P-51 Mustang or F4U Corsair

[chris mcmillin]

No I don't, but as I remember it the 2800 isn't all that wide and didn't make for a huge look to the nose.

It had a big spinner and afterbody for the intake like most racers, and a fixed area ramp on either side for the cooling air exhaust and the engines exhaust stack outlets arranged at the exit point for jet-pump like augmentation of it's escape.

The Mustang fuse is pretty deep and there was no difference in the side profile until the taper towards the leading edge of the cowling. The radiator scoop was of course deleted so it was a very clean profile. The oil cooling was done with a 0 drag boil-off system, and the wings were clipped at the production break at the second aileron hinge as is typical for all but two Mustang racers.

The hot rodded 2800 would produce about 3200 hp at 90 in hg and 3200 rpm and at the time would've been super competitive in the racing scene. Maybe it still would, as the Dwight Thorne Merlins put out the @ same hp but have the radiator drag. It would depend on the amount of detail to cooling drag, as it always is.

As for the military version, I never saw the NAA drawings. The ones my racer friends had were detail for the motor mount and such. I just saw the racer outlines and some cowling sketchs.

I was very lucky to have met a lot of the pioneers. Amazing that so many were involved in air racing, or is it?

Chris...

 

[syscom3]

Ive seen pics of the F-51 and F-47 in national guard squadrons well into the mid 50's.

Both aircraft were well designed.

 

[Soren]

*Sigh*

Why do I even bother...

wmaxt, had you ever bothered actually reading my last post you would have realized I wasn't listing METO power figures, I was infact listing 60" Hg boost figures which was the highest boost pressure allowed for the P-38 in the ETO. You on the other hand either post figures for underloaded P-38's running at 60" MP or normally loaded P-38's running at 70" MP, exaggerating the P-38's performance on both accounts.

Also you talk of lacking evidence concerning the Dora-9's performance figures (which is weird cause I posted the original doc's in the very same post), yet you never present any evidence to back up your dubious claim's about the P-38 yourself, how is that ? You desperately cling on to your precious game-chart believing it to be true, yet it has no credibility because you cannot provide an original and because it contains rather weird error's. (But I guess the "Data courtesy of lockheed-martin corp." phrase must be the deciding factor for you, Im not impressed though)

And about the figures on the Spitfireperformance site, wmaxt you really need to read it all, not just small excerpts of what you'd like to hear from the site...

Note the following written on the site:

Flight Test Engineering Branch
Memo Report No. Eng-47-1771-A
5 July 1944

- All tests were flown at a gross weight at take-off of 17,363 lbs.

- At sea level a maximum rate of climb of 4040 ft/min was attained at 70" Hg. manifold pressure and a rate of climb of 3570 ft/min at 60" Hg. manifold pressure and 3000 RPM.

And for comparison here's the test with the P-38J I was talking about:

As you can see this is running at 60" MP(1600 BHP) at a weight of just 16,415 lbs, which means a 50% fuel load - Max climb rate: 3,750 ft/min.

At a gross weight of 17,500 lbs that is probably 3,500 ft/min, and at 70" MP it is likely to be around 4,000 ft/min. (Now what do ya know! thats the same as what is written on the Spit-performance site! )

And at 54" MP it is 3,200 ft/min:
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/1029/p38ltclchart2op.jpg

And now wmaxt, Im not going to discuss this anymore as its become tiring and uninteresting to me, cause you obviously refuse to listen to anything I have to say and frankly I've had enough of it. So now, having made my case clear(for the 2nd time), I'm going to leave this discussion.

Oh and btw, in your post following my last one, thanks for talking as if I werent there in it, that was very kind of you wmaxt

 

[wmaxt]

*Sigh*

Why do I even bother...

Thats fine, you are entitled to your opinions. You've stated that you already know all you need to, OK, I know where you stand. I've presented a lot of valid data from multiple sources which you have just dismissed out of hand and has absolutely nothing to do with any game.

The Spitfire.com test is of a J-15/10 model the weight was correct for that model and it showed 4,000ft/Min SL and 5.37min to 20,000ft @ 60" and 1.600hp.

Your right about the AAF - 60" limit, however both Allison and Lockheed approved 64", L model (and were in the field adjusting the aircraft) and various pilots reported using "over 60", accept it or not I don't care.

You still insist on using METO as in your last post, I have tried to use the same power settings for comparisons, I'm sorry you don't approve.

The Spitfire.com Fw-190D9 data is, just like the P-38J data, production aircraft right off the line, and tested by the Germans with an eye to improving performance, so any comparisons should be valid. The testers made a point of stating gap seal problems as well as lack of expected power output affecting performance.

I to, have had enough.

wmaxt

 

[Jank]

Soren, am I reading that chart correctly?

It appears that the F4U-1 will climb to 20,000ft in about 13.5 minutes and can climb at a rate of about 3,100fpm at sea level, 2.950fpm at 10,000ft and about 1,650fpm at 20,000ft.

Is that at WEP? It looks like the F4U-4 climbs to 20,000ft in about 9 minutes at 70".

 

[syscom3]

When you look at the figures, no single aircraft dominates the other.

Big deal if one aircraft can get to 30,000 ft 15 seconds faster than its contender.

Big deal if one aircraft is 10 mph fater then its contender.

Big deal if one aircraft can turn faster than its competitor when that style of dogfighting is going to be avoided.

 

[Soren]

Soren, am I reading that chart correctly?

It appears that the F4U-1 will climb to 20,000ft in about 13.5 minutes and can climb at a rate of about 3,100fpm at sea level, 2.950fpm at 10,000ft and about 1,650fpm at 20,000ft.

Is that at WEP? It looks like the F4U-4 climbs to 20,000ft in about 9 minutes at 70".

No Jank, you're not reading it correctly. According to that chart the F4U-1 reaches 20,000ft in about 7.5min, where'as the F4U-4 reaches it in just 5min.

And as you can see the F4U-4 has a max climb rate of about 4,400ft/min at sea-level, which is pretty darn fast.

 

[Jank]

Soren, is that 7.5 min figure on the F4U-1 climb to 20,000ft the maximum or WEP?

 

[Twitch]

"When you look at the figures, no single aircraft dominates the other.

Big deal if one aircraft can get to 30,000 ft 15 seconds faster than its contender.

Big deal if one aircraft is 10 mph fater then its contender.

Big deal if one aircraft can turn faster than its competitor when that style of dogfighting is going to be avoided."

Syscom3- exactly!! Wahahahahahaha! That's what makes these "comaprisons" absurd. Anyone that knows combat knows minor, sometimes even major, differences in performance are meaningless to the outcome. The flight simulator mentality of comparing/contrasting 2 planes from the same country as combatants is equally juvenille.

 

[syscom3]

The late model fighters of all the combatants were all evenly matched. The advantage of one was offset by the advantage of another.

Speeds at any given altitude were similar, accelerations were similar, rate of climbs were similar, firepower similar, blah, blah, blah.

There was only one parameter though, that really stood out on them, and that was range. The US fighters had such a tremendous range advantage, it could not be ignored.

I think it was FLYBOYJ who mentioned that there are so many factors to analyze, its almost an impossible task for us mear mortals to do it.

That said, I would say that it was the P51D that was the best fighter of WW2. It was good enough in most catagories PLUS it had a range that couldnt be ignored. And for the Spitfire fans, I ask you one simple thing: From Dec 1943 to July 1944, how many sorties did the Spitfire fly over Berlin? Like I said, if you cant bring your aircraft to the party, you sure arent going to prove anything.

 

[wmaxt]

One thing about that chart, the P-38 and the P-51 are at METO power settings while the F4U-4 is at 70" or WEP. I think the F4U-1 is at METO to but I'm not sure.

wmaxt

 

[davparlr]

These are all excellent aircraft and any pilot would feel comfortable taking one into combat. If we did an engineering test by running experienced WWII pilots through various senerios in each aircraft and measured the results, I suspect the following would occur. The best pilot would be the best in each plane, average pilots would be average in each plane, the worst pilot would be the worst in each plane. Each would find the weakness and strength and use this to his best advantage. When asked to create a perfect aircraft, the consensus would have some performance characteristic of each plane. And, when asked which one was the best, he would reply "the one I flew in the war". The final objective analysis would probably fall within probability of error.

Also, I don't think anybody will change their mind. Me, although I like them all, I still perfer the P-51. Many of my previous opinions, however, have changed.

 

[wmaxt]

These are all excellent aircraft and any pilot would feel comfortable taking one into combat. If we did an engineering test by running experienced WWII pilots through various senerios in each aircraft and measured the results, I suspect the following would occur. The best pilot would be the best in each plane, average pilots would be average in each plane, the worst pilot would be the worst in each plane. Each would find the weakness and strength and use this to his best advantage. When asked to create a perfect aircraft, the consensus would have some performance characteristic of each plane. And, when asked which one was the best, he would reply "the one I flew in the war". The final objective analysis would probably fall within probability of error.

Also, I don't think anybody will change their mind. Me, although I like them all, I still perfer the P-51. Many of my previous opinions, however, have changed.

I think your pretty much right there, if a pilot feels comfortable and has success in an aircraft that will probably be his favorite plane from that time on.

wmaxt

 

[Soren]

Sorry but I just can't let such a comment float around without responding...

The Spitfire.com Fw-190D9 data is, just like the P-38J data, production aircraft right off the line, and tested by the Germans with an eye to improving performance, so any comparisons should be valid. The testers made a point of stating gap seal problems as well as lack of expected power output affecting performance.

wmaxt, again you completely ignore the important parts....

The Fw190 D-9 Nr. 210001 and 210002 were both fitted with under-performing engines, severely impacting their performance in the tests.

- The first problem with all flight trials of Wk.-Nr. 001 002 is that they were done with the initial batch of production engines, which have well documented problems with supercharger performance.

Despite these engine troubles the 002 still managed to reach 595km/h at SL using MW-50, without the ETC-504 and with a puttied and polished surface. And in a later test where a gap between the engine and wing was covered with rubber, the 002 managed 608km/h at SL using MW50.

Fw-190 D-9 Nr. 001 however, with the standard factory surface finish, reached the same speeds as 002. This is something which had FW puzzled, cause why didn't the higher quality surface finish of Nr. 002 show in better performance ? So they were keen to investigate that issue further, and the conclusion was that with engines performing to their published figures and with good factory finish a serial production Dora-9 will reach the previously calculated performance figures - ~625 Km/h at SL using MW50.

And it turns out they were right, cause the next batch of aircraft to leave the production line performed much better...

Running at Start u. Notleistung (1,750PS@3,250rpm), Fw-190 D-9 Nr. 210006 reached 550 km/h at SL and climbed at 17 m/s (3,329 ft/min), and this is with a standard factory finish as-well as with a ETC-504 attached. - The same as in the chart I posted earlier;
Climb rate at Start u. Notleistung w/ETC-504 at a weight of 4,270 kg = 17.3 m/s:
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9339/d9climb8yo.jpg

Compared to 002 which had a puttied and polished surface, and no ETC-504 attached, 006 reached the same speeds but with a standard factory surface finish, a ETC-504 attached and with no main wheel doors (And even at a higher weight as-well) - just because the engine now ran properly.

Detailed information on Fw-190 D-9 Wk.-Nr.210006:

General information.

Airplane model: Fw 190 D-9 Wk. –Nr.210006
Aerodynamic Wing Area: F = 18,3 m2
Wing span: b = 31,32 ft (10,46 m)
Wing aspect ratio: R = 6,0
Engine: Jumo 213 A (B-4 fuel)
Engine power permissible for 30 min: 3250 rpm
Engine power for continuous operation: 3000 rpm
Air Intake: external scoop without filter
Exhaust system: plain blow back stacks
Pitot tube installation: Bruhn 5 d
Propeller: Heine, 3 blades, compensating core, D = 3,5m, t/D = 11,5%

Aircraft condition:
Standard version with ETC 504 (without wheel cover).

Engine: without gap gasket
Surface: standard, primed and sprayed
Armament: 2 mg 131 in the fuselage with 475 rounds and 2 mg 151 in the wing with 250 rounds.
Antennas: for Fu G 16 " Fu G 25 " equipment and directional loop cover.
Take-off weight: 9,590 lbs (G = 4350kg) (after n.J.190.213-045 v,31.7.45)
Fuel contents: 141 gallons (640 liter), of which 25 gallons (115 liter) is in the supplementary fuselage tank. 10,229 lbs. (4640 kg), if flown with 300 liter drop tank.

Note also that Fw-190 D-9 Wk.-Nr. 210001 with a metal gap seal at the engine in the wing/fuselage transition area(Not rubber or in every gap like on 002), running at Kampfleistung(1,590PS@3,000rpm), reaches the same speed as Wk.-Nr. 210002 running at Start u. Notleistung! Thats a speed increase of 18 km/h (11mph), with a gap seal, still with the underperforming engine! (Not bad!) With a proper working engine that would mean a top speed at SL of around 612-615 km/h using MW50.

Also remember metal wasn't in shortage like rubber was, so there's no reason to believe this modification wasn't implemented on future aircraft.

And lastly, although I know manufacturing quality had decreased in most factories producing the FW fighters by 44-45(Some of FW's own factories were still turning out good quality a/c), I do not believe it had decreased to an extent where the Fw-190A-5 from 43 at 1,800PS@2,700rpm would be running at a 27 km/h higher speed at SL than the Dora-9 running at 1,750PS@3,250rpm - since not even the BMW801F of the A-9 could produce the same amount of thrust at 2,000PS@2,700rpm as the Jumo-213A could at 1,750PS@3,250rpm, not to mention that the Anton series a/c produce alot more drag than the Dora series ! Overall manufacturing quality simply couldn't have fallen that much.

At 2,000PS@2,700rpm the Fw-190A-9 had a top speed at SL of 590 km/h (366 mph), btw.

 

[syscom3]

The mission profile also counts for a lot.

If the fighter is escorting or intercepting bombers at 30,000 then its high altitude performance is what counts.

If its down on the deck, then high altitude performance is irrelevent.

 

[Twitch]

And those 25-30,000 foot planes could hold their own on the deck too. There are many accounts of Thunderbolts and Mustangs scrambling around with 109s and 190s at tree-top level and emerging victorious.

The P-47D could hit 363 MPH and the P-51D 395 MPH at 5,000 feet and under. Not slow by any means.

 

[wmaxt]

Sorry but I just can't let such a comment float around without responding...

Actually you made my points for me, I mentioned the underperforming engines as well as the ~3300ft/min climb which was always my point, even the P-38F climb was more than 3600ft/min at its maximum.

You are assuming engine output was corrected. According to the two German sources including Dietmar Hermann as published in his book "Focke-Wulf Fw-190 "Long Nose"" used in the Spitfireperformance page the MW-50 fuel was not available in quantity and the engine performance was not at the expected level. An interim solution of increasing output to 1,900hp was implemented as well as conversion of many MW-50 systems to water/methanol only, called the "oldenberg system".

Again your assuming gap seals etc were corrected - there is no evidence that it was.

My contention all along is that the P-38 belongs with the top fighters including the Fw-190, Spitfire, and F4U-4. I still believe this is true, its performance gives little if anything to the others (except maybe top speed which is between 420mph and 443mph dep. on source). I also accept the fact that the K version would be the best the P-38 could do without a major design effort and that would also mean specialization for a specific performance goal. With jets arriving a redesign of the P-38 would be unreasonable.

wmaxt

 

[Soren]

wmaxt, either you only read the first couple of lines in a post and ignore the rest, or you desperately need glasses ! Which one is it ?

Please note the following:

Fw-190 D-9 Wk.-Nr.210001:

Condition: Factory standard, w/ main wheel doors.

Achieved speed at Start u. Notleistung: 550 km/h at SL (341 mph)

Later on 001 achieved an even higher speed at SL using only Kampfleistung (1590PS@3,000rpm), because of a metal gap seal in the wing/fuselage transition area.

Fw-190 D-9 Wk.-Nr.210002:

Condition: Surface primed with a high gloss polish, w/ main wheel doors.

Achieved speed at Start u. Notleistung: 555 km/h at SL (345 mph)

Fw-190 D-9 Wk.-Nr.210006:

Condition: Factory standard, w/ ETC-504 and without main wheel doors.

Achieved speeds at Start u. Notleistung: 552 km/h at SL (342 mph)

So you see I aint assuming anything, engine performance DID improve on later production models !

Also 006 achieved its climb rate of 3,329 ft/min at a weight of 4,350 kg, carrying a ETC-504 rack and with a standard surface finish, running at only Start u. Notleistung - 1750PS@3,250rpm. (Not at maximum power!)

Oh and what do you think the letters "MW" in the designation "MW-50" stands for ? "Methanole Wasser" !!!! There is no "special MW-50 fuel" !

And guess what, the performance figures of 540 km/h at 1.5ata 585 km/h at 1.76 ata at SL were all ESTIMATED before the MW-50 system even entered testing in October 1944 ! Infact it was estimated before September that year even ! Do I need to remind you that 002 reached 608 km/h at SL in October 24. 1944 ?

Check this, from January 3. 1945 - 621 km/h at SL !:
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1345/fw190vergleich32yi.jpg

And the climb chart I posted earlier is from March 23. 1945, btw !

Are you beginning to get the picture now ?


And about the P-38's performance; I'm not even gonna go there anymore, if you ask me you've already been proven wrong in that discussion more than once wmaxt, so there's no need starting all over again.

 

[wmaxt]

Soren, I think your high on some really good stuff.

My opinion is that you are extremely biased, and your proof many times is just your personal disbelief of the data. You are very skillful in a debate mode, to the point that you goaded me into using the Hoof turn data, which is invalid in this context. That attitude does not mean you are correct.

I disagree with you on both the P-38 performance and the relevance of the production tests of the Fw-190D9 (which was last tested on 6 March '45 and at that time neither the engine, special fuel for the MW-50 system, or effective gap seals were corrected or available even at the flight test sites). You are welcome to your beliefs.

I'm not going to respond to you on this subject again.

wmaxt

 

[Soren]

Me biased ?! Says you ?! Well excuse me Mr.P-38 guy, but I haven't really seen you praise anything but your precious P-38, ever.. But unlike you wmaxt, I'm not going to start blindly accusing you of anything, cause I consider myself a bit more respectful than such. (Although I must admit my respect towards you has faded since your last post)

But what can I say, its human nature to spew out accusations like that when in a tough spot. So I guess your excused wmaxt..