PDA

View Full Version : P-51 site



XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 04:34 AM
Just found this

"Features, Advantages, and Benefits of the P-51

This final Mustang design was superior to anything else that flew at the time. The P-51B had a huge internal gasoline tank capacity (around 425 gallons) and its engine was very economical, using about half the gasoline of other American fighters. This meant its range was 1080 miles and could be extended to 2600 miles when extra drop-tanks were attached to the wings. This made its range far more than any Allied or German fighter's. As far as performance went, it was superior to all others as well. Neither of the other two main American fighters could compete; the P-47 was too heavy and the P-38 had too many technical problems. The British fighters, the Spitfire and the Hurricane, did not have the range, speed, or power. But most important was its superiority over the German fighters, the most important of which were the FW-190 and the Me-109. The Mustang was 50 mph faster than the Germans up to 28,000 ft., beyond which it was much faster than the FW-190 and still substantially faster than the Me-109. The Mustang had between 3000 and 4000 lbs. more weight, and so was able to outdive either German plane. The tightness of its turns was much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190. (Grant 31, Boyne 389-390, Bailey 153) The result of all of this was that the Allies now had a plane that could go with the bombers all the way to and from their targets, fight and defeat the bombers' German attackers, and not run out of fuel."

from here
http://www.cpcug.org/user/billb/mustang.html

Any comments?

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 04:34 AM
Just found this

"Features, Advantages, and Benefits of the P-51

This final Mustang design was superior to anything else that flew at the time. The P-51B had a huge internal gasoline tank capacity (around 425 gallons) and its engine was very economical, using about half the gasoline of other American fighters. This meant its range was 1080 miles and could be extended to 2600 miles when extra drop-tanks were attached to the wings. This made its range far more than any Allied or German fighter's. As far as performance went, it was superior to all others as well. Neither of the other two main American fighters could compete; the P-47 was too heavy and the P-38 had too many technical problems. The British fighters, the Spitfire and the Hurricane, did not have the range, speed, or power. But most important was its superiority over the German fighters, the most important of which were the FW-190 and the Me-109. The Mustang was 50 mph faster than the Germans up to 28,000 ft., beyond which it was much faster than the FW-190 and still substantially faster than the Me-109. The Mustang had between 3000 and 4000 lbs. more weight, and so was able to outdive either German plane. The tightness of its turns was much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190. (Grant 31, Boyne 389-390, Bailey 153) The result of all of this was that the Allies now had a plane that could go with the bombers all the way to and from their targets, fight and defeat the bombers' German attackers, and not run out of fuel."

from here
http://www.cpcug.org/user/billb/mustang.html

Any comments?

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 04:53 AM
"The tightness of its turns was much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190"

this statement is up to interprestation, and doesn't really make much sense, the 190 turned tighter than the 109?

I think the problem comes from speaking of a turn by its radius rather than by speed and G loading, and failing to define the conditions under which the turns are performed (which is why you should speak of turns by speed and G load rather than by radius).

I havn't read the books cited as supporting this statement, but I wonder if the author of the website didn't misintepret something.