These are some very beautiful examples of aviation history. Its a shame that there isn't more of them still in flying condition these days. True works of art
@tippman2k01 not sure if it is airworthy or not. but, if i remember from the last time i was at Plane of Fame, that SBD was the one flown by Pres Bush.
@nicbenintende The P-40 DID have a supercharger...ALL WWII combat planes had at least a single-stage supercharger. The Merlin flew so high because it had a 2-stage, 2-speed supercharger. The P-47 and -38 had the same single-blower Allison, but with a turbocharger to act as the 2nd stage. The P-40F had a Merlin engine, but it still had inferior handling next to newer planes. The original wing/fuselage was designed in 1935 as the P-36 Hawk, with a radial. In 1938, the P-40 came.
@RedWolf2581 - all D models had Merlins...like you said. If it were an Allison like that in a P-40, there would be an intake on top of the cowling, like on the A model Mustangs fitted with the Allisons. That is always a sure fire way to tell, besides that all D's have Merlins. :)
Listen to that engine perrrr , great balls of fire. I wished that there would have been a version of a p51 squadron tv show now that would have been awesome.
The mustang pictured here is Steve Hinton's "Wee Willy II" one of a few mustangs that call chino home. The D variant seen in the video has the Packard Merlin engine installed. Earlier variants like the early A models were powered by the Allison V-1710 engine. Great video, i love Planes of Fame!
Hard to tell if that P-51D had an Allison or a merlin engine, either way it sounds freaking sweet! Oh and by the way the people saying that a corsair are wrong it's a dautless
@RedWolf2581 If it's got a "bubble-top", it's a "D", and has a Merlin. Only the first P-51's had Allison V-1710's: the P-51 and P-51A (and of course the RAF Mustang Mk I and Mk II, and the A-36 Apache). The next versions, the P-51B and C had the Merlin (aka Packard V-1650), but with the original flush-canopy fuselage. And like the other guy said, any P-51 or P-40 with an intake over the nose is an Allison engined plane, i.e. any P-40 except the P-40F. The Merlin's carburetor is under the engine.
Dauntless for 300,000? That dosen't sound right? I think the one in this video is the one they pulled from lake michigan. I wish old man Pond wouldn't have moved everything out of MN.
Actually, he's right. There was one for sale on several websites. I don't know the condition of it, but buying old warbirds isn't impossible. What is rare and difficult are Axis and Russian planes.
It just sounded to cheap to me bacause I know there aren't many of the dauntless's around. I wonder what the fw 190 would be worth....only one of those flying as far as I understand.
I'm sure that it wasn't in flying condition although the picture was nice. Many times, these sellers can't afford the insurance, taxes, maintenance, storage and a host of other costs associated with keeping an airplane. One seller was giving up a real beat up P-51 for $60,000. One would have to spend millions to restore it.
dauntless dive bomber, yes. in fact, there is one currently for sale right now. it's fully restored and owner is asking 300k. not bad, considering how there are only a few flying in the world.
Amazing !! Just Amazing !! BTW I wonder if the owners of these P-51s (or any war-birds) are allowed to have the functioning 50 cal guns in the wings!! Can they?? or do they ???
I'm sure they could, current regulations require that the owner pay a $200.00 federal tax for each fully automatic weapon, and that the owner pass certain federal regulations.
@akodag I really doubt it. Maybe you can own .50cal machine guns with expensive licenses and background checks, but I'll bet the FAA wouldn't like armed aircraft. If I'm not allowed to shoot out of the window of my car, I doubt they'd want you shooting things from an airplane either.
Besides, if you told them you planned to install them in your Mustang, the Feds probably wouldn't approve your Class Four Machine Gun License anyway. They'd assume you were unstable and a terrorist.
The engines on these planes are so huge, the clearances for the pistons and compression rings have to be larger, and you will get "Blowby" smoke until the engine warms up and every expands to seal up the engine.
Radial engines are designed to burn oil because if the characteristics of their crankcase, and oiling system.
@Strega222 The smoke on startup is partly oil that seeps past the piston rings before they heat up and expand to fit tightly, but mostly it come from the rich fuel mixture they use on startup. That's what I am told, anyway. I always assumed it was all oil burning, but the experts tell me it's just a lot of extra fuel burning. Because I always wondered that too!
And just to think that the "impossible-to-get-rid-of" Mustang was vulnerable even to fusil bullets... Shame of a plane. >:[
If I were an Allied WWII fighting pilot and were offered the choice between a P-51 and a P-40, I wouldn´t hesitate the least. I´d never entrust my life to such a fragile artefact like the damned P-51, even if the P-40 is not such as good an interceptor. Why? Because it´s almost impossible to escape unhit from a combat. Besides, I love P-40´s design much better.
@AlanMartinNala Where the hell do you get your information? Or do you just have an overactive imagination? The P-51 was no more "fragile" than any liquid-cooled fighter. It had a vulnerable belly-mounted radiator...and so didn't the Hurricane, Spitfire and Bf-109. The Spitfire OIL TANK was mounted on it's chin, with a few mm of metal holding it all in. The P-40's radiator was under it's chin. ALL vulnerable to ground fire. An "artifact" is a old, left over object...the P-40 design began in 1935.
@justforever96 I didn´t made up myself the statement that the Mustang was so vulnerable: I read it in some few good books on WWII warbirds (and I also heard it somewhere); not statements by P-40 lovers who despised the P-51, but neutral ones. Yes, the Hurricane has a belly radiator as well, so I guess it equally vulnerable. It´s not just a matter of ground fire: the calibre also matters, and I think many Allied pilots felt the P-40 safer than the Mustang, even if not as good an interceptor.
@AlanMartinNala I'm a very neutral Warbird fan...and I've never heard that the P-51 was more vulnerable than other simil;ar types. It was a lot easier to shoot down than a radial engined plane, especially a rugged one like a P-47 or F6F Hellcat, but no worse that a Spitfire. There were 11 spots on the P-51 where a single rifle bullet would doom it within minutes, but any plane is dead if it looses it's coolant or oil. The idea (good or bad) is to be too quick for an enemy to hit you!
@justforever96 The P-51 was designed from the beginning as an interceptor to fly higher than the P-40, where gun calibres were not that large (up to 75mm AA guns on the ground as against the maximum usual -I believe- of 20mm cannons carried by planes) paying special attention to performances, while the P-40´s rougher construction made it better for ground-attack and bomber-interception, and thus could stand more damage, I think.
@AlanMartinNala The P-40 is certainly a rugged plane, built stronger than the P-51. It's like the Hurricane vs the Spitfire...the Hurricane was simple and rugged, the Spitfire was lighter and faster. So the question is, is it better to fly a tough-but-slow plane, or to fly a "sports car" and hope the performance will protect you. Even a "rugged" plane is a weak structure....if a 40mm shell hits you, it doesn't matter WHAT you're flying, the damage will likely wreck the plane, no matter how tough
@AlanMartinNala (continued) But for ground attack, yeah, I'd take a P-40 over a P-51 any day. The P-51 needs longer hoses to connect the radiator to the engine, and if any small bullet hits a hose, the engine has mere minutes before it dies. It NEEDS coolant and oil. The P-40's radiator is only 20-30cm under the engine, so there's far less danger. On the P-40 Wikipedia page, there's a photo of one that took a shell hit to the wingtip, and flew home. But if fighters attack, you'd be in trouble!
@justforever96 I love WWII dogfight chronicles, and in one of them I read that a Jap pilot said that he needed not less than 200 bullets to shoot a P-40 down. In another, a P-40 pilot returned with his plane "so filled with holes all over that you only needed to put it against the sun to realize that you were flying on a sieve". And ace Clive Caldwell returned to base with a P-40 which right wing was quite severely damaged. Could a P-51 have survived any of these situations? I seriously doubt it
i rather prefer the Dutch 1940 fighter Fokker G-1 it looks almost like the P 38 s they where able to shoot down the me 109s and i as dutchman am proud on those pilots and planes;)
@NLPETERNL Well, you should be proud...the Dutch put up a decent fight when they were invaded. But the G.1 reminds me more of the P-61 Black Widow and the Mosquito than the P-38. The P-61 is a twin-boom plane too, but the P-38 is much slimmer, smaller and faster than the G.1. The G.1 in the form it served in was pretty slow. Maybe it could have done better with some more development, but it would have done better at jobs like the Mosquito had, night-fighting and attack.
i no thid mite sond wird or something but if there was a p51 or a bf 109 i would prefer to be in the 109 because it was fast in turns and it had a hell of a cannon in its nose but out of all the plane in ww11 i would of wanted to be stuck into a p47 because there built like tanks
Slow?The fastest fighter we had...and the toughest...with the most guns!The P-47 could fly home with a cylinder blown off.That being said,If the P-40 had a Merlin engine for better high altitude performance,I would probably choose it just for it's looks.
@groovy67 P-40F's did have a Merlin, but they still handled like crap compared to new fighters like the Mustang. Otherwise, they would have used them instead. I might choose a P-40, but only because I don't plan on doing any dogfighting! If I'm just gonna go and fly around in a gloried Cessna, I might as well choose the nice looking one! ;)
@NLPETERNL And P-47's weren't "slow"...they were slow climbers, but with those huge engines and turbochargers, they could break 400mph at higher altitudes, and were pretty fast at low level too. Not only that, but they came close to going Mach 1 in a dive...faster than anything in the skies while going downwards, but sluggish going upwards! They were just big and heavy, not nimble like a Spitfire, but they certainly weren't "slow". =)
I wish they would fix that 109 G10 up a little better that they have there. Even if they don't make it flyable just make it look a little better. It's pretty shabby :(
I have flown in both of these aircraft and would recommend to anyone to join the Air Museum Planes of Fame and sponsor a ride in history. 400 MPH and 4G turns in the mustang can't be beat.
Hi I live in Chino Hills but I've never been to the Museum. Thanks for mentioning it and I'll check it out. Those planes are awesome and it would be fantastic to fly in one or both of them:-)!
The P-40f was like the Huey not the best but the one of the most dependable warhorses ever made.
DEATH94SQUAD 1 month ago
I love guitars and cars, but I must say, these planes are extremely beautiful!
321harold 8 months ago
It's CHINO - not Chino Hills!
kjpkjp64 8 months ago
later model P-40.....has same engine as the Mustang.....(top scoop on cowling a giveaway)
crpdst2003 1 year ago
These are some very beautiful examples of aviation history. Its a shame that there isn't more of them still in flying condition these days. True works of art
freefall321 1 year ago
Whenever I listen to that Merlin engine, I feel like eating something sweet. It's sound is just so sweet.
elithompandre8266 1 year ago
thats an SBD dauntless divebomber in the background. is it airworthy?
tippman2k01 1 year ago 3
@tippman2k01 not sure if it is airworthy or not. but, if i remember from the last time i was at Plane of Fame, that SBD was the one flown by Pres Bush.
XskiXedgeX 1 year ago
@tippman2k01
As far as I know, that SBD Dauntless is airworthy. I've seen many pictures of that SBD in the air. The SBD Dauntless is one of my favorite planes.
razgrizaceblaze259 1 year ago
P 40. Best airplane ever to have a mouth painted on it. And there are a lot of airplanes to choose from. Even the P 51 had them. Not even close.
kolbpilot 1 year ago
The first REAL fighter of WWII! And my favorite
matttee13 1 year ago
even without the shark mouth this bird sreams toughness
lycanspirit1 1 year ago
getting a ride in Wee Willy 2 is soooo fun
TheFreakyKidz 1 year ago
they should of gave the p 40 a supercharger
nicbenintende 1 year ago
@nicbenintende The P-40 DID have a supercharger...ALL WWII combat planes had at least a single-stage supercharger. The Merlin flew so high because it had a 2-stage, 2-speed supercharger. The P-47 and -38 had the same single-blower Allison, but with a turbocharger to act as the 2nd stage. The P-40F had a Merlin engine, but it still had inferior handling next to newer planes. The original wing/fuselage was designed in 1935 as the P-36 Hawk, with a radial. In 1938, the P-40 came.
justforever96 1 year ago
i think its an h not a d
mrclaytonio 1 year ago
p40s r so cool
james2k838 2 years ago 5
@pramboy09 I know that the D model Mustang had a merlin engine i was just trying to determine if the one in the video had one or not
RedWolf2581 2 years ago
@RedWolf2581 - all D models had Merlins...like you said. If it were an Allison like that in a P-40, there would be an intake on top of the cowling, like on the A model Mustangs fitted with the Allisons. That is always a sure fire way to tell, besides that all D's have Merlins. :)
Sprebound 1 year ago
Listen to that engine perrrr , great balls of fire. I wished that there would have been a version of a p51 squadron tv show now that would have been awesome.
aquatodabone 2 years ago
The mustang pictured here is Steve Hinton's "Wee Willy II" one of a few mustangs that call chino home. The D variant seen in the video has the Packard Merlin engine installed. Earlier variants like the early A models were powered by the Allison V-1710 engine. Great video, i love Planes of Fame!
jonraptor 2 years ago
Hard to tell if that P-51D had an Allison or a merlin engine, either way it sounds freaking sweet! Oh and by the way the people saying that a corsair are wrong it's a dautless
RedWolf2581 2 years ago
@RedWolf2581 the d had a merlin engine but mass produced in america
pramboy09 2 years ago
@RedWolf2581 If it's got a "bubble-top", it's a "D", and has a Merlin. Only the first P-51's had Allison V-1710's: the P-51 and P-51A (and of course the RAF Mustang Mk I and Mk II, and the A-36 Apache). The next versions, the P-51B and C had the Merlin (aka Packard V-1650), but with the original flush-canopy fuselage. And like the other guy said, any P-51 or P-40 with an intake over the nose is an Allison engined plane, i.e. any P-40 except the P-40F. The Merlin's carburetor is under the engine.
justforever96 1 year ago
the p40looks cool
MusicLover11325 2 years ago
That's not ugly - She is gorgeous ,that is one of the most iconic aircraft of ww2 - and deserves to be seen and admired - one of the best - Z
zammzt69 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
that sharks mouth is ugly. Ive seen better !
apatheticempathy 2 years ago
0:03 Photo Fanny B-25
0:07 SBD Dauntles
0:10 P-51 Mustang
1:54 P-40 Warhawk (For got what model Chino has)
Gotta Love the PlanesofFame(dot org). Great airshow, wonderful museum. I'm just lucky its in my back yard so to speek
Zippercdrr 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
0:07, that's a corsair.
flyboy8492 2 years ago
actually thats a dauntless
OH6Cayuse 2 years ago
lol, my bad.
flyboy8492 2 years ago
No it is not a Corsair, it is a SBD Dauntless.
1971Copperhead1968 2 years ago
somebody already freaking told me that.
flyboy8492 2 years ago
Good I hope you freaking know.
1971Copperhead1968 2 years ago
0:21
P-51 Mustang?
Paintballemo 2 years ago
Great planes? Indeed
CherokeeJohnny6 2 years ago
Dauntless for 300,000? That dosen't sound right? I think the one in this video is the one they pulled from lake michigan. I wish old man Pond wouldn't have moved everything out of MN.
indypete25 2 years ago
Actually, he's right. There was one for sale on several websites. I don't know the condition of it, but buying old warbirds isn't impossible. What is rare and difficult are Axis and Russian planes.
lemonite1 2 years ago
It just sounded to cheap to me bacause I know there aren't many of the dauntless's around. I wonder what the fw 190 would be worth....only one of those flying as far as I understand.
indypete25 2 years ago
I'm sure that it wasn't in flying condition although the picture was nice. Many times, these sellers can't afford the insurance, taxes, maintenance, storage and a host of other costs associated with keeping an airplane. One seller was giving up a real beat up P-51 for $60,000. One would have to spend millions to restore it.
lemonite1 2 years ago
It is flying, I watched a video of it. Millions wouldn't be worth restoring a mustang when you can go buy a nice one for just over a million.
indypete25 2 years ago
Yeah, there's only one that I know of as well. I have no idea what that thing would worth. I bet its owned by the government.
lemonite1 2 years ago
Chances are, if its flying, its not Goverment owned. Its either a Not for Profit or private.
Zippercdrr 2 years ago 2
at the start was that a dougles danttless infront of the p51
sonic1124 3 years ago
dauntless dive bomber, yes. in fact, there is one currently for sale right now. it's fully restored and owner is asking 300k. not bad, considering how there are only a few flying in the world.
r32adt3db 2 years ago
If you do please don't kill me with it.
RRSAlabama 3 years ago
Amazing !! Just Amazing !! BTW I wonder if the owners of these P-51s (or any war-birds) are allowed to have the functioning 50 cal guns in the wings!! Can they?? or do they ???
akodag 3 years ago
if they did as its 60 so years now vibs would rattle the fittings.very bad in air displays.
tj
terryjohn 3 years ago
I'm sure they could, current regulations require that the owner pay a $200.00 federal tax for each fully automatic weapon, and that the owner pass certain federal regulations.
J2OLDS 2 years ago
@akodag I really doubt it. Maybe you can own .50cal machine guns with expensive licenses and background checks, but I'll bet the FAA wouldn't like armed aircraft. If I'm not allowed to shoot out of the window of my car, I doubt they'd want you shooting things from an airplane either.
Besides, if you told them you planned to install them in your Mustang, the Feds probably wouldn't approve your Class Four Machine Gun License anyway. They'd assume you were unstable and a terrorist.
justforever96 1 year ago
How come when you start these old planes it puts a puff of smoke out? Can someone please answer?
Strega222 3 years ago
its residue from recent flown.collected rust.
tj
terryjohn 3 years ago
The engines on these planes are so huge, the clearances for the pistons and compression rings have to be larger, and you will get "Blowby" smoke until the engine warms up and every expands to seal up the engine.
Radial engines are designed to burn oil because if the characteristics of their crankcase, and oiling system.
J2OLDS 2 years ago
@Strega222 The smoke on startup is partly oil that seeps past the piston rings before they heat up and expand to fit tightly, but mostly it come from the rich fuel mixture they use on startup. That's what I am told, anyway. I always assumed it was all oil burning, but the experts tell me it's just a lot of extra fuel burning. Because I always wondered that too!
justforever96 1 year ago
The first plane you see at about 6 seconds into the clip is an SBD Daughtless dive bomber. US Navy plane that won the battle of Midway.
DET832 3 years ago
can you tell me why when jap planes shot so many down like saki jap ace with one burst. then read it was a tough bird.
tj
terryjohn 3 years ago
And just to think that the "impossible-to-get-rid-of" Mustang was vulnerable even to fusil bullets... Shame of a plane. >:[
If I were an Allied WWII fighting pilot and were offered the choice between a P-51 and a P-40, I wouldn´t hesitate the least. I´d never entrust my life to such a fragile artefact like the damned P-51, even if the P-40 is not such as good an interceptor. Why? Because it´s almost impossible to escape unhit from a combat. Besides, I love P-40´s design much better.
AlanMartinNala 3 years ago
the p51 was so easy to shoot down as it was all pilot and gas,bit like me 109's
tj
terryjohn 3 years ago
that's very untrue read up on your facts before talking about stuff you have no idea about.
manrat122 2 years ago
what guns real .
right.
tj
terryjohn 2 years ago
@AlanMartinNala Where the hell do you get your information? Or do you just have an overactive imagination? The P-51 was no more "fragile" than any liquid-cooled fighter. It had a vulnerable belly-mounted radiator...and so didn't the Hurricane, Spitfire and Bf-109. The Spitfire OIL TANK was mounted on it's chin, with a few mm of metal holding it all in. The P-40's radiator was under it's chin. ALL vulnerable to ground fire. An "artifact" is a old, left over object...the P-40 design began in 1935.
justforever96 1 year ago
@justforever96 I didn´t made up myself the statement that the Mustang was so vulnerable: I read it in some few good books on WWII warbirds (and I also heard it somewhere); not statements by P-40 lovers who despised the P-51, but neutral ones. Yes, the Hurricane has a belly radiator as well, so I guess it equally vulnerable. It´s not just a matter of ground fire: the calibre also matters, and I think many Allied pilots felt the P-40 safer than the Mustang, even if not as good an interceptor.
AlanMartinNala 1 year ago
@AlanMartinNala I'm a very neutral Warbird fan...and I've never heard that the P-51 was more vulnerable than other simil;ar types. It was a lot easier to shoot down than a radial engined plane, especially a rugged one like a P-47 or F6F Hellcat, but no worse that a Spitfire. There were 11 spots on the P-51 where a single rifle bullet would doom it within minutes, but any plane is dead if it looses it's coolant or oil. The idea (good or bad) is to be too quick for an enemy to hit you!
justforever96 1 year ago
@justforever96 The P-51 was designed from the beginning as an interceptor to fly higher than the P-40, where gun calibres were not that large (up to 75mm AA guns on the ground as against the maximum usual -I believe- of 20mm cannons carried by planes) paying special attention to performances, while the P-40´s rougher construction made it better for ground-attack and bomber-interception, and thus could stand more damage, I think.
AlanMartinNala 1 year ago
@AlanMartinNala The P-40 is certainly a rugged plane, built stronger than the P-51. It's like the Hurricane vs the Spitfire...the Hurricane was simple and rugged, the Spitfire was lighter and faster. So the question is, is it better to fly a tough-but-slow plane, or to fly a "sports car" and hope the performance will protect you. Even a "rugged" plane is a weak structure....if a 40mm shell hits you, it doesn't matter WHAT you're flying, the damage will likely wreck the plane, no matter how tough
justforever96 1 year ago
@AlanMartinNala (continued) But for ground attack, yeah, I'd take a P-40 over a P-51 any day. The P-51 needs longer hoses to connect the radiator to the engine, and if any small bullet hits a hose, the engine has mere minutes before it dies. It NEEDS coolant and oil. The P-40's radiator is only 20-30cm under the engine, so there's far less danger. On the P-40 Wikipedia page, there's a photo of one that took a shell hit to the wingtip, and flew home. But if fighters attack, you'd be in trouble!
justforever96 1 year ago
@justforever96 I love WWII dogfight chronicles, and in one of them I read that a Jap pilot said that he needed not less than 200 bullets to shoot a P-40 down. In another, a P-40 pilot returned with his plane "so filled with holes all over that you only needed to put it against the sun to realize that you were flying on a sieve". And ace Clive Caldwell returned to base with a P-40 which right wing was quite severely damaged. Could a P-51 have survived any of these situations? I seriously doubt it
AlanMartinNala 1 year ago
i rather prefer the Dutch 1940 fighter Fokker G-1 it looks almost like the P 38 s they where able to shoot down the me 109s and i as dutchman am proud on those pilots and planes;)
NLPETERNL 3 years ago
did the germans copy this with 189 owl.
tj
terryjohn 3 years ago
@NLPETERNL Well, you should be proud...the Dutch put up a decent fight when they were invaded. But the G.1 reminds me more of the P-61 Black Widow and the Mosquito than the P-38. The P-61 is a twin-boom plane too, but the P-38 is much slimmer, smaller and faster than the G.1. The G.1 in the form it served in was pretty slow. Maybe it could have done better with some more development, but it would have done better at jobs like the Mosquito had, night-fighting and attack.
justforever96 1 year ago
i no thid mite sond wird or something but if there was a p51 or a bf 109 i would prefer to be in the 109 because it was fast in turns and it had a hell of a cannon in its nose but out of all the plane in ww11 i would of wanted to be stuck into a p47 because there built like tanks
biggzyboys 3 years ago
and slow as hell those p 47Ds
NLPETERNL 3 years ago
Slow?The fastest fighter we had...and the toughest...with the most guns!The P-47 could fly home with a cylinder blown off.That being said,If the P-40 had a Merlin engine for better high altitude performance,I would probably choose it just for it's looks.
groovy67 3 years ago
@groovy67 P-40F's did have a Merlin, but they still handled like crap compared to new fighters like the Mustang. Otherwise, they would have used them instead. I might choose a P-40, but only because I don't plan on doing any dogfighting! If I'm just gonna go and fly around in a gloried Cessna, I might as well choose the nice looking one! ;)
justforever96 1 year ago
@NLPETERNL And P-47's weren't "slow"...they were slow climbers, but with those huge engines and turbochargers, they could break 400mph at higher altitudes, and were pretty fast at low level too. Not only that, but they came close to going Mach 1 in a dive...faster than anything in the skies while going downwards, but sluggish going upwards! They were just big and heavy, not nimble like a Spitfire, but they certainly weren't "slow". =)
justforever96 1 year ago
Sexy Planes
austinboy91 3 years ago
I know the P-51 was the best plane of WWII. But I still can't decide if I like the P-40 Warhawk, or the F4U Corsair more. . .
thrashkillpunk 3 years ago
Well if you're looking for performance go with the Corsair. If you're looking just for looks go with the P 40.
RRSAlabama 3 years ago
Comment removed
terryjohn 3 years ago
p 40 hit and run same as germans did in me'109;s.dive then up. or just dive away.
tj
terryjohn 3 years ago
allways use the other guys weakness :D
in war all is fair
what gets the job done...
brincht 2 years ago
I wish they would fix that 109 G10 up a little better that they have there. Even if they don't make it flyable just make it look a little better. It's pretty shabby :(
bilbommer 3 years ago
me and you both
TexHillP40 3 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
All three of us will.
thrashkillpunk 3 years ago
Nice video.
I have flown in both of these aircraft and would recommend to anyone to join the Air Museum Planes of Fame and sponsor a ride in history. 400 MPH and 4G turns in the mustang can't be beat.
TJDOZIER1 4 years ago
Hi I live in Chino Hills but I've never been to the Museum. Thanks for mentioning it and I'll check it out. Those planes are awesome and it would be fantastic to fly in one or both of them:-)!
fister10 4 years ago