Merlins and the Pacific...

[ickysdad]

A gentleman over on youtube is saying that the Merlin,mainly in the P-51, didn't do well in the Pacific . Now MHO is that the P-51's flew long escort missions from Iwo Jima to Tokyo & back so just how could it have been performing badly? Any opinions. This same gentleman said all inline engined fighters didn't do that well in the Pacific but then what about ther P-38? P-40? just to name a couple.

[Ricky]

Even the Japanese used inlines (in the 'Tony'). Does he give any justification for his claim (could you post a link to his video or comments)? Or is he just noticing that more radials than inlines were used, and assuming that therefore one was better than the other?

[ickysdad]

He got his info from summer 2008 issue of Flight Journal magazine just how reliable is that? I don't know . Here's a link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3DoLsYB52Q&feature=email

[Red Admiral]

I don't remember reading of any special problems with Merlins on Hurricanes, Spitfires, Mosquitos or Sea Hornets operating in SEA. The dust, lack of spares and hard use destroyed the Merlins on the Darwin Spitfires fairly quick but not especially.

Griffon Spitfires were used extensively for PR postwar all over SEA without problems.

[ickysdad]

I don't remember reading of any special problems with Merlins on Hurricanes, Spitfires, Mosquitos or Sea Hornets operating in SEA. The dust, lack of spares and hard use destroyed the Merlins on the Darwin Spitfires fairly quick but not especially.

Griffon Spitfires were used extensively for PR postwar all over SEA without problems.

That's kind of along the lines of what I thought. However as I pointed out over there P-51's flew alot of escort missions from Iwo Jima to Japan & back without much problem ,at least that I've ever heard heard of.

[ickysdad]

Some of those guys are more or less saying that if an Allied aircraft tried to manuver/turn at high speed thier wings wouldn't take it. I know all aircraft have maximum "G" loads but even at that I'm sure Allied aircraft had higher "G" loads then thier IJAAF & IJN aircraft.

[Red Admiral]

If you start pulling large gees over 500mph or so then there is more chance of structural failure. However, I can't remember this ever becoming a problem with the piston engined aircraft apart from the F8F which tried to be too clever with detactable wings. The much greater problem was the shock waves blanking out the elevator resulting in a loss of control and an ever steepening dive towards the ground.

[GregP]

No the Allied aircraft were not built to much stronger g-loads than IJA / IJN aircraft. The North AMerican P-51 Mustabng is basically a 7-g airplane. So is the Zero.

The way aircraft, or rather warplanes, are stressed is a g-rating with a 50% safety factor. That is, a 6-g airplane can be stressed to 6-g with no ill effects, and will tolerate 9-g right at the break point. ANything from 6-g to 9-g will be survivable, but will cause damage taht may or may not be recoverable enough to remain in service.

In a Mustang, there is almost no set of speed and altitude in normal use that will allow you pull more than about 7-g for more than a short amount of time without the g-load decreasing to lower levels.

You might recall that the Zero could out-turn almost anything in the U.S. invertory, and could ALSO out-turn the Supermarine Spitfire. Of course, the "out-turn" part requires an airspeed of 180 - 280 mph. Faster, and the Zero starts to lose the turning/rolling fight. Still, it was pulling more g than Allied fighers in a medium-speed fight on a very regular basis.

The IJA/IJN aircraft were typically not built from metal as thick as U.S. fighters (or "western" fighters in general), and they DID have some wood and even bamboo in several areas, but they WERE as strong until damaged sufficiently to lose strength due to structural metal damage. Theyw ere also less able to absorb damage than western fighters. But weak? Not at all.

The Zero at the Planes of Fame Museum has thin sheet metal 0.032 in a lot of areas, and you can't walk on it without causing damage, but when flying, you'd NEVER know it since the strength is there unless damaged in a structural area.

This is one myth that is simply not true.

[Double T]

Were dive bomber airframes built to endure a higher G-rating due to their specialized mission?
Just curious.

Tim

[ickysdad]

My point was basically some of the guys on the other forum were saying things like that a P-51 or P-47 or any Allied aircraft couldn't manuver at high speeds,i.e. maybe around 400 MPM??? I knew that to be false. A P-51 was tested in a dive and found to survive up to mach .81 I know for sure but alas that aircraft had to be written off.

[Red Admiral]

Its nonsense. The greatest problem is that the stick forces become quite large without power boosted controls which would reduce the response but it doesn't eliminate it completely.

[Sid447]

Were dive bomber airframes built to endure a higher G-rating due to their specialized mission?
Just curious.
Tim

Yes, they were. I remember some article mentioning that the JU88, as part of it's ministry specs, had to be cleared for dive-bombing missions and ended up a good bit heavier than it needed to be.

[Sid447]

Double post thanks to ISP here.

[Trexx]

No the Allied aircraft were not built to much stronger g-loads than IJA / IJN aircraft. The North AMerican P-51 Mustabng is basically a 7-g airplane. So is the Zero.

The way aircraft, or rather warplanes, are stressed is a g-rating with a 50% safety factor. That is, a 6-g airplane can be stressed to 6-g with no ill effects, and will tolerate 9-g right at the break point. ANything from 6-g to 9-g will be survivable, but will cause damage taht may or may not be recoverable enough to remain in service.

In a Mustang, there is almost no set of speed and altitude in normal use that will allow you pull more than about 7-g for more than a short amount of time without the g-load decreasing to lower levels.

You might recall that the Zero could out-turn almost anything in the U.S. invertory, and could ALSO out-turn the Supermarine Spitfire. Of course, the "out-turn" part requires an airspeed of 180 - 280 mph. Faster, and the Zero starts to lose the turning/rolling fight. Still, it was pulling more g than Allied fighers in a medium-speed fight on a very regular basis.

The IJA/IJN aircraft were typically not built from metal as thick as U.S. fighters (or "western" fighters in general), and they DID have some wood and even bamboo in several areas, but they WERE as strong until damaged sufficiently to lose strength due to structural metal damage. Theyw ere also less able to absorb damage than western fighters. But weak? Not at all.

The Zero at the Planes of Fame Museum has thin sheet metal 0.032 in a lot of areas, and you can't walk on it without causing damage, but when flying, you'd NEVER know it since the strength is there unless damaged in a structural area.

This is one myth that is simply not true.


I did recently read somewhere the P-51 did have some structural problems originally. Tails flew off in flight during high G manuvering as reported in one or two early combat experiences. I think it was the P-51C onward that had strengthened rear fuselage structures that eliminated the problem. Some muckedy muck possibly Hap Arnold that actually went in personally (to North American Aviation Company) to see if the Mustang was going to end up a "No-Go" because of the failures... or to nip the problem in the bud.

...just going from my memory of a recently read article somewhere...

[ickysdad]

The P-51 I think had a problem with the landing gear deploying after coming out of dive resulting in the wings tearing off.

[gruad]

The P51 was not as effective in PTO compared to ETO but not because of the Merlin.

The problem was the Pacific weather which caused problems with single seat navigation when combined with a lack of landmarks in the Ocean. The attrition of the enemy's fighters did not occur because the B29's flew unopposed or at night.

The Mustang was used against targets of opportunity as a fighter bomber which it was less suited for. (One could argue that a radial engined plane would be more suitable but they did not have the range).

[Kutscha]

The P-47N certainly had the range and did participate in combat over the Home islands.

[ChrisMcD]

The P-47N certainly had the range and did participate in combat over the Home islands.

Hi Kutscha, wasn't the problem that it was a major redesign (to get those extra 50 gal tanks into the wings) so that it was late to turn up in the PTO?

Mind you, I would have thought they could probably have fitted a second seat for a navigator while they were at it - or was that the rational for the twin Mustang?