Inside The Cockpit - P-51D Mustang "Twilight Tear" 

Would love for you two to do a collab. Maybe something on WW1 bombers, like the Ilya Muromets? Everyone only focuses on fighters for the Great War and never enough on the budding development of frontline/strategic bombing in that war

What video of yours did MAH reference?

And Greg puts it all down to manifold pressure…

Well said

Unless there is a second ‘Greg’ video I haven’t seen, I found his conclusions incomplete and unsupportable. From my memory, he asks why the Mustang was so fast and his only conclusion was ‘manifold pressure’. He dismisses the laminar flow wing and he dismisses the Meredith Effect of the under-slung radiator. He also leaves out a third factor. The laminar flow wing can’t be completely dismissed and it just shows his knowledge of aero is a bit limited. Now, I would be the first to say that, in the vast majority of cases, the Mustang wing was laminar flow _in theory only._ The fact is that the speed of construction required and the methods of the day meant that it was not a true laminar flow wing. It was a good attempt but it was not completely successful _in that regard._ True laminar flow wings did not appear until after the war. Secondly, the Meredith Effect from the radiator provided about 300lbs of jet thrust at maximum speed and for anyone curious, that translates to - if my maths serve me correctly - about 500 extra horsepower. I’d have to sit down and calculate it but it’s also worth remembering that jet thrust and power are not directly related so it will be an approximation. Thirdly, Greg left out one of the most important things about the Mustang wing. In the late 1930s, high performance aircraft wings had slim profiles and had their maximum thickness about about 30% chord. This was true for both the Spitfire and the P-47. Off the top of my head, I can’t remember the exact thicknesses but they are of the order of 11%, while the P-51 was about 16%. This created problems for the older designs with high speed flying because the drag build up and a substantial shockwave would form on the upper surface that would become increasingly prominent, creating downstream effects that could result in loss of control. It also meant that a truly high speed cruise was both less efficient and less possible because the drag curve was a lot steeper. The P-51 wing, on the other hand, had its point of maximum thickness at 38.9% of chord and a semi-symmetrical profile. Because of this, it developed smaller shockwaves on the top and bottom surfaces. This had the two-fold effect of drag reduction and more predictable handling at high speeds. This is a bit too complicated to explain here but it suffices to say that after the P-51, all new high speed fighters, like the Hawker Tempest, had their points of maximum thickness further aft. So Greg’s conclusion that it all came down to manifold pressure is not even close to the whole story. The most important thing about the design of the Mustang is that it was a complete package and not just reliant on one thing. Yes, manifold pressure was a factor. But so too were the raft of aerodynamic advancements the Mustang pioneered. As a piece of aeronautical engineering, it represented a half a generation advance over earlier designs, like the P-47 and the Spitfire. But it wasn’t one single factor. It was a combination of all these things and probably a few more I have left out.

@@thethirdman225 maybe schedule a friendly debate with Greg?

The thing I noted most, of Greg's video, is that North American, the maker of the P51, was started by Anthony Fokker.

Most WW II aircraft that were successful had a certain proportional good look about them. I am biased to the U.S. aircraft, though

haha, it happens :D thanks for pointing it out

Well if it could carry 5,000lb bombs, there’s not much point taking the B-17s along too! 😹

hah, my bad. I assume, I meant to say 'chrome' look or something like that

Baseball caps are stupid. They’re too tight and your scalp doesn’t breathe and they proved no protection for your ears or neck.

The British fitted four 20mm cannons to some of their Allison Mustangs. They weren’t needed for bomber escort.

Same engine, around twice the weight?

At what altitude? This question must always be asked when comparing aircraft performance.

@@fazole The Spit IX outclimbs the Mustang at every altitude.

A Spitfire with that much fuel would be pretty sluggish too.

Pity they didn’t put the Griffon in Mustangs, seems at least one would have been interesting.

As opposed to radial, he's not referring to a straight 12 engine. A V-12 is an inline engine.

Greg is basically wrong. Both Drgondog and I have pointed out the things which made the Mustang so fast but Greg wants to nail it all down to manifold pressure.

polished, my brain probably meant to say 'chrome look'

Yes. One of Packard’s contributions.

@@thethirdman225 Water injection wasn't added for the Mustang until the H series. This example might have one of the later engines.

The Mustang was at least half a generation ahead of the P-47 and its results reflected that.

What the heck does that mean? Sounds like you have something to say so why not say it instead of pussy footing around.

Yeah, I would too. He’s gained a credibility way in excess of his talent.

@@thethirdman225 what? It’s good stuff?

yes indeed, I understand that in addition, the British blueprints, which were all in Imperial Measurements, had to be changed to American Imperial units as the units, and tolerances, were different! so, 5/16th of an inch is not the same!!

@@thatsme9875 thanks for the reply! amazing what was accomplished by hand in the pre digital age!

Most of this is just myth. The plans were redrawn by Ford UK in time for mass production.

Yeah 84th FS livery is very ugly.

At what altitude?

Figure it out.

They weren’t fighting them so who cares?

You breathing? It would seem so, but you be the judge of that.

You shouldn't be so self critical.