Author Topic: P-51 vs P-38 dive comparison  (Read 3906 times)

Offline BigCrate

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 268
P-51 vs P-38 dive comparison
« on: March 29, 2002, 07:59:15 PM »
P-38
One problem the P-38 had in dealing with the Me-109, but not the FW-190
(which was more of a low and mid-altitude fighter) was the Me's high
altitude performace superiority.  Above 25,000 ft., cooling or
supercharger impeller or turbine speeds became limiting for the Lockheed,
and high speed capability started to fall off.  At low altitudes, the
plane could max out at about 330-340 mph.  This rose to well above 400 mph
between 25,000 to 30,000.  As the plane approached 30,000 ft, speeds over
Mach 0.60 could be sustained in level flight.  Thus, manuevering could
quickly give the plane compressibility problems.  At Mach 0.65 (290 mph
IAS, 440 mph TAS at 30,000 ft.; 360 mph IAS, 460 mph TAS at 20,000 ft.)
drag began to soar as the plane began to encounter compressibility.  At
Mach 0.67 shock waves began forming and buffeting began at Mach 0.675.  At
Mach 0.74 tuck under began. Buffeting developed at a lower Mach number in
any maneuver exceeding 1 g.
What this meant to a pilot in combat in say, a P-38H such as that used by
the 55FG or 20FG circa Jan. '44, was that if, at high altitude such as
Me-109s preferred approaching bomber formations, he locked on to the e/a
and it split-S'ed and dove away (typical Luftwaffe evasive maneuver), if
he attempted to follow, his P-38 would start to vibrate, then start
bucking like a rodeo bronco, the control column would begin flail back and
forth so forcefully it would probably be ripped out of his hands and begin
pounding him to crap.  Once the plane dropped down to lower altitude where
the speed of sound was higher, the buffeting declined and the trim tab
could be used to haul the airplane out of what seemed to be a death dive.
Recovery with trim tab resulted in 5 g pull-out.  Many a low-time service
pilot would be so shaken by this experience that he would never dive the
P-38 again, and might be so afraid of the airplane that his usefullness as
a fighter pilot was over.

P-51
In contrast, the P-51, had far fewer compressibility problems at speeds
normally encountered in combat, including dives from high altitude.  The D
model was placarded at 300 mph IAS (539 mph TAS, Mach 0.81) at 35,000 ft.
In a dive, the P-51 was such an aerodynamically clean design that it could
quickly enter compressibility if the dive was continued (in reality, a
pilot could, as a rule, catch any German plane before compressibility
became a problem).  But, say, in an evasive dive to escape, as the P-51's
speed in the dive increased, it started skidding beyond what the pilot
could control (this could be a problem in a dive onto a much lower-flying
plane or ground target--couldn't keep the plane tracking on the target if
speed was too high).  As compressibility was entered, it would start
rolling and pitching and the whole plane would begin to vibrate.  This
began about Mach 0.72.  The pilot could maintain control to above Mach
0.80 (stateside tests said 0.83 (605 mph) was max safe speed--but
structural damage to the aircraft would result).
The P-51's quirk that could catch the uprepared service pilot by surprise
was that as airspeed built up over 450 mph, the plane would start to get
very nose heavy.  It needed to be trimmed tail heavy before the dive if
speeds over 400 mph were anticipated.  However, in high speed dives, the
plane's skidding changed to unintended snap rolls so violent that the
pilot's head was slammed against the canopy.  Depending on how much fuel
was in the fuselage tank, on pull-out stick force reversal could occur, a
real thrill that could totally flummox a low-time service pilot diving
earthward at close to 1,000 ft per second trying to escape a pursuer.
The P-51 was a good dogfighter, positively stable under all flight
routines.  A pilot didn't have to work hard to get it to the limits of its
flight envelope (that is, he wasn't sweating heaving and pushing and
pulling and kicking to get it to move its ass.)  It was important to burn
down fuel in the fuselage tank to avoid longitudenal instabillity.
Cranking into a tight turn with too much go-juice in the tank would mean
instant stick force reversal and the pilot had to brace himself to oppose
the stick slamming backward into his solar plexus, and shove hard to
prevent the turn from tightening till, if he was lucky, he entered a high
speed stall, or, if unlucky, the wing ripped off.
Turns above 250 mph IAS were the killers, because they resulted in g
forces high enough to black out the pilot so that he couldn't oppose the
stick reversal and the Mustang would, unattended, wind itself up into a
wing-buster.

So, which plane would rather go into combat against the Luftwaffe in?
I got this info from this site. http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html
That site has alot of good info of alot of planes no just the P-38.

Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
P-51 vs P-38 dive comparison
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2002, 01:49:40 AM »
That writeup shows quite well why the USAAF had their P-51 pilots burn the aft tank first, even before the droptanks.   And probably also why most if not all surviving P-51's have had this tank removed (a number of surviving Mustangs replace this lost fuel capacity with extra tanks where the guns used to be).


J_A_B

Offline Virage

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1097
P-51 vs P-38 dive comparison
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2002, 03:51:55 AM »
Thnx for sharing.  Now if we can get HTC to model the head bashing of all 51 pilots...
JG11

Vater

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
P-51 vs P-38 dive comparison
« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2002, 03:57:47 AM »
There have been several discussions  on this subject  earlier, not much reason to start another. Please consult for example following references.

F.H. Dean: America's Hundred Thousand
K. Delve: The Mustang Story
DSIR 23/12611 at PRO
DSIR 23/15088 at PRO
NACA RM No. A7C24
Manuals of the P-38 and P-51

gripen

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
P-51 vs P-38 dive comparison
« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2002, 06:48:46 AM »
Hi Bigcrate,

Here are some earlier threads on the topic:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26424&highlight=mach

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27940&highlight=mach

Enough stuff for hours to read ;-)

I don't mean to go through the entire issue again, but here's a short overview::

The P-51 manual (just as Gripen pointed out) is quite valuable to estimate the operational impact of the P-51 "quirks" as claimed above.

For example, each fighter had some trim procedure for diving which should be observed carefully. The P-51 manual states:

"With the airplane trimmed for normal cruise, you can control the airplane in a high-speed dive with only the stick and rudder pedals."

Unlike what is claimbed above, the P-51 should not be trimmed tail-heavy for an extreme high speed dive according to the manual. Use of rudder and aileron trim was an option, but the pilot was cautioned to leave the elevator trim alone. The Mustang would become increasingly tail-heavy at high speed anyway, so it would be easy to recover from a dive.

The Mustang did indeed have undesirable flying characteristics with the fuselage tank more than half full. Operationally, this was a non-issue as the mission would be scheduled so that arriving at the combat zone, the fuselage tank would be less than half full anyway.

And with regard to maximum diving speed: The P-51 manual gives a Mach number of 0.75 before buffeting begins, not 0.72 as claimed above.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline Daff

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 338
P-51 vs P-38 dive comparison
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2002, 07:11:07 AM »
"And probably also why most if not all surviving P-51's have had this tank removed "

I thought it was more so they could stuff a pax in the back and charge outrageous amounts of money for it :)

Daff

Offline BigCrate

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 268
P-51 vs P-38 dive comparison
« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2002, 11:18:48 AM »
I wasn't trying to start crap by posting this.. I posted this cause I thought yall would like to know how a P-51 dove compared to a P-38.. Alot of that P-51 info I have never read before so I thought I should post it for everyone else to read.

I do have one ? tho.

Why can't the P-38 reach speeds where "Tuck under" started??
I thought the P-38 had problems with "Tuck under" before the models with dive flaps. Since the dive flaps in AH are for looks.
Should plane begin Tuck under at high speeds?

Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
P-51 vs P-38 dive comparison
« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2002, 12:27:37 PM »
BigCrate,
Studythis  (NACA A7C24 )

gripen

Offline BigCrate

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 268
P-51 vs P-38 dive comparison
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2002, 01:00:20 PM »
Thanks Gripen!! That site was very interesting. Tho kinda hard to read.

Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=