Author Topic: Something about the p51 I've never understood  (Read 9823 times)

Offline 5PointOh

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #30 on: July 13, 2009, 02:08:36 AM »
What is the horsepower rating on the AH 51s?
Coprhead
Wings of Terror
Mossie Student Driver

Offline manurin

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 523
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #31 on: July 13, 2009, 02:26:03 AM »
Two things that weren't mentioned in the fact that, for a same engine, one (the 51) is going faster than the other (the spit), I quote:

"One of the things that made the P-51 great was it's speed. This was accomplished by grinding the rivets on the skin of the plane flush with the surface of the skin. This made the surface of the plane smooth, no turbulence causing bumps. The other innovation was the cooling system. As opposed to a large radial air cooled engine (as on the F4U Corsair) the Mustang used a sleek V-12 with no vents on the nose. Instead the engine was liquid cooled, like most cars. The radiator was below and behind the pilot. Cold air was pulled in through a low-profile intake, after it passed through the radiator the cold air was held for a moment in a chamber where it was heated to very high temperatures by the engine heat. As the air expanded it forcefully "jetted" its self out an adjustable nozzle. This process allowed the Mustang to convert engine heat into thrust, making up for 95% of the drag caused by cooling the engine. (Cooling drag was the single biggest factor affecting aircraft speed at the time).

The design for the scoop is still used today in jet intakes. It was discovered that there is a thin layer of turbulence just off the skin of the aircraft. Putting an intake within this layer reduces its effectiveness. The Mustang's intake stood off the surface of the aircraft just enough to get an uninterrupted airflow. One can see this idea demonstrated in the F-16 and the F-4 among others."
71 "Eagle" Squadron RAF

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #32 on: July 13, 2009, 02:37:21 AM »
What is the horsepower rating on the AH 51s?

About 1,700 hp for the 1650-7 in the 51D.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #33 on: July 13, 2009, 03:43:37 AM »
No, we have the idea that it should out-turn a P-47 and out-accelerate a Tempest, because, oddly enough, they had that idea in WWII.
Oddly enough, you're not the people I was talking about.  I agree it should out turn the P-47 and Tempest and currently does not.


I was referring to the people who actually make claims close to what I posted.  I have talked to some of them.


In real life the P-51 had about 200-300 more hp from mid-1944 onwards. The modelled P-51's don't.
Where did this power increase come from?  If you mean 150 octane fuel, then many Allied aircraft got that.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Hajo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6034
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #34 on: July 13, 2009, 04:51:35 AM »
Why should a P-51 out turn a P-47?
- The Flying Circus -

Offline BnZs

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4207
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #35 on: July 13, 2009, 06:45:13 AM »
Why should a P-51 out turn a P-47?

Short answer
Wingloading at typical combat weights of 39lbs/foot vs. 41-43lbs/foot. The evidence compiled by WWII test pilots.
"Crikey, sir. I'm looking forward to today. Up diddly up, down diddly down, whoops, poop, twiddly dee - decent scrap with the fiendish Red Baron - bit of a jolly old crash landing behind enemy lines - capture, torture, escape, and then back home in time for tea and medals."

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #36 on: July 13, 2009, 07:58:00 AM »
Short answer
Wingloading at typical combat weights of 39lbs/foot vs. 41-43lbs/foot. The evidence compiled by WWII test pilots.

I really hope we don't' have to go through this again?  Wingloading isn't everything...

As far as this goes: 
Two things that weren't mentioned in the fact that, for a same engine, one (the 51) is going faster than the other (the spit)...

You haven't read the entire thread...
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline BnZs

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4207
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #37 on: July 13, 2009, 08:11:11 AM »
I really hope we don't' have to go through this again?  Wingloading isn't everything...

We do not have to go through it again Stoney because I know what you are going to say, and then I am going to have to point out that the P-51's airfoil has a higher Clmax than the Corsairs, and etc. By God I know all the "P-51 wuz the leetest plane ever!" stuff on History Channel is annoying, but that doesn't mean we need to bend over backwards to justify an error in regards to the Mustang.
"Crikey, sir. I'm looking forward to today. Up diddly up, down diddly down, whoops, poop, twiddly dee - decent scrap with the fiendish Red Baron - bit of a jolly old crash landing behind enemy lines - capture, torture, escape, and then back home in time for tea and medals."

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #38 on: July 13, 2009, 08:22:02 AM »
We do not have to go through it again Stoney because I know what you are going to say, and then I am going to have to point out that the P-51's airfoil has a higher Clmax than the Corsairs, and etc. By God I know all the "P-51 wuz the leetest plane ever!" stuff on History Channel is annoying, but that doesn't mean we need to bend over backwards to justify an error in regards to the Mustang.

Its not justification of an error.  You think Dale would let something go for so long that had been so hotly debated?



This is a graph of some XFOIL research I did a couple of years ago comparing the LA-7 and P-51.  The information I had suggested that the LA-7 used a NACA 23015 airfoil at the root chord.  So, for the purposes of this discussion, the airfoil comparison is the same since the Corsair and P-47 used the NACA 23015 airfoil at the root (the P-47 was a 23000 series slightly modified but close enough for comparison).  You'll see that at the same exact parameters that NACA used to test airfoils in NACA 824, the 23015 has a higher Clmax than the 45-100 airfoil of the P-51D.  This is purely the profile Clmax.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2009, 08:34:35 AM by Stoney »
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Helm

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 600
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #39 on: July 13, 2009, 12:31:21 PM »
Great info stoney




Helm ...out
XO of ^"^Nazgul^"^
Proudly serving since campaign #13
"No Rain?" ...."No Rainbow, baby!" ....Bootsey Collins 2009

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #40 on: July 13, 2009, 12:46:33 PM »
Now, this is where the P-51 airfoil had an advantage over almost all others, at least theoretically:



You'll see this is the drag coefficient plot over the same range of AoA, and at the same conditions of the earlier graph.  You'll see that at low angles of attack, the P-51 has much lower profile drag than the 23015 airfoil, but at high angles of attack, the profile drag is much higher.  This next chart shows the lift/drag curves of both airfoils plotted.  This shows that at low angles of attack, the 45-100 has a much higher lift/drag ratio than the 23015, but at high angles of attack, the 23015 has a higher lift/drag ratio.



What does this mean ultimately?  Not much without further analysis and additional considerations.  However, it does show that you can have a very high performance airfoil shape that works very well over a very narrow range of angles of attack but is poorly suited to high AoA conditions.  Could it impact the overall comparitive turning circle of the P-51 versus other higher wing-loaded aircraft?  Perhaps.  Again, we'd have to do some more research to know.
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #41 on: July 13, 2009, 01:07:55 PM »
I seem to recall it was Widewing who supplied the evidence that the P-51 is not turning as well as it ought to in comparison to the P-47 and Tempest at least.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Gaston

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2009, 10:17:26 PM »
   I would be curious to see what the evidence from Widewing says about P-51/P-47 comparative turn rates.

   My impression from reading all the combat reports on Mike William's site, is that the P-51 turns better than the P-47 at low speeds, 220 MPH IAS or less, if using flaps, and it can certainly out-accelerates the P-47 in a wider turn.

   At most usual combat speeds however, it clearly cannot out-turn the paddle-blade Razorback P-47, and in tests the German considered their captured early Razorback P-47D to be capable of significantly out-turning their 109G-6s. They make no such mention for the P-51B, and considered it's stall problematic... Note however that later bubble-top P-47Ds seem to perform noticeably less well in turns than the earlier Razorbacks, but still could hold their own against late '44 109s, if barely.

   Against the 109G-6, the P-51's turning contests can last for ten minutes at a stretch (!) as long as the G-6 can spiral downward. Near the ground the superior turn acceleration of the P-51 gains it the upper hand quickly, unless the fight takes place in very late '44, where the acceleration in turns of the later 109s seems to get noticeably better, and turning fights resume going on forever... 10-15 360° turns are very common with P-51s, up to ten-fiften minutes(!) being reported.

   Against P-47s, especially in the first half of '44, a very good 109G pilot, or group of pilots, will last 2-3 turns against a P-47D, before hurriedly calling it quits and breaking out of the turn... In line with German tests results for the Razorback at least, except that in right hand turns the P-47's margin seems to vanish... For some reason, right hand turns seemed a lot less common in combat.

   The FW-190A, on the other hand, easily matches the paddle-blade P-47, and gets better in later '44, just as the P-47 gets worse. Both Russian and German tests agree on the FW-190A's turn being generally superior to the 109G, maybe even equalling the F, at least below 20k. This was probably accentuated on two wing gun 190s compared to four wing guns variants.

   The most confounding thing I have found about the P-51, in reading 700+ P-51 combat reports, is the unreliability of its guns all the way through 1945, including on the D series... About 1 in 6 reports is affected by it in some way, sometimes the violent maneuvering leaving but one of six guns hammering away... The more violent the maneuvering the more jams, so especially prevalent against the 190... On the B model the problem takes on truly epidemic proportions, one being equipped with experimental field-made pneumatic "chargers", the pilot reporting unjamming his guns six times in the course of two 360° turns...

    The P-47? Almost no jamming reported in 6-700 reports...

    On that basis alone, as a U.S. pilot, I would RUN from a P-51... I guess the experience of firing live guns during hard-turning combat was not so prevalent in late '44 to taint the Mustang's reputation...

    Gaston.

   

   

   

   

   
« Last Edit: July 13, 2009, 10:24:24 PM by Gaston »

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #43 on: July 14, 2009, 12:48:52 PM »
Gaston, where do you come up with these fantasies?
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Grendel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
      • http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #44 on: July 14, 2009, 03:34:56 PM »
 
   The most confounding thing I have found about the P-51, in reading 700+ P-51 combat reports, is the unreliability of its guns all the way through 1945, including on the D series... About 1 in 6 reports is affected by it in some way, sometimes the violent maneuvering leaving but one of six guns hammering away...

I've also found it amazing how unreliable the .50s were on Corsairs and F6Fs. It seemed to be more the rule than exception to have the guns jam in combat. The pilots had to often retreat from battle to get at least one gun working, as they jammed one by one during combat. That's one IRL feature I don't think the gamers want to the sims.