P-51H Mustang, Superprop!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- The P-51H was the ultimate version of the Mustang, at least the ultimate production version. It has a new wing, a more narrow fuselage and an upgraded Merlin engine and compared with the previous models. Let's see how it compares to the other superprops.
Please support this channel:
/ gregsairplanesandautom...
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com
My grandfather flew that prototype. It is one of my favorite stories from him. It was a ferry flight and they said to go get that P-51 and fly it out. He went out looked around the ramp and didn't see anything he recognized as a mustang. "You mean the thing with the damn buggy wheels?". Yes. That one. He shrugged and went out, went through the checklist, started, taxied out and took off. It pinned him to the seat. He said he was at about ten thousand feet before he caught back up. He said it was the best flying airplane ever and he flew all of them. He got to his location, made an overhead pass and started into the break. "Is that all you got?" Proclaimed the tower..."permission to clear the pattern..."asked Grandpa. "Permission granted". He re entered the pattern over 500 mph, pulled vertically and rolled out of sight, came back and landed. "Report to the tower on shut down". He was in a little bit of trouble over that but he felt the juice was worth the squeeze. Best prop plane he ever flew..
Awesome story, thanks for sharing!
Awesome! And...
It's easier to get forgiveness than permission. He did good!!!
awesome!
Totally rings true. Men were bolder back then !
Any relation to a Gleeson who flew CH-53s in the USMC?
The breadth and depth of Greg's coverage is astonishing. Love these videos.
Seconded
Unrivaled
Absolutely ! My favorites bar none !
Truly
Always to the same standard and cross referenced with his other videos!
The danger of watching one of Greg's videos is that you may end up on a video binge of his videos if you are not careful! 😂
Oh, my sweet Greg - never underestimate our interest in random niches of history.
Seriously, you're so good at going in depth without wearing us out. Great content.
Glad you covered the P-51H, there just isn't too much information out there on this highly refined version of the Mustang and you are right, all attention was focused on jet aircraft.
This is true. I have a book on the Mustang and the H model gets very little attention apart from being described as the lightweight Mustang, almost as if reducing the weight of an aircraft was detrimental to it's performance.
@@markfryer9880 I was reading in one of my old books on aircraft that the P-51H performance was not just due to it being a lighter aircraft, but aerodynamically refined with a far better engine putting out 2K HP and a superb supercharging system. The aircraft apparently is better than the Hawker Sea Fury and the F8F Bearcat. It essentially was an aircraft that remedied all the problems associated with previous models and was the aircraft that P-51 pilots of previous models wish it was.
The fact you are willing to track down every bit of info you can to be as accurate as possible, while also outright stating when things are educated guesses at best, is awesome to me. And being as I am a technology and science nerd, and love all the engineering of the pre and post WW2 era and how quickly things changed in just 10 years, this channel rocks.
Agreed. It's golden.
When I was a kid back in the 60’s I bought an Aurora 1/48 scale P-51 kit and was irritated that when I opened it the plane had the wrong shape. It turns out I had bought a now rare P-51 kit which for some reason wasn’t labeled as an H, the box said simply P-51. On eBay the asking price for one with the original issue box art is $250.
Holy shit, $250 sounds cheap. Did you build it I hope?!
Credit to NAA, they seemed to improve upon the D in nearly all areas. Cool to see the ANG period pictures, I like to see the various states on the planes.
My State - Kansas - flew them in their Air Nasty Guard. About 1959 I saw one swoop over the Flint Hills and because it said "KANG" in giant letters and had that big belly scoop I asked my Dad if it was a flying kangaroo . . .
Thank you for this one Greg.
My father was a P-39 instructor (this irritated him because he wanted to fight) during the war. He did deploy to Nuremberg in June 1945, flying the P-51D doing aerial recon vs. the Soviets. He also did military testing of the P-63.
After the war, he was the first CO of one of Ohio's ANG Squadrons at Wright Patterson from 1946-1951. He had both D & H models of the P-51s in his squadrons.
Thank you for the picture of the Ohio ANG Mustang in your video
As usual; your presentation was fantastic.
Great video! I read in Chuck Yeager's autobio he described the P51D as being very pitch sensitive on take off with a full fuel load in the fuselage tank. It surprised me a bit that even a pilot of this elite skill level and expertise would describe it as being really touchy and even could be dangerous in this situation.
You wanted to empty the fuel tank BEHIND the pilot before transferring to the drop tanks.
It was a CG issue.
I think Yeager said in his first autobiography that the P-51 could flip onto its back if you didn't burn that fuselage tanks first.
He also remarked that they NEVER had the suggestion in the P-51 pilot's manual that you SHOULD burn off that fuselage tank first before transferring to the drop tanks!
It seems a STUPID detail to omit from a flight manual but remember that most of these fighter designs had major flaws that generally weren't corrected until the fourth, fifth, or even sixth major production models of those designs!
Development of WW2 designs was compressed into months instead of the many years we spend developing aircraft now. Bare minimum development time for any plane that goes into service NOW is at least 4 years flight testing; that's optimistic. A decade from program start to first prototype flight is more likely. They spent close to 20 years from the time the F-35 program was initiated (mid-1990s) until actual initial operational capability of the type designing and testing that plane. It STILL has major maintenance and manufacturing issues.
Both the F-14 and F-15 were tested and developed for 4 years before they first deployed (1974 and 1976 respectively). Neither plane was debugged (mostly) until they were in service for at least a decade! They were still working out bugs in the F-14 up to the year it was retired.
I've always been fascinated by the potential of the P-51H. Thank you for this.
If I recall correctly, the H model were mostly issued to ANG Interceptor units for home defense. Thus eligibility for Korea would have been moot and well explained by Greg.
Honestly, the P-47 would have been better in Korea and the argument of logistics for them were in my opinion biased to the F-51.
Additionally, Oil coolers in modern aircraft are interesting. Inline fuel/oil coolers, air/oil coolers, and fuel cell mounted coolers.
Another great job Greg, We all do appreciate it.
Interesting to see the change in the “buzz” number prefix’s. The are photos of PF-, TF-, and FF-. I’d always thought that the prefix was fixed to the aircraft and didn’t change. Greg notes the he thinks the straight leading edge is the primary visual identifier while I had always gone with the taller tail and rudder assembly. In one of the other comments, it’s noted that there was a a P-51H in civilian hands. As a CAP cadet in the late sixties we had gone to a fly-in at a little grass strip in Plainwell ,Michigan. I was excited to see a P-51 there, the second one I’d seen. The first was a couple years earlier when Bob Hoover performed with his P-51D when the new county airport opened. Looking at the one parked on that grass strip, I realized it had a taller tail and it was an H model. I had also noticed the the tall tail on a Mustang at the 2023 Oshkosh. It’s no longer just the mark of a P-51 H as it was adopted for all the Cavalier Mustangs as well. Just the same, a well done video, Greg.
Just rewatched the original video again last night with my kids. What a pleasant surprise this morning!
Thanks - it makes me realise what a wonderful plane the Sea Fury was, particularly with the original Bristol Centaurus engine. I also find the later Mustang less aesthetically pleasing to my eye than the earlier models.
I agree, I think the P-51B is the best looking one.
Me too. The H model just looks a bit more "sneaky" somehow 😉
I like the H. Better yet the p51HH
@@yosemite-e2vIf they'd have put more rake on the windscreen, maybe like a Fw190, the B would have been the Roto Finish Special (1972 Reno Unlimited Champion) but for the modified Merlin and clipped wings.
I love the sound of p-51s being talked about in the morning
Sounds like....Victory.
Amazing video as usual. If you could look at some of the twin engined superprops, like the sea hornet etc. That would be amazing
Ah yes the Hornet. That and the F7 Tigercat. Hot ships.
I love superprop series! Awesome as always
Was blessed to get a ride in the late Bill Hogans P51H back in 75.
Thanks dad.
Alot of late fighters like this didnt make it, not because of bad design, but because the military has so many parts for early models in stock that its hard to justify taking on new models.
The advancement in jets was worth taking on to the militaries future.
Curious to hear about the American turbo project. Enjoyed this video too!
I just finished my two year Tamiya 1/32 plastic model build. I love your channel, I look forward to watching all your videos. 😊
A high performance Mustang indeed. Learned a lot from this video, and a whole lot about a plane I have come to fear in War Thunder.
The Merlin fitted to the P51H was a R-R Merlin 100 series. R-R (like all manufacturers) continuously worked all the little flaws out of the engine and kept developing it make higher power for longer and with even more reliability. They actually referred to the 100 series as 'The Ultimate Military Development' for obvious reasons.
Interestingly by mid war they could make minor modifications to standard Merlin 66 to boost it to 2050 hp (emergency power) on 150 octane. This power boost was all part of the development of the 100 series seen later on the P51H.
I opened youtube this morning and not only did I get a new Greg’s cideo but also a new Not A Pound For Air to Ground video…I’m gonna be late for work!
Thank you for yet another highly interesting video! I'd love to hear your assessment of the F-82, a personal favourite of mine, too.
Or perhaps that other British superprop, the De Havilland Hornet 😁
@@charlesrousseau6837
Yes, please. There are so many interesting aircraft to cover.
@@charlesrousseau6837 I am a proud American but the Hornets were without a doubt the most beautiful Winged Killing Machines ever crafted by the Hand Of Man...
I love Superprop series.
And for that matter, I love this videos.
Simply awesome production again Greg...! My Great Uncle flew P-51K's ( Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation built in Australia ) in Korea in the ground support role. He said it was his favourite airplane to fly ( well not including the F-86 Sabre...! ) . And this is from a guy that lied about his age in 1942 , flew Spitfires in England at the end of WW2, and went on to fly Hueys in Vietnam, and ended his flying days in the French Dassault Mirage Jet. So, thanks for posting this, and all hail the immortal NA P-51...! Cheers mate...!
On the note of water to oil based oil coolers, many Japanese cars have such coolers, typically built into the oil filter mount. My ‘08 Nissan Altima with a 3.5 L had such a cooler. And in my experience, many Mercedes diesels engines work roughly the same way
Fantastic stuff as ever Greg. My fingers are crossed for a DH Hornet episode. Any plane that was Eric Brown’s favourite has to be worth digging in to.
Greg, have you considered writing a book or having a "blog" or some such? You're a champ.
Noticed in some of the pictures of the P/F-51H that had the tail gear locked down in flight. I seem to remember that they had done the same with ANG F-51D aircraft as well. There was some maintenance issue with the retraction of the tail wheel, and the solution was to have them locked in the down position. I am guessing that it was a similar situation with the F-51Hs that had their tail wheel locked down as well.
I'm guessing it was some short term problem addressed by locking it down, but I just don't know.
Please do Dehavilland Hornet if you have enough material for a full video. Thank you so much for these
I only was aware of the P-51 (D/G). Sea Furys are so cool ! Didn’t know they were made by Hawker
Whether or not the P-51H was _in fact_ less rugged than the P-51D (I think it most likely was, but whether or not it was enough so to matter is another question), I don't think there's any doubt that _pilots thought_ the new, lighter aircraft was more fragile. Between that, the emphasis on the ground attack role for the P-51s in Korea making the better performance of the P-51H less relevant, and the logistical issues... Yeah, it would have been cool to see what might have happened if the P-51H had been sent to Korea, but the odds were heavily stacked against that ever happening.
Greg, thanks, great video. I'd please like to make 2 comments. The first being the use of the hollow steel bladed Aeroproducts A542 propeller on the P-51H. This saved +/- 100 lbs over the Hamilton Standard Hydromatic unit, but more importantly, the near constant-chord "H20" series of blades had a high activity factor (ability to absorb horsepower) of 130.6 and was favored by post-war air racers for decades. The Aeroprop H20 design series was used on the later models of the P-63, all P-82 and F8F aircraft, and early models of the Skyraider. The other item is that late war German fighters such as the FW 190D-9 and Ta-152H also used liquid-liquid heat exchangers to cool their oil.
The Aeroproducts prop is coming up a lot in this discussion. It's interesting because in another video I talked about Aeroproducts and based on the comments there nobody was interested in it. I wonder what the difference is here?
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles , I can't explain the difference in interest. The Aeroprops are a research fascination of mine, particularly the CRP units found on the XP-72, XF8B-1, XP/P-75, A2D, XP5Y-1, and R3Y Tradewinds.
Greg i love your presentations. So interesting to hear that you are a very serious car guy.
Have a super great day Greg. And thanks for the content
Thanks buddy.
Another brilliant video Greg! Love the superprop series.
There is a P-51H racing at this years Reno Airraces
Fascinating! Since you've done all of the super props maybe a video on the air racing applications of these aircraft especially the years following the war...
I did talk about air racing a bit in my Sea Fury video. I'm nowhere near done with Superprops, not even half way.
Thank you. A nice cap to my Friday. Always good content.
Greg! Do something on the last Focke-Wulf "Anton," the A-9! For years, when I was a kid; a teen; a young adult, all the books (and later, websites) said that the -190A series ended at A8. As a mature adult, I began visiting dedicated Luftwaffe-enthusiast websites & discussion boards where lo & behold, they talked about finding records/evidence that some of the horde of end-war A8s were actually a new (and improved) model. 😳🤯
Nice video on the lesser-known version of the P-51. Curiously, Aurora Plastic Models made a fairly good (for its time) plastic kit of the P-51H and is described as such in the assembly instructions. And yes, I have this somewhat rare kit in my stash.
Greg, you spoil us with these videos.
Great video Greg…love the background information.
Thanks for this video. I love the series on the "Super Props" and I've always loved the H-model as I find it the most elegant of the Merlin engine Mustangs, just cleaner and more refined looking (to match the engineering) than the D/K model. Something not always true of the genre either.
I'd be interested to know if the somewhat less elegant F-82 will get a video in the series? I'm not sure if it it fits the genre.
I'll get to the F-82, but I want to cover the single engine fighters first.
It would seem to me that a part of the weight difference between the Spitfire and the P-51D would be due to the landing gear stance. The wider stance of the P-51 requires a more robust wing box to carry the load and the extra leverage. The Spitfire's gear was more narrow and closer to the fuselage. Nicely done video.
You might be forgetting that in flight, the entire weight of the aircraft (and several times that when pulling Gs) goes through the same structure.
Plus in the Mustang your gear structure is near the inboard fuel tanks, so weight transfer is easier vs a fuselage gear and having the fuel weight out there in the wings.
Unfortunately we’ll probably never know, those who made the decision have long since passed. 😕
American planes just tended to be heavy.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 American manufacturers were vested early on with self-sealing fuel tanks and armoring up the cockpit. So definitely heavier.
@@riconui5227 Like in P-36s, Buffaloes, the Severskys and early Wildcats? They picked up on what advanced features the Brits were demanding from U.S manufacturers but the American manufacturers couldn’t easily add lightness. Grumman were excellent with the Bearcat.
"It's just very hard for the naval fighters to win in a straight-up performance comparison."
Except that the F4U-5 with 460+ mph @40K' is no slouch, being right there with the best of 'em. Off the deck climb rate and top speeds are also outstanding. Greg, you might consider "going into" the -32W "elephant ears" variant of the R-2800. One heck of an engine...
Yup, I haven't covered the -5 yet, but it's clearly going to be a part of this series.
Thank You Again Greg 😀😊❤️😎👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼 Love The “H” Model P-51
To me, the Sea Fury is one of the best-looking Fighters from WW2, Excellent video, as usual.
Everything Hawker produced was breathtaking to look at, Very much their own style yet every bit as staunch looking as the best of them. Love the seafury and that sleeve valve wonder by bristol was the icing on the cake for audio-philes like myself 😂
The Hawkers had sort of a functional beauty to them. I can' t quite explain it.
Thanks again, Greg.
Prince Greg superb video. It corrected one of my long-standing memories. I thought the H had a Allison in it. My only technical comment is I agree the P 51s with the behind the seat fuel tank may have had some CG issues but we have to talk very carefully because expert pilots may want a little bit of aft CG to get some tighter turns in certain situations! Not a novice but an expert.
The F82s got Allisons, although early build P82s had Merlins
An aft CG does improve performance, but with the D model it was so far aft that even Chuck Yeager said it was a problem.
The H had the Merlin, as did the XP-51F & G. The XP-51J had an Allison engine.
Interesting note on air combat in the Taiwan Crisis. I also noticed that sources that I saw on the air to air engagements over Taiwan have been getting scrubbed from the internet.
Thanks, and yes, info the Taiwan straight crises has been getting scrubbed from the internet.
It is interesting that in profile, this P-51 body resembles an M-1 Garand stock in certain areas.
Makes me wonder if when out of ammunition, the Garand with bayonet would be a better javelin than any other WWII rifle
Form follows function and I think the most random comment possible. 😊
The P-51H addressed deficiencies in the P-51that were a result of the Merlin engine installation, notably lengthening the rear fuselage. The earlier Merlin engine powered P-51 aircraft had to be restricted in speed to avoid sudden rapid disassembly in flight.
I am driving a rental Giullia and the positioning of the side mirror housing seriously obstructs front lateral sightings tending to obscure traffic approaching from either direction at cross streets.
Not a problem at the race track. In all seriousness, yes, it has flaws, but it's a really fun car.
I know it's a twin-engine super-prop and you had photos of it in this video, but I have always been curious about the F-82 as barely any flying examples exist today even though it was responsible for the first 3 victories of America's involvement in the Korean War. Great that you gave the P-51H a video though, it seems like these planes all suffer from a lack of being under the microscope of war to back up their design and engineering. Amazing how many National Air Guards put their numbers and names down on these beasts.
I'll get to the P-82, that's going to be in the series which I sort of hinted at in this video.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Can't wait to see it along with other IL-2 videos you have planned!
With this and other videos from this channel, I think I'm finally getting a little bit of a handle on WEP and water injection. My confusion dates back to the 70's when I was in grade school reading books about planes where a mention that a pilot could inject a methanol/water mixture to boost power and still today vendors selling water injection kits mention WEP in planes back in WWII along with the claim that MW injection yields extra power. I didn't understand till days ago (from watching videos on this channel) that isn't the MW injection that yields the extra HP, its the manifold pressure boost that gives the extra power, and the MW injection merely enables the engine to tolerate the manifold pressure boost.
Some comments in a five year old video "Why was the BF109K faster than the P51D? MW50!" was some food for thought and I looked into the properties of the liquids used for this purpose. Water, freezing point 32 deg F, boiling point 212 deg F, latent heat of vaporization, 970 btu/lb. Ethanol, freezing point -173 deg F, boiling point 173 deg F, latent heat of vaporization, 395 btu/lb. Methanol, freezing point -137 deg F, boiling point 148 deg F, latent heat of vaporization 501 btu/lb.
The cooling effect from the vaporization of water wins in btu/lb, but, range of usefulness is limited by the high freezing point in comparison to the alcohols and ambient humidity. If it is 70 degrees and pouring down rain and the dew point is 70 degrees the cooling effect in the manifold from evaporation of water will be slight if at all. If there is anything at all its because the manifold is above 70 degrees from engine heat. If you are sea level in Arizona with an ambient temp of 105 degrees and a dew point of 40 degrees water may be able to beat out the alcohols for cooling effect because of its high latent heat of vaporization. Of course the colder temps at high altitude effects the utility of water, water doesn't evaporate well below 32 degrees F. Ethanol with its higher boiling point than methanol plus a lower latent heat of vaporization I think will behind methanol for cooling effect nearly always. The lower freezing point of ethanol may help it out when it gets really cold. I'm not sure how the dew point would effect the propensity of alcohols to evaporate. Hunch is that it is similar to water, but not sure.
Your on the right track. Now consider the cooling effect as the piston rises and pressures and temps rise in the cylinder. All that water in there will vaporize thus cooling things off and reducing or eliminating the chance of knock. Thus you can cram in more manifold pressure and thus more air into the cylinder with less risk than you could otherwise. P-47s never ran more that 52 or maybe 54 inches on high octane fuel alone, with water injection that ran 70.
Thanks-I love these videos, especially the super-rare H model Mustang. . . . .
I think the choice of switching to a coolant-oil cooler system vs. air-oil was strictly for aerodynamic reasons - there was too much going on in the inlet duct and it was already one of the largest points of parasitic drag on the plane.
The oil cooler was really the only thing that could be removed from the air stream, so it was.
As you mentioned - any hit to the same area would / could take out the same coolant loop for the aftercooler and/or the radiator anyways, so it seems unlikely that it was done for survivability IMHO.
Edit: My 2006 Land Rover (Jaguar 4.4 V8) has one as well (part of the filter housing) but I always assumed it was normal for cars these days. Then again, I don’t think my old M3 had one so who knows. I suppose in this case in the LR3 it was required for towing duty, etc.
Taking out the aftercooler radiator will not bring down the plane. Lots of planes didn't even have an aftercooler, including the Merlin powered P-40 and Spit 5.
Great video, Greg. Thanks for making it.
Hi Greg...Cool video on the P51H..! An observation...the P51H profile "nose droop" looks remarkably like CAC's CA-15 "Kangaroo" design that Sir Lawrence Wackett and Fred David kicked-off in June 1943. Originally, the CA-15 was designed for a radial engine...e.g. 😮the 2,300 hp (1,715 kW) Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp plus a turbocharger😵💫...guessing the R-2800-44 or the R-2800-73 with the General Electric CH-5-A3 turbocharger..?!? However, with the P & W R-2800 Double Wasp becaming unavailable; suspect, that's because of more pressing war demands, they fitted an in-line Rolls-Royce Griffon Mk 61 (2,035 hp/1,517 kW) leased from Rolls-Royce.with the intention for production engines to have a three-stage supercharger.. One could say that these boys were serious 🥵"hot-heads". Story goes that after some initial "issues"...CAC's CA-15 "Kangaroo" and Flt Lt J. A. L. Archer reportedly achieved a 🥶speed of 502.2 mph (803 km/h)🥶 over Melbourne, after levelling out of a dive of 4,000 ft (1,200 m), on 25 May 1948. So, I'm not surprised that the P51H is a "Hot Ship"..! Is it possible that some design data was shared with NAA..??
Thanks Greg.
Amazing video Greg. I would also like to see about the spitfire mk 24.
Please cover the Martin-Baker MB-5!
8:47 very informative
I always thought the H had a griffin I wonder why not?
2:27 that's a cool image.
Excellent !
Thanks Greg for the video. I will be looking for a video about the Grumman F7F post war ground attack aircraft cause I think it was classic with it's looks,, the twin double wasp power plants,,, and it was Fast!. Another one taken out do to jet power coming into it's own. Have a great day.
F7F wasn't ground attack aircraft, but carrier based fighter aircraft that design for service on newer aircraft carrier like Midway, but couldn't really fullfil that much
Thanks!
Thank you very much, I really appreciate that.
I only wish I could have asked the questions that we are unsure about to a relative that was the first person hired at North American Aviation (employee #6, the first person after the founding suits). He invented the machine that was used to form a number of complex components on various NAA aircraft.
Heard a number of very interesting stories, only wish I was old enough at the time to ask more questions.
One was a huge quality control issue with the start up of production at the Dallas plant. The people from the home plant in Inglewood, California considered themselves aircraft professionals while the staff at Dallas were decidedly not experienced in building aircraft. The person that I am referring to was sent out to Dallas to deal with the problems as he invited and set up the production of the metal stretching machine used to produce the components that allowed the wings to be accurately and easily mounted to the fuselage (something that the Germans were doing on some of their aircraft to allow for major competent production at different facilities).
When he got to the Dallas factory, the workers were using 10 foot long pry-bars to bend the wings enough to force the mounted holes to align enough. He always said that the ferry pilots were highly preferential to the Inglewood aircraft as the quality was so much better. Anyway, the Dallas plant manager didn’t care about quality but only to push out as much production as possible. I can only assume that Dallas got better over time, but one wonders. I got to check out Tom Cruise’s P51-K that was built in Dallas towards the end of the war that definitely was not up to the Inglewood standards.
I think you will like my next video. It deals with the very early days of North American.
@@drgondog
Believe what you want, it is a true story as I got it DIRECTLY FROM THE PERSON WHO INVENTED THE STRETCHING MACHINE that was used to form the parts. The lack of precision at the Dallas plant vs Inglewood was a major problem and the top management at Inglewood didn’t send their top production expert on the affected parts for the fun of it. This person literally created the idea of stretching the aluminum extrusions around forms, was given resources to build a prototype machine, generated all of the data needed to establish the necessary over stretching & form profile deviations to compensate for the spring back. I actually saw parts of the prototype machine, which by the way was used for production through the war very reliably, while the production stretching machines (which were designed by another group) had reliability problems (actually verified by yet another “production” person from NAA). These were very complex 3D parts that needed EXPERIENCED PRODUCTION people that had the FEEL for the stretching process. The directly same issue is why ULA MANUALLY bends tank sections by VERY EXPERIENCED operators that have a feel for the deformation of the material, except when you use the stretching machine for the P-51 parts it was significantly more difficult due to the large over stretching and large spring back.
Dallas did not have experienced AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION people at startup AND HENCE THE LACK OF PRECISION on the critical components that were needed to mount the wings properly. So the story is true, so the top management sent the creator of the process to Dallas who was so appalled by what he saw (because yes the pry bars WERE causing damage) that he wanted the production to be held up so the problems with the stretched parts could be sorted out at the source. This all caused quite a kerfuffle within top management at NAA and the Dallas plant manager made it clear that quality was secondary to production and that they would locally deal with the problem.
The person who invented the stretching machine was always quite proud of commenting on how the senior ferry pilots who had a choice on which plane they could fly would always choose an Inglewood built P-51 over a Dallas. During the early production days at Dallas before the propeller difference made it obvious which aircraft came from there, the skin panels were wavy on Dallas production and the ferry pilots could see that from a distance.
You can keep on believing what you want, but ground truth first hand reality beats somebody’s opinion everyday!!
There could be all sorts of political reasons why documentation on why production problems at Dallas could delay war time build rate was suppressed and is not available today for people. The first reason is that Dallas management wanted to keep it their dirty little secret and top NAA management wanted to not let it leak out of the company but just quietly deal with it. So they sent their expert to get a clear picture and facts. They obviously also decided that it was best to not have a temporary slow down on production that would be noticed by the war department. So build quality at Dallas was allowed to be significantly inferior to Inglewood.
In addition, it is easy to understand why this particular person had the knowledge and feel for stretching metal. Before he was the first person hired by NAA, employee # 6 (I personally saw the NAA badge with employee number 6 on it, and know WHY AND HOW he became the first employee hired, which in itself is an interesting story). At another aircraft manufacturer in the New York area this same person was the only production person who could successfully bend the proper propeller pitch profile into the metal propeller blanks. This was when they first transitioned from WOODEN PROPELLERS to metal. So same skill set. AND why he had this skill set and others didn’t was because he was trained in “INDUSTRIAL BLACKSMITHING” when that was a thing in Europe. He then became a precision sheet metal expert and tool and die maker. So if you think a Dallas plant manager had the skill set to understand how to actually build a P-51 with the precision of Inglewood, then you are a morosoph.
The P-51 and other NAA aircraft had such high build quality out of Inglewood due to the knowledge of the production supervisors as much as the designers. It is also interesting to note that the engineering designers of the P-51 based the design on easy production LINE assembly that required high precision of complex 3D shapes that were made possible by the success of the stretching machine. So the overall design of the P-51 and part of its success was based around the stretching machine. The aircraft that can help win a war must be both competent and PRODUCED at low cost as a P-51 was less costly by more than 50% than a Lockheed's P-38 Lightning!
So not that you deserve it, but this is some lost history of how the P-51 and NAA became very successful!!
@@drgondog
I said a direct relative! And you clearly are not an engineer as I am and have a graduate mechanical engineering degree from Stanford. You have clearly shown that you don’t have any understanding of how the stretching machine works or why the expert was astonished at the use of pry bars and was extremely worried about the use. As far as “only” somebody outside a company can dictate about internal production problems that can have a direct safety impact on the aircraft then you have your facts wrong. Enough of what I have said has been double checked with another NAA production person and the person in question is not a BSer and actually was not overly talkative about these things, but only came out when groups of NAA ex-employees got together and shared war time experiences.
Why would I make this stuff up? I could go into much more detail but why, you have no first hand or 10th hand information. When you hear a consist story from different individuals over a number of years that were actually there and since I am an engineer who has significant production experience, let’s just say you can put your morosophic dismissals where the …
@@drgondog
First off, I know the name of who the person was, so let’s just lay that to rest. And it was not the B-25, tho I have an interesting story about the testing of the prototype, but no need to share. I am not interested in sharing the last name as it is the same as mine, so probably hard to forget.
@@drgondog
Ok, so you’re not a blithering idiot but you were quite dismissive of a true story. Admittedly when the person who I have been talking about called for a temporary shutdown, how that would be executed was way above his pay grade and the ensuing kerfuffle became quite colorful and POLITICAL with a lot of @ʴse covering by higher management. What was being done to force the wings to get sufficient alignment to be attached was about as bad as it could get. I have researched enough to find pictures of the Inglewood production line station that mounts the wings to the airframe but had no reason to go deeper to validate the veracity of what happened at Dallas. Obviously this was at the early production stage of the P-51 in Dallas, basically where a bunch of information and tooling gets “thrown over the wall” to Dallas and they establish a new production line. The issue was that the “Stretch Forming Machines” required a bit of “art” or “feel” in getting consistent and precise production and tooling set up was critical. These things are more in the hands of knowledgeable and experienced production staff and it seems that Dallas was lacking in this area. Anyway, the plant manager got rather colorful and made it absolutely clear that he didn’t care about quality just as long as the planes kept rolling off the line and they didn’t crash. So it was a call on whether they could get away with what they were doing and maintain their numbers while trying to figure out how to fix the problem. The upshot was that Dallas was going to deal with the problem. This was a significant problem but they had a lot of general fitment issues that were consistent with lack of precision. Now I do realize that the Inglewood production staff had a strong feeling of superiority over Dallas’ as they were the center of competency and had a work force with a lot more institutional knowledge in actual aircraft production. This attitude may have “colored” some opinions about Dallas’ competency.
As far as Dallas QC department failing an aircraft on account of what was happening, considering they would know that the plant manager had made it clear to push that production through, I would suggest that that would not happen. Remember that this got rather political and there was the “whole exigencies of war production” thing to consider.
From that point forward in Dallas production I did not know enough to ask how it got straightened out but there was always comments about how poorly the fitment was compared to Inglewood. Unfortunately I do not have time stamps of when these issues were relevant and one could only assume that things should have gotten better.
My comment about a late production P-51 K being not up to Inglewood standards could just be that particular example and its history but the fitment of some of the panels was not what I was familiar with a number of other P-51s that I have seen at places like Reno. Tom Cruse’s P-51 K was not particularly clean and looked a bit tired. When I talked to the pilot he fell all over himself to try to deflect about the plane being a K but converted to a D (which probably had something to do with the prop).
Excellent coverage.Beautiful aircraft ❤👍
Hmmm, it would be nice if somebody did a video comparing a EcoBoost mustang up against your Fiat and and Alpha at a road course
I can tell you, stock vs. stock, it's Alfa, Ford, Fiat on a dragstrip or road course. The exception there is on a really tight road course the Fiat will beat the Ford. Now when modded like mine, the Fiat will beat the Ford anywhere IF the Ford is stock or lightly modded. Once the Ford has some decent upgrades the Fiat can't touch it any more. Currently my Alfa is the fastest of the three, I'll update on the Ford later.
Great job sir. Please say yes to the A 26 Invader.
Thanks, another great addition to the series. Hopefully the CA.15 will follow at some point. Just a totally unrelated question - why were fabric covered control surfaces used for so long? The entire aircraft could be of advanced metal construction (P51D etc) but still employ a 1900s fabric rudder etc?
It was easier to balance fabric covered controls, so they stayed around longer than they otherwise would have.
Too cool! There are accounts of pilots who crashed because they didn't burn down the aft fuel tank prior to maneuvering aggressively.
I have a question for Greg...I have read various publications on all of the different variants of the P-51, and there are several different power ratings given for each of the three different Merlins that were produced for the Mustangs...the 1650-3, -7, and -9. The power ratings for the -7 are listed for using for using 130 octane fuel and either 61 inches manifold of pressure, or 67 inches. I have read somewhere, and I don't remember where, that later in the war, pilots were authorized to use 75 inches of manifold pressure when using 150 octane fuel on this engine, however, I can't find any power ratings for this pressure/octane combination. Were pilots cleared to use this much manifold pressure, and if so, do you know what the power rating was using this combo? Thanks.
I wonder what a Griffon-powered Mustang would've been like.
There have been some. Red Baron comes to mind.
I always thought the USAF kept the wrong fighter at the end of WWII. The P-51 was better at escort missions and in air-to-air combat than the P-47 but the P-47 was much better at ground attack. Since jet fighters were going to be the main threat in air-to-air the props were mostly going to be used for ground attack. So leaving the 47s in service and retiring the 51s would have made more sense to me. And lets not forget that the 47 used and American engine.
The Air National Guard would cost too much if equipped with P-47s. They were never expected to be used as fighter-bombers.
We can take comfort in the fact that Taiwan made serious use of the P-47s and defeated the communist Chinese with them.
Hello Greg! Could you do a video about La-9 which is also a superprop!
Maybe, it all depends on how my IL2 series does.
0:51 any ideas what the background aircraft is, just over the Seafire's port wing? Twin contra props?
The next video can only be one thing, Tigercat!
Greg I know that I get ahead of myself, my enthusiasm gets ahead of my head. Are you going to consider the CA-15 and th MB 5? And, surely the best performing piston engined fighter there ever was, the DH Hornet? I am enjoying all of your presentations.
So, Hornet next?
I hate too have this things in red team when i fly my LF MkIX Spits out in Warthunder RB.
i hope the next in this series is the F2G-1 "Supercorsair"
Next super prop will be equivalent to the sea fury? F2G?
Keep them coming 👌
Would the A1 Skyraider be considered a super prop?
Yes, I think it fits, not quite in the same category as the fighters, but there were some other ground attack planes it could fit in with.
Wyvern perhaps?
It’s really unfortunate that the P-51H was never deployed overseas during WWII - it would have been the ultimate wartime prop fighter. 555 of the contracted 2000 were built before VJ Day and production was then halted. There was some talk that the 56th FG in the ETO would receive them to replace the problematic P-47M before they sorted out its troubles. Much like in Korea, it didn’t make logistical sense to deploy them when the aircraft already in theater had complete dominance - why bring in a whole separate airframe/engine/parts requirement? Your logic on it’s place in the pantheon of post-war SuperProps makes complete sense - not having a carrier capability renders it pointless when you’ve got P-80’s and beyond.
The ultimate P-51 was the J model, North American only built two them. The H was the ultimate production model.
I guess it depends on how you describe "ultimate". For me, if the plane wasn't a production model it's not the ultimate model. Is Strega the ultimate P-51? Not if you're going into combat.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles According to Robert W. Gruenhagen in his book "Mustang: The story of the P-51 Fighter", under experimental Mustangs the J model was the highest performing Mustang powered by the Allison V1710-119 engine with a five bladed prop. He also states that the H model could do 487 mph with on stores 80" of boost at 3000 rpm at 25,000 ft. The G model could do 495 mph and the J could do 497 mph. North American only produced two G's and two J's and what happened to them is unknown but there are photo's of them.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Please do not take me wrong, I think you are doing a great job and keep it up. But being a one or two run off has nothing to do with being the ultimate Mustang and North American made two of them. The J was the ultimate Mustang, and the H was the ultimate production Mustang. Not counting the racing Mustangs. As for the non-combat history of the H model, I think it is irrelevant as it used in squadron service for years.
I noticed that on a lot of the post war ANG 50H's the tail wheels are down in flight (don't seen to have tailwheel doors either). Why? would ease of maintenance be have been a big enough factor to justify the performance hit ?
The 51H did have a retractable tail wheel with doors which enclosed it. What you are seeing are planes with them pinned down for some reason, a service bulletin, maintenance issues or something else.
On the oil cooler subject, interestingly enough my lowly 1.4t Cruz has one (it's an Opel engine). Not sure what is driving the need for it in an economy car (possible the high hp per liter?, however the 1.8 N/A engine also has one) as it's very poorly located and prone to gasket failure due to heat from the exhaust manifold/turbo and engine block.
Bravo, this series is superb….. although you cruelly teased by saying ‘single engine super props” assume that twins are to follow…..
I sometimes wonder why the RPM was relatively low, in particular compared to modern engines, but it was not possible to buildt more high RPM engines, or perhaps that would not mean any benefits in terms of HP, even if they had?
Huge pistons put high stresses on bearings, and huge stroke means high piston speeds. The designers were always pushing the limits of RPM that could be achieved without reducing engine life and reliability.
These are really big engines, with big (heavy) parts. Also they are designed to run at full power for extended periods, unlike automotive engines that only see peak rpm's for a few seconds at a time. WWII aircraft engines still ran at nearly twice the rpm that modern large truck engines run at.
Greg, the Thunderjet is a bad example for showing jet superiority over superprops. It may have flown in '46, but wasn't ready for deployment until '48-'49, and even then was shite plane with much trouble until the "D" model ('51-ish?). The P/F-80 is better, but it has no load and no loiter until the "C" model. I suspect a WW2 vet in a -51H could probably still outfly a draftee in an -80.
Greg, I would like you to make a spreadsheet with subjects mentioned in your videos.
I have seen them all, I'm a Patreon and I love them all. You go on a lot of tangents and cover many side subjects in your videos, when I need to cross reference something, I can't for the love of God find it. Just make a Google spreadsheet, link it to your drive and give patreons you trust edit rights so we get a quick cross reference table.
Thank you, once again, great channel
Hmm, I never thought anyone would want to go back to a video to find something other than the main topic. I'll see what I can do about putting a spread sheet in the drive. I can't sign into Patreon at the moment because of my location, but I'll see about doing this when I can next week.
It would save you the bother of cross referencing certain topics in every video. We have had an "ethylene-glycol coolers advancements" discussion a while back - as I found the primary sources confirming my argument, I was unable to find the video where this was mentioned (one of the FW-190 vids). Made me think that a cross reference would not hurt and since you started doing this more and more in your videos, might be a benefit to everyone. And yes, your videos have good rewatch value and no, It is not (only) because I fall asleep watching them :)@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
Can you do one on the Goodyear F2G?
According to Wikipedia , the Packard Merlin used in the P-51 that fought the Luftwaffe was rated at 1380 H.P. That seems like a low number considering the SeaFire had a 1550 RR Merlin. Was the Packard Merlin of lower HP than RR Merlins? Was this why Luftwaffe could out climb P-51 D.
The 109's climb performance had a lot to do with the low weight of the plane. The Packard Merlin in the 51 had over 1700hp late in the war, they kept increasing the manifold pressure limits.
I will always wonder what a Griffin powered P-51H might have done and with M3 version 50-cal. weapons? I think 500-525mph, at which point a P80 was not too much faster and had so much less range
Maybe, but it just doesn't matter. The F-84 flew in 1946 and could exceed 600mph in level flight. It just wasn't a contest anymore.
As much as I love piston jobs, getting a type like that at over 500 mph in level flight is tough. Just look at the Civilian Bearcats and Mustangs that have been lightened and with more powerful engines. And that’s just to keep them going for a very short time.
Curious why the Americans didn’t look at contra rotating props as well like the British did.
What about the F-97 Sea Fang? My favorite.
Is it possible to quantify the effect of simpler engine management on fighter survival?