Fly a P51 Mustang?

[Michael 182]

Something Dudley said in the Leaving Usenet thread got me thinking about
flying a P51. I found www.stallion51.com as an option. Does anyone have any
personal experience or know of any dual control Mustangs that offer a chance
to fly them?

Thanks,

Michael

[Dudley Henriques]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
> Something Dudley said in the Leaving Usenet thread got me thinking about
> flying a P51. I found www.stallion51.com as an option. Does anyone have
> any personal experience or know of any dual control Mustangs that offer a
> chance to fly them?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael

You will find Lee Lauderback's operation a very good one.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

[Marco Leon]

I happened to have called them for prices two weeks back. For a three-hour
package including preflight and debrief with 1 hour's flight time it will
run just under $3,000. That and a flight in an L-39 is on my list of things
to do before I die.

Marco Leon

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
> Something Dudley said in the Leaving Usenet thread got me thinking about
> flying a P51. I found www.stallion51.com as an option. Does anyone have
any
> personal experience or know of any dual control Mustangs that offer a
chance
> to fly them?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
>
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
> Something Dudley said in the Leaving Usenet thread got me thinking about
> flying a P51. I found www.stallion51.com as an option. Does anyone have
> any personal experience or know of any dual control Mustangs that offer a
> chance to fly them?

A friend of mine flew with them a few years ago, had a blast. I'm not aware
of any other places that offer dual-control Mustangs (or even two-seat
Mustangs, for that matter), but that's not to say they aren't out there (the
Stallion 51 web site says there are 11 others somewhere).

I've only heard good things about Stallion 51.

Pete

[gregg]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Something Dudley said in the Leaving Usenet thread got me thinking about
>> flying a P51. I found www.stallion51.com as an option. Does anyone have
>> any personal experience or know of any dual control Mustangs that offer a
>> chance to fly them?
>
> A friend of mine flew with them a few years ago, had a blast. I'm not
> aware of any other places that offer dual-control Mustangs (or even
> two-seat Mustangs, for that matter), but that's not to say they aren't out
> there (the Stallion 51 web site says there are 11 others somewhere).
>
> I've only heard good things about Stallion 51.
>
> Pete


Pete,

It used to be, not so long ago, that the Dixie Air Wing (maybe other's ) of
the Commemorative Air Force would sell rides.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[gregg]

Michael 182 wrote:

> Something Dudley said in the Leaving Usenet thread got me thinking about
> flying a P51. I found www.stallion51.com as an option. Does anyone have
> any personal experience or know of any dual control Mustangs that offer a
> chance to fly them?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael

Michael,

the Dixie Wing (Georgia) gives P-51 rides, according to their web page:

http://www.dixiewing.org/aircraft_rides/p51_rides.htm

IIRC they travel a little, to different areas. And there are other wings of
the Commenmorative Air Force scatttered about. but I don't know about
rides.

Dixie Wing provides rides of other sorts as well - for example open cockpit
rides 9as they call them) The web page lists them.


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[RomeoMike]

I flew with Lee Lauderbach in Crazy Horse in 1995. It cost $1700 then. I
was given several flying options and chose an aerobatic experience. The
whole operation was very professional. There was a preflight briefing,
followed by the flight and a debrief afterward. The flight started by
learning how to taxi the P51 (or in this case TF51). Lee did the takeoff
for obvious reasons, and after gaining a very little altitude and a lot
of speed, he pulled to nearly vertical (probably wasn't as vertical as
it seemed at the time...I was too excited, and the maneuver was
unexpected, so I only recount my quickly formed impression). After
reaching altitude I was familiarized with the flight controls, including
three axes of trim and the power and rpm settings to be used. Then the
plane was turned over to me, and he had me demonstrate what I could do,
starting with standard turns and progressing through wing overs, barrel
rolls with different offsets, loops, Cubans, 2-point and four-point
rolls (I failed at 8-points), and stalls (very benign in the P-51 BTW).
Then he got permission to enter some sort of inactive military training
area where there was an airfield with bogus tanks and Migs parked all
around. Made a high speed pass over the runway at 50 ft., then to
altitude, split-s, and strafing runs with victory rolls. Back to
Kissimmee, rolling and looping on the way, military arrival at the
airport, and he talked me through a landing, which I bounced a bit. At
the debrief I was given a tape with sound of the whole thing and a
signed photo of Crazy Horse. Also, Lee entered 1.3 hours of TF-51 PIC
time in my logbook (I know, it doesn't make me a fighter pilot). My
impressions: One of the most fun experiences of my life, a dream come
true, very professional, the P-51 is a surpringly stable airplane, I'd
love to do it again, gives me pleasure to think about it. Maybe that's
more than you wanted to know :-)


Michael 182 wrote:
> Something Dudley said in the Leaving Usenet thread got me thinking about
> flying a P51. I found www.stallion51.com as an option. Does anyone have any
> personal experience or know of any dual control Mustangs that offer a chance
> to fly them?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
>
>
>

[Michael 182]

"RomeoMike" > wrote in message
...
>I flew with Lee Lauderbach in Crazy Horse in 1995. <snip>, I'd love to do
>it again, gives me pleasure to think about it. Maybe that's more than you
>wanted to know :-)

That's exactly what I wanted to know - good write-up, and thanks!

Michael

[iflyatiger]

I was going to mention that I had spoke to a fellow at sun and fun this year
that was offering rides in a P-51 at sun and fun.
I had forgotten the name of his group until you posted this. I think it was
them.. The 20 minute flight was somewhere around $700. I was going to do it
but they were booked solid. He said he was based south of Atlanta. One
important thing I didnt get to ask him was if the Mustang was dual control.
If anyone knows this please post it.

Jon


"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> > "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Something Dudley said in the Leaving Usenet thread got me thinking
about
> >> flying a P51. I found www.stallion51.com as an option. Does anyone have
> >> any personal experience or know of any dual control Mustangs that offer
a
> >> chance to fly them?
> >
> > A friend of mine flew with them a few years ago, had a blast. I'm not
> > aware of any other places that offer dual-control Mustangs (or even
> > two-seat Mustangs, for that matter), but that's not to say they aren't
out
> > there (the Stallion 51 web site says there are 11 others somewhere).
> >
> > I've only heard good things about Stallion 51.
> >
> > Pete
>
>
> Pete,
>
> It used to be, not so long ago, that the Dixie Air Wing (maybe other's )
of
> the Commemorative Air Force would sell rides.
>
> --
> Saville
>
> Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html
>
> Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
>
> Steambending FAQ with photos:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm
>

[Blueskies]

"iflyatiger" > wrote in message ...
>I was going to mention that I had spoke to a fellow at sun and fun this year
> that was offering rides in a P-51 at sun and fun.
> I had forgotten the name of his group until you posted this. I think it was
> them.. The 20 minute flight was somewhere around $700. I was going to do it
> but they were booked solid. He said he was based south of Atlanta. One
> important thing I didnt get to ask him was if the Mustang was dual control.
> If anyone knows this please post it.
>
> Jon
>

I almost went for a ride quite a number of years ago, but backed out when I found out that I would not be able to even
feel the controls. Would have been a great ride, but $350 (like I said, a long time ago) for 20-30 minutes so I decided
to just watch... :-(

[[email protected]]

Twenty some years ago my partner and myself were on the way to Oshkosh,
and
happened to stop in Nebraska (Grand Island, IIRC). There we ran into a
pair
of guys flying P-51s from California (as were we). After talking for
awhile
somebody asked about the possibility of a ride. One of the P-51 pilots
said
maybe, once we all had returned from Oshkosh - and gave me a phone
number.

Perhaps a month or so later we followed up on it and arranged to meet
him at
his home base at Chino, CA. Myself, my partner and his wife all went up
in
turn. What I remember of it was an enormous amount of power - and
controls
that were a lot heavier than I was used to (the plane was dual
control). But
it was an unforgettable experience. IIRC we paid him $100 each.

David Johnson

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:38:00 -0600, RomeoMike
> wrote:

>the P-51 is a surpringly stable airplane

It had to be, considering the number of hours pilots were expected to
fly in it during escort missions. If the airplane had been as
unstable as the Me 109 or the Spitfire the pilots might have been so
exhausted that they would be a danger to themselves and everyone else
near them.

Corky Scott

[Colin Wray]

I flew Crazy Horse with Doug Schultz from Kissimmee during Sun 'N Fun
week 1996, and I can endorse all RomeoMike has said.

He gave me the controls at about 300ft on take off and talked me
through the rest. After the aerobatic training he asked what I wanted
to do now, so I elected for 3 touch and goes at Bartow, then low level
lakeshore following, then an attack on an island involving a pull up
from 50 ft and a roll onto the target. It all ended with a run and
break at Kissimmee into the downwind for landing.

They carried on-board video equipment with two cameras, so the
resulting 1 hour video is a nice souvenir.


RomeoMike > wrote:

>I flew with Lee Lauderbach in Crazy Horse in 1995. It cost $1700 then. I
>was given several flying options and chose an aerobatic experience. The
>whole operation was very professional. There was a preflight briefing,
>followed by the flight and a debrief afterward. The flight started by
>learning how to taxi the P51 (or in this case TF51). Lee did the takeoff
>for obvious reasons, and after gaining a very little altitude and a lot
>of speed, he pulled to nearly vertical (probably wasn't as vertical as
>it seemed at the time...I was too excited, and the maneuver was
>unexpected, so I only recount my quickly formed impression). After
>reaching altitude I was familiarized with the flight controls, including
> three axes of trim and the power and rpm settings to be used. Then the
>plane was turned over to me, and he had me demonstrate what I could do,
>starting with standard turns and progressing through wing overs, barrel
>rolls with different offsets, loops, Cubans, 2-point and four-point
>rolls (I failed at 8-points), and stalls (very benign in the P-51 BTW).
>Then he got permission to enter some sort of inactive military training
>area where there was an airfield with bogus tanks and Migs parked all
>around. Made a high speed pass over the runway at 50 ft., then to
>altitude, split-s, and strafing runs with victory rolls. Back to
>Kissimmee, rolling and looping on the way, military arrival at the
>airport, and he talked me through a landing, which I bounced a bit. At
>the debrief I was given a tape with sound of the whole thing and a
>signed photo of Crazy Horse. Also, Lee entered 1.3 hours of TF-51 PIC
>time in my logbook (I know, it doesn't make me a fighter pilot). My
>impressions: One of the most fun experiences of my life, a dream come
>true, very professional, the P-51 is a surpringly stable airplane, I'd
>love to do it again, gives me pleasure to think about it. Maybe that's
>more than you wanted to know :-)
>
>
>Michael 182 wrote:
>> Something Dudley said in the Leaving Usenet thread got me thinking about
>> flying a P51. I found www.stallion51.com as an option. Does anyone have any
>> personal experience or know of any dual control Mustangs that offer a chance
>> to fly them?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>

[roger]

Marco Leon wrote:
> I happened to have called them for prices two weeks back. For a
> three-hour
> package including preflight and debrief with 1 hour's flight time it
> will
> run just under $3,000. That and a flight in an L-39 is on my list of
> things
> to do before I die.
>
> Marco Leon

You can fly both here in Perth, the flght over here may take you a
while though, but these guys offer flights in P51's, L39's, T-6's and
CJ-6A's.

http://www.fciwa.com/aircraft.html

Roger

Almost a PPL.....


--
roger
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

[Jay Beckman]

"roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Marco Leon wrote:
>> I happened to have called them for prices two weeks back. For a
>> three-hour
>> package including preflight and debrief with 1 hour's flight time it
>> will
>> run just under $3,000. That and a flight in an L-39 is on my list of
>> things
>> to do before I die.
>>
>> Marco Leon
>
> You can fly both here in Perth, the flght over here may take you a
> while though, but these guys offer flights in P51's, L39's, T-6's and
> CJ-6A's.
>
> http://www.fciwa.com/aircraft.html
>
> Roger
>
> Almost a PPL.....
>
>
> --
> roger

I got to do the T6 thing a couple years ago with an outfit called North
American Top Gun.

About a 40 min flight in the front seat (I had to handle the gear up/down)
with the leather helmet and a parachute strapped to my butt.

The GIB would demonstrate each maneuver while I'd shadow him on the controls
then I'd get to fly it. Last 15 minutes or so was all mine so I strung a
loop, an axial roll to the left and a barrel roll to the right together
followed by some nice steep wing-over-esque moves.

They had a camera mounted in the tail looking forward, a camera in the right
wing tip looking in and a camera on the glareshield looking right at my ugly
mug. The GIB would switch among them depending on which axis was
predominate (Wing Cam for loops, Tail Cam for rolls, etc...) then cut to the
Face Cam for reactions.

I digitized the best parts (where the tape hadn't been G-Forced off the
recording heads) and cut it down to a managable 2:30 or so to Van Halen's
"Dreams" (The Blue Angels song...)

If I can find the time to smash it down into a windows media file (It's an
uncompressed .avi file right now...) maybe I'll offer it to Jay H for his
website.

Wish I'd been doing my pilot training back then, would have loved to have
logged it (would it be too late now?)

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[[email protected]]

On 4-May-2005, "Jay Beckman" > wrote:

> Wish I'd been doing my pilot training back then, would have loved to have
> logged it (would it be too late now?)

I had a friend at Ramstein AB, Germany who was a WCS (Weapons Control
Systems) technician and a student pilot at the Ramstein Aero Club. He got a
backseat ride in an F-4E Phantom, and his pilot entered the flight into his
logbook observer time. Way cool. I can't recall if he put the flight time
under the "dual received" column or just left the hours column blank, been
too many years.

I got my F-4E ride before I started training as a student pilot, so didn't
get to have my flight put in my logbook, something I regret. But on the
other hand, the ride was what inspired me to sign up at the aero club and go
for my ticket, so I guess it balances out...
Scott Wilson

[RomeoMike]

I don't know anything about the relative stability of the P-51, Me 109
and Spitfire. Do you have some info on that? If the latter two planes
had the range of the P-51, would they be any more taxing to fly straight
and level on a long mission? If the P-51 really is more stable than the
other two, are you suggesting that the designers made it that way to
give the pilot a better ride? Maybe there is someone out there who has
flown at least 2 of the 3 planes and can comment.


Corky Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:38:00 -0600, RomeoMike
> > wrote:
>
>
>>the P-51 is a surpringly stable airplane
>
>
> It had to be, considering the number of hours pilots were expected to
> fly in it during escort missions. If the airplane had been as
> unstable as the Me 109 or the Spitfire the pilots might have been so
> exhausted that they would be a danger to themselves and everyone else
> near them.
>
> Corky Scott
>

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 04 May 2005 16:30:56 -0600, RomeoMike
> wrote:

>I don't know anything about the relative stability of the P-51, Me 109
>and Spitfire. Do you have some info on that? If the latter two planes
>had the range of the P-51, would they be any more taxing to fly straight
>and level on a long mission? If the P-51 really is more stable than the
>other two, are you suggesting that the designers made it that way to
>give the pilot a better ride? Maybe there is someone out there who has
>flown at least 2 of the 3 planes and can comment.

There are numerous writings by pilots who have flown all three of the
above, and written about it. Eric Brown wrote "Duels in the Sky" in
which he describes flying and comparing a phenominal number of
airplanes. Leonard "Kit" Carson was another well known pilot who was
both an experienced fighter pilot and an aerodynamics engineer who
wrote about flying the Me 109 and compared it to the Mustang, which
was the airplane he fought in.

The more extensive comparison is from Carson, but besides Carson and
Brown, I've read numerous reports from other WWII pilots who had a
chance to compare the flight characteristics.

The Me 109 was head and shoulders above all competition when it first
flew, but it was designed in 1935 and was almost entirely all manual
in nearly all aspects. For instance, no version of the Me 109 ever
had a rudder trim. This meant that at only one airspeed did the pilot
not have to be pushing on the rudder to correct for yaw, and that
airspeed was below cruise. The faster the airplane went, the more
pressure required on the rudder bar. This could and did fatigue the
pilot to the point where turning in the direction of the tired leg
caused a notably slower response than turning in the opposite
direction.

But we were talking about stability. Almost to a man, the pilots of
P-51's who also flew the Me 109 commented on how unstable it was, how
it hunted constantly and would not hold it's flight path. The
instability was designed into the airframe. Fighters needed to be
able to change direction quickly so stability was necessarily
compromised for maneuverability. In those days there wasn't any
computer controlled fly-by-wire so the pilot just learned to be
constantly adjusting the controls in order to hold formation or fly in
a straight line.

Because the Me 109 was designed as a combat superiority weapon, a
fighter that followed the front closely, it wasn't designed for
extended range. Long range required lots of fuel and lots of fuel
compromised performance. Like the Spitfire, it originally had only a
fuselage fuel tank which gave it a pretty limited range. So flights
were relatively short and the pilots rested up between them.

The Mustang on the other hand, was redesigned from it's original
iteration as a low altitude fighter to a high altitude long range
escort fighter. The designers understood that in order to sit in the
cockpit for extended periods of up to 6 hours, the airplane would have
to be stable enough that the pilots did not have to be constantly
correcting the flight controls. On the other hand, it was a fighter.
It's job was to fly with the bombers to the target, outfight the enemy
fighters and return to base. That was a tall order. The Mustang
pilots kind of got lucky.

By the time of the Mustang's combat debut, the Luftwaffe had been
increasingly devoting it's efforts at stopping the daylight heavy
bombing formations. It had had more than a year to develop tactics
and modify their fighters into bomber destroyers. And they were
getting pretty good at destroying bombers with their fighters. But
this was coming at a cost: The fighters were heavily loaded down with
large caliber cannon and in many cases, rockets. They were also
sending up the twin engined fighters and even ordering the night
fighters up on daylight interceptions. Some Me 109's even carried
bombs up above the bomber and dropped them into the formations hoping
that the timed explosion would occur in the middle of the formation
either destroying bombers or greatly disrupting the formation. They
also carried a lot of armor plate. All this had a decidedly negative
effect on performance. It didn't matter much in terms of attacking
the bombers because the bombers were plodding along at 150 to 160 mph
and flying in obligingly straight lines, albeit packed tightly
together for mutual protection. But the Mustangs were a different
opponent altogether.

They showed up lean and clean and stripped for action. The original
model B had only four heavy machine guns and was blindingly fast
compared to either the Focke Wulf 190 or the Me 109G. They were some
40 to 50 mph faster which allowed them to dictate combat terms.

In addition, and this is a bit of an unknown, the German fighter
pilots were under orders to ignor the fighter escort, whenever
possible, to concentrate on destroying the bombers. That meant that
they were not normally supposed to seek out combat with the escorting
fighters. Fighter pilots being normally aggressive, they often did
anyway but their orders were to hit the bombers first. This allowed
the escorting Mustangs to intercede, sometimes with smaller numbers,
and survive.

But we were talking about stability. The first Mustangs, the A model,
were designed as a low to medium altitude fighter. They had more
range than Spitfires or any single engine German fighter, but not as
much as the later models B, C and D had. This is because they were
not thought of as escorts, but as a better P-40. In their original
configuration they were a delight to fly according to those who flew
them. One pilot mentioned putting his pointing finger on top of the
stick and being able to aileron roll it, so light and easy were the
controls.

That all changed with the introduction of the model B. The B got the
Packard built version of the Rolls Royce Merlin instead of the Allison
V12 and the designers added bob weights to the control cables to
increase stability. They also added a fuselage mounted fuel tank
which was behind the pilot. When this was full, the Mustang was
treacherously aft weighted. I'm not positive, but it may be that the
bob weights were installed to counter the difficulty pilots would have
handling the fighter when the fuselage tank was full. Even with them,
when the fuselage tank was full, the Mustang was very sensitive. The
information I have is that this tank was selected first during the
form up and climb to escort altitude, then they switched to the drop
tanks. The Luftwaffe actually attempted to negate the use of the drop
tanks, at least once or twice, by attacking the Mustangs early causing
them to drop the external tanks and fight. This reduced their range
leaving the bombers unescorted over the target. But there were too
many Allied fighters (including Thunderbolts and Spitfires) and too
few German fighters for this tactic to be repeated too often.

Whatever the real reason, once that fuselage tank was empty, the bob
weights contributed towards a strong positive stability.

When the model D Mustang was initially introduced, pilots complained
about it being more unstable than the B. That was because the
fuselage had been cut down and a bubble canopy installed instead of
the earlier turtledeck. This changed fuselage actually diminished top
speed somewhat and caused some instability. The engineers then added
the dorsal fin to the front of the rudder which is now considered one
of the signal visual characteristics of the model D.

If you look at the famous photo of the four fighter formation
featuring "Louis IV" closest to the camera and the three others
stacked down below and behind it, you'll see three versions of the
Mustang in that one photo: Louis IV is a D Mustang without the dorsal
fin, the next one is a D with the dorsal fin. Next is another D
without the dorsal fin and finally a B which of course had the turtle
deck. All are carrying drop tanks which did not help stability.

But back in those days fighters were fighters. You worked and flew
with what you had. Most of the Me 109 pilots actually liked flying it
(some didn't) and could take advantage of the characteristics that
made it a good fighter.

Corky Scott

[Jay Honeck]

> But back in those days fighters were fighters.

As always, Corky -- thanks for a great history lesson.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Corky Scott" > wrote

The B got the
> Packard built version of the Rolls Royce Merlin instead of the Allison
> V12 and the designers added bob weights to the control cables to
> increase stability.

Can you describe the design and placement of these bob weights, and how they
added to stability?
--
Jim in NC

[RomeoMike]

Very edifying, thanks. I should try to find these references.

Corky Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2005 16:30:56 -0600, RomeoMike
> > wrote:

[gregg]

Corky Scott wrote:

<Much great stuff snipped>

> When the model D Mustang was initially introduced, pilots complained
> about it being more unstable than the B. That was because the
> fuselage had been cut down and a bubble canopy installed instead of
> the earlier turtledeck. This changed fuselage actually diminished top
> speed somewhat and caused some instability. The engineers then added
> the dorsal fin to the front of the rudder which is now considered one
> of the signal visual characteristics of the model D.
>
> Corky Scott


Hi Corky,

Excellent post. I used to believe the above:

that the dorsal fin was added to the D model only, and it was because the
fuselage was cut down. that's what all the books said.

However recent reading of some T.O.'s issued at the time show this may
actually not be the case:

Several crash reports tell of P-51B's and C's crashing because the
horizontal stab was torn off during maneuvering. The report says:

"Unless a dorsal fin is installed on the P-51B, P-51C, and P-51D airplanes,
a snap roll may result when attempting a slow roll. The horizontal
stabilizer will not withstand the effects of a Snap Roll. To prevent
recurrence the stabilizer should be reinforced in accordance with T.O.
01-60J-18 dated 8 April 1944 and a dorsal fin should be installed. Dorsal
fin kits are being made available to overseas activities"

A previous entry for another crash:

Sections II and III of T.O. 01-60J-18 had not been accomplished. The
stabilizer was approximately 20 percent below the strength of a completely
reinforced stabilizer. It is believed that this type of failure will be
completely eliminated after compliance with T.O 01-60J-18 and the
installation of a Dorsal Fin and reverse rudder bost tab."

A Supplement to Basic Technical Order (From old Hap himself) says:

"1. Due to horizontal stabilizer failures which are believed to have
resulted form slow rolls, all P-51B, P-51C an dP-51D airplanes wil not
perfomr slow rolls pending the installation of dorsal fin and rudder
reverse trim tab, and compliance with T.O. No. 01-60J-18."

Part of this T.O. 01-60J-18, it seems, was to "...use 1/4" rivets rather
than 3/16" to attach the elevator outboard and rudder upper hinge fittings,
....to stabilizer ribs, providing additonal shear strength....."

The date of 01-60J-18 is 15 January 1945. By that time maybe most production
51's were D's (Don't know that for sure), so it would SEEM as if the Dorsal
was added for the D's only.

Also, I guess that drillingout the rivet holes to take the larger rivets
didn't weaken the riveted pieces any - they must have had enough meat left
over.


Also you can see photos of P-51B's or C's with the dorsal fin:

http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/p51pics/military/eto/6.jpg

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.luftarchiv.info/beute/usa/p513.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.luftarchiv.info/beute/usa/&h=261&w=478&sz=17&tbnid=UnBWgQogkwEJ:&tbnh=68&tbnw=125&hl=en&start=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522P-51b%2522%252BMustang%26start%3D120%26hl%3Den%26lr% 3D%26sa%3DN
Scroll down til you see photos of T9 CK

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[gregg]

Sorry my mistake. the T.O. 01-60J-18 was dated 8 April 1944

Gregg

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 5 May 2005 16:36:44 -0400, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>Can you describe the design and placement of these bob weights, and how they
>added to stability?

Here's an explanation of a bob weight from a website on supplemental
flight controls:
http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/controls/Page3.html

"Bob weights are sometimes known as counter weights. Their purpose is
to change the amount of control force required to deflect the control
column under different g-loadings.

Normally the amount of force the pilot must apply to the control
column, assuming reversible controls, varies with airspeed only.
However, by installing a bob weight the aeronautical engineer can make
it more difficult to pull on the control column as g-force increases.

The purpose of the bob weight is to reduce the likely hood the pilot
will overstress the aircraft."

I should mention that this explanation comes from a website describing
light airplanes, not fighters. If bob weights can be used to increase
the force necessary to move the elevator as G force increases, they
can also be used to lighten the elevator as G force increases. This
appears to be the intent when used in the P-47 to assist it from
pulling out of high speed dives where the elevator was locked. I
don't think this would be very effective though as the elevator was
locked by the onset of compressibility and the pilot literally could
not move the stick back at all at that point, at least not at high
altitude. Since the nose would not come up, there would be no G force
to work on the bob weight. And yes, this was for sure a problem in
combat. Several times the Thunderbolts dived down on unsuspecting
German fighters from high altitude only to find themselves unable to
pull out of the dive and rocketed by the very startled Germans. At
lower altitude because the speed of sound was faster than a high
altitude, the effects of compressibility lessened and the pilots could
pull out, albeit slowly. The P-38 which also was affected by high
speed elevator locking was actually plackarded against exceeding a
certain speed. Unfortunately that meant that they really couldn't
dive much from high altitude. I've read that the Germans figured this
out and exploited the situation against P-38's but this seems pretty
unlikely to me.

It would appear that bob weights work only with the elevator.

So having a counterweighted control stick (bob weights) could add
pressure to the control stick making it require more force to pull it
back. This is a stabilizing effect and would counter over controling
when the Mustang's rear 75 gallon fuel tank was filled.

Corky Scott

[George Patterson]

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> I've read that the Germans figured this
> out and exploited the situation against P-38's but this seems pretty
> unlikely to me.

The standard defensive maneuver used by 109 pilots at that point in the war was
a split-ess or bump over into a dive. They didn't have to change a thing against
the Lightnings. They were forced to use other tactics against the P-47 -- it
could stay with them in a dive and didn't have the temporary power loss problem
that British aircraft had initiating a dive.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 06 May 2005 16:30:22 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>The standard defensive maneuver used by 109 pilots at that point in the war was
>a split-ess or bump over into a dive. They didn't have to change a thing against
>the Lightnings. They were forced to use other tactics against the P-47 -- it
>could stay with them in a dive and didn't have the temporary power loss problem
>that British aircraft had initiating a dive.

That diving difficulty the Spitfires and Hurricane's had existed only
during the Battle of Britain. After that British engineers devised a
method of negating the engine cutting out from starvation from pushing
the nose down suddenly to follow a Messerschmitt doing the same thing
(the British called the maneuver a "bunt"). They installed a sheet of
metal across the top of the carburetor's float chamber that had an
orifice drilled in it. In effect, it was like a fuel tanks baffle
that prevents the fuel from ramming from one side to the other when
the wing's are banked.

With this plate/orifice installed, enough fuel remained over the jets
during this beyond zero G maneuver to keep the engine running.

Me 109's could still dive away from Spitfires anyway though, because
the Spitfire had a higher wing loading and simply could not keep up in
the dive.

But you're right, the Me 109 pilots had to come up with something else
to escape the P-47's, nothing outdove them.

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 06 May 2005 13:01:20 -0400, Corky Scott
> wrote:

>Me 109's could still dive away from Spitfires anyway though, because
>the Spitfire had a higher wing loading and simply could not keep up in
>the dive.

My apologies, I meant to write that the Spitfire had a lower
wingloading than the Me 109.

Corky Scott

[gregg]

Corky Scott wrote:

> On Fri, 06 May 2005 16:30:22 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote:
>

> That diving difficulty the Spitfires and Hurricane's had existed only
> during the Battle of Britain. After that British engineers devised a
> method of negating the engine cutting out from starvation from pushing
> the nose down suddenly to follow a Messerschmitt doing the same thing
> (the British called the maneuver a "bunt"). They installed a sheet of
> metal across the top of the carburetor's float chamber that had an
> orifice drilled in it. In effect, it was like a fuel tanks baffle
> that prevents the fuel from ramming from one side to the other when
> the wing's are banked.
>
> With this plate/orifice installed, enough fuel remained over the jets
> during this beyond zero G maneuver to keep the engine running.
>
> Corky Scott

Hi Corcky,

I have the paper here, somewhere, that describes the problem and the fix -
which is more or less as you describe.

What I wonder is:

Was this fix proagated through to the Packard Merlins, for the life of
production? Or were Mustang and later Spitfire Merlins fitted with some
other solution which also solved the problem?

thanks

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Blueskies]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 13:01:20 -0400, Corky Scott
> > wrote:
>
>>Me 109's could still dive away from Spitfires anyway though, because
>>the Spitfire had a higher wing loading and simply could not keep up in
>>the dive.
>
> My apologies, I meant to write that the Spitfire had a lower
> wingloading than the Me 109.
>
> Corky Scott

Thanks, that one got me...

[Blueskies]

You guys are amazing...Thanks for the great history lesson Corky and Gregg

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 06 May 2005 18:11:12 -0400, gregg > wrote:

>Hi Corcky,
>
> I have the paper here, somewhere, that describes the problem and the fix -
>which is more or less as you describe.
>
>What I wonder is:
>
> Was this fix proagated through to the Packard Merlins, for the life of
>production? Or were Mustang and later Spitfire Merlins fitted with some
>other solution which also solved the problem?
>
>thanks

Here ya go Gregg, looks like this answers your question. Google is
your friend :-D I just typed in "Spitfire" and "Orifice".

The British, with their extremely droll sense of humour, called the
original fix "Miss Shilling's Orifice" because the engineer who came
up with it was a woman by the name of Miss Tilly Shilling.

*** Begin Quote***
Carburettor design

One of the great problems as discerned by pilots was the tendency for
the carburetted engine to cut out under negative 'g'. Luftwaffe pilots
learned to escape by simply pushing the nose of their aircraft down
into a dive, as their fuel- injected engines did not cut out under
these circumstances. Many authors have criticised this aspect of the
Merlin design. In reality, like most engineering, it resulted from a
design compromise- the drop in temperature developed in a carburetor
results in an increase in the density of the fuel-air mixture when
compared to that of a fuel injection system. As a consequence the
Merlin produced a higher specific power output (horse power per pound)
that the equivalent German engine. It was felt that this gave a higher
power to weight ratio for the fighter and (rightly or wrongly) that
this outweighed the disadvantages. By 1941 Miss Tilly Shilling in
Farnborough had developed a partial cure for the problem. A diaphragm
across the float chambers with a calibrated hole (the infamous "Miss
Shilling's orifice"!) allowed negative 'g' manouvres, and was fitted
as standard from March 1941. Sustained zero 'g' manouvres were not
sorted out until somewhat later. In 1942 an anti-g version of the SU
carburetor was fitted to single and two-stage Merlins. 1943 saw the
introduction of the Bendix-Stromburg carburetor which injected fuel at
5psi through a nozzle direct into the supercharger and was fitted to
the Merlins 66, 70, 76, 77, and 85. The final development was the SU
injection carburetor which injected fuel into the supercharger using a
fuel pump driven as a fuction of crankshaft speed and engine
pressures, which was fitted to the 100 series Merlins.

*** End Quote***

Corky Scott

PS, in regards the higher horsepower per weight ratio claimed above,
I'm fairly certain that this had nothing to do with using a carburetor
versus fuel injection and the fuel density charge. I believe this had
much more to do with the fact that the British and all the allied
forces were using 100 octane fuel (100 octane fuel was Jimmy
Doolittles little known contribution to victory in WWII) for all their
combat flying machines where the Germans were limited for the most
part to much lower octane fuel. This allowed the Rolls Royce
engineers to raise the boost level of the supercharger in the Merlin
engine to the point where it essentially equalled the Daimler Benz
601. This all occured right at about the time the two fleets of
fighters clashed in the Battle of Britain. This, and the installation
of three bladed constant speed propellers brought the Spitfire's
performance to basic parity with the Me 109 and boosted the
Hurricane's performance to the point where it wasn't the slug the
Germans encountered over France anymore. Good thing too as there were
roughly three times the number of Hurricanes as Spitfires and
"Hurries" downed more German aircraft than the Spitfires.