P51 Mustang Warbird

[Skwinty]

Found this interesting footage on the net. Not too many of the old bold pilots left now.
The history behind the P-51 Mustang (23.8 MB wmv file)
The P-51's armament and the pros and cons of its performance are discussed (26.8 MB wmv file)
The Mustang's performance is greatly improved with a new engine and design modifications (22.5 MB wmv file)
The P-51 becomes the premier fighter of the European war, with its long escort range and ground attack capabilities (24.7 MB wmv file)
The Mustang performs brilliantly in the Pacific war, both as a long range escort and as a ground attack plane (26.4 MB wmv file)
The Mustang saw service in the Korean War and was used for various purposes in some parts of the world into the 1970s (28.4 MB wmv file)
http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/html/sub/avp51.htm
Enjoy

[Foster Zygote]

As fine a fighter as the Merlin powered P-51 was in WWII, it was misused in Korea. It was an excellent air superiority fighter against other piston powered aircraft. It wasn't the best at any one thing, but it was very good at just about everything. But in Korea they used it primarily in the close support role, a task which exposed it's vulnerable cooling system to a lot of ground fire. I think the Air Force hung on to the Mustang because it was considered to be the best available piston powered fighter in the inventory. But if they'd really thought about what they were going to use the old prop driven war-birds for, they would have done well to keep the P-47 Thunderbolt in the inventory. The Jugs had massive firepower, could carry a lot of ordinance, and you could absolutely shoot the **** out of them and they'd stay in the air. It wasn't unusual to have them fly back to base with one or two entire cylinders shot off the engine. There's a reason the 56th FG flat out refused to give up their Jugs for Mustangs. Don't get me wrong, I love the Mustangs. But the Jug was a Hell of an aircraft too and would have made much more sense to use in the close support role.

[Skwinty]

As fine a fighter as the Merlin powered P-51 was in WWII, it was misused in Korea. It was an excellent air superiority fighter against other piston powered aircraft. It wasn't the best at any one thing, but it was very good at just about everything. But in Korea they used it primarily in the close support role, a task which exposed it's vulnerable cooling system to a lot of ground fire. ................................................. Don't get me wrong, I love the Mustangs. But the Jug was a Hell of an aircraft too and would have made much more sense to use in the close support role.

The SAAF experienced a high attrition rate in Korea in Mustangs through this misuse. They had over 10,000 sorties and lost 60 aircraft to ground fire.
The P47 another great warbird. The website I linked to has good footage on the Jug. Just have to navigate to the different videos

[Cicero]

The A-1 Skyraider (which really replaced the Jug) had the best loitering capability and performed rescue cap for downed pilots during the Korean War. But during the Korean War, the piston-powered Corsair was also used for close air support.

[I Ratant]

The P-47s were in Europe during the start of the Korean War, and were replaced by F-86s, '52 or thereabouts.
Watching them roar around Germany at low level was one of life's treats. :)

[Bikewer]

I have a WWII fighter photo book, and in one of the more remarkable shots a German Luftwaffe POW is assigned to cutting up P-51s for scrap; too expensive to send them back to the states....

[oldhat]

I have a WWII fighter photo book, and in one of the more remarkable shots a German Luftwaffe POW is assigned to cutting up P-51s for scrap; too expensive to send them back to the states....

Title, author, ISBN?

[Bikewer]

Glad to oblige. (had a moment's panic, but I found it.)

http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Command-American-Fighters-Original/dp/0879384735/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243437829&sr=8-1

BTW, the story about the "relief tube" is hilarious.

[Foster Zygote]

Glad to oblige. (had a moment's panic, but I found it.)

http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Command-American-Fighters-Original/dp/0879384735/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243437829&sr=8-1

BTW, the story about the "relief tube" is hilarious.

You mean how the end would freeze over and plug up the tube so that the first -G maneuver caused urine to spill all over the cockpit?

[I Ratant]

Jackie Cochran wrote up the relief tube on one of the planes -she- was ferrying, as inoperative.

[Foster Zygote]

The A-1 Skyraider (which really replaced the Jug) had the best loitering capability and performed rescue cap for downed pilots during the Korean War. But during the Korean War, the piston-powered Corsair was also used for close air support.

Yeah, the Spads and Hogs were great for close support. the A-1 even did a superb job in Vietnam. The Navy always preferred the round motors: Simpler, more durable, easier to care for.

[DDWW]

Would there be a market out there for new reproductions? If GM cannot sell cars but has idol assembly lines.....

DDWW

[DDWW]

PS. A little off topic but, I always wondered why the F-86 was armed with .50 cals. (a really fine gun BTW) instead of several 20 mm's. Seems it would give the Saber a little more range and punch.

DDWW

[I Ratant]

The 20s were tried in the Sabres in Korea.
Ten F-86E'Fs were converted to carry 4 20mms.
The cannon worked fine, and were adopted for later airplanes.

[DDWW]

The 20s were tried in the Sabres in Korea.
Ten F-86E'Fs were converted to carry 4 20mms.
The cannon worked fine, and were adopted for later airplanes.

Thanks!!

DDWW

[Kestrel]

Great link. Guess it's time to tell a couple of P51 stories.

Back in the early 1970s, there were 5 P51s based out of an airport a few miles from where I lived. The guys that owned them would occasionally fly around in formation, sometimes right over our house. Great fun to watch.

One afternoon, I heard an airplane engine sputter and stop, a bit later there was a loud thump. One of the P51s had been sold and the new owner was flying it back to Kansas. He had an engine failure shortly after leaving the airport, stalled out and went straight into the ground. Wasn't much left of the aircraft or the pilot.

During WW2, a family friend was an RAF fighter pilot. He started out in Spitfires, but one morning his commander pointed to a new P51 and said "Mike, that one is yours. Take it up this morning and fly around a bit, we are going on a mission this afternoon."

During the battle of Arnham, Mike shot down three German fighters before taking a hit in the engine. He managed to deadstick the P51 into a swamp. He was badly injured but managed to climb out of the cockpit. There he discovered he was surrounded by German troops. Mike spent the rest of the war as a POW.

[Bikewer]

In the story I mentioned a pilot complained to his crew chief about how the device did not work well.
The chief, an inventive fellow, decided to improve the function by adding a bit of sheet metal to the exhaust point, thus increasing the suction...
It worked all too well.

For those who can't imagine what this does, it's essentially a tube that the pilot can use to relieve himself into during long flights. It's supposed to be drawn out into the slipstream.

[DogB]

The 20s were tried in the Sabres in Korea.
Ten F-86E'Fs were converted to carry 4 20mms.
The cannon worked fine, and were adopted for later airplanes.

Our Aussie Sabres has 2x30mm instead. They seems to work just fine also.

[Ove]

PS. A little off topic but, I always wondered why the F-86 was armed with .50 cals. (a really fine gun BTW) instead of several 20 mm's. Seems it would give the Saber a little more range and punch.

DDWW

The USAF stuck to .50 cals long after other air forces had begun using 20mm cannons. Conservatism?. Fact is that Spitfires regularily flew with two 20mm and two .50 cals or two 20mm and four .303 but eventually ended up with four 20mm, which was standard on most British fighters. The F86 was outgunned by the MIG15 with one 37mm and two 23mm which forced the USAF pilots to fire at close range. Fortunately the MIG pilots were relatively inexperienced whereas a lot of the US pilots were WW2 veterans.
The Brits actually put four 20mm on the Corsairs used on some British carriers.



But hey, the song of a Merlin is MUSIC compared to the whine off a Pratt & Whitney. :D

[Bikewer]

One reason was rate of fire. The 37mm cannon on the MIGs was quite slow, and pilots joked about "flying between the shells". These aircraft were primarily designed to shoot down bombers.
The six 50s, "cycled up" as were most aircraft guns to about 900 rounds per minute, put out a lot of lead, and a couple of .50 rounds would pretty well mess up a jet engine.

I don't know about the "close range" thing; I recall reading pilot accounts by a newly-arrived wingman who was astounded at the range at which his primary would open fire.
He hadn't figured that they were flying at much higher altitudes than his WWII experience dictated, and the much thinner air allowed longer engagement ranges.

The kill ratio alone would indicate that the Sabres were not under-armed.

[Cicero]

Yet in 1959, when the first M61 Vulcan Gatling 20mm was fitted to the Starfighter, the firing of the weapon resulted in an immediate kill. Unfortunately, the kill was the F-104 firing the weapon.

[Cicero]

The USAF stuck to .50 cals long after other air forces had begun using 20mm cannons. Conservatism?. Fact is that Spitfires regularily flew with two 20mm and two .50 cals or two 20mm and four .303 but eventually ended up with four 20mm, which was standard on most British fighters. The F86 was outgunned by the MIG15 with one 37mm and two 23mm which forced the USAF pilots to fire at close range. Fortunately the MIG pilots were relatively inexperienced whereas a lot of the US pilots were WW2 veterans.
The Brits actually put four 20mm on the Corsairs used on some British carriers.



But hey, the song of a Merlin is MUSIC compared to the whine off a Pratt & Whitney. :D

The Spitfire of the Battle of Britain carried 8 Browning .303 mg's. Imagine if there was room in the elliptical wing for 8 Browning .50's?

[I Ratant]

Yet in 1959, when the first M61 Vulcan Gatling 20mm was fitted to the Starfighter, the firing of the weapon resulted in an immediate kill. Unfortunately, the kill was the F-104 firing the weapon.
.
The Hawker Hunter Mk I could not fire its cannon about 250 knots or 20,000 feet, without the motor flaming out.
And this was the first-line defense aircraft.
It took some time before this little problem was "sorted out".
There was concern about the monster 30mm Gatling gun on the Warthog flaming out the motors also.

[MG1962]

I had the pleasure of seeing a P51 do some simulated straffing runs a few years ago at an airshow, the sound the power the grace...........amazing

Personally I love the Mosquito and the A10 Warthog - a plane that looks mean even just sitting in the hanger

[Cicero]

I had the pleasure of seeing a P51 do some simulated straffing runs a few years ago at an airshow, the sound the power the grace...........amazing

Personally I love the Mosquito and the A10 Warthog - a plane that looks mean even just sitting in the hanger

The Mosquito placed 4th in the "Military Channel" Top Ten bombers. Hard to beat it for innovation.

[Foster Zygote]

One reason was rate of fire. The 37mm cannon on the MIGs was quite slow, and pilots joked about "flying between the shells". These aircraft were primarily designed to shoot down bombers.

The RLM's Mk103 30mm cannon had the same issue in WWII. One round could devastate a fighter, but with the slow rate of fire that was often difficult for inexperienced pilots to achieve. But pilots like Hartmann were said to shoot down Il-2s with a single round placed into the rear of the oil cooler at point blank range.

(I'm sure you know this, but it's fun to talk about.)

[Ove]

The Spitfire of the Battle of Britain carried 8 Browning .303 mg's. Imagine if there was room in the elliptical wing for 8 Browning .50's?

Hehe yes, that would have surprised Galland and his fellow pilots. They tested the 20mm on a few planes during BOB but the feed mechanism was not good enough and the cannons jammed all the time. The problem was that the .303 was too smal a round to do some serious damage, often BOB pilots experienced filling a HE111 with bullets and the darned thing kept on flying. They allways tried to kill the pilots if possible.

Incidentially, Douglas Bader, the famous legless pilot, was very much against cannon armed fighters because he thought that it would make pilots fire at greater ranges and he believed that you had to get in close, to make a kill. The 8 Brownings on the Spit and Hurri was a compromise based on what were available at the time.

[MRC_Hans]

One reason was rate of fire. The 37mm cannon on the MIGs was quite slow, and pilots joked about "flying between the shells". These aircraft were primarily designed to shoot down bombers.
The six 50s, "cycled up" as were most aircraft guns to about 900 rounds per minute, put out a lot of lead, and a couple of .50 rounds would pretty well mess up a jet engine.

I don't know about the "close range" thing; I recall reading pilot accounts by a newly-arrived wingman who was astounded at the range at which his primary would open fire.
He hadn't figured that they were flying at much higher altitudes than his WWII experience dictated, and the much thinner air allowed longer engagement ranges.

The kill ratio alone would indicate that the Sabres were not under-armed.I think firing rate is an important point. The actual time a bandit is in your line of fire during a dogfight is only fractions of a second. So, the closer you can have your bullets flying, the more chance of a hit. Likewise against ground targets: You are blasting along at 150+ kts and hosing a target; you wanna have your 'rain' as dense as possible. And a .50 round will do a lot of damage except on true hardened targets.

There are some accounts of pilots who were long-range marksmen. At altitude, as you say, the range of a machine-gun is rather formidable, so if you can hit your target, firing at long range is quite effective (again here, a high firing-rate will help you).

..... Being a WWII aircraft buff, I just love this thread, heheh.




Hans

[MRC_Hans]

.
The Hawker Hunter Mk I could not fire its cannon about 250 knots or 20,000 feet, without the motor flaming out.
And this was the first-line defense aircraft.
It took some time before this little problem was "sorted out".
There was concern about the monster 30mm Gatling gun on the Warthog flaming out the motors also.

Because the intakes were almost exactly behind the gun mussles. Otherwise, a great plane, the Hunter. One of the most elegant planes ever built, IMO.

The gatling on the A10 does not flame out the engines, but the recoil does slow down the 15 ton plane appreciably, and the cannon is actually aimed a few degrees downwards. Not because it is a ground attack weapon, but its recoil has to be directed exactly at the COG of the plane, or the recoil will throw it off course :eye-poppi.

Back to WWII: While we're at it, let me remind you of one of the great planes of WWII, which is often forgotten: http://www.hans-egebo.dk/Polikarpof.htm

Hans

[Bikewer]

Ah, Die Nachthexen... The Russians were not afraid to throw anything into the fray, and often with good results.

[I Ratant]

The North Koreans used those also.
"Bed-check Charlie".
One of those took out an F-94 night fighter.. in a mid-air. The F-94 intercepted it and flew through it!

[fishbob]

2 stories:

1 - A P51 mistakenly dropped a 500 lb bomb on my dad's camp in Korea. Fortunately, the bomb was a dud. My dad does not like airplanes.

2 - A couple of years ago, the day before the annual Elmendorf AFB air show, a P51 and an A10 flew in formation around Anchorage for several hours. Very cool.

[Foster Zygote]

I think firing rate is an important point. The actual time a bandit is in your line of fire during a dogfight is only fractions of a second. So, the closer you can have your bullets flying, the more chance of a hit. Likewise against ground targets: You are blasting along at 150+ kts and hosing a target; you wanna have your 'rain' as dense as possible. And a .50 round will do a lot of damage except on true hardened targets.
Yeah, "weight if fire" was the big issue. The first Bf-109s were designed to have three 7.92mm machine guns; one firing through the prop boss and two in the upper cowl. The center gun suffered from teething problems and was often removed because the few rounds it might get off prior to jamming weren't worth the weight of the gun and ammo. But experience in the Spanish Civil War showed that a pair of light machine guns, even with rates of fire around 1000 rpm, just didn't have the needed punch. That's why they added a pair of 7.92 in the wing. But even four light machine guns were inadequate to down most aircraft. By the Battle of Britain they'd made the switch to 20mm MGFF cannons in the wing. This helped, but the drum magazines only held 60 rounds. By the F model they'd finally sorted the MG151 20mm cannon in the nose and deleted the wing armament (except in a few one-off planes flown by Galland). The G model got heavier 13mm machine guns, and often a 30mm cannon in the nose, but the 109 was getting past its "best by" date by this time. Mounting cannons in under-wing gondolas increased firepower enough to take on the heavies during the defense of the Reich, but the added weight and drag made them easy prey for Allied fighters.

There are some accounts of pilots who were long-range marksmen. At altitude, as you say, the range of a machine-gun is rather formidable, so if you can hit your target, firing at long range is quite effective (again here, a high firing-rate will help you).
Hans-Joachim Marseille was said to be just about the best fighter pilot who ever flew. Some were great pilots but average marksmen. Others were average pilots but superb marksmen. Marseille had it all. He was famous for his economy of ammunition and his ability to make kills firing at seemingly impossible deflection angles. He once shot down several aircraft in a single sortie and his crew chief found that he'd only used a fraction of his available ammunition.

..... Being a WWII aircraft buff, I just love this thread, heheh.
Yeah, me too.

[ParrotPirate]

Found these while surfing. Love those old birds. I live about 20 minutes north of Oshkosh,WI,so I get to see plenty when they have the big EAA convention every summer. Actually saw their B-17 coming in for a landing once while I was in Oshkosh. He came in right over the old Walmart down there low enough to see the pilot. (The old Wally-world was right across from the airport.) THe coolest part,though was that there was a Mustang on each wing!

[Beanbag]

I occasionally hang out at the Cavanaugh Flight Museum. I'm waiting for their P51 to get back from being overhauled. When it does, I'll be all over it with the camcorder and digital SLR.

Beanbag

[I Ratant]

P-51s...
http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php/topic,193.0.html

[sackett]

This business of air gunnery and armament is like medieval studies or entomology: once you go in, you never come out.

About the 20 mm in the Sabre: The guns the US was using were not as reliable as they should have been. If even one gun packed up, suddenly you were flying w/ only 75% of your firepower and a bunch of dead weight in the form of lifeless gun and unshootable ammo. The .50 had the virtue of always going bang when you mashed the button, although it was admitted by all hands that something throwing an HE round would have been better. (At least one Russian commander compared .50 cal slugs to peas -- but he had a responsibility to keep up morale.)

I get the impression that the US has never had a really reliable single-barrel 20 mm aircraft gun. In my precioius volume on pilot rescue flying in Nam (can't come at it in the chaos of my bookshelves, sorry), I constantly read how "only one gun was firing," or "the port side guns were jammed," or "with no guns firing, I resorted to low-level passes." I suspect that ammo handling is at the root of the problem: high Gs make those relatively large rounds too heavy for the mechanism.

Now let's start a thread about kill ratios in Korea. The Russians and Chinese have some awsomely different viewpoints!

[I Ratant]

I've read where a Russian veteran of the Korean War flying the MiG-15 shot down USAF airplanes which never made it from the drafting vellum on the drawing board to metal!
And with the number of Sabre kills, just a couple of Russian pilots did most of them, if you tally their claims.

[Audible Click]

Found this interesting footage on the net. Not too many of the old bold pilots left now.
The history behind the P-51 Mustang (23.8 MB wmv file)
The P-51's armament and the pros and cons of its performance are discussed (26.8 MB wmv file)
The Mustang's performance is greatly improved with a new engine and design modifications (22.5 MB wmv file)
The P-51 becomes the premier fighter of the European war, with its long escort range and ground attack capabilities (24.7 MB wmv file)
The Mustang performs brilliantly in the Pacific war, both as a long range escort and as a ground attack plane (26.4 MB wmv file)
The Mustang saw service in the Korean War and was used for various purposes in some parts of the world into the 1970s (28.4 MB wmv file)
http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/html/sub/avp51.htm
Enjoy

My husband was a B-17 pilot in WWII. He says that the P-51's were their "little friends" who,because of their long range,(drop tanks) were able to escort/protect them all the way to the target. He says the nicest sight was to see them "essing" over them, back and forth. The P51 pilots had to be very careful not to point the nose of their aircraft at the bombers because some B17 gunners were a bit trigger happy and could mistake them for ME-109's.
Eventually the P-51's gained control of the sky and General Doolittle turned them loose to allow them to go after the enemy instead of being tied to the bombers.(Good decision). My hubby did get to fly a P-47 but never got the chance to fly a P-51.

[Foster Zygote]

I've read where a Russian veteran of the Korean War flying the MiG-15 shot down USAF airplanes which never made it from the drafting vellum on the drawing board to metal!
And with the number of Sabre kills, just a couple of Russian pilots did most of them, if you tally their claims.

The USAF pilots, mostly WWII veterans, considered the North Korean and Chinese pilots to be under trained. But there were a number of skilled soviet pilots, also WWII veterans, who really knew how to handle their aircraft.

I have gun camera footage from Sabers as the pilots try to bring their guns to bear on a MiG 15 pilot who had the sense to take the fight vertical. The MiGs just keep climbing while the Sabers wallow and yaw on the verge of a stall every time they try to raise the nose just a few degrees to put the pipper on the MiG's tailpipe. If the Sabers could have had even a single .50 that could be fired at a few degrees above horizontal, like the nachtjager's schräge musik cannons they could have made a lot more kills. but I'm sure there was no practical way to redesign the weapons arrangement in such a tightly packaged nose.

[Bikewer]

Some years ago, there was a flight-sim called Mig Alley which was quite good. Accurately modeled the physics of the concerned aircraft, and had some of the best AI pilots I've seen.
Most frustrating to have your enemies climb to a couple thousand feet higher than you could to make their escape!

[sackett]

Unlikely as it sounds, the first MiG kill in Korea was made by a P-51.

Don't get cocky,
Mr. Jet Jockey.

[LTC8K6]

IIRC, a P-51 still holds an Atlantic crossing record for piston engines.

[Dave Rogers]

I've read where a Russian veteran of the Korean War flying the MiG-15 shot down USAF airplanes which never made it from the drafting vellum on the drawing board to metal!

That's not entirely unique; there were He 113 kill claims during the Battle of Britain.

Dave

[Ove]

That's not entirely unique; there were He 113 kill claims during the Battle of Britain.

Dave

Well, aircraft recognition was never a great issue. The first Spitfire "kills" during WW2 was two Hurricanes in the infamous "Battle of Braking Creek". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barking_Creek

[Bikewer]

Though only a "sim" pilot, I can testify that aircraft recognition is a real pain in most conditions. Seeing a bogey at distance reveals only a little dot, and by the time you're in shooting range it may or may not resolve to something you recognize.

That's why many services used highly distinctive markings on the aircraft to aid recognition; the famous "yellow nose" 109s, for instance. That's also why US forces in the Pacific avoided using any red in the insignia.

I recall reading one of the German aces (Galland? Don't remember) saying that they would literally sneak into a British fighter formation, often avoiding recognition till it was too late....

[I Ratant]

The first encounters with the FW-190 had the RAF wondering if the Luftwaffe was using captured Curtiss P36s.

[MRC_Hans]

Though only a "sim" pilot, I can testify that aircraft recognition is a real pain in most conditions. Seeing a bogey at distance reveals only a little dot, and by the time you're in shooting range it may or may not resolve to something you recognize.

That's why many services used highly distinctive markings on the aircraft to aid recognition; the famous "yellow nose" 109s, for instance. That's also why US forces in the Pacific avoided using any red in the insignia.

I recall reading one of the German aces (Galland? Don't remember) saying that they would literally sneak into a British fighter formation, often avoiding recognition till it was too late....Oh, there is a whole wep page somewhere with 'mistaken identity' stories.

Hans

[Cicero]

Unlikely as it sounds, the first MiG kill in Korea was made by a P-51.

Don't get cocky,
Mr. Jet Jockey.

Not only unlikely, but apparently a total fabrication.

Of course during WWII, Yeager shot down a ME-262 with his P-51 even though the ME was landing at the time, but there isn't any credible evidence to support this F-51 claim that you must have borrowed from this site:

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=77)


FIRST MiG 15 SHOT DOWN BY U.N. FORCES DURING KOREAN WAR:

ON November 8, 1950 1st Lt. Russell Brown, fighter pilot in the USAF flying a F-80, shot down the first MIG-15 being the first jet age dogfight.


FIRST MiG 15 SHOT DOWN BY PROP U.N. AIRCRAFT DURING KOREAN WAR:

On September 10, 1951, Capt. shot down a MiG-15 with an F4U Corsair, but was himself shown down by another MiG.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4442/is_200601/ai_n16063433/?tag=content;col1

But even if a F-51 Mustang flown by 1LT. John Yingling did shoot down a MiG 15, it wasn't until May 1952. That would invalidate the claim that the F-51 shot down the first MiG 15, or was even the first prop aircraft to shoot down a MiG 15.


An A-1 Skyraider shot down a MiG 17 on 6/20/65

[Marduk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_7r533moXo

:jaw-dropp

[egslim]

The Spitfire of the Battle of Britain carried 8 Browning .303 mg's. Imagine if there was room in the elliptical wing for 8 Browning .50's?
There was barely even room for the last 2 Brownings, they had to be placed so far outward that it decreased their effectiveness.

Interestingly, while the Messerschmitt 262 jetfighter had to stay below mach 0.86 to prevent its wings from disintegrating, the Spitfire's wing could do mach 0.9. It also had very good stall-characteristics, which was why Spitfire pilots were more comfortable pushing their aircraft to the limit in a steep turns than 109's.

[oggiesnr]

My primary school Headmaster (L.E.O. Beckett) flew that tankbuster variant of the Hurricane towards the end of WWII. Single .50 Brownings in each wing. It also doubled as a dive bomber and I recall his story of when he almost left the pull out too late and when he got back to base he discovered that his wings had corrugated where they met the fuselage.

Steve

[Corsair 115]

The P-51 (and Spitfire) are perfectly fine aircraft, but personally, I'd choose the F4U Corsair over either of them.

[dropzone]

The first encounters with the FW-190 had the RAF wondering if the Luftwaffe was using captured Curtiss P36s.Shows how wrong a brother can be. P36s were one thing. P40s were much the same, with Allisons. Fw109s were something entirely differently. Yes, there was a "what can we do with the maximum engine enclosing the minimum airframe?" defining the Curtiss and Focke-Wolfe aircraft, but those pilots were only making a "best guess," based on their briefing.

[steve s]

Well, aircraft recognition was never a great issue. The first Spitfire "kills" during WW2 was two Hurricanes in the infamous "Battle of Braking Creek". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barking_Creek

My father flew a B-17 in the war and was shot down in March of '44. There was a book published in Italy about his plane and the Italian fighters that shot it down. The back of the book contains a lot of documentation that the author collected, including photocopies of the mission reports that were submitted after every bomb run.

My father's plane was attacked by Fiat G-55 Centauros, but the mission reports all refer to the planes as Me109s, FW-190s, and even "FW-290s (long-nosed FW-190s)" Just goes to show that even experts make mistakes.

Steve S

[sackett]

Not only unlikely, but apparently a total fabrication....

All right, you can just take your old dumb broken-winged snout-nosed Navy Coarse Hair and go home.

We're havin' fun
With our Pee Fifty One!

[Springfork]

A friend of mines father had a pest control business and was pretty well off. He bought, restored, and sold old cars as a hobby. He heard of a widow lady that lived on a farm and had two old cars she might sell. Nelson went to the farm and the lady allowed him to look at them. When he swung open the barn door he saw the old cars, and also sitting in the bay of the barn was a P-51 Mustang. The deceased farmer had bought it after WW2 for scrap prices. He intended to restore it but never touched it. Nelson helped the lady sell it and I heard she got big bucks for it. I was in high school then and it must have been '69 or '70.

[jimbob]

My primary school Headmaster (L.E.O. Beckett) flew that tankbuster variant of the Hurricane towards the end of WWII. Single .50 Brownings in each wing. It also doubled as a dive bomber and I recall his story of when he almost left the pull out too late and when he got back to base he discovered that his wings had corrugated where they met the fuselage.

Steve

but it also had two 40-mm cannons, which were probably more effective against tanks.

[Ranb]

Anyone ever read "Blond Knight of Germany"? Excellent book on Erich Hartmann. He preferred to close in to within 50 yards then shoot. Hard to miss then.

Ranb

[Bikewer]

Hartmann took his lessons from Von Richthofen well; that was his favorite technique.

Pretty much the standard advice in the European theater. However, in the Pacific, Navy pilots early on were taught longer-range "deflection shooting", likely because of the wide-open skies they encountered.
Also, the Japanese aircraft were fragile, and only a few hits might suffice to win.

[Foster Zygote]

Hartmann took his lessons from Von Richthofen well; that was his favorite technique.

Pretty much the standard advice in the European theater. However, in the Pacific, Navy pilots early on were taught longer-range "deflection shooting", likely because of the wide-open skies they encountered.
Also, the Japanese aircraft were fragile, and only a few hits might suffice to win.

And most Japanese fighters could turn inside them anyway, so they had to learn to take those shots as they were often their only chance at a firing solution.

[ParrotPirate]

Lots of Mustangs (and birds of every description) in my neighborhood this past week. EAA Airventure is only about 15 minutes south of me!