

The impact of the Merlin engine on the P-51's development is understated here. Up until then it couldn't compete at the higher altitudes that the Western Front required. It was only after the installation of the licensed Merlin engine with its two stage two speed supercharger that the Mustang actually became viable as a high altitude, long range escort fighter

@ratchet2505

13 күн бұрын

the engine gave the performance, what the Americans gave was the detachable fuel tanks which led to such an increase in range it was a cheat code.

@SoloRenegade

13 күн бұрын

With the Allison engine, the P-51 was the single fastest fighter of WW2. down low, no other fighter could catch it. Compared to the Merlin, the Allison was $6k cheaper, 300lb lighter, more fuel efficient, had fewer parts, was easier to maintain and more reliable, was smaller and lower drag, and was putting out more than 1800HP in 1942, and over 2200HP by 1944. The Mustang flew to Berlin with the Allison (doing Recon) before the P-51B was ever ready. The P-51 with Allison was the first allied fighter plane to enter German airspace in WW2, and operated with the RAF for a full year prior to the P-47 showing up, and the RAF only lost 8 Allison Mustangs to enemy fire in its first 18months of combat. The P-38 proved that with a proper high altitude forced induction system, the Allison was a far more powerful engine than the Merlin at high altitude, which is why they never put Merlins in the P-38 (they did think about it, but the studies quickly showed it was a waste of time to try, as the airplane would be slower and less fuel efficient).

@gregsutton2400

13 күн бұрын

@@ratchet2505 It is the Mustangs internal fuel that is incredible, anything can carry drop tanks.

@LeeBrown-zi4bh

12 күн бұрын

Bladder tank under the pilot seat gave it even more range. #P 51D

@robertpatrick3350

12 күн бұрын

@@SoloRenegadethe first sentence is incorrect

I had an old neighbor who told me about his time as a mechanic servicing American fighters flying missions out of Britain. He called the P-51 a “thoroughbred racing horse”, and the P-47 a “solid draft horse”. He said if you were a pilot who wanted to impress his girlfriend, you got your picture taken in a P-51. But if you were a husband wanting to convince your wife you’d be returning home, you got your picture taken in a P-47.

@jeffmcdonald4225

12 күн бұрын

I guess it's a matter of preference. As a boy, all my dad's friends said the Corsair was the best plane we had during the entire war. Years later, though, I met a pilot who said the Lightning was (he flew one). 😁

@Maverick8t88

12 күн бұрын

My grandfather was a mechanic on both 47’s and 51’s. He said much the same about the planes.

@jedimasterdraco6950

11 күн бұрын

I personally favor the Corsair as well, rugged as the P-47, but one of the only planes that could outfly the Ki-84. The fact that they were still being built into the 50s should tell ya something.

@darthmarvin247

9 күн бұрын

@@jeffmcdonald4225 -"As a boy, all my dad's friends said the Corsair was the best plane we had during the entire war. Years later, though, I met a pilot who said the Lightning was (he flew one). " I think this just goes to show that many times the correct answer is just "it depends". It depends on the mission, the overall conditions, the opponents you expect to be facing, etc. I think difficulty also played a role. The Corsair and the P 51 were quite difficult to fly (or so I've heard, take this with a huge grain of salt), while something like the Hellcat or even the Yak 3 was more beginner friendly. Important when you have new recruits.

While everyone first thinks of the F-14 when the Top Gun movies come up, the epilogue of Top Gun Maverick is probably the best epilogue anyone could have made (in Hollywood) for the P51. Like him or not, Tom Cruise is one lucky SOB to own and be flying one of those remaining, operational Mustangs...

Historians seem to forget that after the US entered the war, prior to the introduction of the Mustang, it was the P-47 and the P-38 doing the heavy lifting (as best the could in those aircraft) against the very best that the Luftwaffe could field. These aircraft thinned the ranks of the Luftwaffe prior to the Mustang seeing action. The P-51 was the superlative fighter, no doubt, but give credit where it is due.

@steveperreira5850

8 күн бұрын

Simon is a puffy exaggerator, so seek the truth elsewhere, Such as Greg’s airplanes

FINALLY THE P51 VIDEO! Now the other Mustang please!

@adelewalsh1377

13 күн бұрын

lets start with the spitfire with a not packard made under license merlin engine.

@Fortunes.Fool.

13 күн бұрын

@@adelewalsh1377 kzread.info/dash/bejne/emGqw9GmqJa4ZJs.html is Simon’s Spitfire video. Now can I please be excited about the Mustang video?

@BattleshipOrion

13 күн бұрын

@@adelewalsh1377 Spitfire is spitfire, moar Mustang!

@mwdouglas3794

13 күн бұрын

I'd like a F4U Corsair video.

@Fortunes.Fool.

13 күн бұрын

@@mwdouglas3794 You’re welcome to start the campaign. I’ve been in these comments for a few years asking for a Mustang video, either the car or the plane who I love equally.

Amazing thing about the Mustang is that it’s one of the few things in life that lives up to the hype. I recently got to watch, and more importantly hear, a pair of Mustangs at the MCAS Cherry Point Airshow, and they were even more breathtaking than I’ve always heard. It really is the ultimate in mechanically beautiful sound and design in person. Everyone you’ve ever heard talk and rave about it is right. They are beautiful, and they sound even better.

My grandfather flew p-51s and was an ace in WWII. This was a pleasure to watch

My uncle, Langdon Badger, was an avid non-commercial pilot, as well as a successful businessman. In his 30s he bought a Mustang and used to fly it from Parafield Airport near Adelaide in South Australia. After a couple of years, being a father of three and knowing the dangers of flying such a plane, he reluctantly sold it. The new owner flew it in an air show in Queensland (I think) and tragically suffered a catastophic high-speed crash into the terra firma, completely destryong the Mustang and killing himself. My industrious uncle also recovered a wrecked Spitfire from Papua New Ginuea which he restored (with minor assistance from my cousins and me on weekends). From a serial number he located the pilot who was flying the Spitfire when it ran off the runway upon landing, Alec Chomley, who lived in Melbourne. The two familes became good friends. Alec came over to see the unveiling of the completed plane and it was all on the local news. Upon squeezing his somewhat portly frame into the cockpit Alec quipped "You've done everything else right Langdon, but you made the cockpit too small". My uncle recently passed away but his Spitfire remains here in the South Australian Aviation Museum at Port Adelaide.

@45CaliberCure

9 күн бұрын

I swear, that name is so baller. And I'm old as hell, so I don't usually use that term. Thank you for the great interjection of personal experience. Really cool that you lived with a legend.

Also, North American didn't purchase the design of the P51 from Curtiss. At the behest of the British, they purchased the blueprints of the P40 to study fighter design (as stated, they had no experience in that area) and whilst some broad design concepts were carried over (such as the one piece wing) the P51 owed next to nothing to the P40. It was a homogenous clean paper design. Even then, the early P51's were not that good. Certainly, with the same Alison engine it was on a par with the P40 but no better. It took Rolls Royce trial fitting a Merlin to start the P51's genesis into a truly great fighter.

@Sakai070

13 күн бұрын

Came here to say this.

@SoloRenegade

13 күн бұрын

Not remotely true. You can read the USAAF test report of the P-51A and it was far superior. The P-40 is underrated, but it was no match for the P-51. With the Allison engine, the P-51 was the single fastest fighter of WW2. down low, no other fighter could catch it, not even a Merlin Mustang. Compared to the Merlin, the Allison was $6k cheaper, 300lb lighter, more fuel efficient, had fewer parts, was easier to maintain and more reliable, was smaller and lower drag, and was putting out more than 1800HP in 1942, and over 2200HP by 1944. The Mustang flew to Berlin with the Allison (doing Recon) before the P-51B was ever ready. The P-51 with Allison was the first allied fighter plane to enter German airspace in WW2, and operated with the RAF for a full year prior to the P-47 showing up, and the RAF only lost 8 Allison Mustangs to enemy fire in its first 18months of combat as a ground attack fighter. The A-36 was the single best dive bomber of WW2, and the ONLY Allied aircraft in all of WW2 allowed to perform Danger Close bomb drops to troops in contact due to its superior accuracy in the dive. The P-38 proved that with a proper high altitude forced induction system, the Allison was a far more powerful engine than the Merlin at high altitude, which is why they never put Merlins in the P-38 (they did think about it, but the studies quickly showed it was a waste of time to try, as the airplane would be slower and less fuel efficient).

@jfess1911

13 күн бұрын

The Merlin was always considered a potential engine for the Mustang. Even before the first one flew, an agreement had been made with Packard, who was tooling up to build the Merlin in the US. One of the first airframes was set aside for Merlin testing, but it took a while for an engine to become available. At the time the P-51 was being designed, it was not yet clear how future engine development would go, so it made sense to be ready to use either one.

@Sakai070

13 күн бұрын

@@SoloRenegade I had the pleasure of watching both a p40 and p51 doing low passes at a small airshow in Maine. They started close in trail, but after about 5 evolutions (high speed pass followed by a climb, then reverse direction and dive into another high speed pass, repeat. A chandelle essentially) the mustang was a full evolution ahead of the p40, both going full out on their passes. It really put the. Increase of aircraft performance Between those two models in high contrast.

@SoloRenegade

13 күн бұрын

@@Sakai070 The P-40 is actually quite a beast below 15k ft. I've talked to many pilots and mechanics of the P-40, P-51, etc. And I've talked to many engineers who also redesign parts and engines for them. The Allison is their preferred engine, and the P-40 and p-51 are both great designs according to them. The flight test report by the USAAF of the prototype P-51 was very good, with only the P-40 having a chance against it below 15k ft (and the test report looked at multiple different prominent US fighters in comparison). The P-40 flight test data people cite is based upon the XP-40 at only 1000HP, and yet it was only 10mph slower than the "mighty" P-47. The P-40A had 1400HP. And reports from both US and RAF generals reported RAF and US pilots were pushing their P-51 and P-40 Allison engines to 72-75" MAP, and so Allison tested their engines at 70" MAP and got 1800HP for over 20min continuously and suffered no damage to the engine. This when the engines were only approved for 56" MAP and 1400HP officially. Yet no P-51 nor P-40 has EVER been flight tested at 1800HP with an allison engine. And by 1944, the Allison engine was putting out 2200HP at 70" MAP. Again, No P-40 nor P-51 was EVER flight tested at 2200HP with an Allison engine. All P-51 Allison flight tests were done at 1400HP and no more, and P-40 data is based upon only 1000HP. These two airplanes were FAR more capable than stated, with the 2200HP P-40N going 410mph in level flight. Who knows how fast the P-51A was going in level flight on 2200HP. The P-51B/C/D/K were only getting 1600HP with the Merlin, which was a 300lb heavier engine and a larger less aerodynamic engine too, yet the official top speed with the Merlin is something like 445mph. The Allison P-51s were said to be THE fastest single engine fighters of WW2, and could evade any attackers simply by running away if need be, but no one has ever tested how fast they were actually going at those power levels. The problem with the P-40 was it was designed before the NACA drag study was conducted, and many mistakes in its design were made. North American (NA) learned from the NACA testing and worked closely with NACA on the laminar flow wing. In fact, it was NACA that convinced NA to use it on the P-51. NA had an entire non-laminar flow wing design ready incase the laminar flow wing didn't end up working, as their contract with the RAF was conditional on a fixed timeline, and they couldn't risk the laminar flow wing failing. So they had an entire backup wing with traditional airfoils ready, but the laminar flow wing worked in testing (50% lower drag than any comparable wing ever designed up to that point) and they never used the backup. But I have no records of that wing design, which airfoil they used, etc. NA knew that to fix the problems with the P-40 design meant a new fuselage and a new wing, so no point in trying to fix something and best to go clean sheet. Edgar Schmued, the lead engineer, had been working on the P-51 concept design for many years prior to the RAF reaching out to NA for more P-40s, and so now he had his chance to make it real, but many of its design elements had actually already been worked out in advance and NA was waiting for their chance to make a fighter of their own.

18:42- the lols aspect of the 1944 ‘air superiority’ campaign by the 8th airforce was that P47s (which at that stage HAD received the go ahead to use drop tanks) actually accounted for more german aircraft destroyed than the Mustang.

Simon: The P-51 was the linchpin of the Air war P-47: Am I a joke to you?

@SoloRenegade

13 күн бұрын

yes, the P-47 is overrated, the P-51 is legit superior in so many ways it's not even funny.

@conroypawgmail

13 күн бұрын

@@SoloRenegade - I would dare say you have it backwards. The P-51 is overrated and the P-47 doesn't get the recognition it deserves. While the P-51 is superior in many ways, it is also INFERIOR is many ways as well, such as durability and firepower. Unfortunately for Republic, the P-47 was much more expensive to produce than the P-51 Mustang and in a war of attrition, numbers wins.

@cutl00senc

13 күн бұрын

@@SoloRenegade nonsense….the thunderbolt was favored by most of the pilots in Europe.

@SoloRenegade

13 күн бұрын

@@cutl00senc Not true. Only ETO MoH was a P-51. Zemke hated it, but didn't complain and developed ways to make it work anyways. Many P-47 commanders switched to the P-51 first chance they got. P-38 pilots in PTO got switched to the P-47 and wanted their P-38 back and complained until they did get their P-38 back. A-36 pilots preferred it over the P-47, and fought tooth and nail to avoid getting the P-47. After WW2 the P-47 fell out of favor rather quickly. USA gave them away and few nations really used them. P-51 was faster at all altitudes, faster climb rate, more maneuverable, faster in a dive, longer range, used half the fuel for a any given distance flown, could use shorter airfields closer to teh front lines, were half the price, consumed half the raw material, took less time to produce, took far fewer man hours of maintenance between missions, and were doing CAS, fighter sweeps and recon for a full year in ETO prior to the P-47's first ever combat mission. And the range of weapons the P-51 used was staggering.

@15wylee

13 күн бұрын

The F4U Corsair that shot down a Mustang in a dog fight enters chat.

No doubt P51 was a big hit in Europe. But in the Pacific it was the early flyers of F4F, P-38 and P-40 that saved the day in the Solomons and the Carrier battles. Then in 1943 the F6F and Corsair arrived and Japan had NO CHANCE. Both had incredible kill ratios and the F6F shot down the most planes in the war. Unreal how US produced so many different types of planes at the same time.

@davidmacy411

8 күн бұрын

It should also be said that the British were so bad at designing Navy aircraft that they still used biplanes in ww2. Then they got their hands on all the Wildcats, Hellcats, and Corsairs (the Brits cracked the code on how to make it a proper carrier fighter btw), and they LOVED all of them. They tried adapting the Spitfire for carrier action, but it didnt work hardly at all.

@richardmeo2503

7 күн бұрын

@@davidmacy411 They hate to admit it, but US saved all of the world's free nations

There's a local hobby air group here that operates near/from March ARB in California that performs on certain holidays such as Memorial Day and Independance Day, as well as USAF air shows. The group consists of two or three P-51 Mustangs as well as (if I remember correctly) a Spitfire and a Zero. It is a spectacular sight to see these iconic aircraft of WWII flying together in peaceful formation.

The Mustang and the Shelby Cobra are testaments to what happens when you combine British and American engineering. Something fast, scary, and legendary.

Mustang only existed in significant numbers because the British wanted a replacement for the Curtis P49 Warhawk/Kittyhawk. North American Aircraft company had the Mustang ready to go with a low altitude Alison engine. A Rolls Royce test pilot suggested it be tried with a two stage Merlin. It took just 6 weeks to engineer the Mustang X complete with air to air intercooler alongside the engine water radiator.

@ghostinchains664

10 күн бұрын

Exactly. The original Allison Mustang was almost rejected when it arrived in England. Even the US Air Corp rejected it as a fighter, re-bagded as A-36 Apache, and restricted it to ground attack. Even adding dive brakes. The Brits made the Mustang the plane it became. From the Merlin to the bubble top canopies (yes a British design incorporated by the US)

@Bidimus1

10 күн бұрын

I think the P51 was designed from scratch to use Allison or Merlin (one of the first airfames was set aside for this) though only Allison's were available . Merlins were in P40's as well. For fun watch kzread.info/dash/bejne/dpefldurYay5lNY.html how North American came to be (spoiler it was Fokker USA mostly )

@ghostinchains664

10 күн бұрын

@@Bidimus1 the Mustang was built with just the Allison and the Merlin was an after thought by the British. The Brits contracted North American to build a new fighter loosely based on the P-40 and it was built with the Allison. When it arrived overseas, the brits found in underpowered and had poor high altitude performance. It was almost REJECTED until they said "what if....) and the Merlin Mustang was born. Packard was immediately contracted to build the Merlin. It's first engine was shipped to England to be examined by Rolls Royce. Expecting to find an inferior engine because they believed it wasn't possible to build a Merlin in an assembly line, soon discovered that Packard had actually IMPROVED the Merlin. Yes, some P-40s were Merlin powered and those were considered to be almost equal to the Merlin Mustang. Sadly, the government earmarked the Packard Merlin strictly for Mustangs. The poor preforming Allison Mustangs were re-bagded as the A-36 Apache and were assigned strictly to a ground attack platform. They were even modified with dive brakes. So no, the Mustang was never introduced with one or the other, just the Allison. Pure luck that someone by chance, tossed a Merlin in one. BTW, bubble canopies were also adapted from the British

@rodrigorincongarcia771

9 күн бұрын

@@ghostinchains664 they asked for the P-40, but almost rejected the obviously better P-51? That sound odd

@ghostinchains664

9 күн бұрын

@@rodrigorincongarcia771 they already had the Tomahawk. They wanted North American to IMPROVE the design into a new fighter which led to the Mustang. But when the RAF received the Mustang with the allison, they determined it was no better than what they already had. An RAF test pilot suggested they replace the allison (same engine used by the Tomahawk) with a Merlin and that led to Packard licensing the Merlin. The US had no interest or input into the Mustang program. What they had on inventory with the allison was re-badged the A-36 apache, added air brakes and used it as a ground attack platform. Curtis started using the Merlin in P-40s until the government earmarked all Merlins for mustangs. P-40D I believe are the Merlin Tomahawks. Everything after were Allison. The P-40 Merlin was proven to ALMOST equal the mustang's performance but was still outdated. The bubble canopy was also a British design

Claiming which WW2 fighter was the best is a fools errand. It's comparing apples and Oranges. I can name 5 to 7 US fighters that can also claim the badge for different times and assignments it was designed to perform.

I view the P-51 as being one of the most badass planes of World War II 🇺🇸

@15wylee

13 күн бұрын

Hmmmm idk, don't get me wrong absolutely awesome plane but the Corsair. And furthermore a Corsair shot down a Mustang in air to air combat. Corsair was faster, better climb rate, 600 more HP, slower stall speed, tighter turn radius (no flaps) substantially tighter turn radius with flaps and double the payload.

@jacktattis

10 күн бұрын

@@15wylee Only the Post war Corsair was faster and had a better climb rate tighter turn Eric Brown has said the Corsair was as manoeuvrable as a bus

A story was told by the Merlin project manager at Rolls-Royce: The Packard representative in the UK came into his office and complained that the car company could not build the engine as it was designed. The Rolls-Royce engineer rather loftily inquired if the engineering tolerances were too tight, to which the American responded that they were not nearly tight enough to accommodate mass production, further explaining that in order to mass produce these engines, every part had to fit every engine without hand-machining on the line because the parts would have to be swappable into any engine of the type. Suitably chastened, the design changes were made - nearly eleven thousand changes throughout the engine, to build the mass-produced, highly scalable engine that Rolls-Royce was producing by the end of the war.

@krashd

12 күн бұрын

They were both car companies at that time, the Rolls Royce aviation division was not spun-off from it's parent until the 1960's.

@philiphumphrey1548

12 күн бұрын

The Americans also insisted on fitting a pressure carburettor which finally allowed the engine to keep working upside down and in negative gravity.

@jacktattis

10 күн бұрын

@@philiphumphrey1548 If that was the Speed Density Carburettor then it was originally a R/R -S/U carburettor

@jacktattis

10 күн бұрын

No that was Ford NOT Packard rUBBISH ALL IMPROVEMENT S APPROVED BY r/r PACKARD PRODUCTION ONLY.

@waynec3563

10 күн бұрын

@@jacktattis Yes, Ford UK were making the Merlin before Packard was approached.

I just love that the whatever the secret sauce was so so broken compared to other fighters of the day that tactics devolved into, "Just destroy whatever the hell you want when not on escort duty." And it took an entirely new technology in jet fighters to temporarily put the P-51 in its place.

My second favourite from WW2, my number one being the Spitfire ❤

@Blinkerd00d

13 күн бұрын

I'm a F6F fan!

@jamesdellaneve9005

13 күн бұрын

Yes. Those are my 2 favorite. BF-109 was great too.

@ianmacdiarmid1249

13 күн бұрын

Personally, I like the P-38.

@mikepatton8691

13 күн бұрын

My favorite is the P-38, but the P-51 is definitely in my top 5 WW2 aircraft.

@DK-gy7ll

13 күн бұрын

Personally I preferred the Corsair, but the Mustang was a more well-rounded airplane.

During the early deployment of P51s, there were genuine concerns about the silhouette of P51 looked too alike that of Bf109 causing pilots confusion. Fortunately that issue gradually disappeared after better training and also Bf109 moving to Eastern Front.

@joerarey8496

13 күн бұрын

it hampered the germans. they frequently mention mistaking ponies for 109s

The P-51 just looks fantastic. Its performance was fantastic as well but I could never get over how good it looked. Especially the polished ones with nose art on them.

P-51 was ultimately the most aerodynamic piston fighter of the war. A wonderful and needed long distance fighter that was the best in that role, designed with contributions from many international sources. True synergy by engineers, aerodynamicists, scientists and NAA managers.

I've seen a lot of prop and jet planes, but the Mustang is definitely in the top 5 of the most beautiful fighters.

1:00 - Mid roll ads 2:35 - Chapter 1 - Building the mustange 7:25 - Chapter 2 - One hell of a warbird 12:00 - Chapter 3 - (Wrong title card)

I had a flight in a TF-51D Mustang. Fantastic power and agility.

25 years ago I was playing golf with 3 friends at a course next to Craig airfield in Jax, FL. We were on the 9th hole a long par 5 that ran parallel to runway. Everything & everyone came to a stop because of the engine noise of a P-51 taxiing to take off and then flying over the golf course. The sound and sight was something special of that aircraft. Shalom

I have never heard of the P-51 being a Curtiss design. While there is a general similarity to the P-40, (and the Me-109, why not?) the P-51 was an original North American design with a completely different wing and cooling system and many other details. North American no doubt avoided a lot of mistakes by studying the Curtiss design, but that is not the same as saying Curtiss designed it. The P-51 was not outstanding until it got the Merlin engine. Packard made a lot of improvements to the Merlin. One detail that is often left out is that German engines got similar performance while running on low-octane fuel that would choke a Merlin to death. The Merlin would only run on the high-octane fuel that could only be supplied in quantity by the USA. Take that away, and the Merlin would have been scrap metal. The P-40 was a solid airplane that Curtiss was never really able to improve on. Later models received the Packard Merlin engine, which improved performance, but it could not equal the newer design. Also, the range of the P-51 was not that much greater than the P-47, if the P-47 had not been doctrinally forbidden to use drop tanks in combat until very late in the war. This detail was buried by the USAAF because they did not want to admit that such an arbitrary and stupid decision had gotten hundreds of unescorted bombers shot down, their crews killed or captured. Much of the P-51's internal fuel was in a fuselage tank behind the cockpit that, when full, made the plane difficult to fly and nearly impossible to fight in. Of course, an internal tank cannot be jettisoned if you get jumped at an inopportune time.

@paulferraro1891

13 күн бұрын

+1 on this. Never, ever heard before that the P51 was a Curtis design and that NAA purchased the design....

@joshcochran2217

13 күн бұрын

Yeah, no idea where they got that but they need to correct it.

@SoloRenegade

13 күн бұрын

Because the P-51 was not a Curtiss design. North American was forced to evaluate the Curtiss failed design. North American ended up using nothing from Curtiss, as the P-51 concept had already been drawn up and slowly refined by Edgar Schmeud for years prior.

@ald1144

13 күн бұрын

It wasn't. NAA was only supposed to build more P-40s. When they saw the blueprints they basically said, "nah, we can do better than this." And they did.

@ald1144

13 күн бұрын

The fuselage tank wasn't impossible to fight with-- just really, really tricky. Bud Anderson, may he rest in peace, recounted an occasion in his book when he forgot to burn the fuel out of it and got into a fight. He kept a handle on it, but he never did it again!

I'm from New Zealand: the F4F Wildcat and friends (Dauntless and Devastator-then-Avenger, as well as the US Marines) saved our necks.

@keithdubose2150

12 күн бұрын

True.... the P51 hastened Germany's defeat, the F4 wild cat & variants, SBD Dauntless in the Pacfic,, Hawker Hurricane & P47 stemmed the tide of the axis when the Allies did not have overwhelming numbers, quality, and pilot training/experience advantages

@jacktattis

12 күн бұрын

That is denigrating your own air-force USMC ate you out and the Aussies had to feed them as well.

@jollyroger1009

11 күн бұрын

@@jacktattis Stating the facts: in mid 1942 when the enemy of the day were in the Coral Sea and the Solomon Islands our guys were all in Europe. It was all America in this part of the world fighting for us. I'd say they earned their food a million times over

@jacktattis

10 күн бұрын

@@jollyroger1009 Not here in Australia they did not. Voracious in he extreme Our food they got the best . And never paid.

@Bidimus1

10 күн бұрын

And lots of P40's kzread.info/dash/bejne/dmZmw9yDkcWwYJc.html Rex Hanger P40 part 2 Commonwealth Forces SW Pacific

As truly beautiful a flying machine as the P-51 is, I prefer the P-47.

"The Fighter that Won World War Ii" is a bit of a stretch. By the time the P-51B arrived the war had well and truly turned agains the Germans and Japanese. It is true that the P-51B was vital in defeating the Luftwaffe, helping the success of D-Day. The Mustang I (the original P-51 meant for the RAF) started operations only in mid 1942. Some of the early Mustangs that landed in Britain were sent for performance testing, where one test pilot suggested that the Mustang be fitted with the Merlin 61, which had recently been introduced in the Spitfire IX. Rolls-Royce converted a couple to the Merlin for testing. Meanwhile NAA redesigned the P-51 to fit the Merlin - the P-51B. Teh P-51B was about 30mph faster than the Spitfire IX, which had, basicallym the same engine. The P-51B only started arriving in Britain in the last few months of 1943. It wasn't available in significant numbers until the first few months of 1944 (similarly for the P-38J). The Spitfire XIV started in service around the same time as the P-51B. It was fitted with the Griffon, and was just as fast as the P-51B. Bomber losses did not suddely fall when the escorts were able to go with the bombers to the target. Bombers were being lost in roughly the same numbers with escorts in early 1944 as they were without escorts in mid-late 1943. However, the Luftwaffe was losing more aircraft and pilots, and by D-Day the Luftwaffe was much less a threat.

I don't think it turned the tide. Germany was already doomed to lose the war by early 1944 when the Packard Merlin engined Mustang appeared in large numbers. And the P47 Thunderbolt was already successfully escorting bombers by then. The new Mustangs took over that job, allowing the P47s to move on to doing the much needed role of ground attack fighter bombers. Being much more robust and damage resistant than the Mustang, the P47 excelled in that role.

@richdurbin6146

10 күн бұрын

I think it's an interesting factoid that after the B-17 and B-24 the P-47 dropped the highest tonnage of bombs in the European theater of all American planes.

This and the spitfire were my favorite prop fighters from ww2

I've been in love with the Mustang ever since I saw it on Dogfights at 11 years old. Never gets old.

The real beauty was the combination of the plane/platform, and England's outstanding Merlin engine!

Thank you for the video. However, no single aircraft, engine, weapon, or other bit of technology "won the war." Victory over the Axis required the contributions--and sacrifices--of millions of people. Also, the Bf 110 had been phased out of the fighter role well before the Mustang arrived on the scene. Have to credit the Hurricanes and Spitfires for that. That said, I do believe the P-51 to be the most important fighter developed during the conflict, so it is nice to see it get some love as too many revisionists these days seem intent on tearing it down.

@Tank50us

7 күн бұрын

BF110s were still used in the bomber intercept role for a bit after that, but frankly, its days were already numbered by that point. However, in the Pacific the Mustang really wasn't as useful as the air war was fought mostly with aircraft who had to worry about the fact that their runway moved. The F-6F Hellcat probably had a greater effect in the Pacific than the Mustang did as it scored more victories over Japanese aircraft, flew for longer (it entered service late 1942 while the P-51D came in late 1944), and was better able to take a hit from Japanese ground fire. Attempts were made to make a Carrier version of the Mustang, but those attempts fell flat, especially since by that point if there was a fleet carrier in need of fighters, there were more than enough Hellcats to fill the role.

Saw one at an air show yesterday. They flew it alongside the F-35. Both really impressive planes.

USAAF doctrine changes regarding drop tanks, rules of engagement, escort shuttling tactics, and the attrition of experienced German pilots, made a good plane legendary.

I’ve heard the old Spitfire vs. Mustang argument countless times. The truth is that both made a HUGE contribution to the war effort, the difference being the former was designed as a short range interceptor and the latter as a long range escort. Apples and oranges.

Ahh the P-51. Began life as the A-36, which under 15k feet was lethal. Wasn't until the Rolls Royce/Merlin engine that the airframe really showed its potential. She was fast, nimble at high speeds and could dive faster than most airframes at the time. Remaining controllable at speeds no zero could could dive to. She really was leaps and bounds ahead of its time in terms of airframe design. It's crazy.

@nickdanger3802

13 күн бұрын

Packard Merlin

@SoloRenegade

13 күн бұрын

Wrong. The RAF used the MkI and MKII Mustangs beofre the A-36 came along. And the P-51 and P-51A also preceded the A-36. With the Allison engine, the P-51 was the single fastest fighter of WW2. down low, no other fighter could catch it, not even a Merlin Mustang. Compared to the Merlin, the Allison was $6k cheaper, 300lb lighter, more fuel efficient, had fewer parts, was easier to maintain and more reliable, was smaller and lower drag, and was putting out more than 1800HP in 1942, and over 2200HP by 1944. The Mustang flew to Berlin with the Allison (doing Recon) before the P-51B was ever ready. The P-51 with Allison was the first allied fighter plane to enter German airspace in WW2, and operated with the RAF for a full year prior to the P-47 showing up, and the RAF only lost 8 Allison Mustangs to enemy fire in its first 18months of combat as a ground attack fighter. The A-36 was the single best dive bomber of WW2, and the ONLY Allied aircraft in all of WW2 allowed to perform Danger Close bomb drops to troops in contact due to its superior accuracy in the dive. The P-38 proved that with a proper high altitude forced induction system, the Allison was a far more powerful engine than the Merlin at high altitude, which is why they never put Merlins in the P-38 (they did think about it, but the studies quickly showed it was a waste of time to try, as the airplane would be slower and less fuel efficient).

Nowadays, people talk about “game changer” weapon systems. But the P-51 was a true game changer. Just like like B-17, B-24 & B-29 bombers. Then there was the ultimate game changer…. Atomic weapons. 😂

@EricinSoKo

13 күн бұрын

There’s a compelling argument that this is a retroactive ass covering by the USAAF when they didn’t use P-47s for escorts when they WERE capable of escorting bombers into the heart of Germany.

A huge advantage of the Mustang was that Packard/Rolls-Royce were able to make the Merlin 61 engine run off 130 octane gasoline that used tetraethyl lead as an additive to allow the engine to generate much more power than equivalent German counterparts. That's why the P-51B/C models had a top speed of 440 mph, way faster than any single-engined _Luftwaffe_ fighter in early 1944, when the Mustangs started to be widely used in combat over Europe.

@josephrochefort9989

3 күн бұрын

We didn't have 130 octane gasoline. What we had was 100/130 which was 100 octane gasoline with a very high concentration of Tetra Ethyl Lead. But it would perform as 100 octane with a lean mixture and theoretically perform as 130 octane when ran with a rich mixture.

Probably the most iconic prop fighter aircraft.

Do the F-86 sabre next!!

No it didn't. Win the war, that is. It was truly an excellent aircraft when married to the Packard Merlin and made continued daylight bombing by the army air force a possibility. However, it was just one element amongst many.

"It was good why it lasted!" Hermann Goering after seeing P-51s over Berlin!

Thank you Mr Whistler for another wonderful presentation on what happens to be my most favorite world war II propeller driven aircraft! My first encounter occurred as I was approaching an air show and one of them flew over my head at the end of the runway that I was walking up to. Like an identify one of these magnificent aircraft just by the sound and not even being able to see it.

Oooo brave title - the P47 fans will be spitting feathers on this. I actually agree though that the hurricane with spitfire support stopped the allies losing but in terms of sweeping the skies the p47/51 were invaluable

@steveperreira5850

8 күн бұрын

Either the P 51 or the P 47 could have won the war in Europe without the other. As you well know, I think you know, the P 47 had the range, but the army screwed up. See Greg’s airplanes, P 47 Series , on range.

The Merlin engined Mustang entered European combat late in 1943, a little more than 4 years after the commencement of hostilities. Was it a great aircraft, most certainly. Did it win the war? Not even close. It barely arrived in time to participate in the war. By the time the Merlin Mustang reached its stride in 1944 the Luftwaffe was a shadow of it former self, suffering from poor pilot training andfuel shortages. A huge contributor to its success was Jimmy Doolittle, who in late 1943 allowed bomber fighter escorts to range ahead of the bomber streams to attack the Luftwaffe on far more favorable terms. He also permitted the long range fighter escort to attack targets of opportunity on the return trip. This typically meant shooting up airfields and Luftwaffe stragglers, increasing the rate of the its destruction. If the Mustang hadn't been born its role would have been filled by legions of P-47 and P-38's, both of which hugely improved over the course of the war.

there is just something about the P-51 that no other plane, excluding perhaps the spitfire, have. There is just something about it that you can take someone who knows nothing of fighter aircraft and show them it sitting in a barn and they will know its a badass. It just looks like its meant to be in the air. I remember seeing a picture of it as a kid and not knowing what it was but instantly thinking "wow thats cool"

If i had to choose one U.S. plane that deserves the main credit for defeating the Luftwaffe, I'd choose the P-47. By the time the P-51 got the engine upgrades and entered the fray in large numbers, the majority of the experienced luftwaffe pilots had already been eliminated. The P-51 basically came in and farmed the german rookie pilots for XP and inflated it's air-to-air numbers. At the same time, the P-47 was removed from escort duties & ordered to take on ground attack roles due to its strength and armament. And yes... with drop tanks, the P-47 could reach Berlin and back (range wasn't the issue). Fuel mileage and logistics is what tipped the scales towards the P-51. Still...7 out of 10 of the top U.S. aces in the ETO flew the P-47. If the P-47 had been left in the escort role alongside the P-51, the air-to-air numbers would be less skewed in favor of the P-51.

The German jet fighters had a very short flight time

@SmashedGlass

13 күн бұрын

The Jumo lasted less than 100 flight hours. It was garbage.

Despite the narrative british beef plus american air frame = chef kiss

@matthewgubbins8515

13 күн бұрын

That merlin engine. That thing was a beast

I have a friend who has gotten to ride in his uncle's P-51. Even the videos are crazy. So much power.

It's not just the plane that was great it was also the pilots flying this awesome machine. 👏 thank you to all who gave their lives to make sure we never had to see what might have been.

Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles had entered the chat

@mastathrash5609

13 күн бұрын

In before people start yelling.

@dalebob9364

13 күн бұрын

I love how we ignore the hurricane, hellcat, wildcat etcetera that actually did all the work. All so the beauty pageant P-51 could show up for the awards ceremony after all the hard work was done😊

@mastathrash5609

13 күн бұрын

​@dalebob9364 don't forget the p38! the plane that shot down yamamoto To be fair p51 Was doing work in it's earlier iterations. But won the war is a bit of streeetchex

@johnburns4017

13 күн бұрын

please, no!

Tomohawk does NOT equal Warhawk. This rates right there with quarterHOUSE! Simon, you not reading the script? Or not. "P-40 Warhawk was the name the United States Army Air Corps gave the plane, and after June 1941, the USAAF adopted the name for all models, making it the official name in the U.S. for all P-40s. The British Commonwealth and Soviet air forces used the name Tomahawk for models equivalent to the original P-40, P-40B, and P-40C, and the name Kittyhawk for models equivalent to the P-40D and all later variants." steve

@fraserhenderson7839

13 күн бұрын

3 times in 10 seconds! Tomahawk is a familiar American hook, Warthawk is completely unfamiliar unless you are a warbird buff. His brain slipped.

@SoloRenegade

13 күн бұрын

Tomahawk does equal warhawk as you proved. ALL P-40 in US service were Warhawks, and so they were the same as Tomahawks.

I love the beauty and power of the P-51, but I'm still more a fan of the Lockheed P-38 "Lightning." It saw action throughout the war in both Europe and the Pacific and was the plane that took out Yamamoto's bomber!

Tom Cruise's P51 flying at the end of Top Gun: Maverick is probably one of the most famous P-51s in private ownership, except maybe for the Reno Air Races ones…

Good video. However, the F4u Corsair was the best fighter of WW2. Simon, would you consider making a video on the Corsair?

@SoloRenegade

13 күн бұрын

P-51 was the F-22, F4U was teh F-35. F4U was amazing, but the P-51 was the better dive bomber, better high altitude fighter, longer ranged fighter, carrier capable if need be, multirole ground attacker, ertc. F4U was tougher, carrier capable, carried night hunting radar, etc. P-51 was faster too.

It didn’t win the war but it definitely shortened it

The truth is that whilst the P-51 Mustang was an undeniably good aeroplane, it was selected over the P-47 Thunderbolt purely for economic reasons, not because it was significantly better than the Thunderbolt, because it was not. If most pilots had their choice, on balance, they'd probably have preferred to be in a Thunderbolt, because it was undeniably a more 'survivable' option as well as being better at the job being asked of it. The Thunderbolt had less range than the Mustang, but with drop tanks that didn't really matter too much, what did matter however, was that the Thunderbolt cost more - a lot more - to make and acquire than the Mustang. In 1944, the Mustang cost about 50 grand to make, whereas the Thunderbolt cost 83 grand to make. This was important because we have to bear in mind that although the Allies never really stated it openly, the fact is, their plan involved a war of attrition against Germany; they knew they could afford to lose far more aeroplanes and men than Germany, to basically wear them down to the point where Germany would be on its arse, particularly in terms of manpower and also oil/fuel production. You can see this plain as day toward the end of WW2 by there being a lot of very young lads in service in Germany and some very poor and inexperienced pilots for whom having no fuel to be able to fly, was probably a blessing in disguise. This is a far cry from how things looked in Germany in 1940. This is the cold reality of WW2 and the real meaning behind 'the sacrifice' made by Allied airmen. Their purpose was to draw the Luftwaffe into combat so German pilots could be killed by the Allies, and if that meant using hundreds of men in B-17s, B24s etc as bait, and not necessarily having the best fighter either, rather one which was about the same but cheaper to make, thus prepared to risk fighter pilots too, then that was what the Allied chiefs were prepared to do in order to win. This is of course an easy decision to make when you are not the one who is going to be making that sacrifice. So in comparing the P-51 and the P-47, there are a few things to consider beyond the 'wow' factor stats people often place far too much store in. We can talk about rate of turn, or climb, or range or any of these other 'Top Trumps' statistics, but what is often not considered beyond what really matters for a fighter aeroplane, is things such as build quality, production speed, production cost, maintenance complexity, or indeed survivability, and this is where things get interesting and not quite so easy to make a clear cut decision upon if not considering the cost both in men and money. However, if we do look at these, we find that whilst the P-47 was undeniably able to dish out as well as take a lot more punishment than the P51 and still make it back to base - which is good news if you are flying one of course - since the idea is to dish out punishment rather than receive it, 'being able to take it' bit which people sometimes tout as a major plus, is not necessarily a good factor for anyone other than the person sat in the thing. And by that same token, when people talk about manueverability, what they forget is that rate of turn is largely a defensive capability, i.e. the ability to get something off your arse which is shooting at you, whereas if you are doing fighter tactics right, this shouldn't be something you need to be concerned about in the first place, it should be a problem your enemy has to worry about because ideally, you should be all over your enemy's arse without them even seeing you, then peppering them with shots before they've thought about turning if you are doing fighter combat correctly. And for that, service ceiling is the thing which matters most, which was superior for the P-47. Thus what was far more important in combat in WW2, was the ability to go to high altitude where you could be fast, get in a good position above the enemy, dive on them at high speed after having shot them with a high speed firing pass, use your speed to get back up, rinse and repeat - i.e. what most people call 'boom and zoom' tactics. This is a tactic where you are never really in a position to have to worry about being able to out-turn an enemy, because they'll never be in a position where they are behind you and never be in a position where they have more energy. It was the same story in the Pacific Theatre, where the faster and more robustly-built, yet less agile US Navy fighters and their pilots, soon learned that you didn't need to turn with a more agile Mitsubishi A6M 'Zero' if you got above it at the start of the fight and then used that potential energy to make high speed firing passes. In this role, the P-47 excelled, but since the P-51 could do it almost as well - and for 33 grand less - it was what the Allies went with. Where that became a bit more problematic for the pilots, was down low over Europe when strafing ground targets, where you'd definitely want to be in a P-47 as opposed to a P-51. With an air cooled engine, thus no vulnerable liquid cooling system to take hits, much beefier construction and to a better standard - hence the higher price - and more guns than a P51, the P-47 was a better aeroplane overall. So the reality is that if the P-47 had been cheaper to make, it would have been the one the Allies went with.

Despite the mystery of why exactly simple adapations to range were not undertaken on available fighters in 1943 to allow P38s, P47s and even Spitfires to do the long range work that the mustangs did the following year being unresolved to this day, there is no doubt that the right choice was made in 1944 to use the mustang nearly exclusively in that role from that point on. They were cheaper to produce than any alternative, had adequate performance (not as star spangled awesome as is made out in this video, but good enough) and had great cockpit ergonomics - vital for flying those 8hour+ missions in a single seater plane.

To be honest, the P-51 was kind of the M4 Sherman of the skies. Not in a literal sense, but in the sense that it was American made, stood its ground, and was sent to every war front. Regardless of your opinion on the USA during WWII or currently, you do have to give it to us that we did at least make those two vehicles generally universal. I don't know of many, if any, other tank or fighter that fought on both theaters to the extent the Sherman and the Mustang did and were as pivotal through out their time there. Churchill, Matilda, Cromwell, T-34's, IS-2's, BT tanks, Panzer II's-IV's, Panthers, Tigers, Stugs; they all fought hard and were ever present in vast quantities on the battlefield, but the majority of those were relegated only to the European theater and were never island hopping. The Sherman and the Mustang weren't the best flat out machines of WWII, but they were the some of the most environmentally adaptable. Do note I'm referring to best as the ambiguous over arching category that it is. The power creep of jets knocked it down from it's air superiority role, it wasn't the best bomber fighter, it wasn't the most nimble fighter. On average, it was the most capable, but on the ever morphing subjective context of "best", you can argue the J3 Piper Cub was a more capable aircraft and not be wrong. Nothing was over arching "THE BEST" but there was definitively ones that performed better than others. So before you tirade on me about how this, that, or the other was such a better tank or plane or that there's no better tank or plane, just know that you're right on your subjective perspective, but on an objective obscure level, you're just being biased rather than giving an actual argument. There were better performing tanks than the M4 Sherman. There were better performing fighters than the P-51 Mustang. But those two did excel in their jobs above other options at the same time in more than just 1 job. That doesn't make them the best, it makes them versatile. Also, leave it up to the US military brass to see something working and try to stop it until they can't deny it any longer. P-51 escorts the best out of everything out there. The Mk 14 torpedo sucks rock salt. The 76mm really doesn't do much more than the 75mm on the Sherman with what they're facing currently because if the 76mm can only punch through the side armor, the 75mm will also do that. If it bounces off the front armor, the 75mm will also do that. Once the 76mm is out of ammo, the 75mm should have a few rounds left, lastly the 76mm round has a smaller amount of explosives in its HE rounds than the 75mm so it's debatable if it's actually a "better" gun. But the top brass is going to push that all out anyways like a PT Belt. It's all going to solve issues THEY see as issues.

@F4Wildcat

13 күн бұрын

Well the thing is, in many ways the M4 & P-51 were better than their axis counterparts, but not in the ways we see it. An M4 had the highest survivability of any tank in ww2, especially late war ones. The tank was easily repaired. Its 75mm gun was not the best anti-tank cannon out there, but it Was the best anti-anything not a tank for its size. Guess what infantry encounter the most? Other infantry, machine guns, bunkers, you name it. In that way the M4 was excellent. And the same goes for the P-51. The D model had excellent visibility, it had great high altitude performance, it had good survivability for its pilot, it could fly to berlin & back and have fuel to spare. Its guns would shred & ignite any fighter it touches, the guns had ALOT of ammo. It was not as manouverable as a Late BF 109...but it was manouverable enough. Its endurance defeated it in every way. It had great landing specs, it could be easily serviced. Sure the BF109 & FW190 had 20mm guns, but it didnt matter in fighter combat as who landed the first hits won. The 30mm MK was a devestating weapon vs bombers, but in fighter combat it was more of a hinderance than an advantage. On paper, gun/armor? sure the german tanks were better. Manouverability and guns? Sure the Axis aircraft were better....in theory. And in practice other specs is what made the M4&P-51 prevail.

@jaquigreenlees

13 күн бұрын

As said in the vid: the industrial might of the US would be critical in winning the war. It was putting together military equipment that was "good enough" in massive quantities that was the critically important contribution. And the Japanese shortened the war drastically one December morning with the mistake of attacking Pearl Harbour. With the US only providing goods the allied forced would still have won, just taken even longer. By attacking Pearl the Japanese brought the US fully into the war as a combatant.

@1pcfred

13 күн бұрын

No the P-47 was a tank with wings. You couldn't shoot one down.

@keithdurose7057

13 күн бұрын

The 76mm was designed to generate thick armour. It was a British 17 pounder designed in response to the very thick armour on German tanks. The 75 mm was a great all purpose gun. Much better than the earlier 2 pounder or 40mm gun. Fitted into earlier British tanks. Due to flawed doctrine. The 2 pounder didn't have an HE shell. Only anti armour solid shot. Even the later 75mm British gune only had solid shot too. So the US 75mm HE issued with the M3 Grant tanks. To the British 8th Army, we're adopted. Eventually, the British did produce HE shells for these and the 6 pounder or 57mm anti tank guns.these were very effective weapons. The US also used these. Theirs had longer barrels and so a slightly better generating performance then those in British service. These were also fitted into the Mosquito, but the 60-pound rockets were found to be more effective.

The thunderbolt was the wok horse

@dalebob9364

13 күн бұрын

Finally, someone who actually knows the P-51 barely showed up for the last year! All the p-40s and wildcats, hellcats, and the hawker hurricane did all the work and the P-51 pageant princess showed up for the awards ceremony🎉

@mastathrash5609

13 күн бұрын

Don't forget the p38 to. And I love the jug .Don't get me wrong

The skywarden is a crop duster!!! Great job as always!!!!

One of my favorite piston fighters. Hard to say which one I like most. My top 3, with no particular order in mind, are the Mustang, the Hellcat, the Corsair, and the Thunderbolt.

When Herman Goering was being interrogated after WWII he said he first time he knew that the War was lost was when he saw P-51’s over Berlin.

@SoloRenegade

13 күн бұрын

the first P-51 to fly over Berlin was actually an Allison V12 powered low level recon plane.

@gerryroush8391

7 күн бұрын

Göring caused the Deutsch to lose the war to begin with , Adolf Hitler replaced a competent air Marshall with him😢

@alexius23

7 күн бұрын

@@gerryroush8391 Hitler only fired Goering in the final days of the War. The Luftwaffe chief tried to grab power since the Fuhrer was in Berlin surrounded by the Red Army.

The truth is that this bird was a latecomer, earlier models who were just as good had already done the dirty work of winning the war.

@thewrongbike7709

13 күн бұрын

That's right.The air war in WW2 was a war of attrition. Even before the USA seriously entered the war in 1942, the RAF has the advantage of training away from the conflict in USA, Canada and South Africa. In Germany, nowhere was safe. The P41 was the US aircraft that killed many of the Luftwaffe's experiences pilots. The P51 didn't enter the war until December 1943. It had different rules of engagement from the P41. They were allowed to give chase and kill the enemy instead of merely driving them away. The Luftwaffe ran out of good pilots.

@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus

13 күн бұрын

@@thewrongbike7709 TF is a P41?

@gregkelly2145

13 күн бұрын

I believe you're somewhat correct, but the supposed quote from Hermann Göring to the effect that when he saw P-51s flying over Berlin he knew the war was over definitely had some truth to it. When the P51 came online in force, bomber losses plummeted and German interceptor shoot-downs dramatically increased.

@thewrongbike7709

12 күн бұрын

@@gregkelly2145 The biggest change was General Dolittle. He changed the strategy from "Bomb Germany" to Destroy the Luftwaffe". Before that the escort pilot weren't encouraged to chase and shoot down fighters. Also, the P47 was not originally provided with drop tanks. The P47 COULD and did fly to Berlin and back. Its just that I took a shit ton of fuel to do it. When the P51 arrived in numbers the P41 was retasked to ground attach roles. The 47 and 51 fought at different times to different rules. I'm not saying that the P47 was a better aircraft. Just that the P51s success was in part due to the work done by the P47. So was the P51 the aircraft that won the war, if the P47 had already taken out 3700 of the Luftwaffe's best pilots?

My great uncle flew the P51. He told me it was by far his favorite fighter of all time. He had three confirmed kills, two smokers and two kills that didn’t count cause he tricked Germans into crashing their planes (these were with the P38) because dive flaps were new on his aircraft and they couldn’t pull out of the dive. One mission he found himself shot up pretty good, he claimed there was a German just above him that didn’t know he was there. He said that if he trusted his hydraulics he would noses up and took him out but was worried he’d lose control of the plane. He then took the fighter to the deck to avoid anti aircraft fire, and he’d planned to ditch out over the Chanel. Once he made it to the Chanel he figured since he’d made it that far he’d go ahead and see if he could make it back to Britain and make his date with his future wife (my aunt Margret). He made it back but had to crash land due to his landing gear being unable to release. When he crashed, the propeller on his P-38 came off and rolled along side of him for a moment, he told me he thought it was turn in come in the cockpit, but luckily it rolled to opposite way. We still have a pic of his crashed P-38. His commander was quoted as saying “Only Zell could land that damned thing”.

In the town I live in there is a privet owned P5D Mustang hangered near where I used to work. Several times a year I would get to see it flying around the area when it's owner took it out for a spin. Pretty cool to see.

Wow... Hubris, they name is Megaprojects. 0~o Yes there were some facts sprinkled in amongst all that P-51 stroking. Simon, your fact checkers need to check their facts first.

Crying Russians in the comments can keep crying No one remembers the name of a single red plane.

@ianmacdiarmid1249

13 күн бұрын

Not to mention more than 50% of their aviation fuel was provided by the US.

@SmashedGlass

13 күн бұрын

The Russians built very ....agricultural....war machines.

@stephenmonaghan6030

13 күн бұрын

Ilyushin II-2 Sturmovik for the uneducated among you. And I am not Russian.

The bubble canopy was so needed

@SoloRenegade

13 күн бұрын

the Bubble canopy was slower than the bird cage, but the improved visibility was deemed worth the loss of performance.

both the P-51 and the Corsair are beautiful airplanes

Simon: you need a noise gate on your mic setup to get rid of that seriously annoying intake of breath!!!!

@dannyboyy31

13 күн бұрын

Spitfire was an interceptor - great at its job of defending Britain, but lacked the range to escort Allied bombers all the way to Germany and take the fight to Hitler's doorstep.

@HartsPerformance

13 күн бұрын

Thanks now I can't "unhear" it 😡 😂😂

I think the fighters that won the war were more correctly the Spitfire and the Hurricane. If those fighters had not beaten back the Luftwaffe and British Isles had subsequently been taken, the allies would have had no stepping stone and rallying point in Europe. They would have had to invade Europe from somewhere in northwestern Africa. It would have been much more difficcult to arrange from there, who knows how that would have gone.

@nickdanger3802

13 күн бұрын

After losses in the Norway campaign the Kreigsmarine had about the same number of destroyers as the RN did battleships.

@Wild_Bill57

13 күн бұрын

Those planes were not key to the defense of the British isles, it was the development of radar that made the difference,allowing air command to move fighter to where they were needed. For a number of reasons, the US probably would never have dropped the atomic bomb on Germany, So support of long range bombing through P-51 escorts were key to the German surrender. There’s always other contributors to a cause, and although not fair, it’s usually the standouts that get noticed. It would be easy to credit the DC-3/C-47 as the flying workhorse of WWII, in my book. But what about the P-38’s role in the assignation of Yamamoto? Or the B-29 bombing of Japan including dropping the only 2 atomic bombs in anger. Everyone has their favorites. Frankly, when I see people get bent out of shape about it, I think it’s not a good look for them.

The P-47 range issue is a fallacy. With drop tanks it could go as far as the P-51. I refer you to Greg’s airplanes and Automobiles channel. He has an entire series on the P-47, and a specific episode to discuss that point.

There is nothing quite like the P-51D Mustang. The original versions were not the best but the D with the bubble canopy and the Merlin engine was superb. There used to be one based at Jandakot Airport near Perth and we lived under the approach to the runway. Watching and listening to it fly overhead was always a joy, such a distinctive and distinguished warbird. Arguably the best American fighter of all time.

The Fighter that Won World War II? are you seriously having a laugh? a LOT of other fighters did a lot of heavy lifting until the p-51 B's and D were available in numbers to win air superiority for the US bomber force over Germany but spitfires and Lightnings had pushed the Luftwaffe WELL BACK before then

@SmedleyDouwright

13 күн бұрын

It was the fighter that saved the 8th Airforce.

@AlanRoehrich9651

3 күн бұрын

​@@SmedleyDouwright A fighter didn't save the 8th AF. What saved the 8th AF was Jimmy Doolittle. He completely changed the tactics of the 8th AF.

1500 hours in Mustangs…one of the finest machines I’ve ever flown. Great video

Great presentation.

tired of this narrative.

@Blinkerd00d

13 күн бұрын

What do u mean, exactly? That the p51 was so great?

@mastathrash5609

13 күн бұрын

I mean it's a script most likley written by non aircraft nerds. That's that they could have gotten an aircraft nerd To consult.

@air-headedaviator1805

13 күн бұрын

@@Blinkerd00d the "Fighter that won World War 2" narrative. the "single weapon changed the fate of the war" narrative. that sht was wrong back in the 2000s, like we should be able to know better that no matter how capable the weapon, no one element has a defining impact on the whole system.

@Jameson1776

13 күн бұрын

@@air-headedaviator1805I’ve seen you post this or something similar. Are you that butthurt? Do you need a whaaambulance?

@ianmacdiarmid1249

13 күн бұрын

It's a tagine.

I hope that Mustangs continue to fly, and that the deep roar of the Merlin engine is never silenced.

There are a few of these in the Commemorative Air Force here in the states. I can attest that driving on the interstate highway and seeing one of these and a B-17 flying along the freeway toward me produces instant goosebumps.😮

10:30, British Spitfire ".........a pitifully small range.........", correct, the Spitfire has a very short range BUT considering it was designed PURELY as an INTERCEPTOR it did the job exactly as it was designed to do, later marks of the Spitfire had longer range capabilities, the Mustang as good as it was had to have its original Alison engine replaced by the Packard built Merlin AND a large fuel tank (100 gallons?) fitted behind the cockpit to achieve those ranges and it was unable to function as an interceptor because it could not be thrown around until a certain amount of fuel had been burnt off out of that tank as the C of G was too far back with it full. Comparing the two is as comparing the fruits, apples and oranges, both were exceptional fighters but very different.

What blows my mind is that just 5 years later the F86 Sabre was fighting in Korea. The P 51 Mustang had a very short service life in the U.S. military.

The main weakness of the Mustang was the single Merlin engine. One bullet through the radiators or cooling system and the engine stopped a few minutes later. That wasn't quite so serious if you were a Spitfire pilot flying over Britain, you could probably make it back to an aerodrome. But for a Mustang pilot flying deep into occupied Europe, one bullet in the wrong place usually meant that "For you ze war is over" even if you did bail out.

This guy is everywhere. Good work! Keep it up!

The "turning the tide" was already done by the time the Merlin-powered P-51 got to Europe, although the P-51 was indeed an excellent aircraft. The Hurricane, Spitfire, P-38, and P-47 had largely gained air supremacy and shot down Germany's more experienced pilots before the Mustang took over and finished the job. The P-51 was much less expensive to buy and operate (better fuel economy) than the P-47 or P-38, so it became the obvious choice once available. For example, 5 Mustangs could be bought and operated for the cost of about 3 P-47's. The comment about the "mental block of US Wartime leaders" is true, unfortunately, at least in Europe. For some reason, the US planners for Europe had decided to not build and issue large drop tanks like those being used in the Pacific theater by mid-September 1943. The technical issues had all been solved, but implementation for Europe had not been a priority until too late. Prior to the disaster with the unescorted bombers of the second Schweinfurt raid, P-47's in the Pacific theater had been using Australian-built 200 gallon drop tanks which increased their range dramatically. Even with the then-available 100 gallon drop tanks, the P-47's could have escorted the bombers in Europe farther than they did, especially if they had used the tactic of allowing some fighters to fly slower to conserve fuel while being protected by another group of fighters for part of the journey. This tactic was indeed used later.