# Fastest Piston Engined Aircraft of WW2?



## Gimmeacannon! (Feb 20, 2007)

My vote goes to the Spiteful F16 quoted at 494 mph, twin engined goes to Hornet F20 at 485 mph, Some late model Spits were also capable of 485 mph so anything go faster than these?.


----------



## Jank (Feb 20, 2007)

Are you talking about planes that saw combat in WWII? 

I have read of accounts of P-47 M's clocked at 490mph in level flight. 

The Republic XP-47J Superbolt, a lightweight version of the Thunderbolt with the same engine as the "M" and "N" model (R-2800-57(C)), had a maximum speed of 507mph.

It weighed in at about 2,000lbs under the "D" model in combat loaded trim.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Civettone (Feb 20, 2007)

_The second XP-51G was shipped to the United Kingdom in February 1945. This plane was also named Mustang V, and bore the RAF serial number FR410. It is widely reported to have achieved a speed of 495 mph during tests at the A&AEE at Boscombe Down in February 1945_
North American XP-51F, G, J Mustang

Kris

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Jun 28, 2016)

Civettone said:


> _The second XP-51G was shipped to the United Kingdom in February 1945. This plane was also named Mustang V, and bore the RAF serial number FR410. It is widely reported to have achieved a speed of 495 mph during tests at the A&AEE at Boscombe Down in February 1945_
> North American XP-51F, G, J Mustang
> 
> Kris



I'm surprised the "H" model was the version of the "light weight" Mustangs that was chosen as the model to put into production. According to everything I've read, the "G" model was actually the best performing model...it was also said to have a ROC in excess of 5000 fpm...


----------



## mikewint (Jun 28, 2016)

The Hornet prototype RR 915 first flew on 28 July 1944 with Geoffrey de Havilland Jr. at the controls. Powered by twin Merlin engines, it was the fastest piston-engined fighter in Royal Air Force service. The Hornet also has the distinction of being the fastest wooden aircraft ever built and the second fastest operational twin propeller-driven aircraft — *being slightly slower than the unconventional German Dornier Do 335 of 1945.*
The prototype achieved 485 mph (780 km/h) in level flight, which came down to 472 mph (760 km/h) in production aircraft.

The first 10 Do 335 A-0s were delivered for testing in May. By late 1944, the Do 335 A-1 was on the production line. This was similar to the A-0 but with the uprated DB 603 E-1 engines and two underwing hardpoints for additional bombs, drop tanks or guns. *It was capable of a maximum speed of 763 km/h (474 mph) at 6,500 m (21,300 ft) with MW 50 boost,* or 686 km/h (426 mph) without boost, and able to climb to 8,000 m (26,250 ft) in under 15 minutes. Even with one engine out, it could reach about 563 km/h (350 mph).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2016)

By the end of 1944/45 piston powered aircraft had reached their limit, any advantage in speed had a trade off in some way in their utility. Much the same as with the quest for the speed record for steam engines in the 1930s. I would say in that competition the 005 002 German locomotive was the best in my opinion but only 3 were ever built and in service they were no faster than their British rivals.
Piston engined propellor aircraft were at their natural limit, the turboprop powered Tu95 is reported to do 575MPH but that has 60,000SHP on tap.


----------



## soulezoo (Jun 29, 2016)

If there is to be that qualifier (IMO intended to give one's favorite acft the advantage rather then just say the fastest) then I vote Japanese I- 202 at an altitude of 200 ft below sea level.


----------



## Mike Williams (Jun 29, 2016)

James W. said:


> The P-47M was putatively rushed into production as a V1 cruise-missile interceptor,
> but it was too slow at the altittudes which the V1s came in on.



That doesn't make any sense to me. The Eighth and Ninth Air Forces weren't tasked with chasing V-1s. That was the responsibility of ADGB/Fighter Command. In addition the V-1 threat to the UK was largely over by Sept. 1944. It also makes no sense that P-47s were supposed to be V-1 chasers given that most/all went to the 56th FG and were used for offensive operations. Apparently the USAAF was looking for faster max speed at altitude. I suspect it was more to do with the Me-262. It reminds me of the myth that Spitfire XIVs were also nothing but V-1 chasers.

Hight Speed P-47 Airplanes, 30 Sept. 1944

Technical Instructions CTI-1653, 9 October 1044


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2016)

From Wiki - If references a book by Bill Gunston,_ The Illustrated Directory of Fighting Aircraft of World War II_. Salamander Books, 1988.

_"The *P-47M* was a more conservative attempt to come up with a higher-performance ("Sprint") version of the Thunderbolt, designed to chase V-1 flying bombs, done, in part, by reducing armament from eight .50-caliber Colt-Browning M2 machine guns to six.[21] In September 1944, four P-47D-27-RE airframes (s/n 42-27385 / 42-27388) were modified into prototype *YP-47M*s by fitting the R-2800-57(C) engine and the GE CH-5 turbo-supercharger, a combination which could produce 2,800 hp (2,089 kW) at 32,500 ft (9,900 m) when using Wartime Emergency Power (water injection). Air brakes were added to the wing's lower surfaces to allow braking after a dive onto its prey. The YP-47M had a top speed of 473 mph (410 kn, 761 km/h) and it was put into limited production with 133 (sufficient for one group) built. However, the type suffered serious teething problems in the field due to the highly tuned engine. Engines were unable to reach operating temperatures and power settings and frequently failed in early flights from a variety of causes: ignition harnesses cracked at high altitudes, severing electrical connections between the magneto and distributor, and carburetor valve diaphragms also failed. Persistent oil tank ruptures in replacement engines were found to be the result of inadequate protection against salt water corrosion during transshipment. In the end, it was simply errors made by the R-2800-57(C) model engine's manufacturers which led to these issues with the P-47M. By the time the bugs were worked out, the war in Europe was nearly over. However, P-47Ms still destroyed 15 enemy aircraft in aerial combat, normal results for any fighter type in March–May 1945 when aerial encounters with the Luftwaffe were rare. The entire production total of 130 P-47Ms were delivered to the 56th Fighter Group, and were responsible for all seven of that group's jet shoot-downs. Twelve were lost in operational crashes with the 56th Group resulting in 11 deaths, two after VE Day, and two (44-21134 on 13 April 1945 and 44-21230 on 16 April 1945) were shot down in combat, both by ground fire.


The second YP-47M (of the batch of four converted P-47Ds) was later fitted with new wings and served as the prototype for the P-47N."_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 29, 2016)

I don't think you can use chasing V1s as a yardstick. The Tempest claimed most victories (638) but the Mosquito claimed (623) then the Spitfire IV (303) and Mustang /P51 (232) The V1 was fast but very hard to take out with MGs, the Mosquito handled night time attacks no figures I can find for how many were not intercepted and they had a massive advantage, the V1 could be seen from miles away at night. That said the Mossies achievement was worthy of great praise, it was a bomber mounted with cannons. In view of the thread topic if the Hornet was available it would have been used day and night, firing four cannon without divergence gave the Mosquito a huge advantage because you couldnt engage it at close range and survive.


----------



## Mike Williams (Jun 30, 2016)

Another reason I find it unlikey that the P-47M was designed for V-1 chasing is because the P-47M was slower at low altitude than already existing types employed on anti- V-1 operations. Mustangs and Tempests were both capable of 400+ mph at sea level while the P-47 only managed 367 mph. I'm not seeing any changes to the P-47M's engine that would favor low altitude operations either. It just doesn't add up.

Comparison of Top Level Speed Performance: Tempest V, Mustang III and Spitfire XIV

Comparison of P-47D, P47-M and P-47N Performance

I don't know off-hand about the fastest piston engine aircraft at low altitude but these Mustangs and Tempests were pretty darn fast down low for 1944 operational aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 30, 2016)

Mike Williams said:


> Another reason I find it unlikey that the P-47M was designed for V-1 chasing is because the P-47M was slower at low altitude than already existing types employed on anti- V-1 operations. Mustangs and Tempests were both capable of 400+ mph at sea level while the P-47 only managed 367 mph. I'm not seeing any changes to the P-47M's engine that would favor low altitude operations either. It just doesn't add up.
> 
> Comparison of Top Level Speed Performance: Tempest V, Mustang III and Spitfire XIV
> 
> ...



I have to agree Mike - could this be the case of an Author taking "hear say" or "folklore" and presenting it as fact? From what I found the major issues with the P-47M was the way aircraft were packaged and shipped when they were sent off to Europe.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47M_Difficulties.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47m-9may45.pdf

Always appreciate your data!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 30, 2016)

grampi said:


> I'm surprised the "H" model was the version of the "light weight" Mustangs that was chosen as the model to put into production. According to everything I've read, the "G" model was actually the best performing model...it was also said to have a ROC in excess of 5000 fpm...



The two XP-51Gs were equipped with the Merlin 14 S.M. producing 2000 Hp at 20,000 feet. There were no major re-designs of the XP-51G leading to the P-51H production model except that the P-51H added the 55 gallon fuel tank plus two more 50 caliber guns (4 to six).

Additionally, the XP-51F (basically same as G/J but engines different) had no fuselage fuel tank, no bomb racks and no guns/ammo during speed and climb tests.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 30, 2016)

The low level V-1 chasing Mustang III with Merlin 100 was The hot rod at low altitudes/

Mustang III Flight Trials

404mph/4500 fpm at 2,000 feet
419mph at 5,200 feet
455mph at 17,000 feet


----------



## mikewint (Jun 30, 2016)

Which is mouse milk to the Do-335's 474mph(763kph). French ace Pierre Clostermann claimed the first Allied combat encounter with a Pfeil in April 1945. In his book The Big Show (pages 273-274) he describes leading a flight of four Hawker Tempests from No. 3 Squadron RAF over northern Germany, when he intercepted a lone Do 335 flying at maximum speed at treetop level. Detecting the British aircraft, the German pilot reversed course to evade. Despite the Tempest's considerable low altitude speed, the RAF fighters were not able to catch up or even get into firing position.
Only one Do 335 survives today. The second preproduction Do 335 A-0, designated A-02, with Werknummer 240 102, and Stammkennzeichen, of VG+PH. It was captured by Allied forces at the plant on 22 April 1945. The aircraft was test flown from a grass runway at Oberwiesenfeld, near Munich, to Cherbourg, France while escorted by two P-51s. The Do 335 was easily able to out distance the escorting Mustangs and arrived at Cherbourg *45 minutes before the P-51s.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 30, 2016)

mikewint said:


> Which is mouse milk to the Do-335's 474mph(763kph). French ace Pierre Clostermann claimed the first Allied combat encounter with a Pfeil in April 1945. In his book The Big Show (pages 273-274) he describes leading a flight of four Hawker Tempests from No. 3 Squadron RAF over northern Germany, when he intercepted a lone Do 335 flying at maximum speed at treetop level. Detecting the British aircraft, the German pilot reversed course to evade. Despite the Tempest's considerable low altitude speed, the RAF fighters were not able to catch up or even get into firing position.
> Only one Do 335 survives today. The second preproduction Do 335 A-0, designated A-02, with Werknummer 240 102, and Stammkennzeichen, of VG+PH. It was captured by Allied forces at the plant on 22 April 1945. The aircraft was test flown from a grass runway at Oberwiesenfeld, near Munich, to Cherbourg, France while escorted by two P-51s. The Do 335 was easily able to out distance the escorting Mustangs and arrived at Cherbourg *45 minutes before the P-51s.*




Not to pick a fight or anything but didn't this already get chalked up to urban myth status?

The German arrow!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jun 30, 2016)

Luftaufnahme München-Oberwiesenfeld aus dem Jahre 1926

PENNULA | Flugplatz München Oberwiesenfeld mit Luftbild und Lageskizze aus dem Jahre 1926 | Luftfahrt Geschichte Historie

Detail can be found, http://www.ww2.dk/Airfields%20-%20Germany%20[1937%20Borders].pdfls


----------



## Tinn (Nov 12, 2021)

Gimmeacannon! said:


> My vote goes to the Spiteful F16 quoted at 494 mph, twin engined goes to Hornet F20 at 485 mph, Some late model Spits were also capable of 485 mph so anything go faster than these?.


I have a copy of "Classic Military Aircraft" copyright 2010 by International Masters Publisher AB and Amber Books Ltd; Bradley's Close; 74-77 White Lion St. London N1 9PF, General Editor Jim Winchester; which seems as good an authority as I have found. He lists the P-47-N as the fastest piston engined fighter at 504 MPH on page 366. There were 1819 produced primarily as long range escorts for B-29s. Not specified is the altitude which was always a determinant of top speed. It would be interesting tosee how these speeds compare with the current racing warbirds like Rare Bear, (an F8F Bearcat); Dreadnaught (a Seafire), Missamerica, (Mustang,) Parrothead,(P-40N) Big Boss and Here Kitty Kitty, (F7F Tigercats) or Shishka Suka, (A replica Yak 3M.) The blurb on Reno Air Racing site states that current speeds for the Unlimited Class (Warbirds) is in excess of 500 MPH. The F7F's are the only twins listed and I was surprised that there were no F4U's in this years lineup.... There was one flying the last time I went. They would certainly be competitive I would think.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 13, 2021)

Tinn said:


> I have a copy of "Classic Military Aircraft" copyright 2010 by International Masters Publisher AB and Amber Books Ltd; Bradley's Close; 74-77 White Lion St. London N1 9PF, General Editor Jim Winchester; which seems as good an authority as I have found. He lists the P-47-N *as the fastest piston engined fighter at 504 MPH on page 366. * There were 1819 produced primarily as long range escorts for B-29s. Not specified is the altitude which was always a determinant of top speed.


Well in this book is there a technical reference or official government document referenced? That would tell you if he's really a "good authority." BTW, here's a 1946 AAF flight test report on a P-47N P-47N Performance Test


Tinn said:


> *It would be interesting tosee how these speeds compare with the current racing warbirds like Rare Bear, (an F8F Bearcat); Dreadnaught (a Seafire), Missamerica, (Mustang,) Parrothead,(P-40N) Big Boss and Here Kitty Kitty, (F7F Tigercats) or Shishka Suka, (A replica Yak 3M.) The blurb on Reno Air Racing site states that current speeds for the Unlimited Class (Warbirds) is in excess of 500 MPH. The F7F's are the only twins listed and I was surprised that there were no F4U's in this years lineup.... There was one flying the last time I went. They would certainly be competitive I would think.*


Tinn - you can no way compare the aircraft being raced at Reno to any operational WW2 fighter. Aside from the aircraft being stripped of military equipment and excess weight, they are flying a closed course similar to what you would see at the Indy 500. Acceleration, maintaining the course line and being able to last the 6 laps without overheating is the basic strategy at Reno.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 13, 2021)

Pretty sure Reno Racers don't have self-sealing tanks, armor plate, machine-guns/cannon, period radio equipment (old school tube-type), armored windscreens and other ancilliaries that were nessecary for combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tinn (Nov 13, 2021)

Your responses are informative. The book mentioned above is not in the class of an official flight test; it does however have a good deal of information and a wide variety of warplanes dating back to the opening days of WW One, terminating with WW Two aircraft although it details some usage postwar particularly into the Korean Conflict.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 13, 2021)

Tinn said:


> I have a copy of "Classic Military Aircraft" copyright 2010 by International Masters Publisher AB and Amber Books Ltd; Bradley's Close; 74-77 White Lion St. London N1 9PF, General Editor Jim Winchester; which seems as good an authority as I have found. He lists the P-47-N as the fastest piston engined fighter at 504 MPH on page 366. There were 1819 produced primarily as long range escorts for B-29s. Not specified is the altitude which was always a determinant of top speed. It would be interesting tosee how these speeds compare with the current racing warbirds like Rare Bear, (an F8F Bearcat); Dreadnaught (a Seafire), Missamerica, (Mustang,) Parrothead,(P-40N) Big Boss and Here Kitty Kitty, (F7F Tigercats) or Shishka Suka, (A replica Yak 3M.) The blurb on Reno Air Racing site states that current speeds for the Unlimited Class (Warbirds) is in excess of 500 MPH. The F7F's are the only twins listed and I was surprised that there were no F4U's in this years lineup.... There was one flying the last time I went. They would certainly be competitive I would think.


Republic claimed that the XP-47J (one of) attained a recorded top speed of 507mph. (According to Republic, and referenced by Warren Bodie). The P&W R-2800-57w/GE CH-3 turbo deivered 2800hp at 36000 feet. 

Note that it was not flown and tested by cold hearted AAF flight test engineers. Note also that at NAA when the XP-51G attained 495mph that it was a speed run by NAA top test pilot Bob Chilton. Neither of the two aircraft types were carrying a full combat load - reducing induced drag contribution by 3-5mph - nor carrying installed combat pylons which would further reduce top speed with significant added parasite drag. In production and in combat configuration and load out, it (P-47J) would be estimated 30+ mph slower at top speed. 

The top production Republic a/c was the P-47M, of which few were built and only saw combat in ETO with 56th FG. The P-47M was faster at WEP/32,000 ft = 475mph (marginally) than P-47N at 467 mph. I haven't read the flight tests that specify the Gross Take Off weights for either. - but suspect Fighter config with reduced fuel and ammo load. Note that GW for P-47M is 2500 pounds less than P-47N in the attached AAF Flight test summary between P-47D, M and N.


P-47 Performance Tests



The long standing Rare Bear closed circuit top speed of average of 5 flights - was broken by Voodoo which averaged 531mph One of Voodoo's runs attained 550+ mph, and ony the last run with a slightly sick engine dropped the average from the 540's. Voodoo (Steve Hinton, Jr.) was a highly modified P-51D

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 13, 2021)

Tinn said:


> Your responses are informative. The book mentioned above is not in the class of an official flight test; it does however have a good deal of information and a wide variety of warplanes dating back to the opening days of WW One, terminating with WW Two aircraft although it details some usage postwar particularly into the Korean Conflict.


There are many publications where the authors have not fully researched their information, especially older ones. When technical publications or sources of their information are not indicated, I become skeptical.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## bada (Nov 13, 2021)

Let's split a little,
Fastest airplane:
*altitude. Let's have some alt-range. 0-5000ft/ 5000-10000ft/etc. A plane build for low alt's sucked at high alts (mostly)
*Time frame: for europeans, WWII OFFICIALY ended on 8th mai, Americans on Sept2.
*Forget protos, forget those. Let's take only airframes that encountered ennemy planes in the air.

The fastest piston engined plane was still the me 262...yes,it had 2 Riedel's to put the jumo's in motion, without it, no working jumo's, so jumo's were actually piston engined..


----------



## pbehn (Nov 13, 2021)

bada said:


> *Time frame: for europeans, WWII ended on 8th mai, Americans on Sept2.


My father would disagree with that, he didnt return to UK from Singapore until 1948.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 13, 2021)

pbehn said:


> My father would disagree with that, he didnt return to UK from Singapore until 1948.


That rated more than a “funny “.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 13, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> That rated more than a “funny “.


I remember having a disagreement with my dad as a kid. I had just built the 1;24 Airfix Spitfire MkI which has a motorised prop. As soon as he saw it he said "the propeller is going the wrong way". Obviously all the Spitfires he saw in the far east were Griffon powered.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## bada (Nov 13, 2021)

pbehn said:


> My father would disagree with that, he didnt return to UK from Singapore until 1948.


Sorry to hear that, those weren't pleasant times.
corrected the "definition"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 13, 2021)

bada said:


> Sorry to hear that, those weren't pleasant times.
> corrected the "definition"


Many servicemen didnt return for years, with the Japanese surrender the whole region was in chaos. In Germany I met a guy who was ex Afrika Corps, he didnt return from Africa until 1948 too, there was more food in Africa than Germany at the time so ex-prisoners were kept where they were until things were sorted out.

In UK they are called VE and VJ day, VE day being the end of war in Europe and VJ day being the end of hostilities and the end of WW2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 13, 2021)

Following that criteria, the absolute fastest aircraft of WWII, that operated at higher altitudes and saw combat, was the Me163.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tkdog (Nov 13, 2021)

I don’t think it had pistons though.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 13, 2021)

Tkdog said:


> I don’t think it had pistons though.


The Me163 was in response to:


bada said:


> Let's split a little,
> *Fastest airplane:*
> *altitude. Let's have some alt-range. 0-5000ft/ 5000-10000ft/etc. A plane build for low alt's sucked at high alts (mostly)
> *Time frame: for europeans, WWII OFFICIALY ended on 8th mai, Americans on Sept2.
> *Forget protos, forget those. Let's take only airframes that encountered ennemy planes in the air.



And the Me163 did have a propeller!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Nov 14, 2021)

Tinn said:


> I have a copy of "Classic Military Aircraft" copyright 2010 by International Masters Publisher AB and Amber Books Ltd; Bradley's Close; 74-77 White Lion St. London N1 9PF, General Editor Jim Winchester; which seems as good an authority as I have found. He lists the P-47-N as the fastest piston engined fighter at* 504 MPH* on page 366.



Hi Tinn.
Got a few Winchester books - is this what you see in yours?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 14, 2021)

Tinn said:


> I have a copy of "Classic Military Aircraft" copyright 2010 by International Masters Publisher AB and Amber Books Ltd; Bradley's Close; 74-77 White Lion St. London N1 9PF, General Editor Jim Winchester; which seems as good an authority as I have found. He lists the P-47-N as the fastest piston engined fighter at 504 MPH on page 366. There were 1819 produced primarily as long range escorts for B-29s. Not specified is the altitude which was always a determinant of top speed. It would be interesting tosee how these speeds compare with the current racing warbirds like Rare Bear, (an F8F Bearcat);* Dreadnaught (a Seafire)*, Missamerica, (Mustang,) Parrothead,(P-40N) Big Boss and Here Kitty Kitty, (F7F Tigercats) or Shishka Suka, (A replica Yak 3M.) The blurb on Reno Air Racing site states that current speeds for the Unlimited Class (Warbirds) is in excess of 500 MPH. The F7F's are the only twins listed and I was surprised that there were no F4U's in this years lineup.... There was one flying the last time I went. They would certainly be competitive I would think.



Dreadnaught (actually _Dreadnought_) is a Sea FURY

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 14, 2021)

Graeme said:


> Hi Tinn.
> Got a few Winchester books - is this what you see in yours?
> 
> View attachment 648210





> Tinn said:
> I have a copy of "Classic Military Aircraft" copyright 2010 by International Masters Publisher AB and Amber Books Ltd; Bradley's Close; 74-77 White Lion St. London N1 9PF, General Editor Jim Winchester; which seems as good an authority as I have found. *He lists the P-47-N as the fastest piston engined fighter at 504 MPH on page 366. *There were 1819 produced primarily as long range escorts for B-29s. Not specified is the altitude which was always a determinant of top speed. It would be interesting tosee how these speeds compare with the current racing warbirds like Rare Bear, (an F8F Bearcat);* Dreadnaught (a Seafire)*, Missamerica, (Mustang,) Parrothead,(P-40N) Big Boss and Here Kitty Kitty, (F7F Tigercats) or Shishka Suka, (A replica Yak 3M.) The blurb on Reno Air Racing site states that current speeds for the Unlimited Class (Warbirds) is in excess of 500 MPH. The F7F's are the only twins listed and I was surprised that there were no F4U's in this years lineup.... There was one flying the last time I went. They would certainly be competitive I would think.


OK - I got to the bottom of this:

An *XP-47J* a "lightweight" P-47 (if there really can be such a thing) achieved a top speed of 505 mph.

_On 11 July 1944 and equipped with a General Electric CH-3 turbosupercharger, the *XP-47J *achieved 493 mph (793 km/h) at 33,350 feet (10,165 m). Although the engine was producing 2,800 hp (2,088 kW), Republic believed the aircraft had more potential. At its own expense, *Republic installed a CH-5 turbosupercharger and a larger 13 ft (3.96 m) Curtiss propeller. The propeller was an experimental unit with 2 in (51 mm) added to its trailing edge to increase its width.* With the changes, the engine producing 2,730 hp (2,036 kW), and 400 lb (1.78 kN) of jet thrust from the exhaust, Mike Ritchie flew the XP-47J over a calibrated course at 34,450 (10,500 m) feet on 4 August 1944* and achieved 505 mph (813 km/h). This is the highest speed recorded in level flight by any propeller-driven aircraft during World War II._









Republic XP-47J Superbolt Fighter


The Republic XP-47J was a high-performance fighter prototype based on the P-47 Thunderbolt. The aircraft recorded a top speed of 505 mph (813 km/h) in level flight.




oldmachinepress.com





Now with that said, this was a highly modified experimental aircraft and not representative of production P-47s *and NOT a P-47N*

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 14, 2021)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Nov 14, 2021)

bada said:


> Sorry to hear that, those weren't pleasant times.
> corrected the "definition"


If you really want to correct it then I would suggest:-

The war in Europe ended on 8 May 1945 and the war against Japan ended on 2 September 1945.

“Europeans” fought on in the Far East after 8th May 1945 until the Japanese surrender and beyond often alongside Americans. Europeans includes British, Dutch, French and even Italians*.

Some of the last aircraft missions of WW2 flown by Europeans took place on 15 August 1945 over Japan itself immediately before the cease fire, by pilots of TG38.5, part of the British Pacific Fleet operating as part of the US carrier task forces. That resulted in the last enemy aircraft of WW2 being shot down by British pilots.

French and Dutch ships and submarines were operating as part of the British East Indies Fleet based in Ceylon and the US 7th Fleet out of places like Fremantle and Morotai throughout 1945.

And, given that today is Remembrance Sunday, let us not forget all of those of whatever nation who fought and died in both world wars and all the wars since.


* Italy declared war on Japan on 14 July 1945 and had a ship, the Eritrea, operating with the British East Indies Fleet in a secondary role. I accept that including them might be stretching it a bit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## msxyz (Nov 14, 2021)

Not counting prototypes or one of a kind, I'd say the do335 or the ta152 stand a chance of being the fastest aircarfts to see combat duty. Germans also routinely installed nitrogen tetroxide 'booster packs' in many planes (especially on Me-109K) and this allowed notable short term gains especially at altitude.

Comparisons with modern racers are a bit out of place as these are basically 'pimp my ride' jobs good for Guinness records or to have a bit of fun on a Sunday afternoon (nothing against it! Being a nerd engineer myself, I love big, loud smokey engines as anyone else  )

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 14, 2021)

msxyz said:


> Not counting prototypes or one of a kind, I'd say the do335 or the ta152 stand a chance of being the fastest aircarfts to see combat duty. Germans also routinely installed nitrogen tetroxide 'booster packs' in many planes (especially on Me-109K) and this allowed notable short term gains especially at altitude.
> 
> Comparisons with modern racers are a bit out of place as these are basically 'pimp my ride' jobs good for Guinness records or to have a bit of fun on a Sunday afternoon (nothing against it! Being a nerd engineer myself, I love big, loud smokey engines as anyone else  )


Two questions? Have you ever seen an actual flight test of the Do 335 that exceeded 430mph? The tests I have seen discussed an array of issues that needed design mods to solve (can't remember which and too lazy to search). Second question, any documentation of being deployed to operational unit? I know Hans-Werner claimed being shot at when ferrying a Do 335 to Lechfield on April 23,1945.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 15, 2021)

Dreadnought (spelling is correct here) is not a Seafire. It is a Sea Fury T.20, modified with an R-4360 engine replacing the Bristol Centaurus. The engine is not the only change to the airframe. Dreadnought is your current National Champion (2021) flown by Joel Swager.

Rare Bear may have started life as an F8F-2, but it is basically not a Bearcat anymore. The stock engine was an R-2800 and the existing engine is an R-3350. The systems are pure Dave Cornell. There is nothing "Bearcat" left in the aircraft systems. The fuselage, wing and tail airfoils have been altered so as to not be even close to stock. The propeller is different from stock. There are even more changes from stock.

There is no F4U Corsair competitive in the Gold Class Unlimited racers and hasn't been since the Super Corsair flown by the Planes of Fame team. In 1985, Steve Hinton won Gold with it. It crashed in Phoenix, Arizona in 1994 with Kevin Eldridge at the controls. He was seriously injured but recovered and is still flying today.  . So is Steve Hinton. . Meanwhile, Steve Hinton Jr. won Reno a record seven times in both Strega and Voodoo.  .

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 15, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> View attachment 648212


Interesting mod to the canopy, basically a better view aft for the Razorback.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Nov 15, 2021)

I have read ,years ago, in a forum, that special prepared P51 s were able to catch Me 262 s in horizontal flight. Even if we assume that most me262s had very poor building quality and thus were underperforming , still we can conclude that individual p51ds were capable of speeds around 800km/h or more. And thus the fastest fighters of the entire war


----------



## special ed (Nov 15, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> Interesting mod to the canopy, basically a better view aft for the Razorback.


The canopy is a cleaner version, also, because of no fuselage cut out behind canopy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2021)

dedalos said:


> *I have read ,years ago, in a forum*, that special prepared P51 s were able to catch Me 262 s in horizontal flight. Even if we assume that most me262s had very poor building quality and thus were underperforming , still we can conclude that individual p51ds were capable of speeds around 800km/h or more. And thus the fastest fighters of the entire war


Right there I find suspect. Bill M may have a comment on this...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 15, 2021)

dedalos said:


> I have read ,years ago, in a forum, that special prepared P51 s were able to catch Me 262 s in horizontal flight. Even if we assume that most me262s had very poor building quality and thus were underperforming , still we can conclude that individual p51ds were capable of speeds around 800km/h or more. And thus the fastest fighters of the entire war


I read years ago, I dont know where, that P-51 squadrons trained in UK "clobber colleges" with RAF meteor squadrons practicing diving on the jets to keep their speed up as high as possible to make an attack more difficult. They are only faster when they are faster and 500MPH+ is very fast to shoot at anything.


----------



## special ed (Nov 15, 2021)

There were accounts of P-51D drivers catching a 262 unawares after the 51 had a lengthy dive, building up speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 15, 2021)

dedalos said:


> I have read ,years ago, in a forum, that special prepared P51 s were able to catch Me 262 s in horizontal flight. Even if we assume that most me262s had very poor building quality and thus were underperforming , still we can conclude that individual p51ds were capable of speeds around 800km/h or more. And thus the fastest fighters of the entire war


Yes, P-51D tested with JATO/rocket type centerline booster for 60 sec but never deployed in combat. IIRC testing was underway in April 1945, in a P-51D-25-NA and never would have made it to ETO - and no need for Japan. 

Flight tests at NAA by Chilton demonstrated acceleration from 429mph to 513mph.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Nov 15, 2021)

North American P-51 Mustang this one

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 15, 2021)

The info for the modified P-51D that Snautzer just posted:




GrauGeist said:


> It was actually conceived as a means of "flash acceleration" in response to the Me262 threat.
> 
> There were two test aircraft, both were P-51D-25 airframes (44-73099 44-74050) and the rocket was an acid-aniline rocket motor that was fed by Red fuming nitric acid, carried in a special tank under the port wing and an aniline-alcohol mixture, carried in a tank under the starboard wing.
> 
> The fuel mixture was extremely volitile and could prove to be dangerous in a ground error and/or combat, plus the tests did not produce satisfactory results, so it never developed any further.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 15, 2021)

A lot of the very high speeds achieved by British and American aircraft late in the war involved 150 octane fuel. This definitely is true of the lightweight Mustangs and the de Havilland Hornet. I don't know about the Spiteful, but I am suspicious. 

How do we classify war emergency power (WEP)? 

Almost all super high speeds were done at high altitude were there is less drag on non-flying surfaces like the fuselage. The P-47J did 505mph at 34,450ft. The Napier VII powered Hawker Fury did 485mph at 18500ft. I find that impressive. Could 150 octane gas have been involved?


----------



## chipieal (Nov 15, 2021)

if we are talking twin engined fighters -- what about the Tigercat or the P -- 82

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 15, 2021)

I think the P-82 just missed the cut, time wise. Did the F7F get close to an operational theatre before WW2 ended?
Either way, good call chipieal.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 15, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I think the P-82 just missed the cut, time wise. Did the F7F get close to an operational theatre before WW2 ended?
> Either way, good call chipieal.


Both types saw first flights during the war, but neither one saw combat.

They did, however, see action in Korea.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 15, 2021)

If they are in, so am I

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 15, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> Almost all super high speeds were done at high altitude were there is less drag on non-flying surfaces like the fuselage. The P-47J did 505mph at 34,450ft. The Napier VII powered Hawker Fury did 485mph at 18500ft. I find that impressive. Could 150 octane gas have been involved?


Using higher octane rated fuels (such as 100/150) would certainly allow for higher manifold pressures below an engine's normal critical altitude (and thus greater performance) but once the aircraft reached that altitude the maximum speed would return to what could be attained while using lower octane fuels due to over boosting (such as 100/130 fuel). In other words, maximum speed would only increase while operating below the normal critical altitude of the particular engine in discussion.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 15, 2021)

dedalos said:


> I have read ,years ago, in a forum, that special prepared P51 s were able to catch Me 262 s in horizontal flight. Even if we assume that most me262s had very poor building quality and thus were underperforming , still we can conclude that individual p51ds were capable of speeds around 800km/h or more. And thus the fastest fighters of the entire war



Now I've read it on a forum, too. But I'm not holding my breath.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 16, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> How do we classify war emergency power (WEP)?



Good if you have it?



Howard Gibson said:


> Almost all super high speeds were done at high altitude were there is less drag on non-flying surfaces like the fuselage. The P-47J did 505mph at 34,450ft. The Napier VII powered Hawker Fury did 485mph at 18500ft. I find that impressive. Could 150 octane gas have been involved?



P-47J probably used 130 grade fuel + water injection, like the P-47M and P-47N.
Hawker Fury sported smaller & less draggy wing than the Tempest V, radiators were also better drag streamlined. Less drag = better speed. Sabre VII was making more power vs. Sabre IV, let alone Sabre II, and at all altitudes. It was also to use water injection under 17500 ft (and probably up to 20000-21000 ft with aircraft flying at high speed due to the ram effect). Max power at ~17500 ft was supposed to be 2400 HP (!), the best power was 3050 HP at 2500 ft; all without ram effect. 
Per graph at pg. 444 of the 'The secret horsepower race', 1st edition.
Lower drag + more power = more speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 16, 2021)

dedalos said:


> I have read ,years ago, in a forum, that special prepared P51 s were able to catch Me 262 s in horizontal flight. Even if we assume that most me262s had very poor building quality and thus were underperforming , still we can conclude that individual p51ds were capable of speeds around 800km/h or more. And thus the fastest fighters of the entire war


I am working from Green and Swanborough's WW2 Aircraft Fact Files -- US Army Air Force Fighters Part 2.

Aircraft​WeightSpeedAltitudeXP-51F​9060 lb466 mph29,000 ftXP-51G​8885 lb472 mph20,750 ftP-51H​9500 lb487 mph25,000 ft

As far as I can tell, all these speeds are at War Emergency Power (WEP), and using 150 octave fuel. The P-51H's Packard Merlin Vf-1650-9, and it was rated at 1380HP for take-off, and 2218HP at 10,200ft and WEP. The maximum continuous rating was 1470HP at 21,300ft. 

Top speeds for the P-51D are quoted for 100/130 octane gas and no WEP. It had the same engine as the P-51H. The P-51H required less lift, so it should have somewhat less drag and it should be somewhat faster, and it should have a significant advantage in turn rate and acceleration and climb. 

500mph is achieved after a long dive.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 16, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> Top speeds for the P-51D are quoted for 100/130 octane gas and no WEP. It had the same engine as the P-51H.



Care to elaborate the two sentences?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2021)

The P-51D used the V-1650-7, based on the Merlin 66.

The P-51H used the V-1650-9, based on the Merlin 100.

They were not the same.


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 16, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Care to elaborate the two sentences?


My reference quotes for the P-51D a top speed of 437mph at 25,000ft. This is done with 100/130 octane fuel. I am not sure what had to be done to a Mustang to take advantage of 150 octane, and I don't know how available it was. WW2 Aircraft Performance's article on 150 Octane fuel is full of memos about how 150 octane fuel is fabulous and that we should use it. That does not mean that they did. 

The XP-51G and XP-51F both used the Packard V-1650-7, like the P-51D.

Martin Sharp & Michael J.F. Bowyer's book _Mosquito_ provides the following table on page 448.


Octane​Injection​Horsepower87​1150100​1800100​Water​2000150​2400150​Water​2600

Note how supercharging is not important here. Maximum output can be achieved without it, although not at any sort of altitude. 

The de Havilland Hornet's Merlin 130/131 engines were designed among other things specifically to run on 150 octane fuel.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 16, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> My reference quotes for the P-51D a top speed of 437mph at 25,000ft. This is done with 100/130 octane fuel.



There is a lots of tests here showing 445+- mph clocked for the P-51D. WER setting was used, ie. 3000 rpm and up to 67 in Hg boost.



Howard Gibson said:


> I am not sure what had to be done to a Mustang to take advantage of 150 octane, and I don't know how available it was. WW2 Aircraft Performance's article on 150 Octane fuel is full of memos about how 150 octane fuel is fabulous and that we should use it. That does not mean that they did.



Basic thing was to change the spark plugs more often due to lead fouling of the plugs, since the lead content was much greater on the 150 grade fuel than it was in 130 grade. 



Howard Gibson said:


> The XP-51G and XP-51F both used the Packard V-1650-7, like the P-51D.



XP-51F indeed used the same engine as the -51D, but the -51H used the improved -9, that also incorporated water injection feature so greater boost could be used (up to 90 in Hg). XP-51G used the British RR engine, RM.14.SM. That engine was pretty comparable with the V-1650-9 in power. See here.



Howard Gibson said:


> Note how supercharging is not important here. Maximum output can be achieved without it, although not at any sort of altitude.



There is always supercharging in a ww2 piston engine. Something needs to provide all that boost at required altitudes, that's what superchargers do. More boost = more power.



Howard Gibson said:


> The de Havilland Hornet's Merlin 130/131 engines were designed among other things specifically to run on 150 octane fuel.



Those also worked with 130 grade fuel, max boost limited to +20 psi. On 150 grade, it was limited to +25 psi.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 16, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> [...] and using 150 octave fuel.



The musician in me is stunned. That is one long guitar neck!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 16, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> The musician in me is stunned. That is one long guitar neck!


I was bound to do that sooner or later.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 16, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Basic thing was to change the spark plugs more often due to lead fouling of the plugs, since the lead content was much greater on the 150 grade fuel than it was in 130 grade.


My understanding from reading up on 150 octane fuel was that Mark IX Spitfires required new throttle quadrants. Maybe the Mustang didn't. The author of one of the reports _did_ recommend five blade propellers on the Merlin Spitfires.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 16, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> Martin Sharp & Michael J.F. Bowyer's book _Mosquito_ provides the following table on page 448.
> 
> 
> Octane​Injection​Horsepower87​1150100​1800100​Water​2000150​2400150​Water​2600



The power numbers seem suspect.

Firstly, what engines were these? Merlin XXs? Merlin 72/73? Merlin 76/77? Merlin 100 series?

No Rolls-Royce built Merlin used ADI in service. Some Mosquitoes used nitrous oxide to boost speed to chase V-1s.

As far as I am aware, no Mosquitoes used 87 octane fuel.

Merlin 66 made ~ 1,800hp in MS gear with +18psi boost using 100/130 fuel. Merlin 72/73 and 76/77 made 1,710hp in MS gear with +18psi boost and 100/130 fuel. The difference in power reflects the different supercharger gearing between the 66 and the 70-series engines named. Also note that the maximum power was achieved in the lower gear.

The Merlin 66 was capable of ~2,000hp at +25psi boost on 150 grade fuel.

100-series development engines were able to run more power than they would be rated.

The RM.17SM was a 100-series development with a larger supercharger (supercharger impeller sizes 12.7/10.7 inches vs 12.0/10.1 inches) . It was tested at ~2,400hp at +30psi and 3,300rpm dry. It was also able to make 2,600hp using ADI, 3,150rpm, +36psi boost and 160 grade fuel (not a standard fuel - 150 grade with extra TEL, I believe). The RM.17SM was rated at 2,200hp MS gear/2,100hp FS gear dry (ie no ADI). It did not go into production and did not get a type number.




Howard Gibson said:


> Note how supercharging is not important here. Maximum output can be achieved without it, although not at any sort of altitude.



Supercharging was very important.

Higher fuel grades allowed greater boost and thus more power.

Without extra boost or compression ratio the higher fuel grade is no better than the standard grade.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 16, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> My understanding from reading up on 150 octane fuel was that Mark IX Spitfires required new throttle quadrants. Maybe the Mustang didn't. The author of one of the reports _did_ recommend five blade propellers on the Merlin Spitfires.



Not sure about that. The boost control unit had to be adjusted.


----------



## don4331 (Nov 16, 2021)

Power numbers more/less match what's in RRHS #19.

Differences: They have 100 octane + Water Injection at 2,100hp and didn't define a limit for 150 octane + water injection other than indicating that the RM.17SM had run at 2,620hp for its endurance test at values mentioned.


W
 wuzak
: I was typing at same time, so some overlap here.

No RR built Merlin might have used ADI in official service, but doesn't mean it wasn't tested.

You modify the boost control unit to allow increased boost (at lower critical altitude) and you get more power. RM.17SM critical altitude in low speed being ~1k ft, and ~17k ft for high versus the RM.14SM (the 100 series) being about 15k ft and 30k ft. respectively. As a result, RR was looking at 3 speed supercharger drive to ensure power at 30k' and above for the follow on to the 100 series.

Tweaking the boost controls on the planes was regularly done when mfrs. were attempting speed record runs. Heck, the guys at RR talk about how they would inject a shot of oil into the engine when the RAE technician was distracted, so engine would momentarily produce a little more torque and give better numbers.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 16, 2021)

don4331 said:


> You modify the boost control unit to allow increased boost (at lower critical altitude) and you get more power. RM.17SM critical altitude in low speed being ~1k ft, and ~17k ft for high versus the RM.14SM (the 100 series) being about 15k ft and 30k ft. respectively. As a result, RR was looking at 3 speed supercharger drive to ensure power at 30k' and above for the follow on to the 100 series.



The critical altitude changes with boost level.

The 3rd speed would have been LS gear - for low altitude.


----------



## Mike Williams (Nov 17, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> My understanding from reading up on 150 octane fuel was that Mark IX Spitfires required new throttle quadrants.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 17, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> My reference quotes for the P-51D a top speed of 437mph at 25,000ft. This is done with 100/130 octane fuel. I am not sure what had to be done to a Mustang to take advantage of 150 octane, and I don't know how available it was. WW2 Aircraft Performance's article on 150 Octane fuel is full of memos about how 150 octane fuel is fabulous and that we should use it. That does not mean that they did.
> 
> The XP-51G and XP-51F both used the Packard V-1650-7, like the P-51D.
> 
> ...



Having looked at my copy of that book I see a chart showing limits for fuel grades with and without ADI. I am unsure whether they are theoretical or tested limits.

Actual service and test Merlin versions are plotted on the graph with a line of best fit.

None of the service models came to the theoretical limit. The V-1650-9 with 150 grade fuel and ADI made just over 2,200hp, compared to the limit on that graph as 2,600hp.


----------



## Mike Williams (Nov 17, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> WW2 Aircraft Performance's article on 150 Octane fuel is full of memos about how 150 octane fuel is fabulous and that we should use it. That does not mean that they did.


Please dig a little deeper into 100/150 GRADE FUEL and P-51 Mustang Performance to find documentation showing operational use of 150 grade fuel by the 8th Air Force and RAF. 

A few examples gives a quick idea: 
Use of 100/150 Grade Fuel by Eighth Air Force Headquarters Eighth Air Force, Technical Operations, 4 April 1945.
Requisition MER/388/43., 24th August 1944, HQ ADGB
316 Squadron ORB
118 Squadron ORB

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Nov 17, 2021)

It appears that very late in the war , y american field mechanics of both p51 and p47 units , were able to over boost the engines. They also provided additional streamlining by using putty and gloss paint. Thus , these types were able to fly rings around the Lw piston engine fighters, and almost closed the gap with the me262. Now the jet , because of the high fuel consumption, could not use full throlle for more than a few minutes. Maybe, in practice, given all the limitations of the me262, very late p51s and p47 had higher "combat" speed


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2021)

dedalos said:


> It appears that very late in the war , y american field mechanics of both p51 and p47 units , were able to over boost the engines.* They also provided additional streamlining by using putty and gloss paint. Thus , these types were able to fly rings around the Lw piston engine* fighters, and almost closed the gap with the me262. Now the jet , because of the high fuel consumption, could not use full throlle for more than a few minutes. Maybe, in practice, given all the limitations of the me262, very late p51s and p47 had higher "combat" speed


Seam putty and gloss paint helps but it's not going to buy you THAT much. At Reno we tapped up seams with "100 MPH tape" and got an extra 5 mph in most cases.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2021)

dedalos said:


> It appears that very late in the war , y american field mechanics of both p51 and p47 units , were able to over boost the engines. They also provided additional streamlining by using putty and gloss paint. Thus , these types were able to fly rings around the Lw piston engine fighters, and almost closed the gap with the me262. Now the jet , because of the high fuel consumption, could not use full throlle for more than a few minutes. Maybe, in practice, given all the limitations of the me262, very late p51s and p47 had higher "combat" speed


Another thought - I do know that mechanics in the field during WW2 did do tweaks to get better performance from their assigned aircraft, but at the same time there were squadron maintenance officers looking over their shoulders. Then, as now, if you're doing a maintenance process outside of documented procedures and an incident results, big trouble can come your way!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 17, 2021)

wuzak said:


> The power numbers seem suspect.
> 
> Firstly, what engines were these? Merlin XXs? Merlin 72/73? Merlin 76/77? Merlin 100 series?


I assume these were generic Merlin engines. Twelve cylinders, 27l displacement, and 3000rpm. 


wuzak said:


> No Rolls-Royce built Merlin used ADI in service. Some Mosquitoes used nitrous oxide to boost speed to chase V-1s.
> 
> As far as I am aware, no Mosquitoes used 87 octane fuel.


No Mosquitos put out just 1150HP per engine!


wuzak said:


> Supercharging was very important
> 
> Higher fuel grades allowed greater boost and thus more power.
> 
> Without extra boost or compression ratio the higher fuel grade is no better than the standard grade.


You mix fuel into your intake air such that there is exactly enough oxygen available to burn everything. You insert the air into a cylinder and you compress it. As per the gas laws you may or may not have learned in physics and/or engineering, the temperature increases. Ideally, it goes up to just below the ignition temperature of the vapourised fuel. You fire the spark plug(s) at exactly the right moment. Under these conditions, the piston does the maximum possible amount of work on its stroke. 

The pressure and temperature in the cylinder are the sum of atmospheric pressure, supercharger boost and compression ratio. You can do this without supercharging, you just cannot do it at altitude.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 17, 2021)

Mike Williams said:


> Please dig a little deeper into 100/150 GRADE FUEL and P-51 Mustang Performance to find documentation showing operational use of 150 grade fuel by the 8th Air Force and RAF.
> 
> A few examples gives a quick idea:
> Use of 100/150 Grade Fuel by Eighth Air Force Headquarters Eighth Air Force, Technical Operations, 4 April 1945.
> ...


Definitely, it was used, particularly against V1 buzz bombs. Definitely, some of it crossed the Atlantic, where the USAAF tested it. I have not found anything about the US Navy getting at it. Did it replace the 100/130 fuel, or was it handed out to squadrons with high priority missions?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> No Mosquitos put out just 1150HP per engine!


Not every model...


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 17, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not every model...


I'd say the corsair and the P&W R-2800 have to be on the the list over 440 mph maxium speed and over 2,000 hp


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I'd say the corsair and the P&W R-2800 have to be on the the list over 440 mph maxium speed and over 2,000 hp


I was referring to the Mosquito having engines of 1150HP per engine and not every model of the Corsair had a top speed of 440 mph


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 17, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I was referring to the Mosquito having engines of 1150HP per engine and not every model of the Corsair had a top speed of 440 mph


I know some did though


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I know some did though


Actually the F4U-1A had a top speed of 417 mph. F4U-4 had a top speed of 446 mph. The F4U-5, 470. The AU-1 389 mph.


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 17, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually the F4U-1A had a top speed of 417 mph. F4U-4 had a top speed of 446 mph. The F4U-5, 470. The AU-1 389 mph.


446 fast enough to make as one of the fastest


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> 446 fast enough to make as one of the fastest


No - it was up there but there were several that were faster and if you read this thread you'll see that. And you also have to consider the model and when it saw action.


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 17, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No - it was up there but there were several that were faster and if you read this thread you'll see that. And you also have to consider the model and when it saw action.


I did read it thats why i made my entry


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I did read it thats why i made my entry


Well if you read all the way through you'll find...

P-47N 460
P-51H 487
Spitfire F Mk 24 454
Ta 154H-1 472
Do 335 474
F7F - 460
Spiteful F Mk 16 494

There's a few more...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 17, 2021)

Never knew the the Spiteful was so fast.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 18, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Never knew the the Spiteful was so fast.



The Spiteful F.XIV could only do 483mph. Using a similar Griffon to that of the 20-series and Mk.XIV Spitfires.

The F.16 used the 3 speed supercharged 100-series Griffon.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 18, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well if you read all the way through you'll find...
> 
> P-47N 460
> P-51H 487
> ...


I _did_ know a Spiteful went that fast, but it was the Spiteful XVI, with a Griffon 101 with a three speed supercharger. Most Spitefuls and Seafangs were rated at 475mph. Could 150 octane fuel be involved?

I would guess that with the exception of the Spitfire F24, all of these aircraft are running on 150 octane fuel and/or methanol/water injection.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 18, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> I would guess that with the exception of the Spitfire F24, all of these aircraft are running on 150 octane fuel and/or methanol/water injection.



Spitfire did not have ADI. Nor did Spiteful.

Germans did not have 150 grade fuel.

The Ta 152H and Do 335 used nitrous oxide to provide additional boost above the critical altitude of the engine, and that is where the high speed was achieved.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 18, 2021)

So in Spite of not having ADI, the Spiteful was still exceedingly fast...

I'll get my coat...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 18, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> So in Spite of not having ADI, the Spiteful was still exceedingly fast...
> 
> I'll get my coat...


Good idea you need a little respite from this.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 18, 2021)

Shouldn't that be "res-Spite"...?

OK, I'll REALLY get my coat now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 18, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> Shouldn't that be "res-Spite"...?



You are really full of it today!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 18, 2021)

We're stuck in a spiterweb of puns! God help us!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 18, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> We're stuck in a spiterweb of puns! God help us!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 18, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Seam putty and gloss paint helps but it's not going to buy you THAT much. At Reno we tapped up seams with "100 MPH tape" and got an extra 5 mph in most cases.


Your mistake was not using the red tape.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 18, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> At Reno we tapped up seams with "100 MPH tape" and got an extra 5 mph in most cases.


Well, you should have used "300 mph tape" instead, just imagine the net gain if you had!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## AMCKen (Nov 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well if you read all the way through you'll find...
> 
> P-47N 460
> P-51H 487
> ...


Note that there was just one Spiteful XVI built and it didn't hit 494 until 1947.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 22, 2021)

AMCKen said:


> Note that there was just one Spiteful XVI built and it didn't hit 494 until 1947.


true


----------



## WARSPITER (Nov 22, 2021)

It's good to see no one posting just out of spite

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 22, 2021)

Maybe not out of Spite, but perhaps Fury?

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 22, 2021)

AMCKen said:


> Note that there was just one Spiteful XVI built and it didn't hit 494 until 1947.



Wiki says 2 Spiteful F.16 were built, but BAE systems say only 1.

17 production and 2 prototype Spiteful F.14s were built. The F.14 was a laggard with a top speed of only 483mph. The first production Spiteful F.14 flew in April 1945.


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 23, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Maybe not out of Spite, but perhaps Fury?
> 
> View attachment 649234


Is that an early version with the 4 bladed prop?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 23, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> Is that an early version with the 4 bladed prop?



That's the prototype Fury.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 23, 2021)

The second prototype was errrrr different. Hawker Fury & Sea Fury

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 23, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> Is that an early version with the 4 bladed prop?


This was the first Fury prototype (NX798) built to F.2/43, with a Centaurus XII engine and the Rotol four-bladed prop.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 23, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Never knew the the Spiteful was so fast.


Imagine if the Seafang had made it to the Pacific, facing 340 mph Zeros? Those IJN will be sitting still when a 460 mph Seafang zooms past.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 23, 2021)

Here's an imposter mimicking the first (semi) naval prototype SR661...




Sea Typhoon descendant 

This modern representation is a Baghdad Fury. The first fully navalised prototype with folding wings was SR666.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Nov 23, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> View attachment 649234


That's a nice looking airplane.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 23, 2021)

Mike Williams said:


> That's a nice looking airplane.


Agreed!


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 24, 2021)

Sea Furies just look right, not pretty not angry just right. Everything seems to be in the right position and the right proportion. No horrible zit like lumps and bumps stuck on as an afterthought.

Obviously a good deck aircraft as well, iirc it was HMAS Sydney that didn't have a single landing or taking off accident while on station off Korea. Breaking records for numbers of take off and landing cycles without loss. Obviously a lot of that was a great crew but having two such docile aircraft like the Sea Fury and Firefly helped.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 24, 2021)

The Fury wasnt actually available at the time so they painted a Bearcat with RAF colours

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 24, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> Sea Furies just look right, not pretty not angry just right.



One of my faves.




Fury static




DSC_5514 




Sea Fury i

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 25, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The second prototype was errrrr different. Hawker Fury & Sea Fury
> View attachment 649337


Is this not something like a Griffon 85 engine?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Nov 25, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> Is this not something like a Griffon 85 engine?


Yes.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 25, 2021)

Now, if they made it like this to start with maybe there would have been a Griffon Fury.





Mark III+IV







hawkertempest.se

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## AMCKen (Dec 6, 2021)

LA610 was good for 485mph with the Sabre. One other Sabre Fury was built - VP207.


----------



## BlackSheep (Aug 22, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, you should have used "300 mph tape" instead, just imagine the net gain if you had!


While you’re making the high-performance mods, don’t forget the stereo and amp dials that go up to 11….you know, because 11 is more than 10..😂

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 22, 2022)

mikewint said:


> The Hornet prototype RR 915 first flew on 28 July 1944 with Geoffrey de Havilland Jr. at the controls. Powered by twin Merlin engines, it was the fastest piston-engined fighter in Royal Air Force service. The Hornet also has the distinction of being the fastest wooden aircraft ever built and the second fastest operational twin propeller-driven aircraft — *being slightly slower than the unconventional German Dornier Do 335 of 1945.*
> The prototype achieved 485 mph (780 km/h) in level flight, which came down to 472 mph (760 km/h) in production aircraft.
> 
> The first 10 Do 335 A-0s were delivered for testing in May. By late 1944, the Do 335 A-1 was on the production line. This was similar to the A-0 but with the uprated DB 603 E-1 engines and two underwing hardpoints for additional bombs, drop tanks or guns. *It was capable of a maximum speed of 763 km/h (474 mph) at 6,500 m (21,300 ft) with MW 50 boost,* or 686 km/h (426 mph) without boost, and able to climb to 8,000 m (26,250 ft) in under 15 minutes. Even with one engine out, it could reach about 563 km/h (350 mph).



Pretty hot for an aircraft that didn't fight anything. 

If you are talking combat aircraft, you'd have to exclude the Do 335 since the only combat it saw was, on a test flight, to run away from a flight of Tempests without shooting anything or bombing anything. Flight tests don't count as combat unless there WAS combat.


----------



## GregP (Aug 22, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Republic claimed that the XP-47J (one of) attained a recorded top speed of 507mph. (According to Republic, and referenced by Warren Bodie). The P&W R-2800-57w/GE CH-3 turbo deivered 2800hp at 36000 feet.
> 
> Note that it was not flown and tested by cold hearted AAF flight test engineers. Note also that at NAA when the XP-51G attained 495mph that it was a speed run by NAA top test pilot Bob Chilton. Neither of the two aircraft types were carrying a full combat load - reducing induced drag contribution by 3-5mph - nor carrying installed combat pylons which would further reduce top speed with significant added parasite drag. In production and in combat configuration and load out, it (P-47J) would be estimated 30+ mph slower at top speed.
> 
> ...



Voodoo is still at the Planes of Fame in Chino and, for all the world, looks like it gets regular work done on it. Not too sure at this point whether or not the speed run wing is still on it. Can check next time I'm there, which isn't often these days.

FYI only, Yanks Air Museum P-63A is due for its first post-restoration test flight, perhaps this Friday.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Aug 22, 2022)

GregP said:


> FYI only, Yanks Air Museum P-63A is due for its first post-restoration test flight.


Wootttt


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 22, 2022)

What's the fastest the Italians got to? Their war ended in 1943, before some of the super fast fighters we mention above entered service. The Macchi C.205 was good for 400 mph, per Wikipedia.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 23, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Imagine if the Seafang had made it to the Pacific, facing 340 mph Zeros? Those IJN will be sitting still when a 460 mph Seafang zooms past.


I doubt Zero pilots were too thrilled of P-51's roaring past at 440+ either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 23, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> I doubt Zero pilots were too thrilled of P-51's roaring past at 440+ either.


True, but I was more thinking of carrier aircraft encounters. I thus nominate the 460 mph Grumman F7F Tigercat.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 23, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> True, but I was more thinking of carrier aircraft encounters. I thus nominate the 460 mph Grumman F7F Tigercat.


Good point, I was just on the "Mustangs of Iwo" site so that was fresh in the old brainbox.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 23, 2022)

There is also the F8F...


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 23, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> There is also the F8F...


Eh, the F8F is a myth, they took some Hellcats and added some plywood to make them look different and then fudged the performance numbers...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 23, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> Eh, the F8F is a myth, they took some Hellcats and added some plywood to make them look different and then fudged the performance numbers...


I Knew It!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> Eh, the F8F is a myth, they took some Hellcats and added some plywood to make them look different and then fudged the performance numbers...


They also removed the nose armor.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Aug 23, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> Eh, the F8F is a myth, they took some Hellcats and added some plywood to make them look different and then fudged the performance numbers...



"That's no F8F, that's an F6F. Er, I mean, that's no moon, that's a space station."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 23, 2022)

If they had just left the upper wing on the F4F-1, none of this would be an issue!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Aug 23, 2022)

And the rounded wingtips on the prototype. Everyone knew rounded tips were the way to go, as in the Buffalo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 23, 2022)

Why did the F7F and F8F not have Grumman's STO-Wing? It was used on the F4F, F6F, TBF, TB3F and E-2 Hawkeye, but not on any of the fighters after the F6F. 

Instead the A-6, F7F, F8F, F9F, F11F have straight up folds, with the later having just wingtip folds. The S-2 Tracker's fold was a different beast altogether. 

Was the system considered too heavy or fragile for fast performance types, or unnecessary as the carriers and lifts became larger?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 23, 2022)

The S-2 Tracker was a "high wing" configuration, so that required a little different thinking.

Also, late war/post war, carriers were getting much larger as well as the loadout demand on the airframes.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Aug 24, 2022)

re "Why did the F7F and F8F not have Grumman's STO-Wing?"

I have read that part of the reason the STO-wing fold fell out of favor with late- & post-war aircraft was due to 2 primary factors, not in any primacy order:

1. The STO-fold method took up more space in the wing, and tended to interfere with placement of fuel tanks and/or other equipment (guns for example) close to the fuselage.

2. The STO-wing fold mechanism was heavier than a simple break-wing fold mechanism, and more complicated in that it did not lend itself to hydraulics as well. The article said that it also required more maintenance, and took more time to repair the aircraft if damaged.

I can not say how authoritative the article was, although it was in a USNI Proceedings magazine from the 1970s (I think).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Aug 24, 2022)

It hasn't entirely been replaced even today. The AEW E-1 Tracer, E-2 Hawkeye and C-2 Greyhound use it. In each case the wings couldn't be folded vertically and still reduce the aircraft height enough to fit in a carrier hangar.

Ultimately whatever method was chosen it still had to fit in the 17' 6" hangar height of the Essex and Midway classes. The USN only moved to a 25' hangar height with the Forrestals and subsequent super carrier's until moving to 26' 6" in the Nimitz.

The E-2 was fitted with a radome that could be lowered 2' to fit the earlier carriers (but it never operated from an Essex). Now these have left the fleet it is no longer used and I believe has been deleted from the latest E-2D version.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Sep 3, 2022)

Piston engined fighters reached their development peak when they reached @450mph


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 3, 2022)

P-51H - 487 mph @ 25,000 feet
P-47M - 470+ mph @ 30,000 feet
Spitfire F Mk.24 - 454 mph @ 29,000 feet
Spiteful F Mk.14 - 483 mph @ 21,000 feet
XP-47J - first piston powered fighter to break 500 mph: 504 mph on 4 August 1944


Plenty of others that went well beyond 450 mph during or shortly after the war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Piston engined fighters reached their development peak when they reached @450mph


Was that the magic number where the pixie dust didn't work any more?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 3, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Piston engined fighters reached their development peak when they reached @450mph


Piston engined fighters time was up when the first British jet with an experimental engine went faster than a Spitfire almost from its first flight. eventually reaching 505 MPH with a different engine. The Gloster Meteor and Me 262 were a contemporaries of the P-51D.


----------



## GregP (Sep 3, 2022)

No, they weren't "contemporaries," except on a calendar.

The P-51D was a developed, mature fighter with well-known performance.

The Meteors and Me 262s were basically a collection flying prototypes that would, were it not for the war situation, never have been operational otherwise when they first were deployed. The Meteors didn't engage in much combat at all and the Me 262s were never in service in quantities of more than 35 - 50 at any one time, at least according to Adolph Galland, who should know if anybody should have known.

The jets were flying, yes. But they were NEVER anywhere near as mature or decisive as several thousand P-51s were.

Take away the jets and Germany still would have lost the war; take away the P-51s and the outcome is much less certain.

It's kind of like Liberty / Victory ships. They didn't win the war single-handedly, but the war very likely would have been lost without their contribution to it. You can say the same for the Soviet Union. They kept anywhere from 30% to 65%+ of the Luftwaffe occupied after Operation Barbarosa commenced and, had Hitler NOT attacked the Soviet Union, the war in the west might have been won by the Axis side.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 3, 2022)

GregP said:


> No, they weren't "contemporaries," except on a calendar.
> 
> The P-51D was a developed, mature fighter with well-known performance.
> 
> ...


I merely meant introduction into squadron service. All what you say is true, but any P-51 pilot seeing a Meteor or Me 262 knew the way that things were going.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 3, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Why did the F7F and F8F not have Grumman's STO-Wing? It was used on the F4F, F6F, TBF, TB3F and E-2 Hawkeye, but not on any of the fighters after the F6F.
> 
> Instead the A-6, F7F, F8F, F9F, F11F have straight up folds, with the later having just wingtip folds. The S-2 Tracker's fold was a different beast altogether.
> 
> Was the system considered too heavy or fragile for fast performance types, or unnecessary as the carriers and lifts became larger?



Swept wings probably made using Sto-Wing more difficult than a simple upward fold, on jets. That seems to me to be the most-apparent difference between the two lists of planes you present, outside the F8F. With a Sto-Wing, if you do up-and-over, the sweep of the wing puts the wingtips closer to the deck once they're down.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Sep 3, 2022)

GregP said:


> ...and the Me 262s were never in service in quantities of more than 35 - 50 at any one time, at least according to Adolph Galland, who should know if anybody should have known...



The real maximum for Me 262s serving in operational units were about 200 on 9 April 1945, Galland's figure covered only his JV 44, for some reason he liked to forget that there were few other Me 262 fighter units, especially the most important of them all, JG 7. On that day it had about 76 Me 262s. That according to Alfred Price, it is well past midnight here so I didn't bother to check Boehme's JG 7 history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 3, 2022)

There were several units that operated Me262s - aside from JV44 and JG7 mentioned above, there was JG54, NJG11, EJG2, KDO Nowotny and KDO Welter.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Sep 3, 2022)

In fact it was KG (J) 54, bomber pilots re-trained to fighter pilots, only I./KG (J) 54 became operational and because it was an operational failure the plan was terminated and I./KG (J) 54, II./KG (J) 54 and KG (J) 6 were all disbanded on 11 April 1945, the 2 latter before they became operational.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 3, 2022)

The problem with the Me 262 and to a lesser extent the Gloster Meteor was poor serviceability, which impacted availability of airframes. As British serviceability improved with operation in the Meteor because of the supply chain at home and improved operational practices, the Me 262's only got worse as the war wore on. This was the major issue that affected it; deliveries forged ahead, but when the Junkers factory producing the engines was bombed, there were lots of airframes sitting about at airfields without engines. The delicate nature of operating the Jumo 004 didn't help available numbers either. Another problem was the quality of o-rings and seals, which deteriorated fast, because they were made from synthetic materials of poorer grade to petrochemical based ones. This affected all branches of the German armed forces.


----------



## GregP (Sep 4, 2022)

Juha3 said:


> The real maximum for Me 262s serving in operational units were about 200 on 9 April 1945, Galland's figure covered only his JV 44, for some reason he liked to forget that there were few other Me 262 fighter units, especially the most important of them all, JG 7. On that day it had about 76 Me 262s. That according to Alfred Price, it is well past midnight here so I didn't bother to check Boehme's JG 7 history.



Just going by what Galland said and, as I said above, HE should have known if anybody knew.


----------



## GregP (Sep 4, 2022)

pbehn said:


> I merely meant introduction into squadron service. All what you say is true, but any P-51 pilot seeing a Meteor or Me 262 knew the way that things were going.



Into into squadron service is right, and they were contemporaries by that standard.


----------



## EwenS (Sep 4, 2022)

There was only one operational Meteor squadron in WW2. 616. It began to receive Mk.I in July 1944 and Mk.III from mid-Dec. It only ever had about 15 aircraft max at any one time. There were only 20 Mk.I built. It was U.K. based until it sent a detachment of 4 aircraft to the continent in Jan 1945. It was the end of March 1945 before the whole squadron transferred to the Continent. It was renumbered 263 squadron at the end of Aug 1945 and returned to the U.K.

The next Meteor squadrons, all with F.III, were:-
504 began conversion in March 1945, renumbered as 245 in Aug.
74 from May 1945
124 began conversion in July 1945, operational from Oct 1945.
222 from Oct 1945.

It was then into 1946 before squadrons for a second wing began to convert and by which time the De Haviland Vampire was also becoming available.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Sep 4, 2022)

9 April 45 LW front-line Me 262 units and their strengths according to Alfred Price in _World War II Fighting Jets_ p. 47
JG 7________________________76 fighters
JV 44________________about 50 fighters
I./KG (J) 54_________________37 fighters
10./NJG 11___________about 9 night-fighters
I./KG 51____________________15 fighter-bombers
II./KG 51____________________6 fighter-bombers
NAGr 6 (ex-Kdo Brauegg)__7 recce

One can get more info on the less well known main Me 262 users from
Boehme, Manfred:_ JG 7: The World's First Jet Fighter Unit 1944/1945 _(1992).
Radtke, Siegfried: _Kampfgeschwader 54 von der Ju52 zur Me 262, Eine Chronik nach Kriegstagebüchern, Dokumenten und Berichten 1935-1945_, (1990).

and on Meteor e.g. Harkins, Hugh: _RAF Meteor Fighters in World War II An Operational Log_ (2013).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 4, 2022)

Juha3 said:


> 9 April 45 LW front-line Me 262 units and their strengths according to Alfred Price in _World War II Fighting Jets_ p. 47
> JG 7________________________76 fighters
> JV 44________________about 50 fighters
> I./KG (J) 54_________________37 fighters
> ...


What I believe is not mentioned is how many of these aircraft were actually airworthy.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 4, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Was that the magic number where the pixie dust didn't work any more?


Voodoo is close

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Sep 4, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> What I believe is not mentioned is how many of these aircraft were actually airworthy.


No, but in Price's later _The Last Year of the Luftwaffe may 1944 to May 1945_ the following info can be found. The numbers of serviceable Me 262s
JG 7_________________ 53
I./KG (J) 54 __________21
JV 44 ____________ca. 15
10./NJG 11 ___________7
I./KG 51______________11
II./KG 51_______________2

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 4, 2022)

Juha3 said:


> No, but in Price's later _The Last Year of the Luftwaffe may 1944 to May 1945_ the following info can be found. The numbers of serviceable Me 262s
> JG 7_________________ 53
> I./KG (J) 54 __________21
> JV 44 ____________ca. 15
> ...


Adds up to 109

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 4, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Voodoo is close


Voodoo and Rare Bear set the bar: 531mph and 528mph respectively.

Voodoo was just a few years ago, so it may be just a matter of time before someone breaks that record.


----------



## Juha3 (Sep 4, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Adds up to 109


Yes but the NAGr 6 information didn't catch my eye, maybe it's in the book but I didn't notice it, so maybe about 5 more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Sep 4, 2022)

The max number of Me 262 fighter sorties was achieved on 10 April 1945, 76 flown by JG 7 and KG (J) 54. They shot down up to 19 bombers and 8 fighters but 31 Me 262s were shot down.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 4, 2022)

Is there any info on the cause of the 262 shoot downs, ie by the bombers while attacking, by fighters while attacking the bombers, in ACM with fighters, while landing, etc?

I would be interested to see such numbers, even if only for the 76 sorties & 31 losses on 10 April 1945.


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 4, 2022)

I think one of them belongs to Chuck Yeager.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 4, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> Is there any info on the cause of the 262 shoot downs, ie by the bombers while attacking, by fighters while attacking the bombers, in ACM with fighters, while landing, etc?
> 
> I would be interested to see such numbers, even if only for the 76 sorties & 31 losses on 10 April 1945.


I still have not been able to get my books out of storage, but I beleive one of the books by Greil covers those numbers.

I beleive the leading cause of Me262 losses were due to being intercepted while landing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 4, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> I still have not been able to get my books out of storage, but I beleive one of the books by Greil covers those numbers.
> 
> I beleive the leading cause of Me262 losses were due to being intercepted while landing.


Near airfields was a high percentage, but looking at the 100+ 8th AF Encounter Reports, an equally high percentage was chase after air to air combat in which a 262 was hit and speed reduced enough to be caught in airfield area.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Sep 4, 2022)

It was really moot how many 262's were notionally 'available', be it 44 or 72 or 200 - when the USAAF solution to them was to simply fly 400 medium bombers over any suspected airfield operating them and turn it into a good facsimile of the moon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 4, 2022)

Macandy said:


> It was really moot how many 262's were notionally 'available', be it 44 or 72 or 200 - when the USAAF solution to them was to simply fly 400 medium bombers over any suspected airfield operating them and turn it into a good facsimile of the moon.


I believe a majority of operational 262s in 1945 were located in Munich-Magdeburg-Prague triangle - well out of range of B-26s. Most damage in March -April 1945 were 8th AF fghter units.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Sep 4, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Was that the magic number where the pixie dust didn't work any more?




No, that's the magic number when beyond it took vastly more horsepower to gain much more speed as the propellors got huge and the tips neared supersonic speeds and lost efficiency.
See they brief move to contra-rotating props to gain some respite from the aeronautical dead end.
Even the early jet engines were shoving out twice the equivalent horsepower of the best piston engines, without the losses through a prop turning that into speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 4, 2022)

Macandy said:


> No, that's the magic number when beyond it took vastly more horsepower to gain much more speed as the propellors got huge and the tips neared supersonic speeds and lost efficiency.
> See they brief move to contra-rotating props to gain some respite from the aeronautical dead end.
> Even the early jet engines were shoving out twice the equivalent horsepower of the best piston engines, without the losses through a prop turning that into speed.


So why were piston powered fighters (without contra-props) exceeding this magic 450mph number by 1944?


----------



## Macandy (Sep 4, 2022)

drgondog said:


> I believe a majority of operational 262s in 1945 were located in Munich-Magdeburg-Prague triangle - well out of range of B-26s. Most damage in March -April 1945 were 8th AF fghter units.




B-26's crossed swords with 262's frequently over Bavaria near wars end.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 4, 2022)

What’s the fastest four engined piston aircraft of ww2? The per Wikipedia, the B-29 was capable of 350 mph, quite a bit faster than the streamlined Avro Lancastrian I was initially going to suggest. Both are bested by the 357 mph B-32.

Top place seems to go to the 368 mph Nakajima G8N. I assume with a light load.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 4, 2022)

Macandy said:


> No, that's the magic number when beyond it took vastly more horsepower to gain much more speed as the propellors got huge and the tips neared supersonic speeds and lost efficiency.
> See they brief move to contra-rotating props to gain some respite from the aeronautical dead end.
> Even the early jet engines were shoving out twice the equivalent horsepower of the best piston engines, without the losses through a prop turning that into speed.


Well as you can see there were OPERATIONAL (without contra-rotating props) that flew in excess of 450 mph. If this is a magic number in your mind, please show us the equation that validates this claim with the applicable propeller/ aircraft combination!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 4, 2022)

Were contra rotating props ever fully sorted for 1940s fighters. I read that they solved one problem and created another, since they didnt take kindly to high "G" shenanigans.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 4, 2022)

Macandy said:


> B-26's crossed swords with 262's frequently over Bavaria near wars end.


Agreed before Rheine was over run - but largely Defense of the Reich had consildated eastward near Berlin and south toward Regensburg, Munich, Obepfaffenhofen, Augsburg. IIRC one of Galland's last actions with JV 44 was against B-26s. That said, the end of the Bulge was the end of 262s being based anywhere near Munster, Gelsingkirchen, Rheine, etc.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 4, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well as you can see there were OPERATIONAL (without contra-rotating props) that flew in excess of 450 mph. If this is a magic number in your mind, please show us the equation that validates this claim with the applicable propeller/ aircraft combination!
> 
> View attachment 685343


I always forget there were P-51s after the D.


----------



## Juha3 (Sep 4, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> Is there any info on the cause of the 262 shoot downs, ie by the bombers while attacking, by fighters while attacking the bombers, in ACM with fighters, while landing, etc?
> 
> I would be interested to see such numbers, even if only for the 76 sorties & 31 losses on 10 April 1945.


10 April is a bad day for analyses because fighter control did not succeed to assemble the 262s properly and numerous escort fighters broke down most of the small 262 formations so 262s attacked mostly in fours or pairs so most of the lost ones are simply marked as missing.
On 10 April 45 according to Foreman & Harvey The Messerschmitt Me 262 Combat Diary (1990) gives only the JG 7 losses as 20 Shot down, 4 shot down by fighters + 1 marked as shot down, Walter Schuck, but according to his memoirs he was shot down by 1st Lt. Joseph Peterburs from 20th FG and Franz Schall was killed when after combat with fighters while force-landing at Parchim his 262 rolled into a bomb crater and exploded. No info on I./KG(J) 54 losses but according to the 1996 edition two of its Me 262s were shot down by fighters, one crashed on combat flight and one was shot down while on approach to Stendahl. 1990 edition lists 18 262 kill claims by US fighters + 1 probable + 12 damaged. Boehme writes that US fighters claimed 20 262 kills and bomber gunners at least 5.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Sep 5, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well as you can see there were OPERATIONAL (without contra-rotating props) that flew in excess of 450 mph. If this is a magic number in your mind, please show us the equation that validates this claim with the applicable propeller/ aircraft combination!
> 
> View attachment 685343




Ah yes, the decidedly unsuccessful P-51H, (quickly cancelled at wars end), a super stripped down ultra lightweight airframe fitted with a 2,270 hp Merlin to gain just 40MPH of performance over the much more durable P-51D that only required 1,315 hp while doing much the same job.
As we can see, the P-51D had a long post war service, because it rather proved the point, the extra bit of performance the P-51H provided with such great effort, was simply not worth the squeeze - and the huge extra maintenance headaches of running what was effectively a race plane.

There are plenty of other examples of late war piston engined fighters that required 50% or more power and the extra fragility to gain only an incremental gain in speed while even the first jets low powered were leaving them trailing helplessly in the slipstreams.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 5, 2022)

Macandy said:


> *Ah yes, the decidedly unsuccessful P-51H, (quickly cancelled at wars end), a super stripped down ultra lightweight airframe fitted with a 2,270 hp Merlin to gain just 40MPH of performance over the much more durable P-51D that only required 1,315 hp while doing much the same job.*
> As we can see, the P-51D had a long post war service, because it rather proved the point, the extra bit of performance the P-51H provided with such great effort, was simply not worth the squeeze - and the huge extra maintenance headaches of running what was effectively a race plane.
> 
> There are plenty of other examples of late war piston engined fighters that required 50% or more power and the extra fragility* to gain only an incremental gain in speed while even the first jets low powered were leaving them trailing helplessly in the slipstreams.*


That is just the laws of physics. Jets required the same doubling of power to get comparatively small increases in speed, it was easier to double the power of a jet though, and then double it again..

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Sep 5, 2022)

P-51H unsuccessful?

Given the numbers of P-51D aircraft built and the many sitting in storage, and the prospect of new jet fighters, I’m not sure why when WW2 ended anyone would have continued to churn the P-51H out of the factories beyond the end of 1945. All that was on the horizon was a massive downsizing of the USAAF, the ending of Lend Lease and Peace.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Ah yes, t*he decidedly unsuccessful* P-51H, (quickly cancelled at wars end), a super stripped down ultra lightweight airframe fitted with a 2,270 hp Merlin to gain just 40MPH of performance over the much more durable P-51D that only required 1,315 hp while doing much the same job.


Once again you are incredibly wrong! The P-51H (of which 555 were produced) was used by the USAF and National guard units well into the 1950s, 1957 to be exact, far from unsuccessful!!!















Macandy said:


> As we can see, the P-51D had a long post war service, because it rather proved the point, the extra bit of performance the P-51H provided with such great effort, was simply not worth the squeeze -* and the huge extra maintenance headaches of running what was effectively a race plane.*


And once again you make a laughable but yet almost delusional statement! If anything the P-51H offered better performance, lessons learned from the earlier P-51 series, so once again, please show us your basis for this bovine statement?!?!?


Macandy said:


> There are plenty of other examples of late war piston engined fighters that required 50% or more power and the extra fragility to gain only an incremental gain in speed while even the first jets low powered were leaving them trailing helplessly in the slipstreams.


Really? Name them! And I'm still waiting about your 450 mph rationale!

There was no doubt the piston engine fighter was doomed once the first jets flew, but your statements are far from accurate but yet entertaining, almost as entertaining as discussing Eric Brown's ability to speak German!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 5, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Ah yes, the decidedly unsuccessful P-51H, (quickly cancelled at wars end), a super stripped down ultra lightweight airframe fitted with a 2,270 hp Merlin to gain just 40MPH of performance over the much more durable P-51D that only required 1,315 hp while doing much the same job.



Hmm, max power of the V-1650-7 in the P-51D was 1,900hp+ using PN150 fuel. About 1,700 with PN130 fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Sep 5, 2022)

Ok, I checked a 4th source book on 10 April 45 combats, Caldwell's _Day Fighters in Defence of the Reich. A War Diary, 1942 – 45_ (2011). Again at least partly different numbers, 63 Me 262s scrambled against massive US bomber formation (1232 heavy bombers and 868 fighters). 63 is the same figure as Walter Schuck gives in his memoirs. Boehme writes that 55 262s and 12 Fw 190Ds were scrambled against the US raid, according to Caldwell besides the 63 Me 262s, 42 from JG 7 and 21 from I./KG(J) 54, only 4 Ta 152Hs and 1 Me 163B were scrambled. In the text Caldwell writes that "_27 Me 262s were lost , although this number is uncertain._" In his table he gives JG 7 losses only as 3+ for I./JG 7, 6+ for III./JG 7 T/O time 1400 and 1 for those taking of at 1430. 4 for I./KG(J) 54.

Boehme is a bit unclear, but it seems that his 55 Me 262s taking off and 27 lost includes only the JG 7 planes. When you add 21 scrambled KG(J) 54 planes and 4 lost ones, you get Price's 76 launched and 31 lost Me 262s.

BTW according to Caldwell bombers claimed 17-4-12 and fighters 10.5-0-13 but checking from Freeman's The Mighty Eighth War Diary the number of Caldwell's destroyed incl. only those by P-51 pilots escorting 1AD bombers and altogether escort fighters claimed 20-0-13 according to Freeman, the bombers' claims are the same. So no huge bomber gunners overclaims but very reasonable claims.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 5, 2022)

Macandy - The aroma of bovine fecal matter is in the air. 

Nagasaki and Hiroshima and cessation of Invasion plans for Japan were the reason the P-51H contract was truncated from 2500 to 550. 

The AAF wisely saw the jet - in the FJ-1/F-86 from NAA, P-80/F-80 from Lockheed and F-84 from Republic were sounder from performanc growth stand point than any Piston Engine Fighter and purchased accordingly. That said, the P-82/F-82 purchases continued into post war years to augment the P-51H and replace the P-61 as primary Night Air Defense primary fighter.

NAA contracts for XP-86 and USN FJ-1 began in May and June 1945 respecively

The P-51H and then P-82/F-82 were dedicated to Air Defense post WWII because of the Performance combined with Range. Not the P-47N, Not the P-38. The transition from AAF to National Guard units tasked to Air Defense were made on both coasts primarily, post WWII. Certainly not because the P-51H was a failure. During the post war 1940s the P-82 was the Only Log Range Escort capable of escorting B-29s, then B-36s, from England to Moscow.

The P-51H was stressed to 7.5 G for limit loading at max internal gross weight - nearly a full G above the P-51B/D at the same Gross Weight at take off (6.66) for 9600 pounds GW.

The maintainability of the P-51H, was particularly easy with respect to the engine maintenance and removal due to the unique combined purpose of the outer side panel dual engine mount/cowl design. It was the only model with Proven net Thrust Meredith exhaust system due to the improved lower cowl design.

Last but not least - the P-51H performance compared to P-51B/D at WEP was approximately 40mph faster (FTH to FTH), with much better climb rates and superior manueverability in all respects save equality in turn.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 5, 2022)

wuzak said:


> Hmm, max power of the V-1650-7 in the P-51D was 1,900hp+ using PN150 fuel. About 1,700 with PN130 fuel.


Pretty much correct.
The V-1650-7 in the P-51D was good for 1720hp at 18 1/4lbs boost in low gear (6200ft no RAM) which is NOT where the plane did 440mph. The extra 20hp is no big deal. The boost used is important as is the altitude. things that our contrary poster is leaving out. 
In high gear the V-1650-7 was good for 1505hp at 18 1/4lbs at 19,300ft (no RAM). Both of these were using 100/130 fuel.

The V-1650-9 engine in the P-51H used the same supercharger gears as the V-1650-3 used in the P-51B. It had other changes that allowed to stand up to the power better. It was rated at 1930hp (close enough) at 10,100ft using 25lbs of boost (needs the 150 fuel or 115/145) and 1630hp at 23,500ft using 25lbs of boost. 

The -9 engine was fitted for water injection and perhaps it could use 25lbs of boost using 100/130 fuel and the water injection. 

RR might have gotten over 2270hp out of a Merlin on a test stand but that required either more than 25lbs of boost, low attitude operation and lower supercharger gears or over revving the engine or a combination. 

In any case the 487mph speed (??? or anything over 450mph depending on airplane and racks fitted ) of the P-51H was not done using anything much over 1700hp. 

In fact under test a P-51H did 450mph at 30,500ft using 67in (18 1/4lbs) about 1330hp according to the chart. 100/130 fuel and no water injection.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 5, 2022)

Thank you for the info on 262 losses.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 5, 2022)

Macandy said:


> There are plenty of other examples of late war piston engined fighters that required 50% or more power and the extra fragility to gain only an incremental gain in speed while even the first jets low powered were leaving them trailing helplessly in the slipstreams.


So why even bother putting any effort into upgrading prewar fighters at all, then?

Look at all that time and money wasted on trying to improve piston powered aircraft when they could have just waited ten years for reliable jets to become available.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Sep 5, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Ah yes, the decidedly unsuccessful P-51H, (quickly cancelled at wars end), a super stripped down ultra lightweight airframe fitted with a 2,270 hp Merlin to gain just 40MPH of performance over the much more durable P-51D that only required 1,315 hp while doing much the same job.
> As we can see, the P-51D had a long post war service, because it rather proved the point, the extra bit of performance the P-51H provided with such great effort, was simply not worth the squeeze - and the huge extra maintenance headaches of running what was effectively a race plane.
> 
> There are plenty of other examples of late war piston engined fighters that required 50% or more power and the extra fragility to gain only an incremental gain in speed while even the first jets low powered were leaving them trailing helplessly in the slipstreams.


The speeds quoted for the lightweight Mustangs are based on 150 octane fuel and water injection. With the same fuel and stuff injected into the intakes, the lightweight Mustangs would be slightly faster, and they would be significantly more manoeuverable and faster climbing than a P-51D. 

My general impression is that late war USAAF aircraft used 150 octane gas in testing anyway, and US Navy stuff didn't. The Goodyear F2G Corsair's top speed of 431mph does not sound impressive until you remember this, and note the 16,500ft altitude it was flying at.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 5, 2022)

The P-51H didn't fail; the war ended and that was that. The decision to cancel the remaining contract was not due to the airplane, but the circumstances.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 5, 2022)

No jets postwar (1st gen) were reliable and they lacked range.

This is why the predominant aircraft in Korea were piston powered.

The F8F, P-51H and others were developed wartime with no real idea when the war would end (best estimates were 1946 or early 1947 at the latest).

The Japanese were still developing improved aircraft, their late war types (while not in great numbers) were formidible and a cause for concern for Allied leaders, especially since the Japanese were keeping their more advanced types in reserve on the home islands for the coming Allied invasion.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## eljefe (Sep 5, 2022)

I'm not sure this really fits with the intent of this thread, but I can't help but wonder how fast the Do-335 would have gone if they had avgas of comparable quality (octane) to that available to the Allies (with engine development based on that higher octane to match).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 5, 2022)

One factor against the Do335, was it's weight - German engines performed well with the lower octane, but trying to move something that weighed in the neighborhood of 10 tons any faster than it already did, was going to take more than just high octane fuel.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2022)

eljefe said:


> I'm not sure this really fits with the intent of this thread, but I can't help but wonder how fast the Do-335 would have gone if they had avgas of comparable quality (octane) to that available to the Allies (with engine development based on that higher octane to match).


Well, pour 100/130 octane fuel or higher into the the fuel tanks. tweak the boost settings and watch (from behind cover) as the DB 603 engines throw large parts far and wide from the airframe or test stand. 

A RR Griffon was 36.7 liters, a DB 603 was 44 liters. 
However a single stage Griffon was about 1790lbs and a DB 603 was about 2000lbs and the 603 was a bit heavier (larger supercharger compared to the 603 A,B,C,D. 
two stage Griffon was around 2075lbs.

There was no magic metallurgy. If you want 1800-1900hp out of a 2000lb engine you had several paths you take, One path used higher octane fuel and higher pressure in the cylinders and the weight of the construction that would stand up to the higher pressure/stress levels. Another path use lower octane fuel and lower pressure in the larger cylinders that allowed for larger but lighter cylinders (for their size) and engine construction. 
You want to use the higher octane allied fuel and the higher pressures in the cylinders that fuel will allow you need to increase the weight of the engine parts to standup to the loads/stresses. 
The Jumo 213 used a 3rd path. it stayed at the 35 liter displacement of the Jumo 211 but they increase the engine rpm to make more power. And at comparable power to the Griffon and DB 603 it would up weighing a bit over 2000lbs. If you increase the RPM by 10% you increase the loads on the pistons, con rods and crankshaft by 21%. A Jumo 213A ran 25% faster than Jumo 211J. 

The Germans designed engines that would give them the power to weight ratio that they wanted (everybody wanted higher power to weight ratios) with the fuels they could get or planned to get. RR designed engines that would give them similar power to weight ratios using the fuel/s they could get. 
There were a few points of difference but the Germans were not going to get a large boost in power using the higher octane (higher pressure in the cylinders) without either breaking the engines or adding a fair amount of weight (and larger radiators).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Sep 6, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> The P-51H didn't fail; the war ended and that was that. The decision to cancel the remaining contract was not due to the airplane, but the circumstances.



Nope, the juice wasn't worth the squeeze, jets were faster and had limitless potential to get much faster. They all got the chop, the current and planned piston engined fighters, with the exception of the F4U which still had utility as a ground pounder.

The P-51H was a fragile race plane, so fragile, the USAF wouldn't send it to Korea and send the marginally slower, but much tougher P-51D instead.


----------



## Macandy (Sep 6, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> The speeds quoted for the lightweight Mustangs are based on 150 octane fuel and water injection. With the same fuel and stuff injected into the intakes, the lightweight Mustangs would be slightly faster, and they would be significantly more manoeuverable and faster climbing than a P-51D.
> 
> My general impression is that late war USAAF aircraft used 150 octane gas in testing anyway, and US Navy stuff didn't. The Goodyear F2G Corsair's top speed of 431mph does not sound impressive until you remember this, and note the 16,500ft altitude it was flying at.




Using ever conceivable racing plane trick, Dago Red, the fastest Mustang ever needed 3,800 hp to achieve 520 mph - a marginal improvement over the P-51H

P-51D - 1,315 hp - 440 mph
P-51H - 2,270 hp - 490 mph
Dago Red - 3,800 hp - 520 mph

Prop planes had hit a brick wall and you were doubling the installed hp for every increment of performance up till the tips crapped out and the prop couldn't give any more thrust


----------



## wuzak (Sep 6, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Using ever conceivable racing plane trick, Dago Red, the fastest Mustang ever needed 3,800 hp to achieve 520 mph - a marginal improvement over the P-51H
> 
> P-51D - 1,315 hp - 440 mph
> P-51H - 2,270 hp - 490 mph
> ...



P-51D


P-51D Performance




(5)Maximum Speed – War Emergency Power
(3000 RPM. – 67" Hg. M.P.)  At Sea Level368 MPHAt Low Blower A.C.A.*414 MPH/11,300 ft.At High Blower A.C.A.*440 MPH/24,500 ft. (6)Maximum Speed – Military Rating
(3000 RPM – 61" Hg. M.P.)  At Sea Level355 MPHAt Low Blower A.C.A.*412 MPH/13,300 ft.At High Blower A.C.A.*435 MPH/26,200 ft.

P-51H


P-51H Performance




(5)Maximum Speed – Combat Rating
(3000 R.P.M. – 90" Hg. M.P. – W.I.)  In High Blower at A.C.A.*471 m.p.h./22,700 ft.In Low Blower at A.C.A.*449 m.p.h./9000 ft.In Low Blower at Sea Level413 m.p.h. (6)Maximum Speed – Combat Rating
(3000 R.P.M. – 80" Hg. M.P. – W.I.)  In High Blower at A.C.A.*466 m.p.h./25,700 ft.In Low Blower at A.C.A.*447 m.p.h./12,700 ft.In Low Blower at Sea Level395 m.p.h. (7)Maximum Speed – War Emergency Rating
(3000 R.P.M. – 67" Hg. M.P.) In High Blower at A.C.A.*447 m.p.h./29,800 ft.In Low Blower at A.C.A.*433 m.p.h./17,800 ft.In Low Blower at Sea Level360 m.p.h. (8)Maximum Speed – Combat Rating
(3000 R.P.M. – 61" Hg. M.P.) In High Blower at A.C.A.*441 m.p.h./32,000 ft.In Low Blower at A.C.A.*431 m.p.h./20,400 ft.In Low Blower at Sea Level342 m.p.h.

Note that the P-51H has maximum performance of 447mph at 29,800ft on 67" Hg MAP against the P-51D's 440mph at 24,500ft, also at 67" Hg MAP.

Piloted by Steve Hinton, this heavily modified WWII era P-51 managed to shatter the piston-powered aircraft speed world record. Although to clock an official top speed, that velocity had to be held over 3 kilometers. Following such official speed records, Voodoo sustained 531 MPH over the 3 KM but managed to record a blistering 554 MPH top speed during a low fly-by.



https://www.hotcars.com/the-15-fastest-propeller-driven-airplanes-of-all-time/



But that is at a lower altitude than the max speeds of the P-51D and P-51H. Lower than the altitudes for max speed in low blower as well.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2022)

Macandy said:


> P-51D - 1,315 hp - 440 mph
> P-51H - 2,270 hp - 490 mph
> Dago Red - 3,800 hp - 520 mph


 
Since you are not providing the altitude at which those speeds were achieved, a critical piece of of information, the information is worthless. 

Dago Red's speed record was set over Mojave and at under 5,000ft. (air Field was 2801 ft ) Actual altitude density due to temperature was higher. 

A P-51D needed 1650hp to go 395mph at 5,000ft on a "standard day" (59 degrees F at sea level).
The P-51D needed a bit over 1400hp to do 442mph at 26,000ft.

Speeds without altitude are worthless.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2022)

wuzak said:


> But that is at a lower altitude than the max speeds of the P-51D and P-51H. Lower than the altitudes for max speed in low blower as well.


Reports say that the Record over Mojave was done at 110in Hg. M.P. 
It was also done at 3800 rpm which allows the supercharger to be turning at 26.66% faster than at 3000rpm which can really change the pressure. 
_Assuming_ that the supercharger gears and the impeller were stock.


----------



## Macandy (Sep 6, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Macandy - The aroma of bovine fecal matter is in the air.
> 
> Nagasaki and Hiroshima and cessation of Invasion plans for Japan were the reason the P-51H contract was truncated from 2500 to 550.
> 
> ...




Nope, the USAF had ordered jet fighters by the thousands by wars end and was planning a mass transition to jets in 1945/46.

The P-51H order of 2,000 was a bit part player to tide units over until they got their jets - it was the Mustangs last hurrah - the USAF had ordered 5,000 P-80's in the first tranche, and was going to order a further 5,000
Lets just put that P-51H order into perspective - the USAF cancelled orders for 5,092 B-29 heavy bombers on VJ Day

Jets were the future, no amount of tinkering could change the fact, the piston engine couldn't drive a fighter any faster than @ 500mph, and propellor efficiency started to drop off dramatically after 450mph needing insanely increasing amounts our power just to gain a few MPH.

Meanwhile, the much more efficient jet engine, was rule of thumb translating 1,000lb of thrust into @ 1,000 hp equivalent.
So a P-80 had nearly '5,000hp' in a cleaner airframe than a P-51 - and was not much heavier.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 6, 2022)

Also, from the previous documents:

P-51D


(11)Time to Climb to 20,000 ft.At War Emergency Power 6.4 min.At Military Power 7.0 min.At Normal Power10.7 min.(12)Service CeilingAt 3000 RPM36,900 ft.At 2700 RPM35,500 ft.


P-51H


(15)Time to Climb to 20,000 ft.With Combat Power (90") Hg. M.P. 4.58 min.With Combat Power (80") Hg. M.P. 4.81 min.With War Emergency Power 6.37 min.With Military Power 7.03 min.With Normal Power11.35 min.(16)Service CeilingAt 3000 R.P.M.40,100 ft.At 2700 R.P.M.37,100 ft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2022)

OK lets put the P-51H order into perspective. 



Macandy said:


> The P-51H order of 2,000 was a bit part player to tide units over until they got their jets - it was the Mustangs last hurrah - the USAF had ordered 5,000 P-80's in the first tranche, and was going to order a further 5,000
> Lets just put that P-51H order into perspective



Out of those 10,000 planes they built 1715, and it took them until 1950 to do it.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 6, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Nope, the USAF had ordered jet fighters by the thousands by wars end and was planning a mass transition to jets in 1945/46.
> 
> The P-51H order of 2,000 was a bit part player to tide units over until they got their jets - it was the Mustangs last hurrah - the USAF had ordered 5,000 P-80's in the first tranche, and was going to order a further 5,000
> Lets just put that P-51H order into perspective - the USAF cancelled orders for 5,092 B-29 heavy bombers on VJ Day
> ...


Troll? or Ignorant?

The P-80 at VJ Day was less capable, performance wise than the Me 262. The AAF transitioning to becoming a separate service as USAF had the prime mission of a Strategic/Global reach Air Force with reach and destructive power unattainable by USN. The B-29 was the centerpiece and escorted missions with nuclear strike emphasis was the primary reason for being a separate command. At VJ Day, the US Army and USN and USMC all had tactical assets under their command much more capable for CAS than P-80. 

The P-80 had no role in LR Strategic missions. At its development level on VJ Day and for several years afterwards, it was primarily a short range (comparably) interceptor and an intermediate range candidate for CAS. However it was less suited for tactical operations when compared to P-47 or P-38 or P-51 (D or H). Ditto FJ-1 and F-86 and F-84.

There was zero option to discard the P-51D/H just because the top speeds were well under the P-80 for max continuous power. Both had equal bomber killing firepower to the P-80. Both were capable of converting to 20mm. There were no threats for the post war years that dictated point interception superior performance at any location in continental US over a P-51H. IIRC the ceiling for the P-51H was considerably higher than the P-80 - and the tactical radius was far greater - making it far more capable as an escort fghter than the P-80.

Wuzak and Shortround nailed your lack of understanding of variable altitude and boost settings for performance comparisons. Please note that the speed runs for Voodoo for closed course runs, achieved 550ph - approximately 80mph over P-51D at 67" at 5000 ft and faster than VJ Day P-80.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2022)

I would also note that the early jets sucked up fuel at a tremendous rate. They were experimenting with towing a P-80 behind B-29s for "escort" duty with not only the P-80 being towed out with a dead engine and starting the engine once the tow was disconnected but the P-80 was expected to hook back on once the group had exited the danger area for the flight back. While a few test tows the P-80 went ok the first attempt to actually hook on in flight didn't go well and once hooked on the pilot had extreme difficulty unhooking and the attachment would up pointed backwards blocking the pilots view. He was able to land the P-80 but that ended the experiment. 

Piston powered planes were going to be needed to escort piston powered bombers for several years after the war and in fact it was _possible_ to escort the early jet bombers like the B-45.
The B-45 could fly faster than the P-51 but it's cruising speed was within the speed range of the P-51 if max range was not needed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 6, 2022)

Macandy said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> The P-51H was a fragile race plane, so fragile, the USAF wouldn't send it to Korea and send the marginally slower, but much tougher P-51D instead.


Uh... what?

I think you should reread some of drgondog's posts, especially the one discussing g force numbers of each marque. This is the first I've heard that the P-51H was a fragile race plane.

I think also you should check out WHY they fledgling U.S.A.F. sent P-51D's instead of either the H model or the P-47 to Korea, one key word would be logistics, not because of some percieved "fragility" of the P-51H airframe, Um... that's rather laughable when you really think about it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Sep 6, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Troll? or Ignorant?
> 
> The P-80 at VJ Day was less capable, performance wise than the Me 262.



No it wasn't. Just because wiki says so don't make it so.
The P-80 was as fast, was more nimble, had proper A2A guns and a very good sight, and it had an engine that didn't randomly crap out after a few hours use.



drgondog said:


> Wuzak and Shortround nailed your lack of understanding of variable altitude and boost settings for performance comparisons. Please note that the speed runs for Voodoo for closed course runs, achieved 550ph - approximately 80mph over P-51D at 67" at 5000 ft and faster than VJ Day P-80.



Sigh, comparing highly modified racing planes that bear only an outline resemblance to the original with actual combat aircraft again… 140 inches and 3,100 hp, yeah, that will hold up for more than a fee minus on a closed course.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 6, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Using ever conceivable racing plane trick, Dago Red, the fastest Mustang ever needed 3,800 hp to achieve 520 mph - a marginal improvement over the P-51H
> 
> P-51D - 1,315 hp - 440 mph
> P-51H - 2,270 hp - 490 mph
> ...


Why are you even considering throwing a highly modified racer into the mix that has no military equipment, is designed to go maximin power for 6 laps and is flown at extremely low altitude?!?!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 6, 2022)

Macandy said:


> No it wasn't. Just because wiki says so don't make it so.
> The P-80 was as fast, was more nimble, had proper A2A guns and a very good sight, and *it had an engine that didn't randomly crap out after a few hours use.*


Boy you have a short memory - I posted a clip that had a number of P-80 accidents due to engine failures. The P-80 was not really refined until the P-80C which was introduced well after the war was over. The P-80 of April 1945 WAS NOT as reliable as you think!!!


Macandy said:


> Sigh, *comparing highly modified racing planes* that bear only an outline resemblance to the original with actual combat aircraft again… 140 inches and 3,100 hp, yeah, that will hold up for more than a fee minus on a closed course.


*sigh* and you shouldn't as explained in my earlier post!


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 6, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Nope, the juice wasn't worth the squeeze, jets were faster and had limitless potential to get much faster. They all got the chop, the current and planned piston engined fighters, with the exception of the F4U which still had utility as a ground pounder.



Right. that's exactly hat I was saying: the circumstances changed. The fact that jets were in the pipeline means that the P-51H -- and other extant ICE fighters -- were superseded. It doesn't mean they were failures, as you claim without support.



Macandy said:


> The P-51H was a fragile race plane, so fragile, the USAF wouldn't send it to Korea and send the marginally slower, but much tougher P-51D instead.



The USAF didn't send them to Korea for logistical issues, so far as I understand it. Do you have any sources documenting this alleged "fragility"? How many Class-A mishaps did they suffer from structural failure between 1945 and 1950?


----------



## wuzak (Sep 6, 2022)

Macandy said:


> No it wasn't. Just because wiki says so don't make it so.
> The P-80 was as fast, was more nimble, had proper A2A guns and a very good sight, and it had an engine that didn't randomly crap out after a few hours use.



Famously the XP-80 did not get off the ground before destroying its de Havilland H.1 engine.

Apparently Lockheed were warned about the amount of suction the engine had on the intakes, but the advice was not heeded. Fixed it for the new engine, which was taken out of the de Havilland Vampire prototype, delaying that program.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 6, 2022)

While I agree with the overall sentiment here, here is a friendly reminder to play nice gentlemen.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Sigh, comparing highly modified racing planes that bear only an outline resemblance to the original with actual combat aircraft again… 140 inches and 3,100 hp, yeah, that will hold up for more than a fee minus on a closed course.




Changing the goal posts?

the sign of a true troll. 

You are the one that brought the Dago Red into the discussion. 

Now when it doesn't show what you thought it did we are to blame? 

You may also want to do a bit more research on the 1945-46-47 jet engines. 

The USAAF did a performance and evaluation test test on a P-80 (44-85044)that lasted from Jan 1946 through July of 1946. they conducted 36 flights during that time. 
They also were on the 3rd engine at the end of test, the first engine was giving speeds around 15mph low compared to the other 2 engines. 

The early P-80s used M2 machine guns of about 800-850 rpm cycle rate. The high cycle rate M3s showed up in the P-80B-5-LO production block in the winter/spring of 1948.

A lot of P-80s were updated when overhauled so features as the plane was used during the Korean war era may not have been as built. This includes installing later model engines. 
The later engines had a much, much longer overhaul life than the early engines.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 6, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Please note that the speed runs for Voodoo for closed course runs, achieved 550ph - approximately 80mph over P-51D at 67" at 5000 ft and faster than VJ Day P-80.



Would it actually be ~150mph faster at 5,000ft than a P-51D @ 67"?

Here is a useful chart from P-51B Performance Test

The aircraft is a P-51B with V-1650-7, which was also used in the P-51D. Helpfully it gives an indication of the engine power at each altitude.


Altitude
Ft.​Blower​Man.
Press.​Std.
BHP​True
Speed​Man.
Press.​Std.
BHP​True
Speed​0​Low​67.0​1580​361.5​75.0​1788​376.5​4000​Low​67.0​1622​380.0​75.0​1830​376.5​*7400​Low​67.0​1660​395.5​75.0​1868​395.5​**10300​Low​67.0​1695​409.0​​​​17000​Low​52.8​1350​398.0​​​​24000​Low​39.8​1037​385.0​​​​18000​High​67.0​1390​408.0​75.0​1577​423.0​*20800​High​67.0​1390​417.0​75.0​1572​431.0​**24000​High​67.0​1390​426.0​​​​28000​High​57.3​1200​419.0​​​​32000​High​48.4​1038​410.0​​​​28000​High​36.4​822​390.0​​​​

Power at 4,000ft and 67" Hg is given as 1,622hp
Power at 7,400ft and 67" Hg is given as 1,660hp

Power at 5,000ft and 67" Hg would roughly be 1,630hp.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 6, 2022)

First time anyone implied Drgndog gets his info about the P-51 from Wiki, methinks. 
I needed a laugh.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 6, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> First time anyone implied Drgndog gets his info about the P-51 from Wiki, methinks.
> I need a laugh.



He obviously knows nothing of him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 6, 2022)

wuzak said:


> Would it actually be ~150mph faster at 5,000ft than a P-51D @ 67"?
> 
> Here is a useful chart from P-51B Performance Test


And again, this is a poor comparison. Reno racers are stripped and modified (I think you know this). Stead airport is just over 5000' MSL. During the 6 lap race, the aircraft are just about on the deck and are run at full throttle unless there is a heating issue and then throttled back.


----------



## special ed (Sep 6, 2022)

The sentence should end after "nothing".
Reminds me of the He 177 poster long gone.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 6, 2022)

You can put numbers and hard fact out there, but if people have their mind made up, it won't do much good.

By VE day, there were a handful of YP-80s, by VJ day, there were only about 50 or so P-80s.
It would not be for several years, that the P-80C would become operational.

The wartime YP-80 and P-80 had nowhere near the performance of the C series.
Assuming so (and arguing based on that) would be like using Bf109K figures in a Battle of Britain discussion.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 6, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And again, this is a poor comparison. Reno racers are stripped and modified (I think you know this). Stead airport is just over 5000' MSL. During the 6 lap race, the aircraft are just about on the deck and are run at full throttle unless there is a heating issue and then throttled back.



I am aware.

The comparison was not one I started.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Sep 6, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The USAAF did a performance and evaluation test test on a P-80 (44-85044)that lasted from Jan 1946 through July of 1946. they conducted 36 flights during that time.
> They also were on the 3rd engine at the end of test, the first engine was giving speeds around 15mph low compared to the other 2 engines.
> 
> The early P-80s used M2 machine guns of about 800-850 rpm cycle rate. The high cycle rate M3s showed up in the P-80B-5-LO production block in the winter/spring of 1948.
> ...


The P-80As were pretty equivalent to the Me 262, being a bit faster at low altitude and a bit slower at high altitude, and a better climber at all altitudes. However performance was sensitive to variations associated with engine performance, which I suspect was true with all early jet engines. I suspect that comments on superiority of the Me 262 by American test pilots may have been tainted by the desire to get new jets in a dollar tight budget. Claiming that the P-80 was equal to or better than the Me 262 would not motivate the giving money to develop newer fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Sep 6, 2022)

Macandy said:


> The P-51H was a fragile race plane, so fragile, the USAF wouldn't send it to Korea and send the marginally slower, but much tougher P-51D instead.


The P-51H was indeed built to lighter stress levels than the D however these new stress levels were equivalent to the British Spitefire. I don't think anyone should consider either aircraft fragile

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 6, 2022)

wuzak said:


> Would it actually be ~150mph faster at 5,000ft than a P-51D @ 67"?
> 
> Here is a useful chart from P-51B Performance Test
> 
> ...


You are correct - typo skills still above average - i meant 180. Total brain fart

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 6, 2022)

special ed said:


> The sentence should end after "nothing".
> Reminds me of the He 177 poster long gone.


Actually he reminds me of Shooter

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 6, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And again, this is a poor comparison. Reno racers are stripped and modified (I think you know this). Stead airport is just over 5000' MSL. During the 6 lap race, the aircraft are just about on the deck and are run at full throttle unless there is a heating issue and then throttled back.



Just how much of that Merlin is still Merlin? BTW beautiful sound!


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 6, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Actually he reminds me of Shooter


Yeah, actually he does. 

(Dang, that was a long time ago, too...)


----------



## GregP (Sep 6, 2022)

Maybe this is the guy who proposed a "thrust column" some 10 - 15 years back and has come back to troll?

Remember we had a good time with the guy who misspelled Germans as "Gremans," and we invented a war with Gremany? We were just having fun, but he never came back. Maybe this is him coming back?

Just thinking in print here. Nothing really against McCandy except for his lack of knowledge of jets and pistons. Maybe he'll learn.

Stranger things have happened. The Italians elected a stripper to Parliament once. She failed to strip in Parliament even once. I don't think they ever tried that again, so far, anyway. But, hey, it was worth at least ONE shot at it!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 6, 2022)

GregP said:


> Maybe this is the guy who proposed a "thrust column" some 10 - 15 years back and has come back to troll?
> 
> Remember we had a good time with the guy who misspelled Germans as "Gremans," and we invented a war with Gremany? We were just having fun, but he never came back. Maybe this is him coming back?
> 
> ...


"Thrust Column" sounds like a term in a racy woman's novel

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 6, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Just how much of that Merlin is still Merlin? BTW beautiful sound!


My guess not much - 

 GregP
?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 6, 2022)

I look at the positives, look at how much info came out in the P39 thread, or the thread about giving the Spitfire more internal fuel and using it as an escort from 1942 and now this thread, there's lots of benefits when a poster pushes an agender, the more knowledgeable posters roll out the facts to dispute their claims, except the Spit thread, your all wrong, it should have got more fuel haha, I'll see myself out.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 6, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> They were experimenting with towing a P-80 behind B-29s for "escort" duty with not only the P-80 being towed out with a dead engine and starting the engine once the tow was disconnected but the P-80 was expected to hook back on once the group had exited the danger area for the flight back. While a few test tows the P-80 went ok the first attempt to actually hook on in flight didn't go well and once hooked on the pilot had extreme difficulty unhooking and the attachment would up pointed backwards blocking the pilots view. He was able to land the P-80 but that ended the experiment.



Interesting, wasn't aware of this. The Russians did the same thing with a Tu-4, they called it the Boorlaki (strong man, the local village heavy lifter was known as a boorlaki) programme, towing a MiG-15 behind the bomber. The problem was the comfort of the fighter pilot on long flights, particularly regarding heating and ablutions. The MiG pilots they tried the experiment with got so cold they were not able to function properly after sitting motionless for hours on end.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 6, 2022)

The USAF tried several experiments with parasite fighter concepts:
"Tip Tow"
"FICON"
"Tom Tom"
They even tried fitting an XP-85 fighter in the bomb bay of the B-36 (reminds me of the USS Akron and it's Sparrowhawks).

None of the projects were successful and one of the Tom-Tom experiments was fatal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 6, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> I look at the positives, look at how much info came out in the P39 thread, or the thread about giving the Spitfire more internal fuel and using it as an escort from 1942 and now this thread, there's lots of benefits when a poster pushes an agender, the more knowledgeable posters roll out the facts to dispute their claims, except the Spit thread, your all wrong, it should have got more fuel haha, I'll see myself out.



I made the same point in the Thread That Shall Not Be Named®. The refutation of many bonkers points there taught me a lot about looking into not just the Groundhog, but fighters in general.

We don't always agree, Pat, but this is one point you're dead-on right.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 6, 2022)

I'm all for robust discussion, it's where the real learning begins.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 6, 2022)

That Which Must Not Be Named is a great thread. I learned more from its constant hammering home the same aeronautical facts than from any other source. 

I'm a slow learner.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 6, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> My guess not much -
> 
> GregP
> ?



A reno "Merlin" starts with a Merlin block, generally using Allison G-series rods, a custom crankshaft or an actual Merlin crankshaft (the weak spot in Merlins are the rods, not the crankshafts), an aftermarket fuel system, usually injection, and aftermarket pistons. Some use stock valves and some use aftermarket valves. Many have an aftermarket middle main cap, and I'd be surprised if the top guys are flying stock supercharger impellers.

But, the valve covers usually say "Rolls Royce" and, if I had one, they valve covers would say "Rolls Royce." too!

They usually get heat-soaked about lap 6 or so, and are generally MAP-backed-off every two laps or so to finish at somewhere around 120" at the end of lap 8.

Whatever. They sound magic. I wish Strega and Voodoo were still flitting about the pylons at speed every year. I miss Rare Bear, too.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 6, 2022)

I can't see tossing a valve cover that has Rolls-Royce on it. That's class!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Sep 7, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Just how much of that Merlin is still Merlin? BTW beautiful sound!




About as much as a 427 Hemi super fuel drag race engine is as a stock 427 Hemi


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 7, 2022)

Macandy said:


> About as much as a 427 Hemi super fuel drag race engine is as a stock 427 Hemi


Well the Merlin is fragile you know.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 7, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Interesting, wasn't aware of this. The Russians did the same thing with a Tu-4, they called it the Boorlaki (strong man, the local village heavy lifter was known as a boorlaki) programme, towing a MiG-15 behind the bomber. The problem was the comfort of the fighter pilot on long flights, particularly regarding heating and ablutions. The MiG pilots they tried the experiment with got so cold they were not able to function properly after sitting motionless for hours on end.


As an 8 year old, I was able to fit well and be comfortable in the MiG 15 that came to Eglin. That is also the first time I met Yeager and Hoover.I can't image a non-Hobbit riding in that unheated seat for 6-10 hours. The good nws is that for a TU-4 mission profile, the MiG pilot would have to punch out for lack of fuel, before returning home.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 7, 2022)

Macandy said:


> About as much as a 427 Hemi super fuel drag race engine is as a stock 427 Hemi


Well, considering the Dodge Hemi of old was a 426 I'd say that seems to confirm my thoughts about your research.

427's were Chevy Big Blocks and Ford Side Oilers, wasn't aware of any Chrysler 427's, stock, race or otherwise.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 7, 2022)

Well, there was a 427 Hemi - but it was a Mickey Thompson custom-built Ford engine...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Sep 7, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I can't see tossing a valve cover that has Rolls-Royce on it. That's class!


That "Rolls Royce" lettering on the cover added an additional 38.5 hp to the engine. 
Purposely put on to ensure a hp advantage over an identical Packard made Merlin. 
And now we have definitively solved the issue of Packard vs Rolls and what was better.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 7, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, there was a 427 Hemi - but it was a Mickey Thompson custom-built Ford engine...



There was the Ford 429 Hemi and 427 SOHC.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 7, 2022)

GregP said:


> A reno "Merlin" starts with a Merlin block, generally using Allison G-series rods, a custom crankshaft or an actual Merlin crankshaft (the weak spot in Merlins are the rods, not the crankshafts), an aftermarket fuel system, usually injection, and aftermarket pistons. Some use stock valves and some use aftermarket valves. Many have an aftermarket middle main cap, and I'd be surprised if the top guys are flying stock supercharger impellers.
> 
> But, the valve covers usually say "Rolls Royce" and, if I had one, they valve covers would say "Rolls Royce." too!
> 
> ...


My understanding is they typically use late production Rolls Royce Blocks the so-called Transport blocks so the Roll Royce valve cover is legit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 7, 2022)

"Transport Merlins" refers to the heads, not the blocks. The transport engines were almost all (but not ALL - there WERE the Merlin 102, 102A, and 600 2-stage units) single-stage, 2-speed superchargers, but the heads were made more robust.

So-called transport engines, as far as I know, include the Merlin T24, T24/4, 102 (1st civil 2-stage engine), 500, 501, 502, 600, 600A, 620-624, 626-1, 626-12, 724-1, and 724-1C. Some Merlin 224, 225, and 228s found their way into civil applications, though MOST of the 220 series went to military projects. Perhaps some of the 224 - 228s went civil AFTER military service.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 8, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> They even tried fitting an XP-85 fighter in the bomb bay of the B-36 (reminds me of the USS Akron and it's Sparrowhawks).



Yeah, I got a photo of that thing at the USAF Museum. I read about F-84s clipping wingtips and being suspended beneath B-36s, too. Somewhere there's a museum with an F-84 with the hook on its nose, but only vaguely remember it, and can't remember where I saw it. I'd never heard about the F-80 tow idea before.


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 8, 2022)

Certainly not a new thing using parasite fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 8, 2022)

wuzak said:


> There was the Ford 429 Hemi and 427 SOHC.


Not to hijack the thread but there was also the Ford 428 Cobra Jet.

No more car talk in this thread from me now, I promise.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Sep 8, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> Not to hijack the thread but there was also the Ford 428 Cobra Jet.
> 
> No more car talk in this thread from me now, I promise.


My stepbrother had a '68 Ford Police car with a 428 CobraJet engine. It was an ex-Kansas Highway Patrol car, it would pass everything but a gas station.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 8, 2022)

Another kind of parasite attachment:





B-29 and F-84s. I bet the roll response was "interesting."

Another one below:





Tupolev TB-3 and Polikarpov I-16s.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 8, 2022)

GregP said:


> Another kind of parasite attachment:
> 
> View attachment 686027
> 
> ...


The F-84 (EF-641) on the B-29"s port wing suffered a control malfunction during a Tip-Tow test, and it flipped over on the B-29's wing, causing the B-29 to crash.

I don't recall if EF-661 was able to detatch or not, but the pilot of EF-641 and the crew of the B-29 perished.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 8, 2022)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 8, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The F-84 (EF-641) on the B-29"s port wing suffered a control malfunction during a Tip-Tow test, and it flipped over on the B-29's wing, causing the B-29 to crash.
> 
> I don't recall if EF-661 was able to detatch or not, but the pilot of EF-641 and the crew of the B-29 perished.



Sorry to hear that. The idea of attaching at the end of the wings seems preposterous from the outset, and it seems it was.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 8, 2022)

GregP said:


> Sorry to hear that. The idea of attaching at the end of the wings seems preposterous from the outset, and it seems it was.


It just doesn't look right

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 8, 2022)

GregP said:


> Sorry to hear that. The idea of attaching at the end of the wings seems preposterous from the outset, and it seems it was.



Yeah, I want pivoting lifting bodies on the wingtips ... no.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 9, 2022)

Lets see...............................................
build a plane with rudders of various sizes , 3 elevators of various sizes, 3 sets of ailerons of various sizes, controlled by 3 different pilots. 

Now assemble the whole thing together using fasteners from the lowest bidder.....................................

What could go wrong????

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 9, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Lets see...............................................
> build a plane with rudders of various sizes , 3 elevators of various sizes, 3 sets of ailerons of various sizes, controlled by 3 different pilots.
> 
> Now assemble the whole thing together using fasteners from the lowest bidder.....................................
> ...


For a moment I thought you were describing the Fisher P-75

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Sep 9, 2022)

Plagiarism!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 9, 2022)

I was thinking of the fact that the B-29 pilots had a control wheel and used their own ailerons, and so did both F-84 pilots, with sticks.

For the sake of discussion only, suppose the B-29 pilots, flying an aircraft with a known VERY slow roll response, wanted to bank left and the F-84 pilots tried NOT to bank left. To me, it seems like each F-84's set of ailerons would cancel each other out and the B-29 should bank left. But what if only ONE F-84 pilot tried not to bank left? Then, it seem to me as if the F-84's ailerons would still cancel each other out, but the deflected ailerons would add drag to that side. It would be OK of the guy trying not to bank left was on the left side, but would cause considerable adverse yaw if he was on the right side (drag on the extreme right when the B-29 was trying to bank left.

The worst scenario I can think of would be that when they decided to release the F-84s, ONE released and the other one wouldn't.

I'm starting to get curious how that thing could taxi and took off, and am assuming that maybe they coupled together in-flight? Does that even seem possible?

Just thinking about the contraption in print ... I'll stop ...


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 9, 2022)

GregP said:


> I'm starting to get curious how that thing could taxi and took off, and am assuming that maybe they coupled together in-flight? Does that even seem possible?



My assumption is that they joined up in flight, precisely due to the difficulties of coordinating the takeoffs of three tethered airplanes. 

The Germans eventually built a twin He-111 in order to get around this problem when towing the Me-323, iirc -- though of course the layout and tethering was very different, they felt better about cojoining the two towplanes because control inputs were centralized in the towing plane. It also gave them an extra engine:


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 9, 2022)

My favorite parasite concept when I was young. I had a lot of imaginary fun with this baby.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 9, 2022)

I built that kit! Mine didn't come out as nice.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 9, 2022)

wuzak said:


> There was the Ford 429 Hemi and 427 SOHC.


Cutway of the 427 SOHC









Cammer: The Real Story of the Legendary Ford 427 SOHC V8


In the 1960s, Ford’s overhead-cam 427 V8, popularly known as the Cammer, became the stuff of myth and legend. Here’s the story behind the story.




www.macsmotorcitygarage.com





And the Ford Indy DOHC was a pent roof (not quite the same but it's a cool engine)








Technically Interesting: Ford Indy DOHC V8


Learn more about Technically Interesting: Ford Indy DOHC V8 on Bring a Trailer, the home of the best vintage and classic cars online.




bringatrailer.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 9, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> The Germans eventually built a twin He-111 in order to get around this problem when towing the Me-323, iirc -


I believe you're thinking of the Me321 glider.
The Me323 was the powered version of Me321.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 9, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> I believe you're thinking of the Me321 glider.
> The Me323 was the powered version of Me321.



Thanks for the correction, the numbers get gloppy with me on occasion. I'm certainly talking about the glider and not the six-engined -323.

The point, that having three a/c take off easily while strapped together is difficult, and that the Germans took measures to get around this, is still germane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 9, 2022)

The He111Z could also pull multiple gliders, like the Go242.

In regards to the parasite fighter concept, a German (don't recall his name at the moment) tried to get the Luftwaffe to try some of his projects in '43/'44, but the Luftwaffe was a bit busy at the time, so it was never tried.
However, after the war, he went to the U.S. and approached the USAF about the idea and they went for it.

The first concept tried, was a C-47 and a PQ-14 (piloted by Bud Anderson, btw) and it was very successful.

This is where the Tip-Tow and Tom-Tom projects originated from.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 9, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The He111Z could also pull multiple gliders, like the Go242.



That had to be pretty nerve-wracking too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 10, 2022)

GregP said:


> I was thinking of the fact that the B-29 pilots had a control wheel and used their own ailerons, and so did both F-84 pilots, with sticks.
> 
> For the sake of discussion only, suppose the B-29 pilots, flying an aircraft with a known VERY slow roll response, wanted to bank left and the F-84 pilots tried NOT to bank left. To me, it seems like each F-84's set of ailerons would cancel each other out and the B-29 should bank left. But what if only ONE F-84 pilot tried not to bank left? Then, it seem to me as if the F-84's ailerons would still cancel each other out, but the deflected ailerons would add drag to that side. It would be OK of the guy trying not to bank left was on the left side, but would cause considerable adverse yaw if he was on the right side (drag on the extreme right when the B-29 was trying to bank left.
> 
> ...


Greg,

My guess is they “joined” inflight due to the misaligned height of the wings while sitting on the ground.

I could also see where the once things were worked out where the two fighter guys would mess with the B-29 crew by inducing drag, causing turns, yaws, or rolls.

My question is do you get to log powered or unpowered flight while flying the F-84 with the engine off and attached to the Superfort?…

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 10, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> Greg,
> 
> My guess is they “joined” inflight due to the misaligned height of the wings while sitting on the ground.
> 
> ...



You're in a single-seater and in-flight, but are you pilot-in-command or pilot-providing-interference?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 10, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> My question is do you get to log powered or unpowered flight while flying the F-84 with the engine off and attached to the Superfort?…


Perhaps both?
Pilot - to attach/detach.
Pax - because once the engine's off, you're along for the ride and aren't part of the B-29's crew and can't technically claim glider stick time.
Or could you?


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 11, 2022)

Don't see how those planes could off the ground with weight of the balls those guys had.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 11, 2022)

GregP said:


> You're in a single-seater and in-flight, but are you pilot-in-command or pilot-providing-interference?


Both to answer your question. I would think even when attached you have to fly as your wingtip is a hinge.

As for interfering that would be easy. Motor on, put out speed brakes, or motor off use rudders and or cross control to create drag or yaw.

Cheers,
Biff


----------

