Does this sound right?


But, to cut the long story short, here`s a quote from Neil Stirling, the guy who actually dug up these documents you manipulate with, and his comments were:

"The Americans limited their P51's fitted with the V-1650-7 to 72"hg when using 100/150 grade fuel the British 81"hg. Mustangs usually were fitted with wing racks, these reduced the maximum speed by 8mph to 12mph.
8th Mustangs typically would have been able to do about 370mph low down and RAF mustangs about 380mph.

Without digging through books and performance charts, etc ( which can be interpreted in many ways ) I'd say there were probably many factors at work here.

The 8th AF primarily used the P-51D for long-range bomber escort and fighting at higher altitudes, which required a heavy fuel load. Strafing missions were of course undertaken as well, but the 8th were always flying from bases in England.

The RAF, on the other hand, primarily used the Mustang III for tactical requirements and, after D-Day, usually operating from Continental airfields. Different weapon loadings, less fuel, and very likely a different state of tune for the engine to reflect the low-level combat requirement.

And then, don't forget the 9th AF....

I would guess that performance characteristics varied depending on use.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Mustang III was according toa Tuskeegee airman, more stable & faster than the D model.

The B and C models were better streamlined and lighter. The down side was visiablity was poorer, except for the ones equiped with a malcom hood and then the visiablity was better than a D model. The A models were usually used for air to ground and photo recon missions.

I read that when the D model had the gas tank in back of the cockpit full, the aircraft was unstable until the gas was used up and they switched to wing tank gas. I think any aircraft full of fuel and ammo and bombs are difficult to fly until they lighten the load.

Anouther factor is how many hours of combat time the engine has on it. Combat flying is hard on the aircraft since alot of it is done at full power. If you ran your car a top speed and full power it would not last long either.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

C could dive better. Thinner wings & 2 less guns meant better maneouverability.

My neighbor that flew P-38's said top speed is not the end all be all of a fighter, how often do you hit top speed anyway? do it too much & you blow the motor.

What is your source on the thinner wings ? I was under the impression they all used the same wing. You are correct about the two fewer guns, however the four guns had more room for extra ammo.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

The D model was less stable at high speed due to the lack of keel surface provided by the higher fuselage of the B and C models. The wing on all three is the same. It was modified on the H model. A fin extension was added ahead of the tail vertical stabilizer to help add back some of this lost surface area and regain stability.
The D had absolutely outstanding visibility and it was much better than on the B /C models even with a Malcolm hood.
The B and C could dive slightly better due to their better stability (even when the D had the added extension). However, all three have similar critical mach numbers. Surprisingly, the late model Spitfires actually had one of the highest dive speeds with a mach number around .88 or so. This is quite high for a WW II prop aircraft and even better than many early jets (including the 262).

There are several sources for thicker wing on D model. It was so guns could be setup upright.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/14967...nd+P-51D+wings

"Another visible change introduced by the P-51D was in the increase of the wing root chord."

"The D featured thicker wings allowing the guns to be mounted upright, vastly"

However, many pilots regarded the Malcolm-hooded P-51B/C as the best Mustang of the entire series. It was lighter, faster, and had crisper handling than the later bubble-hooded P-51D and actually had a better all-round view. Its primary weakness, however, was in its armament--only four rather than six guns, which often proved prone to jamming. Some of the modifications applied to the P-51D to improve the ammunition feed were later retrofitted into P-51B/Cs, which made their guns less prone to jamming. With modified guns and a Malcolm hood, the P-51B/C was arguably a better fighter than the P-51D, with better visibility, lower weight, and without the structural problems which afflicted the D. Its departure characteristics were also more benign.

Rear view would seem better in D model.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/14967...3/Illustration

Mustang pilot speaks. Encounters a Spit.

These early Mustangs had a weak tail and if a slow roll (an acrobatic maneuver where the airplane is made to roll around a point) was performed, the tail could, and in this case did come off, leaving the airplane spinning around with no way to control it. This defect in the airframe was in the process of being corrected when this accident happened. A dorsal fin was added to the tail to strengthen it, and all of the Mustang's were being retrofitted.
The hours that we spent getting acclimated to the mustang were used to practice tight vertical turns, high speed stalls, and other maneuvers that we would be using in combat. We were also encouraged to dog fight with any friendly fighter that we came across.
I was out practicing late one afternoon when I noticed a Spitfire just below me and I decided to jump it. The pilot saw me on his tail and began evasive maneuvers. I knew that the Spitfire had a reputation for being extremely maneuverable, but I decided to hang on for as long as possible. He went into a dive, followed by a vertical turn coming out of the dive. I was still in there on his tail, pulling streamers from my wing tips, and having a ball. We were fairly close to the ground when he again went into a vertical dive. But this time I decided that we were under the critical altitude for this maneuver and I gave up the chase, satisfied that I had the opportunity to engage a Spitfire and that I could at least keep up with it in a tight turn. Of course it helped to not have but a but a relatively small amount of fuel on board.