Best mass produced postwar single engine piston fighter?

[wuzak]

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

The V-1650-9 is, to all intents and purposes, a Merlin 100. There are detail differences, such as a slight difference in supercharger gear ratios due to a different gear train design.

drgondog told you that the higher power was with PN150 fuel, while the lower number was with PN130 fuel. The PN150 fuel allowed 80inHG MAP against 70inHg MAP for the PN130 fuel.

The V-1650-9 also had ADI, which the Merlin 100 did not, this allowing 90inHg MAP and over 2,200hp (lower altitude, though).

 

[mig-31bm]

The V-1650-9 is, to all intents and purposes, a Merlin 100. There are detail differences, such as a slight difference in supercharger gear ratios due to a different gear train design.

drgondog told you that the higher power was with PN150 fuel, while the lower number was with PN130 fuel. The PN150 fuel allowed 80inHG MAP against 70inHg MAP for the PN130 fuel.

The V-1650-9 also had ADI, which the Merlin 100 did not, this allowing 90inHg MAP and over 2,200hp (lower altitude, though).

That what i initially believed as well.
But as I dig deeper, I found this

For comparison, this is the performance of V-1650-9 at 90 Hg MP.
You can see that at 20k feet, the 14 S.M delivered a lot more power than the V-1650-9

 

[mig-31bm]

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.

Just like captured aircraft evaluations were going to show different numbers than tests done when that particular aircraft was fresh from the manufacturer.

No, the 1950 SAC taken data from NA-8284A, as clearly indicated in here.
When I said I choosen the latest chart, i mean any mistake from original estimate should have been found and corrected by that point in time

 

[wuzak]

The V-1650-9 was rated to RM.14SM. It was a 100 series engine.

As far as I know, the most boost used by a wartime Merlin was the RM.17SM, which used +36psi boost (~103inHg MAP) with ADI and ~PN160 fuel (PN150 fuel + extra TEL).

If one was running 120inHg MAP it should produce much more than 2,200hp. The RM.17SM with the ~103inHg MAP was producing 2,600hp.

The RM.17SM did not go into production, though.

*It must be noted that some 100-series test engines were run at higher rpm. A 100-series test engine (may have been a RM.14SM) was rated for 3,300rpm and >2,300hp for flight testing, but this was not an official service rating. Maybe the XP-51G was running an experimental RM.14SM with the higher flight test ratings?

 

[mig-31bm]

The V-1650-9 was rated to RM.14SM. It was a 100 series engine.

As far as I know, the most boost used by a wartime Merlin was the RM.17SM, which used +36psi boost (~103inHg MAP) with ADI and ~PN160 fuel (PN150 fuel + extra TEL).

If one was running 120inHg MAP it should produce much more than 2,200hp. The RM.17SM with the ~103inHg MAP was producing 2,600hp.

The RM.17SM did not go into production, though.

*It must be noted that some 100-series test engines were run at higher rpm. A 100-series test engine (may have been a RM.14SM) was rated for 3,300rpm and >2,300hp for flight testing, but this was not an official service rating. Maybe the XP-51G was running an experimental RM.14SM with the higher flight test ratings?

but RM.14SM produced 2200 hp at 22k feet though, not at 9 k ft

 

[wuzak]

but RM.14SM produced 2200 hp at 22k feet though, not at 9 k ft

Where is that data?

 

[mig-31bm]

Where is that data?

I posted it in post #122, inside the red square

 

[wuzak]

but RM.14SM produced 2200 hp at 22k feet though, not at 9 k ft

Where is that data?

I posted it in post #122, inside the red square

In one highlighted section it says 2,080hp @ 20,000ft. But also calls the engine the Merlin 145. I don't know if such an engine existed. Lumsden, British Piston Aero-Engines and their Aircraft lists a Merlin 140 (for the Short Sturgeon) and Merlin 150 (a commercial engine that was redesignated 620). These were both rated RM.14SM.

The 130/131 and 134/135 for the de Havilland Hornet were rated RM.14SM, but did not have ADI, so were stuck with +25psi boost (~80inHg MAP) and just under 2,100hp.



The other says 2,200hp @ 120inHg MAP, but does not specif the altitude.

If the engine was run at 120inHg MAP it would make way more then 2,200hp, would do it lower than the 9,000ft of the V-1650-9, but would not do it for very long. It would blow up, as wartime Merlins were not built for such pressures.

 

[BobB]

I wondered about that myself. It usually comes down to pilot skill but I'm wondering just how tired those birds were.

I don't recall the name but the US air attache who helped train the Honduran Air Force was a WW2 P-51 ace. He said that the Honduran pilot, Fernando Soto, was outstanding at gunnery. Soto flew an F4U-5N (radar removed) while El Salvador had P-51 and FG-1D.

 

[BobB]

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.

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

An old timer who had bounced around between all the major airframers told me that the B-25 was the first airplane to be mathematically lofted. My immediate reaction was "How hard is it to loft a fuselage with flat sides?" but the nacelles are obviously a bit more difficult than that.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I don't recall the name but the US air attache who helped train the Honduran Air Force was a WW2 P-51 ace. He said that the Honduran pilot, Fernando Soto, was outstanding at gunnery. Soto flew an F4U-5N (radar removed) while El Salvador had P-51 and FG-1D.

Mike Alba - his ex wife was my neighbor when I lived in SoCal. He told me that Soto was his best Honduran student. Mike was credited with 3 aircraft destroyed IIRC.

 

[NTGray]

Two other votes so far for my pick. The Skyraider simply doesn't count as a "fighter" (although two MiG-17s were shot down by them over Vietnam) but if you said "single-engine, propeller-driven COMBAT PLANE then the A1D gets the prize. It was so good at what it did that it was still being used for attack missions in Vietnam in 1968, 23 years after WWII ended.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Skyraiders' MiG-17 kills were two confirmed, one probable and one severely damaged.

They also shot down two La-9s and a Po-2.

 

[Schweik]

Vought F4U-5 Corsair.

Gotta love the plane that was the only propeller aircraft in Korea to have it's pilot make Ace, and do it at night and be the only US navy ace regardless of aircraft.

Wonder what that pilot could have done with a jet

Guy Bordelon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As soon as I read the name I knew that guy was from Louisiana ...