Jump to content

P-51 vs Bf-109 dogfight impressions


WileEcoyote

Recommended Posts

and that it faced P-51's at 72-75" not 67.

 

Hi USARStartkey,

 

I agree with everything you said with one small clarification:

 

Keep in mind that in the USAAF, only the 8th USAAF used 100/150 grade in operational trials and it was only approved at 72" Hg not the 75"in Hg tested at Wright Patterson.

 

The rest of the USAAF did not use the fuel. Just as the ADGB did not recommend 100/150 grade for widespread service adoption because of mechanical reliability issues, the USAAF experience was the same. So the majority of USAAF P-51's soldiered on quite well.

 

Keep in mind the 110/130 grade was not prone to the engine reliability issues which got to the point some of the Fighter Squadrons using "Purple Passion" simply reverted back to 100/130 grade.

 

The performance of a 72" Hg with wing rack in practical terms is the same as 67" Hg clean.

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 244
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi USARStartkey,

 

I agree with everything you said with one small clarification:

 

Keep in mind that in the USAAF, only the 8th USAAF used 100/150 grade in operational trials and it was only approved at 72" Hg not the 75"in Hg tested at Wright Patterson.

 

The rest of the USAAF did not use the fuel. Just as the ADGB did not recommend 100/150 grade for widespread service adoption because of mechanical reliability issues, the USAAF experience was the same. So the majority of USAAF P-51's soldiered on quite well.

 

Keep in mind the 110/130 grade was not prone to the engine reliability issues which got to the point some of the Fighter Squadrons using "Purple Passion" simply reverted back to 100/130 grade.

 

The performance of a 72" Hg with wing rack in practical terms is the same as 67" Hg clean.

This was the "OLD CROW" Plane of Col. Clarence Emil "Bud" Anderson He was a member of 357th Fighter Group and they were part of US 8th Army Airforce fighter froce.

So this plane was actually flying at 72Hg and 150 octane fuel and it was actually a P-51B. This was a standard fuel for those planes.


Edited by Solty

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

 

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.

My channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Project PPF"??

 

Your argument is built on logistics not operational documents.

 

Operational documents are those used to operate the aircraft. Things like cockpit placards, Operating Handbooks, and Technical Orders.

 

Operational documents are such things as a fuel specification. Aircraft maintenance is highly regulated and service doctrine is very clear.

 

You can read the USAAF Technical Order for the fueling of USAAF aircraft. No specification....no fueling the airplane with it.

 

Does that mean 100/150 grade was not used by the 8th USAAF? No, it just means it was not the official fuel of the 8th USAAF and any aircraft using it had to be covered under the special project designation, in this case "Project PPF".

 

 

Here we see the fuel did not receive a preliminary specification until September 1944. It is impossible for it to be a USAAF operational fuel without a specification. It is just that simple.

 

 

You can see from the photo of an 8th USAAF Mustang that Special Project PPF was just that......a special project.

 

That does not mean it was not used, it just means it's use was part of a special project.

 

The June 1944 Material command memo is the progress report of the preliminary testing being done at Wright Patterson. Are you honestly trying to make a case the 8th USAAF was forcing pilots to use an untested fuel still in the middle of service level trials?

 

Additionally in July 1944, The US Army Proving Ground, the folks responsible for actual service level testing results did not agree with Material Commands findings.

 

a. In view of the inconclusive nature of test results, it is not possible to make any definite decision concerning the operational use of nominal grade 104/150 fuel and the attending higher emergency power ratings.

b. Only three of the nine original test aircraft finished the specified test.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

 

Included is the April 1945 document capturing the 8th USAAF experience with 100/150 grade. Now, does anyone think this officer decided to write about this subject because he was just really motivated to tell everyone how this supposedly super common fuel that everyone was using was doing in 8th USAAF aircraft?

 

Of course not, he wrote the report to capture the experience gleaned in the 8th USAAF Special Project so the USAAF could make a decision on whether or not this fuel would come into common use as a specified grade.

 

 

This topic is tired and I will not cover it again.


Edited by Crumpp

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one of my 109 books it lists 109 aces. I was surprised at the number of 109 aces with 50 or more claims that survived the war. It was 2/3rds of them.

 

Once any pilot survived the first few missions his chances of surviving the rest went up considerably in any Air Force.

 

The planes are competitive. It is the pilots that matter.

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Successful service tests led in May 1944 to the Eighth Air Force Fighter Command requesting that it "be supplied immediately with grade 150 aviation fuel for use in P-47, P-51 and P-38 planes". 25 Deliveries of Grade 100/150 aviation fuel to AAF Stations commenced within a week of the landings in France. 26 27 The change over to 150 grade fuel necessitated the resetting of all aneroid switches on the P-51s.

As for the Special Project Number on ETO a/c, this was for a/c that were to be shipped to GB that had been modified at the factory for using 150 fuel.

 

North American P-51D Mustang 44-72035 "Jumpin Jacques" is a P-51D-20-NA model, built at North American’s Inglewood facility in California. Accepted by the USAAF on December 21 1944 as 44-72035 she was originally earmarked for service with the Eighth Air Force in England but this was quickly changed to Project Number 91037R, indicating service in the Mediterranean Theatre of Operations.

 

Project Numbers were like Zip Codes indicating where an a/c was to be shipped.

 

44-72339

1945: Jan 07, Del. USAAF 8th AF Command

Flown by Lt Hjalmar Johnsen, 401st FS, 370th FG, 9th Air Force

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Project Numbers were like Zip Codes indicating where an a/c was to be shipped.

 

Special Project markings where used when the aircraft was part of a Special Project to alert Maintenance and Operators that the aircraft required special servicing instructions.

 

;)

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't we getting a map of Northern France/Germany and possibly England?

 

I hope so!!

 

The Luftwaffe was just as if not more likely to run into a 9th AF P-51's as they were an 8th AF P-51.

 

In fact, it was the 9th that was the USAAF Tactical Air Force and responsible for medium bomber and tactical airstrikes in the ETO.

 

The 9th AF was the lead in prepping Nazi Germany for D-Day.

 

http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100924-018.pdf

 

The 8th USAAF was responsible for the Strategic bombing campaign and was not a Tactical Air Force.

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Special Project markings where used when the aircraft was part of a Special Project to alert Maintenance and Operators that the aircraft required special servicing instructions.

 

;)

 

So what were the special servicing instructions for this 462nd FS, 506th FG Mustang, based on Iwo Jima and the Mediterranean based 31st FG, 15th AF P-51D marked "Special Project"?

 

Ed-in-color_650_zps63caee63.jpg

 

walter-j-goehausen_zps62b09390.jpg

 

(NB: also included is a 4th FS, 3rd Commando Group Mustang - to see the Special Projects Number, which was partially obliterated, the image has to go to full size.)


Edited by Friedrich-4/B
Add clearer image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Luftwaffe was just as if not more likely to run into a 9th AF P-51's as they were an 8th AF P-51.

 

In fact, it was the 9th that was the USAAF Tactical Air Force and responsible for medium bomber and tactical airstrikes in the ETO.

 

The 9th AF was the lead in prepping Nazi Germany for D-Day.

 

http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100924-018.pdf

 

The 8th USAAF was responsible for the Strategic bombing campaign and was not a Tactical Air Force.

So D-Day was in 1945 then as that is when the P-51 44-72339 was delivered in Jan 1945 to an AF you state didn't use 150 fuel.

 

Not many 9th AF, and 2TAF, missions flown into Germany prior to D-Day. Targets were in France and the Low Countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what were the special servicing instructions for these Iwo Jima & China based P-51Ds marked "Special Project"

 

100/150 grade is not the only technical project going on in the USAAF during World War II.

 

 

I would think it was 114/145 fuel which was also under investigation in the pacific and actually was adopted as a specified fuel post war. It was considered the best compromise between reliability and power of the late war high octane aviation fuels tested. It did not have near the reliability issues of 100/150 Octane.

 

Most Airforces had multiple operational testing going on.

 

The Luftwaffe not only used Operational Geschwaders for testing at times, they formed Eprobungstaffel in some cases or test squadrons. Eprobungstaffel 190 for example did the initial service level test flights on the FW-190 and Eprobungstaffel 10 was charged with testing in combat new weapons against the Allied bombers.

 

Sometimes it even comes down to individual aircraft. IIRC, Josef Priller was given an early GM-1 equipped FW-190A8 to fly and give the factory engineers feedback on its operational utility.

 

All of these technical changes were done under approved special exemptions to the normal maintenance and were those instructions issued to personnel. The changes move at the speed of testing, logistics, maintenance instructions, and training. Just because a memo says something is going to happen has nothing to do with what is going on at the airfield.

 

Here is a report that details the United States Aviation fuel manufacture, consumption, and testing. It is obvious that high octane fuels were desired but equally obvious they represented enormous technical challenges that were not really solved until post war. In fact, they flat out allocated only enough of the special high octane fuels for limited testing purposes in order not to disrupt 100/130 Octane fuel production.

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So D-Day was in 1945 then as that is when the P-51 44-72339 was delivered in Jan 1945 to an AF you state didn't use 150 fuel.

 

Not many 9th AF, and 2TAF, missions flown into Germany prior to D-Day. Targets were in France and the Low Countries.

 

What are you talking about here? The history of the 9th AF operations as a the USAAF premier Tactical AirForce are included in the link. D-Day was not in 1945 and nothing in that paper says so.

 

That post has nothing to do with the 100/150 grade or P-51 44-72339 and is in response to Bullfrogs correct comment on the Normandy map. You are crossing conversations.


Edited by Crumpp
clarity

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know what Special Project covers the 15th AF Mustang. I gave you the documentation on the 115/145 grade fuel and that was a guess as the fuel placard is too pixelated to read.

 

The project number is placarded on the side so there is a record of it somewhere.

 

Unfortunately the information I have on specifics is unreadable.


Edited by Crumpp

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arrrgh. It's "for all intents and purposes". Huge pet peeve of mine.

 

That said, I agree with everything else in your post.

 

Sorry man wasn't sure how else to say it :) Perhaps "largely" defeated is a better term. As milo stated, they certainly still had teeth. Things has certainly swung in the allies favor in late 44 however.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi USARStartkey,

 

I agree with everything you said with one small clarification:

 

Keep in mind that in the USAAF, only the 8th USAAF used 100/150 grade in operational trials and it was only approved at 72" Hg not the 75"in Hg tested at Wright Patterson.

 

The rest of the USAAF did not use the fuel. Just as the ADGB did not recommend 100/150 grade for widespread service adoption because of mechanical reliability issues, the USAAF experience was the same. So the majority of USAAF P-51's soldiered on quite well.

 

Keep in mind the 110/130 grade was not prone to the engine reliability issues which got to the point some of the Fighter Squadrons using "Purple Passion" simply reverted back to 100/130 grade.

 

The performance of a 72" Hg with wing rack in practical terms is the same as 67" Hg clean.

 

I am responding only to what I quoted, so I havent read past this.

 

I would like to point out that 150 grade was in operational use for units in England, not just the 8th AF. However, lets not debate this as the next point is my main:

 

More importantly however, there were more P-51s operating at 72-75 in the 8th than their were K4s, especially considering that the K4 didnt get into the field till mid october and they constituted a 4th of all 109s at the turn of year 3 months later. To my knowledge, outside of england (or the 8th, whichever you prefer) 130 grade was still the only fuel. If I am wrong and 150 was used elsewhere, someone feel free to correct me. My point though is the improvements in 109s were more than matched numerically by improvements to Mustangs. K4s certainly ran into P-51D's running at 67, no disagreement there. But it is just as true that 67" ponies ran into G-14's and G-6s.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know what Special Project covers the 15th AF Mustang. I gave you the documentation on the 115/145 grade fuel and that was a guess as the fuel placard is too pixelated to read.

 

The project number is placarded on the side so there is a record of it somewhere.

 

Unfortunately the information I have on specifics is unreadable.

 

So, to clarify;

 

Any aircraft with "AAF. Spec.Proj.No.xxxx" on the technical data stencil was part of a special project being run by the USAAF?

 

Any aircraft coded with a Spec.Proj stencil needed special treatment from the ground crew?

 

In addition, the aircraft in question had to go through a modification centre before it was declared a Spec.Proj?

 

Were Spec.Proj numbers specific to that aircraft, or to a series of aircraft?

 

Is there any documentation to show that Crumpp's claims about the meaning of Spec.Proj is correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any aircraft with "AAF. Spec.Proj.No.xxxx" on the technical data stencil was part of a special project being run by the USAAF?

 

YES

 

Any aircraft coded with a Spec.Proj stencil needed special treatment from the ground crew?

 

YES...the stencil points the too the required instructions and Technical Orders covered under the Special Projects designation.

 

In addition, the aircraft in question had to go through a modification centre before it was declared a Spec.Proj?

 

OR the mechanic had to follow instructions issued by a Modification Center......there were several centers in the United States and one in England IIRC. Additionally there were scores of engineers stationed at the centers, manufacturers, and operational units.

 

Were Spec.Proj numbers specific to that aircraft, or to a series of aircraft?

 

The Special Project number is specific to the Special Project the aircraft is modified under. In other words, 100/150 grade corresponds to the Special project denoting modifications to use that fuel.

 

 

It really helps to understand the technical development of these aircraft if you have a grasp of the maintenance and modification procedures. Those procedures were definitely followed and because aircraft maintenance is regulated by convention the pattern is similar the world over. Without it, it is very easy to get trapped looking at logistical documents or other non-operational sources to draw the wrong conclusions.

 

It also does not change the fact the 8th USAAF did operate P-51's at 72"Hg using 100/150 grade.


Edited by Crumpp
clarity

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point though is the improvements in 109s were more than matched numerically by improvements to Mustangs. K4s certainly ran into P-51D's running at 67, no disagreement there. But it is just as true that 67" ponies ran into G-14's and G-6s.

 

Absolutely. One day I hope DCS does all these variants.

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, to clarify;

 

Any aircraft with "AAF. Spec.Proj.No.xxxx" on the technical data stencil was part of a special project being run by the USAAF?

 

YES

 

 

Any aircraft coded with a Spec.Proj stencil needed special treatment from the ground crew?

 

YES...the stencil points the to the required instructions and Technical Orders covered under the Special Projects designation.

 

In addition, the aircraft in question had to go through a modification centre before it was declared a Spec.Proj?

 

OR the mechanic had to follow instructions issued by a Modification Center......there were several centers in the United States and one in England IIRC. Additionally there were scores of engineers stationed at the centers, manufacturers, and operational units.

 

Were Spec.Proj numbers specific to that aircraft, or to a series of aircraft?

 

 

[NB: This answer since modified by Crumpp]:The Special Project number is specific to the Special Project the aircraft is modified under. In other words, 100/150 grade corresponds to the Special project denoting modifications to use that fuel.

 

You cannot understand the technical development of these aircraft without having a grasp of the maintenance and modification procedures.

 

Unfortunately, none of the answers explain the meaning and purpose of those Spec.Proj stencils, which were, as already pointed out by Milo, the codes showing where aircraft were to be delivered by Air Transport Command- nothing more; they had absolutely nothing to do with the modification state of the airframe or engine:

 

http://forum.armyairforces.com/Project-numbers-m236146.aspx

 

http://forum.armyairforces.com/AAF-Special-projects-Numbers-AAF-Spec-Proj-No-P51D-Mustang-m219532.aspx

 

Also, much of the attached pdf file on "The Modification of USAAF Aircraft" is unreadable.


Edited by Friedrich-4/B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spec.Proj stencils, which were, as already pointed out by Milo, the codes showing where aircraft were to be delivered by Air Transport Command-

 

They are explained...read the document.

 

The special projects codes do not have a anything to do with air transportation command.

 

Better yet, take a trip to your local airfield and ask about how aircraft get modified. Have them explain the procedures and documents involved.

 

It will be much clearer to you the USAAF system.

 

We can agree to disagree. End of discussion and thanks!!

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are explained...read the document.

 

Specific page numbers and or references, please. As already mentioned, a large number of the pages of the document are unreadable so clearer scans would be good.

 

The special projects codes do not have a anything to do with air transportation command.

 

Those who were actually in the USAAF have a different opinion.

 

Better yet, take a trip to your local airfield and ask about how aircraft get modified. Have them explain the procedures and documents involved.

 

Not that many people at my local airfield could explain how the USAAF operated 70 odd years ago.

 

We can agree to disagree. End of discussion and thanks!!

 

No problem. As this is OT of this thread, so it would be far better to open a new thread to deal with this.


Edited by Friedrich-4/B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who were actually in the USAAF have a different opinion.

 

Well, they are wrong. Documentation does not lie. Special Projects denotes Material Commands representatives at the production lines of the aircraft manufacturers. Those airplanes were modified on the production line and not at a center.

 

Open another thread if you want.

 

I am intrigued to hear the whole story on this USAAF veteran. I am willing to bet he did not actually say this or misunderstood the question.


Edited by Crumpp

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think that we should get the best P-51D variant with the best available fuel if we are going up against the best of what III Reich had.

 

Most of the 109s that P-51 would fight against IRL is the Bf109G6. Which is most produced 109 model. But we have the "elite" K4 that was limited and at the end of the war and 190D9 that was also not produced in very big quantities. We should have Fw190A8 instead.

 

So when the game goes for high-end for one side, it should go for high-end for the other side as well. To keep the balance.

 

Would it be fun if US had P-51H vs Bf109G6? I don't think so.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

 

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.

My channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...