Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
To make horsepower, you have to provide fuel, the more fuel, (along with air) the more power. Cubic inches also make power, and the more cubes, the more fuel. Simple really. It should not be a surprise that a 2,800 cubic inch engine that develops 2,000 horsepower would use much more fuel than a 1,650 cubic inch engine that developes 1,500 horsepower.
Even if they were in the exact same airframe, the P&W will in comparison gulp the fuel.
Which has lead me to another off subject thought of seeing some effieciency comparisons of the P-47 vs F4U vs F6F.
To better understand the genius of the P-51 wing, imagine the Messerschmitt 109 of having a wing of the same design. Just the layout and structure, not the Laminar flow. Obviously the wing would be smaller than that of the P-51 wing, but just imagine a wing capable of carrying fuel AND ammo on the Bf109 in 1940!!! Or during the duration of the war!
Imagine a winspan of 20% increase, heavier structure in the wing and a lot less climb performance for the 109
Dave,I am not sure of what you mean by this comment. In you initial comment, you seem to imply that the aerodynamics and engine of the P-47 allowed very good cruise, which I would agree, however it could mislead someone to assume this cruise perfomance was equavlent to the P-51, which it was not. The P-51 cruise performance was not only very good but excellent. The extended range of the later P-47s were due to the massive amount of fuel carried.
Do you know if that radio, while basically remaining the same unit, ever shrank (physically) at any point in time?Elvis - The command radio for the P-51, A-36, P-51A and P-51B/C and P-51D/K were the SCR-274 with variations including the SCR 522 from P-51A through P-51D/K. In other words the radio behind the pilot didn't change - the fuse tank wasn't placed there in the P-51A and prototype B only because of the cg issue.
Dave,
Not sure where you got that idea from, but I was referring to the P-51 in that post, not the P-47.
Elvis
I was wondering tooWhat did you mean by P-M engine?
For what it's worth, The History Channel stated the P-51 used only half as much fuel as the P-47 when covering the same distance.
Perhaps the P-47 really was that much of a fuel hog.
Do you know if that radio, while basically remaining the same unit, ever shrank (physically) at any point in time?
This is what I was getting at in my post.
I wasn't saying the radio got changed out, only that I've heard that it shrank in size, due to advances in electronics around that time.
It's been my understanding that the radio, originally, was quite large and that it shrank down a good deal, thus opening up the cavity that was later used to house the little 5th fuel tank ("5th", if you're using wing tanks).
Elvis
P.S. Re: "Don't shoot the messenger". I actually wasn't referring to you so much, but its cool. I was just sort of taken aback by the responses to my post. I probably shouldn't have posted that, to begin with.
I was wondering too
in context, I think it's Packard Merlin
Which has lead me to another off subject thought of seeing some effieciency comparisons of the P-47 vs F4U vs F6F.
In an earlier post where I was comparing escort performance of American aircraft, and using AF pilot performance charts, I had calculated that the fuel used at cruise for the P-47D-22 was about 260 gallons for 600 miles. For the P-51, the fuel used was 108 gallons for 600 miles. This seems much higher than the 35-40% higher. If I have time, I will go back and reevaluate my calculations to see if i committed some error.
Dave,I thought he had mistyped P-W.
Re: Range.
According to the MustangsMustangs website, The P-51D/K had an internal fuel capacity of 269 gallons.
This increased to 489 gallons with drop tanks.
This gave the plane a range of 1155 miles on internal fuel (cruising @ 294mph and 20K feet) and 2055 miles if you include drop tanks (cruising @ 280mph and 20K feet).
How that compares to the P-47, as it existed at that time, I don't know.
Elvis
Dr. Gondog,
Good info, thanks for posting that.
You should email that information to the guy at the MustangsMustangs website. I'm sure he'd want to know.
Elvis