F4U Corsair vs P-51 Mustang

[Shortround6]

I believe the turbocharger was around 220-235lbs? going from memory. But that is for the turbo charger coming out of the box, no intercooler, no ducts, no control unit/s.
AHT says around 954-977lbs but that is for engine accessories which may include intercoolers and turbocharger but not include all ductwork/piping? An F6F had 314lbs worth of engine accessories.
P-40s had 60-114lbs worth of accessories which did NOT include the oil system or engine starter. I don't know if the generator is considered and accessory or is included under electrical for instance. same with hydraulic pumps.

And with the entire system inside the fuselage how much of the fuselage weight was dedicated to the turbo system?

 

[DarrenW]

I believe the turbocharger was around 220-235lbs? going from memory. But that is for the turbo charger coming out of the box, no intercooler, no ducts, no control unit/s.
AHT says around 954-977lbs but that is for engine accessories which may include intercoolers and turbocharger but not include all ductwork/piping? An F6F had 314lbs worth of engine accessories.
P-40s had 60-114lbs worth of accessories which did NOT include the oil system or engine starter. I don't know if the generator is considered and accessory or is included under electrical for instance. same with hydraulic pumps.

And with the entire system inside the fuselage how much of the fuselage weight was dedicated to the turbo system?

Thanks shortround for the quick response. I noticed that in Dean's book but didn't know what all was included in that figure. And yes, I was talking about the entire system, including ductwork and all the associated accessories, not just the supercharger/turbine unit by itself. Maybe looking at the loaded weight of a modern flying example, which doesn't have the turbo system in place, could help as long as it hasn't been extensively modified. But then again I'm sure it would also be missing the armor plating so that would leave other question as to how much that weighed as well. The weight of the missing guns and ammo can be calculated pretty easy.

I'm just curious what the P-47 would have weighed if it only had a two-stage supercharger like that of the Hellcat and Corsair. We might quite possibly arrive at a pretty close figure if we just subtracted 314lbs from 977lbs, which is 663lbs. This would be indicative of how much more the turbo system weighed and then by subtracting that figure from the normal loaded weight of the Thunderbolt we would then know what it would have weighed without the system in place. But that seems way to easy of an answer and I'm sure nothing is ever that simple!

 

[pbehn]

Thanks shortround for the quick response. I noticed that in Dean's book but didn't know what all was included in that figure. And yes, I was talking about the entire system, including ductwork and all the associated accessories, not just the supercharger/turbine unit by itself. Maybe looking at the loaded weight of a modern flying example, which doesn't have the turbo system in place, could help as long as it hasn't been extensively modified. But then again I'm sure it would also be missing the armor plating so that would leave other question as to how much that weighed as well. The weight of the missing guns and ammo can be calculated pretty easy.

I'm just curious what the P-47 would have weighed if it only had a two-stage supercharger like that of the Hellcat and Corsair. We might quite possibly arrive at a pretty close figure if we just subtracted 314lbs from 977lbs, which is 663lbs. This would be indicative of how much more the turbo system weighed and then by subtracting that figure from the normal loaded weight of the Thunderbolt we would then know what it would have weighed without the system in place. But that seems way to easy of an answer and I'm sure nothing is ever that simple!

post #13 in this thread
Why or why not turbo chargers
The weight of the engine accessories for the P-47 is 940 lbs. This probably includes turbo system, generators, hydraulic pumps, etc. I do not know if it includes the engine mounted supercharger. Engine accessories for the F6F, with a similar engine, was 314 lbs without a turbo. So a guess is that the turbo system of the P-47 would have been about 600 lbs. Maybe somebody else has more detailed data.

 

[DarrenW]

post #13 in this thread
Why or why not turbo chargers
The weight of the engine accessories for the P-47 is 940 lbs. This probably includes turbo system, generators, hydraulic pumps, etc. I do not know if it includes the engine mounted supercharger. Engine accessories for the F6F, with a similar engine, was 314 lbs without a turbo. So a guess is that the turbo system of the P-47 would have been about 600 lbs. Maybe somebody else has more detailed data.

I knew I read that somewhere! Thanks for confirming that for me Pbehn. I can live with that figure as it sounds about right to me.

 

[pbehn]

I knew I read that somewhere! Thanks for confirming that for me Pbehn. I can live with that figure as it sounds about right to me.

There is a fantastic picture of the whole set up mounted on a stand in a museum some where on the forum.

 

[DarrenW]

There is a fantastic picture of the whole set up mounted on a stand in a museum some where on the forum.

Thanks. Maybe I can track it down....

 

[GregP]

Here it is:

As you can see, it is NOT a small, simple system. The two pipes at the top run beside the pilot, who sits about where the rear two rubber pieces join the pipes. They run under metal sill along the outside of the cockpit. The bottom pipes are steel (probably stainless) and run down stainless (or steel) ducts covered with a Dzus'd cover along the side of the belly.

Altogether a pretty impressive thing just to maintain sea level power way up high, isn't it? But that's what made the P-47 so good at high altitude. As you can see, the P-47 doesn't have to have a deep belly ... the belly is there just for ducting ... fresh air to the turbo, and compressed air back to the carb. If not for that, the P-47 could be a skinny airplane! In a real one, all the belly below the bottom of the wing is ducting for the turbo.

 

[va155sf]

I did a quick search and couldn't find an existing thread, so...

Which is the better aircraft? I will not be posting much data as I 1) am not that knowledgable technically, so this should be good and 2) I'm here to learn, and I don't have access to all the resources some of you guys have.

Personally, I'm partial to the F4U, but this thread is NOT here to choose favourites, but rather to determine which the better plane was and why. Have at 'er!

 

[va155sf]

The old saying goes, "The P-51 couldn't do things the Spitfire could do! But it could do it over Berlin." I'm guessing the Corsair couldn't do it over Berlin either.

 

[BiffF15]

Here it is:

View attachment 490427

As you can see, it is NOT a small, simple system. The two pipes at the top run beside the pilot, who sits about where the rear two rubber pieces join the pipes. They run under metal sill along the outside of the cockpit. The bottom pipes are steel (probably stainless) and run down stainless (or steel) ducts covered with a Dzus'd cover along the side of the belly.

Altogether a pretty impressive thing just to maintain sea level power way up high, isn't it? But that's what made the P-47 so good at high altitude. As you can see, the P-47 doesn't have to have a deep belly ... the belly is there just for ducting ... fresh air to the turbo, and compressed air back to the carb. If not for that, the P-47 could be a skinny airplane! In a real one, all the belly below the bottom of the wing is ducting for the turbo.

Great Shot Greg! I wish there was a person standing there for a size / scale perspective as the turbo looks huge.

The Eagle was built around a large radar, 8 missile load, and a certain amount of fuel. The Thunderbolt looks to have been built around an engine and turbo plus 8 guns!

Cheers,
Biff

 

[DarrenW]

Here it is:

View attachment 490427

As you can see, it is NOT a small, simple system. The two pipes at the top run beside the pilot, who sits about where the rear two rubber pieces join the pipes. They run under metal sill along the outside of the cockpit. The bottom pipes are steel (probably stainless) and run down stainless (or steel) ducts covered with a Dzus'd cover along the side of the belly.

Altogether a pretty impressive thing just to maintain sea level power way up high, isn't it? But that's what made the P-47 so good at high altitude. As you can see, the P-47 doesn't have to have a deep belly ... the belly is there just for ducting ... fresh air to the turbo, and compressed air back to the carb. If not for that, the P-47 could be a skinny airplane! In a real one, all the belly below the bottom of the wing is ducting for the turbo.

Thanks for finding the picture Greg. So that's what made the Thunderbolt so "voluptuous".....

 

[GregP]

Only shot I could find with a person in it for scale.

Maybe that brings it into better perspective.

It doesn't seem to like the link, but here's the URL so you can check it out yourself:

https://lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/P-47-powertrain_DSC_7265-66-pano.jpg

 

[BiffF15]

Only shot I could find with a person in it for scale.

Maybe that brings it into better perspective.

It doesn't seem to like the link, but here's the URL so you can check it out yourself:

https://lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/P-47-powertrain_DSC_7265-66-pano.jpg

Big is an understatement!

 

[pbehn]

It would have made great propaganda photographed with the smallest guys in the factory under the the heading "Power unit for new eight engine bomber is unveiled"

 

[DarrenW]

There was a real-world, single-elimination contest between Mustangs and Corsairs: Honduras v. El Salvador summer of 69, the so-called "Football War" because both were in the World Cup (or whatever.) All air to air successes were scored by a sr. HAF F4U-4 piloto who downed two El Sal FG-1s and a P-51D. Fernando Soto--he's in my Naval Institute Corsair book thanks to an exchange pilot who knew him.

I happen to own a first edition copy of Hellcat: The F6F in World War II and to this day it's still my favorite book about the aircraft.

 

[YF12A]

Considering that the P-47, the F-4U and the F-6F all used the R-2800 as a start, now try to put that turbo and all the plumbing into the latter two for high altitude use in the ETO. Just not happening. I'm not knocking any of these, we just managed to send the right planes to the right places. Going further, my neighbor told me, in his opinion, it was the P-51B that turned the tide in Europe.

Now, Look at what Boeing managed to do with the B-29 with an even bigger engine and two turbo's into each nacelle. To me, impressive.

 

[DarrenW]

Considering that the P-47, the F-4U and the F-6F all used the R-2800 as a start, now try to put that turbo and all the plumbing into the latter two for high altitude use in the ETO. Just not happening. I'm not knocking any of these, we just managed to send the right planes to the right places...

I agree with you. The turbo adds extra weight and complexity which can effect performance and handling down low, where it's not being utilized as much. Seeing that most of the air fighting in the Pacific theater was below 20,000ft, the R-2800 with the comparably simpler two-stage supercharger set-up provided enough performance for the job at hand. In European skies however, where combat tended to occur much higher up, a turbo really became a thing of necessity for aircraft like the Thunderbolt.

At the wishes of the US Navy, both Grumman and Vought toyed around with the idea of a turbo for the F6F and F4U but because of complications the powers to be eventually settled on what would get the job done with the least amount of headaches. For instance, the XF6F-2 utilized the Birmann turbo-supercharger but it experienced in-flight fires due to the ignition of unburned fuel streaming from the supercharger near the engine's exhaust stacks.

 

[GregP]

It's not hard to put two turbos in if you don't have any pilots to worry about behind them ...

 

[davparlr]

Big and bulky but it gave a P-47D-10 2225 hp at 30k (P-47 Performance Tests). The FW 190D-9 had 1000hp, the Bf 109G 900hp, the Ta 152H 1340hp (the equivalent P-47N had 2800hp), P-51D 1300hp, F6F-3 below 1300hp. And that is why it was considered the best American fighter above 25k by the Fighter Conference and why it controlled the airspace above the 25k bomber altitudes. Also, it could dive like the devil.

 

[Shortround6]

It's peak dive speed may not have been that much better than some other fighters but apparently it accelerated in the dive pretty well?