Recent content by Cola

@drgondog, Look buddy, don't be a child now running to papa Bell and mama Lockheed...you made calculations, made conclusions and made them both wrong, after repeatedly being advised not to do either of those. You may even be whatever you say you are and that may matter to someone, but I don't...

Good point. No argument there, since it explains stuff. Or it just tells you, that "military edge", as you call it, wasn't needed in relation to price, in observed timeframe. Again, in reality these things are called contracted lifetimes and are expressed in working hours, at pre-set load. So...

Why? Personally, I find it very interesting. You get to understand drives behind particular construction decisions and their consequences on the flight behavior, etc...well, if you're interested in that kind of stuff.

drgondog, How do you figure friction and induced drag components? Using 50%, 30% of total drag, respectively? I know, but it still doesn't make it right, since you can have Mustang's, or Liberator's fuselage in between...the results will differ. You can use it when working with wing increments...

@drgondog, you're probably right, but... I say probably, because I calculated with overall pressure (dynamic + static) for 700km/h @7km as ~0.52 kg/cm^2, which is negligible, according to this chart. Also Rechlin flight test, lists DB605A's power as 1355 hp, at 5.7km, which corresponds with...

@drgondog, 109G-1 - 700km/h - 7km/23k ft - ~1150 hp/AtA1.42 P51B - 679km/h - 7km/23k ft - ~1270 hp (high and low blower) Now, what? @tomo, forget about Merlin. My mistake since I didn't figure, that 51A flew with some hybrid Allison...normal -81 was rated at 1200hp/SL, according to...

@drgondog, Exactly and this is why assessments done on the hp basis alone is misleading. Now, the P51A's engine characteristic, from Shortround6's chart, looks more like Merlin 45 than V-1710-81 a standard engine for P51A and this combination certainly doesn't belong to '41 and comparison...

Well, we do know that V-1710-39 (Mustang Mk.I) developed 1150 hp at SL (installed) with boost (Military setting) and we also know V-1710-81 (P51A) developed similar power without boost, but was apparently 30mph faster. So, you still didn't answer my question, because obviously power was equal...

Ok but then, how do you explain, Mustang Mk.I being 30mph slower with similar power rating like P51A on the deck? While at that, can you explain what does "the most aerodynamically efficient airframe of any major propeller fighter of WW2", exactly mean?

Ah, ok...thought you were talking about Mk.I (V-1710-39), but "A" is from mid '42 so you can hardly compare it to SpitII or Bf109F, although F4 was still faster at altitude. Chronologically, 109G or SpitIX would be a better match.

Ok, then...it's just that I saw some inaccurate figures here f.e.: So, I figured original documents my prove to be useful. Well, you can't really do that. To this day, I'm not aware of a design that beats the competition in every aspect. So, IMO the discussion would be more fruitful...

Good points, but still He178 flew 2 years ahead of E.28 and paved the way for the next 30 years of Soviet intake design. He280 solved nose, tricycle gear layout and nacelles, later accepted by Me262. Finally, 262 featured swept wing of low t/c ratio (a hint of supercritical profiles) and large...

No, but the thread starter specifically asked for airframe. So, I'm not sure what's going on here...is this P51 vs Bf109 vs Spitfire vs Fw190 thread, or what?

@DerAdlerIstGelandet, well then if that's so, I suppose He178/280 and particularly Me262 were much more advanced airframes of the time, then either of already metioned.

Why putting Fw190 and P51 in, then?