Do you have favorite WW2 aircraft

[Lucky13]

I want a Ta 152H-1 out in the garage.... I wouldn't mind to commute to work then. Would you Soren?
Imagine harrass your colleagues with LOW flyby early in the morning. Standing outside for the first smoke of the day

 

[Lucky13]

But that I guess works fine with any juicy WWII fighter. Would have a big in my face, see those wee people running around like scared sheep.

 

[Soren]

If I had a Ta-152H I'd never want go to work again !

 

[Lucky13]

Fair enough. I'd retire at the ripe ol' age of 38....

 

[Jabberwocky]

Jabberwocky, besides the fact that the low drag low lift laminar flow wing of the Mustang contributed alot to its speed the extra 300 or so worth HP added by the radiator - giving it in effect 2,080 HP - the speed at SL was no greater than that of the 1,975 HP Bf-109 K-4 which did 607 km/h at SL. And the FW-190 Dora-9 which benefitted from no meredith effect at all did 615 km/h at SL with 2,065 HP.

Although it is clean, the P-51 isn't an extraordinarily clean design.

Hmmm, P-51A with Allison V-1710-81 rated at 56" and 1400 hp at 0 feet could do 608 kph at sea level.

Pretty darned impressive for a fighter with 550 hp less horsepower than a 109K or a 190D.

Even if we add your extra 300 hp (Where did that 300 hp figure come from BTW? Seems a little arbitary) it is still almost as fast as a 190D9, on 265 less hp.

I'd call that pretty extraordinary.

 

[Soren]

LoL ! You're kidding right ??

Otherwise would you care to explain exactly how it is the P-51B/C only does ~615 km/h at 75" Hg (1,780 HP @ 3,000 RPM), then Jabberwocky ??

But hey, the P-51A is also a far cleaner design than the P-51B C, right ??

PS: I seriously hope you were kidding..

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Hawker Typhoon Mk IB, with bubbletop canopy.

Yah, I like that one too.

 

[Jabberwocky]

LoL ! You're kidding right ??

Otherwise would you care to explain exactly how it is the P-51B/C only does ~615 km/h at 75" Hg (1,780 HP @ 3,000 RPM), then Jabberwocky ??

But hey, the P-51A is also a far cleaner design than the P-51B C, right ??

PS: I seriously hope you were kidding..

I wasn't kidding, and neither were the USAAF, apparently:

 

[Soren]

Doesn't explain why the P-51B and C are slower at 75" Hg however Jabberwocky....

But I've got an explanation; The speed wasn't accurately measured.

Or do you have a better explanation Jabberwocky ?

 

[Jabberwocky]

So, when in doubt, or faced with contrary evidence to your theory, you question the validity/reliability of the official numbers?

Seems to me that is a particularly steep and dangerous slope. ANY official tests from ANY participants could then be simply dismissed out of hand. Perhaps all the P-51B/C tests were incorrect and its actually faster than official numbers indicate?

Or do we instead trust that the USAAF knew what it was doing when it tested its own aircraft?

How about that the P-51A WAS a cleaner design with the Allison than with the Merlin, which it was not originally designed for.

Other testing seems to indicate agreement with the USAAF figures:

P-51 No. 41-37320 with 4 cannon tested on 20-Jul-1943 achieved 360 mph at sea-level with Allison V-1710-39 rated at 1170 hp.

Its not a stretch then that a further 250 hp would add another 18 mph, particularly on a P-51A-1 which was fitted with machine guns instead of cannon and had slightly less drag. Its hardly suprising that a 21.5% increase in power could generate a 5% increase in level speed.