PDA

View Full Version : interesting read on some of the p51's shortcomings



XyZspineZyX
08-24-2005, 05:54 PM
whatever, call it trolling ect, but hey with any warbird, you gotta take the bad with the good right?

http://yarchive.net/mil/p51.html

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2005, 05:54 PM
whatever, call it trolling ect, but hey with any warbird, you gotta take the bad with the good right?

http://yarchive.net/mil/p51.html

Zyzbot
08-24-2005, 06:00 PM
I wouldn't call it trolling. Just about every combat plane had troubles that had to be overcome as it was developed.

fordfan25
08-24-2005, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_Prop:
whatever, call it trolling ect, but hey with any warbird, you gotta take the bad with the good right?

http://yarchive.net/mil/p51.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


eh im an f4u guy any way.

LeadSpitter_
08-24-2005, 06:08 PM
The poster in those newsgroups just is a BS'r i visit the news groups and hes been one of the no proof anti american bashers.

while somethings did happen 3 reports of B D models with the tail problem surfaces shedding off in high speed dives, and the loss off a p-51D wing during a high speed dive bomb with 2 1000lbers did happen.

theres not one ac in wwii that did not suffer from many airframe fatigue accident and highspeed dive and recovery accidents

if you dont believe me go and search his name to see all his posts and you will understand.

cdb100620@AOL.COM

From: cdb100620@AOL.COM (CDB100620)
Subject: Re: Cannon v. machineguns
Date: 12 Sep 1997
Newsgroups: soc.history.war.world-war-ii

&gt;October 14 1943, The American aircrews claimed a total of 186 kills, when
&gt;the Luftwaffe actually lost 31 fighters shot down and 12 written off as
&gt;unrepairable.


The breakdown of losses is interesting: 24 Bf 109 and only 2 FW 190 (plus
3 Bf 110 and 2 Me 410). There were more 109s than 190s engaged, but the
fact that the 109s suffered so severely is an indication of the
vulnerability of the Bf 109 to .50 cal projectile strikes in particular and
the liquid-cooled engine in general.
It's worth noting that the liquid-cooled reciprocating aircraft engine
disappeared abruptly with the end of WWII while the, air-cooled
reciprocating aircraft engine is with us still. Big radial and corncob
engines powered the postwar prop airliners such as the Constellation,
Stratocruiser, DC-6 and DC-7 and boxer engines are found in practically all
of today's general aviation aircraft. The liquid-cooled reciprocating
aircraft engine is one bit of WWII-era technology that had a very short
lifespan.

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2005, 06:13 PM
lol, well the f4u was called the widowmaker if im correct

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2005, 06:15 PM
and yes, the late 51's had what they called a "de boost" tab in the rudder which at hispeed would counteract major deflections in the rudder so it wouldnt tear the tail off, such as in a snaproll ect

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2005, 08:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's worth noting that the liquid-cooled reciprocating aircraft engine
disappeared abruptly with the end of WWII while the, air-cooled
reciprocating aircraft engine is with us still. Big radial and corncob
engines powered the postwar prop airliners such as the Constellation,
Stratocruiser, DC-6 and DC-7 and boxer engines are found in practically all
of today's general aviation aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


thats cause the genius a/c designers realised hey at any loss of coolant.....suddenly the engine seizes

PikeBishop
08-25-2005, 06:23 AM
Dear All,

What I find most interesting with these articles is that one can only find them a long time after the confilict that they were involved in is long over. How often do we read how the Japanese fighters always suffered from maintenance problems and drops in performance as if to say that they may have been 'potentially' better than their opponents but the mechanical failures drastically reduced their effectiveness. A good example was the good old KI84, where if I remember rightly some in these forums were complaining about maximum speed, manoeuverability, altitude performance etc and generally complaining at Oleg for having it in the game in its current form.
When viewed against the current document it might not be so different to the P51 OR the P47 which also had 25% of squadron strengh lost due to engine failures as I recall.
I also remember people were asking Oleg to model these reliability problems which thankfully he did not do.......I should think there would be many packing it all in by now if that idea had been implimented...
Best Regards
SLP

Bearcat99
08-25-2005, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Dear All,

What I find most interesting with these articles is that one can only find them a long time after the confilict that they were involved in is long over. How often do we read how the Japanese fighters always suffered from maintenance problems and drops in performance as if to say that they may have been 'potentially' better than their opponents but the mechanical failures drastically reduced their effectiveness. A good example was the good old KI84, where if I remember rightly some in these forums were complaining about maximum speed, manoeuverability, altitude performance etc and generally complaining at Oleg for having it in the game in its current form.
When viewed against the current document it might not be so different to the P51 OR the P47 which also had 25% of squadron strengh lost due to engine failures as I recall.
I also remember people were asking Oleg to model these reliability problems which thankfully he did not do.......I should think there would be many packing it all in by now if that idea had been implimented...
Best Regards
SLP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking of Japanese planes...... I dont know how true this is but..... was the Zero a knock off of Howard Huges' experimental plane?

ploughman
08-25-2005, 11:43 AM
Leonardo di Caprio claimed so in "The Aviator" but by then the Mr Hughes character was skiing down the slope to paranoia and insanity and the script was getting out of control. That was the first I'd ever heard of it.

Zyzbot
08-25-2005, 11:51 AM
"... during the war, Allied intelligence repeatedly suggested that the Zero was a copy of various other types of foreign aircraft, such as the Howard Hughes 1935 air racer and particularly the the Vought 143, a one-off prototype fighter that the Japanese purchased. This was a stretch, since the Vought 143 really didn't look that much like a Zero and was a detestable aircraft in the first place. The idea that a fine machine like the Zero was a copy of it strained all logic. According to Horikoshi, the influence of the Vought 143 on the Zero was limited to the design of the landing gear."

Daiichidoku
08-25-2005, 11:58 AM
No, bear, the zero was a totally oringinal
design

the JP bought the one off Vought 143, and many have said it was copied and imporved as the zero, but thats BS

the V-143 was indeed useful to the JP, but only inasmuch as it demostrated up to date contrruction methods, general arraingment, etc

the only real example of JP ever "copying" a US type during, or just previous to WWII was the DC 4E, which was too complicated for even dougles to bother really developing...the JP basically took its wings and tail and made a 4 engine bomber, that although a good preformer, was too late to see production or service


i saw the movie "the aviator", and despite having dicapri in it, was actually not bad...but dont believe that **** about hugues designing the connie, he merely added certain specs he wanted in regards TWA, thats all///and funny thing is, when he meets lockheed brass about the connie, they are in a hangar with the X 11, that wasnt built unitl 43 or 44, and the first connie was already built in 38-39....sheesh! hollywood has to be destroyed!

Daiichidoku
08-25-2005, 11:59 AM
****, two got in by the time i finished my post, lol

lrrp22
08-25-2005, 12:02 PM
Just realize that the poster has an obvious agenda. While there is a grain of truth in most of what he says, his claims are rather heavily exaggerated at the very least, and often inaccurate. His statements about the PTO are totally unsupported.

fordfan25
08-25-2005, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_Prop:
lol, well the f4u was called the widowmaker if im correct </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



i dont know about that. i heard engs elimanator. like pretty much all fighters that are rushed from conseption threw dishin and on to asmbley thare are going to be issues that need to be worked out. you can see it in even planes,cars ecty that have plenty of dev time. just look at this game

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2005, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> dont know about that. i heard engs elimanator. like pretty much all fighters that are rushed from conseption threw dishin and on to asmbley thare are going to be issues that need to be worked out. you can see it in even planes,cars ecty that have plenty of dev time. just look at this game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



yeah, i guess, but in real life, not too many had the chance to complain that a plane was too uber, because they were either dead or captured

Grey_Mouser67
08-25-2005, 04:50 PM
Like all planes, it is worthy to understand why planes earned their nicknames....

The Corsair, or ensign eliminator, earned it's reputation from landing accidents when corsairs were waived off on final approach and added power too quickly and torque flipped/stalled the plane.

The actual plane flew and landed very nicely on the ground...its long nose made taxiing a little difficult but the plane was actually nice to fly.

P-47D and P-51 had a similar problem when they went to bubble tops...when adding power on a landing approach they would yaw tremedously...difference being they didn't stall and then the manufacturer added the extension on the fin to stabilize it.

P-51 tank behind the pilot is another issue where myths have been perpetuated...the issue was that with the tank more than 50% full, the center of gravity could be reversed in a high G turn making the plane want to swap ends....in terms of handling and flying, it was just fine exept for those high G turns...pilots found they were pushing on the stick instead of pulling on the stick and the plane could violently stall....I won't even go into compressibility...another overdone myth.

I'm finding occassional websites out there where certain people, often associated with flight simulators, create websits and research materials that suit their agenda and post them as if they were credible sites...beware the internet! Not all you read is the truth and not all you fly on this sim is historical.

nakamura_kenji
08-25-2005, 05:08 PM
people think zero copy usually think ki-61 is copy of he-100 or another german or itlaian plane i also remmeber someone on forum saying that i-400 float plane was a copy of stuka &gt;_&lt;. Why everything japanese have believe to be copy yes copy some thing but not everything v_v

Slickun
08-25-2005, 06:19 PM
I think maybe the widowmaker was the B-26?

fordfan25
08-25-2005, 07:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
I think maybe the widowmaker was the B-26? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea i was thinking it was one of the bombers. if your going to try and slander US fighters at least get your data right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

horseback
08-26-2005, 10:51 AM
I've been rereading Escort To Berlin of late; it's a day by day account of the 4th Fighter Group's operations during the war. Jeffrey Ethell is one of the co-authors.

Reading the section covering late February to May, it rapidly becomes apparent that the P-51 had its share of teething problems, no doubt exacerbated by the unfamiliarity of the aircraft to the Group's maintenance personnel as well as the pilots, who had spent the past year flying the P-47. For instance, installation of the fuselage tanks in the second series of B-models made a big difference in the handling qualities (with the tank filled) that pilots in the field had to learn the hard way.

Simply put, the Merlin Mustang was a new airplane whose faults had to be discovered the same way its virtued were; in combat. At the same time the Group was losing one or two pilots and planes per mission to operational problems and flak (something MUCH rarer while flying P-47s), they were also running up big scores over a numerous and determined LW above Central Germany. The ratios rarely dip below 4 to 1, including the operational losses.

March and April of 1944 were easily the high-water marks for the 4th FG. Finding and beating the enemy in large numbers, they learned to work through the faults of the Mustang and exploit its virtues.

Just like early operators of the FW 190 worked through the overheating and other problems of the Butcher Bird.

cheers

horseback

faelas
08-26-2005, 02:48 PM
I'm currently reading a book called "Woodbine Red Leader" by P-51 pilot George Loving. In his discriptions of the fighting vs the Luftwaffe he describes numerous instances of P-51's having to RTB with mechanical trouble of one sort or another. This guy may have an agenda, but what he says about the P-51 seems at least somehwat credible. Being a combat veteran myself, I can testify that any type of combat vehicle operation is dangerous, from a jeep to an M1 tank to a F-15 to the USS Nimitz. Combat vehicles aren't made with a 5 star safety rating in mind. Accidents happen, stuff goes wrong, people die. That's the nature of military life, wartime or peace. While the P-51 troubles seem a bit excesive by todays 5 star safety rating standards, I don't think they were considered anything but "inevitable losses" to the pilots flying them at the time.