Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The 61" was used in early test in mid '43. I do not know when the P-51B(-3) was approved for 67". It certainly was by January of '44, since Navy comparison test of the P-51C with the F4U-1 (W) was done at 67".afaik 61 hg was the original combat power for the B
The 61" was used in early test in mid '43. I do not know when the P-51B(-3) was approved for 67". It certainly was by January of '44, since Navy comparison test of the P-51C with the F4U-1 (W) was done at 67".
Dean's 100,000 states that the tanks were self sealing. AFAIK all US combat aircraft had self sealing tanks from 1942 forward.
The 61" was used in early test in mid '43. I do not know when the P-51B(-3) was approved for 67". It certainly was by January of '44, since Navy comparison test of the P-51C with the F4U-1 (W) was done at 67".
Looking in operating instruction of P-51B-1 (july, 1st, 1943), page 26, the military, 5' settings, was 61" Hg, the max climb, 15' settings, was 54.3" Hg (and 2850 rpm)
I agree but that's a very important factor. The F4U carried a lot more internal fuel. It can stick around until it runs out of ammo rather then breaking contact early due to fuel shortage. Under some tactical circumstances that makes the F4U worth two or three Fw-190s.
Unfortunately the F4U didn't carry the Fw-190 weapons package. Not a big problem vs lightly armored Japanese aircraft but four MG151/20 cannon would have been a lot better in Europe.
I too cannot find any reference that wing tanks were either protected, or self sealing in the F4U.
The US 100 000 book does not confirm that they were self sealing, but says they were not protected.
All my sources show they were self sealingThe F4U-1D and later did featured hull-only internal tank, the earlier ones were equipped with tanks within wings, for total of 361 gals.