Fly a P51 Mustang?

Twenty some years ago my partner and myself were on the way to Oshkosh,
and
happened to stop in Nebraska (Grand Island, IIRC). There we ran into a
pair
of guys flying P-51s from California (as were we). After talking for
awhile
somebody asked about the possibility of a ride. One of the P-51 pilots
said
maybe, once we all had returned from Oshkosh - and gave me a phone
number.

Perhaps a month or so later we followed up on it and arranged to meet
him at
his home base at Chino, CA. Myself, my partner and his wife all went up
in
turn. What I remember of it was an enormous amount of power - and
controls
that were a lot heavier than I was used to (the plane was dual
control). But
it was an unforgettable experience. IIRC we paid him $100 each.

David Johnson

On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:38:00 -0600, RomeoMike
wrote:

the P-51 is a surpringly stable airplane

It had to be, considering the number of hours pilots were expected to
fly in it during escort missions. If the airplane had been as
unstable as the Me 109 or the Spitfire the pilots might have been so
exhausted that they would be a danger to themselves and everyone else
near them.

Corky Scott

I don't know anything about the relative stability of the P-51, Me 109
and Spitfire. Do you have some info on that? If the latter two planes
had the range of the P-51, would they be any more taxing to fly straight
and level on a long mission? If the P-51 really is more stable than the
other two, are you suggesting that the designers made it that way to
give the pilot a better ride? Maybe there is someone out there who has
flown at least 2 of the 3 planes and can comment.


Corky Scott wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:38:00 -0600, RomeoMike
wrote:


the P-51 is a surpringly stable airplane


It had to be, considering the number of hours pilots were expected to
fly in it during escort missions. If the airplane had been as
unstable as the Me 109 or the Spitfire the pilots might have been so
exhausted that they would be a danger to themselves and everyone else
near them.

Corky Scott

On Wed, 04 May 2005 16:30:56 -0600, RomeoMike
wrote:

I don't know anything about the relative stability of the P-51, Me 109
and Spitfire. Do you have some info on that? If the latter two planes
had the range of the P-51, would they be any more taxing to fly straight
and level on a long mission? If the P-51 really is more stable than the
other two, are you suggesting that the designers made it that way to
give the pilot a better ride? Maybe there is someone out there who has
flown at least 2 of the 3 planes and can comment.

There are numerous writings by pilots who have flown all three of the
above, and written about it. Eric Brown wrote "Duels in the Sky" in
which he describes flying and comparing a phenominal number of
airplanes. Leonard "Kit" Carson was another well known pilot who was
both an experienced fighter pilot and an aerodynamics engineer who
wrote about flying the Me 109 and compared it to the Mustang, which
was the airplane he fought in.

The more extensive comparison is from Carson, but besides Carson and
Brown, I've read numerous reports from other WWII pilots who had a
chance to compare the flight characteristics.

The Me 109 was head and shoulders above all competition when it first
flew, but it was designed in 1935 and was almost entirely all manual
in nearly all aspects. For instance, no version of the Me 109 ever
had a rudder trim. This meant that at only one airspeed did the pilot
not have to be pushing on the rudder to correct for yaw, and that
airspeed was below cruise. The faster the airplane went, the more
pressure required on the rudder bar. This could and did fatigue the
pilot to the point where turning in the direction of the tired leg
caused a notably slower response than turning in the opposite
direction.

But we were talking about stability. Almost to a man, the pilots of
P-51's who also flew the Me 109 commented on how unstable it was, how
it hunted constantly and would not hold it's flight path. The
instability was designed into the airframe. Fighters needed to be
able to change direction quickly so stability was necessarily
compromised for maneuverability. In those days there wasn't any
computer controlled fly-by-wire so the pilot just learned to be
constantly adjusting the controls in order to hold formation or fly in
a straight line.

Because the Me 109 was designed as a combat superiority weapon, a
fighter that followed the front closely, it wasn't designed for
extended range. Long range required lots of fuel and lots of fuel
compromised performance. Like the Spitfire, it originally had only a
fuselage fuel tank which gave it a pretty limited range. So flights
were relatively short and the pilots rested up between them.

The Mustang on the other hand, was redesigned from it's original
iteration as a low altitude fighter to a high altitude long range
escort fighter. The designers understood that in order to sit in the
cockpit for extended periods of up to 6 hours, the airplane would have
to be stable enough that the pilots did not have to be constantly
correcting the flight controls. On the other hand, it was a fighter.
It's job was to fly with the bombers to the target, outfight the enemy
fighters and return to base. That was a tall order. The Mustang
pilots kind of got lucky.

By the time of the Mustang's combat debut, the Luftwaffe had been
increasingly devoting it's efforts at stopping the daylight heavy
bombing formations. It had had more than a year to develop tactics
and modify their fighters into bomber destroyers. And they were
getting pretty good at destroying bombers with their fighters. But
this was coming at a cost: The fighters were heavily loaded down with
large caliber cannon and in many cases, rockets. They were also
sending up the twin engined fighters and even ordering the night
fighters up on daylight interceptions. Some Me 109's even carried
bombs up above the bomber and dropped them into the formations hoping
that the timed explosion would occur in the middle of the formation
either destroying bombers or greatly disrupting the formation. They
also carried a lot of armor plate. All this had a decidedly negative
effect on performance. It didn't matter much in terms of attacking
the bombers because the bombers were plodding along at 150 to 160 mph
and flying in obligingly straight lines, albeit packed tightly
together for mutual protection. But the Mustangs were a different
opponent altogether.

They showed up lean and clean and stripped for action. The original
model B had only four heavy machine guns and was blindingly fast
compared to either the Focke Wulf 190 or the Me 109G. They were some
40 to 50 mph faster which allowed them to dictate combat terms.

In addition, and this is a bit of an unknown, the German fighter
pilots were under orders to ignor the fighter escort, whenever
possible, to concentrate on destroying the bombers. That meant that
they were not normally supposed to seek out combat with the escorting
fighters. Fighter pilots being normally aggressive, they often did
anyway but their orders were to hit the bombers first. This allowed
the escorting Mustangs to intercede, sometimes with smaller numbers,
and survive.

But we were talking about stability. The first Mustangs, the A model,
were designed as a low to medium altitude fighter. They had more
range than Spitfires or any single engine German fighter, but not as
much as the later models B, C and D had. This is because they were
not thought of as escorts, but as a better P-40. In their original
configuration they were a delight to fly according to those who flew
them. One pilot mentioned putting his pointing finger on top of the
stick and being able to aileron roll it, so light and easy were the
controls.

That all changed with the introduction of the model B. The B got the
Packard built version of the Rolls Royce Merlin instead of the Allison
V12 and the designers added bob weights to the control cables to
increase stability. They also added a fuselage mounted fuel tank
which was behind the pilot. When this was full, the Mustang was
treacherously aft weighted. I'm not positive, but it may be that the
bob weights were installed to counter the difficulty pilots would have
handling the fighter when the fuselage tank was full. Even with them,
when the fuselage tank was full, the Mustang was very sensitive. The
information I have is that this tank was selected first during the
form up and climb to escort altitude, then they switched to the drop
tanks. The Luftwaffe actually attempted to negate the use of the drop
tanks, at least once or twice, by attacking the Mustangs early causing
them to drop the external tanks and fight. This reduced their range
leaving the bombers unescorted over the target. But there were too
many Allied fighters (including Thunderbolts and Spitfires) and too
few German fighters for this tactic to be repeated too often.

Whatever the real reason, once that fuselage tank was empty, the bob
weights contributed towards a strong positive stability.

When the model D Mustang was initially introduced, pilots complained
about it being more unstable than the B. That was because the
fuselage had been cut down and a bubble canopy installed instead of
the earlier turtledeck. This changed fuselage actually diminished top
speed somewhat and caused some instability. The engineers then added
the dorsal fin to the front of the rudder which is now considered one
of the signal visual characteristics of the model D.

If you look at the famous photo of the four fighter formation
featuring "Louis IV" closest to the camera and the three others
stacked down below and behind it, you'll see three versions of the
Mustang in that one photo: Louis IV is a D Mustang without the dorsal
fin, the next one is a D with the dorsal fin. Next is another D
without the dorsal fin and finally a B which of course had the turtle
deck. All are carrying drop tanks which did not help stability.

But back in those days fighters were fighters. You worked and flew
with what you had. Most of the Me 109 pilots actually liked flying it
(some didn't) and could take advantage of the characteristics that
made it a good fighter.

Corky Scott

But back in those days fighters were fighters.

As always, Corky -- thanks for a great history lesson.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Very edifying, thanks. I should try to find these references.

Corky Scott wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2005 16:30:56 -0600, RomeoMike
wrote:

Corky Scott wrote:

Much great stuff snipped

When the model D Mustang was initially introduced, pilots complained
about it being more unstable than the B. That was because the
fuselage had been cut down and a bubble canopy installed instead of
the earlier turtledeck. This changed fuselage actually diminished top
speed somewhat and caused some instability. The engineers then added
the dorsal fin to the front of the rudder which is now considered one
of the signal visual characteristics of the model D.

Corky Scott


Hi Corky,

Excellent post. I used to believe the above:

that the dorsal fin was added to the D model only, and it was because the
fuselage was cut down. that's what all the books said.

However recent reading of some T.O.'s issued at the time show this may
actually not be the case:

Several crash reports tell of P-51B's and C's crashing because the
horizontal stab was torn off during maneuvering. The report says:

"Unless a dorsal fin is installed on the P-51B, P-51C, and P-51D airplanes,
a snap roll may result when attempting a slow roll. The horizontal
stabilizer will not withstand the effects of a Snap Roll. To prevent
recurrence the stabilizer should be reinforced in accordance with T.O.
01-60J-18 dated 8 April 1944 and a dorsal fin should be installed. Dorsal
fin kits are being made available to overseas activities"

A previous entry for another crash:

Sections II and III of T.O. 01-60J-18 had not been accomplished. The
stabilizer was approximately 20 percent below the strength of a completely
reinforced stabilizer. It is believed that this type of failure will be
completely eliminated after compliance with T.O 01-60J-18 and the
installation of a Dorsal Fin and reverse rudder bost tab."

A Supplement to Basic Technical Order (From old Hap himself) says:

"1. Due to horizontal stabilizer failures which are believed to have
resulted form slow rolls, all P-51B, P-51C an dP-51D airplanes wil not
perfomr slow rolls pending the installation of dorsal fin and rudder
reverse trim tab, and compliance with T.O. No. 01-60J-18."

Part of this T.O. 01-60J-18, it seems, was to "...use 1/4" rivets rather
than 3/16" to attach the elevator outboard and rudder upper hinge fittings,
....to stabilizer ribs, providing additonal shear strength....."

The date of 01-60J-18 is 15 January 1945. By that time maybe most production
51's were D's (Don't know that for sure), so it would SEEM as if the Dorsal
was added for the D's only.

Also, I guess that drillingout the rivet holes to take the larger rivets
didn't weaken the riveted pieces any - they must have had enough meat left
over.


Also you can see photos of P-51B's or C's with the dorsal fin:

http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51...tary/eto/6.jpg

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...% 3D%26sa%3DN
Scroll down til you see photos of T9 CK

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Sorry my mistake. the T.O. 01-60J-18 was dated 8 April 1944

Gregg

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

"Corky Scott" wrote

The B got the
Packard built version of the Rolls Royce Merlin instead of the Allison
V12 and the designers added bob weights to the control cables to
increase stability.

Can you describe the design and placement of these bob weights, and how they
added to stability?
--
Jim in NC

I flew Crazy Horse with Doug Schultz from Kissimmee during Sun 'N Fun
week 1996, and I can endorse all RomeoMike has said.

He gave me the controls at about 300ft on take off and talked me
through the rest. After the aerobatic training he asked what I wanted
to do now, so I elected for 3 touch and goes at Bartow, then low level
lakeshore following, then an attack on an island involving a pull up
from 50 ft and a roll onto the target. It all ended with a run and
break at Kissimmee into the downwind for landing.

They carried on-board video equipment with two cameras, so the
resulting 1 hour video is a nice souvenir.


RomeoMike wrote:

I flew with Lee Lauderbach in Crazy Horse in 1995. It cost $1700 then. I
was given several flying options and chose an aerobatic experience. The
whole operation was very professional. There was a preflight briefing,
followed by the flight and a debrief afterward. The flight started by
learning how to taxi the P51 (or in this case TF51). Lee did the takeoff
for obvious reasons, and after gaining a very little altitude and a lot
of speed, he pulled to nearly vertical (probably wasn't as vertical as
it seemed at the time...I was too excited, and the maneuver was
unexpected, so I only recount my quickly formed impression). After
reaching altitude I was familiarized with the flight controls, including
three axes of trim and the power and rpm settings to be used. Then the
plane was turned over to me, and he had me demonstrate what I could do,
starting with standard turns and progressing through wing overs, barrel
rolls with different offsets, loops, Cubans, 2-point and four-point
rolls (I failed at 8-points), and stalls (very benign in the P-51 BTW).
Then he got permission to enter some sort of inactive military training
area where there was an airfield with bogus tanks and Migs parked all
around. Made a high speed pass over the runway at 50 ft., then to
altitude, split-s, and strafing runs with victory rolls. Back to
Kissimmee, rolling and looping on the way, military arrival at the
airport, and he talked me through a landing, which I bounced a bit. At
the debrief I was given a tape with sound of the whole thing and a
signed photo of Crazy Horse. Also, Lee entered 1.3 hours of TF-51 PIC
time in my logbook (I know, it doesn't make me a fighter pilot). My
impressions: One of the most fun experiences of my life, a dream come
true, very professional, the P-51 is a surpringly stable airplane, I'd
love to do it again, gives me pleasure to think about it. Maybe that's
more than you wanted to know :-)


Michael 182 wrote:
Something Dudley said in the Leaving Usenet thread got me thinking about
flying a P51. I found www.stallion51.com as an option. Does anyone have any
personal experience or know of any dual control Mustangs that offer a chance
to fly them?

Thanks,

Michael