Why was the BF109 so slow compared with the P51?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- Why is the ME 109G with it's huge engine in a small airframe about 40-60mph slower than the P51 Mustang? In this video we look at the key differnces between the Merlin 1650 and Diamler Benz DB 605 as they relate to power.
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplane...
My Patreon: / gregsairplanesandautom...
More on Manifold Pressure: • P51 Mustang Manifold P...
The 109's awesome supercharger drive system: • Messerschmitt BF 109 S...
P51 vs. X turn radius: • P51 Mustang Turn Radiu... - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
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
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
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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
You've singlehandedly rekindled my interest in WW2 planes. Fantastic level of detail. Well done, sir.
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.
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.
So this video appeared on my TH-cam 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 TH-cam 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.
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.
5:30 you know youre rich when your butler has a butler
Greg, a technically complete whilst still understandable treatment of the topic - Bravo !
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.
Greg's knowledge is very impressive! Great videos. Thanks for your time and effort.
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 …...
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?
@@theacme3beginning of service of mustang - 1942. Bf 109 - 1937. Please stop making things up.
E and G models are absolutely different aircrafts just like early and late P-51. I don’t understand why the year of development of first modification should matter anyway.
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
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.
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.
You popped up in my recommended videos. I do occasionally go on benders watching aircraft videos. Enjoyed your video, thank you!
5:46 Finally, the answer to the age old question regarding superchargers!
The stacking of superchargers was something that was also done with off-road racing BMW experimented with it but had problems with altitude adjustment
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
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
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 👍
You mentioned the difference in the octane rating of the fuel for American and German aircraft. It reminds me on an article I read in Smithsonian Magazine some years ago on this topic. It seems that, up until WWII, when you refined crude oil, you got about 1 qt of gasoline out of a gallon of oil. But the Americans figured out how to "crack" the petroleum, causing the carbon chains to break. The shorter the carbon chains, the higher the octane, and the longest carbon chains were in the tars. This cracking process had two benefits for refining: you would get 2 quarts of gasoline out of each gallon of crude, and that gasoline would be a higher octane. It was reported that gasoline from this process reached Brittan after Dunkirk and before the battle of Brittan. The German pilots refused to believe that they were fighting the same planes, due to the higher octane fuel. One of the problems Germany suffered throughout the war was a shortage of fuel for their war machine. Imagine if that had gotten the American "cracking" formula, they would have had twice as much fuel and it would have been a better fuel. Who knows what impact this would have made. America and Brittan purposely bombed rail yards, trains, and tracks in an attempt to hinder flow of material to the front. No matter how good your fuel is, it is useless if you can't get it to the front.
This is excellent! Taught me a lot of new things, earned a new subscriber!
A wonderful engineering history commentary! I'm hooked!
These videos are fantastic, thanks so much for providing them!
This is a great video that goes in-depth but is still completely understandable. Job well done.
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.
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 the way man should learn history! Respect!
Amazing Details which made the difference.
Back fire goes through the intake “backwards / reverse flow”. After fire goes out the stacks “forwards / normal flow”. Thank you for posting a great video.
Hi William, I'm sure it says that somewhere, but the first 5 online dictionarys that come up on Google don't define it that way. Often maintenance manuals will have their own definitions that don't align exactly with common usage, which I'm guessing is where you got those definitions. So, I'm not saying your wrong, but I'm not wrong either, an engine can backfire out the exhaust stacks. When making videos, I often have to put thought into just which definition to use, and I can't count on everyone here being an A&P.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles, you’re right academically. I love how thorough you are! I did learn the terms backfire and after-fire in a hanger full is WWII, Korean War, era and later pilots and mechanics. There was at one time a flyable P-51 and a Hellcat in there. The pilots said backfire. The main mechanic lectured all of us on After-fire vs backfire. Terms are correct for the group that uses it as long as everyone is on the same page. I was too short on my first reply and apologize for it being a bit flippant. I just hate typing on this iPhone vs a keyboard. I passed your videos of the P-47 to Captain Hal Coonley, 94 years old. He flew two tours/ 100 missions in the P-47 and a third tour as the squadron Engineering Officer. He had first hand knowledge of the P-47’s compressibility issues and enjoyed your video. Thanks for what you do.
Thanks for your kind words William, and your iphone typing is much better than mine, I don't even bother except for short texts, it's a pia to do anything more.
That was very well explaned. Love the 51, and adding to my knowledge base is always a plus. You know your stuff!!
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
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
Amazing narration, both in terms of technical detail, and flow.
Funnily enough, while the P51 was a great fighter, it was not a great dogfighter, It was far too heavy on the controls compared to say, the Spitfire IX, but its far greater speed made it a very good ''hit and run'' machine. It is not an aircraft you would want to fly in a ''winding match'' with an Me109, in fact I don't really know that I would have wanted to be in a ''winding match'' against a DC3, it was that heavy to fly at speed! But in a ''slashing'' attack It could catch most enemy aircraft and be well out of the way before the enemy knew what hit them or could retaliate. And , yes, I have flown the P51D so I know whereof I speak.
Plus both BF 109 and FW 190 were able to outclimb and out turn P-51 plus they had better acceleration.
None of the USAAF fighters in the European theater were particularly good dogfighters.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Pilots made the difference, the allies cycled the aces through training schools"OTU's" to pass on knowledge. The Germans had you fly till you died. Pilot training at the end for germany was very short, then if you survived your first 5 missions your life expectancy went up" the problem was you had to survive 5 missions.
What you're talking about is the "energy fight", which is a fundamental concept in air combat maneuvering even in today's 5th generation jets.
@@kerkize8907 109 is an energy fighter/ interceptor. p51 has inferior climb speed however, and poor mid/low altitude performance, making it inferior to the 109 at energy fighting. Its job was long range escort and it exceeded itself in that role, but it was not a particularly impressive aircraft in combat, but it could just about hold its own.
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.
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.
I am a motorcycle race engineer and I understood everything, that was right on the button, thanks.
Thanks Peter. I checked out your channel, and there is some fantastic stuff there. I watched two of your videos including the snowflake problem discussion. A lot of it's beyond my level of knowledge, but I understand the basic problem and found the discussion very interesting.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks for checking out the videos Greg. The information has now got to academics at universities in the UK, and it causes panic. I spend a lot of time with high level academics showing them how to use it properly, they know they have to deal with it. There is now a book which goes through the evidence step by step and from all angles. Anybody can read the book and make up their own mind. If you would like a copy just give me an e mail address, it is free to good engineers and open minded people. Cheers P A Cook
Hi Peter, I'm afraid it's beyond my level of thinking. I hope you like Taiwan, I spend a lot of time in Taipei, it's one of my favorite layovers.
There is a relatively unsung (at least unknown) hero of world war two called "Sir Stanley Hooker", who played a huge part in optimising the supercharger that went on Merlin engines and then after the war worked on Jet Engines and the original jump jet harrier. He turned up at Rolls Royce from more an academic background and got stuck into the difficult job of optimising superchargers and did, obviously, a great job, he significantly improved its performance, and went on to be famous for his jet Engineering work. (I suppose in a way a jet engine is just a big supercharger! :)) Surely he made a notical difference in winning the war. The p51 was a mediocre plane before it got the license built Merlin, and his supercharger designs will have been in it.
He wrote an interesting book "Not much of an engineer" about his experiences.
The P51A was the best fighter in the USAAF inventory when operating below 20,000 feet. It was mediocre at higher altitudes, but in it's design range, it was great.
I do know of Stanley Hooker, I am not sure I agree that he is an "unsung" hero. It seems a lot of people know who he is. The unsung here of British engineering in my opinion is Sir Harry Ricardo, and he wrote books which are still of great importance today.
Hi, thanks for the reply :)
I suppose I meant unsung as in the sense of most people not clued up geeks like us :)
We know who Hooker was but he's certaintly not as famous as .. I dunno the strange idolisation we in the west have for German engineers.
While you in your good piece obviously explain why, we (as in allied) were as good if not obviously better!!
I'll have to look up Ricardo, thank you for the reference.
@@FallNorth Ricardo received an award from Goering for his work on engine design.
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?
Any modern IC engine designer should be humbled by what was it achieved with a slide rule and a hunch, no modern computers.
Explained organically and do clearly, engineering is fascinating and enlightening presented like this! I love to learn. Just as intriguing is the references to how the different technologies deserve their own expose. And finally, hiw the system as a whole operates, and under different conditions. Rational complexity that is understandable. Thanks.
Extremely good Greg, very well done. Superbly researched and well presented. Thank you. You are making a valuable contribution to preserving history.
Absolutely fascinating video!!!
I think there is a group that give thumbs down on every video on the tube-no matter what the video is. Even music videos which they dont have to watch if they dont like the music will give a thumbs down-why watch at all and then give thumbs down-and who cares if you dont like it anyway?!
It appears that most thumbs down are from people who haven't even watched the videos. I am sure it's the same way on other channels. I really don't worry about it, I know my channel isn't for everyone.
WHY BITCH ABOUT PEOPLE GIVING THMBS DOWN?
Studying chemical engineering at UC Berkeley, circa 1980, we were told, somewhat tongue in cheek, that chemical engineers won WWII due to the higher octane avgas and the resulting higher performance and longer range of fighters and bombers (mostly the longer range was discussed, because it's easier to show how higher compression makes for better fuel economy). That was the brief, fun part of the lecture but then we'd be tracing curves on enthalpy vs. entropy charts for the rest of the class.
High octane fuel was a large contributing factor to the Allied victory in WW2, although overwhelmingly superior numbers was the primary factor. Enthalpy and Entropy charts don't sound fun.
And manufacturing capacity, access to oil, iron, bauxite, cheap hydro power (Bonneville especially for aluminum production in the NW, Hoover for chemical industries in the SW), increasingly mechanized farming all on a continent untouched by the fighting.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Here's an example of such a chart:
www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/enthalpy_entropy_mollier.htm You follow different curves through the intake, compression, expansion, and exhaust strokes and the enclosed area gives you the resulting power. Higher peak temperatures make the curvy four-sided figure wider and the higher compression ratio makes it taller. More area is more energy captured for shaft work. But I suspect you know that.
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.
I read in a book called "Power To Fly" that the Germans never figured out that the allies were using such high octane fuel using lead/tet. The few aircraft they captured intact always used German fuel which was a lower octane, and thus the Germans were never impressed with the allied aircraft. The German high command ignored the reports from their own pilots about the superiority of the Spitfire etc. They also ignored reports from ground forces who reported that their vehicles ran better on fuel they had siphoned from downed allied aircraft. It never seemed to occur to the Germans to test allied fuel, just as it never occurred to them that the allies could break their Enigma code or use an effective radar until it was too late.
Insianutorr T: Yes it sounds silly. But it was very true. The German airforce could have used Tetraethyllead, since it had been available since 1936, but Mercedes thought the lead would harm their engines and advised against it. So they used Benzene, which, while effective, diminishes with increased compression ratios. The one thing that has always amused me is how conservative the Germans were during WW2, they never planned effectively to fight a long war, probably out of hubris believing they would win in months, or at least a year or two. Blame it on Hitler! Hitler didn't want the army equipped with sub-machine guns, nor support the development of the jet fighter, why? Because he was a paranoid and delusional man with no empathy for other people's ideas!
when Adolf Galland test fly the spitfire mk5 during battle of britain , he conclued that the bf 109 e is better ……....Bullettube , it's fact that german think the war will be over by the end of 1942 so they stopped nearly all the research effort from 1940 to the end of 1942 , this 2 years cost them a lot of weapons not to be aviable until 1944 ……. u-boat type XXI , surface to air missile , air /air missiles , jets fighters , heavy tanks , anti-tanks weapons ………..
c b: Yes I read that story, he made several flights in a Spitfire that had been captured in France using German fuel with a lower octane rating then what the British were using. As a historian once said, there is only one reason Germany lost the war: "the Germans had Hitler, the Allies had Churchill and Roosevelt"
IG Farben bought a license for TEL in 1935 and the LW did use it, they were not idiots. They did test allied fuel and knew its characteristics. Their high-end 96 octane fuel was called C3 and was somewhat comparable, of course, they had a lot less of it available and most was 87 octane B4.
The Germans didnt plan for a long war because THEY COULDNT WIN ONE! They either won fast, or would lose. Hence the nazi suicides begining in late 1941 when the soviets decided they wouldnt just collapse.
PS. Churchill was an idiot.
There was no Mk 5 Spitfire during the Battle Of Britain. They were Mk I's and a handful of Mk II's. Don't know where you heard that story. Galland was impressed enough with the Spitfire that he made his famous remark to Goering, "A squadron of Spitfires!" when he was asked what he needed to win the battle.
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.
A common practice among technicians and engineers was to use 1 kgf/cm2 (= 98 kPa or 14.2 psi) as a substitute for 1 ata (atmosphere absolute), because the measuring devices were robust and more affordable. Otherwise, mmHg at 0°C (or the equivalent Torr) was also common. That would be compatible with 1 ata = 1013 hPa.
The technical definition of 1 ata = 1 bar = 100 kPa is from 1982.
Fascinating, Well explained. I like the Myth busting. Cheers
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.
keep up the good work, enjoy your stuff!!!
HI Greg. I believe the high octane fuel was produced by ICI at oil works in Billingham Teesside. The carbonylation alcohols plant, as I knew it , when I worked there in the late 1980's as a plant manager, was openned by the prime minister in 1933. It used high pressure reactors running at 800 bar with highly flammable feed stock, based on coal in the 1940's, small fires were frequent. The control room was over 150 yards long and had large valve handles that operated through a large blast wall much like the engine room of a 1930 ship. The plant was shut in the mid 1990's. I believe I have a picture in a book.
Hope this is helpful.
Wow, that's interesting info. Thanks.
You sound very professional and seem to know what you're talking about. That's pretty hard to find on TH-cam nowadays. Subscribed.
Would it be terribly rude to mention all this suggested American technology is actually British? Credit where credit is due.
I figure anyone watching these videos already knows that the Packard Merlin engine in the P51 has it's origins from the Rolls Royce Merlin. I'll probably make a video about British planes at some point, Actually I did talk about the Sopwith Camel, now that's British!
I'd be curious to know what the standard octane of the British fuel was. This would be a factor when comparing the Packard vs the Rolls.
My understanding is that Britain was getting it's fuel from the US. Maybe not all of it but the high octane aviation fuel at any rate.
.
Part of the reason Britain won the Battle of Britain was that FDR was persuaded to force the US military to release high octane fuel to England between the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain. This was from naturally higher octane oil deposits, not from adding lead (as done later). The US military considered this high octane fuel a top military secret they were loath to share. At that time I believe the Merlin had a single stage, single speed supercharger. The higher octane fuel allowed the British to increase boost from something like 6 inches to 12. This increased engine power by about 1000 hp. The engine change involved changing gear ratios and some carburetor changes. When the Luftwaffe encountered Hurricanes and Spitfires in the BoB, the British fighters could climb and accelerate faster and were a bit faster than the Luftwaffe had experienced fighting them over France.
So what you are saying Dan is that the Merlin was a great engine mainly as a result of the American grade fuel. See what I'm getting at Ben? Just like it took the Americans to mass produce magnetrons for radar cheaply and affordably improving on a British invention. Same thing is still happening today. Skylon's reaction motor is now being worked on by the Americans because the Brits don't have the money to invest in it. I have nothing against the Brits but to sit there and try to belittle the Americans makes no sense. We are allies and work TOGETHER. I'm glad we can now comment today on computers made by whoever that was originally created in the USA. Some things only bring us closer together and the world is better because of them. Don't let these things separate us.
this video should be in the how-to-build-proper-USAF-school book for the #WarThunder dev-team. by just looking over gregs video topics his channel should be the 1st chapter
Good video. No nonsense, informative, clearly and concisely given. 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
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.
That cutaway of the DB109 V-12 shows knife-and-fork con rods, just like a Harley!
That was very well explaned. Love the 51, and adding to my knowledge base is always a plus. You know your stuff!!
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 !
Looks like we all can learn a little more about what we thought we knew. Outstanding information on our history. Shalom
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 !
Peter Henn in his book “ The Last Battle “ is quite scathing about the changes applied to the Gustav and how the RLM depleted performance in order to increase armament. It seems to have been a view shared by many of the active Luftwaffe pilots. It’s also interesting to note just how much the P38, P47 and the P51 terrified some fairly experienced pilots with their overwhelming superiority. A great read!
Thanks, I have not read that one. Don't forget the F-4U, my candidate for the best fighter of the war. But it did not have the range of the P-38 and the Mustang. It was so unfortunate all of the mechanical bastardizations that went on with the P-38. If they had stuck with Johnson's design with superchargers and of course they had to fix the issues with the cabin heat it would probably result in half the other planes never being built. I am not sure how the original engines would have held out with the superchargers but in the end it was one of the finest fighters built during the war. It would have ended the war in Europe at least half a year early by allowing more effective bombing with complete fighter escorts. It had the range that the Mustang had about 2 years earlier than the Mustang.
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 enjoyed your video. It was very interesting. Thank you!
Man... What a great find your channel is, a rare kind. Pure drama-free knowledge.
One aspect that is missing here is the added thrust from the cooler. Early in the war some engineers find out that the cooler can be set up to ad thrust simular to how a jet enegine works. While it was not a lot o thrust, at high altitude and high speeds the added thrus was quite significant
What you are talking about is called the Meredith effect. I didn't cover it because this episode was primarily about engines and fuel, and not air-frames. I have to keep the subject matter limited in order to get in enough detail within a certain amount of time. It's worth nothing that the meredith effect was not unique to the P-51, the later 109s used it too.
I didn´t know BF109 used that effect.. of cause, you did say later. I know that Spitfire from some iteration (think it was MK IX or something) start using it.
To my understanding this effect was used most successfully in P-51 due to it being Incorporated in the design from beginning. If i understand it corectly they stacked the coolers so they could have much higher cooling temperature having a larger effect.
I´m unsure of it, but that is the information i got of my source of the matter, and it seams likely due to the cooler is larger.
A well-described analysis, with just the right (for me) level of detail.
Not enough videos on the engineering aspect of these aircrafts! You are doing great work.
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
Your videos are always great... Greetings from the Space Coast!
"We put a supercharger on your supercharger!"
This is the most 'MERICA thing I have heard so far in 2020.
If that isn't worth a "Yo Dawg,..." meme, I don't know what is:
"Yo Dawg, I herd u like Superchargers, so I put a supercharger in ur supercharger, so u can perform while u outperform"
@@Nightdare My thoughts exactly!
Shame it was British...........
@@simonmorris4226 by shame I assume you mean for the sake of the OPs post.
@@ChazCharlie1 naturally!🤣
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.
Greg, Love the vids and great technical info.
I read that the P51's air scoop/ after-cooler compartment had an exit damper that would actually regain the air cooled drag loss (across the radiator/ heat exchanger) of HP by heat expansion thrust. Can you expound on this?
It's too complex to cover in the comments, but I'll get to it in a video at some point.
Remarkable lecture on the issue of high professional quality, much obliged and subscribed!
After this video you are now the number one man I’d like to have a beer with.
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 .
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)
The P51 was a 1944 aircraft. The ME109G was a 1942 aircraft. There were huge advancements going on in design during the war years and those two years gap between the aircraft were huge.
I think you missed the point. This isn't supposed to be some fair and square contest, it's a technical explanation about why one is faster than the other.
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. :)
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.
Fuel injection in the 40's, wow. Interesting video, I know none of this
Really Happenings peugeot had a twin cam, 16v injected race car in the 1920s
That’s when gear heads were born and petrol was used as deodorant
This shows how important General Doolittle was to the history of WWII. He did four things that were massively important.
1. He was the main test pilot and engineer in the development of instrument flying (during the 20s). In the first test he took off from an airstrip flew around it and landed it with only what are now the basic flight instruments. All with a covering over the cockpit so he was literally blind to the outside world.
2. In the 30's he worked for Shell oil company and he talked them into developing high octane fuels. Something for which there was no market at the time. As the above video showed how much this paid off during the war.
3. The Doolittle raid on Japan. This raid shamed the Japanese into making strategic mistakes from which they were unable to recover.
4. When he became commander of the 8th Air force he let the fighters loose. Before that the were often tied to directly defending the bombers. By letting them go hunting they were able to destroy the Luftwaffe in detail.
Yes, all correct.Good post Paul. I talk about Doolittle a bit in my P-47 Pt. 8 video.
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.
Great Grand Dad said those Germans used methanol and water starting in 42 and that was a standard on almost every 109G
The main reason why the Germans lost in the air is apparently obvious.
P 51 was a dog in 43 and until the British supplied the canopy top and engine the mustang was a pig.
I’m laughing here.. you got em goin on this video.
Of course Great Grand dad is an expert....
wotevrpnt: I have my BSN degree from UCLA and visited a Senior Center in Arcadia California. There in one room was a WW2 veteran who was actually on the Arizona Dec. 1941. He was a gunners-mate and had photos and even all his duty documents of being assigned to that ship. Now what would you rather listen to, this man narrating from books with dates or Eric Hartman telling you what’s up? Don’t bother to answer Sir, your insane. I’ll listen to the Arizona crew there over any one else’s version from a factory textbook. GFYS.
I think you mean YOU'RE insane. It's a contraction of you are. I guess they don't teach English at UCLA.
P.S.- You spelled Erich Hartmann's name wrong too. Stop putting down books and try reading one.
Wotevrpnt: People like you refuse to stay on point. And your wisecrack back fires asshole. Reading statistics compiled from flawed human beings cannot compete with the actual credentialed person operating the aircraft. Even maintaining the aircraft during wartime conditions.
Secondly I am laying down at night thumbing typing responses so what about a letter off on Hartmann or a slight on sentence structure. Ever read a MDs notes? Then shut up. Thought expression overrides your stupid comments. And you were shut down on eyewitness accounts. Schweine
You and Mark Felton are the best channels on you tube
Notice how the P-51's exhaust pipes are near the top of the cowl, while the BF-109's are near the bottom? The BF had the V12 engine mounted upside down. Yes, the cylinder heads point DOWN. Why? This made the engine easier to service. And the BF had a SOHC 35 liter 36 valve engine vs the SOHC 27 liter 48 valve engine of the P-51, meaning less maintenance. But the REAL reason the P-51 was faster? The laminar flow wing....
Flies2FLL How about the FW 190 Dora or the TA 152. It starts to come closer to the P 151 late in the war! The quality and quantity of fuel was one of the real determining reasons. Dornier 335 was the fastest piston fighter in WW2 until the advent of jet powered aircraft! There is a documented flight by Kurt Tank out running a P51 in 1945 in a unarmed TA 152 fighter. The FW was a superior aircraft to the Me 109 in any series! This posting is the best explanation of of the P51D’s attributes and problems when the technology is pushed to the limits. Wish more were as objective as this one.
Flies2FLL we also can’t forget about the way that the exhaust was mounted underneath the plane added an additional amount of thrust helping to push the plane forward.
@@BlindMansRevenge2002 That gives a negligible amount of thrust. The wing was the big difference. The BF109 had a better engine.
Laminar flow wing? Have you looked at how thin the bf109 wing is the Germans could barely fit guns pod in them. The small wing on the 109 gave it speed however it all comes down to high quality fuels or any fuel for that matter which the Germans lacked. You guys have your head stuck in the clouds bf109 was superior to a p51.
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.
Really facinating stuff! Thanks for sharing.
The engine in the Mustang was a Rolls-Royce Merlin built under license by Packard. Packard didn't design it they merely followed the plans from Rolls-Royce and were shown exactly how to build it. The genius behind it came from Derby England but you forgot to mention that.
I didn't forget to mention it, it's just that I can only fit so much into a 20min video. I didn't mention where the Merlin, or the DB were designed. I will say that Packard did absolutely make changes to the Merlin, they didn't blindly follow the plans, but that's another story.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I'd be interested in that ... as RR, from what I've read, insisted on their design being followed.
www.tested.com/art/makers/492418-packard-merlin-how-detroit-mass-produced-britains-hand-built-powerhouse/
Excellent video , as a gear head . I find it very interesting .