soulezoo
Senior Airman
^^^ depending on the fuel load profile 6-8 min is a good estimate/average. T-38/F-5 was half that.
Your point is well taken however.
Your point is well taken however.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Tomo,
How long did the water last?
Cheers,
Biff
How long does the fuel last in the F-16 using full afterburner?
Browsing through the 'America's 100000', I was not able to find a definitive answer to that question. It can be read there, however, the the P-63 would use up 25 gals of ADI mixture in 15 minutes of operation. The P-47D was outfitted with either 15 or 30 gal tanks with ADI mixture (water + alcohol) - we're looking at maybe 7-8 or 15 min of duration?
Fighter aircraft in those areas spent a lot of time at medium and low altitude. Not what P-47 was designed for.
By 1943, the P-47 was operating with the 12th AF out of Italy and in service with the 348th FG based out of Brisbane...
Bud Fortier was a close friend of my father, Bert Marshall and they flew combat together in the 355th FG. Fortier was a volunteer to the experimental "Bill's Buzz Boys" attached to the 353rd FG led by Glenn Duncan, which flew P-47s to develop airfield strafing attacks. Fortier then returned to the 355th and started flying Mustangs again. He got a ground score, but the 8th credited it to the 353rd - which pissed him off to no end.
LOL!!Oh like you've written a book on the 355th FG......
Not being a Viper guy I will guess half as long as an Eagle at the same altitude, and with similar engines (not always a safe assumption)...
Oh like you've written a book on the 355th FG......
"The P-51B had higher top speed [It was a little faster than the 47, not enough to make a big difference], faster rate of climb [how much after the paddle blade prop was installed? Again it might be a little, but a little does not translate into a decisive advantage in combat], better turn time, [don't get me started on the whole maneuver fighter vs energy fighter thing, I think the Japanese could tell you how much maneuverability means in combat!] longer range [no argument here, although 47's eventually flew all the way to Berlin, and if the N model had been deployed they would have flown to Budapest], better roll rate [I always heard the 47 could roll with the best and N model with clipped wings was even better], higher critical mach speed [what is the advantage in combat? The 47 was already one of the fastest divers around - it would seem rather than the critical mach that the acceleration in a dive would be the decisive factor] and nearly half the price. [Pilots and group commanders don't know anything about price, unless the 56th group had an accountant in the command staff!]"
"added: seems like that at 66 in Hg, 2600 HP was available"
I read an account of a pilot (who flew both 47's and 51's in combat and preferred the P-47) that they would often overboost the the engine of the M and N models to 3000+ hp. I'm not an engineer so I don't know if this is even possible but he seemed to know what he was talking about.
Wasn't there a saying that went something like this: "If you want to look good fly a Mustang, if you want to come home in one piece, fly a Thunderbolt".