Probably - the CoG is messed up due to now much heavier nose and no turbo behing the pilot.
OTOH - design the P-51 around the 1-stage R-2800 from the get go...
F6F Hellcat vs. P-47 Thunderbolt
- Thread starter Clay_Allison
- Start date
Probably - the CoG is messed up due to now much heavier nose and no turbo behing the pilot.
OTOH - design the P-51 around the 1-stage R-2800 from the get go...
fubar57
General
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Actually all Bearcats had single stage engines and had combat ceilings (Navy minimum 500fpm climb) of 35000' and service ceilings over 40000'. Excellent high altitude performance. Resulted from weighing 10000# instead of 13500#.
The much improved R-2800 C series was also a reason. It turned 2800 rpm vs. 2700 for the B series and 2600 for the A series, the S/C was certaily improved vs. the predecessors, impeller was of bigger diameter (11.5 vs. 11 in). All of these add up to improve the altitude power.
The C series 1-stagers were supposed to make 1700 HP at 16000 ft, vs. the B series 1650 HP at 13500 ft - all at military power.
MIflyer
Major
Here is the beginning of the T-28, before the T-28A came out, the XSN2J. Had an R-1820.
By the way, the T-28 was built with universal head rivets, not flush rivets.
Someone was using a friend of mine's building to rebuild a T-28 and I remarked that I was surprised that no one had ever used one as a basis for an unlimited racer. He then pointed out that it did not use flush rivets.
And as for the R-2800 in a P-51, a letter to Air and Space magazine in the early 1990's said that the USAF was P.Oed at paying RR a $1500 licensing fee for new Merlins and he was directed to undertake a project to see if they could rebuild Mustangs with the R-2800. Sounds like the dumbest idea I ever heard, which makes it very believable based on my 25 years as an engineer in the USAF.
Did I say dumbest idea? Okay, 2nd dumbest; the Space Shuttle holds the No 1 position.
By the way, the T-28 was built with universal head rivets, not flush rivets.
Someone was using a friend of mine's building to rebuild a T-28 and I remarked that I was surprised that no one had ever used one as a basis for an unlimited racer. He then pointed out that it did not use flush rivets.
And as for the R-2800 in a P-51, a letter to Air and Space magazine in the early 1990's said that the USAF was P.Oed at paying RR a $1500 licensing fee for new Merlins and he was directed to undertake a project to see if they could rebuild Mustangs with the R-2800. Sounds like the dumbest idea I ever heard, which makes it very believable based on my 25 years as an engineer in the USAF.
Did I say dumbest idea? Okay, 2nd dumbest; the Space Shuttle holds the No 1 position.
Last edited:
Your time machine would have to have a Merlin engine and 20mm cannon or it would be useless
Kevin J
Banned
Maybe even the P-53/60?
XP-53 indeed.
The P-60 was too late, better have the Curtiss make P-47s in quantity instead, and per contract they had and managed to botch up.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
as noted there was a considerable difference between the 1941-42 R-2800 single stage engines (B-26 bomber and Lockheed Ventura) and the engines used in the Bearcat.
The -5 engine used in the early B-26s had 1850hp for take-off and 1850hp Military power at a whopping nosebleed altitude of 2700ft. yes 2700ft not a typo, in low gear and 1500hp at 14,000ft in high gear. This was the R-2800 A series engine. The B-series single stage two speed engine (the P-47 used a single speed single stage supercharger in combination with the turbo). most two speed B engines were rated at 1600hp at 13,500ft in high gear and that 2000hp for take could be held to 1500ft, yep again, 1500ft.
In addition to the weight "cut" (in part because the F8F-1 carried 1/2 the guns with less ammo per gun and a bit over 1/2 the fuel)
The Bearcat used 3 different engines
the R-2800-22 with 2100hp for take-off, 2100hp at 1000ft and 1600hp at 16,000ft. (XF8F-1)
the R-2800-34 with 2100hp for take-off, 2100hp at 3000ft and 1700hp at 16,000ft. (F8F-1, and a few prototypes)
the R-2800-32 with 2250-2300hp for take-off, and 1600hp at 22,000ft. (F8F-2). Please note the -32 engine used a variable speed drive and not a two speed drive in addition to other improvements. Also note that the "C" series engines offered better cooling and needed either 10% less airflow through the cowl and engine baffles for the same power or could make more power and still hold temperature in chick using the same airflow as the B series. This mean slower drag at the same power outputs.
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
Correct on their two different roles, each in their correct Theater of Ops. The F6F night fighter performed brilliantly where larger NFs failed; where speed and maneuverability were paramount. Another difference is that the P-47 flew from the time America entered the war until its conclusion. The F6F benefitted from earlier fighter designs. A misnomer is that the evaluation of a capture Zero helped to perfect its design, which ignores the fact that the actual plans predates the evaluation of the repaired capture Zero. There was no long drawn out learning curve for the F6F.
I would like to know more about the Fleet Air Arm's use (in detail) of the Hellcat in the ETO; kill ratio to their losses, etc.. From What I read, the Hellcat was far superior to the (Sea) Hurricane.
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
And . . . many P-51 pilots had lots of hours in a P-47 before switching over!
wuzak
Captain
The first XP-53 was not completed, being used as a static test frame.
The second XP-53 was completed as the XP-60. It first flew in September 1941. Only 4 months after the XP-47B.
Does that count as "too late"?
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
While the P-47 was easy to land, it required plenty of runway to get airborne. I wonder how much runway a fully loaded F6F-5 would need to get airborne? I've read that an Allison engine P-51A required less runway (an important aspect as allied ground forces cleared makeshift runways in the Burma jungle) than the replacement P-47s. I suspect the F6F-5 would have been a better fit in Burma for the Chindits, as they built makeshift runways.
But how would the F6F faired against the ME 109/FW 190? The P-47 was one tough fighter that could take a lot of punishment and keep flying.
Barrett
Staff Sergeant
Bill's figures speak for themselves--thanks, BTW.
I've seen self-styled Experts who insist that either the 38 or 47 destroyed more yadda-yadda. Here's the world-wide box score, compiled from Frank Olynyk's encyclopedic self-published volumes.
US SERVICE ONLY
P-51 etc 5,940
F6F 5,188+
P-38 3,785
P-47 3,624
P-40 2,256
F4U 2,140
F4F/FM 1,514
Nothing else over 300.
BTW: I've waged a broad-front campaign for years to get the FM-2 the recognition it deserves. "The Wilder Wildcat" had by far-far & away the highest kill-loss ratio: over 30-1. That's undoubtedly the worldwide piston record and probably stood until the F-15!
I've seen self-styled Experts who insist that either the 38 or 47 destroyed more yadda-yadda. Here's the world-wide box score, compiled from Frank Olynyk's encyclopedic self-published volumes.
US SERVICE ONLY
P-51 etc 5,940
F6F 5,188+
P-38 3,785
P-47 3,624
P-40 2,256
F4U 2,140
F4F/FM 1,514
Nothing else over 300.
BTW: I've waged a broad-front campaign for years to get the FM-2 the recognition it deserves. "The Wilder Wildcat" had by far-far & away the highest kill-loss ratio: over 30-1. That's undoubtedly the worldwide piston record and probably stood until the F-15!
Kevin J
Banned
Considering that only half the P-40's were operated by the USAAF, does that take the P-40 into 3rd place?
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
That's something that never occurred to me before but the total victories by P40s of all allied nations has to be astronomical.
Not if the other nations were claiming in the hundreds, rather than the thousands.
Kevin J
Banned
The British Commonwealth took 25% of production, and their victories will take you past the 3000 mark.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Add in the Russians and you've got to be in the mid 3000s if not close to 4000. Add in everyone else that used p40s and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think you might be well over 4000. Would be interesting to know the total of p40 victories for the war.
........I think I just thought of a new research project.
The Commonwealth and the Soviets is just about it; who is everybody else? No one seems to know how many victories the Soviets claimed with the P-40, but it was not the American built aircraft that they raved most about, that was the P-39; and no one seems to know how many victories they claimed with the Kobra either.
Last edited:
