Fastest Piston Engined Aircraft of WW2?

[Peter Gunn]

*SNIP*

The P-51H was a fragile race plane, so fragile, the USAF wouldn't send it to Korea and send the marginally slower, but much tougher P-51D instead.

Uh... what?

I think you should reread some of drgondog's posts, especially the one discussing g force numbers of each marque. This is the first I've heard that the P-51H was a fragile race plane.

I think also you should check out WHY they fledgling U.S.A.F. sent P-51D's instead of either the H model or the P-47 to Korea, one key word would be logistics, not because of some percieved "fragility" of the P-51H airframe, Um... that's rather laughable when you really think about it.

 

[Macandy]

Troll? or Ignorant?

The P-80 at VJ Day was less capable, performance wise than the Me 262.

No it wasn't. Just because wiki says so don't make it so.
The P-80 was as fast, was more nimble, had proper A2A guns and a very good sight, and it had an engine that didn't randomly crap out after a few hours use.

Wuzak and Shortround nailed your lack of understanding of variable altitude and boost settings for performance comparisons. Please note that the speed runs for Voodoo for closed course runs, achieved 550ph - approximately 80mph over P-51D at 67" at 5000 ft and faster than VJ Day P-80.

Sigh, comparing highly modified racing planes that bear only an outline resemblance to the original with actual combat aircraft again… 140 inches and 3,100 hp, yeah, that will hold up for more than a fee minus on a closed course.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Using ever conceivable racing plane trick, Dago Red, the fastest Mustang ever needed 3,800 hp to achieve 520 mph - a marginal improvement over the P-51H

P-51D - 1,315 hp - 440 mph
P-51H - 2,270 hp - 490 mph
Dago Red - 3,800 hp - 520 mph

Prop planes had hit a brick wall and you were doubling the installed hp for every increment of performance up till the tips crapped out and the prop couldn't give any more thrust

Why are you even considering throwing a highly modified racer into the mix that has no military equipment, is designed to go maximin power for 6 laps and is flown at extremely low altitude?!?!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

No it wasn't. Just because wiki says so don't make it so.
The P-80 was as fast, was more nimble, had proper A2A guns and a very good sight, and it had an engine that didn't randomly crap out after a few hours use.

Boy you have a short memory - I posted a clip that had a number of P-80 accidents due to engine failures. The P-80 was not really refined until the P-80C which was introduced well after the war was over. The P-80 of April 1945 WAS NOT as reliable as you think!!!

Sigh, comparing highly modified racing planes that bear only an outline resemblance to the original with actual combat aircraft again… 140 inches and 3,100 hp, yeah, that will hold up for more than a fee minus on a closed course.

*sigh* and you shouldn't as explained in my earlier post!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nope, the juice wasn't worth the squeeze, jets were faster and had limitless potential to get much faster. They all got the chop, the current and planned piston engined fighters, with the exception of the F4U which still had utility as a ground pounder.

Right. that's exactly hat I was saying: the circumstances changed. The fact that jets were in the pipeline means that the P-51H -- and other extant ICE fighters -- were superseded. It doesn't mean they were failures, as you claim without support.

The P-51H was a fragile race plane, so fragile, the USAF wouldn't send it to Korea and send the marginally slower, but much tougher P-51D instead.

The USAF didn't send them to Korea for logistical issues, so far as I understand it. Do you have any sources documenting this alleged "fragility"? How many Class-A mishaps did they suffer from structural failure between 1945 and 1950?

 

[wuzak]

No it wasn't. Just because wiki says so don't make it so.
The P-80 was as fast, was more nimble, had proper A2A guns and a very good sight, and it had an engine that didn't randomly crap out after a few hours use.

Famously the XP-80 did not get off the ground before destroying its de Havilland H.1 engine.

Apparently Lockheed were warned about the amount of suction the engine had on the intakes, but the advice was not heeded. Fixed it for the new engine, which was taken out of the de Havilland Vampire prototype, delaying that program.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

While I agree with the overall sentiment here, here is a friendly reminder to play nice gentlemen.

 

[Shortround6]

Sigh, comparing highly modified racing planes that bear only an outline resemblance to the original with actual combat aircraft again… 140 inches and 3,100 hp, yeah, that will hold up for more than a fee minus on a closed course.

Changing the goal posts?

the sign of a true troll.

You are the one that brought the Dago Red into the discussion.

Now when it doesn't show what you thought it did we are to blame?

You may also want to do a bit more research on the 1945-46-47 jet engines.

The USAAF did a performance and evaluation test test on a P-80 (44-85044)that lasted from Jan 1946 through July of 1946. they conducted 36 flights during that time.
They also were on the 3rd engine at the end of test, the first engine was giving speeds around 15mph low compared to the other 2 engines.

The early P-80s used M2 machine guns of about 800-850 rpm cycle rate. The high cycle rate M3s showed up in the P-80B-5-LO production block in the winter/spring of 1948.

A lot of P-80s were updated when overhauled so features as the plane was used during the Korean war era may not have been as built. This includes installing later model engines.
The later engines had a much, much longer overhaul life than the early engines.

 

[wuzak]

Please note that the speed runs for Voodoo for closed course runs, achieved 550ph - approximately 80mph over P-51D at 67" at 5000 ft and faster than VJ Day P-80.

Would it actually be ~150mph faster at 5,000ft than a P-51D @ 67"?

Here is a useful chart from P-51B Performance Test

The aircraft is a P-51B with V-1650-7, which was also used in the P-51D. Helpfully it gives an indication of the engine power at each altitude.

Altitude Ft.​	Blower​	Man. Press.​	Std. BHP​	True Speed​	Man. Press.​	Std. BHP​	True Speed​
0​	Low​	67.0​	1580​	361.5​	75.0​	1788​	376.5​
4000​	Low​	67.0​	1622​	380.0​	75.0​	1830​	376.5​
*7400​	Low​	67.0​	1660​	395.5​	75.0​	1868​	395.5​
**10300​	Low​	67.0​	1695​	409.0​	​	​	​
17000​	Low​	52.8​	1350​	398.0​	​	​	​
24000​	Low​	39.8​	1037​	385.0​	​	​	​
18000​	High​	67.0​	1390​	408.0​	75.0​	1577​	423.0​
*20800​	High​	67.0​	1390​	417.0​	75.0​	1572​	431.0​
**24000​	High​	67.0​	1390​	426.0​	​	​	​
28000​	High​	57.3​	1200​	419.0​	​	​	​
32000​	High​	48.4​	1038​	410.0​	​	​	​
28000​	High​	36.4​	822​	390.0​	​	​	​

Power at 4,000ft and 67" Hg is given as 1,622hp
Power at 7,400ft and 67" Hg is given as 1,660hp

Power at 5,000ft and 67" Hg would roughly be 1,630hp.

 

[SaparotRob]

First time anyone implied Drgndog gets his info about the P-51 from Wiki, methinks.
I needed a laugh.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

First time anyone implied Drgndog gets his info about the P-51 from Wiki, methinks.
I need a laugh.

He obviously knows nothing of him.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Would it actually be ~150mph faster at 5,000ft than a P-51D @ 67"?

Here is a useful chart from P-51B Performance Test

And again, this is a poor comparison. Reno racers are stripped and modified (I think you know this). Stead airport is just over 5000' MSL. During the 6 lap race, the aircraft are just about on the deck and are run at full throttle unless there is a heating issue and then throttled back.

 

[special ed]

The sentence should end after "nothing".
Reminds me of the He 177 poster long gone.

 

[GrauGeist]

You can put numbers and hard fact out there, but if people have their mind made up, it won't do much good.

By VE day, there were a handful of YP-80s, by VJ day, there were only about 50 or so P-80s.
It would not be for several years, that the P-80C would become operational.

The wartime YP-80 and P-80 had nowhere near the performance of the C series.
Assuming so (and arguing based on that) would be like using Bf109K figures in a Battle of Britain discussion.

 

[wuzak]

And again, this is a poor comparison. Reno racers are stripped and modified (I think you know this). Stead airport is just over 5000' MSL. During the 6 lap race, the aircraft are just about on the deck and are run at full throttle unless there is a heating issue and then throttled back.

I am aware.

The comparison was not one I started.

 

[davparlr]

The USAAF did a performance and evaluation test test on a P-80 (44-85044)that lasted from Jan 1946 through July of 1946. they conducted 36 flights during that time.
They also were on the 3rd engine at the end of test, the first engine was giving speeds around 15mph low compared to the other 2 engines.

The early P-80s used M2 machine guns of about 800-850 rpm cycle rate. The high cycle rate M3s showed up in the P-80B-5-LO production block in the winter/spring of 1948.

A lot of P-80s were updated when overhauled so features as the plane was used during the Korean war era may not have been as built. This includes installing later model engines.
The later engines had a much, much longer overhaul life than the early engines.

The P-80As were pretty equivalent to the Me 262, being a bit faster at low altitude and a bit slower at high altitude, and a better climber at all altitudes. However performance was sensitive to variations associated with engine performance, which I suspect was true with all early jet engines. I suspect that comments on superiority of the Me 262 by American test pilots may have been tainted by the desire to get new jets in a dollar tight budget. Claiming that the P-80 was equal to or better than the Me 262 would not motivate the giving money to develop newer fighters.

 

[davparlr]

The P-51H was a fragile race plane, so fragile, the USAF wouldn't send it to Korea and send the marginally slower, but much tougher P-51D instead.

The P-51H was indeed built to lighter stress levels than the D however these new stress levels were equivalent to the British Spitefire. I don't think anyone should consider either aircraft fragile

 

[drgondog]

Would it actually be ~150mph faster at 5,000ft than a P-51D @ 67"?

Here is a useful chart from P-51B Performance Test

The aircraft is a P-51B with V-1650-7, which was also used in the P-51D. Helpfully it gives an indication of the engine power at each altitude.

Altitude Ft.​	Blower​	Man. Press.​	Std. BHP​	True Speed​	Man. Press.​	Std. BHP​	True Speed​
0​	Low​	67.0​	1580​	361.5​	75.0​	1788​	376.5​
4000​	Low​	67.0​	1622​	380.0​	75.0​	1830​	376.5​
*7400​	Low​	67.0​	1660​	395.5​	75.0​	1868​	395.5​
**10300​	Low​	67.0​	1695​	409.0​	​	​	​
17000​	Low​	52.8​	1350​	398.0​	​	​	​
24000​	Low​	39.8​	1037​	385.0​	​	​	​
18000​	High​	67.0​	1390​	408.0​	75.0​	1577​	423.0​
*20800​	High​	67.0​	1390​	417.0​	75.0​	1572​	431.0​
**24000​	High​	67.0​	1390​	426.0​	​	​	​
28000​	High​	57.3​	1200​	419.0​	​	​	​
32000​	High​	48.4​	1038​	410.0​	​	​	​
28000​	High​	36.4​	822​	390.0​	​	​	​

Power at 4,000ft and 67" Hg is given as 1,622hp
Power at 7,400ft and 67" Hg is given as 1,660hp

Power at 5,000ft and 67" Hg would roughly be 1,630hp.

You are correct - typo skills still above average - i meant 180. Total brain fart

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The sentence should end after "nothing".
Reminds me of the He 177 poster long gone.

Actually he reminds me of Shooter

 

[SaparotRob]

And again, this is a poor comparison. Reno racers are stripped and modified (I think you know this). Stead airport is just over 5000' MSL. During the 6 lap race, the aircraft are just about on the deck and are run at full throttle unless there is a heating issue and then throttled back.

Just how much of that Merlin is still Merlin? BTW beautiful sound!