Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

So what gave the Mustang its un-matched combat radius?

Discussion in 'Aircraft' started by mac_bolan00, May 14, 2014.

  1. mac_bolan00

    mac_bolan00 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    20
    the mustang's range arguably decided the outcome of the air war over germany. its range compared with other fighters, whether allied or axis, seemed to me like a physical impossibility. how was it done?
     
  2. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    9,503
    Likes Received:
    3,037
    Drop tanks. Fuel economy due a light fighter...and in-line engine (less drag).
     
  3. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    It's also worth noting that an 85-gallon fuel tank was inserted into the rear fuselage wfrom the B/C series - together with the wing drop-tanks mentioned by CAC, a combat range of 880 miles could be achieved.
     
  4. Dave55

    Dave55 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,377
    Likes Received:
    194
    Location:
    Atlanta
    I believe the keys were the laminar flow wing and packing a lot of gas. Most of the gas was internal and the P-51 could manage over 900 miles even without drop tanks. She was very clean aerodynamically but inline engines aren't a huge advantage there due to the need for a radiator and the P-51 had a big one. There are many who say that the radiator exit on the Mustang was designed to actually increase thrust, but I've never understood how that would be possible.
    Lots of radial engines fighters had very long range too, like the Zero, Hellcat and Corsair.

    Packing all that gas had trade off too. The tank behind the cockpit shifted the CC aft when it was full and made the plane difficult to fly and pilots used that one first. To move the CC forward again. The Zero's unbelievably long range made it almost impossible to fly when it took off with maximum fuel and it couldn’t fight or maneuver at all until some of it burned some off.

    The Mustang was pretty heavy, even when empty, for a land based single seater. Not as heavy as a Tempest or P-47 but still over a ton heavier than an empty Spit or 109.
     
    Triple C likes this.
  5. mcoffee

    mcoffee Son-of-a-Gun(ner)

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    435
    Cooling drag is a large component of the parasitic drag of piston engined aircraft - whether air cooled or liquid cooled. The drag penalty in air cooled engines is largely from the increased frontal area to expose the cylinder fins to air flow, but also in the ducting of air out of the cowling. Inline engines need a radiator exposed to air flow which results in a drag penalty.

    The P-51 cooling system was designed to utilize the Meredith Effect. Basically a radiator at the largest area of a divergent air duct and a convergent exit duct. The radiator adds heat to the air in the duct increasing volume and velocity throught the venturi-like exit. The thrust generated offset the cooling drag reducing it to close to zero. Some claim a net positive thrust was generated, but the removal of cooling drag was the benefit.
     
  6. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Was it's radius really "unmatched"? The P-38 was pretty long ranged especially if one knew how to fine tune it. Likewise the P-47N had some pretty decent "legs". The Corsair and F7F weren't exactly slouches either.
     
  7. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    London UK
    In practical terms the P51 was the only fighter escort to go all the way to Berlin. That is unmatched in historic terms. .
     
  8. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    9,503
    Likes Received:
    3,037
    Were drop tanks ever used on Spitfires??
     
  9. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    846
    Hopefully one of our real experten like mccoffee will chime in, but until then we might note that the first American fighters over Berlin were P-38s, of the 55th Fighter Group, on March 3, 1944. The replacement of P-38s by -51s in the escort role was due to performance and operational issues, especially at high altitudes. The distance from English airfields to Berlin, about 600 miles, is not so remarkable compared to the 900+ achieved by P-38s in the Pacific. As already noted, the P-47N, the long-range escort version of that fighter, achieved similar ranges.
     
  10. Dave55

    Dave55 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,377
    Likes Received:
    194
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Right, and the US Navy fighters could have done it too. I think they were more expensive then the P-51 though. The P-47 and the P-38 definately were more expensive.
     
  11. SymphonicPoet

    SymphonicPoet Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    130
    And as earlier noted the A6M had legs easily the equal of the P-51 and quite regularly made longer round trip escort missions than London to Berlin during the Guadalcanal campaign. (At tremendous cost in pilot fatigue, which doubtless contributed to losses.) The P-51 was a great bird, but it didn't defy physics.
     
  12. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    London UK
    Yes, but the RAF did not believe in long range escorts. The Spitfire was designed as an interceptor. Photo reconnaissance Spitfires were fitted with external tanks .
     
  13. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Interestingly enough the P-38 was designed as an interceptor as well.
     
  14. mcoffee

    mcoffee Son-of-a-Gun(ner)

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    435
    That's true, but the 'interceptor' tag in the specification that resulted in the P-38 was a bit of subterfuge. The USAAC had an arbitrary limit of 500 lbs for the armament for fighter aircraft at the time the X-608 Circular Proposal was written. A heavily armed fighter was desired and the specification called for at least 1000 lbs of armament including a cannon, and a full throttle endurance of 1 hour at 20,000 feet was specified. By calling it an interceptor - a classification that didn't exist in the AAC at the time - they got around the armament weight limit. Thus the required fuel capacity and armament called for a very different fighter that the Spitfire which was intended as a point defense fighter.
     
  15. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    From what I recall it was intended as an intercepter in any case but not a point defense one. Wasn't it intended to intercept bombers attacking the continental US?
     
  16. mcoffee

    mcoffee Son-of-a-Gun(ner)

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    435
    Yes, it was intended to intercept incoming bombers. The AAC and the Navy were in dispute about who was responsible for coastal defense. From memory the AAC had to intercept bombers outside the Navy defense zone (late '30's) and thus the spec for a long range high altitude interceptor.
     
  17. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    The P47 had a pretty descent range with drop tanks as well, as did the Corsair and the P38 as others have mentioned. I guess the kicker is going to Berlin and back. From what I've read P47s only went to Western or Northern Germany, but it didn't say they wouldn't have been able to make it to Berlin with drop tanks.
     
  18. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Depends...

    IIRC, all of the aircraft you mentioned carried quite a bit more internal fuel than the P-51 B/C/D.

    P-51 B/C/D: 269 gallons
    F4U-1: 351 gallons
    P-47D-25: 370 gallons
    P-38 J/L: 410 gallons

    The P-47N got it's phenomenal range because it carried 556 gallons internally.

    IIRC, the earlier "razorback" P-47Ds only carried some 305 gallons internally and were slow climbers, so even with drop tanks, they were unable to go to Berlin & back. However, the "bubble canopy" -25s with their increased internal fuel capacity and new "paddleblade" propeller could fly to Berlin & back with drop tanks.
     
  19. Dave55

    Dave55 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,377
    Likes Received:
    194
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Right.

    And compare that to a Spitfire I or 109E which only carried about 100 gallons.
     
  20. Gromit801

    Gromit801 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    134
    It's not all about the gallons. It has almost as much to do with AC weight and drag. The P-51 carried a lot of fuel in total, had a slippery shape, laminar flow wings, etch. Jugs, while having a lighter radial engine, had that offset with way more drag in the nose and wings, and of course was a much heavier bird.
     

Share This Page