P-51H Mustang, Superprop! 

Awesome story, thanks for sharing!

Awesome! And... It's easier to get forgiveness than permission. He did good!!!

awesome!

Totally rings true. Men were bolder back then !

Any relation to a Gleeson who flew CH-53s in the USMC?

Seconded

Unrivaled

Absolutely ! My favorites bar none !

Truly

Always to the same standard and cross referenced with his other videos! The danger of watching one of Greg's videos is that you may end up on a video binge of his videos if you are not careful! 😂

Yes, this is, infact; Mecca. Greg is a national treasure and is not allowed to die!

Be sure to check out "WWII US Bombers" as he also uses period documents.

Absolutely. Greg is my favorite aircraft history RU-vidr & it’s not particularly close.

And Greg doesn't suffer fools lightly

Greg for planes and Drachinifel for warships up to the 50's. It's almost information overload!!! Almost.

Some of the most beautiful and coolest planes ever

They could be a handful to fly due to propeller torque. That's why you see a lot of superprops with counter-rotating props. The de Havilland Hornet solved this with two conter-rotating engines.@@dusk6159

I'm waiting for the Chain Lightning. A four engine Lightning with a wild amount of firepower. Just a matter of time until he covers it.@@dusk6159

Greg, I also recommend a video on the Skyraider. My father flew US Navy attack and AEW versions of the A-1/AD (Able Dog or Spad). It was his favorite airplane. His stories were great to listen to. Missing WWII, it still served in Korea and Vietnam with the USN & USAF, as well as some other nations. In the USAF, it took the A-10 to replace it.

A1D SARS were the perfect airframe for long loitering heavy fire support. Endurance, payload and took incredible punishment from ground fire. The team of a C130 King bird, an OV10, two HH3 and our beloved Sandy had an 87% successful mission completed rate in our unit during the Veit Civil War. 322 Americans saved by the 442 AARS is significant, but rarely mentioned.

Wait . The sky raiders that were also used in Vietnam? Lol

Thanks, that's a great story. These days it's ultra rare to see a warbird just cruise in to get a burger.

​@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Do you have plans to do the Spitire mk 22 and 24? Love your channel by the way.

Holy shit I didn’t know any of the lightweight mustangs survived.

This is true. I have a book on the Mustang and the H model gets very little attention apart from being described as the lightweight Mustang, almost as if reducing the weight of an aircraft was detrimental to it's performance.

@@markfryer9880 I was reading in one of my old books on aircraft that the P-51H performance was not just due to it being a lighter aircraft, but aerodynamically refined with a far better engine putting out 2K HP and a superb supercharging system. The aircraft apparently is better than the Hawker Sea Fury and the F8F Bearcat. It essentially was an aircraft that remedied all the problems associated with previous models and was the aircraft that P-51 pilots of previous models wish it was.

Agreed. It's golden.

Holy shit, $250 sounds cheap. Did you build it I hope?!

Yes lap record at Reno like 505 mph, that's 5000 ft and w turns. Shame Reno air races ended

As fast as Voodoo was/is, I believe Dago Red and Strega were even faster. Dago holds the record at Reno of 507.XXX, and it's too bad neither of these race teams were willing/able to spend the money to set a new 3K record. I believe either one of them would've beaten Rare Bear's record by a considerable amount....

@@jamesbottger5894 the speed record now held by P51. Look it up, partly new standard

@@muskepticsometimes9133 Reno is exploring Casper, WY or Pueblo, CO or Roswell, NM as a new location to hold the races. The airport at Reno wanted the land.

My State - Kansas - flew them in their Air Nasty Guard. About 1959 I saw one swoop over the Flint Hills and because it said "KANG" in giant letters and had that big belly scoop I asked my Dad if it was a flying kangaroo . . .

You wanted to empty the fuel tank BEHIND the pilot before transferring to the drop tanks. It was a CG issue. I think Yeager said in his first autobiography that the P-51 could flip onto its back if you didn't burn that fuselage tanks first. He also remarked that they NEVER had the suggestion in the P-51 pilot's manual that you SHOULD burn off that fuselage tank first before transferring to the drop tanks! It seems a STUPID detail to omit from a flight manual but remember that most of these fighter designs had major flaws that generally weren't corrected until the fourth, fifth, or even sixth major production models of those designs! Development of WW2 designs was compressed into months instead of the many years we spend developing aircraft now. Bare minimum development time for any plane that goes into service NOW is at least 4 years flight testing; that's optimistic. A decade from program start to first prototype flight is more likely. They spent close to 20 years from the time the F-35 program was initiated (mid-1990s) until actual initial operational capability of the type designing and testing that plane. It STILL has major maintenance and manufacturing issues. Both the F-14 and F-15 were tested and developed for 4 years before they first deployed (1974 and 1976 respectively). Neither plane was debugged (mostly) until they were in service for at least a decade! They were still working out bugs in the F-14 up to the year it was retired.

Seconded! F-82! F-82! F-82!

Just watch the H video twice ... ;-)

@@darrellid :D :D :D

I've heard it explained the P-82 was not sticking 2 P-51Ds together, but the P-51H was like breaking the P-82 into two.

@@brianrhodes1575 The primary difference between the P-51H frame and the P-51D, that unlike the P-51D, the P-51H was designed to meet European aircraft structure standards, and not the stronger US strength requirements

@@brianrhodes1575 I have heard that - I have also heard disputations of that. I guess that we'll have to wait until somebody like Kermit Weeks pulls them up side-by-side and takes us along as he examines them. I feel that is part of what makes '39-up fighters so darn interesting.

@@brianrhodes1575 Except that the P-82's airframes are a lot longer.

@@martijn9568 The longer P-82 airframe length was forced by the use of twin engines. To prevent the aircraft from leaving controlled flight, when both engines were a full throttle, but suddenly one engine dies. the longer airframe length was to prevent the asymmetric power configuration from throwing the aircraft into a flag spin

Agreed! Off to work now! Have a great day!

Don't think about the license. Go for Your SOLO! Solo takes about 8-15 hours, and maybe $1,500-$2,000 as opposed to 8-12k. You don't need headset, or flight bag or maps or gear. Just study to pass the written exam, get your 3rd class medical, and go fly. P.S. Not all instructors are on your side. Find someone who has a passion for flying and wants you to succeed. Not just some kid trying to build hours for their future airline career. They will just get you to fly a lot so they can gain hours at your expense... You want a professional, middle age, fun loving person. Meet and maybe fly with a few in your first 3 hours then go for the SOLO!

Greg, I'm an old WW2 Air Force guy and I was billeted near the N.A.C.A. Lab and hangars and the pilots to whom I spoke still liked the P-51D the best over all. By the way, when referring to the N.A.C.A. in those days, it was always just that, N. A. C. A., Never one word "naca". Good job on all your stuff!

Yes, but also the Corsair -5, a couple planes from Supermarine, two from Dehavilland, one more from North American and others I can't think of right now. It's going to be a long series.

Sounds like....Victory.

Ah yes the Hornet. That and the F7 Tigercat. Hot ships.

I agree, I think the P-51B is the best looking one.

Me too. The H model just looks a bit more "sneaky" somehow 😉

I like the H. Better yet the p51HH

​@@yosemite-e2vIf they'd have put more rake on the windscreen, maybe like a Fw190, the B would have been the Roto Finish Special (1972 Reno Unlimited Champion) but for the modified Merlin and clipped wings.

Or perhaps that other British superprop, the De Havilland Hornet 😁

@@charlesrousseau6837 Yes, please. There are so many interesting aircraft to cover.

@@charlesrousseau6837 I am a proud American but the Hornets were without a doubt the most beautiful Winged Killing Machines ever crafted by the Hand Of Man...

Years ago at an air show at Travis AFB, this guy flew in a P-51H that he co-owns with other people. I immediately recognized it and probably spent a good deal of the day hanging out with him and dropping a ton of questions. He said no parts are interchangeable between the other Mustang models and the H model. When it came to performance comparisons he says the P-51H is easily superior to the P-51D and other World War II aircraft.

@@jerryavalos9610 Have heard that a Spitfire could out turn a P-51 D, BUT what about the “H”, being that it was lighter than the “D”.

@@Mentaculus42 We talked about World War II fighters in comparison to the H model. He did say the 51H easily outturned the 51D and had a comparable turn rate with the Spitfire. In terms of climb rate, another pilot outclimbed the BF-109K. Basically he said the P-51H fixed things that were wrong with the previous Mustangs and had the improvements other pilots wish the previous models had.

@@jerryavalos9610 Thank you for the reply, I have always wondered where the “H” was in relation to its contemporaries. Had a relative that was at NAA from the beginning but I was too young at the time he was around to ask him very much about the inner workings and technical details. What you say is fascinating to me.

I agree, it doesn't look quite right to me, but that could be because I'm so used to seeing the other models. To me the A and B look the best.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Totally agree, the fastback Mustangs are pretty sweet. I really like the Bs both with and without the Malcom hood.

A Malcolm Hood P-51A would have been a real good looker.

Personally, I've never have been the biggest of the early Mustang in the looks department, although its not bad. For me the B/C/D models are the pinnacle, especially the later. I definitely agree with you on the H. It's always struck me as a misshapen D. The profile of the plane just looks a little "off."

She got that junk in the trunk that only a brother would admire vibe going on😂

@@drgondog The gross weight of the P-51H is nearly twice that of the Spitfire and it appears the wheel diameter is smaller than the Spitfire as well. Just looking at it you can tell this aircraft is only meant for a paved runway. Something tells me the Army Air Corp wouldn't be eager at all to allow a P-51H to take off and land on a grass field which the Spit did as a matter of routine. The smaller the wheel the more vulnerable the aircraft is to ruts. The P-51H is a "Runway Aircraft". The D model would handle a grass strip much better due to its beefier gear and larger main wheels.

I suspect it will be the f4u-5 🙂

The Bearcat in the same exact performance graph performed the same (or better at high altitudes) with a radial engine lol.

@@EstorilEmGreg’s last video shows performance to be almost equal to the F8F-2 in terms of Climb and speed, but it is the Sea Fury X I was referring to here mate.. The point i was trying to get across was it achieved a higher top speed at a lower altitude if that makes sense.

For best handling, lightweight piston fighter: I'll take the F8F Bearcat. (And I'm in good company).

@@TheJustinJ I want to see mock aerial combat between an F8F-1 and a 51H - first we have to have a batch of highly toxic purple 115/145 avgas made to run them on $$$$$.

@@TheJustinJ of course the F8F Bearcat was possibly one of the best late war produced in USA. Funfacts: much of the airframe came from the Fw 190-3 the landed virtually intact in UK....

No, it's about 29psi of boost at sea level. Boost is measured above ambient, manifold pressure is total pressure including ambient. Now as the plane goes higher it needs more and more boost to hold it's manifold pressure. I have a video about this somewhere. Now up at very high altitudes that 90 inches of manifold pressure will be about 38psi of boost above ambient because the pressure there is so low, but still only 29psi above pressure at sea level.

Oh, thank you for correcting me. I have watched numerous videos of yours that are very interesting, I will look for this one too. Thanks Greg!@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

I'm guessing it was some short term problem addressed by locking it down, but I just don't know.

I did talk about air racing a bit in my Sea Fury video. I'm nowhere near done with Superprops, not even half way.

The Spitfire IX and XIV rear fuselage tanks were strictly commanding officer authorisation only, they were worse.

That would have been standard practice for WW2-era combat aircraft with fuel tanks in the wings. The problem with wing tanks, for a combatant type, is that they present a large target area relative to their volume - so they're more likely to be hit by enemy fire than the typically more compact tanks inside the fuselage. So first you'd empty the drop tanks, because of the drag; then you'd empty the wing tanks, because of the vulnerability; and only then would you start on the fuselage tanks. The remarkable thing is less that the clean-sheet P-51H fixed the CG issues enough to allow pilots to revert to what would have been normal procedure for any other type, and more that the aft fuselage tanks in the P-51B/C/D/K were so large, and so far aft of the CG, that they imposed that kind of limitation on the type in the first place.

Yes I heard that, think it was a G model IIRC. There’s been little said about it sadly.

Thanks buddy.

To take advantage of the MW50, the engines would have needed to be modified. Either the compression raised or the supercharger system modified (different supercharger gearing or different impellers). At that point in the war, it probably wasn't considered to be worth the trouble for logistics reasons. Things may have been different had more of the advanced German fighters appeared sooner.

@@jfess1911 I am saying(like Greg) that they should have used MW50 from the beginning of the war. I don't think they would have needed to change the supercharging system. They would have just needed to add the systems to run the MW50 like they did in the H model or like in the 47s. I don't see how adding a 10-20 gallon tank of MW50 and a few extra hoses etc is not worth it to give an engine way more HP in a tough fight.

Dude the American ADI (or sometimes called WI) system was exactly the same as the German MW50 system.

@@patrickshaw8595 Yes, I know. The issue is that the mechanical supercharger system in the Packard Merlins was already optimized for the fuel at hand and the fighting altitudes. Without changes, ADI (anti-detonation injection) would mainly have been of use at low altitudes when the engine normally required throttling to prevent overboost. At fighting altitude in Europe, the earlier P51's were already at max boost. To take advantage of ADI, changes to the engine or mechanical supercharger system would have been required, as I stated earlier. The P-47's, on the other hand, had large turbochargers with enough additional boost potential to make good use of the ADI. The US air-cooled engines were also more cooling-limited and benefitted more. The US Navy used ADI and their planes had mechanical superchargers, but for a number of reasons, even with it they couldn't match the boost levels of the Packard Merlin with the same fuel.

@@rring44 I agree that designing the Packard Merlin to effectively utilize ADI/MW50 from the beginning would have been useful. Unfortunately, the particular engine used in WWII P-51's just would not have been able to take full advantage without other changes. Those changes are partly why the version using ADI got a new engine designation,. The US made a lot of silly decisions in WWII. A common one was to stop improvements of equipment once it reached he "good enough" point.

Was the canopy a bit smaller?

The Aeroproducts prop is coming up a lot in this discussion. It's interesting because in another video I talked about Aeroproducts and based on the comments there nobody was interested in it. I wonder what the difference is here?

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles , I can't explain the difference in interest. The Aeroprops are a research fascination of mine, particularly the CRP units found on the XP-72, XF8B-1, XP/P-75, A2D, XP5Y-1, and R3Y Tradewinds.

Not a problem at the race track. In all seriousness, yes, it has flaws, but it's a really fun car.