PDA

View Full Version : Flight Characteristics of the P-51 Airplane



AKA_TAGERT
09-12-2007, 06:48 PM
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1541332312841515347

T_O_A_D
09-12-2007, 06:51 PM
Watching http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Waldo.Pepper
09-12-2007, 06:54 PM
You beat me to the announcement this time! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

polak5
09-12-2007, 07:07 PM
If you guys enjoyed that check out, they have a wide variety of these vids.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/main.html

Waldo u might like...

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-61.html

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

triad773
09-12-2007, 07:18 PM
They seem to cover all the series of Mustangs but nice find! Will add it to my collection http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cajun76
09-12-2007, 07:31 PM
I got about 5 min into it, and saw "High Alt and aerobatics of the P-47" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

They even finished with my "good hunting" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Waldo.Pepper
09-12-2007, 08:05 PM
Waldo u might like... P-61

I think I have that one. Sadly I think they used an XP-61 for the training film. (if it is the film I think it is) ... but thanks for the heads up.

BillyTheKid_22
09-12-2007, 08:21 PM
Lol!! P-51 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

willyvic
09-12-2007, 08:58 PM
The suit was Lee J. Cobb, was it not? Sure sounded and looked like him.

WV

FPSOLKOR
09-13-2007, 02:51 AM
I remember reading somewhere about some stability problem with P-51 due to fuel system... Can anyone confirm?

La7_brook
09-13-2007, 03:22 AM
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2637249556697203...ype=search&plindex=9 (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2637249556697203598&q=FW+190+A&total=1055&start=50&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

R_Target
09-13-2007, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
I remember reading somewhere about some stability problem with P-51 due to fuel system... Can anyone confirm?

Not the fuel system, but the fuselage fuel tank, which when more than 1/2 full could cause instability. It was usually the first tank to be burned off.

Monty_Thrud
09-13-2007, 03:34 AM
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2637249556697203...ype=search&plindex=9


^^AH! and here we have the standard food type of the P51, although there is only one, so that would be just a bit of a nibble, to the Mustang.

Whirlin_merlin
09-13-2007, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
I remember reading somewhere about some stability problem with P-51 due to fuel system... Can anyone confirm?

Not so much a 'problem' as the nessecery (whoa that's no where near spelt right) compromise involved in carrying enough fuel to have it's amazing range.

Blutarski2004
09-13-2007, 05:22 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
I remember reading somewhere about some stability problem with P-51 due to fuel system... Can anyone confirm?


..... The fuel tank in question was a modification to the original design, installed to increase range (85 US gallons capacity IIRC). It was situated immediately behind the cockpit.

Von_Rat
09-13-2007, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by willyvic:
The suit was Lee J. Cobb, was it not? Sure sounded and looked like him.

WV

yes i think it was.

the pilot was also an actor, i cant remember his name though.

M_Gunz
09-13-2007, 05:58 AM
If some over-muscled Sporakis managed to jerk a real P-51D stick around like many gamers do
then a CoG that's a bit back would only emphasize the real source of instability.

Rjel
09-13-2007, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by willyvic:
The suit was Lee J. Cobb, was it not? Sure sounded and looked like him.

WV

yes i think it was.

the pilot was also an actor, i cant remember his name though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The other actor's name was Arthur Kennedy.

MrMojok
09-13-2007, 09:12 AM
If you buy this disc from Zeno's, it has the flight characteristics movie on it, but also a lot of rare color footage of a P-51 unit in italy, a documentary about the Mustangs with the Allison engines that were used for ground attack, a nice color vid of the last days of the Luftwaffe(captured footage), plus a huge official P-51 manual from the USAF.

The manual actually was printed in like 1952, but everything in there applies to the plane you fly in the game.

FPSOLKOR
09-13-2007, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Not the fuel system, but the fuselage fuel tank, which when more than 1/2 full could cause instability. It was usually the first tank to be burned off.
Wasn't there the same problem with drop tanks?

Bearcat99
09-13-2007, 12:26 PM
That was great... makes you think about the full CEM huh... A few excepts below.

<sub>Major: Hello Chilton.. How is she on directional trim changes when speed & horsepower are variant?

Pilot: I'll throttle back and give it a whirl...... The airplane is stable at all normal loadings, but the directional trim changes at low speeds as horsepower (MP or throttle) & speed is varied, however the rudder tab corrtects this effectively with only a slight adjustment and it should be used as neccessary. Normally there is no trouble as the plane is naturally stable.

Engineer: That means the P-51B will remain at any altitude without adjusting the trim tabs. Less work for the pilot.

Pilot: Now I'm going to show her stalling characteristics. The stall is comparatively mild and occurs at approximately 95 mph indicated with gear & flaps up. About 3 or 4 miles above this stalling speed a slight elevator buffett occurs. The plane [sinks a distance... (unclear)], then rolls over on one wing. It doesn't whip over as some other planes do, and it has very little tendancy to drop into a spin. The recovery is completely normal. All that has to be done is to release the back pressure on the stick, and apply opposite rudder. With the gear and flaps down the stall would have the same characteristics as before only it occurs at about 85mph indicated.

Engineer: Naturally with combat tanks or bombs making an extra load the stalling speeds are higher.

Pilot: Now let's go into an accelerated stall.

P-51:VvVvVvVvvVVvVVVVvrRRRRRRrRrrRroOooOooOoOOOOOOoM mMMMmmmmmm

Pilot: A heavy buffet occurs around the wing root fillet and the horizontal stabilizer 3 or 4 miles above actual stalling speed, but the plane recovers immediately by releasing pressure on the stick. The accelerated stall has stronger warning characteristics than the normal stall.

Colonel: Hello Bob... show us a couple of dives....

Pilot: OK Col. here she goes.....

P-51: vvVVVvVVVvrRRRrROoOOoooooommmmmm

Pilot: The plane gains speed extremely fast in a dive. Tends to veer slightly to the right, and continue in a dive without puilling itself out for quite a long time.

.......................
Colonel:How about doing a couple of rolls for us.

Pilot: Here's one to the left. Rate of roll is extremely fast. Especially at high speeds.

Engineer: Thats due to the sealed balance ailerons. The final result of 14 different designs.

Major: That fast roll really counts too.

Colonel: Yes that means the pilot can disengage the enemy a lot quicker.

Engineer: We beleive the only ship that can approch it for speed of roll is the Fw-190.

Pilot: Here's another dive.

P-51:VVVVvvvvvvrrrroooommmmmmMmMMMMmmm

Pilot: In the dive the pilot doesnt have to maintain excessive forward pressure on the stick. Catch the slight tendency to veer to the right with a trim tab if in a prolonged dive, otherwise the ship is posiotively stabkle in a dive. Hello Arthur, I'm going up high altitude and put her into a maximum speed dive to show you how fast she'll go before reaching compressability.

........................
Pilot:38000.. you all set down there? .......
300..... 350.... 400.... 440..... compressability.. stick movinf fore and aft, slight elevator over balance, heavy buffeting on tail section, oscilation occurs rapidly, however control forces on elevator reman unchanged plane hunts sklightly along horizontal axis.... pulling out now. No difficulty, excpet buffetting continues until a lower speed has been reached.

Major: 440 indicated at that height!!! That's really moving!!!

Colonel: Enemy fighters will have a h@ll of a time trying to keep up with this ship in a dive.
...................
Pilot: I'm going to try a couple of spins. I'll do a right spin first. Here she goes.
In a right spin there is a continuous oscillation. A slight rudder buffet is present. Procedure for recovery completely normal. No trouble getting out of the spin.

P-51:VVvvvvvvvvvrvvrvrvvvvooooooooooooommmmmmmm

Colonel: Why dont you try one to the left now.....

Pilot: For 3 turns an oscillation is present as in the right spin. Then the spin becomes stable. Recovery is the same. Roll opposite rudder then stick in neutral. </sub>

There's lots more all good stuff and just as interesting I must admit when compared to the P-51 in the sim. Even the side slip info.

triad773
09-13-2007, 01:25 PM
Yeah I have found similarly these vids that cover the P-39, don't exactly reflect what I experienced, though I think its telling that one of these mentioned "Don't listen to what other pilots say about the P-39..."

Interesting stuff... not sure if I saw this link here or somewhere else:

Intro to the P-39 Cobra

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4973497638554184738

Also

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1335141778279527517

super71957
09-13-2007, 02:32 PM
Here is a great report from test pilots at Elgin Air Base in Florida,1942.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51-tactical-trials.html

Vanderstok
09-13-2007, 02:32 PM
Good stuff. I really like they way they made those movies... hollywood style!
I ordered the DVD today. With the current dollar exchange rate it's almost for nothing anyway! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

horseback
09-13-2007, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
Not the fuel system, but the fuselage fuel tank, which when more than 1/2 full could cause instability. It was usually the first tank to be burned off.
Wasn't there the same problem with drop tanks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not sure what you mean here. Drop tanks were meant to be dropped before entering into maneuvering combat, so that the extra weight didn't exceed the wings' limits or slow the aircraft down. Demonstrating American wealth and profligacy by the obvious wastage was just a side benefit.

Since the Mustang had a substantial amount of fuel in its two 'base' wingroot tanks (around 85 US gallons each, I think), it almost always had enough fuel to make it home after dropping its droptanks.

If you mean that it had problems dropping the tanks, the answer is no. The very small (compare to similar droptank or bomb mountings on the P-47 or P-38) wing pylons added to the Mustang for droptanks or bombs were very effective, and bombs or droptanks rarely 'fouled' and got stuck or damaged a wing or the fuselage. The fuel feed line from US fighters' droptanks featured a section of curved glass tubing that broke off when the tank was jettisoned--it was usually referred to as a 'glass elbow'.

The pylons were first used on the first major production version specifically built for the USAAF, the A-36 Apache divebomber. Bombers can't do you much good if they can't drop their bombs cleanly, and the Apache was an effective divebomber and ground attack a/c in the Med and (I think) Burma (which was why the first Merlin Mustangs were assigned to the 9th AF).

Hope this helps.

cheers

horseback

Bearcat99
09-13-2007, 10:35 PM
Usually they would use up half the fuel in the fuselage tanks.. then the drops.. usually once they got into combat there wasn't much left in them anyway..

super71957
09-14-2007, 01:20 AM
Great info,Thank you Horseback.
I have learned a hec of alot about WWII aircraft and WWII itself in this forum.
What a great place!!

Daiichidoku
09-14-2007, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I'm going up high altitude and put her into a maximum speed dive to show you how fast she'll go before reaching compressability.

........................
Pilot:38000.. you all set down there? .......
300..... 350.... 400.... 440..... compressability.. stick movinf fore and aft, slight elevator over balance, heavy buffeting on tail section, oscilation occurs rapidly, however control forces on elevator reman unchanged plane hunts sklightly along horizontal axis.... pulling out now. No difficulty, excpet buffetting continues until a lower speed has been reached.

Major: 440 indicated at that height!!! That's really moving!!!

Colonel: Enemy fighters will have a h@ll of a time trying to keep up with this ship in a dive.


so wheres the compress in game? big BS, saddling the 38 with compress, that is incorrect to start with, when 51, 47s, and most other types in game that could reach thier own respective compress speeds IRL, yet in game..no


sometimes i think 51 jocks should be thankful they get off easy with the shortcomings they DO currently get, most have no idea how bad it would be if they got a taste of Olegs version of compress. in thier ponys

FPSOLKOR
09-14-2007, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Not sure what you mean here. Drop tanks were meant to be dropped before entering into maneuvering combat, so that the extra weight didn't exceed the wings' limits or slow the aircraft down. Demonstrating American wealth and profligacy by the obvious wastage was just a side benefit.

Since the Mustang had a substantial amount of fuel in its two 'base' wingroot tanks (around 85 US gallons each, I think), it almost always had enough fuel to make it home after dropping its droptanks.

If you mean that it had problems dropping the tanks, the answer is no. The very small (compare to similar droptank or bomb mountings on the P-47 or P-38) wing pylons added to the Mustang for droptanks or bombs were very effective, and bombs or droptanks rarely 'fouled' and got stuck or damaged a wing or the fuselage. The fuel feed line from US fighters' droptanks featured a section of curved glass tubing that broke off when the tank was jettisoned--it was usually referred to as a 'glass elbow'.

The pylons were first used on the first major production version specifically built for the USAAF, the A-36 Apache divebomber. Bombers can't do you much good if they can't drop their bombs cleanly, and the Apache was an effective divebomber and ground attack a/c in the Med and (I think) Burma (which was why the first Merlin Mustangs were assigned to the 9th AF).

Hope this helps.

cheers

horseback

I wanted to know if half full (or empty) drop tanks caused the same stability problem as rear tank. I heard it at the interview with WWII P-51 pilot, but i didn't quite get wether it was a construction fault or problem of a specific aircraft?

Waldo.Pepper
09-14-2007, 03:22 PM
I wanted to know if half full (or empty) drop tanks caused the same stability problem as rear tank.

I think I may regret this - but I would suggest that the presence of droptanks (whether they be half full or not) would cause undesirable stability problems.

The supposedly rock solid edict/order to fly the fuselage tank half empty first - was not applied universally and to suggest that it was is an understandable shortcut - but also I think a dangerous over simplicity. The following is from America's Hundred Thousand (which in this section draws freely from the P-51 manual.)

"The Allison powered airplanes had two protected internal fuel tanks each of 90 US gallon capacity located inboard between the main and rear wing spars. The left tank included a supply designated as reserve (31 gallons of the 90) using the high and low standpipe system. There were no provisions for external drop tanks on the P-51, but the P-51A and the A-36A provided for a 75 or 150 US gallon drop tank on a bomb rack under each wing. The 75 gallon size was a combat drop tank; the 150 gallon tank was a slipper-type for long range ferry operation. An engine-driven fuel pump powered the system with a manually controlled electrical booster pump also provided in the engine compartment, as was a fuel strainer. The engine primer system picked fuel off from the strainer. A main fuel selector valve was located in the cockpit, and an auxiliary fuel selector valve connected the fuel lines running across the wing to drop tank positions to the rest of the system. The two selector valves and the boost pump switch were on a center console just ahead of the control stick. A fuel quantity gauge was included.

The later Merlin powered aircraft had two protected internal fuel tanks each of 92 US gallons in the inboard wing locations. The P-51B-5 aircraft became B-7 types (and P-51C-ls became C-3s) after installation of an 85 US gallon protected fuselage fuel tank aft of the cockpit area. Kits were made available for fuselage tank installation on earlier B models, and all subsequent production Merlin powered aircraft had the 85 gallon fuselage tank except for some P-51C-5 reconnaissance aircraft. Filling the fuselage tank sent the aircraft center of gravity aft and resulted in stability and control problems, so various restrictions were set up at various times, depending on the combat situation as to how much fuel was placed in that tank. Late models were sometimes placarded at a 65 gallon limit.

The system was powered by an engine-driven pump, but in addition each of the main wing tanks had its own gravity-fed submerged type of booster pump powered by the electrical system. The drop tanks provided had no boost pumps, but fuel was forced out of them by a controlled pressure of five PSI from the exhaust side of the vacuum pump. If this pressure failed the engine-driven fuel pump could draw fuel from the drop tanks up to about 10000 feet altitude.

Priming and oil dilution components were also part of the system, as was a strainer, fuel pressure and fuel quantity gages, and a fuel shut-off valve. Cockpit controls included the shut-off lever, tank selection switch, boost pump switch, and mechanical drop tank salvo levers which provided selective release of the tanks as a backup for electrical release of bombs or tanks."

I would also suggest that all (perhaps not all) but certainly most aircraft of the period had COG problems. The Me-262 did also. This is noted by Franz Stiegler in the Me-262 video I posted as well.