Focke-Wulf FW-190 vs P-51 Mustang - Which was better? 

the p40n had a rolls royce merlin

By many it was considered the best

I mean the brain box led to a number of deaths when it prevented pilots from pulling out of dives. Experienced German pilots died when their planes just flew straight down into the ground because the brain box prevented them from pulling up.

@@jakej2680 Why would it prevent someone from pulling out of a dive? It didn't control the elevator, it was an engine and propeller pitch controller. It wasn't any sort of fly-by-wire box.

@@iskandartaibright this confused me?

Hi Ash!

That's badass bro, props

Lucky you, Ash. You sure have a nice collection of beautiful and rare WW2 aircraft over there!

Good to know my War Thunder content creators watch a quality channel. Cheers, Ash.

I dont expected Ash will come

How does someone not find a fighter for 70 years...

@@EdwardOskarsson don't know but there was also a mosquito, 2 kittyhawks and a Harvard in the shed aswell which are also being restored apparently someone bought them to save them from being scrapped after ww2 to preserve them.

NZ WOTB back then in a civilian could purchase just about any fighter for 1200 bucks. Even adjustments for inflation it still be a good deal. Cheaper than a new car back then

Must be one remote shed. In the US, every once in awhile some car enthusiast finds a classic car under some tarp in a shed or barn. Example; I recall reading about a 63 Corvette with a 327 with only a couple 1,000 miles on the odometer found in a barn. They are called "barn finds." In your example that is one heck of a "barn find."

@@dustyak79 if i can buy a plane for cheaper than a car then sign me up

They are good looking airplanes. I always love seeing them in the Mustang gun camera footage

I agree, Tank was truely a genius who designed many planes before and after the war and several countries too. The Ta152C and H were superb planes but rate of roll goes down as wingspan increases. The turning radius of the H did decrease tho and there is one account of one downing a Tempest in a low altitude turning fight with jammed guns. The laminar flow wing on the P51 also comprimised the turning ability of it, but with less weight it could still hold it's own. Great planes flown by brave men.

That should be increase not decrease.

@@johnnichols9056Just give me something competitive in performance and I'll take on the details myself.

@@johnnichols9056 .. That's funny you mentioned that because I was reading an article , I really wish I could remember which university it originally was who published but it was , in short, saying the laminar wing configuration had not boosted performance of the the aircraft anywhere near as much as made out to be . This paper was saying the findings showed this to be true . Others say it's fake. All fake . They want people to not know where they got there "FANCY TOYS " . I GOT A KICK OUT ÒF THE GUY TALKING ABOUT THE MUSTANG ..saying that ifbthe laminar wing design worked as well as they made it out to be not even messerschmitt would have stood a chance against it . Now , I don't know abour all of that but it was fast, maneuverable , and regardless what anyone says she sure was pretty streaking across that azure field, sharp leading edge of the wing , the way the wing fit to the body , were all eye pleasing, she was streamline, sleek and loved to go fast ... Not many planes that are THAT beautiful are also not THAT lethal . The Spitfire Auqua-Marine , I think the model was what ? Mark V. Didn't matter because all the Spitfires were things of beauty, Those elliptical wings when she is pulling up into a steep climb . Her beautiful lines silhouetted against a golden red, late afternoon summer's day . Magnificent. Just grace and performance, the P-47's pilots were all envious of those Spitfires, secretly, but outwardly we were loyal to the P-47's, they had served us very well , built like tanks , take about as bad a beating a plane could and still fly, and saved many of our butts , but we we still secretly harbored thoughts of flying spitfires, such graceful looking planes just had to be a dream to fly, and it turned out , they were ! A very small cockpit and it and the whole plane kind of held you snug, but in a good way , you felt part of it , it was a plane with great 'feeling' . Then months later our envy turned to pride as we got to show off our sleek mustangs, to could see it in them . They WANTED to go fast and had no compunctions with taking on any other fighter out there , many with cool confidence, they were a plane to be taken seriously. To bad they were used for such grisly purposes for both planes. But high speed buzzing up and down the east coast, and I mean full throttle, exhaust full open high speed buzzing right up the coast , first day we got them . Boy we turned some heads that day , But they WERE and i suppose always will be two of the prettiest of the pretty ones . In my humble opinion .

As a SW Engineer I love the methodical approach of his videos. Explaining the thinking process of the managers and worker bees, advantages and disadvantages of each such decision (high vs low altitude, etc.). I sure hope germans weren't executing their top engineers if their designs didn't perform to specification, but I' not holding my breath for that...

AND dont forget the beautiful shirts

Nailed it

VladR1024 The Germans didn't do that you imbecile.

And wardrobe style.

Why? Piper PA-48 and other later prop fighters are way better (though no wonder: they are newer).

@@StrangerHappened no soul. Nothing really makes em special yet. In 100 years those will take the place of the p-51

Lucky you, i only got to fly in a JU-52, which was nice as well

@@3isr3g3n That's awesome too!!

Cool storey. Your grandpa gave you a 15 min ride and a lifetime of memory. Would love to ride in one but I'm not sure I'd fit. Did pilots have height limits?

I'm sure he would have, vs a 17y boy without training. Somewhere on youtube is a interview with a P-51 pilot, he had a fight against a old BF-109 G6 and he couldn't beat it. Lucky for him he could flee and fight another day. After the war he learned why he couldn't win, his enemy had over 200 victories. Even a (on paper) better plane doesn't mean victory. (Sorry for my bad english)

@@23GreyFox I think you had to get to the 109 K-4 before you could say it was a match for the mustang.

Your dad is a great American. The Germans didn't have a chance against men like your dad. Put the bully boys in thier place. P-51 kill ratio speaks for itself. They sliced up the Germans.

@@jeffk464 The K-4 was superior the P-51 in almost every category, what prevented many P51 from being shot down was that by that time, many of the K-4 pilots were kids and not experienced pilots.

I mean, by the nature of needing air cooling, managing drag would always be a bigger problem than the closed off, pointed nose of liquid cooled engines.

@@Appletank8 The F8F laughs at your mistaken assumptions!

@@Waltham1892 So does the P-47M! 😂

It's not a complete lie. Those planes had over 2500 hp to achieve those speeds. Bf 109 K4 achieved similar speeds with less power. The thing is that's it's easier to make a high power radial than it is an inline.

Sea Fury has left the Chat

that made me laghth, good storys

Can I use it ? Classic.

@@georgepantazis141 Absolutely.

It's interesting to read what the legendary Erich Hartmann had to say about both dispelling some of the Fw 190 superior to the Bf 109 mythology. He preferred the Bf 109 and said two things about it of note. It was the better performer at altitude, and the more able/manoeuvrable if one was forced to engage in a dogfight. Of course his TOO was the Eastern Front where the harder hitting firepower of the likes of Fw 190A7 & A8s predominant at the time of the battles for air supremacy during the Reichsverteidigung was preferred given the priority of engaging the massed wings of B-17s and B-24s before diving away to evade escort fighters rather than engage them.

I always say that...it's not the plane, it's the pilot that matters.

@@retluoc Overgeneralisation/oversimplification. Experience counts yes, but there are too many many factors involved for it just to come down to that. Numbers, circumstance, type advantage matter. -Outstanding- exceptional and highly experienced pilots in an aircraft they are thoroughly familiar with might be able to pull off surviving engagements where they should have been shot down/killed, e.g. Hartmann or Sakai, but even then as they'd admit themselves, luck counts.

@@theblytonian3906 Hartmann did not believe in dogfighting. He considered it too dangerous and a waste of ammunition and fuel. He preferred hit-and-run tactics.

@@rimshot2270 Perhaps your comprehension overlooked the word "forced" deliberately inserted within the sentence in my earlier post. Quote: "It was the better performer at altitude, and the more able/manoeuvrable if one was forced to engage in a dogfight." Regardless of what his preferred terms of engagement were, things frequently don't go to plan in battle, and one doesn't always dictate the circumstances. i.e. Read the account in his biography of his engagement in a Bf 109 with multiple P-51s over Hungary where alone, he fought several of them in a classic dogfight of manoeuvre and evade until he ran out of fuel and hit the silk. He also states in the biopic that the Bf 109 was his preferred mount, and why.

Exactly. It was very "user friendly" to fly. The analog computer system for engine control was a marvelous and unique design for the time.

And we still won.

@@hyennussquatch4597 that few realize had motors with bearings made in the USA.

@@alandavis6429 Not true. There were factories making roller bearings in the Reich.

@@hyennussquatch4597 Nice one.You beat me to it, the FW engine management system simplified the accessibility of the aircrafts' engine performance to release the pilots' concentration for more important matters like...staying alive, flying the airframe and killing the opposition. Other minor features also made a worthy contribution such as the 'canted' seat angle/ rudder pedal braces to help with enduring G forces and the simple inclusion of an ammo round counter. We (the British) shat ourselves when the 190 revealed itself. The Curious Droid was also uncharacteristically lacking in detail when it came to the innovations for the 'Stang...laminar flow wings for reduced drag and the Meredith flow radiator which actually added a positive thrust aspect to the airframe. The Mustang gets my attention every time because its a metaphor for the results of Anglo/American co-operation. Another allegory is the timing of the P51s inception into the hunt for German Luftwaffe fighters...no longer were Mustangs camouflaged for their own protection? They wore vivid, highly visible designs with polished aluminium fuselages for maximum attention to draw up German fighters . It was a sign that the boot was on the other foot. Two superb aircraft with wildly differing attributes.

Angered spitfire mk9 noises.

_sad Swordfish noises_

@@randomsnow6510 pls, spitfire mk 21.

@keith moore And the Spit 9,and the P-47, and the Mosquito, and the ME-262, and the P-38, and the.....

@@RockinRobbins13 I think you fail to understand the meaning of the word "best".

At the end of the day it was down to pilot skill. German aces were able to achieve skills despite the fact. Germany was fast losing experienced pilots however.

@@justinheadley9453 German aces got far more kills than allied aces because experienced allied pilots were pulled back to train new cadets. The average allied pilot was far more ready for combat than the average axis pilot, especially towards the end of the war.

Yes but the Germans had a much larger crap box fitted ! .

That’s interesting. I thought the pilots of the JU-87 had some form of G-suit to help them not black out from a dive.

@@mikemontgomery2654 I haven’t heard that. I heard the Mustang g-suit info in an interview with Chuck Yeager. It must have come in late in the war.

10:19 lol

Yup, maybe the Ta-152 and P-51H are a better comparison for later fighters as well.

@@dragoonTT I doubt it for the Ta-152, even the H-1 variant. Due to the fact that the P-51H is in all things a new fighter that looks like the old one, but with British safety margins for weight loads etc in mind. Meaning they got a lighter Mustang while also using their own Allison engine, which by then became more powerful than the Merlin. This gives the plane even more of an manoeuvrability edge, while too reaching 770 km/h

@@martijn9568 Of course, sorry I mean no discredit to the H model, pretty much a new plane compared to early models. It was still a mighty attempt by Tank to design such beasts as well, he was fighting against the economic power house of the world.

@soaringtractor the Junkers 213E was a beast with MW50.

@@fedomandez True that. BF-109K and Dora versions of FW-190 were a very good ones.

It only depends on who won air superiority. Nothing else matters.

Both aircraft were being continuously improved. The Fw 190 was likely to develop into a Fw 190D13 with the 2700hp Jumo 213J or Ta 152H with the same engine or the Ta 152C with the 2800hp DB603N. These aircraft almost certainly could have exceeded 500mph. The P51H and the planed P51K also very fast. As it was the Fw 190D9 had the single stage supercharger 2100hp Jumo 213A but some Fw 190D13 with the two stage super charged Jumo 213F entered service capable of 455mph. The Fw 190D13 with the 2350 Jumo 213EB was expected to do 488mph. The Ta 152H and Ta 152C with this engine would have been slightly slower but they had much greater wing area and far more growth potential. The Fw 190A BMW 801 Engine had only a single stage supercharger and this was its main disadvantage in dealing with the P51B/C/D. The two stage 3 speed BMW801R engine was to be fitted to a variant of the Ta 152C but bombing so delayed the program it was abandoned and reliance had to be placed on the Jumo and DB water cooled engines for high altitude performance.

In the remote control world the long lines of the 190 d9 are far superior to the mustang but probably not relevant. The D9 practically flies as well as a pattern plane, basically the longer the distance between the tail and the wing the better.

@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs I don't know the US military during WW2 was extremely, extremely conservative, you could say they didn't like to muck around with new equipment. German's always had new fangled equipment that was superior but didn't tend to be reliable or well supported. US soldiers could have benefited from more experimental equipment but the guys in charge figured we can win with what we have, just cost more lives. Also kind of describes the Russian philosophy.

Nivola 1953 Hey Nivola that’s interesting. funny how nobody has commented on your dad however it must have been awful for him to be captured and sent to a slave labour factory to do a Jobb he enjoyed glad he survived, take care, keep safe as we say these days and thank you for sharing.

They never disappoint, all while having no background or practicle experience.

And then shake your head with how quickly insults are thrown.

It won't be as bad. Just be glad these aren't tanks.

All I know is that Tyson in his prime would beat any other airplane.

RU-vid comment sections are like a Springer episode.

*cough cough* nord vpn

The best comment so far! :D

muahahahaha

When you don't have any balls to play with... you have History... just like Lord Varys' Balls.

I was looking for this comment lol

nice fairy tale

Sweeet....that's got to be documented some where . My dad flew lancaster's & Halifaxs he survived the war mind you he wrote off more then one aircraft....shot down two ju88 s his crew did but Cancer got him in the end .....unfortunately miss him too Cheers

Your living in Disneyland, 5, 190,s yeah fairyland , ha ha ha !,!!!

Name, date, and squadron. We are going to look this one up...

LMAO

The quest for high speed high altitude was a natural progression for every airfoce ergo the jet was seen as the ultimate solution piston were penultimate square peg in round hole

Probably at that time of the war (Jan '45 and after) Germany lacked pilots too, besides oil

@@Dimension640 They also had no oil to be used to train the new pilots. When Hitler invaded Russia in 1941, he invaded with over 500,000 HORSES, because of Germany's lack of oil. The two countries that won WW2, Russia and the US, both had large indigenous supplies of oil.

@@ziggy2shus624 typical yank you won the war what bullshit !!!

no.. not capacity.... consumption

@@tellyonthewall8751 The fuel tanks on the P-51 were considerably larger than the FW-190, so yes capacity. With the addition of external tanks, their range was almost three times that of the FW-190, which gets us back to the point, the P-51 was a long range bomber escort and the FW-190 was not.

@@beckyfrogersFirst of all, I don't question which plane was "long range fighter" and which plane was not , don't know were you read that in my 1. text Taken in basic versions the P51 had 695 L inboard fuel capacity and the FW190 had 550 L inboard fuel capacity. That's 145 L in difference . . one hour flight for the P51 and roughly 45 min. of flight for the FW190. Not some big differences seen in the time ... AND the concept for the XP51 was actually *not* a long range fighter *but* an addition/supplement to the Spitfire and Hurricanes in Britain as the Brits couldn't produce Spits and Hurricanes fast enough and in needed quantities. North American presented the Brits with a new fighter instead of building after the Brits specs and that's how the P 51 was born. It was miserable at high altitude due to the Allison engine and a RAF test pilot suggested putting the RR Merlin in instead and first that gave the P 51 it's huge performance envelope .. and the "long range fighter" was born. Yes the P51 can carry about 695 L internal in the D version and only with the "long range fuselage tank" of about 300 L it comes to about 1.000 L. Adding two 350 L drop tanks gave it a ferry range of app. 3.560 km and up to 12 hours in the air. But it was a 'sitting duck' in that configuration until the fuel was down to half .. Due to the low drag profile and the Merlin engines good performance the fuel consumption was only about 143 L/h at about 300 km/h. The FW190 was from the start born to be a 'cavalry horse rather than a race horse' (Kurt Tanks own words) and an easy to fly and easy to maintain airplane. It was from start a concept like the Spit and Hurricanes .. a home defense fighter and a diff. resource consuming airplane. The A series with BMW 801 radial engine outperformed anything the Brits had at the start and first the mrk. IX Spit could keep up with the FW190A. The A8 actually stood out as a formidable fighter/bomber too .. The B variant and C long nosed variants used the turbosupercharged BMW801 and DB 603 respectively but never got full operative until the 'Dora' with JUMO engines came of the production. The fuel capacity of the FW190 was about 550 L internal and with a often used 300 L drop tank and a consumption of 185 L/h at 296 km/h gave it a ferry range of 1.360 km and close to 5 hours in the air. But consumption has a big role here too ... The P51 only used 75% of fuel compared to the FW190 giving the P51 an edge in range and duration ...

@@beckyfrogers take a look and listen from 09:25 in this clip ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QE39QmfYb9A.html "half the fuel than ...."

_Ya talkin' about Richard Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries"?_ _Yep I heard that song play when I was hungover and worried if I slept with the Fat Bish...............then the phone rings........!!!!!!........0.o_

Totally.

Better plane but much shorter range

Not really, no. It was no more than a match

Well it depends which mark of FW190 you are comparing it with Gary 😉

How did the Spitfire ever contend with its own range limitations? Any Mk regardless of the amount of they jammed into it. Beautiful aircraft.

Probably because engineers were running the show back then ! Nowadays look what happens when bean counters and box tickers gain control . Ie Boeing 😂

yup, we spend decades and then end up with problem childs like the f35. You look at what a masterpiece they came up with overnight with the mustang and it makes you scratch your head, we are clearly more advanced, but are we dumber? Clearly we don't have anyone like Kelly Johnson working for our aerospace companies anymore.

HD??? 3D with all sourround sound and you can watch from outside or inside the cockpits ^^

Lol

Can you imagine the WW1 fighters dog fighting and going after armed Zeppelins? Howard Hughes movie "Hells Angels" had some crazy scenes using veterans flying fighters from the era. Amazing stuff!

Lmao

Bro imagine watching the Battle of Britain, Marianas Turkey Shoot, or Operation Bodenplatte in real time. Shit would be crazy.

...THEY'D BE EXPENSIVE AS HELL TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE-!!!

My heart skipped a beat after seeing the Dora near the end. I'd like 2 of each fighter please.

You seriously come to this channel and compare it to another Channel, as if that channel is the pinnacle of everything. That kinda sucks.

And in this episode with Dr Mark. The Allies secret plan to capture Hitler's dirty underwear.

Don’t know if that’s even a compliment.. Mark Felton Productions plagiarized many scripts for his videos from other websites and he doesn’t care to properly fact check what he copies.

@@MassimoMSSR Bingo!

Exactly! In vehicular combat, it's not the men you're after, it's the machine. It's a big reason why the Germans and especially the Japanese lost air superiority immediately. They focused too much on performance rather than endurance. The best pilots would take advantage of performance but could hardly rely on the machine Itself. Like a sword without a shield.

you can build all the hardware in the world more than anyone else. but it is all useless unless someone can operate it and do so efficiently.

@@sethjansson5652 The Germans and Japanese also didn't do things like rotate their fighter aces back home to train new pilots, so overtime their quality pilots dwindled, while the Allies continually produced quality pilots because they institutionalized the knowledge these combat aces brought. Also, at least in the case of the Japanese, they produced hyper specialised aircraft. The Zero was good for one thing, low speed, low altitude dogfighting, and little else. Sure it was fantastically agile, but when your opponent dives from above on top of you at a much greater speed, you're toast.

@@geronimo5537 The two also scale a little. There's no point in wasting lots of resources on high quality equipment for poorly trained troops, just as there's no sense in wasting time training fantastic troops and giving them lackluster equipment.

*moonlight

Scrolled through 20 comments, pretty levelheaded and calm so far. Reflects the type of people who follows this channel and how comprehensive the video is.(just watch any of those dumbed down, lowest common denominator infographic channels) But when this gets more external viewers, the situation will probably change.

Perhaps the FW-190 was better. Rather pointless given they were facing 3 to 1 over the Soviet Union and 4 to 1 in '43 over Africa & Italy. The FW-190 faced more Soviet P-39s in combat than P-51 and the Soviets generally shot down one German aircraft of all types for every P-39 lost. For the Soviets that was a very fair exchange, a fascist for a hero.

Maybe he's bored and wants some entertainment in the comments suggestions?

Btw, none of them better than the other. Both are true masterpiece of engineering.

@@Easy-Eight you just had to didn´t you

Its a cryin shame he didn't cover the fact that none of the new features worked it was underpowered and over half remianed grounded at all time due to engine fires and overheating.

To me, it looks like an aircraft with anorexia.

Not a word I'd use, potent, mebbe.

I don't like the overly long fuselage compared to the earlier variants of the 190, but if it had better performance then that's fine.

Davidca NO production Mustang used a British engine !!!!! ALL Merlin engines used in production Mustangs were Made and re designed by PACKARD in the USA and this versions of the Merlin were ONLY used in the Mustang !!! ! FACTS of history less the lies, hype and Bullcrap !!!

@@wilburfinnigan2142 You do understand that the Packard Merlin is a licensed copy right? Its design is British, the US produced licensed versions of the BRITISH design, so its a British designed/US manufactured engine, thats not a lie thats exactly what they were.

@@wilburfinnigan2142The British replaced the original engine in the Mustang with a Rolls Royce Merlin engine. The modification was so successful the Americans were allowed to build the BRITISH engine under licence in America. Packard supplied the engine which was a British designed engine. I suppose according to your logic the Spitfire had an American engine?

Yeeer u have an idea were he go it . man

Sure but like the most common were the g version not the k.

@@annirish784 To me it is about the evolution of fighters- The last variant of the P51 to see action in Germany was the D. The last variant of the 109 was the K (August 1944) They should be compared, as they are contemporaries. Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe, in late 44 pilot quality was eroded significantly, and often outnumbered 10:1 against Allied bomber streams. FYI the 109G6 had 2x20mm cannons underwing, and was a bomber killer- NOT a fighter v fighter. This was one of the most common variants. Interesting that P51 fans seem to be the most arrogant and sure of themselves while they are often the most underinformed...no offense (Personally, i love the P51D & N)

Edgar O. "Ed" Schmued (Schmüd), German "-American" aircraft designer (1899-1985) was famed for his design of the iconic North American P-51 Mustang and, later, the F-86 Sabre while at North American Aviation. He later worked on other aircraft designs as an aviation consultant.

Unimpeded or not, Germany and Japan decided to start a war with an industrial giant with nearly unlimited resources. Not smart!!

Hahaha! I had the delightful opportunity to watch a P-51D take off 2 summers ago, and also a B-17 (Aluminum Overcast, I took my dad up on it) and I will tell you, the Rolls-Royce Merlin sounded amazing!

P 47 warhawk ?

@@shawntailor5485 P-47 Thunderbolt. P-40 Warhawk

also the Germans use to jump the p47s early so they dropped their drop fuel tanks over france.

The P-47 replaced the longer-range P-38 in that role. There has to be a reason. The P-38 was either inferior in performance to the German interceptors or less serviceable than P-47, probably both.

The P-47 is a great plane but a poor bomber escort.

CalzerDan watch Greg’s new video. P-47 had the range required to escort B-17s, it is the USAAF bureaucracy which banned the use of droptanks that made the P-47 a short-range airplane. They made the story that P-47 couldn’t escort the bombers to Berlin while the P-51 could, by taking the figures of the longest-range variant of P-51 and comparing to the shortest-range variant of P-47.

The crazy thing is that the USA could have had the Grumman F7F or some similar twin-engined P&W R-2800-powered fighter as early in the war as the P-47 reached service, with plenty of range, speed, firepower, climb rate, etc. to escort the bombers to Berlin. They could have even left the bombers at home and just sent thousands of fighter-bombers to do the bombing and fight their way back home. The fighters always had much lower loss rates than the B-17s, so for the cost of all the B-17s and crews lost, they might have gotten almost the same results with the same resources put into making a larger number of more survivable fighter bombers. The Brits of course had the Mosquito in a similar role of the fast bomber that was hard to shoot down, but with a modest bomb load. But anyway, it seems Grumman was only thinking about developing the F7F as a carrier-based fighter for the Pacific theater, which it wasn't well-suited for as it couldn't land safely on a carrier with only one engine running. I can't understand why the USA didn't develope a high-peformance twin engined fighter for the European theater (the P-38 not being high-performance enough). They could have even tried building a twinned P-47 like the F-82 Twin Mustang. It wouldn't have been maneuverable enough to dogfight with smaller fighters, but it could have kept the German fighters off the bombers, especially the larger bomber-destroyers that were easy for any escort fighter to shoot down.

I believe that is not the service ceiling but the absolute ceiling. It also depends on the engine variant. The Merlin 63 (V-1650-3) engine has a supercharger tuned for higher altitudes than that of the Merlin 66 (V-1650-7); the two engines are otherwise identical, and are interchangeable in the field. The V-1650-7 Mustang had substantially better low-altitude performance and was preferred over the -3 at the latest starting from mid to late 1944. However, the 42k ft ceiling is likely achieved with the -3 engine. The -7 engine was re-rated for running 75 inHg of boost in the USAAF and +25lbs boost (80.1 inHg) in the RAF after the availability of the 44-1 fuel, which enables it to outrun any production German piston-engine fighter at low altitude. There are relative few mentions of the -3 engine being rated for 75” boost, and no mentions at all of it being rated for 80”. Re-rating for a higher boost would not have improved performance above the critical altitude (if I recall is 28k ft) anyways. In my opinion, the 42k ft ceiling is more likely to be the absolute ceiling rather than the service ceiling, owing to it being much higher than the critical altitude.

@@nightshade7745 Just in case anyone is wondering. The absolute ceiling is just that, the aircraft can't and won't go any higher. The service ceiling for a piston powered aircraft is the height at which the rate of climb is less than 100 feet per minute.

@@PenzancePete ....and they had to make it 100 ft/min, because if it were 300, some planes would have a service ceiling of 0!

@@nightshade7745 Most service ceiling I have read for the Merlin Mustang was the 42,000FTB !!!

@@wilburfinnigan2142 I highly doubt that, since all speed graphs of the P-51D I can find with the USAAF testing at Wright Field (Dayton, Ohio) don’t even have data up that high, and rate of climb all seem to have dropped below zero way before that

Do 335, need I say more?

@@randomuser5443 Say Pfeil. But if we talk about "prototypes' then Ta152 was the best piston aircraft ever build

Ep!dEm Fair

Ep!dEm The P47 M was the fastest piston fighter of WW2, had a top speed of 480mph

Cough, P-51 H Mustang, cough