The Most Flawless WW2 Fighter Plane (Except for This One Thing)

Despite Britain’s best efforts to keep the peace, on September 1, 1939, Adolf Hitler shocked the world by invading Poland. A war like the world had never seen before was coming to Europe, and Britain was nowhere near ready to resist the rising Wehrmacht.
Desperate for modern aircraft, the British requested warplanes from the US, whose dormant aircraft industry could only spare limited amounts. They were then sold several P-40 Warhawks, but they needed many more as the conflict escalated.
After the Curtiss corporation was unable to manufacture the numbers Britain required, they turned to James H. Kindleberger, the president of a recently formed aircraft manufacturer. He not only assured them that he could produce the P-40s they needed, but that he could do better and come up with a far superior warplane in just 120 days.
The result would come to be known as the most aerodynamically flawless pursuit plane in existence: a fast, agile, and reliable aircraft that would shift the balance of the war.
Still, the P-51 Mustang was revealed to have a fatal flaw that almost ended its career in combat, but destiny had other plans...
---
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas.

[@michaelmccotter4293]

My Father flew 86 missions over Europe in a Mustang and lived to tell about it. I remember in the late 70's he heard a P51 was in town at the airport. ( Fairbanks, AK ). I went with him to go see it. The only time I ever saw my Dad with tears in his eyes.

[@byloyuripka9624]

gat

[@kevinb3812]

I sense gratitude in him.

[@steveperreira5850]

That is a sweet story! God bless your dad for killing Nazi bastards. Those evil sons of bitches.

[@doraexplora9046]

I'm obviously younger than you or your dad. But I built and flew model AC as a teenager. I was in to WWI planes. Everyone else was into Spitfires, but the one I loved the most was my P51.

[@joeblowjohndoe206]

What's your dad's name

[@Rikki0]

My Dad was a BTG in B-17F's. He made his first 8 missions before the Mustangs arrived. One day a Mustang B model landed at Thorpe Abbots and the pilot told them to take a good look and remember it. As he climbed back into the cockpit he stopped, smiled and said "Oh, one more thing", and he hinted at the new range and said, "See you over Berlin". Dad said half the guys whooped and hollered and the other half simply began to cry. He said the Mustang was the only reason I was here.

[@loneranger5349]

I'm glad we wouldn't want to do without you.

[@scootergeorge7089]

What does BTG stand for? Flying Forts had pilot/copilot, navigator, radio operator, gunners...

[@ToIsleOfView]

That is the most significant thing about the mustang. It saved American lives!

[@nathanhernandez6769]

@@scootergeorge7089 probably ball turret gunner

[@scootergeorge7089]

@@nathanhernandez6769 - Bingo!!! Sounds correct to me.

[@ryanthompson2893]

The p-51 shows just what a well run, yet small company can do. It was quick to develop, didn't go over budget, and flew very well.

[@davidwong825]

😂the same case TESLA, circa🎉 2010s

[@ZFilms11]

@@davidwong825 what?

[@davidwong825]

@@ZFilms11 Tesla was formed back @ 2006`~2008? BY 2011, had first mass production S & X still a relatively small company comparing to The big 3! today, not so much as A small/dynamic company, already decadeS ?ahead of any competitors

[@augustuslunasol10thapostle]

@@davidwong825unfortunately it will be slaughtered by competitors considering the og founders we’re basically deposed in a coup and the new one well the new one is a idiot

[@bobgordon1754]

We can still do that. We do need some good leadership.

[@dennisleighton2812]

Comparisons between the Spitfire and Mustang need to be tempered with care, as the two planes were conceived and designed for completely different purposes. The Spitfire was intended to be used in a defensive role, within easy range of home airfields, and to be able to accommodate high sortie rates, some pilots flying 5-6 sorties in a day. The Mustang, by contrast, was conceived as a very long range escort fighter, flying slow and far most of the time, with a frantic fighting phase over enemy territory. Each of them excelled in their respective roles, becoming iconic and indeed legendary.

[@glennfalzo3718]

I agree👍 2 different fighters, built for 2 different roles.

[@jacktattis]

Try these Mk VII F / HF, Mk VIII F/LF / HF, Mk IX F/LF/HF Supermarine and the Air Ministry were always trying something, those Marks were within two years of each other The Mark IX Jun42 Mk VIII Oct 43 Mk VII May 44 The Mark VII had three different engines, the Mark VIII two and the Mark IX five .

[@glennfalzo3718]

@@jacktattis So, they find an engine that worked!😂

[@jacktattis]

@@glennfalzo3718 Well they tried something NAA and the USAAF in general sat on their bums

[@glennfalzo3718]

@@jacktattis I always think what could have been if the US had gotten their heads out of their A$$ and evaluated the Mustang from the beginning. I believe politics had a hand in it, always does. Look what happened with the P38, they wanted to test 1 with 2 Merlins after seeing what it did for the Mustangs performance, but politics prevailed, Allison Aircraft Engines, which is owned by GM, CRYED to the government because of the money they would loose, so the government said NO!

[@phillipallen3259]

I have been a Mustang fan for as long as I can remember. As a Marine stationed at Miramar I walked out of my shop door and was nose to nose with a Mustang! I almost cried! I was looking it over in awe when the pilot walked up and asked me if I liked it. He was a WW2 veteran pilot. That Mustang had been in his squadron flown by his friend in Europe. We must have talked for an hour.

[@scootergeorge7089]

When were you at Miramar? I did two tours there with the Navy, Hanger 2, VC-13 and redesignated VFC-13. They flew the A-4 and TA-4. Top Gun was in Hanger 1 and beyond that, the "Hush House."

[@phillipallen3259]

@@scootergeorge7089 '98-02. After it turned to MCAS.

[@IHUTCHI]

I got the chance to rebuild several P-51 Mustangs as a young aircraft mechanic and let me tell you that I have never seen a better built aircraft in the 30 years of working on all sorts of airplanes since then. Also, let me give a real shout-out here to Rosie the riveter. I drilled out a lot of her rivets and they were almost all perfect. Even the impossible to get to fasteners looked wonderful! Thanks again for your channel.

[@bcm1567]

My grandmother as one of those "Rosie's" we went to Long Island where they had an event honoring the women that worked on the planes, the planes she had worked on the P47 Thunderbolt, they had one on display and even in a wheelchair, we got to take pictures of her with the plane.

[@IHUTCHI]

@@bcm1567 Oh man that is AWESOME!!! P47 was another amazing product of the time.

[@warehousejo007]

👍🏾🇺🇲

[@warehousejo007]

@@bcm1567 👍🏾🇺🇲

[@touristguy87]

Not really anything in this comment worth reading. At all.

[@waynebush7953]

Nothing to do with WWII, but I lived in Colorado Springs for 4 years. The Air Force Academy is in Colorado Springs and on graduation day they have many flight exhibitions. I was driving down the mountain pass from Woodland Park to Colorado Springs and heard this terrible, beautiful roar. It was a flight of 5 P-51's coming down the pass prior to participating in graduation exhibitions. What a Freaking sound!! Absolutely awe inspiring! Always one of my favorite aircraft! I will never forget that sound!

[@ianjardine7324]

Being British I know exactly what you mean the roar of a Merlin sends shivers down your spine. I've never been sure if it's psychosomatic due to it's place in history or something inherent to the engine but the feeling reminds me of the drone of bagpipe's which recordings never seem to capture. Thanks from old blighty for all the times you've had our backs when of really mattered.

[@Idahoguy10157]

All aircraft using liquid cooled engines had the same vulnerability. This hazard was known before the P-51 was designed. In the Korean War the USAF used Mustangs for bombing and strafing. While the Navy and Marines flew the less vulnerable Corsair.

[@jds6206]

"air-cooled" radial engined Corsair. Yea, buddy.....

[@garygiumarra7751]

You’re correct in a way but the difference with the P-51 is that it’s coolant line had a far longer run from radiator to engine, therefore it was indeed more vulnerable to ground fire than the typical liquid cooled engine just because there was so much more of the “piping” to hit.

[@philgiglio7922]

Some Skyraiders were flying also, & would still be in service through Vietnam

[@Idahoguy10157]

@@philgiglio7922 … I know the navy used Skyraiders in Korea

[@MegaBIGJOE64]

@@philgiglio7922 Tanks with wings the Skyraiders, ground attack and observation for close air strike or bombardments and rescue mission first responder.

[@kellio48]

In 1954 when I was 6 years old, I won a tiny model of a P51 in a game of marbles with a school mate. It was solid cast aluminium and no more than 2 inches across the wingspan. I kept that tiny model in my pocket for many years and was always getting admonished by my mother because the sharper edges always made holes in the inside of my pockets. Somewhere along the way, I eventually lost it when it slipped through a hole in my pocket unnoticed and it broke my little boy heart. I'm now 74 and fly remote controlled aircraft as my hobby and the pride of my hangar amongs over 20 aircraft is a 1700 mm wingspan P51 Mustang in Red Tail livery.

[@glennfalzo3718]

I have 12 R/C planes, 5 of which are Mustangs ranging in size from 25 to 58 inch wingspans.

[@eleventy-seven]

The P-51 Mustang took advantage of the Meredith effect to increase the flow of air thorough the scoop over the water and oil radiators without excessive drag. It is a miracle of efficiency. Since it had such a high kill rate any disadvantage from vulnerabilities was far outweighed by it's increased performance Many have mentioned the P51 was not the first to use the Meredith effect as many planes did use it but the research on the P-51's use was extensive as outlined in the book P-51B Mustang by James Marshall and Lowell Ford. There are loads of diagrams and pictures of the various inlets they tested. I highly recommend it in both Kindle and paper versions as it shows the development leading to the finished products. over 500 pages.

[@jds6206]

No, not really.

[@huiyinghong3073]

What about fitting a P-51 airframe with a Me 262 jet engine?

[@kittymervine6115]

all planes have flaws, ask any pilot. Especially one that has flown in any war or conflict. There was a top jet in the USAF, that it's a well known secret pilots put a small mirror in one "blind spot".I'm sure pilots share stories still to help each other out with the little problems with each plane. And how to fix them also!

[@TheMonkey747]

@@huiyinghong3073 Didn't they try that?

[@just_one_opinion]

you support azovnazis as well as small hat who dealt with bidos to impeach trump. NPC.

[@no-legjohnny3691]

If I had a nickel for every time the USA ended up using a weapon they were making primarily for England more than England itself, I'd have two nickels, which isn't a lot, but it's strange that it happened twice.

[@jameslewis1833]

Which was the second

[@Rose.Of.Hizaki]

Thats alright. The Yanks ended up building and using a lot of Rolls Royce Merlin engines in their aircraft so their aircraft were basically British anyway.

[@no-legjohnny3691]

I was referring to the M1917 rifle, which was an Americanized P14 Enfield. The Merlin in American service basically lived and died with the P-51, plus the USA wasn't making those engines for England like they were the P-51 or P14 enfield.

[@superskullmaster]

@@Rose.Of.Hizaki I’ll give Germany much more credit for affecting the trajectory of the US aviation/space industry. How’s your British aviation industry doing again?

[@georgeo162]

3 nickels…. I’d put the Harrier on that list.

[@23davil]

Escorting the bombers to Germany was a major friend of mine a navigator on a Lancaster said they brought tears to the eyes of bomber crew. My dad a lance corporal in the desert with the RAAF was on air frames on kittyhawks. He also looks after dakotas and liberators, really enjoyed it. He often said without the yanks the war was lost

[@johnburns4017]

Your Dad was wrong.

[@23davil]

Give us the evidence then

[@johnburns4017]

@@23davil If you now how WW2 went, the military side, economic side, the USA was not vital at all. The USA shortened the war.

[@sgbh8874]

Russia ????

[@jacktattis]

Why would a RAF bomber crew have tears in their eyes because the Mustangs were there. No Mustangs were with the Lancs at night. The US were vital but not the whole shebang You forget we had been in it in 1940 NOT 1944

[@Dan_druft]

Isn't it great that 2 countries could work together and between them make one of the most formidable fighter aircraft of WW2. We can all feel proud of the people who in my instance kept my parents safe while they did their part to defeat the Germans

[@huiyinghong3073]

What about fitting a P-51 airframe with a Me 262 jet engine?

[@kittymervine6115]

How many of us are here and alive because of the nations working together to defeat the Germans?

[@vashcrimson4395]

this channel needs to make a correction to the title. it lumps all the mustangs together for the “fatal flaw” when it was just an early model issue.

[@nigelalderman9178]

Well 3 nations the designer Edgar Schmued was German

[@martinwarner1178]

Now defeating the Russians? I am sort of mixed up about this, and the Ukraine nazis are attacking Russia? So....USA now backing nazis!! Peace be unto you.

[@at_omic8578]

Not the most meaningful contribution, but one incredible story was that of the pilot (can’t remember the name off the top of my head) escorting a bomber formation in a lone Mustang, and got into a dogfight with 30 luftwaffe fighters and shot down 6 until running out of ammo, who then somehow still managed to keep them away by feinting attack runs and scaring them away; he was the only fighter pilot of the European theater to be awarded the Medal of Honor iirc

[@philgiglio7922]

All within sight of the amazed bomber stream. No problem finding witnesses to write up the AAR and Medal recommendations

[@kdrapertrucker]

James Howard, he had been a Navy pilot, volunteered for the American volunteer group (flying tigers) when disbanded he came back to the states and was rebuffed by the Navy, and the Army Air Force eagerly accepted him. He named his plane "Ding HAO" which is Chinese for very good. Howard's parents were missionaries and he grew up in China.

[@ozymandias1758]

I seen my duty and I done it.. what he said when questioned by reporters afterward. What a legend you are, James Howard. Dark Skies also made a video featuring his daring feat over Europe, with stirring music, well worth watching. I love the production quality and presentation of this series and the other affiliated Dark videos.

[@touristguy87]

...he did not literally get into a dogfight with 30 fighters. I'm not even sure that he shot-down 6 of them. Here's the text of his MoH citation from Wiki: Medal of Honor citation The citation accompanying the Medal of Honor awarded to Lieutenant Colonel James H. Howard on 5 June 1944, by Lieutenant General Carl Spaatz reads: Howard receiving the Medal of Honor from Lieutenant General Carl Spaatz Howard presented with a plaque at a 1982 reunion of Air Force Medal of Honor recipients For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with the enemy near Oschersleben, Germany, on 11 January 1944. On that day Col. Howard was the leader of a group of P-51 aircraft providing support for a heavy bomber formation on a long-range mission deep in enemy territory. As Col. Howard's group met the bombers in the target area the bomber force was attacked by numerous enemy fighters. Col. Howard, with his group, at once engaged the enemy and himself destroyed a German ME. 110. As a result of this attack Col. Howard lost contact with his group, and at once returned to the level of the bomber formation. He then saw that the bombers were being heavily attacked by enemy airplanes and that no other friendly fighters were at hand. While Col. Howard could have waited to attempt to assemble his group before engaging the enemy, he chose instead to attack single-handed a formation of more than 30 German airplanes. With utter disregard for his own safety he immediately pressed home determined attacks for some 30 minutes, during which time he destroyed 3 enemy airplanes and probably destroyed and damaged others. Toward the end of this engagement 3 of his guns went out of action and his fuel supply was becoming dangerously low. Despite these handicaps and the almost insuperable odds against him, Col. Howard continued his aggressive action in an attempt to protect the bombers from the numerous fighters. His skill, courage, and intrepidity on this occasion set an example of heroism which will be an inspiration to the U.S. Armed Forces. So he shot down 4 planes, it's a stretch to call a Me110 an enemy "fighter" though one could call it that (I believe the Nazis called it a "zerstorer", an armed twin-engined heavy fighter) Then he shot down 3 fighters and then he just sort of hung around and harassed the fighters attacking the bombers until he either ran out of fuel or got shot down himself or decided to leave them to their fate and return to England or perhaps northern Italy (this being early in or just before Big Week, months before Normandy). The irony is that everyone says this is such a big deal but the truth is that whenever there are enemy fighters there's a chance that can get blown-up or shot and killed, certainly seriously wounded. He could have run away from the fight. He still would have been a single plane, on his own. Whether he stayed or left, as long as he didn't have someone to leave with him, the result would be the same. So why not take some of the low-hanging fruit? I mean, 30 planes is a lot of planes to shoot at, and he's there already. It's pretty hard for 30 planes to line up on his tail all at the same time and the odds that one of them would hit him with a high-angle deflection shot were pretty low. His big risk was getting into a head-on with an up-armored Nazi fighter...or getting shot-up by one of the bombers. Or a collision. So he was safe attacking the planes attacking the bombers as long as he stayed close enough to the enemy to shoot them effectively but out of the line of fire and effective range of the bombers. If even 5 of the enemy fighters had been dispatched to dogfight him, he would have been in real trouble as his only escape then would have been to run or dive away and eventually they would have tracked him down. Low on fuel, a long way from home. Apparently they never focused on him, so he was never in any real threat. A lone Mustang in a sky full of enemy fighters and friendly bombers...easy to miss, easy to ignore. So as usual, "not all that dangerous if he survived".

[@cassiespencer6134]

@@touristguy87 James Howard was credited with six Japanese kills and six German kills. He continued in the Air Force and retired in 1966 as a Brigadier General. He was also the only pilot in the European theater who was awarded the Medal of Honor.

[@kaideechu]

My father was a WW2 pilot, and he LOVED P51. He said the plane was designed by engineers AND pilots. It flies like a part of you, and responds exactly as expected. Every instrument is perfectly positioned. (He cared a lot about this because he was teaching flight-by-instruments to the younger generations.) It’s indeed an engineering marvel.

[@richardmorrow8077]

If they didn't have the input of pilots, it would have turned out to be a flying turd.

[@n3307v]

Nonsense. Liquid cooling was no more a "Fatal Flaw" of the mustang than it was for the Spitfire, P-40, P-38, ME-109, etc. That's why almost all of the naval aircraft in WWII were air-cooled.

[@larryowsowitz2274]

I was hoping someone would point out that fact.

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

The "liquid cooled fighters" were indeed more vulnerable, but I don't think it is only because of their engines. They were a factor, though. Yes, radial engines are more rugged when it comes to battle damage, but they usually don't withstand hits from anything between 12,7 and 30 mm either, at least not for long. It's because they tended to be more reliable on an overall basis. The lesser things in it, the lesser things could possibly break. 109Gs were famous for leaking oil coolers. Main argument for a radial, besides a little more ruggedness, is the tremendous increase in power output (BMW801 produced about 50% more HP than the contemporary DB engine). This pretty much kills any streamlining advantage of an inline engine. There seems to be a close relationship between radials and the overall toughness of the very aircraft using them, which can't be reduced to the type of engine only. It was a choice by philosophy these days; you could have an agile aircraft or you could have a tough aircraft. I guess we both have seen pictures of serious structural battle damage on 190s or P-47s, but still the aircraft made it home. There is a reason why there are less pictures of 109s, Spits or Mustangs coming home with the same amount of damage. The A6M Zero clearly shows that the things behind the engine are way more important for ruggedness than the engine itself. The US Navy wanted durability above all, that's a) why they went for radials, and b) why Grumman carved aircraft out of solid steel.

[@Ford_Raptor_R_720hp_V8]

*The Mustang was designed as an Air Superiority Fighter, not a Ground Attack Aircraft.*

[@larry648]

The navy also liked radial engines because they mad more compact fuselages, saving room for more aircraft on limited hanger decks.

[@2007MXV]

Naval airplanes were air cooled.

[@tplyons5459]

As told to me by WW2 Mustang pilots it had another nasty flaw. The 50 gallon fuel tank behind the pilot was out of the CG cone and until you used up that fuel the aircraft was dangerous and unstable. The Luftwaffe never caught on to this and the pilots hopefully used up most of the fuel in that tank before crossing the European coast.

[@vinceq1036]

Aerobatics were prohibited with more than 25 gallons of fuel in the fuselage tank according to the pilot's handbook.

[@deplorable_bitter_clinger7482]

The Spitfire had the same issue with it's fuselage fuel tank also behind the pilot. The Mustangs could not drain their under wing tanks till most or all of the fuel was out of that fuselage tank.

[@tplyons5459]

@@vinceq1036 By aerobatics I assume they mean dog fighting. As any pilot knows take off consumes a disproportional amount of fuel so they use the rear tank first Still 25 gallons is 178 pounds which is now sloshing around outside the CG envelope. Weight to the rear of the CG envelope makes raising the nose difficult.

[@imtruth69]

@@tplyons5459 I think that more weight to the rear of CG makes the nose want to rise and makes it harder to hold the nose down.

[@tomjones4318]

Could the fuel be dumped in emergency? Doesn't necessarily sound like a "flaw". Just another tool to be used properly.

[@oldschoolmotorsickle]

The Allison engine had a single stage supercharger, it was effective only to altitudes up to 17,000 feet however. The Merlin had a two-stage supercharger which made all the difference up high.

[@markir9]

Yes, in the vid I recall he says 'no supercharger'. A bit sloppy. The Merlin + 2 stage supercharger arrived at the perfect time. I believe it was being developed for the Spitfire IX to finally get one over the FW 190A and just happened to be ideal for the Mustang.

[@amaclach]

Actually - to be pedantic - it was a 2 stage, 2 speed supercharger, which meant that it could maintain ideal manifold pressure throughout a very wide range of altitude, and yes, it was a game changer.

[@huiyinghong3073]

What about fitting a P-51 airframe with a Me 262 jet engine?

[@monza1002000]

@@huiyinghong3073 Rubbish, under powered engine

[@shadovanish7435]

@@monza1002000 A much more sensible choice of replacement would have been a turboprop engine, which some Mustangs were equipped with in the '60's or early '70's (I believe), for use in counter insurgency trial roles. The turboprop engine was probably lighter & more powerful than the Merlin engine, & thus should have yielded better aircraft performance, but nothing much seemed to come of this upgraded engine Mustang design.

[@marcondespaulo]

The P-51D was the first model I assembled. My father gifted me the model, but didn't lead me to paint it. Later, I comissioned an acquaintance, an accomplished modeller to paint it. If I had painted it, I would be another model addicted old man.

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

Lol.....& 👍

[@jds6206]

Nothing wrong with being a "Model-addicted Old Man"....

[@Nucl3arDude]

SAME! My dad found an old kit, can't even remember the manufacturer, and I loved every second of the process of that P-51D. 5 years later I fell in love with 40k Eldar, then served some time in the reserves, and made an Imperial Guard regiment to capture that old timey modelling experience after that. I still have that assembled, unsanded and messy plastic model sitting around, and I can't bring myself to paint it even though now I'd be able to do a great job with an airbrush and panel lining washes with 15 years of growth since then. I cannot make any changes to that model now that I know it, combined with my grandpa Hooligan's stories (admittedly a Rhodesian Air Force Pilot, but having any fighter pilot from Africa as an inspiration is a big deal for me - he did once safely land a Vampire into arrestor barriers at Salisbury air force base after mechanical issues in the 60's) sparked the love I have of aviation and flight in general to this day.

[@marcondespaulo]

@@jds6206 indeed. The issue is that I barely manage my time without that addiction.

[@VivyX2]

damn

[@donscheid97]

People can never hear enough of the legends of WWII, and the Mustang was a legend among legends.

[@jacktattis]

No that was the Spitfire 1936 TO 1950 and still competitive and during the War the P51 could not touch it.

[@simonjackson7269]

It took the legendary British Merlin engine to make the P51 Mustang a truly great aircraft!

[@JetsBauer]

The Merlin was the key

[@no-legjohnny3691]

Too bad the British Hispanos didn't cut it though lol. Those were nixed by the AAC and replaced with the .50s on further P-51s in light of their awful tendency to jam.

[@highdfire]

Yep, the Merlin was a mechanical work of art. But it took American innovation to make it a truly great engine, such as the Bendix pressure carburetor (actually a TBI injection system, early Merlins didn't like doing aerobatics) and let's not forget Packard's role in helping RR with production standards. It was Packard who introduced geometric production tolerancing to Rolls Royce, since Packard was building V1650's under license prior to the US entering WWII. I say the best wartime innovation that RR engineers introduced to large bore V12's was the two stage mechanical super charger. If USAAF engineers hadn't been stuck on the turbo supercharger and slapped a RR like unit on an Allison V1710 it would have been every bit as good as if not better than the Merlin.

[@gregmuon]

Mostly it took the Merlin's dual stage dual speed supercharger.

[@superskullmaster]

@@gregmuon this, and what the guy above you said.

[@Farmer-bh3cg]

Don't forget the Jug. With the PW r-2800, the jug had the same speed as the -51. With a low marginal rate of climb and acceleration, these drawbacks were offset by superb maneuverability at altitude and eight (Count 'em 8) BMG with 425 rounds a gun. The Bad Guy simply couldn't dive away from the -47. Weighing 12,00 pounds it would dive like a falling safe. It was easy, really easy to make a good, I say again, a Good Jug pilot. Incredibly strong, one (Robert S. Johnson ??) came back with 420 counted bullet holes. If you want to fly something sexy that will excite all the girls, fly a -51. If you want to get home to your girl, fly a Jug

[@edwardpate6128]

Above 30K feet nothing other than a jet could touch it!

[@TheGospelQuartetParadise]

The thing that most impresses me about the P-51 is the fact that North American aviation had only been in existence for 5 years, but designed and flew the P-51 in 100 days. I have seen many P-51s up close, and even on the ground, they look like a plane waiting on a pilot to lift them off. I remember once I saw a P-51 do a low-level flyby on San Francisco Bay at full throttle. That Merlin engine was all-out awesome. Live on, Mustang.

[@W1ldSm1le]

They have to be the most aesthetic plane ever

[@jacktattis]

@@W1ldSm1le No the Spitfire is great from any perspective In side elevation the P51 looks like a pregnant goldfish

[@jacktattis]

Dont forget NAA were getting back info from the War from 1940 The US Embassies Military Attaches before Dec 41 were all sending info on everything . So NAA would have been well aware what the other companies were doing.

[@glennfalzo3718]

it's like a Ferrari, once you hear the "Musical Roar" of the engine, you will NEVER forget!

[@glennfalzo3718]

​@@jacktattisGeneral Chuck Yeager said in an interview, and I have it, "What a spitfire can do for 30 minutes, the Mustang can do for 8 hours"! I love IDIOTS who compare fighters that were designed to do DIFFERENT roles!

[@xcbadi6565]

Reducing fatalities while escorting a bomber formation is the one l think p51's best contribution to the war effort

[@thezoomguys385]

Very true. However, the allies could have easily utilized the Mosquito for this task much earlier in the war. The mosquito was also a very fast, capable, versatile and effective plane, with very long range. It could easily handle anything the luftwaffe had at that time & the allies had lots of them. Send several dozen mosquitos as escorts and another several dozen about 15-20 min ahead of the bombers to clear out the Anti-aircraft nests. Then, the bombers would have had very, very low casualties. If the allies had uses the mozzies for escorts, starting when daylight bombing campaigns started, I believe European war would have ended 1-2 yrs sooner and no need for D-day. Germany would have collapsed by 1943 or 44 at the latest. Also, Russia wouldn't have been able to capture all of East Europe & the iron curtain would have never happened.

[@wilburfinnigan2142]

Actually the fact the Mustangs went to the Germans over Berlin and DESTROYED the Luftwaffe is why their kill numbers were so high !!! Over 9,000 German planes destroyed in the air and on the ground !!!

[@wilburfinnigan2142]

@@thezoomguys385 WRONG !!!! The mosquito was a light bomber adapted to other roles. it was not that fast as only the LATER versions with the 2 stage supercharged merlins were able to top 400 MPH !!! top was only about 410 for some special models. the Mustang topped out at 440 and the Griffon spitfire about the same. Mosquito about 30 MPH slower!!!

[@3canctheayr]

@@wilburfinnigan2142 Dude - let's try a little reading comprehension, shall we? The Mustang didn't show up until waaay late in the war. The bombers had no real protection during 42-44. The Mosquito could have easily provided effective escort as it had the range, speed & handling and could easily handle the German fighters in that period. It was also well armed & could have easily been adapted for more.. The first mosquitoes were easily as fast as an ME109 & later variants only got faster, such that they could tangle with the Focke Wulfs. It's a glaring oversight that the allies didn't use the Mosquitoes as escorts for German bombing campaigns in 42, 43 and early 44. That would have cut bomber losses dramatically.

[@TheAneewAony]

@@3canctheayr No. The Mosquito did not have the speed and handling of a 109 or 190 of the same period. The Mosquito would have been easy prey in the escort role. A stripped down late war photo recon Mosquito did about 415 mph. There's a reason why the P-51 won the air war

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

1.300 Me-262 were built; that's more than a few. The industry was still quite capable. There was even enough fuel for the 262s, they just couldn't get the fuel to where it was needed. One should not forget that Bf-109G-10 and K were faster than P-51 at high altitude and about as maneuverable; though later 109s were famous for killing unexperienced pilots due to bad handling qualities on the ground. Allied pilots had the overall edge in training, which is way more important than climb rate, top speed and turn radius. P-51 was very vulnerable compared to P-47 (well, every aicraft seems vulnerable next to a Thunderbolt). The Mustang still was one of the most outstanding aircraft of WW2, but it was not the only one.

[@jamesburns2232]

America and its allies lost more aircraft to all causes, (69,500) in WWII than the Germans, (63,500). The difference is the Americans could afford to lose more aircraft. The Germans could not. 🌍

[@bnghjtyu767]

Yes The jug was definitely a backbone.

[@brentdallyn8459]

Compared to the production numbers of prop fighters, 1,300 is a few

[@haroldhahn7044]

You are overlooking the built in fatal flaw of the Me-262! If it flew at top speed, the engine would over heat, and it's heat treated parts would lose temper, crack as they cooled, and fail on the next flight. The Germans knew about this problem, but they did not have access to the metals they needed to solve it. Their only solution was frequent engine replacement.

[@philgiglio7922]

Additional training was given on arrival in country. The saying was "fly 5 and stay alive". It took time to be able to "see" the enemy

[@stephencope7178]

Whilst the spitfire stole the show here in Britain, it's limited range restricted it to a home defence role. The P51 on the other hand, could escort bombers all of the way to Berlin and back and must have saved the lives of many air crews. An asset of course, was the fitting of the Merlin engine and increased propeller size with four blades.

[@vodaredhill1704]

And drop tanks.

[@todd4866]

Very true but what made the R/RvMerlin's even better preformers was the aviation gasoline supplied by American refineries . It was 100 octane compared to the best the Germans could produce was about 85 octane. It made a huge difference in performance.

[@swanseajaffa]

They were designed at different times for different roles. The Spitfire could out climb, dive, turn and out gun the P51, but there again it was designed purely to be a out and out interceptor fighter unlike the P51. Both were the best in their own specific roles.

[@artrandy]

The RAF bombed by night, and it was a successful strategy. It also allowed the USAF to bomb by day. Therefore, the RAF never required a long range single engined fighter, unless you think Spitfires should have had dog fights in the dark, with unseen Luftwaffe night fighters, risking collisions with friendly and enemy aircraft alike, for no fruitful reason whatsoever, which is a about as crazy an idea I've heard............

[@bruceross9521]

True.. Then again , I have seen a Spitfire and a Mustang take off together and both roll into a climbing left hand turn , the Spitfire was on the Mustang ass within one turn .. lol..

[@infoscholar5221]

The P-51 is a masterpiece of engineering. US aviation production during WWII is simply amazing. It produced dozens of iconic aircraft, and countless innovations. There was definitely a dark side, but the designs of 70, 80, years ago, that are still iconic today, say a lot about how on top of their game those designers were, back then.

[@Alan-in-Bama]

...Not to mention the absolute ENORMOUS numbers of which the USA produced in all primary aircraft, and all other machines of war. Staggering amounts, especially when compared to all other countries during that time ! This massive production of Quality machines that were shared with all allied countries is what truly won WW2.

[@philgiglio7922]

Necessity is the mother of invention, and war is the whip.

[@christophertownley9441]

Those were the days that people then designed and built aircraft because it was their passion and there was a real need, now it seems there is too much focus on profit making focus, and the people who do the work with the same passion as then are shackled to the Spivs, Promoter, Bankers, Accountants and Economists, that seem more interested in Bank Accounts you need an orbit capable rocket to get over, not for Flights sake ,Technologies sake, not their Nations Sake, even their fellow man. Can we get back to that? My Dad worked on the P51 Mustang in Japan, then Korea, to be replaced by the Meteor, and his favourite was the Mustang, but he also liked the DC3 Dakota, Skytrain, the first model he gave me as a Kid. The Mustang is beautiful, the CAC Kangaroo, would have been a fit replacement had it not been for the Jets.

[@weasle2904]

American innovation, manufacturing, and production was the biggest decider in WW2 for the allies. The US not only had much higher quality manufacturing with better quality control compared to the rest of the world, but was also able to manufacture in unbelievable numbers. One country alone was responsible for the majority of the world's production. At the end of WW2 80% of all naval vessels in the world were American manufactured. And 70% of all vehicles and trucks the Soviets were using were American, not to mention their aircraft, tanks, materials, gunpowder, food, metal, etc.

[@RustySax1949]

@InfoScholar - No computers, either, all done with slide rules!

[@glennvogt1194]

When you stop and think about it the P-51 was a combined effort. The American's built the mustang and the British made suggestions to make it better. Together, they made history.

[@philgiglio7922]

It was a time when a commander could have a brainstorm and could implement it without higher higher preventing it. Field expedient modifications weren't frowned on. Perfect example is the 8 gun solid nose modification to the B 25...hell they even mounted a M 4 Sherman tank 75mm cannon in other B25's

[@jamesfisher4326]

Yet the people at Wright field tried hard to block the Mustang. First they insisted on making it a dive bomber, something that it wasn't suited for. Then they tried to stop production in favor of the P-40.

[@drgondog]

@@jamesfisher4326 - true that Echols tried toStop Mustang production and ask NAA to convert to B-25 production, but HQ Planning and Requirements and CAS Directorate SAVED the Mustang with the Low Level Attack Pursuit (A-36) contract because ONLY money for dive ombers remained in FY 42 budget. That contract was quickly followed by P-51A contract as the Close Air Support Directorate changed philosophy away fro dive bombing. That contract in turn had provision to convert to P-51B-5.

[@SilntObsvr]

The greatest contribution of the P-51 was its ability to accompany heavy bombers like B-17s and B-29s from home to target and back. Having the capability to wreak further havoc after the bombers were safely on their way home was like hot fudge on the sundae. It wasn't only the Luftwaffe who felt the Mustang's kick -- they flew in the Pacific with great effect too, and were still in service in the early days of the Korean conflict, alongside Corsairs and their offspring, the F-82 Twin Mustang.

[@ridleymain9234]

Wanna know a plane that has more rage than a P-51? The p-47N had 1000 miles of escort range

[@SilntObsvr]

@@ridleymain9234 Yeah, those Thunderbolts were especially angry because everyone kept calling them "Jug" and "Razorback". ;)

[@joelwalk3728]

I recall a story of a family member during WW2, a ground master sergeant in the Air Corp who was tasked to ready "chase" P-51 planes for target practice. An overzealous lieutenant on the mission training waist gunners on B17 was giving directions and the 50BMG guns had rubber projectiles for practice. The phrase *whole 9 yards* alludes to the fact that the waste guns were usually equipped with a 27-ft belt of 50BMG ammo, so the whole nine yards meant empty the full ammunition load out of a waist gun. The lieutenant instructed one trainee to fire at the P-51 holding the trigger until either all 27 ft were used or the gun overheated. When the B-17 landed my family member, the ground crew master sergeant, ran up to the B-17 asking who the idiot was that emptied all 27 ft of ammo. The lieutenant got in the face of my family member telling him to be careful or face disciplinary action when the base commander came up in a Jeep and yelled at the lieutenant trainer for shooting down the P-51 because one of the bullets pierced the radiator.

[@huiyinghong3073]

What about fitting a P-51 airframe with a Me 262 jet engine?

[@buknekkit3084]

@@huiyinghong3073 that would be sick, but you'd probably hafta reinforce the wings

[@BogeyTheBear]

You know, there's a reason why the Pinball target planes had screens installed over their intakes-- it was to keep fragments of the frangible ammunition from getting into the scoops.

[@j.griffin]

@@huiyinghong3073 Both of them? There were 2 engines on that aircraft. I’m not sure why you would even want to do that. They weren’t very good engines. Given the lower-quality steels used in the 004B, those engines only had a service life of 10-25 hours, perhaps twice this in the hands of a careful pilot. They burned a lot of fuel so they wouldn’t have made it anywhere- Me262’s just took off,fought and landed. They had a maximum cruising range of about 650 miles while Mustangs could travel over twice as far with drop tanks. The 262’s used roughly twice as much fuel as the P-51 when cruising but they REALLY gobbled up fuel in combat. Fuel was very crucial for the Germans at that point as were production resources so ultimately both the Me262 and V-2 were very poor uses of time&material. Modern 262 reproductions typically use American J85’s. They entered into service in 1959 and are still in major service with the USAF to this day- now,that’s an engine. The J85-powered T-38 is STILL the USAF's primary pilot training aircraft and is expected to remain in operational service until 2040… and beyond. Back to your engine swap idea, the only way such a thing might be appealing would be on a video game. The Russians converted one piston fighter (the Yak-3) to a jet fighter (the Yak-15) but if you want maximum results you need to start from scratch and build so as to integrate all design aspects into the ultimate demonstration and exercise of cohesive efficiency… as well as durability AND practicality,of course. For example, Miss Ashley 2 was an impressively zealous undertaking… until they had to call the undertaker. She was a Reno bird with Learjet wings… hard to recognize as a P-51 when they were done. Hard to even recognize as an airplane after she disintegrated immediately at Turn 1 in her last race in ‘99. RIP. That’s what usually what happens when fantasy meets reality.

[@huiyinghong3073]

@@j.griffin The Mig 9 is an example of an aircraft that uses the Me 262 engines

[@davidsike734]

I read despite the bombing and fighter escorts into Germany, Germany produced a record # of planes in 1944; what they lacked were capable pilots.

[@yamatokurusaki5790]

And quality parts and fuel Alot of sabotages happened to many of parts used in German machines

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

That's true; German industry was at its peak in Oct./Nov. 1944. The Luftwaffe started running out of pilots with the start of 1944 and the introduction of long-range escorts. It wasn't all down to P-51, though. P-47 did a lot of escort work, too.

[@mrbig4532]

The octane of fuel that was being used by the Germans was something like 92 octane and the Americans were able to produce a crazy high 150 octane that just put Germany in a no win situation but they had one more trick up their nazi sleeves and that was the jet engine which could run on any type of fuel but the Germans used diesel because thats all they had in large numbers . But post WW2 bombers ran on jp4 which is a mix of low octane gas mixed with kerosene so it was dirt cheap.

[@Hawk1966]

From what I've read the Axis powers would keep feeding their best pilots into combat while the US at least pulled a number of exceptional pilots back to train the next generation.

[@cowboybob7093]

There's a KZbin channel for people like you. Search for _Greg's Planes and Automobiles_ He covers parts, octane, P-47, production, why the P-38 had two booms (that's a full hour) Daimler's inverted V and so on

[@chrisliving6438]

My grandfather William (Bill) North deserves mention in this video he was the vice president of Packard head of engine production. And was sent to England to assist rolls Royce building their own engine. And he also met my English grandmother Sheila More. Respectfully Chris Living ,Ventura California

[@dave4882]

I have heard a story where a packard employee went to the docks to meet the ship, bringing the RR plans for the merlin. He had brought a briefcase to carry the plans back in. He was astounded to find the plans needed several large shipping crates to transport.

[@jacktattis]

Rubbish assist Rolls Royce building their own engine???? Gross Arrogance Hell your Engineers did not know Ist Angel Projection so how was he going to tell anyone what to do?.

[@chrisliving6438]

Maybe so but we do know how to build a bunch of em! Lol no offense kind sir!

[@roberthorn333]

With the addition of the Packard version of the Merlin engine, the ability to fly and fight from ceiling to tree top level was the most important aspect of the aircraft. When a fighter aircraft can do that, it's a huge addition to the inventory of an air force.

[@rodneypayne4827]

The Allison engine Mustang was actually faster than the Merlin at lower altitudes due to better streamlining.

[@johnburns4017]

Packard made a RR Merlin. The only difference was a locally sourced carburettor and using American threads. Packard never made a different version.

[@jacktattis]

@@rodneypayne4827 No due to a better P/W ratio which petered out at about 18000 ft

[@jacktattis]

@@johnburns4017 No Rolls Royce specified British threads BSW BSF and BSP

[@David-bf9ux]

I think that the Mustsngs greatest attribute came when it could hang with the bombers the entire mission...

[@hurch1915]

indeed

[@thezoomguys385]

Very true. However, the allies could have easily utilized the Mosquito for this task much earlier in the war. The mosquito was also a very fast, capable, versatile and effective plane, with very long range. It could easily handle anything the luftwaffe had at that time & the allies had lots of them. Send several dozen mosquitos as escorts and another several dozen about 15-20 min ahead of the bombers to clear out the Anti-aircraft nests. Then, the bombers would have had very, very low casualties. If the allies had uses the mozzies for escorts, starting when daylight bombing campaigns started, I believe European war would have ended 1-2 yrs sooner and no need for D-day. Germany would have collapsed by 1943 or 44 at the latest. Also, Russia wouldn't have been able to capture all of East Europe & the iron curtain would have never happened.

[@David-bf9ux]

@@thezoomguys385 The subject is on The P-51... it's all I was asked to comment on.. 😀

[@thezoomguys385]

@@David-bf9ux As indicated in my earlier reply, I agree with the P51s role and success, etc. However, I think the allies could have used the mosquito for the same role much earlier. Food for thought, that's all. .

[@David-bf9ux]

@@thezoomguys385 ok..

[@bobstuart2638]

Laminar-flow wings had only been a lab curiosity for some time, despite their great advantage for increasing range, because they have to have nearly flawless surfaces. What made the difference? A new invention now called Bondo for the rivet heads.

[@jacktattis]

Mate it was a theoretical assertion and did not work in fact. If it was so great why did the Spitfire go higher, climb Faster have a better Tactical Mach and a better roll rate albeit at a lower speed

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The Meredith Effect and excellent aerodynamics of the radiator ducting contributed to most of its speed.

[@DouglasJenkins]

George Loving, WW2 ace and author of "Woodbine Red Leader," explains that the jamming issue of the P51B was because of the thinness of the wing which meant that the Browning 50 cal had to mounted on an angle. This caused the jamming issue. The D version had a re-designed thicker wing to enable an upright install of the Brownings, as well as going from 4 to 6 total.

[@ISAFSoldier]

True, Its was the feed angle of the guns along with how ammunition belts acted like...belts. By late war however, that was also remedied with a addition of something of a feed shoot that kept the belts inline with the guns even during high G maneuvers.

[@drgondog]

The airfoil NAA/NACA 45-100 was EXACTLY the same for A-36, P-51, P-51A, P-51B, P-51D and P-51K. The angled gun mount originated with prototype experiments for NA-91 (P-51 and Mustang IA) in which the belt fed 20mm Hispano II was installed. The mount wasn't changed until the new P-51D was designed 3/43 through 9/43 with three 50cal/wing. There wasNEVER a problem in mounting the guns upright,

[@wilburfinnigan2142]

@@drgondog P51D/K used a different airfoil and the wing was thicker to be able to stand the MG upright !!!

[@drgondog]

George Loving was mistaken. The NAA/NACA 45-100 airfoil for ALL Mustangs until the XP-51F/G/J and P-51H and P-82 wing designs. The latter all had the NACA 66 Series. The myth of the thinner wing was inexplicable canted mount in A-36, P-51A and P-51B but they all had the same wing as the earlier Mustangs as well as the NA-91/Mustang 1A which had 4x20mmHispano II cannon - which DiD need to be canted. During 1942 and 43 the debate of 4x 20mm versus 50 cal armament was debated and finally concluded (no) in November 1943 - at which point the gun mounts were permanently changed for upright configuration for NA-109 P-51D--NA BEFORE the gun jamming problems were reported in ETO.

[@ghostrider88jinetedelfanta31]

I would say that having the range to escort & protect bombing raids was its most important contribution.

[@BattleHistories]

Despite this flaw the P51 together with the Spitfire can be considered as two of the most stunning and beautifully deadly allied fighters within the European theatre.

[@kittymervine6115]

well and both coming at a time, when Britain was not ready or capable of fighting off a full invasion, even flawed aircraft were welcome. The belief that they had to have air superiority, kept Germany from their only real chance of invasion as the UK just became stronger and stronger.

[@urbanmidnight1]

The Hurricane was the true hero of WW2 not the P51 or Spit.

[@andrewtadd4373]

@@kittymervine6115 you discount the Dowding system at your peril just as the Germans did.

[@Bathi_wt]

@@urbanmidnight1 absolutely not the hurricane got more kills than the spit in battel of Britain because the RAF had the hurricane in many numbers other than the spit . The spit could have won the war alone but the hurricane couldn't. I have a great respect to the hurricane pilots rather than the Spitfire or Mustang pilots because they were given a much inferior plane to go up against the mighty bf 109 and fw 190 and other Luftwaffe fighters and they knew that

[@sbg911]

@@urbanmidnight1 That claim is often stated due to the numbers of aircraft the Hurricane shot down vs the Spitfire in BoB. Certainly there were far more Hurricanes in service during the battle, so that number by maths alone was bound to be larger... But within that statistical argument, I don't think enough relevance is given to the general British doctrine of leaving the Spits to deal with the escorting fighters while the Hurricanes dealt with the bombers (when both types entered the same engagement of course). Though shooting down 109's & 110's was clearly preferable, the main Spit aim was to keep them 'busy' while the Hurri's could then focus on the Heinkel & Dornier formations 'non'-harrassed - IMO this approach, as much as anything, allowed that numbers disparity to be maintained throughout the battle.

[@greggstrasser5791]

Hurricanes and P-47’s did most of the heavy lifting. Spitfires and Mustangs took the glory.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

Indeed. In "I flew for the Fuhrer", German ace Heinz Knocke describes how it was P47s that did for him and his squadron before the P51 appeared in numbers. The P47 was transferred from escort duty to fighter bomber/ground attack role in 1944 because there was increasing need for that. The P47 was better at it than the P51, being much less vulnerable to ground fire and capable of carrying more bombs, as well as having more guns.

[@jacksaintjack2844]

The P51D........the most beautiful prop driven plane I have ever laid eyes on.

[@covertcounsellor6797]

Agreed. Superb aircraft.

[@neilparnell5712]

Late models of Griffon engined bubble canopy Spitfire are even more beautiful for me, but P51D is a very close second.

[@richardadams4928]

By the standards of the time, the P-40 at launch could probably be considered as pretty sleek and aerodynamic, but the Mustang surely outclassed it.

[@jds6206]

Maybe.....it's a stretch, but maybe.

[@Right-Is-Right]

Yes, throwing Rolls Royce engines on everything won the war, next.

[@grapegod6646]

@@Right-Is-Right 🤣🤣🤣 Someone didnt do their homework

[@Right-Is-Right]

@@grapegod6646 Wel it was not me, so go do your homework, slow brain.

[@navyreviewer]

Which p-40? I get a headache thinking of all the p-40 variations.

[@GarryAReed]

The P-51 was indeed a great fighter, but the P-47 was an amazing fighter itself, and much loved by pilots for it’s ability to bring’em back alive. 🇺🇸🦅

[@studlydudly]

I agree, my vote for Best all round fighter of WW2 would go to the P-47N

[@wadebenham7411]

I spent my first six years on Long Island in the early '40s. My youngest uncle, Douglass S. Benham joined the Army Air Corps in 1941 and after training received a P47. Coming from MN he would buzz our Manhasset home and dad would go pick him up at La Guardia. Doug flew 17 years in fighter planes and 23 years in transport aircraft such as a C-130 type. He flew 50 missions in Europe (I remember my parents nervously counting) and when done, received another 50. He flew through WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. Told me that since 7 yrs. old all he wanted to do was fly airplanes and he got to do that. He retired from the MN ANG in 1983 the day he turned 60 and could no longer fly for the US. He said he earned Colonel but retired as a Brig. General. By the 1950's we lived in the Pasadena CA area and around 1953 I got to see Doug take off in a P-51D from an adjacent field to Hughes Airfield in L.A. I will never forget the glorious sound of the RR Merlin Engine as long as I live. Doug passed away a few years ago at age 95. He was the youngest of six kids ( my father the eldest). He will always be my hero and in my heart. He loved this country. The Mustang was his favorite plane.

[@russellbrown4078]

😀😀

[@russellbrown4078]

If I had my druthers I`d druther the T-Bolt over the Mustang , I would prefer having both wings to return on, check it out.

[@mylanmiller9656]

The only problems with the P47, it was expensive to build, and it drank too much gas. Other than that, it was a great fighter.

[@ibuprofenPill]

I think the most important contribution was the fact it served its purpose so well as a long-range bomber escort. It did exactly as it was designed and saved many lives. It definitely hastened the German's demise.

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

Flaw on Spitfires was their engine used to splutter and almost stop doing a 360 roll, puffing out smoke before they recovered. Noticed it? Cough! Every aircraft has it's own certain daft quirk that escaped in development.

[@brentdallyn8459]

Fuel would drain out of the carb and starve the motor during any manoeuvre that involved pulling negative G no matter how brief, solved it quickly with a small diameter washer placed in the Carb, it restricted the flow of the fuel as it tried to escape allowing pilots to maintain negative G manoeuvring during dogfights

[@joeylawn36111]

@@brentdallyn8459 A lady engineer designed the part to help with the problem. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_Shilling

[@cojaxart8986]

Escort and ground support for the advancing Allied armies. The sweet sound of a Merlin was like The sweet sound of success. My father in law worked on both the P 40 and the P 51. More Mustangs came back from sorties than the P 40’s. Easier to tweak and smoother to change out parts. Once the Allison’s were replaced with Merlin’s… “the war was over “ as he put it.

[@DARKDUDE187]

My Dad flew as a waist gunner in a B17 at a time when the aircraft loss rate was every 3 1/2 missins and he flew 35, He just said it was the best feeling to know you had friends. He meant Thunderbolts and Mustangs,

[@hexadecimal7300]

The fatal flaw you mentioned, the vulnerable radiator, was sorted out but you never mentioned its contribution to the Mustangs remarkable performance. The radiator became so well designed it became a bit of a "ramjet" using the merideth effect it gave a 100+lbs of thrust. Very handy to have.

[@treatb09]

Sounds like that is the reason they could out maneuver the jets. That meredith effect was like a primitive thrust vector

[@stoopingfalcon891]

Thanks for that little tid-bit. I learned something new today. I will look it up later. 😊

[@gregmead2967]

I believe I've read that it was something like 500 lbs of thrust. But it wasn't "like a primitive thrust vector", it was straight back, just like the thrust from the propellor.

[@hexadecimal7300]

@@gregmead2967 I was under the impression it was about 160lbs. No expert though, just what I read.

[@gregmead2967]

@@hexadecimal7300 Without references both of us are just blowing smoke, so I googled "how much thrust did the p51 get from the meredith effect". If you look at the results from that, you'll get a huge variation, from around your 160 lbs up to one mention of 600 lbs. Unless I see some definitive articles at some point, I'm just going to avoid quoting ANY values for the magnitude of the Meredith Effect. Thanks!

[@tonyjedioftheforest1364]

Brilliant fighter, watched one over Lincolnshire a couple of weeks ago on national armed forces day. Still an awe inspiring sight and the whistle of the air going over the gun ports makes the hair stand up on the back of the neck.

[@cneill6]

No mention of the spark plug issue. The fighters did not have the ability to defend the bombers flying to Berlin because the engines overheated. That left the bombers unprotected. An engineer at the Wright Field in Dayton Ohio determined the problem was with the spark plugs and designed a new one that allowed the fighters to escort the bombers deep into Germany, dramatically improving the success of the missions

[@drgondog]

The British spark plugs were better. The iniial combat mission overheating was due to faulty production QA on the radiator matrix - which was sorted out December 1943. R-R shipped 100K sparkplugs to Packard until US production quality sparkplugs replaced the British ones. An issue that DID come up, surfaced (July 1944) when the 150 octane fuel was found to foul sparkplugs sooner. The missions 'to Berlin' were never a problem due to either the radiator matrix or sparkplug fouling as those were sorted late 1943/early 1944. The missions to Berlin however were not planned until sufficent P-51B and P-38Js were equipped with added internal fuel tanksage - circa Feb 1944 - although first Berlin mission was March 4, 1944.

[@rymoe6299]

My grandfather loved these planes. He landed on sword Beach and head led to Caen and then bypassed it on route to reach market garden. When often pinned down under enemy fire and heavy fog. When the fog these planes would come to the rescue often turning the Tiger tanks completely over. They would all be cheering ❤

[@MarkJacksonGaming]

-- Reading the title, going to watch this close. I fly the Mustang and several other WWII fighters. Dark Skies, let's see how you do. They had the specs for the Mustang, and getting into wing design, you're right on aerodynamics, overall the Zero beat it. At 4:57 here, I'd say you're spot on. One half wrong thing here. The latter Allison's were supercharged, but tuned for low alt. They'd been around a while. The Flying Tigers ran supers. The Allison was a good engine on paper only, sure you would agree. The Merlin, and wouldn't it have been nice to see the Griffon in extended action, that would have been something. Flown both Merlin and Griffon (Granted with the Griffon you need five paddle props) It's not so much for speed, but jump off, but you can break the SB with that, you'll die doing it, but you can. Your fatal flaw is true. Of all LC engines. But the true flaw was the carburetor. One G negative dive lifts the floats, choking the aircraft of fuel. I believe it was a woman that solved that problem, and it was later refined into the 360 carb. See, German pilots knew this, but they're in BF-109s, with inverted engines, and more importantly, port fuel injection, so they'd dive straight down to strangle the Mustang on their tail. Little fact: The Pacific, as you say Burma Mustangs had real problems with the .50 cals locking up due to the humidity, and temp changes at alt. Not that you're wrong, just something to know. 8:41 The Packard Merlin had two inline superchargers, not one, and as above, we Americans are a bunch of jokers and beefed the heck out of them. And you're talking more like 1200hp on the ground, and upwards of 1700 escorting bombers. The whole point was outperform the 109 which performed poorly at alts around 22000 feet. It forced them to perch and dive. That worked without escort, but when the Mustangs came along, no longer. Another interesting fact for you: To keep it short as possible, did you know the drop tanks were made of 'paper'? We fly composite now, and it's illegal to drop for obvious reasons. Your fuel tank capacity is subjective, but I'm not yelling at you. Jump seat or no. Discharge into the left wing, the aircraft isn't in ideal sport/combat mode with the fuselage tank full (why pilots to this day drink that first) and then play the fuel swap game from wing to wing, it's a vacuum thing. Currently solved. Vintage, no. Won't tell you how I know, but I will give you a tip. Never top off the fuel tank in your vehicle, and never let your tank go below one quarter. Practical knowledge when you're headed to the store. The best thing about the Mustang D to me, is every control is right were you need it. Compared to a Spit you have a lot of room for your body. Fun fact I can't prove. Chuck Yeagar I strongly believe, broke the sound barrier in the Mustang. I didn't write a novel to S post you. I'd say in 14 minutes you did a damn good job. I love the Mustang. I've been in combat, with boots, not an aircraft. And to your question: What is the greatest contribution the Mustang made to the war effort? It's still making it, when my daughter (3 years old at the time) is sitting on my lap telling me I suck at flying because we have to go home and she wants to keep flying. Gonna have to teach her about 110 octane in this economy.

[@andyc3088]

The woman who solve the problem with the carburetor was Beatrice Shilling the item she invented was Miss Shilling's orifice, before the war she used to race motorbikes

[@chrisbraid2907]

Yeah quite an essay reply …

[@MarkJacksonGaming]

@@chrisbraid2907 -- Long as you learned a thing or two. I'll spend the time.

[@stephenwalton9646]

Fun fact from a friend who grew up in Germany during the war. As a kid, he and his buddies would watch for the escorts to pickle their drop tanks . Then the kids would race into the woods to find them as most of the tanks didn’t actually break on impact. The kids would scavenge the fuel and trade it to farmers for food. Farmers were the only group that didn’t have to produce ration coupons/records to account for their fuel. Hunger was the dominant memory of my friend growing up. He got his US citizenship by joining the US Army and then became a chef. He said that is where to food was and he never wanted to be that hungry again.

[@heathclark318]

Great insight into a plane I love and have studied since I was a kid. Appreciate your time and insight

[@johnlottes7440]

My grandfather Ned helped build these at Martin's Airport in Middle River. I've acquired one of the 24" Delta wood planers at a military surplus auctions. Built like a tank, and still running flawlessly today.

[@PHXDOG]

My Paternal Grandfather was a Co-Pilot for B-17 bombers from 42-45 then C47 for the Berlin Airlift. He spoke well of the P-51 but he liked the P-38 Lighting a lot more. Said it was a more powerful airplane, better to fly, and would stay around longer to protect the B-17s.

[@philgiglio7922]

The aircrew of the C47's & C 54's had, for the most part been men who had actually dropped bombs on the city. Sadly Halvorsan, the "candy bomber" died not too long ago

[@huiyinghong3073]

What about fitting a P-51 airframe with a Me 262 jet engine?

[@drgondog]

He must have finished his tour of operations before D-Day. The 8th AF gave all of its P-38s to the 9th AF by July 1944 (save 479th FG) and each P-38FG (20, 55, 364th and 479th) converted to P-51s. The P-51B/D had greater combat radius, greater speed at all altitudes, greater dive speed, greater manueverability, cheaper to buy ad cheaper to operate - than the P-38. On or about April 1944, the P-38 began middle range target escorts to places like Brunswick and Ulm whereas the Mustangs were going to Berlin, Stettin, Brux, Munich and Prague. The P-47s were flying medium range Penetration and Withdrawal escorts, where the P-38s would take over.

[@PHXDOG]

@@drgondog Interesting. I wish he was still alive to ask. He passed away in 96. I am remembering conversations he had with me as a pre-teen and young teen in the late 70s and 80s.

[@robertpatrick3350]

Eric Brown commented that in a dogfight he would prefer the Spitfire over a mustang …. Unless it was over Berlin otherwise he wouldn’t make it back. One thing DS omitted was that the UK underwrote the Mustang with 12$M dollars, which given the UK’s finances at that point was a huge commitment.

[@feedingravens]

I heard the Allison was intentionally built as "naked" engine, the idea being to be universal, and for each application you add the additional specific and tailsored equipment you need. The Lightning also had Allisons, and no problems at height - because they added a giant turbocharger system

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The Lightnings had plenty of problems at altitude, hence they were replaced in the ETO until late 1944. Even then, they were restricted in their dive speed.

[@drudgenemo7030]

The AAF was interested in turbos during the development of the Allison, that's why the Allison only had a single stage (yup it actually did have a supercharger) that was never fully developed and integrated into Allison powered aircraft other than the lightning. The chief benefit of the mustang was cost. It was incredibly cheap due to a large number of stamped parts. This also reduced weight. The P-47 was available with drop tanks of sufficient range for the schwinfort missions, but the decision to omit escorts was a political/doctrinal issue, not an equipment issue. The range was the scapegoat when that didn't work out. By the time the Merlin mustang was available, most of the veterans of the Luftwaffe we're shot down, and training/fuel was getting critical, so yes the mustang had more victories, but it was also facing a depleted Luftwaffe, while other aircraft were given ground attack because they were less vulnerable to ground fire than the mustang (the liquid cooled engine and light construction). Same story in the Pacific. PS By 1943 doctrine was to avoid dogfighting. Read up on what aces such as Richthofen and Hartmann thought of dogfighting. Around 1943, the P-47 had reached the performance potential of it's prop. When it got the new one, it's performance jumped dramatically. Though it was still more than double the cost per unit of the mustang, it was faster, dove better, better high altitude performance, more firepower, could still get to Berlin, and was FAR more durable.

[@brianmoore1164]

Thank you!! I came to the comments section to say the same things! The Allison bashing is founded on myth and legend. History should be taught with facts. The horrifically wrong commanders that were convinced that bombers didn't need escort are responsible for the range myth. No big trick to mount drop tanks on a P-47 and right to the end of the war it had better high altitude performance than the Mustang, but since it was tougher too it is thought of as only capable of ground attack.

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

In 1943 P-47 didn't have the range yet. They already had drop tanks, but no long range drop tanks. It's also not true that the bombers flew un-escorted. In fact the Schweinfurt mission was escorted by P-47s up to the Dutch/German border. In 1943 the Luftwaffe would usually send out a fighter group to intercept US bombers over the North Sea to force the escorts to jettison their drop tanks early.

[@drudgenemo7030]

@@ottovonbismarck2443 it British were using 115 gallon tanks on the P-47 3 months before the first schwinfort mission. And even the B model was plumbed for ferry tanks.

[@brianmoore1164]

@@ottovonbismarck2443 Those larger drop tanks were forbidden by the bomber mafia. They were utterly convinced that escort wasn't needed. They didn't change their minds until the choice was change their minds or face court-martial. They were only to happy to embrace the Mustang legend then.

[@drudgenemo7030]

@@ottovonbismarck2443 my thing isn't that the mustang wasn't a good fighter. It was. It also was the fighter of choice if you are doing a war of attrition. 5 squadrons of mustangs or 2 squadrons of thunderbolts? And the mustang wasn't far below the thunderbolt in performance, in some aspects is was indeed superior, but overall it was indeed less capable than the thunderbolt. Post war head to head clashes between the two prove it. And those clashes show the Corsair to be better than either. Which leaves the question, which gets the bronze, the hellcat or the mustang?😜

[@feedingravens]

"Little friends" vs. "Hunting down the Luftwaffe": The USAAF made the decision that gaining air superiority was more important than bomber losses. So they gave the explicit order that instead of staying close to the bombers and fencing them off from attacking germans, they were to go after them whenever they saw them, even when that meant leaving the bombers unprotected. They were in principle successful in the long run, but 50,000 casualties in the bomber command was the price the USAAF stragists were willing to pay.

[@willdsm08]

The Allisons were never up to the task and were swapped out for Merlins as soon as they became available. Without the Merlins, the Mustangs were just another aircraft.

[@tomt373]

And then the jerks at Rolls Royce got into a license dispute after the war, so they stopped using them anyway.

[@MrCenturion13]

P40s were equipped at one point with Packard Merlin. The P-51had a hard time belly landing without breaking up due to the scoop - pilots were told to bail out instead.

[@lawrencemarocco8197]

The Allison, when fitted the the GE turbocharger was a powerhouse as proven in the P-38. In other applications it was limited to a single-speed, single-stage mechanical supercharger which compromised its high-altitude performance.

[@SoloRenegade]

the A-36 was said to be the single best dive bomber of WW2, and at low altitudes was fast and capable of outmaneuvering pretty much anything else.

[@diffened]

William Smith, it's not quite that simple. The Allison engine was just as good as the Merlin at various points of the war. Most engines in the war were continuously being updated and the whole Allison - Merlin debate always makes it seem that the Allison was far inferior. At the point it was switched out its performance wasn't as great but if later models were fitted it probably would have been just as good. Also, the Allison was much easier to maintain and therefore was better suited for deployment in areas further from supply lines. An engine that is stuck in the maintenance hangar is far inferior to one that is flying. cheers

[@jroch41]

One thing mentioned by Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles channel is that the Mustang was one of US's lesser expensive fighter planes to produce compared to P-47 Thunderbolt & P-38 Lightining, and is another reason why so many Mustangs were produced.

[@scriptsmith4081]

$20,000! Can you believe that? Compared to $200,000,000 for an F-35 (which helps explain a 30 trillion national debt and a disintegrating dollar.)

[@erichvonmanstein6876]

@@scriptsmith4081 thats not even close to what they cost, and the cost of them have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the national debt🤨

[@tonyunderwood9678]

@@scriptsmith4081 Sir, an F-35A (or B or C models) doesn't cost ANYWHERE NEAR that much. Each time an F35 rolls off the line it costs $110M and each time another country orders up more F-35s the price drops accordingly as the fleet expands. The prototype XF-35, yes it was Very expensive, F-35A, NO when all things are considered with any other 5th gen strike fighter A/C. And, that $200M figure included R&D/Development for the prototype and NOT production models. And let's look at that 1940 figure of $20k... How much is that in today's dollars, for an airplane that couldn't go 400mph and with a radius of (initially)550 miles and had numerous issues before the problems were sorted and the first P-51A's began coming out of Inglewood? And what about the prototype, which ended up in a cornfield upside-down after systems failure forced a crash landing? One of the things concerning the Mustang's initial introduction that wasn't talked about in this video was that a lot of people in the War Department weren't pleased with the P-51's initial capabilities/costs/long-run, and many of these same people weren't all that sure about including it in the USAAF inventory. Thus, the P-51 had its issues from the beginning. And the F-35? People love to talk crap about it... but Loc-Mart isn't bothered a bit because they know that the more the A/C is viewed as a POS the more likely it's going to be viewed as a very unpleasant surprise by any enemy forces if a SHTF scenario happens and NATO finds itself in a full blown war. The partner nations chomping at the bit to buy F-35s (including NON-NATO countries) know this, they've analyzed the airplane and they know what it can do and they want it. And with a half-century+ service life it's gonna be around a while and it's gonna be continuously uprated and improved along the way. Talk Trash about the F-35 all you want. Our allies know better. And NO, the F-35 costs have NOTHING to do with the US national debt. The government spends more on foodstamps and welfare and unfunded entitlements than it does on the F-35. And each one sold to NATO alliance partners lowers that initial cost, and THAT was part of the initial purpose of this airplane in the first place... to offset expenses in manufacturing in the long run, just like the F-16 and C-130 Herc and F/A-18 and a variety of others.

[@tempestfury8324]

Yet there were still more P-47s produced. As for cost effectiveness, Greg rightly points out the best "bang for the buck" was the F6F Hellcat.

[@mylanmiller9656]

The Mustang was Smaller and more streamlined, because of that, it burned less fuel. You could buy 1 mustang for the cost of 2 P38's or 5 mustangs for the price of 3 P47's and a Mustang drank half the gas.

[@fatdogproductions1962]

My uncle was a B-17 pilot and a first cousin flew a P-51. My uncle was shot down 3 times, never lost a crewmember, and returned to England each time via the French resistance. My cousin was captured and liberated by the Russians when they captured Berlin.

[@Snookynibbles]

The P51 H came on the scene near the very end of the war, increasing performance even more with hp up around 2,000+. Some were employed in the Korean Conflict.

[@wilburfinnigan2142]

The main advantage of the H was it was LIGHTENED and the engine did not make 2,000 HP and NO H models used in Korea, as there were too few only 555 made and they were with the National guard units !!! The P51 D was used in Korea because they had so many of them....

[@KCrucis]

the extra power came mainly from methanol injection wich was worth 4 minutes, after that it was worse than a bf109 kurfurst, wich isnt a low bar, but still.

[@drgondog]

@@wilburfinnigan2142 The P-51H with Packard 1650-9 and Water Injection produced 2200 Hp at 90"MP. The P-51H also increased length by 13", had larger empennage, different wing, 600 pounds less than P-51D and 30kts faster at FTH.

[@drgondog]

@@wilburfinnigan2142 - nope. The P-51Hs were all assigned to Air Depense Command - The National Guards had P-51Ds and -47s - but only the P-51D/K equipped Guard units were deployed to Korea. Yes the H was lower design Gross Weight - same as fully loaded P-51B, but stronger than both the P-51B/D

[@englishpassport6590]

Shame you didn't get to enjoy the 2400hp Rolls Royce Griffon or De Havillands engine genius Frank Halfords 24 cylinder 4000hp and more Napier SabreV..you used his Jet engine designs in the Sabre. and plenty other transonic jets.

[@theoracle6639]

Hmm..Must just clarify a point. The British did not "Love" the P51. It was ordered as a fighter to take on the Luftwaffe, but it was crap at the heights that the Luftwaffe came over at, and so it was relegated to ground attack and army cooperation, which is why the Brits put a Merlin in it before the US ever thought of it, and it was Hap Arnold who heard about it , and the results from it , and insisted that work be done stateside. Packard did not make changes to the Merlin to fit into the aircraft, that had already been done by the British. They made changes to the engine to fit into their engineering processes, plus one or two things like the material in the bearings.

[@johnp9402]

Tired of people putting the Alison down. It had a single stage supercharger but GE was supposed to develop the second stage which they failed to do.

[@lancerevell5979]

The Allison really redeemed itself in the P-38 Lightning. Nothing wrong with the basic engine.

[@johnp9402]

@@lancerevell5979 it was an awesome engine

[@drudgenemo7030]

In the early-mid 30s the AAF was interested in turbo chargers, ex the B17, the P-38, P47, and the P-39 was also supposed to have one. That's why Allison only developed the single stage supercharger.

[@johnp9402]

@@drudgenemo7030yep they were ordered not to add the second stage because general electric was supposed to make it but had problems with metals not holding up.

[@eleventy-seven]

The P-38 held many records and due to it's long range was great in the war of the pacific. It's Allison engines were a source of constant trouble as was it's flyability while diving until the much later models were fitted with dive brakes.

[@danf321]

I would have loved to see the reaction of German pilots the first time they encountered bombers escorted by P-51’s.

[@johnbritton9498]

I imagine their reaction was akin to "OH F*CK"!

[@wilburfinnigan2142]

Most just pissed themselves !!!

[@freemarketjoe9869]

"The day I saw Mustangs over Berlin, was the day I knew the jig was up" Herman Goering. For the first time in the entire war, he was right about something. The most beautiful fighter ever produced.

[@andrewstrongman305]

The Allison-Mustang was armed with .30 cal mg's, NOT 30mm.

[@conroypawgmail]

Thank you! I'm glad that someone else caught that too!

[@josecolon8143]

The biggest contribution was the realization that daring constant innovation is an essential part of victory

[@sparky4878]

Says B17 shows B29. I swear they do this on purpose.

[@marcondespaulo]

That makes you learn.

[@JackGordone]

Also, frequently shows postwar and Korean War P-51. Look closely and you'll also see some in South African markings, again strictly Korean War stuff.

[@aldenfloyd5432]

@@JackGordone 1 shot was a p51d taking off along side of a p51h

[@GH-oi2jf]

The most important contribution of the P-51 was to release the P-47 from escort duty so it could concentrate on ground attack.

[@spanishpeaches2930]

No US aircraft were used in the Battle of Britain to the best of my knowledge. And all those aircraft in the BoB were built in the UK.

[@jimattrill8933]

Correct. Though many pilots were made elsewhere.....

[@fortawesome1974]

Definitely the biggest contribution was bomber escort and the drop tanks giving them the ability to stay with the bomber the whole trip. No plane before had ever been able to come close to that!! The first few time the Luftwaffe engaged bomber deep in Germany where no fighters should be able to reach they were shocked and also shocked at the number of them!!

[@derekambler]

The P47 with drop tanks was more than capable to reach Berlin!

[@drgondog]

@@derekambler True or P-47D-25 which didn't equip a complete squadron in ETO until July 1944 at which point the D-Day invasion was a complete success. Only the P-47N had the range of the P-51B/D and it had TWICE the internal Fuel. That said, the P-47D wasn't tasked for Target Escort for the valid reason that both the P-38J and P-51B/D had more combat radius.

[@markim5087]

This guys force in his voice is the perfect reinforcement for any military video, it’s just the perfect old school sound for WW2..

[@McBruch]

As a German i have to say: This is my absolute favorite plane of all time there is no better plane for me than this one xD

[@huiyinghong3073]

What about fitting a P-51 airframe with a Me 262 jet engine?

[@nigelalderman9178]

yes designed by a german :)

[@einautofan6685]

Die Mustang war ein echter Glücksfall! Selten wurde so schnell ein fast perfektes Flugzeugmuster entworfen! Mit einem zeitlosen Design dazu! Cadillac of the Skies! Es stimmt! Dennoch mochte ich auch die Corsair! Auch sie war auf ihre Weise Perfekt! Die Me 109 hingegen mochte ich nie! Das Fahrwerk war fiel zu dicht beisammen in der Mitte! Habe nie verstanden, warum man einen solchen schweren Konstruktionsfehler bis zum Ende beibehalten hat...

[@WorivpuqloDMogh]

My favorite plane of all time. Such a beautiful piece of engineering

[@markwoodger2]

I met a ww2 fighter pilot. he said that the mustang was the complete game changer that we(the British) really needed.

[@phillipallen3259]

The Mustang's fatal flaw as mentioned early in the video is what made it's stay in Korea short and more or less ended it's military service. Even with improvements it was still susceptible to ground fire. Much of the fighting in Korea required an aircraft to shift from air patrol to close air support so the Mustang was less capable than other aircraft in that role.

[@drgondog]

Too simple an explanation, The loss/sortie rate of the P-51 was the same as the F4U. Further the range of the P-51 with full external bomb/rocket load was FAR higher that F4U, or any USAF/USN jet like F-80, F-84, F-86

[@Yukatoshi]

Oh God, they started doing the red arrow and ring thing in the thumbnail. I hate that clickbait-esque crap!

[@Yukatoshi]

@@Freedom4Ever420 ...

[@arcturionblade1077]

At least they didn't enlarge the eyes with Photoshop into big googly eyes.

[@Yukatoshi]

@@arcturionblade1077 I guess lol.

[@achitophel5852]

The UK told the US that the Allison engine was useless and the plane was a dog. But when a Rolls-Royce Spitfire Merlin was plumbed in, it changed from sheep to wolf in the blink of an eye. Incidentally, Rolls-Royce Merlins were immediately made under licences by Packhard. Us Brits actually preferred them as each one sent to the UK came with a beautiful set of tools. Making them in air-conditioned facilities by a stress-free workforce, as opposed to being built in factories likely to be bombed to smithereens any minute, by a workforce wondering if their home and family were still in one piece, probably also made a difference.

[@johnbrewer8954]

Rubbish. The RAF flew their Alisson engined Mustangs until they wore them out, they were the best at tactical recon, better than Merlin variants.

[@achitophel5852]

@@johnbrewer8954 Sources?

[@johnbrewer8954]

@@achitophel5852 Various, P-51B by William Marshall and Lowell F Ford is a good start.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@achitophel5852 While Rolls-Royce’s manufacturing techniques churned out very high quality engines, they simply didn’t jibe with Packard’s way of doing things (or Ford in Manchester for that matter). In his book “Not Much of An Engineer”, Rolls-Royce engineer Sir Stanley Hooker recalls his introduction to the matter with Ford: “One day their Chief Engineer appeared in Lovesey’s office, which I was then sharing, and said, ‘You know, we can’t make the Merlin to these drawings.’ I replied loftily, ‘I suppose that is because the drawing tolerances are too difficult for you, and you can’t achieve the accuracy.’ ‘On the contrary’ he replied, ‘the tolerances are far too wide for us.’ We make motor cars far more accurately than this. Every part on our car engines has to be interchangeable with the same part on any other engine, and hence all parts have to be made with extreme accuracy, far closer than you use. That is the only way we can achieve mass-production.’' The Packard Merlin: How Detroit Mass-Produced Britain’s Hand-Built Powerhouse

[@modus16222]

I think the range played the biggest factor in the P-51's success. Who knows if the success of the bombing raids could have lasted without them. Would love to see a head to head comparison of the P-51 and Spitfire. I don't disagree the P-51 was an amazing aircraft but the Spitfire is right up their in my books as well. Great Video!

[@jacktattis]

Greg from Gregs Airplanes and Autos has a video debunking that assertion of the superior P51 range He asserts and proves that the figures put forward to choose the P51 over the P47 was purely sleight of hand

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@jacktattis you don't really believe the greg propaganda I hope.

[@markrowland1366]

North American Aviation was owned by General Motors. The head of GM, was put in charge of all wartime production. Another stalwart was put in control all railways activity. These two men set the standards which saw the hundreds of big producers, build and deliver efficiency everywhere.

[@donsharpe5786]

I think the most important factor was its range along with its manoeverabilty allowing them to escort long range bombers in daylight raids then attacking secondary assets once the bombers had gone.

[@webpa]

Check your numbers. The Merlin (ready to fly) was heavier than the Allison, put out less power (SSL conditions), cost more to build and maintain, and had a higher specific fuel consumption. But it was clearly the best solution for the problem to be solved. The same considerations seem to apply to many weapon systems from West versus East.

[@ace_trace_2237]

The Merlin put out less power on the ground sure, but at 22,000ft it definitely made more than the Allison

[@touristguy87]

doesn't matter how much power it puts out on the ground if it stops running once you hit cruise altitude The main reason the P-38 was supplanted in the high-altitude escort role is the engine failure rate in the ETO, at high altitude running on British gas. Lockheed didn't solve that problem until late in the war.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@touristguy87 no, the Allison had detonation and other problems for most of the war. Even redesigned intake manifolds in 1944 didn't solve all the issues. Don't go blaming it on the gas; the manifold caused uneven charge mixing and hence lead fouling.

[@touristguy87]

@@bobsakamanos4469 "no, " ..."no", what? Be specific.

[@touristguy87]

​@@bobsakamanos4469 "Don't go blaming it on the gas; the manifold caused uneven charge mixing and hence lead fouling." I don't know if you know about a guy name Greg who has covered WW2 airplanes, engines and capabilities in great deal over quite a few years on YT. I also don't know if you know that he has covered this detail extensively. Also I don't know if you know that on top of watching Greg's video on this very issue, I also have read several Wiki pages on this very same issue with the Alison V-12 and the PW-1800 and 2500 series of radials. But I have. The gas definitely played a part. You don't have to take my word on it. I'm definitely not taking your word on it.

[@davidsiller9078]

I love the P-51. My dad was an aircraft mechanic during that war and he always raved about the fantastic P-51 Mustang! North American helped save America as did every other worker in the American war industry. Designed by a German immigrant Edgar Schmued!

[@huandru]

I like this presentation of an iterative process. Germans, and French for that matter, have a management methodology that is based on principles. There's a terrific chapter in the book "The Culture Map" (Meyers) that explains this in great detail. The TED Talk called "Build a tower, build a team" further supports the effects of a good method. Thank God the US is a "just do it" society! At least, it was back then.

[@niblack11]

I think the biggest advantage the p51 had was its fuel efficiency and long range. Even though the fw190 spit fire and the me 109 were equal to or had an advantage in some areas. none of them had the range. I believe it is the range of the mustang, being able to protect the bombers on a full round trip booming mission, is what won the allies air superiority

[@handoverfist4560]

Long-range bomber escort was the main thing that made the Mustang such a game-changer.

[@tim1398]

That Merlin engine had a dual-stage supercharger - that was the key to altitude. The Allison only had a single stage supercharger (at the request of the USAAC). The P-38 used the Allison with the addition of turbo-charger in front of the supercharger (as the USAAC had envisioned), this actually outperformed the Merlin, but fitting it in the Mustang would have been impossible.

[@pyro1047]

After the war they fitted an experimental Turbo to the Alison and got 3,000HP, but jets were the future and it didn't go anywhere. Would've been an amazing engine if the Army let them make their own or GE actually made the Turbo able to fit in the aircraft it was designed for.

[@jacktattis]

What variant of the Merlin ? they had a bloody lot

[@bobsakamanos4469]

They didn't get it right with the P-38 engines until late 1944.

[@jacktattis]

@@bobsakamanos4469 By that time it was being used in other just as important roles

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@jacktattis I totally agree. It was very good at low level in the Med and Pacific. My reference was to the OP which was comparing it with the high altitude Merlin. The Allison installation (ie including ancilliary systems) in the 38 had numerous issues at high altitude until late '44.

[@phil4986]

This is an amazing video. I never knew that only thanks to the British ,did we have the Mustang. In war time procurement,a great weapon can easily die on the blueprint table. To our British friends,thanks ! Just an amazing synergy between the British and Americans making this plane great. That story is never talked about enough. Great video.

[@wirralnomad]

Necessity is the Mother of Invention, in this instance I would guess that makes Britain Mum and the USA Dad!

[@ThomasLauman]

My Father in law was a navigator on a B-17 G at Ridgewell. When I was in Jackson hole Wy . Waiting to take off my 4 year old daughter was looking out the window and said Dad, Dad look out the window. Here was a P-51 taxiing to take off. I told my daughter to tell Grandpa she saw one of the little friends. She did and he smiled fondly saying that guy had some money.

[@michaelvincent8208]

The specks used to create the turbo charger intake under the Mustang, with little change, were used to create the main intake for the F-16 Fighter.

[@wilburfinnigan2142]

Michael Vincent The Mustang did NOT use a turbocharger !!! The scoop under the fuselage was for air to feed the cooling radiator for the engine and the engine oil cooler and the intercooler for the SUPERCHARGER !!! Superchargers are mechanically driven through gears TURBO chargers are a supercharger driven by a turbine operated by the pressure of the exhaust gasses !!! Your education for the day !!

[@jacktattis]

Oh go away

[@andrewjacobs3219]

The Rolls Royce Merlin engine was first fitted to the Mustang at the suggestion of an RAF officer . And the conversion was done at RAF Hucknal which is just ouside Nottingham England , to 5 aircraft initially .

[@jarink1]

Yes, but the resulting Mustang X was a horrible conversion.

[@chrissmith2114]

@@jarink1 LOL original Mustang was hopeless above 15,000 feet, it needed the merlin to make it good to >30,000 where the jerries were.

[@Steve-GM0HUU]

This is what I also remember reading years ago. A quick search suggests that Rolls-Royce test pilot Ronald Harker proposed installing the Merlin in the Mustang and that the project was given approval by Air Chief Marshal Sir Wilfrid Freeman. To be honest, given the situation with the Alison engine originally fitted lacking higher altitude performance and the availabity of similar sized two-stage supercharger Merlins, it was perhaps a "no brainer" idea that would have probably occurred to many individuals. The key was getting someone with the necessary clout to put resource on to it (in this case Freeman)?

[@wilburfinnigan2142]

Andrew The LATER 60series 2 stage merlin had just been released and put in a spitfire when the Mustangs showed up. and yes it was suggested to put the latest merlin in the latest airframe. and FYI only 4 were hashed up in England the fifth cut up as they were looking to put a Griffon engine midship like a P39, but a griffon engine was not available so the plane was scrapped. and NO mustang X, Merlin engine, ever saw combat !!!

[@wilburfinnigan2142]

@@chrissmith2114 An Allison engined mustang would go to 30,000 ft but it took time. and when the Mustang was designed the 60 series 2 stage Merlin did not exist , as it was a late 1942 early 1943 development and deployment, RR used 3 different superchargers and MOST were the 20 series single stage with a second SPEED> only 7,000 2 stage spitfires were ever made, about 12,000 merlin mustangs were made !!!! Facts of history IF you do the research !! !

[@scootergeorge7089]

Thank you for changing the title. The Mustang never had a "Fatal Flaw."

[@markmulder9845]

P-51D. Legendary And all it took was some moderate airframe reworks, extra pair of guns, and a new engine.

[@robb-kx6wu]

I unwind watching your videos, excellent storytelling. As for contribution... Hands down, the P-51 being used as a bomber escort changed the war.

[@ashtheelder5144]

The WW2 aircraft solution: Put a Merlin in it. The designers on that engine were on another level!

[@tomt373]

The P-51's under-belly radiator made it not only a liability for ground attack, it made a water-landing out of the question. After WW2 there was a license dispute and they quit using the RR Packard engines, which made our experienced pilots wish they had P-47's for the Korean War, especially for ground attack. Curtiss should have had a "do whatever it takes" attitude and provided more P-40's as well.

[@jimattrill8933]

The fastest ever Mustang was the early twin Mustang (F-82) with Packard Merlins. The later models had the Allison engine and were slower.

[@RichardAPWoods]

Terrific plane - pity it did not enter service until 1942 by which time the Brutish had won the Battle of Britain and the Battle for London all on their own.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Not to mention the RAF spread thinly fighting in Greece, Malta, North Africa, the far east, etc.

[@mikestone9129]

Without a doubt the greatest asset the P51 made was the ability to go the distance all the way to Berlin. Being able to protect the bombers all the way there and back helped bring the war to an end and saving many allied and American lives.

[@kittymervine6115]

thank you as I never knew that Britain used Mustangs. Or that the helped them become the super plane we all have heard about. There were many great planes in WWII, but I think the Spitfire (and the Spitfire was another weapon that kept Britain safe and paused invasion plans), is the one we always hear about. Also if not for Britain ordering the planes, how much longer for the US to ramp up and even develop a plane as magnificent as the Mustang? We all owe Britain a thanks for the aircraft that helped win the war.

[@JohnWick_jr]

For my opinion Spitfire was just a British propaganda while in fact it wasn't able to compete with the Mustang. The British live in an illusion that anything they do is the best anyone can do. While we can confirm some products in the past were OK, at least the Merlin engine, many others were just shitty.

[@ISAFSoldier]

@@JohnWick_jr The Spitfire isnt propaganda, its role was as a short ranged defense fighter and it held the British Isles along with the Hurricane. In a 1 v1 dogfight, the Spit is the better dogfighter vs let's say the Mustang, but these capabilities were what made it short legged and both the RAF and USAAC/F wanted something with more range for their offensive plans.

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

The mustangs used in ww2 were not a particularly agile. The mustang was heavy and hence had a far greater ‘induced drag’ than the spitfire, or similar era german single propellor fighters. However, the late war variants - which never saw combat and whose production was cancelled in 1945 largely overcame that deficiency. Better still: they had WM50 injection, given their Packard Merlins 10% more maximum power than even the big Griffon engines that late war spitfires were sporting.

[@danielfruechting8623]

I guess that all the WWII Allied pilots who flew Mustangs and the German pilots who flew against them were all in error with their praise of the P-51 according to your expertise. The only model produced to late to see combat, the P-51H, was a dog compared to earlier models according to both Chuck Yeager and Bob Hoover.

[@ISAFSoldier]

No....all 51s, B/Cs, and D/Ks were more then a match for the 109s implemented and out performed the 190s in most relevant maneuvering traits. The Spit was more maneuverable because of its wing's higher lift traits and it was significantly lighter, but it was rather bad at regaining energy from a low state. Unlike the Mustang which in a shallow dive could regain its energy and then some, this was in account of the significantly less drag its air frame gave, though this gave the Mustangs a somewhat worse turn on regards to the Spit. This is the reason is why Mustangs were as fast if not faster then the planes they faced and flew with. It having "Induced drag" is garbage as it has the LEAST drag out of all the fighters you mentioned. The 51H, by all statistic accounts, was the BEST Mustang ever made, only the war ended before it could see combat... it was the lightest airframe with a significantly more powerful engine. It could outperform any combat tuned Packard Merlin (engines that could run 75" manifold pressure ) equipped Mustang B/C/D or K.

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

@@ISAFSoldier Accepting most of your points as valid, that doesn’t negate my point - ww2 mustangs were not particularly agile - which was a rebuttal to the assertion made in the video. The mustang had enough agility - it was adequate - when compared with the German single engined planes of the era to make all of its other attributes decisive in theatre wide conflict. The purpose behind my comments is not to gaslight any particular plane, just to pull back the unwarranted hagiography being peddled. I do take issue with your statement that the spit was ‘rather bad at regaining energy from a low state’. The most decisive element to regain energy from a low state is … maximum horsepower. When the definitive ww2 mustangs started turning up in large numbers the definitive point interceptor/air superiority/dogfighting variant of the spitfire then in mass production was the MkXIV: which had a Griffon 60 series donk mounted with 2030 bhp on tap. That, in combination with a lighter airframe, gave the spitfire a decisive advantage over the mustang - and same era german fighters - in recovering energy from a low state. Also, and perhaps more relevantly, the combination of HP, better - or at least equal - dive speeds at both high and low altitudes, and better climb rates, made the spitfire a superior platform to undertake energy manoeuvre war fighting - the old boom and zoom attacks.

[@jacktattis]

@@ISAFSoldier The Best Mustang ever does not equate into the best plane

[@ISAFSoldier]

@@jacktattis Did I say anywhere it was the best plane? I gave the Spit recognition it's the better turn fighter. The 109 is better when it's slow and the other can't gain energy. However, no dogfight is that simple.