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.
Why did the 56th FG stay with the P-47s?
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?
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)...
Thanks!
Couldn't you also argue that using 2-stage Merlin powered aircraft was a waste in these areas as well?
Or the turbocharged P-38 for that matter.
Brisbane... bet they would have appreciated the longer legs of the P-51 (or P-38)
The P-38 was in short supply for a better part of the war - abundant quantities being available after mid 1944? The lack of second (and capable) source was certainly felt. The production of the P-47 overtook the production of the P-38 in second half of 1943.
P-51A, 1st version of that fighter that was produced for the USAF in more than token numbers, was still built in relatively low numbers (310 pcs), and part of them was issued to the RAF. P-51A took part in operations in CBI and Italy. Production really hit the stride during the winter of 1943/44, with the P-51B/C.
As for waste of the 2-stage Merlins in low level ops - the P-51B/C was having more HP between SL and 15000 ft than the P-51A with single stage V-1710. Ditto for the turbocharged V-1710 vs. 1-stage V-1710.
P-51A, 1st version of that fighter that was produced for the USAF in more than token numbers, was still built in relatively low numbers (310 pcs), and part of them was issued to the RAF. P-51A took part in operations in CBI and Italy. Production really hit the stride during the winter of 1943/44, with the P-51B/C.
As for waste of the 2-stage Merlins in low level ops - the P-51B/C was having more HP between SL and 15000 ft than the P-51A with single stage V-1710. Ditto for the turbocharged V-1710 vs. 1-stage V-1710.
snowmobileman
Airman
Regarding P-47 water injection, Mike Williams' site lists consumption at 2.1 gallons/minute(See Water Injection on P-47D Airplanes).
Last edited:
snowmobileman
Airman
Sorry, my mistake! Big difference...
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I would guess this is only a few minutes. I think a P-47 at max power (water) is operationally similar to an F-15 at max power (AB), only a bit slower (but so is the enemy).
A simple question - maybe someone knows how much power the R-2800 'B' in the P-47D was delivering when operating on 70 in Hg (ie. while using 150 grade fuel + water injection)? On 56 in (130 grade + WI) it was ~2300 HP, at 64 in (130 grade + increased amount of WI) it was ~2535 HP. On 52 in (130 grade, no WI) - 2000 HP.
added: seems like that at 66 in Hg, 2600 HP was available (here)
added: seems like that at 66 in Hg, 2600 HP was available (here)
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
Oh like you've written a book on the 355th FG......
Lol - yeah, two and working on 355th TFW now. and I have to include the 355FW for Afghanistan/Iraq and Syria days now
drgondog
Major
Norman "Bud" Fortier - a hand salute to a great fighter pilot, husband and father. Don't always get all three.
windswords
Airman
"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".
"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".
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
Maybe another saying is in order "if you want to be an ace, fly a Mustang" The air to air ratio of P-51 vs LW victory credits using the same formula and evaluation techniques was 50% higher (in favor of the Mustang)lending some speculation that surviving in air combat vs the LW favored the Mustang.
So maybe the old saying should be "if you want to look good AND survive air combat with the LW, fly a Mustang"
