Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Here, the Hellcat has both the largest wing area and greatest Cd0, which is consistent with it being the slowest of the three.
I know he addressed F4U v 190 but do not recall the verdict.
But that's the thing Swampy, I'm not really sure if the Cat really was slower than the Jug when flown at a similar horsepower rating. I'm thinking that the superior speed of the Thunderbolt at certain altitudes had more to do with higher engine output than superior aerodynamics. What say you?
Darren W and swampyankee
Thank you for the explanations.and patience.
Eagledad
SR
However, in looking at William's site, the F4U is rated at approximately 350 at sea level using 2000 hp.
I have seen a navy document that shows production F4U-1s have a sea level speed of 339.
I think I read that the AAF were having a tough time with high altitude Japanese bombers over Port Moresby, New Guinea, early in the war. Their P-40s and P-39s could not intercept them.In reality in WWII the USN found that the only high altitude bombers were the USAAF's - and the Navy even bought some for their own use. The F7F and F8F had single stage superchargers, since there was no real threat either on the high seas or in DC..
.
To intercept a Japanese Betty bomber the interceptors needed early warning radar or the ability to fly standing patrols. No airplane in existence on either side could intercept high altitude high speed bombers without early warning or standing patrols.I think I read that the AAF were having a tough time with high altitude Japanese bombers over Port Moresby, New Guinea, early in the war. Their P-40s and P-39s could not intercept them.
The performance of the Moresby radar was poor as judged by the operators. The sets were "experimental" models and were still on the south side of the Owen Stanley mountains which limited their range. They still could not adequately warn of incoming raids.This article states that 29 RS (RAAF) transported to Moresby 19 February 1942 and began operations 1 month later.
Radar performance was hampered by the mountains adjacent the town, with GCI plots limited in range initially to 40 miles (for targets coming in at 18-22000 feet). If the Japanese attacked at altitudes above 18000 ft, the performance of the p-39s fell away so badly they simply couldn't reach enemy altitudes in time. There are occasional early warnings provided by coast watchers but really the issue could not be rectified until the p-39s were replaced by better defenders for moresby
http://www.radarreturns.net.au/archive/EchoesRRWS.pdf
But that's the thing Swampy, I'm not really sure if the Cat really was slower than the Jug when flown at a similar horsepower rating. I'm thinking that the superior speed of the Thunderbolt at certain altitudes had more to do with higher engine output than superior aerodynamics. What say you?
Note that the Hellcat was not flush riveted....
It is true that turbocharged engines generally perform better at altitude than mechanically supercharged engines - hence the superiority of the AP-4 over the XP-41,
...and the P-47's engine was more fuel efficient at high altitude cruise due to the turbo.
Something doesn't seem quite right???
Some of those charts are bit on the rough side.
I don't know, is a 4" Hg for 50 less horsepower a lot of difference when running at such low boost? Your explanation is well taken and I can definitely see some added efficiency for the turbocharged engine, but even with this the range of the two aircraft with similar gas load is pretty darn close (within 3%).
And I do realize that once the turbo enters higher boost settings it will start to out-strip the performance of the supercharged R-2800. I was just trying to promote my theory that all three Pratt and Whitney powered aircraft would have almost identical fuel burn rates while using similar cruise (lower power) settings, and knowing the P-47's ETO escort range with a given fuel load we can use simple algebra to determine what would be the theoretical range of the two naval fighters under similar circumstances.
Have I convinced anyone yet?
Even with low MAP the auxiliary supercharger is going to require more power to drive than the turbo, at altitude.