P-63: real performance?

Corsning, where did that question come from? Almost every post I have ever made in here is searching for the real truth instead of hype. I have compiled some of my own charts, too, and I have seen many charts with missing units and test conditions. Sometimes the test conditions are located in the text, whcih is simply not with the chart, but WOULD be if you had the whole report.

What exactly are you trying to say?

And 437 mph is only the top speed of the P-51D at critical altitude, witha fresh engine and a clean airframe ... in some charts from North American after the dorsal fin was added. At any other altitude and condition, it is slower, just like all other aircraft. They only have one top speed and are slower at all other conditions.

Have a good night, too.

GregP,

I owe you an appology sir. I was having a good day yesterday until I checked our medical bills and my wife showed me what she meant by "I hit the car with the lawn mower". She ran over the push mower with the new van I just bought her. Well anyway, It was wrong of me to take it out on you. I am sorry Greg.

Now about that 437 thing. I do not know how that figure became the prime quoted/published figure for the P-51D. Memo Report No. TSCEP5E-1908 dated 6/05/45 contains the Max. figure for the P-51D-15 WITH BOMB RACKS as 442 mph/26,000 ft. at 67"Hg. Without the bomb racks add 8-12 mph. The V-1650-7 was cleared for 75"Hg a year before this report. No racks and increased boost added 14 mph to the top speed of the P-51B-15 with the V-1650-7 engine.

I am planning to post the figures for the P-63D and P-63E-1 when I get home tonight. If youall would like I could post a total comparison between the P-51D-15 and the P-63D (calculated).

See you all later, Jeff


I have seen the AIRCRAFT, MUSTANG IV (P-51D) data sheet that has the 437 figure, but that is the only official document that I have ever seen it on.

P-51D racks are not the same as those used by the P-51B/C and account for a loss of 4mph. P51 speeds here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51-tactical-chart.jpg

Neil.

Neil,
Thank you for the information.

Jeff

Hi Neil,

Thanks for this chart but it's one of those charts I was talking about. No clear document number though it looks period-correct, and is clearly makrked "For comparative purposes only" in the bottom left corner. In the center at the bottom, in the upper white are, it says "Rel figures are preliminary. Subject to revision after flight check." To me, this implies a chart of calculated figures.

In the same area it also clearly states. "Military power available for 15 minutes."

Most guys very rarely got to Military power except every once in awhile and never, except for test pilots over their own base or factory, to WER unless combat was joined and escape was imperative. They didn't generally use WER for attack, just for defense since blowing up your engine over enemy territiry to kill a Bf 109 was not one of the smarter things you could do in life unless escape and evasion was your primary skill.


Hi Corsning, no problem. I sometimes fire off a reply and wonder why next time I see it. Good luck with the van.

I've have had several instances where I was reminded not to park anything behind a car since people tend to not look behind the car when they back up. If it doesn't show in the mirror, they just back up. So ... these days, if I'm mowing, I park well to the side of any cars in the drivway. Once I was helping a freind at his house and was using a tractor, and stopped to get a drink of water when his wife came out, started the car, backed up around a corner to leave and hit the tractor. She had to negotiate a 90° corner to hit it and scored a perfect "10" in the "blind backup around a corner to hit a tractor" sports category.

Hopefully your encounter is cheaper than that one was for them ... it was their car and tractor, and I was more than 80 feet from the car around a corner when I stopped the tractor and got off. I wasn't even in sight of it when she backed into it, but the tractor needed a new wheel and tire and the car needed a new bumper and hatch.

It was not a good thing ... my sympathies. Might as well have a pint.

It would be 'Red figures...', not 'Rel figures...'. Ie. the same remark as at many other USAF tables. We do not see any figures typed out in red color - maybe there was none, maybe the black/white print/copy did not that color the justice?
'For comparative purposes' relates only to the P-51D with -3 engine, and such a plane was a rare occurrence (never fielded in ETO? Bill, help!).
As for when pilots were using WER, we can read many reports at the wwiiaircraftperformance.com about people engaging the Packard Merlin to around 70in of manifold pressure in order to close in to their prey, so stating that WER was seldom used for attack is an unfounded claim.

Thanks for the posting, Neil. The table is much more than a performance overview, it is the 'Tactical planing and characteristic performance chart', a part of a bigger document (33rd page of that, would like to see the reast ). The figures listed there are in the ball park with documented tests, not the manufacturer's sales pitch.

Tomo, until the document can be identified and vetted, I take it as interesting but not reliable data. I would welcome the vetting of it, not resist it. Since the chart is in black and white as posted, we cannot tell if any numbers are in red, they might all be.

The pilots who give talks every month who flew these things in combat say that nobody with an ounce of common sense used WER except to get away, unless they were testing the setting very briefly over friendly territory to verify the setting worked ... and it's not something I care to dispute. Feel free to think whatever, but the claim is not generally unfounded ... if you believe the guys who flew it.

I happen to believe they were mostly right, but you certainly don't have to.

Hi Guys,

Well, I'm sipping on that pint that Greg suggested in post #25. Thanks man, its helping. About that ounce of common sense only using WEP except to get away: F/Lt. G.M. Davis must have been a 17 year old blond. In his report dated 23 March 1945 he states that he was using +25 lbs. (~80.9"Hg) boost to close in on an E/A. I'm just saying....... There are several other reports stating 70-75"Hg over there at www.wwiiaircraft.org also.

On the P-51D with a V-1650-3 Allison, there may have been some, but so far I haven't seen any documentation proving it existed over seas. I'm just saying again.....

CORSNING said:

See you all later, Jeff


I have seen the AIRCRAFT, MUSTANG IV (P-51D) data sheet that has the 437 figure, but that is the only official document that I have ever seen it on.

Click to expand...

To your point to Greg - P-51D-15 @67" Hg 3000rpm, with racks, 442mph at 26,000,417mph at 10,000, and 375mph at SL.
Based on serial number this D is about a year old.
Memo Report No. TSCEP5E-1908
15 June 1945


Flight Tests on the North American
P-51D Airplane, AAF No. 44-15342
-

P 51D Performance Test

This Performance report post VE Day for P-51D-15, w/racks at Wright Pat June 15, 1945

The Neil's point about relative drag between A/B/C racks versus D/K and H racks aerodynamically speaking - I haven't seen a report that differentiates relative Drag - only Load Carrying capability. What I have seen is a constant reference to a '9-10" mph increase in Drag. The ABC was rated at 500 pounds even though 110 gallon tanks were carried by B/C starting in May 1944. The D/K/H rack was upgraded to 1000 pounds.

tomo pauk said:

It would be 'Red figures...', not 'Rel figures...'. Ie. the same remark as at many other USAF tables. We do not see any figures typed out in red color - maybe there was none, maybe the black/white print/copy did not that color the justice?
'For comparative purposes' relates only to the P-51D with -3 engine, and such a plane was a rare occurrence (never fielded in ETO? Bill, help!).

The P-51H had the 1650-9 which had a modified 1650-3 with Stromberg Carb and WI. I haven't heard of a -3 in a P-51D unless you speak of the two prototypes taken from the B line

As for when pilots were using WER, we can read many reports at the wwiiaircraftperformance.com about people engaging the Packard Merlin to around 70in of manifold pressure in order to close in to their prey, so stating that WER was seldom used for attack is an unfounded claim.

Thanks for the posting, Neil. The table is much more than a performance overview, it is the 'Tactical planing and characteristic performance chart', a part of a bigger document (33rd page of that, would like to see the reast ). The figures listed there are in the ball park with documented tests, not the manufacturer's sales pitch.

Click to expand...

All the P-51B-1s and -5s and 7s arrived in ETO with 1650-3. I would have to look to see when the P-51B-5 and -7 were sent to CBI/MTO. The change to the Packard Merlin 1650-7 occurred with all production P-51D-5s and IIRC all P-51B-10 and -15s (and C counterparts)

Well.......I didn't get any feedback on the P-51D comparison thing, so P-63D flies solo. That's OK though, this ain't no Mustang thread anyway. The following info comes from the BELL AIRCRAFT CORP.-SOURCE graph.

12/04/43
P-63D
V-1710-109w / 1,800 hp.? / ?"Hg

Height..Speed/Climb
Meters..mph/fpm
S.L.......388/4970
.1,000...395/4600
.2,000...405/4540
.3,000...410/4410
.4,000...426/4280
.5,000...435/4120
.6,000...444/3860
.7,000...451/3470
.8.000...447/2980
.9,000...441/2560
10,000..433/2120
11,000..425/1680
12,000..N.G./1250

Combat Ceiling (1,000fpm): 41,250 ft. WOW!
Operational Ceiling: 44,900 ft.
Service Ceiling: 47,850 ft.

Armament: 1x37mm + 4x0.5in.
Wing Load: 33.333 lbs./sq.ft.
Power Load: 4.722 lbs./hp.
Combat Weight: 8,500 lbs.

Thanks drgondog,
I was just saying, I haven't seen documentation. But. THAT DONT MEAN NOTHIN.

There are always exceptions to general rules. They are the guys who became POWs if things didn't go just right. And things largely work the same today when flying warbirds.

These things are 70 years old and are reliable but not Cessnas. So ... the smart people follow roads on days of severe clear weather today. People who don't sometimes die. One example was Jim Wright. He constructed a replica of the Hughes racer and flew it awhile. He was told by several people who KNOW that the 2-blade prop was a weak point (well known) and to replace it with a 3-blade even if it wasn't authentic. 2-blades on big enginse of 1,000+ HP and will kill you. The blades simply flex too much when you power up for takeoff on the ground and they will shortly separte from the aircraft. As I said, pretty well know by prop experts. Jim didn't listen and you could see his prop bending whenever he ran it up. On his fatal flight home from Oshkosh he was advised by no less than 3 warbirds pilots to follow roads in case of trouble. He decided to fly direct and wound up breaking the prop in cruise with no place to land. He died avoiding tourists in rocky terrain in a National Park.

I've had a few drinks with Steve Hinton and he passed on that he always flies safe routes and has had to use roads to bring a warbird down on more occasions than he'd like to admit while traveling to or from distant destinations. All but one was a simple repair and the other was a lunched engine that require disassenbly and transport by truck to get it home.

The former WWII pilots say very similar things. Take care of the plane and it will take care of you, Abuse it and it MAY take care of you for awhile, but will definitely bite at some point if abused often. They ALL knew guys who ignored this and most didn't come back until after the war ended, if at all.

If you jockey the throttle around, you'll just kill a radial ... they like constant rpm whenever possible and slow rpm changes. They like a certain starting method and will happily blow out seals with backfires if you don't learn it. V-12's have high stress at idle (main bearings get pounded, especially cylinders 2 and 5 of 6 in a straight line ... not a radial) and they like very slow throttle changes and constant rpm whenever possible. Both like attention to mixture and cylinder head temperatures. Follow some easy rules and you can get to and past TBO. Ignore them and the engines will reward you with silence when least desired at SOME point, well before TBO.

So yeah, there are guys who used WER to do stupid things. But there were LOT more guys who weren't stupid and did it right.

Enjoy your pint and have another. I don't really care at all if they abused their engines ... it's long past and whatever consequences there were, and I'm not riding with them. I bet FlyboyJ knows the benefits of being easy on the engine in a vehicle that you can't just pull over and park if it stops.

These figures come from the graph COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF P-63 AIRPLANES.


6/05/44
V-1710-109w / 1,800 hp.? / ?"Hg.

Height...Speed/Climb/Time
Meters..mph/fpm/to height
S.L.......382/4450/----
.1,000...394/4385/--.6
.2,000...408/4250/-1.35
.3,000...419/4090/-2.1
.4,000...429/3775/-2.95
.5,000...436/3420/-3.75
.6,000...441/3055/-4.75
.7,000...444/2645/-5.95
.8,000...444.5/2215/-7.35
.9,000...442/1830/-8.8
10,000..432/1375/10.9
11,000..N.G./850/13.8
12,000..N.G./365/18.6

Combat Ceiling: 35,150 ft.
Operational Ceiling: 38,500 ft.
Service Ceiling: 41,125 ft.

Armament: 1x37mm + 4x0.5in.
Wing Load: 36.02 lbs./sq.ft.
Power Load: 5.109 lbs./hp.
Combat Weight: 9,196 lbs.

GregP said:

I've had a few drinks with Steve Hinton and he passed on that he always flies safe routes and has had to use roads to bring a warbird down on more occasions than he'd like to admit while traveling to or from distant destinations.

Click to expand...

This is for all aircraft. I fly in gliders, so I'm always in "trouble". You have to always know the wind direction, your altitude and the return altitude. I have a friend who is a pilot and flied in a regional airliner over the Amazon Forest. In case a forced landing is necessary, the chances are really not good. Not his case, but you cannot fly single-engined planes in such a terrain (even so many people do).

BTW, I'm curious about the number of single engine planes that went down over enemy territory during WWII due to engine failure.

No information to go with the graph. The P-63 is just thrown on the graph with other A/C flying in Russian air space at the time.

There probably is a date on the graph but I finished the first pint and am getting down to the end of the second and don't care.......No just kidding (Hic!).

It appears that the test took place in March 1945.? Engine is V-1710-93 and they have power listed at 1,325 hp. Weight listed is 3822 Kilograms (8427.5 lbs.). Maximum speed listed is 394 mph/24,600 ft. Armament is listed at 1x37mm + 2x0.5in.

Speed taken from the graph are:
323/S.L.
333/1Km
342/2Km
351/3Km
362/4Km
372/5Km
381/6Km
391/7Km
393/8Km

That's that. Those are the graph I have change into figures for the P-63. If anyone has any other graph, I would be glad to do the deciphering of them.

Just a few other A/C graph I have analysed are: P-51, P-47, P-40, P-39, P-38, F4F, F6F, F7F, F4U, Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest, Spifire, A6M, Ki-43, Ki-61, La-7, Yak-3, J2m3.....etc. etc. etc...... If the graph was out for a WW2 fighter I studied it (if I found it). But all that will have to wait for another thread.

Thanks Guys for putting up with me. Goodnight all, Jeff

Corsning, were those flight data points or calculated data points?

Thanks!

Jenisch said:

BTW, I'm curious about the number of single engine planes that went down over enemy territory during WWII due to engine failure.

Click to expand...

A lot of P-51s early in their career. E/F was on par with LW. Mags, Manifold pressure, coolant loss

Yeah. More time you are in the air, the more risk you have to experience failures. The P-38 has a distinctive advantage here, specially over the water in the Pacific.

Greg,
Those were data points from the graph.

Good night Guys and thanks for all the input, Jeff