Mustang - New Book
Discussion
I realise there will be a few on here who already know about this, but.
A new book about the P51 Mustang:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jan/01/wing...
A new book about the P51 Mustang:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jan/01/wing...
Poor review by the Guardian and if it accurately reflects what is in the book, then the book seems to have some strange views on aircraft. The claim that the Mustang was rejected by the Americans for chauvinustic reasons is total nonsense.
The main reason why the Americans initially didn't entusiastically embrace the design is that
a) they hadn't ordered it - it was a private venture by North American in response to a British enquiry
b) the Allison version offered little superiority over the similarly powerted fighter the Americans had already orderted in fairly large numbers i.e. the Curtiss P-40
c) the P-40 was already in service before the prototype P-51 even flew.
Despite all these good reasons for NOT ordering the P-51, the USAAF did indeed order a few pre-production aircaft so that they could evaluate them. It was 1942 before these were available and, to be honest, at that time it was not considered a priority. Once they got their hands on them they were favourably impresed. However, they thought its main benefits would be as a low level ground attack aircraft so the initial versions they ordered weren't P-51s at all, they were A-36 Apaches.
One thing the P-51 did have over virtually any other single engine fighter of that era was a very decent fuel capacity - which was the main thing that (eventually) showed where its true superiority lay. Once they had developed decent drop tanks, and married the Merlin to the design, the P-51 really found its niche.
The main reason why the Americans initially didn't entusiastically embrace the design is that
a) they hadn't ordered it - it was a private venture by North American in response to a British enquiry
b) the Allison version offered little superiority over the similarly powerted fighter the Americans had already orderted in fairly large numbers i.e. the Curtiss P-40
c) the P-40 was already in service before the prototype P-51 even flew.
Despite all these good reasons for NOT ordering the P-51, the USAAF did indeed order a few pre-production aircaft so that they could evaluate them. It was 1942 before these were available and, to be honest, at that time it was not considered a priority. Once they got their hands on them they were favourably impresed. However, they thought its main benefits would be as a low level ground attack aircraft so the initial versions they ordered weren't P-51s at all, they were A-36 Apaches.
One thing the P-51 did have over virtually any other single engine fighter of that era was a very decent fuel capacity - which was the main thing that (eventually) showed where its true superiority lay. Once they had developed decent drop tanks, and married the Merlin to the design, the P-51 really found its niche.
Eric Mc said:
The main reason why the Americans initially didn't entusiastically embrace the design is that
a) they hadn't ordered it - it was a private venture by North American in response to a British enquiry
b) the Allison version offered little superiority over the similarly powerted fighter the Americans had already orderted in fairly large numbers i.e. the Curtiss P-40
c) the P-40 was already in service before the prototype P-51 even flew.
The review is referring to the Merlin-engined version, and appears to be suggesting that the US were slow adopting this in 1943, because they weren't keen on the use of the English engine?a) they hadn't ordered it - it was a private venture by North American in response to a British enquiry
b) the Allison version offered little superiority over the similarly powerted fighter the Americans had already orderted in fairly large numbers i.e. the Curtiss P-40
c) the P-40 was already in service before the prototype P-51 even flew.
Equus said:
Eric Mc said:
The main reason why the Americans initially didn't entusiastically embrace the design is that
a) they hadn't ordered it - it was a private venture by North American in response to a British enquiry
b) the Allison version offered little superiority over the similarly powerted fighter the Americans had already orderted in fairly large numbers i.e. the Curtiss P-40
c) the P-40 was already in service before the prototype P-51 even flew.
The review is referring to the Merlin-engined version, and appears to be suggesting that the US were slow adopting this in 1943, because they weren't keen on the use of the English engine?a) they hadn't ordered it - it was a private venture by North American in response to a British enquiry
b) the Allison version offered little superiority over the similarly powerted fighter the Americans had already orderted in fairly large numbers i.e. the Curtiss P-40
c) the P-40 was already in service before the prototype P-51 even flew.
Don't forget that even Curtiss built a few hundred P-40s with Merlins too. However, the P-40 was not improved as much by the Merlin so the fit wasn't so good and the vast bulk of P-40s retained the Allison V12.
Ironically, the last versions of the Musting built - the P-82/F-82 Twin Mustang, were also Allison powered (except for the prototype).
Eric Mc said:
North American were also independently looking at installing Merlins in the Mustang too - although Rolls Royce themselves got there first. It was quite an obvious thing to look at because there was no doubt that Rolls Royce's supercharger technology was superior to that of Allison's.
That's still not addressing the point being made by the review.The point seemed to be that there was an anti-British sentioment to installing Merlins - which is simply not true.
There are dozens of books on the Mustang - and also some very good videos on You Tube. I'd go with them for a truer account of the history of the Mustang's development.
I'd recommend the Greg's Airplanes series on You Tube. He really goes into depth on the development on of many World War 2 fighters and how they compared to each other.
As far as Mustang books is concerned, the ones I like are -
I'd also recommend some of the Osprey books that cover the P-51.
The story of the P-51 and its eventual success is quite complex and politics does have its part to play. But on the whole, the USAAF was fairly supportive of the project. They were just caught in an admin nightmare of suddenly having to order massive amounts of fighter and bomber aircraft as well as deal with all the various aviation manufacturers throwing new designs at them as they touted for what were going to be huge (and lucrative) contracts.
There are dozens of books on the Mustang - and also some very good videos on You Tube. I'd go with them for a truer account of the history of the Mustang's development.
I'd recommend the Greg's Airplanes series on You Tube. He really goes into depth on the development on of many World War 2 fighters and how they compared to each other.
As far as Mustang books is concerned, the ones I like are -
I'd also recommend some of the Osprey books that cover the P-51.
The story of the P-51 and its eventual success is quite complex and politics does have its part to play. But on the whole, the USAAF was fairly supportive of the project. They were just caught in an admin nightmare of suddenly having to order massive amounts of fighter and bomber aircraft as well as deal with all the various aviation manufacturers throwing new designs at them as they touted for what were going to be huge (and lucrative) contracts.
Eric Mc said:
The point seemed to be that there was an anti-British sentioment to installing Merlins - which is simply not true.
I've not read the book, but it 'chauvanistic' does not mean anti-British.I'm reading it as a reluctance to introduce an aeroplane that was reliant on a licence-built version of a foreign engine to a role (long-distance bomber escort) where two well-established and entirely home-grown aircraft (the P38 Lighting and the P47 Thunderbolt) were available and suitable to fulfill the same role.
...Which is perfectly understandable. We know in retrospect that the Packard licenced manufacture of the Merlin turned out to be a success, but it would not have been at all unreasonable, at the time, to view it as an unnecessary risk... and it's not as if either the Thunderbolt or the Lightning were inadequate in those roles. On the contrary - the Thunderbolt was built in much greater numbers than the Mustang and was arguably the more successful aircraft.
As you say yourself:
Eric Mc said:
They were just caught in an admin nightmare of suddenly having to order massive amounts of fighter and bomber aircraft as well as deal with all the various aviation manufacturers throwing new designs at them as they touted for what were going to be huge (and lucrative) contracts.
If you were an American Officer responsible for procurement at he time, it would have made a lot of sense not to overcomplicate the situation further than it was already.Edited by Equus on Wednesday 4th January 10:27
The idea of "long distance bomber escort" was not considered at all in the original specifications. For a start, in 1941, the USAAF bomber barons assumed they wouldn't need such a thing. When they discovered that they actually really DID need fighter protection, the P-51D turned out to be ideal for the job.
A lot of people don't realise that the time period where the D models proved their worth as bomber escorts was really very short - just over a year from mid 1944 to May 1945.
James Hollands' books called "War in the West" cover the nightmare the US faced as it ramped up war production in a very short space of time. Lots of mistakes were made and some dubious contracts were placed. One aviation company which really profited illegally from this instant largess was Brewster who produced some real dogs.
Very like some of the contracts issued during Covid, oddly.
A lot of people don't realise that the time period where the D models proved their worth as bomber escorts was really very short - just over a year from mid 1944 to May 1945.
James Hollands' books called "War in the West" cover the nightmare the US faced as it ramped up war production in a very short space of time. Lots of mistakes were made and some dubious contracts were placed. One aviation company which really profited illegally from this instant largess was Brewster who produced some real dogs.
Very like some of the contracts issued during Covid, oddly.
Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 4th January 11:08
Eric Mc said:
The idea of "long distance bomber escort" was not considered at all in the original specifications. For a start, in 1941, the USAAF bomber barons assumed they wouldn't need such a thing. When they discovered that they actually really DID need fighter protection, the P-51D turned out to be ideal for the job.
You're still missing the point that the Guardian review (and therefore, presumably, the book) isn't talking about the original specification or the original Allison-engined model. It's talking about the adoption of the Packard Merlin-engined version by the USAAF.Yes, the P51D turned out to be ideal for the job, but the Thunderbolt and Lightning weren't half bad at it, either, so truth be told, if the P51D hadn't shown up (or hadn't been adopted by the USAAF) it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference to the progress and outcome of the war.
Equus said:
You're still missing the point that the Guardian review (and therefore, presumably, the book) isn't talking about the original specification or the original Allison-engined model. It's talking about the adoption of the Packard Merlin-engined version by the USAAF.
Yes, the P51D turned out to be ideal for the job, but the Thunderbolt and Lightning weren't half bad at it, either, so truth be told, if the P51D hadn't shown up (or hadn't been adopted by the USAAF) it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference to the progress and outcome of the war.
Yes - and the Merlin adaptation was already being investigated INDEPENDENTLY in the US at the same time Rolls Royce were pursuing their investigations into the conversion. The US was pretty quick to adapt Merlin Mustangs. They didn't vaccilate on the matter. It was so obvious that the Merlin pretty much transformed the aeroplane that it would have been madness to ignore the benefits.Yes, the P51D turned out to be ideal for the job, but the Thunderbolt and Lightning weren't half bad at it, either, so truth be told, if the P51D hadn't shown up (or hadn't been adopted by the USAAF) it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference to the progress and outcome of the war.
As for other aircraft - the P-47 and P-38 had certain advantages over the P-51D. The P-47 was very rugged and could sustain damage better. The P-38 had the range but seemed best suited to the Pacific theatre because it was less manoeuverable in a dogfight so stuggled against Me109s and Fw190s over Northern Europe - especially during 1943 when some of the Luftaffe aces were still knocking about.,
Equus said:
Yes, the P51D turned out to be ideal for the job, but the Thunderbolt and Lightning weren't half bad at it, either, so truth be told, if the P51D hadn't shown up (or hadn't been adopted by the USAAF) it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference to the progress and outcome of the war.
That's simply incorrect. The Mustang enabled the 8th Air Force to prosecute daylight raids with a vaguely acceptable loss rate. Losses before the P51 were simple untenable. The P51 enabled the USAAF to gain air superiority over Germany – the Thunderbolt and Lightning were unable to reach the targets the USAAF needed to hit, and were not a match for the German fighters coming on stream in '43/44.Also, to further back-up Eric, this stuff about the US being prejudiced against the Merlin is completely new to me, and I've read everything about the Mustang I've ever got my hands on. Pretty sure the stuff about lack of technical co-operation between the UK and US is rubbish too. Manhattan and H2X spring to mind without even thinking about it.
Eric Mc said:
The point seemed to be that there was an anti-British sentioment to installing Merlins - which is simply not true.
Could it be the difference between where they came from? IIRC we were flat out making Merlins already, hence the Packard version. It may be that all else being equal, they'd have preferred Packard Merlins, either because it kept the work in the US or because supply was more certain.Yertis said:
The Mustang enabled the 8th Air Force to prosecute daylight raids with a vaguely acceptable loss rate. Losses before the P51 were simple untenable. The P51 enabled the USAAF to gain air superiority over Germany...
That's simply a myth akin to the myth of Spitfire superiority in the Battle of Britain.The shift in losses occurred because - as Eric has touched on above - the Luftwaffe's capability was eroded and then simply collapsed, due to loss of experienced pilots, lack of fuel and other materiel, and various other reasons.
The Mustang didn't 'win the war', it simply came along at the same time as the war was won.
The Americans would have acheived the same result with the P47 and P38... perhaps a little slower, but not enough to have made any real and noticeable difference.
Simpo Two said:
Eric Mc said:
The point seemed to be that there was an anti-British sentioment to installing Merlins - which is simply not true.
Could it be the difference between where they came from? IIRC we were flat out making Merlins already, hence the Packard version. It may be that all else being equal, they'd have preferred Packard Merlins, either because it kept the work in the US or because supply was more certain.The Ford company was originally approached as a potential supplier of Merlins but Henry Ford intervened and stopped any negotiations. He was anti-British by nature and wasn't even convinced that the US should be fighting the Nazis.
Very happy to let you carry on being wrong.
Eric Mc said:
I don't think anybody is saying this.
Yertis said:
Losses before the P51 were simple untenable.
You understand the meaning of the word 'untenable', I assume?Utter nonsense... losses would have been somewhat higher, perhaps. The Yanks would have cranked out more P38's and P47's; The Russians would have continued throwing everything they have, including the odd lawnmower, at the Eastern Front; the Luftwaffe would have collapsed just the same.
Anyone claiming that the Allies would not have acheived air superiority over Europe without the Mustang is talking out of their arse.
Edited by Equus on Saturday 7th January 18:28
Equus said:
You understand the meaning of the word 'untenable', I assume?
Utter nonsense... losses would have been somewhat higher, perhaps. The Yanks would have cranked out more P38's and P47's; The Russians would have continued throwing everything they have, including the odd lawnmower, at the Eastern Front; the Luftwaffe would have collapsed just the same.
Anyone claiming that the Allies would not have acheived air superiority over Europe without the Mustang is talking out of their arse.
So anyway, I've been conferring with my arse (actually the excellent work "8th Air Force" by Don Miller) which has pointed out that in the first three months of operations with the 8th, on a per sortie basis Mustangs shot down twice as many aircraft as the P38, and three times as many aircraft as the P47. So you'd need an awful lot of P47s and P38s to achieve a similar outcome, and you'd still not have solved the range problem. The P51B flew as far on its internal tanks as the P47 with drop tanks. The P51 enabled the bombers to strike the German aircraft manufacturing, oil production and transport infrastructure right across Germany and into Poland – this is the degradation of the Luftwaffe you referred to – in particular 'Big Week' – which effectively finished the Luftwaffe as an effective air force, in time for D-Day and the opening of the western front. My argument is not that it was impossible without the P51, but that it was the P51 that achieved the air superiority when it was required – it didn't just turn up and take the credit.Utter nonsense... losses would have been somewhat higher, perhaps. The Yanks would have cranked out more P38's and P47's; The Russians would have continued throwing everything they have, including the odd lawnmower, at the Eastern Front; the Luftwaffe would have collapsed just the same.
Anyone claiming that the Allies would not have acheived air superiority over Europe without the Mustang is talking out of their arse.
As an aside I learned that, before the Mustang was Merlin-ated the US had been asking for a long-range version of the Spitfire to be developed. Two Spits were converted in the US, which then flew back home across the Atlantic, proving the concept.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff