P-51 vs Bf109 Drag, The Truth!

[Sid327]

"The P-51 does have low drag, but why? Is it really because it has a laminar flow wing and a thrust producing radiator. Let's take a look!"

Thanks to Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles.



If it justifies moving to the Technical Section, pls do. [SPS]

 

[tomo pauk]

I do like Greg using contemporary reports, and his recomendations. A nitpick: Greg does not separate the P-51 from P-51A - that would be if we say that Spitfire I and Spitfire V were same.

 

[K5083]

P-51A had lower drag than later models.

 

[tomo pauk]

P-51A had lower drag than later models.

Hmm - what about P-51 (no suffix)?

 

[K5083]

I only ever worked it out for P-51A, but probably P-51 would be a little lower, or the same. That is essentially the best drag (coefficient) of any operational WW2 prop fighter. Somewhere I have a ranking of all of them. I'll see if I can clean it up for posting here, probably on a new thread.

 

[chris mcmillin]

Close enough. Modern operation is all Mustangs go 100 mph faster than Spitfires or Messerschmitts because they have so much more gas. 2450 rpm and 36 inches the Mustang burns 70 gph at 300 tas at 10,000.
The Spit and BF are 200 tas at lower power settings (I dont know, never flew them, 2300/30 or so?) so they burn 45 to 50gph and that is so there is some reasonable reserve when getting to the field 15 minutes later than the Mustangs. One stoppers instead of non stoppers in the western US much of the time too...

Some guys fly up at 16.5/17.5 so maybe their mileage varies but the way they are flown today none of this stuff is much use in reality. The airplanes were used wide open in combat conditions and the difference was usually the pilot... Valterie or Lewis, who can get the drop today type of thing... at a museum I flew at a buddy got to ride in the back of the T-28B with five F-15 guys in said T-28, F4U-1, P-40M, P-51D and Spit XVI low back... the T-28 and the F4U were the last engaged in several fights... two best pilots...

For history lessons and why, Greg always hits it pretty close. I like his stuff, and as a pilot I see his assumptions and rounding of data very reasonable and within anything useable in real world flying both then and now.

"The lowliest jet is faster than the best prop plane..."
Capt. Jerry McMillin

Chris...

 

[Dan Fahey]

Close enough. Modern operation is all Mustangs go 100 mph faster than Spitfires or Messerschmitts because they have so much more gas. 2450 rpm and 36 inches the Mustang burns 70 gph at 300 tas at 10,000.
The Spit and BF are 200 tas at lower power settings (I dont know, never flew them, 2300/30 or so?) so they burn 45 to 50gph and that is so there is some reasonable reserve when getting to the field 15 minutes later than the Mustangs. One stoppers instead of non stoppers in the western US much of the time too...

Some guys fly up at 16.5/17.5 so maybe their mileage varies but the way they are flown today none of this stuff is much use in reality. The airplanes were used wide open in combat conditions and the difference was usually the pilot... Valterie or Lewis, who can get the drop today type of thing... at a museum I flew at a buddy got to ride in the back of the T-28B with five F-15 guys in said T-28, F4U-1, P-40M, P-51D and Spit XVI low back... the T-28 and the F4U were the last engaged in several fights... two best pilots...

For history lessons and why, Greg always hits it pretty close. I like his stuff, and as a pilot I see his assumptions and rounding of data very reasonable and within anything useable in real world flying both then and now.

"The lowliest jet is faster than the best prop plane..."
Capt. Jerry McMillin

Chris...

Interesting..
Mustang 300 mph at 70 gph,
Flies 300 miles in that hour

Spit 200 mph at 50 gph
Spit will need 25 gallons more to do all 300 miles and arrive 30 minutes later.

 

[Gnomey]

Nice one!