HOME | DD
WarBrony — NA-73/XP-51 Pursuit Fighter
Published: 2012-09-28 03:39:51 +0000 UTC; Views: 1642; Favourites: 29; Downloads: 55
Redirect to original
Description
An early look at what eventually developed into a vastly successful design. Although many considered the P-51 easier to shoot down than several other allied designs, it was nimble and had a long enough range to protect the vulnerable bombers deep withing enemy territory. This fighter earned an impressive service record and some later variants served well into the Korean War.Related content
Comments: 15
Just a little interesting fact....from concept to finished design 90 days !!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That is a VERY interesting fact! I cant imagine they got much sleep in those 90 days.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The key fact was that the need for a revolutionary fighter was so great...that North American dropped everything to reinvent concept of air superiority fighter ! Remember that pilots went from no experience to transition into a fighter in 90 hours of training also !! As a Cadet pilot if you had not gotten to "solo" in 10 hours you were "washed out" of the program ! So they were taking green "kids" and had them flying North American T-6's in about a total of 25-30 hours of flight time ! These were desperate times.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
By 1944 the USAAF had trained more pilots than it needed and so the extra men were sent into the Army where there were nearly a few mutinies because none of the flyboys wanted to be in the infantry.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Eight Fifties? I think they may have this wrong...From what I can source, the prototype had four thirties and the P-51D had six Fifties...Eight Fifties would be pretty heavy for a fighter with the same engine as a Spit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for pointing that out. They are wrong... As far as I can tell the only p-51 variant that had the ability to carry 8 M2s was the F-82 and it had to hold the extra two in external pods. I think the F-82 was introduced in 1946 but it was pretty much a completely different airplane at that point. I know some early versions P-51 that flew with the RAF could have been outfitted with 8 .303in Brownings. Maybe that's where the mistake came from.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Very probably...My favourite of all time is the P-39 Airacobra...Do you have any old papers relating to her?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'll see what I can find! I've got a pretty big stack.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I had no idea that it was considered easy to shoot down. From what Americans say, it was the greatest piston-engine fighter ever built. Of course the Germans, Japanese and Italians might have a different opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was definitely a fantastic fighter! It introduced some innovative ideas such as the laminar flow wing design with a thin cross section. Pilots also loved it because it handled well at high altitude (at least the later versions). However, the liquid cooled engine made the P-51 more vulnerable to ground fire than designs such as the P-47 or the twin engine P-38 series. One unlucky bullet could easily seize up the engine. All and all, the Mustang was not the best option for the ground attack role, but it was certainly key in the fight for air superiority and was well liked by those who flew it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The P-51 Mustang was no more vulnerable to being shot down than any other inline engine aircraft. Yes, a single bullet in the radiator could take it down, but that holds true for any inline engine aircraft. The Me-109, the Spitfire, any of them.
More Mustangs were lost in accidents than to combat in World War II.
It was not a good choice for ground attack though, that much is true. It was built as an air superiority machine and escort. Why the Air Force didn't use the F-47 Thunderbolt in Korea is beyond me (yes, F-47. In 1947, the P designator was changed to F, thus the P-47 became the F-47).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're completely right, but even if the flaw was prevalent, it was still a dangerous flaw. Also, I wasn't comparing the Mustang to the Me-109 or the Spitfire, I was comparing it to the almost tank like Republic P-47 and the equally awesome Lockheed P-38.
I've heard the Mustang was a tricky plane to master since the fuel tanks gave the aircraft some strange balance tendencies. One crashed at a local airshow here a number of years ago for the same reason so it doesn't surprise me that more Mustangs went down in accidents as opposed to combat.
I don't want to sound like I dislike fighters with inline engines. The Mustang, as well as many other fighters were indeed very capable instruments of war.
I just prefer the robustness of a well designed air cooled or twin engine fighter.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, of course. I was just pointing out it was a flaw with ALL inline engine aircraft, not just the Mustang.
And I know you were comparing to the Thunderbolt and Lightning; I brought up the 109 and the Spitfire to compare it with its fellow inline engine machines. Everything in context basically.
They were a bit touchy, but not too hard to learn to control. The Mustang was one of those aircraft where rookies could handle them fairly well early on, and veterans could become aces. The fuel tank situation was easy enough to correct by fitting a baffle within the tank, or just learning to compensate for the weight distribution.
Hey, I'm with you there. I prefer a good radial engine powerplant like the Double Wasp. Inlines do have their use and capability, I just prefer a radial.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
