Just curious the addition of the H-Tail.
Guessing it improved the handling for landing.
Any high speed benefit?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
No Dan, they did not, they rebuild the entire airplane, depending on the airframe and Cavilier model, only certain components were rebuilt. There were a lot of surplus, used parts and components on those airframes to include the later ones. The term "rebuilt" or factory new can only be affixed by the original airframe manufacturer although the military loosely throws that term around. I'm not sure how many had H tails but I'm sure they were probably the ones made from 1967 on.
Well youall will have to decide if this counts or not. The I-30 (Yak-3 prototype) and the UTI-26 (Yak-7
prototype) first flew in 1941. Along with some Yak-9s they were reproduced from 1991 to 2002 in
Russia with Allison engines. I believe that's considered longevity of design.
Just curious the addition of the H-Tail.
Guessing it improved the handling for landing.
Any high speed benefit?
They got the more reliable Late model transport heads.The later ones I believe had 1800 HP engines so I'm sure the H tail helped with the additional HP and torque.
Ok agree - but by your verbiage it sounded like you were addressing a variation of a production model (F4U vs F4U-5N)
Now the combat you speak about occurred during the Soccer War and the Honduran pilot who flew the F4U was a very good pilot. A former neighbor (who flew P-51s during WW2) trained him. At the end of the day, this still doesn't prove much.
"Well I am American so when mentioning production runs Germany never crossed my mind and still doesn't. As for the DC-3, that is not a single engine plane. The Cessna isn't a military plane. "
J jalistair - go back an look at your original post
"I do believe the Corsair was the longest produced single piston engine plane"
Nothing is mentioned about a "combat' aircraft.
Know a good bit about this war especially how and why it got started.
The Soccer games were only part of the issue and Refereed games as intense as these.
On the aircraft side...
El Salvador bought civilian Mustangs and Corsairs outfitted them up for combat.
Bought several Cavalier Mustangs with up-rated Merlins and wing tip tanks.
Merlin's with the good transport cylinder heads.
They grabbed up T-28,s Texans and DC3/C47s.
Converted the C47's into Bombers.
Hondurans had purchased F4u-4 and -5's.
Fernando Soto shot down two -1 Corsairs and the Cavalier Mustang.
Salvadorians after the loss pulled the wing tip tanks off the other Cavalier Mustangs.
El Salvador lost two Mustangs to AA and two crashed in midair.
Added up had to be about a third of their force.
Both sides did hire mercenary pilots.
Honduras did well in the air war but was losing the ground war.
Figured the Mustangs and Corsairs were effective enough staffing and bombing Honduran positions.
OAS intervened to stop it and got it stopped
Has took decades to sort out all the disputes with a final agreement signed in 2013.
Always enjoyed talking to Mike. He trained Soto, said he excelled in gunnery. Mike was part of the post WW2 military assistance program where we sent US instructors to train Central and South American pilots.Really? I bet you guys had some interesting conversations, did you talk about the Soccer War much?
I'm totally clueless but I'm curious, how come the turning capability of P-51H matched F4U-5 at high altitude?, I mean wouldn't the lower wing loading of F4U-5 mean it also have more lift to spare, especially at high altitude where there is less air and wing loading is more important?.The Corsair was superior in roll, turn and landing speed - all related to 10% lower wing loading. The Mustang was superior in acceleration, climb, speed, zoom climb, dive all related to 2/3 Drag values compared to Corsair.
I suppose the definition of "close" needs some scrutiny. As to "all speed", the relative turn capability of the Mustang matched the Corsair at high altitude and the roll rates matched at high speed. The comparisons basically need to be period vs period such as F4U-4/-5 vs P-51H; F4U-1 vs P-51B/D
Football War.Really? I bet you guys had some interesting conversations, did you talk about the Soccer War much? Agree with you that the dog fight doesn't prove much about the aircraft, more so about the pilots. My world was the AH-64D, had fellow pilots who had trained the Egyptians on the same bird and also know several Israelis. The interesting thing is that all three nations essentially fly the same aircraft other than some electronics. Yet the competency level isn't even close to the same. The Israeli pilots view the Egyptian aircraft as forward deployed reserves for the IAF while the American IP's would state that the inconstancy of the Egyptians renders the AH-64 all but useless. So... it is quite likely that Honduras had better pilots.
Wasn't the football war is between F4U-5 and P-51D?Football War.
After some closer look, seem like I was wrong in this part. I initially assumed that F4U-5 turned much better than P-51H because I remember reading that F4U-1 turned much better than P-51B.Turn rate:
F4U-5 is a carrier born aircraft thus has much lower stall speed compared to P-51, therefore, it should turn much better than P-51.
That was BuNav test in which USN stacked deck with R-2800 boosted with non production WI at 65"MP at the time. Excess HP, Drag and WL are key elements. A comparable test might be a P-51B at 75" vs F4U at 59"After some closer look, seem like I was wrong in this part. I initially assumed that F4U-5 turned much better than P-51H because I remember reading that F4U-1 turned much better than P-51B.
P-51B with full 85gal tank weighs about 9500 or about 4400KG. If you match fuel in the P-51B to F4U and reduce 269gal to 150, The GW is below 8800 pounds or WL 37pounds/ft^2 - Ditto P-51HHowever, I just now realized that P-51H is quite a bit lighter than P-51B, whereas F4U-5 is quite a bit heavier than F4U-1.
Gross weight in fighter configuration of F4U-1 is 5053 kg, with the wing area of 29.172 m2, the wing loading value would be 173 kg/m2
Gross weight in fighter configuration of P-51B is 5352 kg, with the wing area of 21.6 m2, the wing loading value would be 247 kg/m2.
As a result, F4U-1 has significant advantage over P-51B in wing loading.
The P-51H Mustang in Fighter/Interceptor configuration is ~8600 pounds with 105gal fuelHowever,
Gross weight in fighter configuration of F4U-5 is 5851.79 kg, with wing area of 29.172 m2, the wing loading value would be 200.5 kg/m2
Gross weight in fighter configuration of P-51H is 4286 kg, with the wing area of 21.6 m2, the wing loading value would be 198.4 kg/m2
As a result, P-51H has slight advantage over F4U-5 in wing loading. Their turn capability should be quite closely matched
I'm not very familiar with the acronym, what is "WI"?, and also wouldn't it be more fair to test the two aircraft at the same manifold pressure?.That was BuNav test in which USN stacked deck with R-2800 boosted with non production WI at 65"MP at the time. Excess HP, Drag and WL are key elements. A comparable test might be a P-51B at 75" vs F4U at 59"
So after I look a bit closer, I found that they compared two aircraft at fuel load where their flight duration is equalized.P-51B with full 85gal tank weighs about 9500 or about 4.4KG. If you match fuel in the P-51B to F4U and reduce 269gal to 150, The GW is below 8800 pounds or WL 37pounds/ft^2 - Ditto P-51H
The P-51H Mustang in Fighter/Interceptor configuration is ~8600 pounds with 105gal fuel
WI means "water injection" (MW 50 to the Germans). Not all planes had WI even if they used the same basic engine, you do have to fit the water tank and the associated plumbing fittings.I'm not very familiar with the acronym, what is "WI"?, and also wouldn't it be more fair to test the two aircraft at the same manifold pressure?.
I see, I was wondering why there is no P-47 with 90 hg.WI means "water injection" (MW 50 to the Germans). Not all planes had WI even if they used the same basic engine, you do have to fit the water tank and the associated plumbing fittings.
What is fair is to use the max boost used in service (or soon to be) for the different airplanes.
Air cooled radial engines never operated at the same max boost as allied liquid cooled engines using the same fuel.
War Time R-2800 Bs never operated at over 54in with any supercharger unless they had water injection.
I wanted to use that configuration but then the problem is that I don't know what is the weight of F4U-5 in the same configuration, does it also carry 105 gals fuel? Or maybe more? I assume that F4U-5 need more fuel because its engine probably a lot more thirstlyThe P-51H Mustang in Fighter/Interceptor configuration is ~8600 pounds with 105gal fuel
Air cooled engines were operating a lot closer to the detonation limits to begin with. They did not have the margin of extra cooling the liquid cooled engines did.I see, I was wondering why there is no P-47 with 90 hg.
Can you explain a bit on why air cooled radial engine can't operate in same max boost as liquid cooled engine?. Is that because they mostly lacked water injection?.