World War II Aircraft New Production

[pbfoot]

The fuel consumption ranged from about 48gph leaned out in steady cruise around 1900-2300 rpm, 30-34"hg, and then about 250gph at WEP at 3000 rpm/67".

Cruise consumption and settings varied on weight and altitude for max efficiency - and depended on whether you want loiter time or range.

Rule of thumb is a GPM

 

[Elvis]

The fuel consumption ranged from about 48gph leaned out in steady cruise around 1900-2300 rpm, 30-34"hg, and then about 250gph at WEP at 3000 rpm/67".

That's a 149 GPH average........SoD Stitch nailed it. It IS over 100 GPH!







Elvis

 

[Nightwitch]

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]

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]

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.

I know the guys that own them, love them.

 

[drgondog]

Rule of thumb is a GPM

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]

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.

That was the rule of thumb so I've been told by

 

[drgondog]

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.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That was the rule of thumb so I've been told by

And what type of aircraft?

 

[Bill G.]

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.

 

[Clay_Allison]

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.

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]

And what type of aircraft?

Spit as mentioned earlier and don't forget to convert as it's imperial

 

[drgondog]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

Clay -not sure about the latter statement. IIRC the only armor was behind the seat ~ trapezoidal share 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

Guns? Ammo? 84 pounds a gun, half an ounce per round.

 

[KrazyKraut]

I have often thought that if I became a stinkin' rich millionaire (billionaire?) I would scratch-build a two-seat Do 335 Pfeil; THAT would be cool! Of course, I may not be able to use DB 603's, I might have to use Merlins, but I still think it'd be cool. Anybody know what the average fuel consumption of a Merlin is? It's gotta be over 100 GPH.

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]

Guns? Ammo? 84 pounds a gun, half an ounce per round.

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]

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).

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]

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

the radio equipment and IFF was probably 100lbs+/-