Glenn Wegman wrote:
Your comment was that they were just "preconcieved notions" as you did with Jim Beasley's comment. I would consider that discrediting the pilots that had first hand, recent, D vs B/C experience.
I think you are being a bit defensive for Jim, who I doubt needs it.
There's no harm in putting a view that anyone might see something when it's suggested to them to look out for it - basic psychology, demonstrated by the pink elephant test.
Following this thread as an interested observer, I think Charles is chasing a will-o-the wisp, but he's done so, IMHO in a reasonable and polite manner.
Jim, like most other current warbird pilots is undoubtedly a fine, skilled and knowledgeable aviator. But his experience isn't that of a (much lower time etc) W.W.II Mustang pilot; I'm sure he can factor in some of the differences because of his skill and knowledge - but it's not
exactly the same. I'm not even going to enter the fact that wartime pilots were mostly less skilled (read smooth) pilots and were in a life and death situation - not good for precise safe flying, and likely to lead to actions someone like Jim will sensibly avoid today.
A carefully restored modern airworthy Mustang with most of the fixtures and fittings in place is pretty close to a genuine wartime example, but there's still differences; and most modern Mustang flying is in machines with a very different weight and equipment setup than that of a W.W.II example.
Most long-range wartime P-51D Mustang escort ops started with the fuselage tank full, and often drop tanks. I understand that was pretty marginal - happy for more knowledgeable comment on that. But has anyone flown a Mustang to that weight/balance set in recent years?
Just some thoughts.