Author Topic: Something about the p51 I've never understood  (Read 9814 times)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #45 on: July 14, 2009, 03:45:48 PM »
Once they figured out how to mount the Hispanos in Spitfire wings I understand those had about one stoppage for every two thousand rounds fired.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #46 on: July 14, 2009, 05:08:17 PM »
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."

The P-51's boundary-layer splitter was not in itself something new, nor was the so called "Meredith effect". Junkers discovered that thrust could be generated by radiator heat in the 1920s, and most radiator designs from the 1930s onwards made use of the Meredith effect and had boundary-layer splitters or ducts.




The P-51 was so fast because it was a superbly aerodynamic design. Everything was shaped to minimize drag, including the wing profile at the expense of lift at high angle of attack. The only compromise was the bubble canopy starting with the D model. The P-51 cuts trough the air like no other WWII piston engine fighter. In comparison the Spitfire and 109 (especially the G-6) bludgeon their way through the air. The only planes that come close are the Russian Yak fighters; in Russia the need for streamlining was born not from the need for range, but from the need to get competitive speed with limited power.
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 Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #47 on: July 14, 2009, 06:25:17 PM »
The P-51's boundary-layer splitter was not in itself something new, nor was the so called "Meredith effect". Junkers discovered that thrust could be generated by radiator heat in the 1920s, and most radiator designs from the 1930s onwards made use of the Meredith effect and had boundary-layer splitters or ducts.

(Image removed from quote.)


The P-51 was so fast because it was a superbly aerodynamic design. Everything was shaped to minimize drag, including the wing profile at the expense of lift at high angle of attack. The only compromise was the bubble canopy starting with the D model. The P-51 cuts trough the air like no other WWII piston engine fighter. In comparison the Spitfire and 109 (especially the G-6) bludgeon their way through the air. The only planes that come close are the Russian Yak fighters; in Russia the need for streamlining was born not from the need for range, but from the need to get competitive speed with limited power.

From Leonard "Kit" Carson, P-51 ace and test pilot:

"The most prominent speed secret was the dramatic reduction of cooling
drag.  Placing the airscoop on the belly just in front of the rear edge
of the wing removed it as far as was practicable from the turbulence of
the prop and placed it in a high pressure zone which augmented air
inflow.  Tests in the wind tunnel with the initial flush mounted scoop
were disappointing.  There was so much turbulence that cooling was
inadequate and some doubted that the belly scoop would work.  The
breakthrough was to space the scoop away from the surface of the belly
out of the turbulent boundary layer of the fuselage.  Further testing
showed that spacing it further out would increase cooling but at a cost
to overall drag.  Various wind tunnel tests established the spacing at
the current distance which represents the best compromise between
spacing out from the turbulent flow of the fuselage, drag and airflow.

With the flow into the scoop now smooth and relatively nonturbulent,
the duct leading to the radiator/oil cooler/intercooler was carefully
shaped to slow the air down (the duct shape moves from narrow to wide,
in other words a plenum chamber) enough from the high external speeds
to speeds through the heat exchangers that allowed the flow to extract
maximum heat from the coolant.  As the air passed through the radiators
and became heated, it expanded.  The duct shape aft of the radiator
forced this heated and expanded air into a narrow passage which gave it
considerable thrust as it exited the exhaust port.  The exhaust port
incorporated a movable hinged door that opened automatically depending
on engine temperature to augment the airflow.  The thrust realised from
this "jet" of heated air was first postulated by a British
aerodynamicist in 1935.   The realization of thrust from suitably
shaped air coolant passages is named after him and called the "Meredith
Effect".   Some have said that at certain altitudes and at a particular
power setting the Meredith effect was strong enough to actually
overcome all cooling drag; this is not regarded as being accurate by
most aerodynamicists.  It greatly contributed to overall efficiency of
the cooling system but never equaled or overcame cooling drag. "

As to that image of the 109's cooling system.... I love how the artist shows the boundary layer conforming to the upper surface of the duct... In his dreams perhaps, but not in reality. You can bet all you own that the boundary layer (already very turbulent) immediately separated when it reached that 60 degree bend. There is almost no plenum volume to speak of either.

Back in the 1980s, we experimented extensively with radiator duct design on our two March Formula 2 chassis and quickly learned that you required a carefully shaped splitter to keep the boundary layer away from the inlet. Otherwise, it created tremendous turbulence and backpressure in the plenum, greatly reducing flow through the core. That in turn would require a larger core, adding unacceptable weight.

If anyone seriously thinks that the 109's radiators were as efficient as that of the P-51, they are deluding themselves.


My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #48 on: July 14, 2009, 07:42:28 PM »
Widewing, the 109F's boundary-layer duct was separated from the radiator duct by a wall. The airflow did not have to "conform" to the upper surface of the duct, it was forced. The drawing does not show this very well.

Wright Field evaluation of Bf 109F: "Each flap is divided in two sections : the outer section is a modified split arrangement serving the additional purpose of controlling the airflow through the internally mounted wing radiators. At the front edge of the radiator is a hinged plate, linked with the trailing edge flaps to open with them. This plate picks up the boundary layer on the underside of the wing, and discharges it on the trailing edge. This form of boundary layer control causes smoother flow through the radiator, thereby reducing the area for proper cooling".

The "Meredith effect" would in fact more properly be called the "Junkers effect" as Junkers patented the diffuser-radiator-jet combination as "Düsenkühler" ('jet cooler') in DRP 299799 on 17 January, 1915. The principle obviously was well-known in the English-speaking part of the aviation industry as well. "Fundamentals of Fighter Design" by Ray Whitford notes (p. 61): "In 1926 it was realized that airflow through the radiators on liquid-cooled engines could, if properly ducted, eliminate the cooling drag and even produce a little thrust at speeds above 260 kts (483 km/h)."

Flugzeug Classic in one of their early issues quoted a speech given by Messerschmitt at some congress in the late 1930s in which he praised the Junkers jet cooler as the most important single contribution to high speed flight, as it cut down the otherwise prohibitive cooling drag, pointing out that the most advantageous way to incorporate the concept in a high-speed aircraft was in the form of wing radiators.

Even the old Hurricane had a boundary-layer splitter on its radiator intake, although it is not as pronounced as the Mustang's.




Thrust recovery from radiator cooling was well known in the international aviation industry of the 1930s. If the Mustang's radiator was more efficient than other designs of its time it differed only in the particularly efficient way this well known principle was implemented.
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 Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #49 on: July 14, 2009, 08:14:06 PM »
Widewing, the 109F's boundary-layer duct was separated from the radiator duct by a wall. The airflow did not have to "conform" to the upper surface of the duct, it was forced. The drawing does not show this very well.

Wright Field evaluation of Bf 109F: "Each flap is divided in two sections : the outer section is a modified split arrangement serving the additional purpose of controlling the airflow through the internally mounted wing radiators. At the front edge of the radiator is a hinged plate, linked with the trailing edge flaps to open with them. This plate picks up the boundary layer on the underside of the wing, and discharges it on the trailing edge. This form of boundary layer control causes smoother flow through the radiator, thereby reducing the area for proper cooling".


The problem is that based upon that illustration, unless that boundary layer divider extends onto or below the lower wing surface, the boundary layer will detach as it attempts to follow the sharp bend into the plenum. It absolutely will not make that turn without considerable turbulence. The volume of airflow making its way through that orifice will be minimal, although it should be uniform in flow at the outlet.

There is a very detailed and interesting Drag Analysis of the Bf 109 on Mike Williams' site that concludes that the drag associated with the 109's radiator design is "considered to be very high."

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Hoerner-Me_109.pdf



My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #50 on: July 14, 2009, 08:25:56 PM »
Germany had the most advanced wind tunnels in the 1930s and 40s, even one that could generate mach 3.3 wind speeds. I hardly think they made a boundary-layer duct that didn't work.

Now I direct your attention to this part of the quote that you obviously missed from my previous post: "At the front edge of the radiator is a hinged plate, linked with the trailing edge flaps to open with them. This plate picks up the boundary layer on the underside of the wing, and discharges it on the trailing edge."
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 Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #51 on: July 14, 2009, 08:34:07 PM »
Hoerners study is actually a theoretical estimate of the drag percentage of the 109G, and is not based on actual measurements. Hoerner gives a drag coefficient of 0.036 for the Bf 109G, whereas the actual Messerschmitt polars IV/139/48 give 0.023, so Hoerners post-war study has some very obvious inaccuracies in his estimate.

In the G-series the boundary-layer ducts were deleted from the radiator design to increase production.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 08:38:26 PM by Die Hard »
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 Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #52 on: July 14, 2009, 08:49:59 PM »
Hoerners study is actually a theoretical estimate of the drag percentage of the 109G, and is not based on actual measurements. Hoerner gives a drag coefficient of 0.036 for the Bf 109G, whereas the actual Messerschmitt polars IV/139/48 give 0.023, so Hoerners post-war study has some very obvious inaccuracies in his estimate.

In the G-series the boundary-layer ducts were deleted from the radiator design to increase production.

In a relative sense, Hoerners data is spot-on.  Given that he is considered THE expert on drag (that book the excerpt comes from is considered the Bible of Aerodynamic Drag), I'll take his observations with due regard.  Sure, a theoretical analysis is different than sticking a full-sized model into a wind tunnel, but I bet Hoerner will be closer than anyone else, except perhaps Dave Lednicer, who now has the advantage of sophisticated CFD software.  Seeing how Lednicer tested the P-51D 3D model on VSAERO and computed a .040 Cdwet and Hoerner manually computed a .040 Cdwet, I'd say Hoerner is as good a manual approximation as you can get.  Just my opinion though...
"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 Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #53 on: July 14, 2009, 08:56:46 PM »
Germany had the most advanced wind tunnels in the 1930s and 40s, even one that could generate mach 3.3 wind speeds. I hardly think they made a boundary-layer duct that didn't work.

Now I direct your attention to this part of the quote that you obviously missed from my previous post: "At the front edge of the radiator is a hinged plate, linked with the trailing edge flaps to open with them. This plate picks up the boundary layer on the underside of the wing, and discharges it on the trailing edge."

I didn't miss the quote, I simply find it irrelevant. The drag analysis shows that the 109's radiator installation generated a great deal of drag.

Despite Germany's wind tunnels, they never came close to producing a propeller driven fighter with a drag coefficient anywhere near that of the 1940 vintage P-51. Why is that? Perhaps, is it because the 109G's radiator installation generates 16% of the fighter's total parasite drag? Compare that to the P-51D with less than 5%.

Also, those of you interested in the P-51 may find this stability analysis interesting... (huge link URL)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Faerosrv.atl.calpoly.edu%2Fjtso%2FAero%2520307%2F307-s05%2FSampleReport.doc&ei=tTNdSva-E5OuMKOIta4C&usg=AFQjCNEEn0fxZykkld19OeFYxAEa3KryDw&sig2=5BGV0_MALqaQmuiWfwbnZw


My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #54 on: July 14, 2009, 08:59:02 PM »
In a relative sense, Hoerners data is spot-on.  Given that he is considered THE expert on drag (that book the excerpt comes from is considered the Bible of Aerodynamic Drag), I'll take his observations with due regard.  Sure, a theoretical analysis is different than sticking a full-sized model into a wind tunnel, but I bet Hoerner will be closer than anyone else, except perhaps Dave Lednicer, who now has the advantage of sophisticated CFD software.  Seeing how Lednicer tested the P-51D 3D model on VSAERO and computed a .040 Cdwet and Hoerner manually computed a .040 Cdwet, I'd say Hoerner is as good a manual approximation as you can get.  Just my opinion though...

That may be so, but this time he was wrong. CD of 0.036 is close to a 109 tested carrying a 500 kg bomb.
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 Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #55 on: July 14, 2009, 09:02:38 PM »
That may be so, but this time he was wrong. CD of 0.036 is close to a 109 tested carrying a 500 kg bomb.


LOLOLOL  Yep, the world's foremost expert is wrong, you are right..

Smells like something died in the chicken coop.



My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #56 on: July 14, 2009, 09:06:46 PM »
I didn't miss the quote, I simply find it irrelevant. The drag analysis shows that the 109's radiator installation generated a great deal of drag.

Despite Germany's wind tunnels, they never came close to producing a propeller driven fighter with a drag coefficient anywhere near that of the 1940 vintage P-51. Why is that? Perhaps, is it because the 109G's radiator installation generates 16% of the fighter's total parasite drag? Compare that to the P-51D with less than 5%.

Also, those of you interested in the P-51 may find this stability analysis interesting... (huge link URL)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Faerosrv.atl.calpoly.edu%2Fjtso%2FAero%2520307%2F307-s05%2FSampleReport.doc&ei=tTNdSva-E5OuMKOIta4C&usg=AFQjCNEEn0fxZykkld19OeFYxAEa3KryDw&sig2=5BGV0_MALqaQmuiWfwbnZw



My regards,

Widewing


Your entire post is irrelevant. I've never argued that the P-51 wasn't aerodynamically superior. Quite the opposite in fact. Read my post again:

The P-51's boundary-layer splitter was not in itself something new, nor was the so called "Meredith effect". Junkers discovered that thrust could be generated by radiator heat in the 1920s, and most radiator designs from the 1930s onwards made use of the Meredith effect and had boundary-layer splitters or ducts.

(Image removed from quote.)


The P-51 was so fast because it was a superbly aerodynamic design. Everything was shaped to minimize drag, including the wing profile at the expense of lift at high angle of attack. The only compromise was the bubble canopy starting with the D model. The P-51 cuts trough the air like no other WWII piston engine fighter. In comparison the Spitfire and 109 (especially the G-6) bludgeon their way through the air. The only planes that come close are the Russian Yak fighters; in Russia the need for streamlining was born not from the need for range, but from the need to get competitive speed with limited power.


I'm only arguing that the technology used in the P-51, specifically the radiator, was nothing new. The P-51's radiator may have been more efficient than other designs of its time; to my knowledge a side-by-side comparison of the different radiators have never been made.
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 Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #57 on: July 14, 2009, 09:07:34 PM »

LOLOLOL  Yep, the world's foremost expert is wrong, you are right..

Smells like something died in the chicken coop.



My regards,

Widewing

So you'd take his estimate over test data?
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 Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #58 on: July 14, 2009, 09:11:19 PM »
So you'd take his estimate over test data?

Show me the data for a service grade Bf 109G-6.



My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Something about the p51 I've never understood
« Reply #59 on: July 14, 2009, 09:14:07 PM »
Why should I need to? Hasn't this hijack gone on long enough? What in my posts on the P-51 was wrong?
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