Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
On the eastern front at lower altitudes, in modified form, and without regard for published engine limits!The P-39N available from late 1942 had the extra 1000fpm climb even with the items I've advocated for removal. It did successfully take on the Luftwaffe.
i used to work in the hotel where that was filmed !Oh good grief...this really is the Groundhog Day thread.
After 52 pages, we're still hitting the reset button and going back to the same discussions we were having right at the start.
I think it's time to take a jump to the left...
Please prove me wrong.While an interesting and compelling argument, I think I read somewhere that it's not quite that easy.
Please prove me wrong.
Obviously somebody cares or this thread would not be 1000 posts long.
Question is, does weight influence climb? Obviously it does. Then we should be able to quantify how much weight influences climb, all other factors being equal.
The P-51D had almost a 400 pound increase in empty weight over the P-51B and while it's RoC was almost identical, it's max. speed improved considerably.
So weight isn't always going to be the smoking gun...
Uh...Please prove me wrong.
Uh...
Have you actually been reading this thread?
I think its starting to wear thin on everyone...
Do you really think that only weight influences climb, and that all factors are equal? That when removing weight at one location, and adding weight at another won't have differing effects. How is your new CG going to effect performance. Oh wait who cares about CG right? CG remains within limits if radio is moved up above the engine, proven with excel CG table.
The point that all us "non experts" are trying to tell you is that simply dividing weight and horsepower will not give you a rate of climb. But hey what does everyone know right? Working knowledge means shit all. Wasn't dividing weight by horsepower, horsepower has nothing to do with this situation. Horsepower of the two planes was identical. Was dividing the increase in climb rate by the increase in weight to find the climb rate increase per pound.
Just the pilot slightly varying the mixture control to get the best power based on feel and sound. Why wouldn't that be done in combat?
Highest speed listed in that report is 321mph at 18000'.
See Windhund's post #1020, 330mph at 15500'.
That was the D-1 model that weighed 7850lbs. Could have easily weighed 7250lbs after removing redundant or unnecessary equipment. Read the chart in my post #1006 and compare those climb numbers to IIS 85 test. That P-39 weighed 7650lbs.
Perhaps, but the P-51B had the Packard-Merlin V-1650-3 @ 1,620hp. and the P-51D had the Packard-Merlin V-1650-7 @ 1,695hp.Engine could play a factor. HP per weight? No?
You have made a mistake with your units, the pounds are minus pounds or you could add "per pound reduction" this is how you start to argue increasing weight increases climb. Dont worry though, I have seen engineers do it on pipeline bundles discussing "negative boyancy".300lbs lighter at 1.2fpm per pound would mean adding 360fpm to the values on the chart in my post #1006.
What's interesting to me is how the A6M2 holds its speed at all altitudes (almost), the deviation from 12k to 20k doesn't fluctuate more than 15mph.Hello P-39 Expert,
This is looking a lot like the movie Groundhog Day.
Hopefully you might learn something like Bill Murray did.
*SNIP*
This is a better reference.
Memorandum 23 Oct 1942
*SNIP*
- Ivan.