P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

[GrauGeist]

That's North American's P-500, which was to be powered by a Ranger air-cooled inline.

 

[GregP]

There's this:

NAA lightweight proposal with very little defining documents. Purported to be from a Japanese publication, supposedly designed by Edgar Schmued.

However, little to no references that can be checked anywhere I can find. Looks interesting, but none of the "lightweight" fighters ever made much of a world impression in actual use. Caudron C.714 came as close as any.

Still, it didn't amount to much after all the effort to make it work. Looks good, anyway.

 

[pbehn]

Try this. There's a line drawing on the upper right corner of this banner (source, Osprey Publishing Facebook page):

View attachment 736409

Did yu buy it?

 

[GrauGeist]

There's this:

View attachment 736410

NAA lightweight proposal with very little defining documents. Purported to be from a Japanese publication, supposedly designed by Edgar Schmued.

However, little to no references that can be checked anywhere I can find. Looks interesting, but none of the "lightweight" fighters ever made much of a world impression in actual use. Caudron C.714 came as close as any.

View attachment 736411

Still, it didn't amount to much after all the effort to make it work. Looks good, anyway.

To the best of my knowledge, the P-500 never left the paper stage and didn't even get an NA project number assignment.

At least Bell built their concept (XP-77), unlike Douglas or Tucker's proposals, which at least were given AAF designations (XP-48 and XP-57, respectively).

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Did yu buy it?

Not yet. Probably a birthday present to myself depending on how things go.

 

[drgondog]

All - that IS the Ryan powered P-500. It was a LW fighter concept, funded under SC-46 that preceded the NA-53 for export. The SC-46 was a Shop Charge for mock up. My Co-Author represented it in scale along with the P-509-1, -3, NA-73X, NA-73. What was fairly common between P-500 and P-509 was the General Arrangement and wing/fuselage and empennage.

 

[SaparotRob]

That's really neat!

 

[Clean32]

Congrats - you managed to score zero on your last several posts. That achievement places you in rare company.

Below is the P-509 artist sketch, the mockup completed on April 16/17 1940 and the engineering three view attached to the Report NA 1592 Specification High Speed Pursuit (Allison) dated March 11 1940. To be clear both the radiator and oil cooler matrix are behind the pilot and imbedded in the fuselage.

Approximately December 1939, the P-509 General Arrangement was completed, in which the layout of the engine, cockpit, fuel tanks, radio,armament, cooling system, major airframe component, etc. volumes and weights were calculated to locate a CG, about which the wing and empennage were sized to estimate performance. The P-509 as shown and presented in March and mid April morphed considerably as the RAF/BAM/RAE and NAA engineers discussed mission and mission requirements. The P-509 grew approximately 10%+ to result in NA-73X and continued to be tweaked following release from Preliminary Design engineering or about Agust 1st as more wind tunnel data was received frm GALCIT.


Laminar Flow, strictly speaking is flow in the Reynolds Number range of ~ 500,000 to 600,000, above which flow transitions to Turbulent Flow. For your understanding , the Mustang was in Laminar Flow while taxiing toward the transient ramp. Ditto Spitfire.

and your point is?

 

[GrauGeist]

and your point is?

And your point is?

Posting a bunch of artist concept photos means squat when attempting to make a point (however lacking it may be).

 

[Clean32]

And your point is?

Posting a bunch of artist concept photos means squat when attempting to make a point (however lacking it may be).

after your insulting post i have just proved you wrong.

 

[drgondog]

uummm i said you can look at the profile of the P51 wing and compare it to a profile of a laminar flow wing and see the difference.

The P-51 wing NAA/NACA 45-100 was named High Speed/Low Drag Wing It was a NAA designed, highly modified, airfoil from the NACA 45-120 Laminar Flow wing. NACA named this and subsequent 64,65& 66 Series Laminar Flow - which they were not, strictly speaking.

All wings prior to composite structure wings of order of magnitude surface fineness' were incapable of true Laminar flow for more than a short distance from the leading edge of the wing.

Where the Mustang wing was superior to the earlier NACA airfoils used in most fighters (most based on NACA 23xxx series) was that the high energy turbulent flow remained 'attached' or 'conformal to the wing' for substantially longer run before adverse pressure gradient kicked in to cause complete bounday layer separation. The primary differences between the NAA/NACA 45-100 vs a NACA 23015 or 23016 were a.) 'sharper, more wedge like LE, and 2.) moving the maximum thickness of the wing further aft - having the effect of a lower and more orderly velocity gradient to the point of highest velocity.

It was NOT symmetrical, it had a modest camber.

i didn't say NAA claimed the P51 had a laminar flow wing. but i have observe may posts claiming that. and it these posts i am addressing.

the P51 was not more efficient at all speeds. the spitfire was more economic at cruse for example, and had a much higher Mach number as examples.

Wing thickness to thickness comparisons favored the Mustang Wing in transonic and supersonic shock wave formation. The Spitfire win was several % thinner wing.

Define 'economical'? Miles per gallon rather than fuel consumption per hour defines greatest Range. Gallons per hour for same engine with define Loiter time at much lower speeds.

The Spitfire was not more economical in range optimized cruise when comparing both in clean configuration at equivalent Gross Weight conditions. To be more clear. 1.) no wing racks, b.) full combat Gross weight. As lower GW are compared at same altitude and engine settings the Mustang cruise advantage increases due to the shrinking GW of each for the same fuel amount consumed.

And of course, the Spitfire engine stops due to fuel starvation halfway through the comparison.

correct the cooling set up was a real advantage

you wrote

this is the onset of compressibility, not drag.

Your comment here was directed at another poster. That said, formation of shock wave on wing had the twofold effect of a.) significantly increasing detached turbuent flow aft of the shock wave, b.) reducing the Lift of the wing - which had the effect of blanking the H.Stab from effective pitch controllability, which in turn made it ineffective at countering the severe pitch down Moment of the airfoil.

This was a severe issue for P-47/P-38/FW 190/Bf 109. The dive flaps added to P-38 and P-47 immediately introduced a Pitch Up force enabling faster recovery. The P-51 did not have the severe issue and the tested dive flap for P-51 achieved no tangible benefit. That said, the most dangerous effect to the Mustang was the unexpected and significantly increased lift on the ammo doors, causing a couple of wing failures, particularly if one failed beore the other.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

and your point is?

I would recommend actually listening to what Bill has to say. Without listing his family lineage or his credentials I can assure you he is one of the leading P-51 experts in the field and an accomplished published author on the subject.

 

[Clean32]

The P-51 wing NAA/NACA 45-100 was named High Speed/Low Drag Wing It was a NAA designed, highly modified, airfoil from the NACA 45-120 Laminar Flow wing. NACA named this and subsequent 64,65& 66 Series Laminar Flow - which they were not, strictly speaking.

All wings prior to composite structure wings of order of magnitude surface fineness' were incapable of true Laminar flow for more than a short distance from the leading edge of the wing.

Where the Mustang wing was superior to the earlier NACA airfoils used in most fighters (most based on NACA 23xxx series) was that the high energy turbulent flow remained 'attached' or 'conformal to the wing' for substantially longer run before adverse pressure gradient kicked in to cause complete bounday layer separation. The primary differences between the NAA/NACA 45-100 vs a NACA 23015 or 23016 were a.) 'sharper, more wedge like LE, and 2.) moving the maximum thickness of the wing further aft - having the effect of a lower and more orderly velocity gradient to the point of highest velocity.

It was NOT symmetrical, it had a modest camber.

Wing thickness to thickness comparisons favored the Mustang Wing in transonic and supersonic shock wave formation. The Spitfire win was several % thinner wing.

Define 'economical'? Miles per gallon rather than fuel consumption per hour defines greatest Range. Gallons per hour for same engine with define Loiter time at much lower speeds.

The Spitfire was not more economical in range optimized cruise when comparing both in clean configuration at equivalent Gross Weight conditions. To be more clear. 1.) no wing racks, b.)

Your comment here was directed at another poster. That said, formation of shock wave on wing had the twofold effect of a.) significantly increasing detached turbuent flow aft of the shock wave, b.) reducing the Lift of the wing - which had the effect of blanking the H.Stab from effective pitch controllability, which in turn made it ineffective at countering the severe pitch down Moment of the airfoil.

This was a severe issue for P-47/P-38/FW 190/Bf 109. The dive flaps added to P-38 and P-47 immediately introduced a Pitch Up force enabling faster recovery. The P-51 did not have the severe issue and the tested dive flap for P-51 achieved no tangible benefit. That said, the most dangerous effect to the Mustang was the unexpected and significantly increased lift on the ammo doors, causing a couple of wing failures, particularly if one failed beore the other.

Nice
if you dig really deep, the Naca coding of the P 51 wing came post wing development. as i understand it both the spitfire and P51 did not use Naca developed airfoils.

" wing thickness" yes it was a thick wing, had a lot to stuff in there, add to that the British air ministry's experiences with the P40 wing skins wrinkling in North africa, this information being passed on. so we could say the best thick wing around.
economical, MPG. the spit Mk IX was slower in transport, but that was when the aerofoils lift equaled the weight with no angle of attack as at the same speed the P51 had a heap of angle of attack, thus drag. the P51 needed another 30-40 mph to eliminate the angle of attack but still had a thick wing to push though. P51D

i didn't read back on what i wrote for the P51, and yes it didn't have a pich down as comparability formed at equal distance on both upper and lowered sides of the wing. every thing else is bang on.

BUT. the P51 had 3 profiles. Inner, mid section and tip. the tip had a bit more of a concave under skin to try and fix low speed handling, the inner section was quite sweeped back. the big advantages of this are not often talked about. i have read that this had a small part to play in the Valiants crescent wing design,
i have never found any information of transonic flight of the P51H or why this was illuminated in the H? although i would sagest its advantages were just not known at that time.

 

[Clean32]

And your point is?

Posting a bunch of artist concept photos means squat when attempting to make a point (however lacking it may be).

posting the other trash artist concepts to finish the story of the previously posted artists trash concepts.
being that all these trash concepts were presented to the British air ministry.

More so when that arthur wrote "Congrats - you managed to score zero on your last several posts. That achievement places you in rare company."
and then post only a part story to back up his claim. so i posted the rest of the story, to which you make the claim its trash! well if what i posted was trash then what is that Greg and drgondog posted is trash as well? or maybe you are a little biased?

the point is with north americans proposals the British Air ministry expressed their desire for mid mount cooling based on there hurricane and P40 experiences in North Africa! and at te British air ministry request ( in writing) north american purchased the development from Curtis. Now that's not to say they copied, they purchased, so obviously there was some influence there.

 

[pbehn]

the point is with north americans proposals the British Air ministry expressed their desire for mid mount cooling based on there hurricane and P40 experiences in North Africa! and at te British air ministry request ( in writing) north american purchased the development from Curtis. Now that's not to say they copied, they purchased, so obviously there was some influence there.

The British didnt start operating any P-40s until 1941.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You mean the German fighters could compete........... the P51 was 50 mph faster than the -109 and 30 mph than the -190.

Not bad for the 109, first flying in 1935.

 

[tomo pauk]

posting the other trash artist concepts to finish the story of the previously posted artists trash concepts.
being that all these trash concepts were presented to the British air ministry.

What concepts of yours were ever accepted by a major company to sell to a government?

More so when that arthur wrote "Congrats - you managed to score zero on your last several posts. That achievement places you in rare company."
and then post only a part story to back up his claim. so i posted the rest of the story, to which you make the claim its trash! well if what i posted was trash then what is that Greg and drgondog posted is trash as well? or maybe you are a little biased?

Both Bill and Greg have a track record here (plus in their respective fields beyond on-line). What is your track record?

the point is with north americans proposals the British Air ministry expressed their desire for mid mount cooling based on there hurricane and P40 experiences in North Africa!

Source?

 

[GrauGeist]

C Clean32 you said:
"posting the other trash artist concepts to finish the story of the previously posted artists trash concepts.
being that all these trash concepts were presented to the British air ministry."

Drgndog posted the P-509 conceptual drawing, which eventually became the NA-73X.

You posted the P-500 concept drawing, which was a proposal for a lightweight fighter concept powered by a Ranger engine with the hopes of selling it overseas. It was designated NA-53 and predated the BPC's request to NAA, therefore moot to this discussion.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Lets all remember to remain civil.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

And as far as a "chin radiator", there's no such thing. No project that was in the P-51's lineage (P-509, NA-73X) was designed with such a thing. The closest was the aforementioned P-500/NA-53, which had the chin intake for cooling an air-cooled inline engine. There was no discernable crossover between the P-500 and the P-509 or NA-73X projects.