stikpusher

I believe that was the P-51H.

I don't know, as this is the first I've heard of it.  However, I did dig this up on the Wiki:

The addition of the 85 U.S gallon (322 l) fuselage fuel tank, coupled with the reduction in area of the new rear fuselage, exacerbated the handling problems already experienced with the B/C series when fitted with the tank, and led to the same fillet being added to -B, -C and initial -D-series versions in the field, to be standardized as a normal rear-fuselage airframe component on later production blocks of the -D version.

It does seem to indicate that there was a problem with handling when the fuselage fuel tank on the D model was full.  It also explains why the fillet was added on the top of the rear fuselage.  I did know the fillet had been added due to handling problems, but didn't know it had to do with the fuselage tank.

As I wrote, it's something I had not heard before.

Gary

I think the fillet was added because of the reduction in the side area when they cut down the fuselage for the bubble canopy.  The fuse tank was a problem for stability, and they always drained it first.  Also, the units in the Pacific used D models - the H was too late for WW2.  I think the units were loosely called VLR units for Very Long Range, and if I remember right they used bigger drop tanks.

And regardless of which might win, I sure do appreciate being able to still see some of the old warriors in the air!

Considering the  (behind CG) fuel weight on the P-51. People that fly RC planes have a saying "A nose heavy plane flies poorly, a tail heavy plane flies once". Not sure how accurate that is in 1:1 scale however since I am not a pilot.

Chris

Probably referring to RC planes because of material they're made of more than full size aircraft.

The P-38 Lightning.

I LOL ed perfect!

Silver

Highest scoring ace of ww2 flew P-38s

But you bring up a good point, and so does the example of Hartmann who was also flying in a pre-war design.

Pilot, pilot, pilot.

Hartmann also brings up another point, opportunities.  Hartmann started flying before the war and fought all the way through, with few breaks.  He flew many hundreds of missions, some of which were against significantly inferior pilots.  Not to knock his accomplishment, but I would be interested if anyone figured out the rate (kills per mission or flight hour) and how that would stack up to our aces who flew at most 50-100 missions.  Another aspect of opportunities is the amount of opposition encountered.  Hartmann pretty much flew in target rich environments, and over relatively short range over the Eastern Front.  Bong flew several hour long flights, over open water without an enemy in sight.  Hard to shoot the bad guys down if they don't come up to let you.  Just some thoughts.

John

Yes, and that "circles back" on the FM-1 being so successful.

Corsair.

OOH-RAH !

I would like to make a reading suggestion to those interested in the flying characteristics for many of the aircraft mentioned:

Duels in the Sky: WWII Naval Aircraft in Combat

by Captain Eric M. Brown, RN

ISBN 0-87021-063-7

http://www.amazon.com/Duels-Sky-World-Aircraft-Combat/dp/0870210637

Captain Brown flew most British, American and German aircraft of WWII and wrote numerous articles describing their flying characteristics.

In the book I mentioned, he assesses how various aircraft would have fared if paired in combat .

Though I did not find a match up for the Mustang vs. Corsair, he flew both and describes how effective they were in their jobs.

Well worth reading, especially if you have done any flying.

I found it interesting that the Ki-84 Hayate (Frank), with proper maintenance and fuel, hypothetically could beat both of them. According to the test pilots at Wright Patterson field after flying one with the above fixes, the Frank, vs the P-51 was slightly slower at high altitude, but could turn, and climb better, was lighter, more heavily armed and had a radial. It was however mostly unarmored and because it was lighter, couldn't dive as fast. In an all out level dog fight, the Franks cannons would have mostly negated the Mustang's and Corsair's armor.

As with the German 262, if Japan had the Frank earlier, we would have been in trouble.

Just sayin.

I wonder if Capt. Brown flew a Frank, and if so what his thoughts were. I need to see if I can find this book.

Silver

The Hellcat is the (Frank) killer.

only because the Japanese had poor maintenance, fuel and pilots at that point of the war. These downfalls were not a good representation of the aircraft's design.

modelcrazy

As with the German 262, if Japan had the Frank earlier, we would have been in trouble.

Just sayin.

I wonder if Capt. Brown flew a Frank, and if so what his thoughts were. I need to see if I can find this book.

Though I'm not sure about the 'Frank'/Ki-84 I do remember one case of two experienced Japanese pilots asked to fly two 'George'/Shinden fighters to an airbase near a harbour in order to load the aircraft to ship to the US for technical evaluation. Watching the US ground crew filling the planes with high test aviation fuel they decided to have a little fun. Forming up with the Corsairs assigned to escort them they floor-boarded the throttles and screamed off leaving the F4Us unable to keep up.

In the end days the Japanese were digging up pine trees and boiling the roots for a turpentine like gunk they were using for fuel due to the US submarine blockade cutting off their oil supplies. Add in rookie pilots with the low octane 'gas' and it didn't matter how good or bad the aircraft was.  

Yes, I understand the George was very good as well. It often supersizes me to find out, now that there is no longer any propaganda, that the Japanese had some very good, even superior equipment in some cases..