357th_Dog

I was more so referring to the P-75, but while the XP-72 was indeed very fast...it still wasn't going to make anything obsolete. The US already had the XP-80 doing combat tests in Italy before the end of the war...nothing was going to change that trajectory

You mean the experimental fighter that wasn't even as fast as a F4U or P-51?

It's always entertaining when Wehraboo's pop in claiming German technology was the inspiration for everything. The latest one where it was German technology that was tied to the P-51 is very entertaining.

I've seen it referenced in books, however the only photo I've ever found is a RAF Mustang Mk III and a P-51B with both RAF style rockets and the P-51B with the M-8 triple tubes.

My guess... 250lb and 500lb GP bombs 2 X 3 pack Bazooka rounds HVAR rockets weren't available on the P-51 until zero length launchers were introducted in the D-25/D-30 (can't remember exactly which one)

Ah, disregard my reply then, it was only correct if you were making the opposite point

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning...were you saying that the US and UK were like Germany in that they were fighting multiple fronts, or the US/UK was like Russia in they only focused on one front?

The US and Britain both fought on multiple fronts against multiple enemies. It could be said, yes, but it would be incorrect. So to be clear...you're calling the pilot who is there to talk about it..a liar for describing the maneuver that he did?

Yet the vast majority of the Luftwaffe was destroyed on the Western Front as only the US and British had an actual plan for destroying the Luftwaffe. The VVS was a fine tactical support air force yet that is about it, they were incompetent in any strategic action and thinking. The Luftwaffe was gutted in the west and the allies focused on destroying German aircraft support and the ability for allied escort fighters to destroy German aircraft on the ground *and* in the air is not to be understated.

No worries

You more or less just restated what I said. Despite technically superior aircraft, like the Dora, a lot of the luftwaffe aces preferred the 109 because they were most comfortable and confident in it.

Quite a few of the Luftwaffe's best pilots would agree with the OP.. Even after technically "superior" 190's came on the scene, including the Dora, many pilots preferred the 109.

The Merlin series 60's, which the V1650's were based on, were fairly modest in their specifications. They weren't particularly high displacement (the Allison's the P-51A had were larger), they didn't have an unusually complex and sophisticated supercharger system (IE the DB605 series), it didn't have the most cylinders (IE the Napier Sabre) and it wasn't turbocharged (P-47, etc). It was simple, robust and adaptive to wildly ranging fuels with a minimum of work. It was efficient and put out a considerable amount of power for it's size (around 1,500 HP average) and did it smoothly compared to other engines. It could run very high manifold pressure levels, but that was more dependent on fuel than anything..the V1650-7 needed 150 octane to reliably and safely run at 72" of mercury. Were there more powerful engines? Sure..the Rolls Griffons in the Spit XIV was more powerful, as was the Sabre in the TempestPhoon, and the DB605 with MW50 (in some conditions) but it was just the right amount of power to just the right airframe at the right time to do brilliant things.

"I can't see Korea being done next" I can if they still lack the ability to replicate the Japanese assets to the level they want. People can WANT the PTO all day long, twice on Sunday and thrice on Christmas...if the documentation still isn't there, it's not happening.

I didn't say it wasn't an exceptional performer, merely that there was nothing truly innovative or revolutionary about the P-51 (I should have clarified what I meant by exceptional). Jimmy Doolittle referred to the war effort hinging on it because it was the only USAAF fighter that could, reliably, escort USAAF heavies to and from extremely deep penetration missions both out of England and Italy, without the P-51, no matter what drop tanks, fuel settings or otherwise you hung on a P-47..it couldn't take the heavies there and back. The P-51 simply had a great combination of a proven engine, IE the V1650-7/3 aka Merlin 66 (7) and Merlin 63 (3) that was very fuel miserly, a tremendous amount of internal fuel capacity and the ability to hang yet more fuel under the wings. The reason why guys were jumping at the bit to fly it (although not universally at first) is because it offered a very dramatic improvement in range, agility and speed over the P-47's and P-38's that came before it. A good number of pilots in the 352nd FG weren't particularly anxious to trade in their P-47's for P-51B's at first, only in time did they fully acclimate and whole heartedly adopt the Mustang. Again, the P-51 was a very very good airplane, but it was more the ultimate refinement of conventional aircraft design and construction logic (in the US) rather than breaking new ground and being a trailblazer into new territories like aircraft that had come before it (I.E the P-38 as a single seat, twin engine, twin boom fighter, the Hawk series as being the first USAAC/USAAF all metal monoplane fighters, etc). As for adaptable? I say this because it could perform a number of duties beyond simply being a high altitude escort fighter. It could effectively function as both a short range (aka "point defense" in todays logic) interceptor fighter as the original Spitfire was envisioned, it could be that extremely long range escort fighter, it could do ground attack (granted not ideally due to it's more vulnerable cooling system inherent to most inline engines), it could do photo recon, it could do fighter sweeps between the point defense zones and long range escort (IE the rhubarb missions as the RAF called them). Was it as adaptable as the P-38? No, but I didn't say it was THE most adaptable, just that it was adaptable.