lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Which it didnt.....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
the lancaster kicks ass said:why not an SR-71??
i wanted to keep it close to WWII................
and it's british................
wmaxt said:I must make a correction of a post I made a earlier. The fuel tank sizes of the tanks in the P-38 are as follows:
P-38
Main 90gal
reserve 60gal - the 40gal I used was on a restored aircraft and was smaller than normal.
outboard wing 55gal - though some were reported at 62gal
Drop tank 300gal
Total w/55gal wing - 505gal Range 2,600mi
P-51
Main 195gal
Fusalage 85gal
Drop tanks 216gal
Total 496gal Range 2,300
Difference 9gal and 300mi for the P-38
This works out to:
P-38 w/55gal w/tanks @ 2,600mi = 5.15mpg/per engine
P-38 w/62gal w/tanks @ 2,600mi = 5.1mpg/per engine
P-51 @ 2,300mi = 4.63mpg
One advantage the P-51 does have is that it carries 56% of it's fuel internaly while the P-38 carries 41% internaly. That 10% at the very end of a combat mission must have been uncomfortable. The last mission of the war on Aug 15, 45 over Borneo by P-38s was reported to have been 2,800mi!
My contention that fuel effecincy is about equal still exists, sorry if I misled anyone.
GermansRGeniuses said:The Dodge Viper of fighters...
Fast, simple, extremely powerful, beautiful, horrible at turning, and they both have HUGE engines, as evidenced by the last picture...BRUTAL.