|
|
On of the best fighters of the World War II. The first prototype flew on October 26, 1940. Entered production in 1941 and a total of 15386 aircraft were built in the USA.
| MODEL | P-51D |
| CREW | 1 |
| ENGINE | 1 x Packard Merlin V-1650-7, 1264kW |
| WEIGHTS |
| Take-off weight | 5488 kg | 12099 lb |
| Empty weight | 3232 kg | 7125 lb |
| DIMENSIONS |
| Wingspan | 11.28 m | 37 ft 0 in |
| Length | 9.83 m | 32 ft 3 in |
| Height | 2.64 m | 9 ft 8 in |
| Wing area | 21.65 m2 | 233.04 sq ft |
| PERFORMANCE |
| Max. speed | 703 km/h | 437 mph |
| Ceiling | 12770 m | 41900 ft |
| Range w/max.fuel | 3347 km | 2080 miles |
| ARMAMENT | 6 x 12.7mm machine-guns, 454kg of bombs |
 | A three-view drawing (592 x 902) |
| Keith Lindsay, lindsk=bellsouth.net, 06.03.2013 I found the information; the mustang had ten degrees of dihedral. | | MIke, jg300_Rall=yahoo.com, 05.03.2013 Yes that IS a P-51-d... not all had the clear canopy.. some even had the "malcom" hoods.. | | Keith Lindsay, lindsk=bellsouth.net, 04.03.2013 anyone know what the wing dihedral was? 5 degrees?
thanks | | ron, ron=lubkawhite.com, 12.02.2013 My Dad trained in P-51s in Florida. He said the skin started coming off so they sut down the program until the problem was fixed. The AAC sent him and others to fly B-17s while the design problem was getting fixed. Does anyone have information about this? I see one reference to teeting problems. | | Steve, steveg=abkj.com, 09.10.2012 It is possible to do a direct comparison between the P-40 and P-51 airframes - specifically, between the P-40N and the P-51A, which both used the same engine, the V-1710-81. From 5000' to 15000', the P-51A had a speed superiority of from 37 to 42 mph - not trivial. The explanation is easy to find. The P-51's design was fully five years later than the original P-40 design as the Hawk 75/P-36 (1935 vs. 1940). In that time came the reduced-drag laminar flow airfoil and radiator duct. | | Byron Bailey, byron.bailey=hotmail.com, 23.07.2012 Love the Bearcat, Mustang, Sea Fury in that order. When I was Mirage RAAF pilot our Tech Officer 77 Sqn had flown P51 in Korea. He said in practice combat they lost big time to the RAN Sea Furies and even the RNZAF Corsairs as lost energy in sustained turning fight compared to the bigger more powerful aircraft with a different airfoil wing section. | | John, company4u=yahoo.com, 21.02.2012 Glad to see I have some support here. I have decided to build a working v12 model engine and airframe. I don't know if I will finish it or even get it started as it is just a dream right now. Has anyone out there built a model like thuis or know of one? Thanks John | | Terrence I. Murphy, tismurph=hotmail.com, 19.02.2012 Some of the last changes made to the aircraft, including the new Rolls Royce Merlin V-1650-9 engine, either decreased the weight, or increased the speed, making it the fastest production P-51ever with a clocking of 487 mph at 25,000 feet. The last P-15H-10NA rolled out of the Inglewood factory in November of 1945. A further update, the XP-51, was shipped to the United Kingdom for testing in February 1945. This plane was also named Mustang V, and bore the RAF serial number FR410. It is widely reported to have achieved a speed of 495 mph during tests at the A&AEE at Boscombe Down in February 1945 | | Terrence I. Murphy, tismurph=hotmail.com, 19.02.2012 Some of the last changes made to the aircraft, including the new Rolls Royce Merlin V-1650-9 engine, either decreased the weight, or increased the speed, making it the fastest production P-51ever with a clocking of 487 mph at 25,000 feet. The last P-15H-10NA rolled out of the Inglewood factory in November of 1945. A further update, the XP-51, was shipped to the United Kingdom for testing in February 1945. This plane was also named Mustang V, and bore the RAF serial number FR410. It is widely reported to have achieved a speed of 495 mph during tests at the A&AEE at Boscombe Down in February 1945 | | Klaatu83, klaatu83=lycos.com, 12.02.2012 The Mustang was originally designed to satisfy a British request that NA build P-40s under license for the RAF. NA persuaded the British that they could build a better fighter than the P-40, and they came up with the Mustang. Because of the Allison engine it was originally employed as a specialized low-altitude fighter for low-level fighter sweeps, ground attack and photo-reconnaissance sorties. It was considered to be the best low-level fighter available at that time.
The substitution of the Rolls-Royce Merlin, with two-speed supercharger, for the Allison engine made all the difference. With it the Mustang could operate as effectively at high altitudes as it could at low level.
Originally, the USAAF was not interested in the Mustang, which was considered to be strictly an RAF project. The AAF wanted more P-40s and P-47s. However, Hap Arnold, who was no fool, saw a demonstration of the Mustang, and insisted upon ordering it for the AAF as the P-51.
Incidentally, Curtiss did develop a version of the P-40 fitted with the Merlin engine, the P-40F. I believe they built about 800 P-40Fs, and they were used extensively over North Africa and the Med. They did have better high-altitude performance than the Allison-engine P-40s, but not so good as the Mustang. | | John, company4u=yahoo.com, 01.02.2012 Red Baron, you obviously have a love for the P-40, I can relate since I have a love for several as well. One of my favorites is the Vought F-4U Corsair. This was a great sircraft but it had many short-cummings. When studying the effectiveness of any airframe it is important to consider the design mission of the designers. This is why the P-40 could never be compared to any other aircraft. You are right, it isn't always about speed or maneuverability. The P-40 more than satisfied it's original mission design making it a very successful airframe. The P-51 was designed for a completely different mission. It is true the Merlin engine completed the design of the P-51 but it is also true the P-51 had a design mission the P-40 designers had never considered. The P-40 excelled for ground attack operations but was not as effective at higher altitudes because it was not designed to operate there. The reason the P-40 had incredible climb and turn performance was because when youi fly close to the ground yuou need to be able to avoid obstacles and / or ground fire. The P-51 was designed as a fast escort that had the range to go into Germany and back. Once in service it's pilots found the P-51 to provide excellant low altitude performance and handling as well. Reno racers have preferred the P-51 for a reason, it is strong, aero-dynamic and extremely maneuverable throughout it's operating envelope. I suggest as I have in the begining that you do more research and not depend on your love for the P-40 as much. You will find it is more fun to realistically compare aircraft on a scientific level. Whatever you do keep in mind I love the magnificent P-40 as much as you do. John | | Red Baron, zacvolmer=hotmail.com, 23.01.2012 There is more too it than just speed, which is what aerodynamics gives them.
That huge cowling on the p-40 was very aerodynamic, lol. But who needs aerodynamics when you have power! Lol
Well the P-40 would of been a heck of a lot better fighter if it did have the engine. You can't deny that. | | John, company4u=yahoo.com, 20.01.2012 you seem to be locked into the idea the P40's performance can be compared to the P51. You have a right to that belief but I would rather be more scientific about it. American and British aircraft were fine machines but in fact were obsolete when the war began. Aero-dynamically the P40, Spitfire, Aircobra etc. simply could not compete with the P51. | | Red Baron, zacvolmer=hotmail.com, 19.01.2012 John.
I am not talking about the P-40 taking over the Mustangs role of escorting the B-17's.
But given the better engine it could of performed better in a fight than a mustang.
The P-40 would of also made more of a difference in the pacific campaign had it had a two-staged supercharger. | | John, company4u=yahoo.com, 16.01.2012 There were amazing fighters both during and after the war but they all had the same problem, range. The P38 was the only other WW2 fighter that had the speed and the range to get into Germany and back. In any event, your claim the P51 sucks has no merit. The P40 as I said was a great airplane but it's aero-dynamic profile caused too much drag for it to provide the range it would have needed to compete. The Rolls-Royce Merline V-12 would have definitely made it a better aircraft but remember the Spitfire (another great fighter ) had the Rolls angine and it could not compete with the P51. | | Red Baron, zacvolmer=hotmail.com, 15.01.2012 What I mean too say is this. What were the P-40's setbacks?
Performance at high altitudes. What if the P-40 could perform as well as it did at low altitudes but in high altitudes. Sure, the P-51 had new features that the P-40 lacked.
But there were other great fighters that didn't have "laminar flow wings" etc.
Why not try a twin-stage supercharged Rolls-Royce engine in a P-40, true they had a shortage. But if they had enough for the production of lancasters, spitfires and mustangs couldn't they spare a few for trail? | | John, company4u=yahoo.com, 13.01.2012 Frank Russel, you sound like you have piloted a P51, did you? John | | Frank Russell, ftruss=bellsouth.net, 12.01.2012 The Mustang P-51D had it all!! Loved it!! | | Hamma1340, firebase919=hotmail.com, 07.01.2012 PS,Brillant info and site...thank you | | Hamma1340, firebase919=hotmail.com, 07.01.2012 Zacvolmer !!! ...speed and range...what else wins in a air war... but you have only have to read as i have from those who know...AND LEARN before you put your size 9 boot in your size 10 mouth |
|
Do you have any comments about this aircraft ?
|
| |