Shuckins,
Normal rating for the V-1650-3 is at 2700rpm, combat and military ratings are at 3000rpm. Comparable outputs with high speed RAM at 30k for the P-51B-1 and P-47D-10 (note that D-10 had the GE C-23 turbo) are following (From "Tactical Employment Trials North Americamn P-51B-1", Appendix of the "Mustang Story" by Ken Delve contains this report):
P-51B-1 1200hp (61" 3000rpm)
P-47D-10 2200hp (56" 2700rpm)
In addition the P-51 utilized exhaust thrust which in the case of the P-47D was used in the turbo.
AHT shows speed and climb values just up to 30k (the FTH of the P-47D ie the altitude where the turbo reaches it's limits), the interesting part is what happens above 30k. Again speed values from above mentioned source:
30k P-51 433mph, P-47 433mph
31k P-51 432mph, P-47 430mph
32k P-51 431mph, P-47 427mph
33k P-51 430mph, P-47 422mph
34k P-51 428mph, P-47 415mph
35k P-51 425mph, P-47 405mph (P-47 curve ends to 35400ft)
36k P-51 422mph
37k P-51 418mph
38k P-51 414mph
39k P-51 408mph
40k P-51 400mph
The P-51 could maintain it's performance much better than P-47D above FTH. The climb curve of the P-47D-10 ends to 30k but there is no reason to believe that it behaves differently than speed curve if compared to the P-51B-1. What can be certainly said is that at 25k the P-51B climbed better than P-47D and at 30k they were about equal. Above that altitude the P-51B probably climbed better because it could maintain it's performance better. Generally climb speed is much better indicator for sustained maneuverability than powerloading.
The P-51B with the V-1650-3 had about same service ceiling as the P-47D ie around 40k depending on source.
Hilts,
The role of the NACA in the developement of the dive recovery flaps is well documented. From
NASA site:
"
In March 1942, after less than four months of tests in Langley's 8-Foot HST, Stack's engineers reported that they had an answer to the P-38's dive-recovery problem: a wedge-shaped flap installed on the lower surface of the aircraft's wings. They said that their tunnel tests showed that wings having this flap would retain enough lift at high speeds to enable a pilot to pull the plane out of steep dives.5 Langley then turned the dive-recovery program over to its sister facility in California-Ames Aeronautical Laboratory at Moffett Field-where the flap idea could be proved sound to nearby Lockheed more expeditiously than at faraway Langley. Further tests in Ames's new 16-Foot HST did prove the idea sound: NACA-style dive-recovery flaps eventually saw service not only on the P-38 but also on the P-47 Thunderbolt, the A-26 Invader, the P-59 Airacomet (America's first jet), and the P-80, the first U.S. airplane designed (by Lockheed) from the beginning for turbojet propulsion."
Ack-Ack,
Basicly dive recovery flaps did two things:
1. Added positive pitch moment to counter tuck under.
2. Added considerably amount of drag to keep plane out of trouble.
The dive recovery flaps did not change the speed where the tuck under phenomena started nor prevented other compressibility problems. All this is well documented in the above mentioned sources.
gripen
