North American P-51H 'Mustang'
|  Manufacturer:||North American
|  Base model:||P-51|
|  Designation System:||U.S. Air Force|
|  Designation Period:||1925-1947|
|  Basic role:||Pursuit|
|  See Also:|
|  Length:|| 33' 4"|| 10.1 m|
|  Height:||13' 8"|| 4.1 m|
|  Wingspan:|| 37'|| 11.3 m|
|  Wingarea:|| 233.0 sq ft|| 21.6 sq m|
|  Empty Weight:|| 6,585 lb|| 2,986 kg|
|  Gross Weight:|| 11,054 lb|| 5,013 kg|
|  No. of Engines:|| 1|
|  Powerplant:|| Rolls-Royce (Parkard) V-1650-9 Merlin|
|  Horsepower (each):|| 1380|
|  Range:|| 850 miles|| 1,368 km|
|  Cruise Speed:|| 380 mph|| 611 km/h|| 330 kt|
|  Max Speed:|| 487 mph|| 784 km/h|| 423 kt|
|  Ceiling:|| 41,600 ft|| 12,679 m|
Known serial numbers
|44-64160 / 44-64179, 44-64180 / 44-64459, 44-64460 / 44-64714, 44-64715 / 44-65159, 09064
Examples of this type may be found at
P-51H on display
Chanute Display Center
USAF History and Traditions Museum
| || || |
Recent comments by our visitors
| Larry Williams|
| I recently went up with a friend in a P-51H and it seemed faster than the D model I had flown in before. I believe it is 1500 lbs. lighter. We were doing high speed passes over the October event at the Nut Tree,,Vacaville, Ca. "Mustang Day" air event. We had about 12 Mustangs show up mostly D models. When we made a second pass over the field there was a biplane which we saw shortly before and the pilot abruptly pulled up and this seemed to reflect greater power than the D model. Another thing the Rolls Royce Merlin ran a little rougher, perhaps due to a more radical cam configuration. Anyway it was all the thoroughbred that the fighter pilots of WWII said it was. I would like to go up in a D model one more time to compare. I feel fortunate to be in a position to compare as I refueled them at the air event. They are thirsty monsters about 68 gallons an hour. |
10/15/2012 @ 10:38 [ref: 67307]
| In the late 1950s the Texas Air Guard flew P-51Hs in the 181st Ft Sqdn out of NAS Dallas (Hensley Field); the other two suadrons in the TANG both were equiped with "D"s, one from Houston and the other from San Antonio. The "H" were assigned to the Guard to replace F-84B and C models. |
06/07/2011 @ 09:43 [ref: 39204]
| \"Ever notice how the losers always seem to be the ones trying to re-write history?\"
Yea sure, blah blah blah blah! One could say the same about winner\'s denigratory policies. Americans love to depict theyr enemies like suckers.
You\'re talking nonsense. Just put it on the right perspective.
Italians suffered a number of flaws in industrial development and technology achievements, and were plagued by a constant lack of resources, topped by obsolete thinking and misconceptions.
Due to short-sighted and incompetent leaders, as well as economic limitations, Italians failed to create the conditions to properly take on a war.
Italians were not stupid or suckers.
Italian Technicians were able to put togheter very good designs: Like it or not, italian machines like the macchi 205 or Fiat G55 WERE a match for advanced allied types of the era. Given the right numbers and conditions they could have influenced the course of the war. After all numbers DO count. If you throw 500 bombers (plus escorts) against 4 fighters, the results are far then unpredictable.
03/07/2010 @ 03:26 [ref: 25836]
| bob nawrocki|
bangor pa, PA
| Concerning Henry C. Rocks comment on Tyndall's P51H's, go to Google and punch in G. Asher, Tyndall, in Flicker you will see many photos of a couple of contributors during that period of time that worked on them, me included. Never did we dream that the P51's would someday be so highly honored.
02/20/2010 @ 16:43 [ref: 25756]
| Henry C. (Curt) Rock|
| In 1951-52, before I went to Korea to fly 51-Ds, I was lucky enough to fly the "H" at Tyndal AFB, Fla. I'd been instructing in T-6Gs at James Connally AFB in Texas prior to being transferred to Tyndall to attend Instrument Instrctor School.
While I waited to go school I was itching to get chance to into one of those "Stangs", so I asked if could. The 51s were being used as interceptors to train AC&W comtrollers. The group was short of "tail-dragger" talent, so I was accepted. There were no 2-seater "Temcos" for the "H",so it was Pilot's Handbook, blindfold cockpit check, crank it and go fly. 61in manifold pres. & 3000RPM at take-off was kick,as was .85 Mach. What a HOOT!
The H did have its quirks tho,like the finiky hydraulics.
01/23/2010 @ 12:59 [ref: 25619]
| 44-64265 at the Chanute Air Museum is now painted as 44-64195 as it appeared when flown by 359th Fighter Group Ace Claude Crenshaw for the 82FG at Grenier AAF, New Hampshire after the war. His plane was named LOUISIANA HEATWAVE.
More information about P-51H Mustangs is at http://p51h.home.comcast.net/~p51h/
03/06/2009 @ 16:48 [ref: 23893]
| Ever notice how the losers always seem to be the ones trying to re-write history? Heck, I didn't even know Italy had an Air Force in the Big One, let alone that it was operating planes that made Mustang drivers quiver with fear. I mean, I knew the Italian Navy sat out the war on the bottom of the Med, but who'd a thunk their Air Force was so spectacular.
Reminds me of the Lufthansa flight inbound to Berlin that got handed off to the tower: the first officer calls the tower in German and is advised to use English by the tower guy. "We are a German carrier in German airspace with a German crew landing at a German airport. Why must we speak English?" A decidedly different and most assuredly English voice comes up on the tower freq: "Because you lost the bloody war, mate."
And as for the Jughead calling the Mustang a Spam Can, the P-47 was a fine aircraft - rugged and well built, but it couldn't turn or climb to save its life. But when B-17s arrived over Berlin in March 1944, the fighters escorting them were 51s. Goering came out of the Reichstag and saw fighters escorting the bombers, turned to an aide and said "The war is over. We've lost".
10/23/2008 @ 15:13 [ref: 22908]
| g p milanetti|
| I dont have all you technical data, but it is a fact that in 1944 the Germans came in Italy and tested for a long time the italian Fiat G.55 fighter, a machine developed by the sicilian genius ingeneer Gabrielli. This plane performed so well against Me 109 and Fw 190 (that in many dogfight had shot down P 51) in every situation that was reported to Goering: "The italian Fiat G. 55 is the best Axis fighter." The Germans wanted to stop the production of 109 and 190 and to produce the Fiat!!!! This tell you something!!! Why they did not do it? Because the italian plane, hand-crafted for many parts, needed double the time to be producted! Anyway, in 1944 and 1945, the Fiat G. 55 faced P. 51 escorting bombers in the skies of northern Italy, and, against all odds (few Fiat against hundreds of american planes), they shoot down Mustangs too. And it was slower than Mustangs! So, you see that pure speed it is not all in dogfights! The P 51 H, anyway, should be compared to the outstanding, probably the most beautiful fighter of Ww2 (please, see pictures on web!)Fiat G. 56, another creature of Gabrielli that outperformed again the Me 109 an Fw 190 of the last generation (Ta 152 too), and that would have been a fierce opponents for every type of P. 51. Now I know that you will write many tecnichal data to show that I am wrong and that usa fighter were more modern, but I think we should not fall in love with the numbers (just numbers are not enough to win a dogfight, if more times the italian biplane Fiat Cr. 42 shot down the much faster Hurricane), even if you won the war exactly for that: numbers! And it is not little, I know! With regards! |
08/24/2007 @ 22:36 [ref: 17744]
| Doug Stenning|
| I know this has'nt been commented on in a while but i figure i'll add my two cents! Im a die hard Spitfire fan but thats irrelavent here, im currently researching a P51H that was based at Ladd AFB in Alaska by all accounts these aircraft were incredibly troublesome (in cold conditions at least) they all suffered from stress fractures on there wings and fusalage which meant that pilots were restricted to making 2.5G turns and the engines weren't all that! in one case all of the aircraft based at Ladd AFB had a compression test on their engines and 7 of them were suffering from low compression apparently without reason which meant that they had to be removed and sent away for further investigation. The thing is i think with more work the plane could of been phenomenal in all aspects the engine needed particular attention. even after all its faults i'd still love to fly one!! |
05/14/2007 @ 02:57 [ref: 16482]
| Dan Fahey|
| The Mustang was prefered in Korea was because it could use the short Japanese airfields, especially at Pusan. The P47 was too heavy plus costly to operate. The P51 cost far less to operate and maintain. Replacement parts were easily available from Australia.
The P47N was designed for high altitude and used large fuel tanks for range. Later on in the war when the Koreans and Chinese were pushed back. Jet bases were being built. The P47 could have been added. But many were being sent to Chennault in Formosa and Chaing Kai Shek.
As for the comment the Thunderbolt could survive better in CAS or Ground Attack Roles. This was not true. Each plane had a sweet spot. The P47 and F4U were no different.
The US Navy and Marines lost more Corsairs then the US and UN lost Mustangs. Plus the Navy/Marines lost many AU1, AD1/4's, Tigercats and USAF/UN A26's, AT-6s (Bearcat was not used). Everything fell against the Communist AA. See KORWALD statistics collected and prepared by Stephen Sewell.
Later in the Korean War the F80C and F84E/G replaced the props for ground support roles. They did fare a little better then the props. Jets were faster, harder to hit, accurate, more stable and could dogfight the Yaks and Migs when attacked especially down low.
As for the P51H, Bearcat, Tigercat, P72, and other late model varients. The US was winning WW2 and began making higher Power to Weight aircraft. Better materials were available so light weight became more important and range became secondary.
In the ETO US aircraft succeeded because we could hit Germany better then then they could hit England. Russia just used lots of flesh to move the Germans back.
The range and performance of the P51 sealed the fate of the German War machine. IMHO had the German used the Zero the Brits would be speaking a different language.
IMHO the two best Allied aircraft in production during WW2 were the P51 and P63. This was because England and Russia added their inputs directly into the designs. FWIW they were the only 2 US prop aircaft able to shoot down "off course" V-1 Rocket experiments preformed in the US.
As the Korean Conflict was starting the US was concerned about the Soviet Lend Lease King Korbas sitting on airfields just North of Korea in 1950.
AS for all late model props aircraft. All were at the end of their flight performance development. P51H was best in class and its sister the F-82 performed admirably in Korea.
04/20/2007 @ 13:04 [ref: 16246]
Recent photos uploaded by our visitors