SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I was going to write the difference was "timing".
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
1947 -- Pursuit became fighter, when USAAF became USAF. That was the serious answer, the smart ass answer is it made the generals feel better.What are the different between P-51H and F-51H?
What are the different between P-51H and F-51H?
I believe that it takes less paint to paint the letter "F" than the letter "P", hence the plane should be lighter.
So from what I recently learned, XP-51G can run at 120 Hg pressure the high supercharger gear power of 2200 HP will make it considerably more powerful than P-51H had available at 1790 BHP - 3000 rpm at 22700 ft.Remember that the XP-51G with Merlin 100 equivalent (and 1650-9 equivalent) engine clocked 495+ repeatedly without external racks and had >45000 ceiling.
.
This is the chart from F-51H SAC 1950The 1650-9 was experiencing major issues in producing more that 75" MP until late 1946. The SAC tables were assembled from both NAA 1947 and Eglin testing in 1948.
120 inHg?120 Hg pressure
The 495mph per Gruenhagen, 492 per Wagner (Schmued insisted on 'actual' recorded value when NAA Marketing was pushing for '500mph) was at 20, 700 feet. I don't know why Morgan claimed that XP-51G was first to be 'mathematically designed'. Roy Liming was Chief of Engineering Loft Mathematics and Lofting' but both he and R.K. Weebe introduced the science of Projective Geometry at NAA in 1940 and ALL Mustangs were designed to the rules from Day 1.So from what I recently learned, XP-51G can run at 120 Hg pressure the high supercharger gear power of 2200 HP will make it considerably more powerful than P-51H had available at 1790 BHP - 3000 rpm at 22700 ft.
Another different is that XP-51G has 5 blades propellers compared to P-51H's 4 blades
View attachment 650838
This is what i can find. Nevertheless, if R-R Merlin 100 as installed, delivered maximum HP of 2080 Hp at 22,800 ft that will make it significantly superior to V-1650-9 since V-1650-9 can only deliver 1790 Hp at 22,700 ft, which make it 13% weaker. No wonder P-51H is so much slower than XP-51GThe 495mph per Gruenhagen, 492 per Wagner (Schmued insisted on 'actual' recorded value when NAA Marketing was pushing for '500mph) was at 20, 700 feet. I don't know why Morgan claimed that XP-51G was first to be 'mathematically designed'. Roy Liming was Chief of Engineering Loft Mathematics and Lofting' but both he and R.K. Weebe introduced the science of Projective Geometry at NAA in 1940 and ALL Mustangs were designed to the rules from Day 1.
Further the R-R Merlin 100 as installed, delivered maximum HP of 2080 Hp at 22,800 ft at 80"MP 3000RPM w/150 octane. 1850 HP with 70" and 130 Octane.
The XP-51G engine was one of two R-R delvered Merlin 100, R.M. 14 S.M. Packard never made this engine but made a version 'Merlin 300 and 301' for the RAF Lincoln.
The XP-51G wing was an NACA 66,2 18155 airfoil ----> with greater thickness to chord ratio of 18 compared to NAA/NCA 45-100 with thickness to chord ratio of 16.
While the XP-51G first flown with Rotol 5 Blade prop, it was replaced with Aeroproducts 4 blade A-542-B1, same as XP-51J and P-51H.
So, wing not thinner, no 120MP, Not first to be mathematically designed, did not achieve 498mph
This is what i can find. Nevertheless, if R-R Merlin 100 as installed, delivered maximum HP of 2080 Hp at 22,800 ft that will make it significantly superior to V-1650-9 since V-1650-9 can only deliver 1790 Hp at 22,700 ft, which make it 13% weaker. No wonder P-51H is so much slower than XP-51G
Isn't NA-8284A supposed to be a test without rack?There are a lot of factors when considering comparisons that involve top speed versus different airframes. The XP-51G was 2000 pounds lighter at full GW. The posted speed ranges for P-51H were in full internal combat load at 9600 pounds including full internal fuel and external bomb and rocket stubs. The XP-51G in the speed dash (495mph according to NAA Flight Test docs) was even lighter with only 50% fuel -which separated the GW during flight test by nearly 2500 pounds.
Not a test - a Perfrmance Calculations Report.Isn't NA-8284A supposed to be a test without rack?
Also, from the chart , it would seem that top speed of 7500 lbs fighter is pretty much same as the 11500 lbs fighter until 22-23k ft, might be parasite drag is the domination factor at top speed?
View attachment 651024
well, it seem accurate enough that SAC 1950 still use the data from it.Not a test - a Perfrmance Calculations Report.
Something would only seem accurate enough if you have decided a result in advance.well, it seem accurate enough that SAC 1950 still use the data from it.
Still follow their calculation, changing from 7500 lbs to 11,500 lbs seem to affect top speed very slightly except at very high altitude
Not really.Something would only seem accurate enough if you have decided a result in advance.
So you're looking at the test data of an aircraft that was at least five years old, to draw a conclusion?So , i go for the next best thing that i can find. 1950 F-51H SAC, and they show top speed to be 412 knots (475 mph) in interceptor configuration . since it is the lat
I dont thing much happens in 5 years does it?So you're looking at the test data of an aircraft that was at least five years old, to draw a conclusion?
Wear and tear on the airframe, certainly not a factory fresh engine.I dont thing much happens in 5 years does it?
I was joking, the average life of a front line type in the RAF was about 6 months as a type, much less for an individual aircraft.Wear and tear on the airframe, certainly not a factory fresh engine.
Just like captured aircraft evaluations were going to show different numbers than tests done when that particular aircraft was fresh from the manufacturer.