Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Oh now, don't be coy. Its alright. Email him.Which 'guy'. Charlie Neely for example is an absolute expert on the 51 in all its forms.
Oh now, don't be coy. Its alright. Email him.
...and who's "him"?
Whoever posted all that info at that site, some of which I've just quoted.
I assume its the site's owner, who may or may not be Curtis Fowles, but to be honest, I don't really know.
Elvis
Oh, I never meant to imply your info was incorrect, only that some of your info was different from what I posted and that maybe the owner of the website might be interested in getting that info (on the chance that he didn't know that).Curtis knows his stuff. What uou quoted is correct info regarding the 'rule of thumb' to incorporate take off, landing and 30 minutes of buffer for the combat tanks (75/110). all I did was add the 150 gallon ferry tanks to your numbers (or Curtis) to show the greater range.
I also expanded a little on fuel management - which is far easier to do solo than on a leader's wing in formation
Oh, I never meant to imply your info was incorrect, only that some of your info was different from what I posted and that maybe the owner of the website might be interested in getting that info (on the chance that he didn't know that).
Whether you actually want to go through with that or not, is completely up to you.
Elvis
Actually, it was included in my initial post, but no need for all that scrolling.If you have the link to the specific data link that Curtis posted I will go check it out.
Actually, it was included in my initial post, but no need for all that scrolling.
Here ya' go - The P-51 Mustang Specifications -MustangsMustangs.com:
Elvis
it is about 100mph short at 387MPH from actual NAA tests at 25K w/o wing racks in Interceptor config.True, but he did mention that the total, w/tanks, was 489 gallons, so you could do the math.
Just another way of stating it. No wrong or right "procedure" here.
What's wrong with the top speed you mentioned?
Elvis
Oh yeah, it does say 387 @ 25K ft.
I see its been changed to 487@25K ft.
Good eye ballers!
Elvis
It is correct - just doesn't tell you he is using the 110 (108 ) gallon long range tanks for his 269+220 (216) gallon fuel load and doesn't talk about ferry range.
I did note his top speed of "387 at 25K" for the P-51H is a misprint and just sent him an email.
Oh yeah, it does say 387 @ 25K ft.
I see its been changed to 487@25K ft.
Good eye ballers!
Elvis
I believe the 487 mph number, which is well reported, is incorrect. It appears this is from a NAA document that is a engineering analysis, not flight test (no a/c number or test points). Flight test data shows less performance. I would guess it is more in the 475 mph range.
If 1650-3 the top speed should be at 29K+ at 3000rpm/67" hg. Are you sure the -3 could take 72-75" boost?
Dave - I once had my hands on the NAA Test Report written ~ March 1945, via Al White who was chief Test Pilot for the B-70 program. It did indeed state 487mph w/o racks, at 300 rpm and 90" hg. The flight test plot had ~ 10 values for 90"hg/3000 rpm (don't recall weight) and several were below 487 but only a couple of mph.
I am aware of the calc report as it is in Mike William' site.. I have recently contacted Boeing to see what I can obtain from the NAA files.
I don't know why the USAAF tests in 1946 achieved a lower test result but suspect some issues with the 1650-9
WI.
I am overpowered by evidence! Great posts to all. I tend to be a doubter as piston powered aircraft approach 500 mph. That P-51H was fast!
To your analysis above, are you basing your P-51B predictions on the 1650-3 (implied) or the 1650-7? If 1650-3 the top speed should be at 29K+ at 3000rpm/67" hg. Are you sure the -3 could take 72-75" boost?
This issue has been overcome by later post, but the data I used from wwiiaircraftperfomance was from a P51B with a -7 engine. I do not know how many -3 engined P-51s were made or how long they were in use. I would indeed, like to know.
My point was that after May, 1944, the P-51B/D, at fighter weight, pulling 72-75" inches of boost, typically had better performance than is usually shown. This was the majority of the time the P-51 was engaged. As highly rated as the Fw-190D-9, a late war German aircraft, was, it was pretty well matched by the P-51B up to about 15k where the P-51's performance started to establish clear advantage, the P-51D was not far behind. Until the end of the war, the P-51 was not a plane to toy with in any theater.
This issue has been overcome by later post, but the data I used from wwiiaircraftperfomance was from a P51B with a -7 engine. I do not know how many -3 engined P-51s were made or how long they were in use. I would indeed, like to know.
The P-51B-1 and -3 had the 1650-3 engine, and the -5 thru -15 were ordered with the 1650-3 but most were superceeded with the 1650-7 particularly in the ETO.
Dave - I don't have the complete facts regarding the date or the serial/block numbers when the 1650-7 was installed at the Inglewood and Dallas factories but believe it to be about January-February 1944. As the engines wore out in the earlier P-51B-1 and -3's, the 1650-3 engines were replaced with the 1650-7.. The 355th crew chiefs that are still around remember late spring 1944 as the last of the -3 for their Mustangs.
My point was that after May, 1944, the P-51B/D, at fighter weight, pulling 72-75" inches of boost, typically had better performance than is usually shown. This was the majority of the time the P-51 was engaged. As highly rated as the Fw-190D-9, a late war German aircraft, was, it was pretty well matched by the P-51B up to about 15k where the P-51's performance started to establish clear advantage, the P-51D was not far behind. Until the end of the war, the P-51 was not a plane to toy with in any theater.
Agreed. My fathers anecdotal observation was that he preferred his first Mustang (P-51B-7) with Malcolm Hood over the successive D models for pure performance... and by the time he was flying combat the jamming problem for the B-s had pretty much been alleveiated - at least he did not experience it.
My point was that after May, 1944, the P-51B/D, at fighter weight, pulling 72-75" inches of boost, typically had better performance than is usually shown.