P 51 Mustang vs Mosquito?

Mosquito or p51

  • Total voters
    17

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


One of the main reasons that so few survived long after the war is that most of them were scrapped.
 
These ones are wooden: Mosquito Aircraft Restoration. Sourcing materials around the world

The way these aircraft will be treated and flown isn't really comparable to the way they were in service. These will all be hangared, and generally kept in controlled conditions.
As stated earlier, the change of conditions is the problem with wooden aircraft, so these will likely have a much longer service life.

Using aluminium means you are building a replica, not a restoration.

Personally, I don't think twice about flying in a wooden aircraft, because I know the engineers know how to maintain it properly.

Also, I've heard rumblings of another test flight approaching...
 
XBe02Drvr said:
[QUOTE="pbehn, post: 1278340, member: As far as I know the thrust from the P51s meredith effect merely compensated for the drag of the inlet duct.
Click to expand...
MERELY compensating for cooling drag is HUGE. For piston aircraft of just about any size, type, and performance class, cooling drag represents 30% to 40% of total airframe drag. Their's a lot more drag inside that little scoop than its frontal area would make you think. Cancel that with Meredith thrust, and you should more than compensate for a laminar wing that doesn't live up to its wind tunnel promise under field conditions.[/QUOTE]

For the P-51D/H (H slightly lower) the cooling drag is important for low speed flight, including climb, gradually shrinking to Net drag near zero as RN approaches 15x10^^6 due to the thrust generated by Meredith Effect.

At RN=2x10^^6 the external drag (at CL=0) for the Radiator Duct (per NAA Report NA-8449) is .0019. In comparison the Empennage Drag = .0022. In climb the Delta Cooling Drag at approx. 9.88x10^^6 at SL is .0064 which as you note is substantial
 

For the P-51D/H (H slightly lower) the cooling drag is important for low speed flight, including climb, gradually shrinking to Net drag near zero as RN approaches 15x10^^6 due to the thrust generated by Meredith Effect.

At RN=2x10^^6 the external drag (at CL=0) for the Radiator Duct (per NAA Report NA-8449) is .0019. In comparison the Empennage Drag = .0022. In climb the Delta Cooling Drag at approx. 9.88x10^^6 at SL is .0064 which as you note is substantial[/QUOTE]
Great info dd, I was merely stating that the thrust compensates for the drag so is not actually a net thrust, the Mosquito which had inlets in the wing leading edge presumably was lower than using a scoop inlet.
 
Blitzrockie said:
P 51 vs Mosquito?
If these planes were engage each other who would win?
Click to expand...
Which variants? You do realize that there were several P-51 variants, and more Mosquito variants than letters in the English alphabet?

drgondog said:
MERELY compensating for cooling drag is HUGE. For piston aircraft of just about any size, type, and performance class, cooling drag represents 30% to 40% of total airframe drag.
Click to expand...
WOW that's substantial

For the P-51D/H (H slightly lower) the cooling drag is important for low speed flight, including climb, gradually shrinking to Net drag near zero as RN approaches 15x10^^6 due to the thrust generated by Meredith Effect.
Click to expand...
RN is Reynolds Numbers?

If we're talking reynolds numbers, isn't that a function of scale?

In climb the Delta Cooling Drag at approx. 9.88x10^^6 at SL is .0064 which as you note is substantial
Click to expand...
Why would there be differences in cooling drag in the climb? Is that due to speed, AoA, propeller pitch, or something else?
 
Last edited:
Zipper - too many questions.
Start with RN = MAC*V*rho/Mu where Mu = absolute viscosity, Rho= density, MAC = Mean Aero Chord, V=velocity for Incompressible flow.

For a Mustang, Cooling drag is important in all low speed/medium speed flight regimes.

Cooling Drag Delta in Climb is definitely in low/medium low velocity regime for RN. Primarily a function of airspeed and density.
 
I respect the great experience many of you guys have with regard to maintenance and longevity issues. I am no expert. never worked on aircraft maintenance never had to tackle the problems of aircraft repair. I freely admit that

however I do know the theory of hypothesis, theory, proven theory and fact, and with respect guys, your neat comfortable claims about how crappy wooden airframes are and how easily they fall apart , in order to be considered or shown to be "a fact" would need to be shown in every case, and in every subset applicable. with respect, that hasn't happened. It would have substantial weight if it was shown to be the case in most situations or in most scenarios. maybe . I don't have information either way to prove that one way or the other. but if there is a subset of a group where their is a consistent disproving of a theory, or exception to your thgeory, then the theory is busted, and you have to go out and rethink your position. If you can find a situation where 2+2 does not always equal 4, then the "fact" that 2+2 = 4 is completely busted 9and incidentally ther are statistical anomalies where 2+2 does equal 4 but lets not go there for now).

Here is a link to the RAAF mosquitoes, many of which remained in service until 1954, some even as late as 1958. I doubt that may p-51s, built 1944-5 could rmain in service as late as 1958....the actual airframes built in 1944-5 I mean. because their is such a massive exception to the rule you guys are attempting to establish, I consider the whole preposition on which the theory is based is busted.

ADF Serials - Mosquito
 
parsifal said:
...I doubt that may p-51s, built 1944-5 could rmain in service as late as 1958....the actual airframes built in 1944-5 I mean...
Click to expand...
Air National Guard units were given surplus P-47 and P-51 types from 1946 onward.

Some Guard units retained their P-51D/K/H well into the 1950's and the West Virginia Air National Guard was the last Guard unit to retire their P-51s, doing so on 25 January 1957.

The WVANG 167th FS was operating F-51D-25-NA and F-51D-30-NA types, with such S/Ns as 44-73574, 44-74936, 44-79248, etc.
 

Hey let's quit with this "theory of hypothesis" crap! It's a practical world out there, and practical experience has shown that wood is a way more active and less stable material than aluminum in the commonly experienced regimes of temperature and humidity that aircraft are routinely subjected to. It's also a known and accepted fact that the adhesives available in Mosquito days weren't anywhere near as durable and long-lasting as what we have today.
Reading your Australian S/N list seems to indicate that the vast majority of these birds, while still on the active list, were in storage from 1945-46 to 1953-54, and then were pulled out and sold or "returned to components", in other words, SCRAPPED. There also seem to be an inordinate number of in-flight structural failures, way more than you would see with all-metal aircraft like the Mustang. While not proof in the theoretical sense, this looks to me like like really strong evidence for the reduced durability of the Mosquito's wooden structure.
As for the Mustang's durability, they were retired in good mechanical and structural condition due to obsolescence.
 
Zipper730 said:
Why would there be differences in cooling drag in the climb? Is that due to speed, AoA, propeller pitch, or something else?
Click to expand...

I think you'll find it has to do with ram effect. Less relative wind and more AOA means the air has to bend around to enter the scoop and hits the radiator with less impulse. Like an early centrifugal flow jet, less ram in the front means less thrust out the back.
 
so if we are going to ditch the proven method for testing theory and rely on (claimed) experience, we are basically going to rely who can shout the loudest and longest. a variation of the used car salesman or snake oil merchants in other words. sorry, I'll stick to the proven methods of testing a theory as has been applied in every other sphere of theoretical research. advance a theory, If exceptions on a significant scale are found the theory aint cutting the mustard. not my problem to find the alternative, simply to disprove the comfortable positions being touted as gospel by those with experience.

now, you've suggested the Mosquito fates shown in the ADF serials for mossies suggests an inherent structural problem. many held in storage, many just scrapped . your right that many were scrapped, but we don't know why really, well I do know some, but not all of them and the ones I do know weren't scrapped because they were falling apart. most went to the wreckers yard because of obsolescence. but to do the job properly we would have to look at the particulars for each airframe to really get to the heart of that, but it is at least relevant to also look at the fates of CAC built P-51s in the post war period. many of the airframes that were extant in 1945 were scrapped by 1947, all were gone by 1953 I think. p-51s were last used operationally in the RAAF in 1950 before being replaced by meteor F8s. The theory you are espousing, on the basis of your "experience' is falling apart on the basis of what actually happened 'in the real world" your insistence on relying on the "practical" is falling apart at the starting gate I would suggest.

Here are the fates of the RAAF P-51s. go ahead and have a look at when and what happened to them.

ADF Serials - Mustang

like I said, the theory is busted.....time to suggest a new one
 
Other aircraft in RAAF service worth looking at with respect to longevity of service

Meteor f8.....metal airframe, jet engine, entered service 1952, retired from frontline 1958, about half remained in air reserve until 1963....11 years of service

CAC Ca 27 avon Sabre....metal airframe , entered service 1954, retired from frontline 1964, a few were passed to Malaysia and Indonesia after overhaul, in service until 1970s, but basically with low hours. RAAF service 10 years

Mirage III, 105 built, but never more than 40 in service at any one time. In service from 1964 to 1984, maybe 15 years for each airframe.


I don't see a pattern that cries out metal frame= longer service life. what I see is metal frame irrelevant to service life. engine tech, yes, type obsolescence yes airframe type, mor dependant on its usefulness more than anything. wood, metal, aint got squat to do with it.
 
parsifal said:
I doubt that may p-51s, built 1944-5 could rmain in service as late as 1958
Click to expand...



"The Dominican Republic received surplused P-51D's from Sweden 1952/1953 as an addition to a few aircraft purchased from the U.S. during the late 1940's, and kept them in continuous service for over 30 years until finally retired in 1984! During that long service-life, the aircraft saw several IRAN's (Inspection and Repair as Necessary) and upgrading, mostly done by TFA / Cavalier at Sarasota, FL. A few aircraft were added from other sources to replace losses, and some aircraft were cannibalized for spare parts."

These Mustangs came from Sweden. Here's their history...

N.A. Mustang in Swedish service
 
P-51D-20-NA "Upupa Epops" Serial Number 44-72364

Built by North American during 1944. Assigned to the US Army Air Force (USAAF).

Wartime History
Assigned to the US Army Air Force (USAAF) to the 8th Air Force, 353rd Fighter Group, 352nd Fighter Squadron. On March 1, 1945 assigned to pilot Captain Harrison B. "Bud" Tordoff who nicknamed the plane "Upupa Epops", the scientific name for the Hoopoe Bird.

For the next six weeks, this aircraft was flown by Tordoff on combat missions over Europe. On March 31, 1945 Tordoff calimed an enemy aircraft. On April 7, 1945 Tordoff claimed a Me-262 shot down at long range, his fifth claimed victory.

Postwar
During 1947, this aircraft was sold to Sweden. Assigned to the Flygvapnet (Swedish Air Force) coded "Fv26061". Operated in Sweden until 1954. Afterwards, sold to the Dominican Republic arriving on October 31, 1952. Assigned to the Fuerza Aérea Dominicana (Dominican Air Force) coded "FAD 1916".

During 1984, purchased by Florida warbird dealer Brian O'Farrell and transported to the United States. In 1999, acquired by "a shadowy consortium of airline pilots in the Pacific Northwest", presumed to be Vulcan Warbirds / Paul Allen Collection.

Restoration
During the early 2000s, restored over two and half years by WestPac Restoration (Klaers Aviation) at Rialto Airport. Restored to flying condition and painted in the wartime markings of "Upupa Epops".

Display
On May 12, 2004 registered with the FAA as N723FH by Vulcan Warbirds and flown to Arlington, Washington to the Flying Heritage Collection (FHC) / Paul Allen Collection at Arlington, Washington.

Since 2004, displayed at the Flying Heritage Collection (FHC) / Paul Allen Collection. At the opening of the museum, this aircraft was reunited with former pilot Tordoff. Displayed with original maps used by former pilot Tordoff.

Pacific Wrecks
 

Wood does have its advantages, mainly that it doesn't fatigue anywhere near as much as aluminium does However, storage and maintenance is much more critical.

Our tiger has only just had its 70+ year old tailplane replaced due to damage, and there is still a lot of original structural wood in there, so it would have been possible to maintain a Mossie. But the cost and effort required to do this would be disproportionate. And that's just the cost of maintaining the fuselage - you've still got to maintain and feed two hungry V-12's.
 
I think the situation is variable. During WWII the average lifespan of a given airframe might be 6-12 months of frontline service. I don't think being made of wood or metal is going to make all that much difference in that time frame.

In peace time we have examples of wood framed a/c being used operationally for 10+ years, and metal framed a/c being used for 5-50 years, average say 10 years, getting longer for the newer types. I just cant see that airframe is the main determinant of long term longevity. I think the usefulness of the airframe has more to do with it. in peace time the airframe will get looked after, so it doesn't wear out so much as just stops being useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
_PabloSniper_
  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
6K
Thumpalumpacus
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
  • Locked
  • Poll
P-51 vs P-47
Replies
1
Views
1K
FLYBOYJ
  • Poll
Yak3 vs Spitfire IX?
Replies
10
Views
4K
bravenest0
Menu
Log in
Register