Mustang P51 Combat Flaps
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mustang P51 Combat Flaps
The Mustang had combat flaps the could be used at any speed. Flew them in the Korean War with 77 Sqdn RAAF and never had a need to use the flaps in combat except when executing a hard break to avoid attacks by USAF F80s.
Not too many of us left who flew Mustangs in combat.
Does anyone know if those combat flaps were actually used in combat and to what advantage?
Perhaps the rarety of use made them to be unnecessary and only added extra weight and complexity to the Mustangs.
In any case they were a good idea by the aircraft designer or a smart inclusion in the specifications.
I recall that the Harrier could achieve a rapid change in manoeuver using vectored thrust. Is this called Swishing?
Not too many of us left who flew Mustangs in combat.
Does anyone know if those combat flaps were actually used in combat and to what advantage?
Perhaps the rarety of use made them to be unnecessary and only added extra weight and complexity to the Mustangs.
In any case they were a good idea by the aircraft designer or a smart inclusion in the specifications.
I recall that the Harrier could achieve a rapid change in manoeuver using vectored thrust. Is this called Swishing?
Hello Milt, I've had the pleasure to meet you on a couple of occasions. I don't know about the Mustang combat flaps but do remember that the Harrier direction change manoeuvre was called 'viffing' or 'vectoring in flight'.
Regards.
Regards.
Evertonian
Sorry, but I'm just in awe of the fact that you flew the Mustang in combat! Aaaand that's about all that I can contribute to this thread...sorry. 
Sorry I can't help with your question, but we'd all love to hear more about your experiences in the P-51. Please.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a casual way to start a thread!! My equivalent would be " When I was cutting the grass the other day, I noticed the mower was a Briggs & Stratton..."
Yes please! Lets hear some more!!!
Yes please! Lets hear some more!!!
I cannot comment on how the Mustang was flown in combat but I can give you a few numbers on P-51D and Hunter flap limiting speeds.
The P-51D flaps can be selected in 10 degree increments from 0 to 50 degrees. The limiting speed for 10 degrees is 400 mph (Vne is 505 mph below 9000 ft). There is no additional g limit with the flaps extended and thus 10 degrees of flap can be considered as combat flaps which can give an increase in instantaneous turn performance. Note that 400 mph is well above corner speed and thus effectively there is no practical speed limit for 10 degrees of flap. The 20 degree flap speed limit is 275 mph so even that can be useful for low speed manoeuvring.
The Hunter also has no g limit on the flaps and at angles of 38 degrees (approx 1/2 deflection) or less the speed limit is 300 KIAS/0.9 M. Above 300 KIAS the airflow will blow the flaps back in and you will see some pilots using 23 degrees of flap in displays at speeds that are probably above this. Any flap extension results in a nose down pitching moment and thus requires an increase of aft stick to counter the trim change. The problem comes at above 0.9 M (ie at high altitude) when stalling of the elevator hydro-booster jack occurs because the aerodynamic loads on the elevator are greater than the hydro-booster can overcome. Therefore, although the pilot may pull full back stick the elevator does not deflect to oppose the nose down pitch and thus the aircraft will continue in an ever steepening dive. The only recovery is to raise the flaps, close the throttle and extend the airbrake. Even in the Hunter's latter days at TWU a couple were lost due to this. This is certainly one characteristic that I have never demoed!
The P-51D flaps can be selected in 10 degree increments from 0 to 50 degrees. The limiting speed for 10 degrees is 400 mph (Vne is 505 mph below 9000 ft). There is no additional g limit with the flaps extended and thus 10 degrees of flap can be considered as combat flaps which can give an increase in instantaneous turn performance. Note that 400 mph is well above corner speed and thus effectively there is no practical speed limit for 10 degrees of flap. The 20 degree flap speed limit is 275 mph so even that can be useful for low speed manoeuvring.
The Hunter also has no g limit on the flaps and at angles of 38 degrees (approx 1/2 deflection) or less the speed limit is 300 KIAS/0.9 M. Above 300 KIAS the airflow will blow the flaps back in and you will see some pilots using 23 degrees of flap in displays at speeds that are probably above this. Any flap extension results in a nose down pitching moment and thus requires an increase of aft stick to counter the trim change. The problem comes at above 0.9 M (ie at high altitude) when stalling of the elevator hydro-booster jack occurs because the aerodynamic loads on the elevator are greater than the hydro-booster can overcome. Therefore, although the pilot may pull full back stick the elevator does not deflect to oppose the nose down pitch and thus the aircraft will continue in an ever steepening dive. The only recovery is to raise the flaps, close the throttle and extend the airbrake. Even in the Hunter's latter days at TWU a couple were lost due to this. This is certainly one characteristic that I have never demoed!
LOMCEVAK - indeed. During the late summer of 1976, a student on one of the courses disappeared during a GH trip over the Oggin and was never seen again. It was a hot, hazy day with a poor horizon; I was one of a pair doing canned ACM training, towing for the other which was a T7. As we transited out to sea, I called a single Hunter manoeuvring which might have been him, but as it wasn't a threat or part of our formation we continued - treating it as just a normal sighting exercise.
The haze was so bad that we were obliged to fly radar to visual on recovery, but of the solo student there was sadly no sign, we later learned.
If I recall correctly, his aircraft had been flying, unusually, with 2 x full 230 gall tanks and it was thought that the poor horizon and heavyweight aircraft might have been factors - he was due to do some aeros, which would probably have included some 23° flap work and the consensus was that he might have left it down, become disorientated and met the M0.9 jackstall problem.
Others on his course alleged that no-one had ever briefed them about the 23° flap / M0.9 limit, which I find hard to believe. As someone commented "That's about as likely as someone not knowing that a Chipmunk can groundloop!". So they were all rebriefed and 'the system' also limited us to 8 hr days...
RIP Bloggs - and XG191.
The haze was so bad that we were obliged to fly radar to visual on recovery, but of the solo student there was sadly no sign, we later learned.
If I recall correctly, his aircraft had been flying, unusually, with 2 x full 230 gall tanks and it was thought that the poor horizon and heavyweight aircraft might have been factors - he was due to do some aeros, which would probably have included some 23° flap work and the consensus was that he might have left it down, become disorientated and met the M0.9 jackstall problem.
Others on his course alleged that no-one had ever briefed them about the 23° flap / M0.9 limit, which I find hard to believe. As someone commented "That's about as likely as someone not knowing that a Chipmunk can groundloop!". So they were all rebriefed and 'the system' also limited us to 8 hr days...
RIP Bloggs - and XG191.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,566
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
What a casual way to start a thread!! My equivalent would be " When I was cutting the grass the other day, I noticed the mower was a Briggs & Stratton..."
Yes please! Lets hear some more!!!
Yes please! Lets hear some more!!!
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Antipodes
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without wishing to get too technical, I presume the combat flap was designed to give a large Centre of Pressure change, resulting in high pitch rates?
Therefore, greater manoevrability in the pitch axis...
I dont think I would want to be fighting at the top end of the drag curve with no Potential Energy for the sake of a bit of lift.
Therefore, greater manoevrability in the pitch axis...
I dont think I would want to be fighting at the top end of the drag curve with no Potential Energy for the sake of a bit of lift.
I always wanted to contribute positively to a thread about my rotary experience, and now I can! My Mountfield 18" had a 3.5hp Briggs and Stratton engine. Bought it in Elgin in 1983 because the Moss in my quarter in Kinloss had already burned out two electric mower motors. Lasted me until 2011! I hope that my new Honda 15" rotary will be as reliable.
http://www.troybilt.com/equipment/tr...wer-mustang-46.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the Harrier 1 we had manual flaps that we dropped from inter (default setting - flap up felt horrible) to 'down' whenever we went below 300 kts. VIFF was good fun but of use only in two or three occasions in my view as it was a great way of getting the nose moving but an even better way of losing energy.
As always there was a trade off, and in a fair amount of cases you'd be just as well to use the combat modes of the radar than get too bunched about a throttle-nozzle-flap juggle.
As always there was a trade off, and in a fair amount of cases you'd be just as well to use the combat modes of the radar than get too bunched about a throttle-nozzle-flap juggle.
RequestPidgeons,
The use of flap in combat is to give a higher maximum lift coefficient. In other words, for a given speed and altitude you can pull more g. Inevitably there is a drag penalty so its use is not a 'put it down and leave it down' option but something to use as the fight dictates, basically when you want a better instantaneous turn rate and/or lower corner speed.
L
The use of flap in combat is to give a higher maximum lift coefficient. In other words, for a given speed and altitude you can pull more g. Inevitably there is a drag penalty so its use is not a 'put it down and leave it down' option but something to use as the fight dictates, basically when you want a better instantaneous turn rate and/or lower corner speed.
L
).
Milt,
Apologies for the thread creep but if people have an interest in flight control systems and I can answer their questions ....
Stitchbitch,
I am obviously too transparent!
Rigga,
The aileron gear change was used to give increased roll performance during landing although it could be used for take-offs in strong crosswinds also. The roll rate that is generated when deflecting the ailerons is a function of, essentially, indicated airspeed. The faster you fly, the higher the roll rate for a given aileron deflection. At high speeds the maximum aileron angle has to be limited for several reasons. The twisting moment on the wings may result in excessive structural loads, the sideslip caused whilst rolling could exceed the fin strength limits and the aircraft could depart. Also, the gearing between the stick and the ailerons is dictated by the available stick movement whilst ensuring that the aircraft is not too sensitive in roll such that low roll rates can be generated when needed. However, once this gearing has been set for the high speed case there may be insuffucient roll control on the approach, especially for a crosswind landing. Therefore, some aircraft have an incease in stick to aileron gearing at low speeds. In the Buccaneer this was manually selected by the pilot. In the Tornado, it is selected automatically when the flaps are greater than 15 deg (in the 'full CSAS' normal control law).
Back to the P-51, it had 3 different aileron gearing settings which were changeable only by maintenance action. The high gearing did put large loads on the wings and I am not sure how much it was used for combat sorties. The middle gearing was the normal position and the low gearing was, I believe, used when carrying heavy underwing stores because of the excessive roll inertia that would be generated at high roll which made it difficult to stop a rolling manoeuvre.
Apologies for the thread creep but if people have an interest in flight control systems and I can answer their questions ....
Stitchbitch,
I am obviously too transparent!
Rigga,
The aileron gear change was used to give increased roll performance during landing although it could be used for take-offs in strong crosswinds also. The roll rate that is generated when deflecting the ailerons is a function of, essentially, indicated airspeed. The faster you fly, the higher the roll rate for a given aileron deflection. At high speeds the maximum aileron angle has to be limited for several reasons. The twisting moment on the wings may result in excessive structural loads, the sideslip caused whilst rolling could exceed the fin strength limits and the aircraft could depart. Also, the gearing between the stick and the ailerons is dictated by the available stick movement whilst ensuring that the aircraft is not too sensitive in roll such that low roll rates can be generated when needed. However, once this gearing has been set for the high speed case there may be insuffucient roll control on the approach, especially for a crosswind landing. Therefore, some aircraft have an incease in stick to aileron gearing at low speeds. In the Buccaneer this was manually selected by the pilot. In the Tornado, it is selected automatically when the flaps are greater than 15 deg (in the 'full CSAS' normal control law).
Back to the P-51, it had 3 different aileron gearing settings which were changeable only by maintenance action. The high gearing did put large loads on the wings and I am not sure how much it was used for combat sorties. The middle gearing was the normal position and the low gearing was, I believe, used when carrying heavy underwing stores because of the excessive roll inertia that would be generated at high roll which made it difficult to stop a rolling manoeuvre.
Clicker,
I have asked a few questions and it is about 1/2 day to change it as there are significant rigging checks to be done. I have discussed this with a very experienced current P-51 engineer who says that he thinks that now most operators use the high gearing (15 deg aileron deflection) so I was wrong about the structural loads being a problem (that came from another engineer many moons ago). He thinks that the only reason now why someone might use the medium gearing (12 deg aileron angle) would be if it proved difficult to rig the ailerons so as to maintain cleaarance between the ailerons and the wing skins when set at 15 deg.
I have asked a few questions and it is about 1/2 day to change it as there are significant rigging checks to be done. I have discussed this with a very experienced current P-51 engineer who says that he thinks that now most operators use the high gearing (15 deg aileron deflection) so I was wrong about the structural loads being a problem (that came from another engineer many moons ago). He thinks that the only reason now why someone might use the medium gearing (12 deg aileron angle) would be if it proved difficult to rig the ailerons so as to maintain cleaarance between the ailerons and the wing skins when set at 15 deg.
The Mustang has always been a favourite aircraft of mine. Please excuse my ignorance, but would lowering combat flap make any diffrence to the high speed stall characteristics of the wing by altering the angle of attack?