The disparity in available octane 95 vs up to 150, was all the more reason for the Luftwaffe to forget totally about piston engine power plants and focus solely on jet engines, which can basically burn anything from kerosene, diesel - you name it and octane rating simply doesnt matter at all to a jet engine.
Allies had high a octanes only so to say Germany prop planes were slow is a joke. Germany didn’t have Texas oil folks and very often ran out of fuel that German bombers were grounded in 1944
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles they didn't have the alloys. The story of how the Russians tried to steal samples on a visit to Rolls Royce is hilarious. They even tried sticky shoes to pic up swarf. Rolls Royce actually scattered an inferior alloy on the floor! Rolls Royce was ordered to give Russia the design by a labour Government . Politicians didn't think about the alloys!
@@garyseeseverything8615 Prescott Bush (Allen Dulles C.I.A. George “Poppy” - [Heroine? Or Pete Owe?] - Bush’s [Sr. 1st President Bush] Gramps) sure helped all he could. These people, it’s all a game to them. All those lives. Meaningless to these psychopaths and their Ratschild Masters.
That quote mstly refers to arguments about engine speeds and valve trains. This was before widespread forced induction on cars, and what forced induction they had was pretty primitive. Basically, it was American large bore big blocks vs smaller V8s like the 327 and European sports car engines like the Jaguar inline six. and of course that quote comes from the world of drag racing, where performance off the line is critical. Displacement is much less crucial in other forms of racing where engines can run in their designed power band at most times, and where smaller displacement can win you races because of fewer pit stops for fueling and better cornering due to reduced weight. A drag racer needs to accelerate from a stop to high speeds so the engine needs to produce a fat torque curve and plenty of power over a wide band, whereas an aircraft engine can be designed to run at a constant speed for optimal power delivery, making it much simpler with fewer compromises (all engines benefit from being designed to run best one one speed, which is one reason petrol/diesel-electric or range-extender hybrids are so much more efficient. And CVTs, for the same reason). An automobile engine needs a lot of compromises to be able to run at many different speeds and power levels. So you are taking that quote out of context, and of course ignoring fuel quality issues. Boost makes a great replacement for displacement, unless you are stuck using barely 87 octane fuel, which cannot support more than marginal boost.
@@justforever96 I’m pretty sure the quote is from Bentley, who used much more powerful engines and heavier cars than his competition, for racing, back in the 20’s. The origin of the quote is not an American thing or linked to drag racing, even if today it’s associated with it.
See a few videos on my channel... The basics are badly misunderstood everywhere, including the obsession with speed... Speed gets you in front! In WWII combat that is often really bad...
In case anyone is wondering, 75 inches of mercury is about 38psi(2.6Atm) of boost and 42 inches is about 21psi(1.5Atm). Basically just divide the inches of mercury by two and you get the boost in PSI
So this video appeared on my RUclips Recommendation Front Page today. I reluctantly clicked expecting trash and was rewarded with a superb video with technical and contextual information, without any of the shallow hyperbole and lack of focus of other "documentaries". All this information clearly explained for even a simpleton like me to understand and in a wonderful, clear voice too. I have also watched the rest of the aircraft related videos and liked them too. Very impressive quality increase over the course of less than a year. Subbed and hoping for more, you know your stuff.
@@touristguy87 contrary to your pathetic assumption, Cannon is one of the few respected people in the flight Sim community. See any video related to the subject matter and you will see his comments that adds much more substance then your entire RUclips comments combined.
I disagree with one regard. If the British refused to provide their engine the US would've invented and made a better engine but the plane would have been late to the war.
@@touristguy87 Yea, I don't think so. Think we would have innovated something late in the war. But, you go ahead and believe the US is filled with dumb hicks. Also I do watch the speed channels. Anything worth doing is difficult.
touristguy87 By the end of WWII, radial engines were much preferred than inline engines. Radial engines were rugged had more range than the inline engines.
Both of these planes were amazing considering this was during the 1940s. Not only did the P-51 have to make up for a smaller displacement engine as compared to the 109, it also outweighed the 109 by about 4000 lbs, depending on the fuel load at the time the two tangled. That seems like an insurmountable advantage for the 109, but engineers were able to give Mustang pilots the upper hand...
the 109 was something like 8 years older then the mustang. In a time of such rapid development like wwIi that's like saying "its amazing that my computer is so much better then the one from 15 years ago" Sure the 109 was updated continuously but there is only so much you can do with an old airframe / old engine
@@theacme3The 109 was completely rebuilt a number of times but kept the same model number. Compare to say the Yak-1/3/7/etc which were also arguably just as related to each other as the 109 family, but were given different model numbers. Likewise the Spitfire was massively redeveloped several times. Compare the Spitfire 1 to the Seafire 47 (the final operational development of the Spit). Identifiably part of the same family, but from a performance standpoint, night and day. As far as "there's only so much you can do with an old airframe/old engine" - the Merlin dated to 1933! The DB600 family likewise went back to the early/mid 1930s. So, the best liquid cooled Allied aero engine was, by the end of the war, 12 years old in terms of its first operation. It was a fantastic platform, as was the DB600 family, and each was able to be developed to levels their original designers probably never imagined.
Excellent video. You broke it down just as my powerplants instructor did way back when I started my Naval aviation days. I laughed at, "if there's one thing a superchargers love, it's being fed by another supercharger." Well said, sir.
So, I thought I would share some fascinating statistics with you guys regarding likes vs. dislikes of this video. Regarding people who have clicked, 100% of the people in Paraguay Dislike this video. That's fascinating. They have broadband internet in Paraguay... Over in Slovenia, 50% of the people disliked this video. Next we have Finalnd at 40% dislikes. I didn't see that one coming. Malta and Czechia and Serbia are coming in at 33% dislike, and Norway is coming in at 19%. Now, let's look at the Likes, at 100% likes we have France, Austria, Poland, Mexico, Italy, Israel, Ireland, Hungary, Switzerland, and the Philippines. The US rate is 98%, the UK 97% and Germany 86%.
Hmm... Interesting. But I'd be interested to know how many folks viewed this video from each country... Maybe that one guy in Paraguay is just a real cranky SOB. :) Flippancy aside, I do understand why someone might *not* click the like button on a video like this... Maybe it was too technical for that person. But why click the dislike button? It's not like you had some click-bait title that mischaracterized the content.
Man, you make a great mechanics instructor, history teacher and technical narrator, all in one. I came across this video after watching an episode of Hogan's Heroes.
I met the head engineer who designed the P51, and he told me That the air scoop, on the bottom of that aircraft actually made the aircraft 5 miles an hour faster, than without it! That was good designing!
One of the biggest differences was that the Bf109 first flew in 1935 and the P51 in 1940. And yes, in that era 5 years made that much difference. The time difference between the Hurricane and the Gloster Gladiator was only three years. And the gap between the Hurricane and the Spitfire was only one year and yet they are completely different technologies. The gap between the Gladiator and the Meteor was seven years. So the time gap between the Bf109 and the P51 is half the time between the Gladiator and the Meteor.
No question the P51 benefited from the passage of time after the 109 was developed. I actually discuss that quite a bit in my video about the 109's short range. However, the point here is to show the technical reasons that the P51 was able to make more power with a smaller engine.
Touristguy87. The F16 was made 45 years ago. The USA's latest fighter has finally entered full production, even though it is not really operationally capable. Its programme started in 1992. From clean sheet to full production has only been 26 years. The preceding fighter was first started in 1986, had its first flight in 1997 and became operation in 2005. That only took 19 years. Time alone does not make an aircraft better, but when you are at the edge of technology it makes a big difference.
What you are talking about are programmes that are at least 40 years ago. That is over two generations of engineers in the past. At the moment, right now, with the current state of US politics, management and engineering, it would be hard for the USA to design and get a bird into production in less than 15-20 years.
I agree, the higher octane fuel allowed for higher manifold pressure resulting in more power for the motor. the aftercooler and dual stage supercharger were icing on the cake.
Fascinating. I have been studying WW2 for decades. I had no idea whatsoever about the octane differences in the aviation fuel AND the effect this would have on performance. Plus, all the other factors you mentioned were also fascinating and very well explained (imo). Thank you for this video.
It seems like the late me 109 variants, the late G and K was quite equal to the P51-D as you mentioned in the end of this video. For a fighter that was of the first generation of monoplane, all metal types that is really mind blowing. To be both the start and the end of monoplane piston engine fighter evolution is almost unthinkable when considering the technological development of warfare between 1930 and 1945.
Agreed. Improvised and improved instead of replacing was smart. The G and K variants could hold their own against the best of the allied planes. I'm a fan of WW2 warbirds and the bravery of the pilots in them. I never fell for the P51 hype. Its great but not my favorite. Id prefer a Hellcat or a jug. 😂 These days, you rarely even see the enemy. Just a radar signature.
Most people are aware of the problems Germany had in maintaining a supply of fuel for their war effort, but until now I had never thought about the quality of it. Incredibly insightful, great video.
I'm very tired of videos/articles which purport to be informative and technical and tell us only what most of us would regard as general knowledge, or know already. Your video was superb. Hugely interesting and instructive. Loved it. More power to your elbow.
Was good to learn the difference between the -3 and -7. I hear some about these versions in today’s warbird circuit, but wasn’t ever able to glean what separates the two.
This was incredibly interesting! A couple questions arise in my mind from this: say the Luftwaffe had come up w/ a supply of 130 or 150 octane fuel: could the -109 G1 & -109 G6 safely run it & achieve higher manifold pressures? Or was the DB605 simply not capable? The next question is just how close a match was the -109 G14 & -109 K? How many of them made it to the Luftwaffe before war’s end?
There's no reason the engine wouldn't have been capable. Fuel availability was the primary limiting factor. The US had an abundance of quality oil and refineries at home, well out of reach of enemy bombers while Germany did not.
Yes the German engines were much more powerful and better built with good fuel they could have and did with proper fuel produce ton more power they were higher compression and quality engines it was mass production that helped us win
It was German. A look at pre-war achievements by Mercedes & Auto Union, BMW, etc, should prove that this meant something. BMW took the Isle of Man from Norton, Grand Prix racing was dominated by Silver (Duestche) cars. There was a lot of reason why the NSDAP were quick to fund, quick to associate themselves with, and ultimately appropriate the expertise of men who deserved better leaders. Any engine, or machine, is the sum of it's components. And this video goes to show that it really starts at fuel. Germany became so desperate, Anne Frank wrote of bicycles riding on wood in place of tires. Because rubber had been confiscated along with other oil-based goods for the production of synthetic gasoline / diesel, which also used coal. Allied Bombing of what oil Hitler controlled demanded this, and would've been a factor in his invasion of the USSR for it's Baku oil fields. It wasn't just the Carriers that Japan failed to attack on December 7. It was also all of Honolulu's oil reserves for the Pacific fleet. Fuel decided WWII as much as the Atomic Bomb or Industrial Power. A predominant reason for Hitler's fetish for dive bombers was Economy: The Luftwaffe could not afford the large scale, inaccurate bombing RAF & USAAF achieved with large formations of strategic bombers. Smaller, cheaper planes, able to drop sub-sequentially smaller payloads, but with greater accuracy, were his only tenable options to project air-to-ground power. In short, The Nazis made war when they could not afford to. Thankfully. But all that said, The Messers & Fockes were as good as their opposition. It's the fuel that failed them.
@@honkhonkler7732 not to mention it was the US who developed the high octane fuel thanks to the foresight and insistence of Jimmy Doolittle at shell oil
Excellent coverage and explanation I have 4500 + hours on my logbook and I always had an interest in warplanes and history anything from Lancaster to B-29 and all the others. I had a privilege to fly with a WW2 Lancaster Pilot ( he did private instruction for Multi IFR and did my multi -instrument rating for me) . Thank you for your post very informative excellent representation !
The Bf109 was a much older aircraft, and especially in wartime technology tech gains come quickly.A Better question is why is the Me-109 a much better fighter than the Brewster Buffalo, as both aircraft debuted the same year.
I hear you David. Think of it this way, it's not about what's fair, it's about history, and P51Ds fought 109Gs a lot, so fair or not, it's a valid historical comparison.
How come the Brewster Buffalo, in terms of numbers of enemy planes shot down versus production number of Buffalos built, is the most successful fighter of all time.
excellent video. I dont know how youtube ended up recommending it to me, but i came across it. This level of technicality and details is what i was looking for for a long period of time ! Thanks !
Thank you for a great video! Just a comment of the DB605 engine at 18:30 in the video... This engine was license built close to Eskilstuna in Sweden, with an order of total 800 engines. The DB605 was used in the fighter SAAB J21 and in the bomber SAAB B18 during WWII.
I am curious how people are finding this video. Generally speaking, this channel gets very few view, and in the last 24 hours, it's been pretty busy. How are you guys coming across this?
Came here from recommended on the front page. I fly the A2A Simulations P-51 in Prepar3D and have read the P-51 manuals front to back couple times. Great video, good info. I didn't find any errors =)
I was looking at Napier Aero engines and you popped up.I've Subscribed, well thought out and presented, plus some interesting comments from other viewers. Cheers
WW2 was battle of oil. Even Operation Barbarossa was targeting mostly Russian oil fields because Venezuela was not in Europe. The lack of oil explained the Luftwaffe disasters, the lack of motorized units in German army, lack of mobility, lack of strategic air power. And it was same with Japanese problems. When thinking about WW2 never forget the oil.
Yes, oil was a critical resource, but remember that Germany had not mastered mass production techniques which explained a number of their problems. Each tank had many handcrafted parts and to repair them in the field required custom fitting. The US was really the world expert in mass production and sent a number of experts to Russian to help them learn the techniques. The Germans could not even mass produce simpler equipment like trucks. The US outproduced the combined output of all other combatants, including Allies and Axis countries in WW 2. Also, the British and the Americans developed much of the leading technologies that provided them with major advantages. Some are well known like Radar and some are less famous such as the proximity fuse for anti-aircraft cannons that gave the US and Allies a huge advantage over the Japanese. The proximity fuse increased the anti-aircraft effectiveness by a matter of factors not simply percentages, it was also a top-secret weapon and its use was initially limited to ships so none of the unexploded technology could be recovered. Finally, the US industrial output was begun to be limited in 1944 because they had created enough surplus that the industrial output was beginning to be shifted back to consumer goods. The Kaiser team actually produced a Liberty ship in less than five days as mostly a publicity stunt and a bet with another manufacturer.
If Hitler allowed his Generals to run the Eastern front, it would have been totally different. The delay towards Moscow after Smolensk due to Hitler re-directing many divisions to other theaters doomed the Germans. The delay allowed the Russians to bring in new divisions and build up defenses. Also, Guderian wanted to use paratroopers earlier in the Eastern war but was over ruled by Hitler.
What a breath of fresh air(deliberate pun) your approach to the subject is. It's detailed and balanced in it's analysis, in a professional and thorough way. I don't miss the synthesizer "music" at all. Many thanks for a good job.... (subd)
Greg, that was a very good explanation of a very interesting but technically complex topic.. I thought that I had a pretty good handle on the P-51 and the Bf-109, well it seems that I still have a lot to learn. You have obviously put in a lot of deep research for this and other videos and you definitely deserve more views, thumbs up and subscribers, so I have done my part to boost those numbers.
Bf109 was among the first of the mono-wing fighter aircraft. Look at what the US was building around that time such as the Curtiss P-36 Hawk, or the Brit's, too. Hawker Hurricane still had a fuselage made partially of fabric-covered wood framing. Long after that bombers still had fabric-covered control surfaces. There was incremental advance in performance until everything changed with the jet engine.
Only tripped over this by accident, I got linked to your videos as I was watching a lot of Kermit Weeks videos and was watching his one on the 109 restoration. I subscribed as I really enjoy the technical content and factual nature of the videos.
Great addition to the history records of these and other famous aircraft. I have never heard these issues discussed, before, You have answered a lot and I hope to find more of your videos.
This is the best explanation of the interactions of supercharger drives/staging and charge cooling and the interaction of supercharging/boost/octane and the supplements water/methanol and nitrous oxide I have found on you tube. This is a MOST complex and difficult subject to find information on and to understand. Very well done sir. Subscribed and liked !
p47 do the job , destroying tanks bridges railroads trucks boats …………..everythings !!! , with or without p51 a flight of 1000 flying fortress can't be stopped by 100 bf109/fw190 or 50 me262 …...
Thank you. Great video! My late wife's dad was an MP in the USAAF. I had an uncle on my dad's side who was RAF and flew in a Handley-Page Halifax. He was lost over Germany late in the war. As a boy, I lived in Machinato Heights, Okinawa. When we lived in Germany my BFF's dad had been a German soldier(from Yugoslavia)
I found this upload to be fantastically informative as to the why's in the comparison of speed/power of the Mustang/109's in the European theatre during WWII. I'm a guy that hot-rods everything he gets his hands on and I found the octane ratings, supercharger setups, water/alcohol injection, nitrous oxide, etc extremely valuable. I set up a hopped up Ford 460 25 years ago to tow a camper and used high compression, recurved timing, free-flowing intake/exhaust, spot-on carb tuning, water/alcohol injection, and gearing to produce an engine that developed very good horsepower and made 11-12 mpg fully loaded Ford van pulling a big camper at 70 mph. When driving just the van with wife, 4 kids and tent-camping equipment, it would make 19-21 mpg at 70+ mph. No one would believe it but I keep very exacting records of everything(anal engineer). I also used a tight converter to limit driveline loss. I considered nitrous oxide injection but it was not cost effective for what I was doing. I had forged pistons and magnafluxed rods, as well as open-chamber heads so the engine would have tolerated it but I had enough power as it was. Thanks for the upload.
Wow, awesome in depth video. Learned a lot of new stuff, even being a history fanatic (especially WW2), I never really knew much of the technical stuff behind the P51. Keep up the good work, your channel deserves more subs.
What an interesting comparison with both aircraft. It is good to look deeper into capability with both of these dueling for the skies aircraft. The documentaries and movies always portray the P51 the clear winner and although it was a better design there are definitely merits for both aircraft. Thank you.
I was amazed at 18:00 with the excellent engine cutaway. I have always wondered about a few things about not just this engine, but any and all inverted "V" and 12 cylinder engines in general. Truly "Tomato Can" pistons. No wonder they produced in excess of 100+ HP per cylinder. More amazing was the 1930s technology that produced this and the Merlin, etc. Truly a case of an unsung art form meeting technology. Try to imagine the day they came up with a way to fire a 20mm cannon through the center of the propeller hub. Pretty smart.
After you walk through the giant entry hall at the Imperial War Museum and get to the exhibits on the 2nd Floor, the first thing you see is a Rolls Merlin mounted on a stand, and it's simply beautiful...
You are lecturing on an incredible level! Both in terms of learned and practical Expertise and in educative Storytelling! You’re providing an involving, powerful and passionate kind of Engineers’ Poetry…!
Excellent and informative video. I was aware of the fuel and supercharger advantages in the Mustang, but the devil is in the details, and you made an otherwise dull subject quite interesting. As an aside, I met Adolf Galland in 1981and asked him what he considered to be the best fighter of WWII. He replied, "That would have to be the P-51 Mustang. It could out-run us, out-climb us, out-dive us, out-turn us - and there were so Goddamned many of them!"
I am simply repeating what he personally told me. There are many factors to consider when determining what constitutes the best fighter aircraft. The 262 was well armed, fast, and could climb quickly, but it had short legs, horribly unreliable engines, and was never present in numbers big enough to make any real impact. In this sense, I believe he was looking at the big picture, not just aircraft performance specs.
Colonel K - Allied fighters did best against the 262 when it was on the ground or just taking off. Doesn't matter how; destroying them was what was important. Gas turbines don't take .50BMG slugs very well.
Adolf Galland said the 109F -4 was the best 109 variant,maybe because of the lighter engine and better handling characteristics overall and was still quite fast.
Finally, are very well done video on the subject of BF109 .vs. P51D. I just want to add some remarks: One of the reasons, the Merlin engines where so formidable, is the fact, that the British had much better alloys at hand. In WW2, Britain essentially controlled the world supplies of Chromium, mostly dug up in Africa and India. So they could actually construct an engine of alloys, far better capable of resisting the enormous thermal stress when running at peak performance. If you care to check, you'll find that the Packard Merlin engines in the P51D compared to the late-war DB605AC series are actually very comparable in dry weight! With that large difference in displacement. So, the Merlin was a very compact but powerful engine, that could withstand very high thermal stress (both engines weigh about a metric ton each). So, given the advantage of higher-grade fuel, the allies actually had an engine to put the fuel at its best usage. Please note, that the British actually considered the development potential of the Merlin engine to be quite exploited, which triggered them to develop the Griffon engine with a displacement comparable to the DB605 series. The most important fact stated in the video however, is, that the P51D is a purpose-build machine - it was designed for escort engagements at high altitude and tuned to perfom best at that. This is in line with the american way of approaching the construction of any airplane: Look what is needed and build just that. The Wildcat's successor, the Hellcat, is probably the best example. Based on the experience gained in fighting the Zero in the pacific theatre in Wildcats, Grumman constructed the Hellcat, adressing every little shortcoming the Wildcat showed. As we all know, the Hellcat turned the tables in the pacific. The same goes for the P51D. The US needed a long range escort fighter protecting the bombers all the way. And the P51D did just that. It never had to be the best all around fighter and it wasn't. It was just perfect to do the job. And when it was done, it simply was produced in ridiculous numbers to overwhelm the Luftwaffe's defense. And it did just that. One has to acknowledge, that the concept of "build what you need, and build lots of it" was the winning strategy. The late BF109 G14 and K4's where surely a match for the P51D, but there were never enough of them. Add the better pilot training of the allies and the Luftwaffe never stood a chance.
virtfinity But the Mustang was built to RAF specifications and requirements by North American Aviation NOT Us army air force requirements but was a total disaster until fitted with a Rolls Royce engine
You are correct. IIRC, North American Aviation was actually concepting the P51, when the British approached them to have them build the P-40 for the RAF. It was actually build for the RAF, but not to RAF specifications. They wanted the P-40 (which was at the time the only effective land-based figther in the US), and NAA convinced them of the P51. However, the initial P51's were entirely different beasts and nothing comparable to the P51D, which is more or less, what this video is about. Modern folklore goes, that only the Merlin engine turned the P51 into a formidable plane. However, this is not the complete picture. Until mid-1943, the P51 lacked the range. It was then fitted with an extra 80+ gallon (IIRC...) fueltank behind the pilot, severely putting the plane off balance. A fully fuled P51-D was more than a handful to get off the ground. And until you essentially "flew off" the fuel of the extra fuel-tank, it was a fat duck. Same goes for the wing. The laminar flow wing tried to capitalize on the boundry-layer effect to significantly reduce drag. This required a very smooth surface on the wing to create the boundry-layer at high speeds. Until late 1943, P51 wing production did not yield the smoothness required to make the laminar flow wing actually working as expected. So, to sum up, the P51 was only turned into a very effective figther, when fitting the plane with the Merlin engine specified for high altitude operation and added a massive fuel tank for range, as well as fixing initial production quality issues. All these modifications were introduced after the US air force requested a long range escort fighter after seeing heavy losses in 1943. Until it was purpose-modified for it's role, there was nothing special about the P51 as a fighter (except the laminar flow wing). And even after the successful modifications, it only excelled in its role as a long-range high-altitude escort figther. Which is my point: design the weapon you need. Not the weapon you dream of. Please note, that I do not want to discredit the P51's reputation. It's just not "the best fighter of WW2". It's rather a very good example on how to execute a war-winning strategy to its fullest extend.
I am in agreement with you; the video is superb and full of well-weighed information. I would like to add to your explanation(that the P-51 was custom designed to beat German interceptors at the B-17's operating altitude), that the British, in developing the Merlin engine, used "test-until-fail" to engineer it, making it just about unbreakable. Having access to all those fabulous alloys - as you described - made it seem like the US Army Air Corps custom ordered a "war-winning fighter plane." Thanks for your comment.
Interesting and informative. My father was Major Richard 'Pete' Peterson of the 357th FG. He flew several P-51Bs and P-51D's. He got into a Lufberry chase counterclockwise at tree top altitude with an Me109. I'm not sure which type P-51 or Me109, but he said he was at full throttle, banking as tight as he could, on the edge of a stall. He and the 109 maintained equal speed around the circle, and he could spot him on the opposite side of the circle through the top of his canopy. He dropped his flaps 10 degrees, got more lift, was able to cut a tighter radius circle, and slowly gained on the 109. He continued to pass over him on the inside of the Lufberry circle, slowly gaining a position slightly forward of and 'above' the 109. He said when he could look out the right side of his cockpit and frame the top of the 109 in the corner between his right wing and the fuselage, he began firing his guns. Due to the high speed, tight circle, the shells appeared to fly under his P-51 and spattered into the top of the 109 (each of the shells were actually flying straight out and the 109 was flying into them). He said his bullet stream looked like water out of a garden hose. He wiggled his rudder back and forth, and the shells crisscrossed through the canopy. The 109 snap-rolled and blew up in a ball of fire in the tree tops. I tell you this story because he felt the dogfight was a fairly even match for speed at the treetop altitude. He had another story where he chased an Me262 jet in a full throttle dive at high altitude in his P-51D. He hit compressibility with his air speed indicator at 700mph on the last peg of the gauge at approximately 20,000 to 22,000 feet. He lost control of his stick which flopped loose in the cockpit with no effect. To regain control, he threw the prop pitch in low (coarse), which over-revved the engine beyond the redline, but it broke up the air and he regained control. He pulled out of the high-speed dive with his trim tabs to avoid tearing off the wings. Thought you might appreciate his other aerobatics at speed.
Thank you from a layman for the very interesting, easy to understand, comprehensive and comparative report. I was very fortunate to visit U.K.'s Elvington Air Base (Yorkshire?) and it was exciting to see the BF 109, Spitfire, Hurricane, Halifax bomber, Meteor, etc. right up close and with photos taken. I was also thrilled to view and look into the cockpit of a restored P-51 Mustang at an air show here in Van Nuys, CA. Also crawled through a B-17 (not as spacious as one would think) with a neighbor who was a WWII B-17 waist gunner. A wonderful American patriot and great man. I still miss him.
Maybe I missed it in this video but the P-51 Radiator design recovered about 200 HP in flight as the heated exhaust air due to clever ducting and using the expansion of the heated air actually came out faster then it went in so the waste heat was turned into thrust , also the Allies had a secrete weapon named Stanley Hooker who rewrote the book on supercharging and applied it to the Merlin engine to increase its performance above 20.000 FT which is why the Merlin was the engine it was , at low altitudes the Allision 1710 was quite a bit stronger but its supercharger was not effective above say 23.000 FT , in the P-38 it was helped by a turbocharger feeding it and was a good high altitude engine. But the P-51's advantage was lower drag due to the laminar flow wing, better supercharging at altitude and horsepower recovery due to the radiator . It was also a five year newer design .
I think you may have missed the part of the video where I said I would cover airframe issues in another video. The P-51s radiator configurations will be covered another time, but that effect of using heat to recover power is NOT unique to the P-51, The Hurricane had it, so did later 109s, and some Russian planes. As for Stanley Hooker who you say "rewrote the book on supercharging" I disagree, but that's a complex topic I'll cover another time.
Very informative. For someone like myself who does not know the technical details but understands the economic supply chain, this makes things much clearer! Thanks for posting!
The Mustang photo used at the beginning of the video looks to be a post WWII P-51H/F-51H with the tall tail, or maybe a Mustang built by Cavalier even later...
That's true. As I have a limited amount of my own pictures and free to use historical images, I'll have to sub in pictures that are close, but sometime not exact. For example a P51H for a P51D. I'll only do it if it doesn't effect the narrative or facts of the video.
Great video presentation. Clear easy to understand voice. I watched it kill some time, and found it very enjoyable. Why do people still watch TV when there's stuff like this online? Thanks. Thumbs up and subscribed!
You have an eye for detail. The pictured DB601 used roller bearings. The material for bush bearing wasn't that advanced when the engine was designed. The successor the DB605, which was used in the G-Model used bush bearings.
this is a very comprehensive compilation of interesting facts showcasing the attributes of each plane engine operating at different altitudes. I thoroughly enjoyed viewing this video.
Water injection was common on US fighters. I know the P 47 definitely had it. I thought the p51 was also equipped with water injection. My father passed away four years ago he was an Army air Corps pilot. He told me about water injection. In fact he had a kit added to his truck in the early 80s. He was pulling a travel trailer. The engine would knock in the summertime when pulling hills. He put the water injection kit on his truck to cool the cylinder head temperature’s and increase the octane. It worked very good. Nowadays people don’t have those issues. turbo diesel pick up trucks were not available at the time.
Water injection is alive and well in both performance automobiles, and in aircraft. The P47 did indeed use it. The P51D did not. However the P51H did, but it never saw combat in WW2 it arrived too late.
it should be noted, however, that P-51Hs _were_ supplied to squadrons in the Pacific, so while they never say combat, they were, for all intents and purposes, ready for combat before the end.
Holy crap! How did you ever learn all of this? I love this old planes and it was an amazing listen. Now I have to go find a vid with a good Merlín sound to round out this experience! Thank you!
Books most likely. There have been books printed about all WWII aircraft from the day the war ended until today. Just takes a lot of reading and combining sources.
on the 4360s used on the C-97,we had wet and dry take-off modes.Wet was a direct injection of alcohol and water into each of the 28 cylinders for cooling at max take-off power with a subsequent increase in manifold pressure and .power without detination.Thank's for the video as it brought back memories 50 years old.
One comment in favor of the ME (Bf) 109. It was cheap to manufacture, much cheaper than the Mustang or Spitfire. The Germans did a great job designing it for easy manufacture. I read that an Me-109 was 30% cheaper to build than a comparable model Spitfire-at that time it was a dramatic difference.
Yes, that sounds very familiar. I also saw one of the WW2 videos that compared the ME-109 -vs- Spitfire - a comparison of 1) cost to produce; 2) time to produce; and 3) comparison of time required for battle-field maintenance. What I remember is the ME-109 was 1/3 the cost of producing a Spitfire ; took 1/3 the time to produce; and 3) took 1/3 the time for battle-field maintenance. From what I recall, in this case, the engineers took all of this into consideration during design phase, to speed up maintenance in the battle field, to make easier access for mechanics and fitters etc. And recall it was pointed out that some of that technology went on to be used in post war commercial aircraft (such as quick release access doors on hinges as opposed to large #'s of screws securing panels on Spitfires, Mustangs's etc). I wish I could remember what program/video that was.
I love reading and watching videos about world war two and the equipment used. But this is a case of the more you know the more you realize how little you know. Great video. I am but dipping my toe into history of world war two equipment you sir are the master.
@@AmazingBilldo I have worked with N2O like the GM-1 program. Also the methanol/water combo is used in a lot of Turbo race applications. Quality of fuel makes a big difference. We use a race fuel that has slower burn in N2O and super/turbocharge applications. Just to have a 130 and 150 octane for P51is amazing
Greg your videos are just fantastic! I wish such easy access to this sort of information was available when i wore a younger mans clothes! Thanks for your efforts, i look forward to any future content you make for us.
An interesting book: "Mustang Designer: Edgar Schmued and the P-51" by Ray Wagner. Learn how a pre-war German immigrant designed the P-51 initially for the British, according to their specifications. Engineer Edgar Schmeud was not even a pilot. He got his first ride in a Mustang in 1981. Like many another genius, Schmeud was rewarded by being later ostracized by his own industry.
In all design, all innovation, all invention, it starts with a single individual and an Eureka moment, then blood, sweat and tears. Then others go...... hmmmm....what about this...and this and that and soon ..... but it all begins with the Eureka moment. I am blessed to hold several US Patents in various areas of Engineering and 949 Patents World Wide. Most gratifying are the Patents of others that build on, what my Aerospace Industry Patent Attorney's termed, my "Teaching Patents". The United States owes the greatest gratitude to those Founders, and Ben Franklin in particular whose intellectual accomplishments drove the need for the US Patents and Trademarks Office. Religion frees the Soul. Education, Intelligence and Thinking Frees the Mind. What Frees the Body? Well, Sam Colt made men equal.....more or less. The real problem today is not just Physical intimidation but a concerted effort to create a Mental intimidation, a Spiritual intimidation and an intimidation of connecting with like minded individuals. Pay attention to the plots and subplots in media. The Nazis Herman Goebbles would be proud. It seems we are spoon fed. Each of us must look inward to find what we love, what guides us, what makes us complete. One place it is not is external to you. Think of those things as Spiritual Food. What you love to do, what you want to be, what goals do you set for your self. That is the pearl, the diamond of this Country. You decide who you are, what you want to be. It is all on you and never let yourself be talked out of it. You may not win but you gave it your best and your all. Remember there were just as many losers as winners of any Championship match. But it doesn't mean they weren't talented. It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all. Behold the men who have stepped into the Arena, to have known the Sounds of the crowd, or the sweet fruit of creative thought, who have known victory and defeat and who, at that one moment, understood the meaning of it all.
Terry ON Yeah, but we have always had those. Sad, but nothing changes.....but this country does offer a Chance. We will see. I always enjoyed the aircraft of WW2.
Here had to be a drag advantage as well. The p51 was a bigger airplane, so there would be more parasite drag, but it was still faster. So it had t be more aerodynamically refined, which is generally accepted to be the case. But I was not aware of the hp advantage, which is really interesting.
More Power to You Mr.Greg. I did too. BumLeg for now holds me back,but I Really miss the Comeradery... I say Mister in All Due Respect... To Fly is to Live...
Thank Jimmy Doolittle, phd. He pushed for the development of high octane fuels in the 30s when he worked for Shell. He knew that the us aircraft would be at a disadvantage if they didn't have those fuels. Just another of his many contributions, along with the worlds first instrument landing, Schneider trophy, many American air races etc etc. A great man.
Great vid, especially since you answered my question what was picking up the air coming through the P-51 air scoop. I googled it, but they only said there was a radiator back there. Huge difference that it was an aftercooler!
Being a retired Diesel Mechanic, that was so interesting. My understanding of turbos, manifold pressures, blowers and the like, didn't have me to lost on this video. I'm hooked and subscribed !!! 👍👍👍👍
Learned so much from this video. I've read a bunch of WWII books and never realized the huge octane difference existed. I'm forced to run 91 octane (R+M/2) fuel that's oxygenated in my car and am so jealous of those with access to cheaper 93 octane. The gearing of the superchargers is pretty deep, but you clearly show the trade offs and reasons why it worked. Great work & I look forward to watching your other videos.
The US War Department had all gasoline engines adapted to use 80 octane gas so more antiknock compounds would be available for aviation fuel. The refineries also were instructed to find ways to raise the octane without using additional lead compounds.
ouou la vous parlez du Emile en 44 45 c'est le G10 et après le K4 en version lisse il se comparaît au mustang avec son moteur Anglais et le FW 190D avec son moteur de 1750 cv supplanté le Mustang
I recall reading that the drag to lift ratio of the Mustang was something like 13.8% while the Bf-109G's was around 18%. In a dog fight drag might not be a negative though. Being able to slow down and have your opponent zoom past you because they cannot slow down as fast is a tactic.
DZ: True but once you have lost that energy, you are then at a disadvantage until you can regain it. Losing energy is one trick pony (for at least a bit of time).
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
The disparity in available octane 95 vs up to 150, was all the more reason for the Luftwaffe to forget totally about piston engine power plants and focus solely on jet engines, which can basically burn anything from kerosene, diesel - you name it and octane rating simply doesnt matter at all to a jet engine.
That's absolutely true, a Jet engine solves this and many other problems.
Allies had high a octanes only so to say Germany prop planes were slow is a joke. Germany didn’t have Texas oil folks and very often ran out of fuel that German bombers were grounded in 1944
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles they didn't have the alloys. The story of how the Russians tried to steal samples on a visit to Rolls Royce is hilarious. They even tried sticky shoes to pic up swarf. Rolls Royce actually scattered an inferior alloy on the floor! Rolls Royce was ordered to give Russia the design by a labour Government . Politicians didn't think about the alloys!
@@garyseeseverything8615 Prescott Bush (Allen Dulles C.I.A. George “Poppy” - [Heroine? Or Pete Owe?] - Bush’s [Sr. 1st President Bush] Gramps) sure helped all he could. These people, it’s all a game to them. All those lives. Meaningless to these psychopaths and their Ratschild Masters.
@@garyseeseverything8615 doesn't matter why at this point, slower is slower
“No replacement for displacement”
P-51: hold my manifold pressure
Kilroy gets it.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
Kilroy was here
That quote mstly refers to arguments about engine speeds and valve trains. This was before widespread forced induction on cars, and what forced induction they had was pretty primitive. Basically, it was American large bore big blocks vs smaller V8s like the 327 and European sports car engines like the Jaguar inline six.
and of course that quote comes from the world of drag racing, where performance off the line is critical. Displacement is much less crucial in other forms of racing where engines can run in their designed power band at most times, and where smaller displacement can win you races because of fewer pit stops for fueling and better cornering due to reduced weight. A drag racer needs to accelerate from a stop to high speeds so the engine needs to produce a fat torque curve and plenty of power over a wide band, whereas an aircraft engine can be designed to run at a constant speed for optimal power delivery, making it much simpler with fewer compromises (all engines benefit from being designed to run best one one speed, which is one reason petrol/diesel-electric or range-extender hybrids are so much more efficient. And CVTs, for the same reason). An automobile engine needs a lot of compromises to be able to run at many different speeds and power levels. So you are taking that quote out of context, and of course ignoring fuel quality issues. Boost makes a great replacement for displacement, unless you are stuck using barely 87 octane fuel, which cannot support more than marginal boost.
@@justforever96 I’m pretty sure the quote is from Bentley, who used much more powerful engines and heavier cars than his competition, for racing, back in the 20’s. The origin of the quote is not an American thing or linked to drag racing, even if today it’s associated with it.
There's no replacement for cfm.
That was the most technically detailed explanation of fighter plane capacity I've ever heard and likely will ever hear. Thanks.
See a few videos on my channel... The basics are badly misunderstood everywhere, including the obsession with speed... Speed gets you in front! In WWII combat that is often really bad...
This channel is full of them. Best place on the internet
In case anyone is wondering, 75 inches of mercury is about 38psi(2.6Atm) of boost and 42 inches is about 21psi(1.5Atm). Basically just divide the inches of mercury by two and you get the boost in PSI
That’s a lot of boost.
You've singlehandedly rekindled my interest in WW2 planes. Fantastic level of detail. Well done, sir.
So this video appeared on my RUclips Recommendation Front Page today. I reluctantly clicked expecting trash and was rewarded with a superb video with technical and contextual information, without any of the shallow hyperbole and lack of focus of other "documentaries". All this information clearly explained for even a simpleton like me to understand and in a wonderful, clear voice too.
I have also watched the rest of the aircraft related videos and liked them too. Very impressive quality increase over the course of less than a year. Subbed and hoping for more, you know your stuff.
@@touristguy87 contrary to your pathetic assumption, Cannon is one of the few respected people in the flight Sim community. See any video related to the subject matter and you will see his comments that adds much more substance then your entire RUclips comments combined.
@@touristguy87 Yet another sad case of TDS ignorantly displayed proudly. Asif and Cannon were spot on with there analysis.
Seek help tourist.
I disagree with one regard. If the British refused to provide their engine the US would've invented and made a better engine but the plane would have been late to the war.
@@touristguy87 Yea, I don't think so. Think we would have innovated something late in the war. But, you go ahead and believe the US is filled with dumb hicks.
Also I do watch the speed channels. Anything worth doing is difficult.
touristguy87
By the end of WWII, radial engines were much preferred than inline engines. Radial engines were rugged had more range than the inline engines.
Both of these planes were amazing considering this was during the 1940s. Not only did the P-51 have to make up for a smaller displacement engine as compared to the 109, it also outweighed the 109 by about 4000 lbs, depending on the fuel load at the time the two tangled. That seems like an insurmountable advantage for the 109, but engineers were able to give Mustang pilots the upper hand...
the 109 was something like 8 years older then the mustang. In a time of such rapid development like wwIi that's like saying "its amazing that my computer is so much better then the one from 15 years ago"
Sure the 109 was updated continuously but there is only so much you can do with an old airframe / old engine
The Bf109 was about 8 years old at that point, and was limited by a severe lack of rare metals. The German engineers were the real underdogs.
Uuuh... no! The British Merlin engine was the difference.
@@mikespencer4922 no one said it wasn't?
@@theacme3The 109 was completely rebuilt a number of times but kept the same model number. Compare to say the Yak-1/3/7/etc which were also arguably just as related to each other as the 109 family, but were given different model numbers.
Likewise the Spitfire was massively redeveloped several times. Compare the Spitfire 1 to the Seafire 47 (the final operational development of the Spit). Identifiably part of the same family, but from a performance standpoint, night and day.
As far as "there's only so much you can do with an old airframe/old engine" - the Merlin dated to 1933! The DB600 family likewise went back to the early/mid 1930s.
So, the best liquid cooled Allied aero engine was, by the end of the war, 12 years old in terms of its first operation. It was a fantastic platform, as was the DB600 family, and each was able to be developed to levels their original designers probably never imagined.
Excellent video. You broke it down just as my powerplants instructor did way back when I started my Naval aviation days. I laughed at, "if there's one thing a superchargers love, it's being fed by another supercharger." Well said, sir.
So, I thought I would share some fascinating statistics with you guys regarding likes vs. dislikes of this video. Regarding people who have clicked, 100% of the people in Paraguay Dislike this video. That's fascinating. They have broadband internet in Paraguay... Over in Slovenia, 50% of the people disliked this video. Next we have Finalnd at 40% dislikes. I didn't see that one coming. Malta and Czechia and Serbia are coming in at 33% dislike, and Norway is coming in at 19%.
Now, let's look at the Likes, at 100% likes we have France, Austria, Poland, Mexico, Italy, Israel, Ireland, Hungary, Switzerland, and the Philippines. The US rate is 98%, the UK 97% and Germany 86%.
Why so many dislikes, may be people don't like historical learning stuff!
Hmm... Interesting. But I'd be interested to know how many folks viewed this video from each country... Maybe that one guy in Paraguay is just a real cranky SOB. :) Flippancy aside, I do understand why someone might *not* click the like button on a video like this... Maybe it was too technical for that person. But why click the dislike button? It's not like you had some click-bait title that mischaracterized the content.
Slovenia?!! Maybe Melania Trump didn’t like it? Anyway, those results are _very_ strange.
Maybe people with English as their first language show more likes?
Wow, what a superb series of videos and explanations. Very, very interesting an informative.
Greg, a technically complete whilst still understandable treatment of the topic - Bravo !
Man, you make a great mechanics instructor, history teacher and technical narrator, all in one.
I came across this video after watching an episode of Hogan's Heroes.
I met the head engineer who designed the P51, and he told me That the air scoop, on the bottom of that aircraft actually made the aircraft 5 miles an hour faster, than without it! That was good designing!
Seems a bit doubtful, because any extra bulk, creates drag. But the performance increase is explained by the Meredith Effect.
Meredith effect paper of 1935, but it took NAA, GALCIT & NACA until late 1943 to get the ducting right and of course a merlin 66 engine.
One of the biggest differences was that the Bf109 first flew in 1935 and the P51 in 1940. And yes, in that era 5 years made that much difference. The time difference between the Hurricane and the Gloster Gladiator was only three years. And the gap between the Hurricane and the Spitfire was only one year and yet they are completely different technologies. The gap between the Gladiator and the Meteor was seven years. So the time gap between the Bf109 and the P51 is half the time between the Gladiator and the Meteor.
No question the P51 benefited from the passage of time after the 109 was developed. I actually discuss that quite a bit in my video about the 109's short range. However, the point here is to show the technical reasons that the P51 was able to make more power with a smaller engine.
I'm still amazed that we went from biplane fighters to jets in ten years. You couldn't design and build an aircraft in that time nowadays :)
spacecadet35 he didn't compare the P-51 to the 109 A or its prototype
Touristguy87. The F16 was made 45 years ago. The USA's latest fighter has finally entered full production, even though it is not really operationally capable. Its programme started in 1992. From clean sheet to full production has only been 26 years. The preceding fighter was first started in 1986, had its first flight in 1997 and became operation in 2005. That only took 19 years. Time alone does not make an aircraft better, but when you are at the edge of technology it makes a big difference.
What you are talking about are programmes that are at least 40 years ago. That is over two generations of engineers in the past. At the moment, right now, with the current state of US politics, management and engineering, it would be hard for the USA to design and get a bird into production in less than 15-20 years.
My first thought upon reading the title: short answer, fuel.
Now I'll watch and see what you say.
I agree, the higher octane fuel allowed for higher manifold pressure resulting in more power for the motor. the aftercooler and dual stage supercharger were icing on the cake.
@@manchu9inf 👍
Fascinating. I have been studying WW2 for decades. I had no idea whatsoever about the octane differences in the aviation fuel AND the effect this would have on performance.
Plus, all the other factors you mentioned were also fascinating and very well explained (imo).
Thank you for this video.
@ McRocket Jesus. That's a hell of a confession. Might want to improve the quality of your library.
This is the way man should learn history! Respect!
Amazing Details which made the difference.
I love your presentation of dry facts combined with the well informed commentary. Some of my favorite YT content!
@Jay Jay A real Wehraboo in the flesh?! I thought you guys were a myth.
It doesn't matter. Your team lost and the world is better for it.
It seems like the late me 109 variants, the late G and K was quite equal to the P51-D as you mentioned in the end of this video. For a fighter that was of the first generation of monoplane, all metal types that is really mind blowing. To be both the start and the end of monoplane piston engine fighter evolution is almost unthinkable when considering the technological development of warfare between 1930 and 1945.
The 109 and the German ingenuity used to keep it competitive was very impressive.
Agreed. Improvised and improved instead of replacing was smart.
The G and K variants could hold their own against the best of the allied planes.
I'm a fan of WW2 warbirds and the bravery of the pilots in them.
I never fell for the P51 hype. Its great but not my favorite. Id prefer a Hellcat or a jug. 😂
These days, you rarely even see the enemy. Just a radar signature.
@@HappyHermitt I prefer the p51 it literrally changed the war
@@shiviree Not really. It was a great plane, but its importance has been vastly overstated.
@@shivireeso did all other planes
Most people are aware of the problems Germany had in maintaining a supply of fuel for their war effort, but until now I had never thought about the quality of it. Incredibly insightful, great video.
I'm very tired of videos/articles which purport to be informative and technical and tell us only what most of us would regard as general knowledge, or know already. Your video was superb. Hugely interesting and instructive. Loved it. More power to your elbow.
You sound very professional and seem to know what you're talking about. That's pretty hard to find on RUclips nowadays. Subscribed.
Was good to learn the difference between the -3 and -7. I hear some about these versions in today’s warbird circuit, but wasn’t ever able to glean what separates the two.
This was incredibly interesting! A couple questions arise in my mind from this: say the Luftwaffe had come up w/ a supply of 130 or 150 octane fuel: could the -109 G1 & -109 G6 safely run it & achieve higher manifold pressures? Or was the DB605 simply not capable? The next question is just how close a match was the -109 G14 & -109 K? How many of them made it to the Luftwaffe before war’s end?
There's no reason the engine wouldn't have been capable. Fuel availability was the primary limiting factor. The US had an abundance of quality oil and refineries at home, well out of reach of enemy bombers while Germany did not.
Yes the German engines were much more powerful and better built with good fuel they could have and did with proper fuel produce ton more power they were higher compression and quality engines it was mass production that helped us win
It was German. A look at pre-war achievements by Mercedes & Auto Union, BMW, etc, should prove that this meant something. BMW took the Isle of Man from Norton, Grand Prix racing was dominated by Silver (Duestche) cars. There was a lot of reason why the NSDAP were quick to fund, quick to associate themselves with, and ultimately appropriate the expertise of men who deserved better leaders.
Any engine, or machine, is the sum of it's components. And this video goes to show that it really starts at fuel.
Germany became so desperate, Anne Frank wrote of bicycles riding on wood in place of tires. Because rubber had been confiscated along with other oil-based goods for the production of synthetic gasoline / diesel, which also used coal. Allied Bombing of what oil Hitler controlled demanded this, and would've been a factor in his invasion of the USSR for it's Baku oil fields.
It wasn't just the Carriers that Japan failed to attack on December 7. It was also all of Honolulu's oil reserves for the Pacific fleet.
Fuel decided WWII as much as the Atomic Bomb or Industrial Power.
A predominant reason for Hitler's fetish for dive bombers was Economy: The Luftwaffe could not afford the large scale, inaccurate bombing RAF & USAAF achieved with large formations of strategic bombers. Smaller, cheaper planes, able to drop sub-sequentially smaller payloads, but with greater accuracy, were his only tenable options to project air-to-ground power.
In short,
The Nazis made war when they could not afford to. Thankfully.
But all that said,
The Messers & Fockes were as good as their opposition.
It's the fuel that failed them.
@@honkhonkler7732 lol
@@honkhonkler7732 not to mention it was the US who developed the high octane fuel thanks to the foresight and insistence of Jimmy Doolittle at shell oil
Excellent coverage and explanation I have 4500 + hours on my logbook and I always had an interest in warplanes and history anything from Lancaster to B-29 and all the others. I had a privilege to fly with a WW2 Lancaster Pilot ( he did private instruction for Multi IFR and did my multi -instrument rating for me) . Thank you for your post very informative excellent representation !
The Bf109 was a much older aircraft, and especially in wartime technology tech gains come quickly.A Better question is why is the Me-109 a much better fighter than the Brewster Buffalo, as both aircraft debuted the same year.
I think my viewers are looking for a more detailed explanation than "it's faster because it's newer".
I'm just saying its not really a fair comparison, but I do take your point.
I hear you David. Think of it this way, it's not about what's fair, it's about history, and P51Ds fought 109Gs a lot, so fair or not, it's a valid historical comparison.
Agreed a true historical comparison.
How come the Brewster Buffalo, in terms of numbers of enemy planes shot down versus production number of Buffalos built, is the most successful fighter of all time.
excellent video. I dont know how youtube ended up recommending it to me, but i came across it. This level of technicality and details is what i was looking for for a long period of time ! Thanks !
Man... What a great find your channel is, a rare kind. Pure drama-free knowledge.
Thank you for a great video! Just a comment of the DB605 engine at 18:30 in the video... This engine was license built close to Eskilstuna in Sweden, with an order of total 800 engines. The DB605 was used in the fighter SAAB J21 and in the bomber SAAB B18 during WWII.
I am curious how people are finding this video. Generally speaking, this channel gets very few view, and in the last 24 hours, it's been pretty busy. How are you guys coming across this?
Came here from recommended on the front page. I fly the A2A Simulations P-51 in Prepar3D and have read the P-51 manuals front to back couple times. Great video, good info. I didn't find any errors =)
Thanks!
It was on my recommended list on the first page . I do watch other wwii videos.
I was looking at Napier Aero engines and you popped up.I've Subscribed, well thought out and presented, plus some interesting comments from other viewers.
Cheers
Recommended on my home page topic list. I watch a lot of WW2 era vids, particularly aviation ones. Cheers Greg
Extremely good Greg, very well done. Superbly researched and well presented. Thank you. You are making a valuable contribution to preserving history.
WW2 was battle of oil. Even Operation Barbarossa was targeting mostly Russian oil fields because Venezuela was not in Europe. The lack of oil explained the Luftwaffe disasters, the lack of motorized units in German army, lack of mobility, lack of strategic air power. And it was same with Japanese problems. When thinking about WW2 never forget the oil.
Can't forget manpower either. All the fully fueled King Tigers and Me-262's in the world aren't any use with nobody to crew them
That's why US is hunting for oil up to this day
Yes, oil was a critical resource, but remember that Germany had not mastered mass production techniques which explained a number of their problems. Each tank had many handcrafted parts and to repair them in the field required custom fitting. The US was really the world expert in mass production and sent a number of experts to Russian to help them learn the techniques. The Germans could not even mass produce simpler equipment like trucks. The US outproduced the combined output of all other combatants, including Allies and Axis countries in WW 2. Also, the British and the Americans developed much of the leading technologies that provided them with major advantages. Some are well known like Radar and some are less famous such as the proximity fuse for anti-aircraft cannons that gave the US and Allies a huge advantage over the Japanese. The proximity fuse increased the anti-aircraft effectiveness by a matter of factors not simply percentages, it was also a top-secret weapon and its use was initially limited to ships so none of the unexploded technology could be recovered. Finally, the US industrial output was begun to be limited in 1944 because they had created enough surplus that the industrial output was beginning to be shifted back to consumer goods. The Kaiser team actually produced a Liberty ship in less than five days as mostly a publicity stunt and a bet with another manufacturer.
If Hitler allowed his Generals to run the Eastern front, it would have been totally different. The delay towards Moscow after Smolensk due to Hitler re-directing many divisions to other theaters doomed the Germans. The delay allowed the Russians to bring in new divisions and build up defenses. Also, Guderian wanted to use paratroopers earlier in the Eastern war but was over ruled by Hitler.
@@pigfarmer9946 Even if they managed to take Moscow what difference would it make ? The Soviets certainly would not surrende justr because of that
Not enough videos on the engineering aspect of these aircrafts! You are doing great work.
What a breath of fresh air(deliberate pun) your approach to the subject is. It's detailed and balanced in it's analysis, in a professional and thorough way.
I don't miss the synthesizer "music" at all. Many thanks for a good job.... (subd)
Like you channel, it's like talking at the flying club bar after a meeting with pilots and mechanics. Love of aviation and all that. Great stuff.
5:30 you know youre rich when your butler has a butler
Greg, I 'feel' smarter every time I wrap up listening to you. Thank you for that!
After this video you are now the number one man I’d like to have a beer with.
Greg, that was a very good explanation of a very interesting but technically complex topic.. I thought that I had a pretty good handle on the P-51 and the Bf-109, well it seems that I still have a lot to learn. You have obviously put in a lot of deep research for this and other videos and you definitely deserve more views, thumbs up and subscribers, so I have done my part to boost those numbers.
Thanks Mark. I appreciate that comment.
Mark Frye
Mark Fryer I
Bf109 was among the first of the mono-wing fighter aircraft. Look at what the US was building around that time such as the Curtiss P-36 Hawk, or the Brit's, too. Hawker Hurricane still had a fuselage made partially of fabric-covered wood framing. Long after that bombers still had fabric-covered control surfaces. There was incremental advance in performance until everything changed with the jet engine.
On the contrary . It is a very stupid question. Anyone who knows their aircraft history will tell you that you are not comparing apples with apples.
Only tripped over this by accident, I got linked to your videos as I was watching a lot of Kermit Weeks videos and was watching his one on the 109 restoration.
I subscribed as I really enjoy the technical content and factual nature of the videos.
Great addition to the history records of these and other famous aircraft. I have never heard these issues discussed, before, You have answered a lot and I hope to find more of your videos.
Thanks George, I have a lot of videos, I hope you like the others too.
This is the best explanation of the interactions of supercharger drives/staging and charge cooling and the interaction of supercharging/boost/octane and the supplements water/methanol and nitrous oxide I have found on you tube. This is a MOST complex and difficult subject to find information on and to understand. Very well done sir. Subscribed and liked !
Thanks Roy, I really appreciate your kind remarks.
p47 do the job , destroying tanks bridges railroads trucks boats …………..everythings !!! , with or without p51 a flight of 1000 flying fortress can't be stopped by 100 bf109/fw190 or 50 me262 …...
A well-described analysis, with just the right (for me) level of detail.
Greg's knowledge is very impressive! Great videos. Thanks for your time and effort.
Thank you. Great video! My late wife's dad was an MP in the USAAF. I had an uncle on my dad's side who was RAF and flew in a Handley-Page Halifax. He was lost over Germany late in the war. As a boy, I lived in Machinato Heights, Okinawa. When we lived in Germany my BFF's dad had been a German soldier(from Yugoslavia)
That cutaway of the DB109 V-12 shows knife-and-fork con rods, just like a Harley!
5:46 Finally, the answer to the age old question regarding superchargers!
Everything was so clear - even my wife watched your videos (3) with me
:) Thanks. Melbourne. Australia.
I found this upload to be fantastically informative as to the why's in the comparison of speed/power of the Mustang/109's in the European theatre during WWII. I'm a guy that hot-rods everything he gets his hands on and I found the octane ratings, supercharger setups, water/alcohol injection, nitrous oxide, etc extremely valuable. I set up a hopped up Ford 460 25 years ago to tow a camper and used high compression, recurved timing, free-flowing intake/exhaust, spot-on carb tuning, water/alcohol injection, and gearing to produce an engine that developed very good horsepower and made 11-12 mpg fully loaded Ford van pulling a big camper at 70 mph. When driving just the van with wife, 4 kids and tent-camping equipment, it would make 19-21 mpg at 70+ mph. No one would believe it but I keep very exacting records of everything(anal engineer). I also used a tight converter to limit driveline loss. I considered nitrous oxide injection but it was not cost effective for what I was doing. I had forged pistons and magnafluxed rods, as well as open-chamber heads so the engine would have tolerated it but I had enough power as it was. Thanks for the upload.
Wow, awesome in depth video. Learned a lot of new stuff, even being a history fanatic (especially WW2), I never really knew much of the technical stuff behind the P51. Keep up the good work, your channel deserves more subs.
Looks like we all can learn a little more about what we thought we knew. Outstanding information on our history. Shalom
Very nice history on the P-51D and the BF-109!
Loved this video. Im finishing up A&P school and i love WW2 planes. Now i can understand everything about your videos. Keep them coming pls
What an interesting comparison with both aircraft. It is good to look deeper into capability with both of these dueling for the skies aircraft. The documentaries and movies always portray the P51 the clear winner and although it was a better design there are definitely merits for both aircraft. Thank you.
I was amazed at 18:00 with the excellent engine cutaway. I have always wondered about a few things about not just this engine, but any and all inverted "V" and 12 cylinder engines in general. Truly "Tomato Can" pistons. No wonder they produced in excess of 100+ HP per cylinder. More amazing was the 1930s technology that produced this and the Merlin, etc. Truly a case of an unsung art form meeting technology. Try to imagine the day they came up with a way to fire a 20mm cannon through the center of the propeller hub. Pretty smart.
After you walk through the giant entry hall at the Imperial War Museum and get to the exhibits on the 2nd Floor, the first thing you see is a Rolls Merlin mounted on a stand, and it's simply beautiful...
You are lecturing on an incredible level!
Both in terms of learned and practical Expertise and in educative Storytelling!
You’re providing an involving, powerful and passionate kind of Engineers’ Poetry…!
Two great planes, for sure. And while I like the Mustang, I love the Messerschmitt. First model plane I ever built, lol!Great videos!
This is a great video series.... Fascinating, methodical in explanatory strength.
Excellent and informative video. I was aware of the fuel and supercharger advantages in the Mustang, but the devil is in the details, and you made an otherwise dull subject quite interesting. As an aside, I met Adolf Galland in 1981and asked him what he considered to be the best fighter of WWII. He replied, "That would have to be the P-51 Mustang. It could out-run us, out-climb us, out-dive us, out-turn us - and there were so Goddamned many of them!"
Great Post Colonel.
Adolf Galland said the best fighter of the WWII was the Me262,
I am simply repeating what he personally told me. There are many factors to consider when determining what constitutes the best fighter aircraft. The 262 was well armed, fast, and could climb quickly, but it had short legs, horribly unreliable engines, and was never present in numbers big enough to make any real impact. In this sense, I believe he was looking at the big picture, not just aircraft performance specs.
Colonel K - Allied fighters did best against the 262 when it was on the ground or just taking off. Doesn't matter how; destroying them was what was important. Gas turbines don't take .50BMG slugs very well.
Neither do I. :)
Man oh man, I must say that I learned a lot from your video. Far more than I ever expected. Superb science contained in your work. THANK YOU.
Adolf Galland said the 109F -4 was the best 109 variant,maybe because of the lighter engine and better handling characteristics overall and was still quite fast.
Finally, are very well done video on the subject of BF109 .vs. P51D. I just want to add some remarks:
One of the reasons, the Merlin engines where so formidable, is the fact, that the British had much better alloys at hand. In WW2, Britain essentially controlled the world supplies of Chromium, mostly dug up in Africa and India. So they could actually construct an engine of alloys, far better capable of resisting the enormous thermal stress when running at peak performance.
If you care to check, you'll find that the Packard Merlin engines in the P51D compared to the late-war DB605AC series are actually very comparable in dry weight! With that large difference in displacement. So, the Merlin was a very compact but powerful engine, that could withstand very high thermal stress (both engines weigh about a metric ton each). So, given the advantage of higher-grade fuel, the allies actually had an engine to put the fuel at its best usage.
Please note, that the British actually considered the development potential of the Merlin engine to be quite exploited, which triggered them to develop the Griffon engine with a displacement comparable to the DB605 series.
The most important fact stated in the video however, is, that the P51D is a purpose-build machine - it was designed for escort engagements at high altitude and tuned to perfom best at that. This is in line with the american way of approaching the construction of any airplane: Look what is needed and build just that. The Wildcat's successor, the Hellcat, is probably the best example. Based on the experience gained in fighting the Zero in the pacific theatre in Wildcats, Grumman constructed the Hellcat, adressing every little shortcoming the Wildcat showed. As we all know, the Hellcat turned the tables in the pacific.
The same goes for the P51D. The US needed a long range escort fighter protecting the bombers all the way. And the P51D did just that. It never had to be the best all around fighter and it wasn't. It was just perfect to do the job. And when it was done, it simply was produced in ridiculous numbers to overwhelm the Luftwaffe's defense. And it did just that.
One has to acknowledge, that the concept of "build what you need, and build lots of it" was the winning strategy. The late BF109 G14 and K4's where surely a match for the P51D, but there were never enough of them. Add the better pilot training of the allies and the Luftwaffe never stood a chance.
That's a great comment. Thank you.
virtfinity But the Mustang was built to RAF specifications and requirements by North American Aviation NOT Us army air force requirements but was a total disaster until fitted with a Rolls Royce engine
You are correct. IIRC, North American Aviation was actually concepting the P51, when the British approached them to have them build the P-40 for the RAF. It was actually build for the RAF, but not to RAF specifications. They wanted the P-40 (which was at the time the only effective land-based figther in the US), and NAA convinced them of the P51.
However, the initial P51's were entirely different beasts and nothing comparable to the P51D, which is more or less, what this video is about. Modern folklore goes, that only the Merlin engine turned the P51 into a formidable plane. However, this is not the complete picture. Until mid-1943, the P51 lacked the range. It was then fitted with an extra 80+ gallon (IIRC...) fueltank behind the pilot, severely putting the plane off balance. A fully fuled P51-D was more than a handful to get off the ground. And until you essentially "flew off" the fuel of the extra fuel-tank, it was a fat duck.
Same goes for the wing. The laminar flow wing tried to capitalize on the boundry-layer effect to significantly reduce drag. This required a very smooth surface on the wing to create the boundry-layer at high speeds. Until late 1943, P51 wing production did not yield the smoothness required to make the laminar flow wing actually working as expected.
So, to sum up, the P51 was only turned into a very effective figther, when fitting the plane with the Merlin engine specified for high altitude operation and added a massive fuel tank for range, as well as fixing initial production quality issues. All these modifications were introduced after the US air force requested a long range escort fighter after seeing heavy losses in 1943.
Until it was purpose-modified for it's role, there was nothing special about the P51 as a fighter (except the laminar flow wing). And even after the successful modifications, it only excelled in its role as a long-range high-altitude escort figther. Which is my point: design the weapon you need. Not the weapon you dream of.
Please note, that I do not want to discredit the P51's reputation. It's just not "the best fighter of WW2". It's rather a very good example on how to execute a war-winning strategy to its fullest extend.
Are you going to get into that again?
.
I am in agreement with you; the video is superb and full of well-weighed information. I would like to add to your explanation(that the P-51 was custom designed to beat German interceptors at the B-17's operating altitude), that the British, in developing the Merlin engine, used "test-until-fail" to engineer it, making it just about unbreakable. Having access to all those fabulous alloys - as you described - made it seem like the US Army Air Corps custom ordered a "war-winning fighter plane." Thanks for your comment.
Interesting and informative. My father was Major Richard 'Pete' Peterson of the 357th FG. He flew several P-51Bs and P-51D's. He got into a Lufberry chase counterclockwise at tree top altitude with an Me109. I'm not sure which type P-51 or Me109, but he said he was at full throttle, banking as tight as he could, on the edge of a stall. He and the 109 maintained equal speed around the circle, and he could spot him on the opposite side of the circle through the top of his canopy. He dropped his flaps 10 degrees, got more lift, was able to cut a tighter radius circle, and slowly gained on the 109. He continued to pass over him on the inside of the Lufberry circle, slowly gaining a position slightly forward of and 'above' the 109. He said when he could look out the right side of his cockpit and frame the top of the 109 in the corner between his right wing and the fuselage, he began firing his guns. Due to the high speed, tight circle, the shells appeared to fly under his P-51 and spattered into the top of the 109 (each of the shells were actually flying straight out and the 109 was flying into them). He said his bullet stream looked like water out of a garden hose. He wiggled his rudder back and forth, and the shells crisscrossed through the canopy. The 109 snap-rolled and blew up in a ball of fire in the tree tops. I tell you this story because he felt the dogfight was a fairly even match for speed at the treetop altitude.
He had another story where he chased an Me262 jet in a full throttle dive at high altitude in his P-51D. He hit compressibility with his air speed indicator at 700mph on the last peg of the gauge at approximately 20,000 to 22,000 feet. He lost control of his stick which flopped loose in the cockpit with no effect. To regain control, he threw the prop pitch in low (coarse), which over-revved the engine beyond the redline, but it broke up the air and he regained control. He pulled out of the high-speed dive with his trim tabs to avoid tearing off the wings. Thought you might appreciate his other aerobatics at speed.
Thank you from a layman for the very interesting, easy to understand, comprehensive and comparative report. I was very fortunate to visit U.K.'s Elvington Air Base (Yorkshire?) and it was exciting to see the BF 109, Spitfire, Hurricane, Halifax bomber, Meteor, etc. right up close and with photos taken. I was also thrilled to view and look into the cockpit of a restored P-51 Mustang at an air show here in Van Nuys, CA. Also crawled through a B-17 (not as spacious as one would think) with a neighbor who was a WWII B-17 waist gunner. A wonderful American patriot and great man. I still miss him.
Thanks for your post Koon, I enjoyed reading it.
Maybe I missed it in this video but the P-51 Radiator design recovered about 200 HP in flight as the heated exhaust air due to clever ducting and using the expansion of the heated air actually came out faster then it went in so the waste heat was turned into thrust , also the Allies had a secrete weapon named Stanley Hooker who rewrote the book on supercharging and applied it to the Merlin engine to increase its performance above 20.000 FT which is why the Merlin was the engine it was , at low altitudes the Allision 1710 was quite a bit stronger but its supercharger was not effective above say 23.000 FT , in the P-38 it was helped by a turbocharger feeding it and was a good high altitude engine. But the P-51's advantage was lower drag due to the laminar flow wing, better supercharging at altitude and horsepower recovery due to the radiator . It was also a five year newer design .
I think you may have missed the part of the video where I said I would cover airframe issues in another video. The P-51s radiator configurations will be covered another time, but that effect of using heat to recover power is NOT unique to the P-51, The Hurricane had it, so did later 109s, and some Russian planes. As for Stanley Hooker who you say "rewrote the book on supercharging" I disagree, but that's a complex topic I'll cover another time.
Thanks for using a human voice.
Beats speedy inaccurate dark skies
This is a seriously true comment
@Hoa Tattis That's right. So is pretty much everyone who posts videos. But unfortunately some like to use a robot voice...
@@brentfellers9632 Dark Skies is a hot piece of shit.
@@Phenom98 hey I’m just curious, but why do people hate dark skies? I just want to hear your side of the story, because I kind of like his stuff.
You popped up in my recommended videos. I do occasionally go on benders watching aircraft videos. Enjoyed your video, thank you!
Very informative. For someone like myself who does not know the technical details but understands the economic supply chain, this makes things much clearer! Thanks for posting!
The Mustang photo used at the beginning of the video looks to be a post WWII P-51H/F-51H with the tall tail, or maybe a Mustang built by Cavalier even later...
That's true. As I have a limited amount of my own pictures and free to use historical images, I'll have to sub in pictures that are close, but sometime not exact. For example a P51H for a P51D. I'll only do it if it doesn't effect the narrative or facts of the video.
The picture mentioned is a P-51D with the Cavalier conversion tail
The level of expertise and detail of the channel and comments is overwhelming .
Great video presentation. Clear easy to understand voice. I watched it kill some time, and found it very enjoyable. Why do people still watch TV when there's stuff like this online? Thanks. Thumbs up and subscribed!
2:57 German engine was mounted & working with roller bearings?Just Wow...
You have an eye for detail. The pictured DB601 used roller bearings. The material for bush bearing wasn't that advanced when the engine was designed. The successor the DB605, which was used in the G-Model used bush bearings.
can you tell me why this is surprising?
this is a very comprehensive compilation of interesting facts showcasing the attributes of each plane engine operating at different altitudes. I thoroughly enjoyed viewing this video.
Awesome video, absolutely loved it. Building a 1:48 BF 109G-10 while watching.
Yesssss.... it´s "BF" 109... Thanks for respecting this insignificant detail ....
Water injection was common on US fighters. I know the P 47 definitely had it. I thought the p51 was also equipped with water injection. My father passed away four years ago he was an Army air Corps pilot. He told me about water injection. In fact he had a kit added to his truck in the early 80s. He was pulling a travel trailer. The engine would knock in the summertime when pulling hills. He put the water injection kit on his truck to cool the cylinder head temperature’s and increase the octane. It worked very good. Nowadays people don’t have those issues. turbo diesel pick up trucks were not available at the time.
Water injection is alive and well in both performance automobiles, and in aircraft. The P47 did indeed use it. The P51D did not. However the P51H did, but it never saw combat in WW2 it arrived too late.
WMI is still used in the tuning community... i had it on my modified volvo.
Jeff Stone I have a water meth kit for my centrifugal supercharged C6Z. All the same principles apply. BMW M4 comp has it stock.
Modern turbo cars can get a meth kit for more boost.
it should be noted, however, that P-51Hs _were_ supplied to squadrons in the Pacific, so while they never say combat, they were, for all intents and purposes, ready for combat before the end.
Holy crap! How did you ever learn all of this?
I love this old planes and it was an amazing listen. Now I have to go find a vid with a good Merlín sound to round out this experience! Thank you!
Books most likely. There have been books printed about all WWII aircraft from the day the war ended until today. Just takes a lot of reading and combining sources.
on the 4360s used on the C-97,we had wet and dry take-off modes.Wet was a direct injection of alcohol and water into each of the 28 cylinders for cooling at max take-off power with a subsequent increase in manifold pressure and .power without detination.Thank's for the video as it brought back memories 50 years old.
A wonderful engineering history commentary! I'm hooked!
This is excellent! Taught me a lot of new things, earned a new subscriber!
One comment in favor of the ME (Bf) 109. It was cheap to manufacture, much cheaper than the Mustang or Spitfire. The Germans did a great job designing it for easy manufacture. I read that an Me-109 was 30% cheaper to build than a comparable model Spitfire-at that time it was a dramatic difference.
Yes, that sounds very familiar. I also saw one of the WW2 videos that compared the ME-109 -vs- Spitfire - a comparison of 1) cost to produce; 2) time to produce; and 3) comparison of time required for battle-field maintenance. What I remember is the ME-109 was 1/3 the cost of producing a Spitfire ; took 1/3 the time to produce; and 3) took 1/3 the time for battle-field maintenance. From what I recall, in this case, the engineers took all of this into consideration during design phase, to speed up maintenance in the battle field, to make easier access for mechanics and fitters etc. And recall it was pointed out that some of that technology went on to be used in post war commercial aircraft (such as quick release access doors on hinges as opposed to large #'s of screws securing panels on Spitfires, Mustangs's etc). I wish I could remember what program/video that was.
Phil well it would do if your using slave labour!
Bit of a rarity that as most german stuff was overcomplicated eg the tiger.
@@paulandsueroberts4121 not all of it was
I love reading and watching videos about world war two and the equipment used. But this is a case of the more you know the more you realize how little you know.
Great video. I am but dipping my toe into history of world war two equipment you sir are the master.
These videos are fantastic, thanks so much for providing them!
Nice commentary. I am involved in motorcycle drag racing and engine building and find the discussion of performance variations fascinating.
Sir, you have my respect. Nothing like trying to ride like your hair is on fire!
@@AmazingBilldo I have worked with N2O like the GM-1 program. Also the methanol/water combo is used in a lot of Turbo race applications. Quality of fuel makes a big difference. We use a race fuel that has slower burn in N2O and super/turbocharge applications. Just to have a 130 and 150 octane for P51is amazing
Greg your videos are just fantastic! I wish such easy access to this sort of information was available when i wore a younger mans clothes! Thanks for your efforts, i look forward to any future content you make for us.
This is a great video that goes in-depth but is still completely understandable. Job well done.
Excellent video , as a gear head . I find it very interesting .
An interesting book: "Mustang Designer: Edgar Schmued and the P-51" by Ray Wagner. Learn how a pre-war German immigrant designed the P-51 initially for the British, according to their specifications. Engineer Edgar Schmeud was not even a pilot. He got his first ride in a Mustang in 1981. Like many another genius, Schmeud was rewarded by being later ostracized by his own industry.
GOOD
He was only one of over 100 designers involved with the Mustang design.
In all design, all innovation, all invention, it starts with a single individual and an Eureka moment, then blood, sweat and tears.
Then others go...... hmmmm....what about this...and this and that and soon ..... but it all begins with the Eureka moment.
I am blessed to hold several US Patents in various areas of Engineering and 949 Patents World Wide. Most gratifying are the Patents of others that build on, what my Aerospace Industry Patent Attorney's termed, my "Teaching Patents".
The United States owes the greatest gratitude to those Founders, and Ben Franklin in particular whose intellectual accomplishments drove the need for the US Patents and Trademarks Office.
Religion frees the Soul.
Education, Intelligence and Thinking Frees the Mind.
What Frees the Body? Well, Sam Colt made men equal.....more or less.
The real problem today is not just Physical intimidation but a concerted effort to create a Mental intimidation, a Spiritual intimidation and an intimidation of connecting with like minded individuals. Pay attention to the plots and subplots in media.
The Nazis Herman Goebbles would be proud. It seems we are spoon fed. Each of us must look inward to find what we love, what guides us, what makes us complete. One place it is not is external to you. Think of those things as Spiritual Food. What you love to do, what you want to be, what goals do you set for your self. That is the pearl, the diamond of this Country. You decide who you are, what you want to be. It is all on you and never let yourself be talked out of it. You may not win but you gave it your best and your all. Remember there were just as many losers as winners of any Championship match. But it doesn't mean they weren't talented.
It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.
Behold the men who have stepped into the Arena, to have known the Sounds of the crowd, or the sweet fruit of creative thought, who have known victory and defeat and who, at that one moment, understood the meaning of it all.
Terry ON
Yeah, but we have always had those. Sad, but nothing changes.....but this country does offer a Chance. We will see.
I always enjoyed the aircraft of WW2.
Here had to be a drag advantage as well. The p51 was a bigger airplane, so there would be more parasite drag, but it was still faster. So it had t be more aerodynamically refined, which is generally accepted to be the case. But I was not aware of the hp advantage, which is really interesting.
Amazing narration, both in terms of technical detail, and flow.
More Power to You Mr.Greg. I did too. BumLeg for now holds me back,but I Really miss the Comeradery... I say Mister in All Due Respect... To Fly is to Live...
V
Fascinating, Well explained. I like the Myth busting. Cheers
Thank Jimmy Doolittle, phd. He pushed for the development of high octane fuels in the 30s when he worked for Shell. He knew that the us aircraft would be at a disadvantage if they didn't have those fuels. Just another of his many contributions, along with the worlds first instrument landing, Schneider trophy, many American air races etc etc. A great man.
Great vid, especially since you answered my question what was picking up the air coming through the P-51 air scoop. I googled it, but they only said there was a radiator back there. Huge difference that it was an aftercooler!
I enjoyed your video. It was very interesting. Thank you!
My dad flew P51Ds in WW2. He would have been interested in your video. Shame hes not around to ask about the war emergency power time limits
If only war thunder hired you the game would be enhanced somuch
YES!
I agree
Comparar un p51 con un bf.... Es ridículo... Es como comparar un Ford con un Mercedes benz!!! El p51 hacia el ridiculo
Come fly Warbirds.
Il2:Battle of Bodenplatte if you want more realistic and detailed ww2 birds, FM and DM
Being a retired Diesel Mechanic, that was so interesting. My understanding of turbos, manifold pressures, blowers and the like, didn't have me to lost on this video. I'm hooked and subscribed !!! 👍👍👍👍
Absolutely fascinating video!!!
Learned so much from this video. I've read a bunch of WWII books and never realized the huge octane difference existed. I'm forced to run 91 octane (R+M/2) fuel that's oxygenated in my car and am so jealous of those with access to cheaper 93 octane. The gearing of the superchargers is pretty deep, but you clearly show the trade offs and reasons why it worked. Great work & I look forward to watching your other videos.
The US War Department had all gasoline engines adapted to use 80 octane gas so more antiknock compounds would be available for aviation fuel. The refineries also were instructed to find ways to raise the octane without using additional lead compounds.
No laminar flow airfoil, no retractable tailwheel, and a strut braced horizontal stabilizer. Lots of drag.
I only focused on engine related issues in this video. The aerodynamic issues are at least equally complex and really need a separate video.
ouou la vous parlez du Emile en 44 45 c'est le G10 et après le K4 en version lisse il se comparaît au mustang avec son moteur Anglais et le FW 190D avec son moteur de 1750 cv supplanté le Mustang
I recall reading that the drag to lift ratio of the Mustang was something like 13.8% while the Bf-109G's was around 18%. In a dog fight drag might not be a negative though. Being able to slow down and have your opponent zoom past you because they cannot slow down as fast is a tactic.
DZ: True but once you have lost that energy, you are then at a disadvantage until you can regain it. Losing energy is one trick pony (for at least a bit of time).
Pete 913 b
These comparative facts are....simply OUTSTANDING.