pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Rule of thumb is a GPM
World War II Aircraft New Production
- Thread starter turbopower87
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Nightwitch
Airman
- 67
- Feb 12, 2009
I'm kind of surprised nobody has mentioned the new Yak-3's and Yak-9's being produced in Russia with the original plans and moulds. There's a lot of those around now, and cheap for a WWII warbird at about $300k.
drgondog
Major
That's a 149 GPH average........SoD Stitch nailed it. It IS over 100 GPH!
Elvis
Elvis - no.
A typical mission profile is take off at max power, climb at reduced setting to cruise altitutue, cruise in a straight line for 200 miles, R/V with bombers and cruise in an Ess pattern, because the bombers are 75-100mph slower than 51 cruise speed, during escort. If no German fighters encountered, all the fuel consumption except take off will be 60gph or less.
Most fights were less than 5 minutes of WEP so that would only use up 15-20 gallons.
drgondog
Major
I know the guys that own them, love them.
drgondog
Major
Pb - It's either/or.
I don't do cross country flight plan based on per minute fuel consumption.
Specific fuel consumption as an efficiency factor, for example, is expressed in units of pound mass per hour per Hp. - but whatever works for you is the one you should use.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
That was the rule of thumb so I've been told by
drgondog
Major
If you have an egt/cht package and trying to lean out an engine for best fuel consumption - most of those will display in gpm. If you see an engine spec or are looking at efficiency comparisons those will normally be gallons per hour per hp.
Specific fuel consumption: Definition from Answers.com
Just because it is 'my way' doesn't mean everyone has to agree - but efficiency in context of specific fuel consumption is as stated in the 'answers' link above.
Specific fuel consumption: Definition from Answers.com
Just because it is 'my way' doesn't mean everyone has to agree - but efficiency in context of specific fuel consumption is as stated in the 'answers' link above.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And what type of aircraft?
Bill G.
Banned
Here is a problem that is going to be hitting the warbird fliers hard sooner or later, that is ENGINES!
No one is making the big inlines or radial engines. There is only a finite supply of engines. You can only rebuild these engines so many times. There are parts that just aren't made anymore.
With an unlimited budget you could make the blocks, crankshafts, pistons, camshafts and other big parts. All the tooling for making these key parts are gone.
An airplane can be made from scratch, but the power plant is going to be the problem.
Or am I wrong?
Bill G.
No one is making the big inlines or radial engines. There is only a finite supply of engines. You can only rebuild these engines so many times. There are parts that just aren't made anymore.
With an unlimited budget you could make the blocks, crankshafts, pistons, camshafts and other big parts. All the tooling for making these key parts are gone.
An airplane can be made from scratch, but the power plant is going to be the problem.
Or am I wrong?
Bill G.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
CNC machining is getting cheaper and easier. I believe a day is coming where you will be able to email the specs to a custom machinist and have their computer tell their milling machines what to do and have it crank out a Merlin for you.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Spit as mentioned earlier and don't forget to convert as it's imperial
drgondog
Major
Absolutely true. Ditto 603/605 for 109.
Crankshaft is the focus because of tolerances required, Block and pistons much easier. The supercharger is also a pretty complex bag of high precision parts
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
If you aren't building an armored replica (and there is no reason to put armor on it) You could go cheap on the supercharger or just leave it off.
Any full size civillian replica will be on the order of 1000 pounds lighter than the original.
drgondog
Major
Clay -not sure about the latter statement. IIRC the only armor was behind the seat ~ trapezoidal shape of ~ 5/16" hardened steel. Off hand I can't recall any other 'stuff' we removed from our 51 other than fuselage tank (plus structure, plumbing, original radios and frame for radios) so that the TF51D mod could be performed.
If you keep single seat and civilian it up by getting rid of fuse tank and armor maybe you save 100 pounds (assuming no fuel)? What else do you have in mind
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Guns? Ammo? 84 pounds a gun, half an ounce per round.
KrazyKraut
Banned
- 337
- Apr 21, 2008
That'd be cool. However there would still be some things to iron out, so you'd end up not only rebuilding but finishing the design. Nevertheless it would be awesome. I guess you could use a lower range turboprop to eliminate a lot of problems and keep sfc down.
drgondog
Major
Then make the statement to include not just armored but also armament.
The M2 was ~69 pounds/M2, 1 lb per 3 rounds/with links ~ 5oz each.
So, if you yank the 50s and ammo from a New P-51B you strip 420 pounds of linked 50 cal plus 276 pounds of M2.
For the D it's 627 pounds of linked ammo plus 414 pounds of M2
Source Mustang by Gruenhagen - page 190
(and yes, I haver seen 'civilian' 51s with both real and 'decommissioned' 50's. Class III license still works (for uncertain future).
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Note in my original post I said civillian "replica". I just realized you might be thinking I was talking about restored real warbirds.
Besides the 1000 pounds of "armament" (should have been more specific) and the back armor, I think that many other lighter components could be included in the plane. See the carbon fiber "Grand Mustang" for an extreme example.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
the radio equipment and IFF was probably 100lbs+/-
