Best warbird to own

On 7 Nov 2003 12:37:59 -0400, Gregg Germain
wrote:

In rec.aviation.military Charles Talleyrand wrote:

: There are lots of P51s out there, so they are not rare enough.
: Further, they are said to be even harder to fly than normal for
: vintage and type.

Where does it say P-51's are hard to fly? Or harder to fly than
"normal"?

Every thing is relative.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)




--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

In rec.aviation.military Roger Halstead wrote:
: On 7 Nov 2003 12:37:59 -0400, Gregg Germain
: wrote:

:In rec.aviation.military Charles Talleyrand wrote:
:
:: There are lots of P51s out there, so they are not rare enough.
:: Further, they are said to be even harder to fly than normal for
:: vintage and type.
:
: Where does it say P-51's are hard to fly? Or harder to fly than
: "normal"?

: Every thing is relative.

That's why I added "Or harder to fly than 'normal'" and why I put
normal in quotes.

I'm curious as to how the conclusion was reached - it's certainly
harder to fly than a Cessna 152, but not nearly as hard to fly as the
space shuttle.

I'm assuming he compared them to aircraft contemporary with the P-51
since he used the word "vintage".

Was it harder to fly than the P-39? the 39 has some tough spin
characteristics.

Other than the 51 being somewhat less stable when the aft gas tank
was full, I don't know of any other difficult characteristics.

Just curious what he meant by "harder".


--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

"Gregg Germain" wrote in message ...
:: There are lots of P51s out there, so they are not rare enough.
:: Further, they are said to be even harder to fly than normal for
:: vintage and type.
:
: Where does it say P-51's are hard to fly? Or harder to fly than
: "normal"?

I'm curious as to how the conclusion was reached - it's certainly
harder to fly than a Cessna 152, but not nearly as hard to fly as the
space shuttle.

I'm assuming he compared them to aircraft contemporary with the P-51
since he used the word "vintage".

Was it harder to fly than the P-39? the 39 has some tough spin
characteristics.

Other than the 51 being somewhat less stable when the aft gas tank
was full, I don't know of any other difficult characteristics.

Just curious what he meant by "harder".

I've read three things. The p51 is unstable in pitch with full tanks and the
resulting aft CG, and that a p51 has a high speed stall that's tougher than
most other WWII fighters. And finally the p51 has a higher stall speed
than other contemporary fighters.

I myself have no idea, and will defer to people with actual knowledge. But
this is the scuttle-butt around this household.

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
...

"Gregg Germain" wrote in message
...
:: There are lots of P51s out there, so they are not rare enough.
:: Further, they are said to be even harder to fly than normal for
:: vintage and type.
:
: Where does it say P-51's are hard to fly? Or harder to fly than
: "normal"?

I'm curious as to how the conclusion was reached - it's certainly
harder to fly than a Cessna 152, but not nearly as hard to fly as the
space shuttle.

I'm assuming he compared them to aircraft contemporary with the P-51
since he used the word "vintage".

Was it harder to fly than the P-39? the 39 has some tough spin
characteristics.

Other than the 51 being somewhat less stable when the aft gas tank
was full, I don't know of any other difficult characteristics.

Just curious what he meant by "harder".

I've read three things. The p51 is unstable in pitch with full tanks
and the
resulting aft CG, and that a p51 has a high speed stall that's tougher
than
most other WWII fighters. And finally the p51 has a higher stall speed
than other contemporary fighters.

I myself have no idea, and will defer to people with actual knowledge.
But
this is the scuttle-butt around this household.


The P-51 is a little more unforgiving than some other WWII fighters because
of it's high speed laminar-flow wing - this gives it speed and range, at the
cost of a more 'sudden' wing stall and a higher stall speed.

The Spitfire is more forgiving to fly because, due to a design quirk, it's
airframe actually gives a little shudder to warn you you're near a wing
stall state.

Matt

In article ,
"killfile" wrote:


The P-51 is a little more unforgiving than some other WWII fighters because
of it's high speed laminar-flow wing - this gives it speed and range, at the
cost of a more 'sudden' wing stall and a higher stall speed.

The Spitfire is more forgiving to fly because, due to a design quirk, it's
airframe actually gives a little shudder to warn you you're near a wing
stall state.


I've never flown a Spitfire, but if you miss the buffet on a Mustang you
must be brain-dead.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

I've read three things. The p51 is unstable in pitch with full tanks and the
resulting aft CG, and that a p51 has a high speed stall that's tougher than
most other WWII fighters. And finally the p51 has a higher stall speed
than other contemporary fighters.

The balance problem is caused by the aft fuselage tank. Many Mustangs have had
this removed. In any case, you won't need to fill it unless you're planning a
1600 mile trip. Stall speed in military configuration was about 95, which isn't
out of line with other fighters of the era and is actually a bit lower than the
Bf-109. I've read, however, that the plane doesn't give warning before the stall
and drops the left wing dramatically when it does. Len Deighton claims that few
military pilots three-pointed the Mustang because that gets you too close to the
stall speed. Some years back, I got to watch 52 of these planes land at Sun'n
Fun. Every landing was a wheel landing with the tail slightly low.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

orary fighters.

The balance problem is caused by the aft fuselage tank. Many Mustangs have
had
this removed. In any case, you won't need to fill it unless you're planning a
1600 mile trip. Stall speed in military configuration was about 95, which
isn't
out of line with other fighters of the era and is actually a bit lower than
the
Bf-109. I've read, however, that the plane doesn't give warning before the
stall
and drops the left wing dramatically when it does. Len Deighton claims that
few
military pilots three-pointed the Mustang because that gets you too close to
the
stall speed. Some years back, I got to watch 52 of these planes land at Sun'n
Fun. Every landing was a wheel landing with the tail slightly low.


I only have 1 hour in a Mustang, but when doing stalls it gave plenty of
warning with the stall occuring at about 81KIAS. We did not however do
any accelerated stalls.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Dale wrote:

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

orary fighters.

The balance problem is caused by the aft fuselage tank. Many Mustangs have
had
this removed. In any case, you won't need to fill it unless you're planning a
1600 mile trip. Stall speed in military configuration was about 95, which
isn't
out of line with other fighters of the era and is actually a bit lower than
the
Bf-109. I've read, however, that the plane doesn't give warning before the
stall
and drops the left wing dramatically when it does. Len Deighton claims that
few
military pilots three-pointed the Mustang because that gets you too close to
the
stall speed. Some years back, I got to watch 52 of these planes land at Sun'n
Fun. Every landing was a wheel landing with the tail slightly low.


I only have 1 hour in a Mustang, but when doing stalls it gave plenty of
warning with the stall occuring at about 81KIAS. We did not however do
any accelerated stalls.

That's interesting about 'little warning' and dropping the 'left'
wing. I'm only familiar with some heavies and they all gave lots
of warning, very 'fine' buffeting progressing to coarser and
higher amplitudes before the 'real thing'. Also they all six
dropped the 'right' wing. Would that be a function of the prop
rotation direction? I notice that all six had right hand
rotation, does the Mustang have left hand rotation?, or is it
some other factor that causes this?.
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message . ..

That's interesting about 'little warning' and dropping the 'left'
wing. I'm only familiar with some heavies and they all gave lots
of warning, very 'fine' buffeting progressing to coarser and
higher amplitudes before the 'real thing'. Also they all six
dropped the 'right' wing. Would that be a function of the prop
rotation direction? I notice that all six had right hand
rotation, does the Mustang have left hand rotation?, or is it
some other factor that causes this?.

From the cockpit the prop turned clockwise. As for stall warning there
was more than enough, and landing stall was closer to 75mph than 95
Having flown several thousand hours in the Mustang, other than in
extreme crosswinds, all my landings were three point .
Flying a Mustang to it's limit is one of the greatest challenges, and
one of the greatest pleasures, one can ever experience.

Howard Austin