Pony talk

[Splitter]

[QUOTE=Sternjaeger;191649]Yeah, the legend says that the first drawing of the Mustang/A-36 was sketched on a restaurant napkin and from that sketched it was developed in just over 100 days

So while the airframe was amazing, it didn't become a plane to be reckoned with until they put the Merlin under the hood. What we know as the Mustang was really a joint development between the Americans and Brits.


The P-40 is not actually a bad turner itself, it just lacked the high altitude performance. The P-51 was an energy fighter that could go pretty much everywhere and mix up with the best that the Germans and Japanese had.
It was quite delicate compared to the rugged P-47, but it could outperform it pretty much everywhere (except maybe for diving?).
Regarding the ruggedness, I always wondered why the Americans insisted on using the F-51 in Korea when they could have delivered a better payload on a more robust plane with the P-47.. the development of the Skyrider should be quite significant on this aspect..



I agree Splitter, the feeling of speed, stability and readiness is incredible.. no sloppiness, delay, slow reactions.. just 1650HP of energy packed in the 10ft between you and the propeller!

Are Mustang rides really that expensive now?! Jeeez! That would cost me quite a lot of money!
Who did you fly with, the Crazy Horse guys?

SJ

Yeah, the rides are that expensive now. I got a report from a friend that went to a hanger dance at the local airport recently. The plane he pictured was "Betty Jane" which looked like a B model to me. I really cannot be sure if that was the two seater offering rides at $2200 for 30 minutes, but I think it was.

You can also take rides in WWII bombers for something like $400 but I never have. Maybe some day.

I flew in a P-51 about 17 years ago in Kissime Florida. I think I actually paid by the pound! It cost me...$600? It's been a long time and it was a spur of the moment thing so I can't be sure. I have also taken a ride in a local (Winchester, WV) AT-6 Texan where I was allowed to take the stick....that was fun lol. We didn't do aerobatics in the P-51 but we did a lot in the AT-6. Totally different experience in the trainer with the big radial. We did a simulated dive bombing on a bridge in Harper's Ferry, Chandelles, and 8 point rolls plus some other fun stuff. That pilot liked to try to make "sim jockeys" queasy .

I used to hang out at my local airport when I was a teen and gave rides or ran errands for private pilots who flew in. I got to ride in and sometimes got to "fly" some pretty cool planes. The best at the time was a two seat Pitts Special...that thing was scary nimble but I didn't get any "stick time". The amazing thing about that plane is that the pilot rolled us several times in one direction and my head was spinning...one quick roll in the other direction and I was perfectly fine.

Flying used to be fairly "cheap" and I was an idiot not to follow through with my license back then. If you saved a pilot $100 in rental car services he was more than happy to show off his bird for an hour or so.

I don't know why we chose to go with the 51 inline engine in Korea instead of a P-47. The big radial would have made much more sense in the ground attack role. It's interesting that the radial lasted all the way into Vietnam in the SkyRaider. Of course, the Cosair was used in Korea also so I guess they were using what they had on hand given that the US was not prepared for Korea (all that de-militarization that works so well....).

In WWII, there were some clear differences in air combat theory between different countries. The Japanese preferred lightly armored and very nimble aircraft. The Americans liked heavier, faster, more durable aircraft. Each country had their own preferences. I have always thought it made sense to be faster than the opponent so a pilot could break off a fight any time he wanted to...maybe that's just an American prejudice .

The really bad argument is the age old Spit vs. Mustang debate. To me, they are planes made for different roles and each performed their role very well in their time. The 190 and 109 performed their roles well too. It's just that to me....the Mustang filled a number of roles well enough to make it unique amongst its' contemporaries. The Mustang could do a credible job in the Spit or 109/190 role, but it had the legs to fly from London to Berlin and back too.

We are VERY lucky in my area, BTW. Many air shows with vintage aircraft are within driving distance every year.

Splitter

[IceFire]

Oh... about the Mustang in Korea. I'm over simplifying what happened but after the war the P-51's were put into mothballs for the most part while the P-47N's continued on in National Guard units. I think they were phased out sometime in the late 40s just before the US got involved in Korea. The Mustangs were cheap and still plentiful while the P-47s were phased out or scrapped.

The P-47 would have been a much better CAS aircraft but the Mustangs were available in quantity and they needed to procure large numbers of aircraft in a very short period of time.

That is as best I understand that particular situation.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Oh... about the Mustang in Korea. I'm over simplifying what happened but after the war the P-51's were put into mothballs for the most part while the P-47N's continued on in National Guard units. I think they were phased out sometime in the late 40s just before the US got involved in Korea. The Mustangs were cheap and still plentiful while the P-47s were phased out or scrapped.

The P-47 would have been a much better CAS aircraft but the Mustangs were available in quantity and they needed to procure large numbers of aircraft in a very short period of time.

That is as best I understand that particular situation.

That's pretty much it. My father was a subscriber to a quartertly aviation magazine that also runs some history columns and i've read pieces about both the Mustang and the Corsair in Korea.

What happened was that the types of prop-driven close support aircraft were chosen based on what was available or easiest to restore to flying condition in order to quickly close the gaps and start flying CAS sorties as soon as possible. It was a case of "i need an extra 1000 airframes and i need them yesterday", instead of "i need the best aiframes for the job".
This meant that Mustangs with their sensitive liquid cooled merlins had to run the gauntlet of low level AA and small arms fire.

It's also interesting that Corsairs suffered higher losses than what was expected of an aircraft with a radial engine. The reason was that Corsairs were stripped of certain equipment post-WWII to improve handling and performance. When the first ones were shipped to Korea there was no time to re-install everything, so a lot if not the majority of them entered combat while missing some pieces of equipment.

Among those missing pieces was an armoured ring running around the engine cowling. Radials are powerful, reliable, durable and all that jazz, but still need oil to work. Well, the main oil lines in the Corsairs were running around the cowling and the lack of the armoured cowling ring made them one of the most vulnerable parts of the airframe. A big WWII-era radial could still function with entire cylinders blown off as long as it had lubrication, but if there's no oil everything grinds to a halt through friction sooner or later.

In practical terms what his means is that as the Corsair is diving towards the target and going head-on through the flak, all it would take was a few bits of lucky shrapnel that might not even scratch the engine block, but they could certainly puncture the oil line and force a mission abort.