KiwiBiggles
Senior Airman
Oh God, it's started again.
Fighters Made in USA, for mid 1943: how would you do it?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The same BS posted on any thread that can be in any way linked to a P-39.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Sure. P-39Q with gondola wing guns at 15000' gets 6.8mpg at 204IAS/265 TAS
5.5mpg at 219IAS/285TAS
4.2mpg at 247IAS/321TAS
Mine's bigger. What exactly are we trying to prove?
By the way, do you have a P-38F/G manual? Would you mind sharing the Flight Operation Instruction Chart pages (clean and w/drop tanks)? Thanks in advance.
Glider
Captain
Should Also note that the cog would Be Impacted and sorting That out will add weight
fubar57
General
Shortround6
Major General
You are trying to prove that the P-38 used twice the amount of gas per mile so that it's mere 30 gallons of fuel more per engine doesn't really give it much greater range.
But the fuel isn't figured at fuel per engine in this case. The P-38s fuel consumption is for the airplane/both engines so
P-39's 219 IAS/285 true is 5.5 mpg and that is not twice the 3.57mpg of the P-38 at 225IAS/275 true.
please note the difference between the IAS and true speeds. True speeds are from the P-38 manual chart and not a calculator. Perhaps the chart is wrong but that only makes the P-38 number better.
P-39's 247/321 true is 4.2 and that is not double the P-38s manual 255IAS/305 true of 3.0 mpg.
Please note if I use an online TAS calculator for 255IAS I get 331.5 true for a mileage of 3.28miles per gallon.
So no, the P-38 does not use twice as much fuel per mile just because it has twin engines and weighs twice as much.
- Thread starter
- #67
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Thank you.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Not trying to prove anything, you asked and I replied. All I said was the P-38 only had 21 more usable gallons of internal fuel per engine than a P-39. Then you went all numbers on me. If plane A gets 4MPG and plane B gets 3MPG then then plane A will go farther on the same amount of gas (or the same distance on fewer gallons of gas).
Last edited:
fubar57
General
Facts do try to get in the way of things
Its that deja vu all over again.
fubar57
General
Yep
fubar57
General
Shortround6
Major General
True but then what happens when plane B has 260 gallons of usable gas and plane a has 100 gallons of usable gas?
3 times 260 is 780 miles.
4 times 100 is 400 miles.
Doesn't matter a rat's fart in a Hurricane that plane B only has 21 more gallons per engine.
You wanted facts, you got them. Then you complain I went all numbers. Too bad the facts/numbers don't back up your imagination.
Try using real numbers and facts and not some half assed assumption like plane A weighs twice what plane B does therefore plane B must get twice the fuel milage.
P-39 Deja vu...
J.A.W.
Banned
C'mon guys, give him a break, he's an expert..
www.wired.com/2001/12/aqtest/
Funny thing is, ( & anyone close to the British National Archive in Kew - can confirm it) that in 1941/2,
& on the basis of actual service test results such as this:
( So its no wonder the RAF didn't want the P-39)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/Typhoon_AFDU_Tactical_Trials.pdf
Bell were in negotiations with the Brits to licence-built Typhoons, with Chrysler to build Sabre engines & GE, turbos - to fit to 'em.
( Hawker project drawings showing this turbo set-up are still on file in the archives too, as noted above)
In the event, 'Uncle Joe' found a useful niche for the P-39, & Chrysler were priority directed to mass-produce
Wright R-3350 mills for the B-29 program ( while fiddle-faddling with their own 'Hemi' V16), so the USAAF
didn't operate the Typhoon, 'cept for dilatory tests at Wright Field, & thus its a hypothetical/what-if deal..
( & that actual test Typhoon is the sole original unit - still extant as a whole aircraft!)
www.wired.com/2001/12/aqtest/
Funny thing is, ( & anyone close to the British National Archive in Kew - can confirm it) that in 1941/2,
& on the basis of actual service test results such as this:
( So its no wonder the RAF didn't want the P-39)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/Typhoon_AFDU_Tactical_Trials.pdf
Bell were in negotiations with the Brits to licence-built Typhoons, with Chrysler to build Sabre engines & GE, turbos - to fit to 'em.
( Hawker project drawings showing this turbo set-up are still on file in the archives too, as noted above)
In the event, 'Uncle Joe' found a useful niche for the P-39, & Chrysler were priority directed to mass-produce
Wright R-3350 mills for the B-29 program ( while fiddle-faddling with their own 'Hemi' V16), so the USAAF
didn't operate the Typhoon, 'cept for dilatory tests at Wright Field, & thus its a hypothetical/what-if deal..
( & that actual test Typhoon is the sole original unit - still extant as a whole aircraft!)
Last edited:
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
I updated my little handmade chart for you. The P-40E weight was updated from 8400# to 8280# from the Wm. Green book. It's still light when tested. The P-38, P-39, P-40 and P-47 were all lighter in official tests than published weights. If you discount the P-39 numbers then you should discount all the other planes numbers too.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
I actually can't believe that I'm saying this but the expert may have a point here, but only if we choose to believe that equivalent flat plate area (f) is truly indicative of an aircraft's aerodynamic cleanliness (I for one am not sold on it yet). In Table 96 of America's Hundred-Thousand, Dean lists the P-39N at 4.63 and the P-38J at 8.84 square feet respectively. He also states that the airplane with the lowest figure in this regard will require less engine power to attain a given speed. While this may be true, I don't see what wing area has to do with overall cleanliness, because with it a Sopwith Camel can be considered more aerodynamically refined than a Concorde jet!
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Twice the horsepower at the same speed means twice the drag.I actually can't believe that I'm saying this but the expert may have a point here, but only if we choose to believe that equivalent flat plate area (f) is truly indicative of an aircraft's aerodynamic cleanliness (I for one am not sold on it yet). In Table 96 of America's Hundred-Thousand, Dean lists the P-39N at 4.63 and the P-38J at 8.84 square feet respectively. He also states that the airplane with the lowest figure in this regard will require less engine power to attain a given speed. While this may be true, I don't see what wing area has to do with overall cleanliness, because with it a Sopwith Camel can be considered more aerodynamically refined than a Concorde jet!
