One thing you should keep in mind was that these WWII planes were not certified the way the Cessna 172s and Piper Cherokees you are familiar with were certified. First of all, they're military, so they are built to specifications and requirements that have nothing to do with the civilian FARs that are familiar to civilians. Secondly, this was the 1930s and 1940s. Many of the terms, limitations, airspeed markings, terminologies that we think of, had not been developed yet. To really speak about what that plane's limitations were, you will have to look into the USAAF handbook for that plane from those days to find any specific notes about any specific limitation. There could be a real chance there isn't actually any sort of "Va" speed quoted. They may have some remarks about how fast you need to be to do certain things or how no faster you can be to do certain other things, but the familiar grand limitations that you are thinking of may not be in there and no such limitation may have been developed for this plane. You can search out some original manuals for WWII planes on the internet. My bet is you'd be surprised how lacking they are in specific procedures, performance and limitations back then compared to even a C172 manual today.

A very good point! Cheers, - jahman.

"....It is believed that the cause of the crash was due to the Galloping Ghost having a CG too close to the aft limit which resulted in pitch instability. There are instructions on the P-51 regarding no combat missions with the aft fuel tank full, resulting in an aft CG problem. Instructions specify to empty the aft fuel tank first in flight.

From my talk with Lee Lauderback, which is one, if not the leading Mustang instructor in the US, when I flew Crazy Horse, fuel in the AFT tanks could very well cause problems. It is a stated policy in the Pilots handbook that aerobatic maneuvers are prohibited, with AFT tank fuel on board. That's why, unlike other fighters with drop tanks that use them up first, before going to internal fuel tanks, on long missions with the Mustang, the AFT tank is used up first, then the drop tanks, and then wing tanks. This is so by the time they come in contact with enemy fighters, the AFT tank will be used up. Now the question is was the CG too close to the AFT limit, because of the AFT tank incorrectly having fuel on board, or was it the redesign of the fuselage, for the race?

Well an aft cg does make an aircraft faster. Maybe they tried that.

On the subject of the difference in standards between past military aircraft and modern civil ones, I have a copy of the Pilot’s Notes for the Hawker Hunter – a 1950s front-line jet fighter with the RAF. There are very few limitations – engine airspeeds, maximum airspeed with and without underwing stores, jettisoning drop tanks, extending flaps and lowering gear, together with maximum Gs. Take off handling notes read: Ease the nose wheel off at about 125 kts and hold it just off the runway, taking care not to achieve an excessively nose-up attitude. At normal loads the aircraft unsticks at 150 kts. When comfortably airborne apply the brakes and raise the undercarriage holding the brakes on until the undercarriage is locked up. There are two interesting comments relating to the stall: If the control column is held back after the buffet stage is reached, a nose-up change of trim will occur, and although this will vary in degree from aircraft to aircraft , to counteract it may require full forward stick movement. When pro-spin controls are applied at the stall the aircraft rolls onto its back…

When pro-spin controls are applied at the stall the aircraft rolls onto its back…

That would really wake a pilot up.

I recieved an email saying Matt Jackson says none of this report is true. He denies he had a part of this report.

I recieved an email saying Matt Jackson says none of this report is true. He denies he had a part of this report.

I don't know one way or another, but that report was given to me by someone attached to the Reno National Air Races and I can only take it on face value. If Matt Jackson says he didn't say it, then I take him on his word, as Matt Jackson is a class guy, that much I do know. I do know the insurance carrier part of the story is true, as there I do know someone that works for the insurance carrier (actually, to be more accurate, I have a personal friend who's wife works for the insurance carrier). Steve (Bear) Cartwright

For anyone that's interested google matt jackson reno crash, then open the web site what didn't cause the reno air race crash/jeff wise

In this video you can actually see the trim-tab come off well after GG begins to lose control 8:52 Trim-Tab comes loose8:59 Trim-Tab falls off Cheers, - jahman.

In this video you can actually see the trim-tab come off well after GG begins to lose control 8:52 Trim-Tab comes loose8:59 Trim-Tab falls off Cheers, - jahman.

That video seems to support the note I previously posted, the one I started this thread with, doesn't it? Steve (Bear) Cartwright

That video seems to support the note I previously posted, the one I started this thread with, doesn't it? Steve (Bear) Cartwright

It sure does! Cheers, - jahman.