Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever...

[kool kitty89]

I'd say it was the N1K-2J for the Japanese, not as fast or heavily armed as the Ki-84 (For Ki-84 with 30mm) but it was long legged and the only Japanese plane that vould compare with the toughness and pilot protection of US fighters. Plus it could climb almost as well and outmaneuver all allied fighter opposition. (it also had automatic combat flaps) It had a decent armament, though still not enough to really fight the B-29's and not enough high alt performance (common to all a/c with the engine) Plus performance was much limited by the low octane Japanese fuel, with US 100 octane fuel it aoutperformed the Hellcat in all performance categories and it had even better maneuverabillity than prior.

Like most Japanese a/c it also had good all-around visibility.

 

[red admiral]

Does anyone have any information on the speed of the Ta 152 at lower altitudes? Comparing its maximum speed at 40,000ft doesn't realistically compare it to other's maximum speeds which occur at 20-30,000ft. At that extreme altitude, there most likely isn't anything better, but in the mid-altitude range I think things get a bit murkier.

Below 20,000ft the Hawker Fury, owns the skies. 5800fpm rate of climb, 460mph at 18000ft and 410mph at sea level, coupled together with outstanding maneuverability, firepower and excellent visibility.

As for the Dora-13 being the fastest in WWII, the d.H. Hornet and Fury I match it for speed, the Spiteful exceeds it by 9mph. There are also those dubious 500mph+ claims for the P-47.

 

[kool kitty89]

I doubt any production P-47 did 500 mph, maybe 480 w/out wing pylons for the P-47M, but that's pushing it.

The XP-47J did do 507 mph at 32,000 ft iirc. Though this was also in the razorback configuration which had less drag than the bubbletop. (hence why bubbletop P-47's and P-51's were generaly slower than their razorback counterparts)

 

[drgondog]

I doubt any production P-47 did 500 mph, maybe 480 w/out wing pylons for the P-47M, but that's pushing it.

The XP-47J did do 507 mph at 32,000 ft iirc. Though this was also in the razorback configuration which had less drag than the bubbletop. (hence why bubbletop P-47's and P-51's were generaly slower than their razorback counterparts)

KK- I suspect the added 600+ pounds of weight for the tear drop top P-51D had a lot more to do with the slight drop in airspeed and climb and turn... and how would you account for a 51H being 20-40mph faster than the P-51B/C at the same weight? (The 1650-9 was slightly more powerful at altitude than the -3 but other than that)?

Otherwise I don't have the drag figures for the H so I am NOT claiming aerodynamics is the sole factor.

 

[Soren]

The P-51H featured a new prop an a MUCH more powerful engine than the P-51B/C, hence its superior speed. (To go from 1,790 HP to 2,280 HP is quite a jump!)

KK is right about the bubble canopy, it creates suction and thus drag, and that is why the razorbacks are slightly faster.

 

[Hunter368]

Good stuff guys

 

[drgondog]

The P-51H featured a new prop an a MUCH more powerful engine than the P-51B/C, hence its superior speed. (To go from 1,790 HP to 2,280 HP is quite a jump!)

KK is right about the bubble canopy, it creates suction and thus drag, and that is why the razorbacks are slightly faster.

You may have mis interpreted Lednicer's reports. 'Suction' is the opposite of 'Separation' in the model results. If you re-read them you may notice 1.) that the 'suction' area for the 51Wing and Fuselage has a far greater 'suction' area and by definition, less 'separation' in the model, and 2.) Lednicer's model correctly arrives at drag values for 'wetted area Drag Coefficient' with good approximation to wind tunnels'.

This whole exercise was to predict total drag in context of profile, friction and induced drag to compare against wind tunnel results.

Second point. May I draw your attention to Table 1 where the total Drag Coefficients for the B and D are the same despite greater wetted surface area. After reviewing the boundary conditions and the pressure distribution plots I conclude that the difference is the canopy, and specifically the canopy slope effect on delayed separation - how do you 'interpret' the results otherwise?

Third point. The engine profiles between a -3, a -7 and a -9 for the B, D and H respectively show
B 1600BHP at 67" @11,800 Low Blower WE
D 1720BHP at 67" @ 6,200 Low Blower WE
H 1930BHP at 80"/water inj @ 10,100 Low Blower and the same as the -3 w/o water

B 1330BHP at 67" @23,000 High Blower
D 1505BHP at 67" @19,300 High Blower
H 1630BHP at 80" @ 23,500 High Blower WE (wet) same as the -3 w/o water

So, what references do you have in mind for the Mustang for your figures? or Conclusions..

 

[Hunter368]

Good stuff Bill.

 

[kool kitty89]

I think by "suction" Soren meant the lower preassure on the aft part of the bubble canopy (a slight vacuum), similar to the phenomon at the tail of a bullet.

And I think the 2,280 hp figure is for 90" Hg. Though that's down to 1,800 hp at altitude. (still a hell of alot more than earlier 'stangs had) http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-powercurve.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-na-8284-pg12.jpg

 

[kool kitty89]

KK- I suspect the added 600+ pounds of weight for the tear drop top P-51D had a lot more to do with the slight drop in airspeed and climb and turn... and how would you account for a 51H being 20-40mph faster than the P-51B/C at the same weight? (The 1650-9 was slightly more powerful at altitude than the -3 but other than that)?

Otherwise I don't have the drag figures for the H so I am NOT claiming aerodynamics is the sole factor.

The phrasing seems a little confusing, but I assume the added 600 lbs from going to the B to D Mustang. (I don't think switching to the Bubble canopy changed weight much)

The bubble canopy was one of the reasons in drop in speed. Plus weight has a much larger effect on climb than speed. Streamining has the opposite effect. (speed much more than climb)

It was mostly the power that would have given the speed; as seen here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-altperf-91444.jpg going from 8,000 lbs to 10,000 lbs only changes max speed by less than 10 mph. (a bit more of a change above 30,000 ft, but almost no change in speed at all down low)


On the P-47 the bubble canopy lost it ~5 mph top speed. The wing pylons cut 10-15 mph off speed. (much more on early versions, though not on any standard production versions iirc)

The nose of the P-47J helped speed as well. (prabably added ~20 mph)

 

[drgondog]

I think by "suction" Soren meant the lower preassure on the aft part of the bubble canopy (a slight vacuum), similar to the phenomon at the tail of a bullet.

KK- possibly that is what he meant. However, in the case of the Lednicer model Gene Davidson was kind enough to give both of us it has the classic meaning for 'suction' - meaning 'lower pressure' relative to free stream dynamic pressure.

In the case of the models 'suction is another word for 'lift' and more importantly area where the flow has not separated and created wake (or Profile Drag). In the case of the model that is 'good' for the 51D and 'bad' for the Spitfire and fw 190D and the P51B.

The red area is alternatively 'suction' or 'lift'.. you may note the 'red area' on the wing/body model. The model show a very nice aerodynamic effect on the P-51D by virtue of both the lower angle slope on the front windscreen and the near 'high camber/thickness airfoil' curvature of the canopy. The very nice surface coverage represents OPTIMAL laminar flow region, never fully achieved but instructional nevertheless.

The wake behind a Spitzer bullet is 'bad' and represents the key parameter for Profile/wake drag. Ditto the Spitfire and fw 190 'bad' regions as the flow moves up over the windscreen.

 

[drgondog]

The phrasing seems a little confusing, but I assume the added 600 lbs from going to the B to D Mustang. (I don't think switching to the Bubble canopy changed weight much)

No, the Bubble canopy effectively was offset by removing the extra top bulkhead/skin and stringer of the P-51B 'turtleback'. The bigger increases were beefed up spar for vertical stabilizer and adding two more 69 pound M-2's plus 700 rounds of .50 caliber ammo..

The worst result of removing the turtleback was slight loss of yaw stability requiring first a 'dorsal' fin modification the the production P-51D-5 tail, then a permanent change for all succeeding D/K models, and then a new, 'taller tail' for the P-51H

The bubble canopy was one of the reasons in drop in speed. Plus weight has a much larger effect on climb than speed. Streamining has the opposite effect. (speed much more than climb)

In my opinion it (bubble canopy) had the opposite effect and at worst was neutral based on Lednicer's model. As far as weight, remember that for same relative speed, Lift (and therfore Induced Drag) is increased for the heavier aircraft.. so that an airplane with exactly the same engine with the same basic aero flown at same speed (and Lednicer says the 51B and D had the same wetted drag coefficient) the heavier bird will not perform as well

On the P-47 the bubble canopy lost it ~5 mph top speed. The wing pylons cut 10-15 mph off speed. (much more on early versions, though not on any standard production versions iirc)

The nose of the P-47J helped speed as well. (prabably added ~20 mph)

Absent any actual wind tunnel comparisons I woul tend to disbelieve the razorback was any more aerodynamically sound with respect to drag and probably had the same effect for yaw stability as the 51B to 51D.

I also suspect when the late model 47D's added the bubble canopy they also added the wing pylons as well as internal fuel capacity.. Weight in moving from one model of the same airframe to the next was usually a far more important factor, even with bigger engines, unless the wing area was increased. The pylons ALWAYS increased drag as did gun gondolas.

The radiator/cooling designs were the real plus of the Mustang over the Spitfire, when combined with the proprietary Mustang 'laminar flow' wing.. that's why the same engine in a heavier airplane was faster and travelled farther.. it also lost energy slower (usually) in similar manuevers with an a/c with similar thrust to weight ratio but more drag.

 

[kool kitty89]

And also why the P-51A (along with the overall streamlining) was much faster and fuel efficient than the P-40M/N with the same engine and similar weight. Climb was about the same (slightly better for the P-51A) and turn rate was a tad better on the P-40. (radius was more noticeable, as the P-40 had better lift loading nut the cleaner airframe of the P-51 gave it better energy retention)

IMO the P-40/P-51 comparison is alot closer than the Spit/P-51 comparison, though both are valid. (on a side note: the close location of the radiator and oil cooler to the engine mad the P-40 a good deal less volnerable than the P-51, Spitfire, or Me 109)

No, the Bubble canopy effectively was offset by removing the extra top bulkhead/skin and stringer of the P-51B 'turtleback'. The bigger increases were beefed up spar for vertical stabilizer and adding two more 69 pound M-2's plus 700 rounds of .50 caliber ammo..

According to: The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Gun Tables the M2 was only ~64 lbs, but close enough. And only the innermost guns on the P-51 carrier 350 rpg, the outboard 2/4 guns of the P-51B(C)/D carried only 280 RPG according to JoeB's site. (as well as others)

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Bearcat!!!

The TA 152 was close - almost a tie - but with its phenomenal climb, excellent roll, and COMBAT DAMAGE RESISTANT AIR COOLED RADIAL, the bearcat wins by a propeller spinner!

 

[lesofprimus]

The Bearcat didnt have the legs to support best Bandit... Short range drops it down to Top 5...

IMO of course...

 

[kool kitty89]

Like the Spitfire and Bf 109. (moreso for the late Spitfires)

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Yep, short legs Did cramp the Bearcat's style. But if I wanted to go up against my twin brother, equal in every respect except for different planes, I'd choose the bearcat.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

If you pitted a Spitfire against a Bearcat, which would you rather be in?

 

[lesofprimus]

Bearcat...

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

It is kind of interesting why the Ta-152 is getting so many votes. As far as we know it shot down one Tempest at low altitude (the Tempest was not good at low altitude turning) and a couple of Yak's over Berlin. It never shot down a P-51, P-47,P-38, or a Spitfire.

One pilot did claim to have outrun several P-51's but for all we know they may not have even seen him. Granted, the stats do say it was faster than the P-51 at high altitudes, and low altitudes it's more unclear what it's top speed was.

At any rate it's hard to say how much it would have destroyed the P-51, or a Spitfire.

I know Il Sturmovik is just a game, (and probaby very innaccurate) but the Ta-152 was not the hardest opponent for me to fight in the Mustang, for me it was the Macchi C.205, or perhaps the Hayate. It's partly because their top speed at low altitude is faster than the P-51, and because the Macchi 205 can fight on a dime. The Fw 190D is a tough opponent but it does have a weaknes in the game, because it seems like a few shots into the propeller stops it completely.

Again, it's just a game and you can ignore the last paragraph.