« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: P-40N?  (Read 856 times)

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: P-40N?
« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2009, 07:43:00 AM »
Quote from: Krusty on October 13, 2009, 09:28:37 PM

EDIT: Or put them in the wing roots like corsairs, or p39s, etc.

That was an oil cooler on the Corsair. Little bit different animal than a radiator.
Logged
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline PJ_Godzilla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: P-40N?
« Reply #16 on: October 14, 2009, 08:20:34 AM »
Quote from: Krusty on October 13, 2009, 05:21:16 PM
Even the Merlin powered airframes never approached anywhere near that horsepower or speed.



Right. I was postulating what would've happened if they could've stuck 1800 hp on it. Actually, using that calc I showed to back out .5 rho S Cd, you COULD back out S Cd by dividing by .5 times the standard atmos. density at the altitude given. S Cd are both inherent to the airplane and would make for an interesting comparator if we were to perform the same operation on, say, a P-51.

I may just run through that exercise for you in a bit. Duty calls right now.
Logged
Some say revenge is a dish best served cold. I say it's usually best served hot, chunky, and foaming. Eventually, you will all die in my vengeance vomit firestorm.

Offline PJ_Godzilla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: P-40N?
« Reply #17 on: October 15, 2009, 09:14:03 AM »
ran a few numbers... just for sh*ts and grins...

AC   Top Speed   fps   Max P   std   Altitude   Rho @alt                   SCd
P-40F         3.64E+02   5.34E+02   1.30E+03   7.15E+05   2.00E+04   1.27E-03      2.30E-01
P51D          4.37E+02   6.41E+02   1.72E+03   9.46E+05   2.50E+04   1.07E-03      2.09E-01
FW190D-9 4.26E+02   6.25E+02   2.24E+03   1.23E+06   2.17E+04   1.20E-03      2.62E-01
Me109K-4  4.52E+02   6.63E+02   2.00E+03   1.10E+06   1.97E+04   1.28E-03      1.83E-01
Vengeance 2.79E+02  4.09E+02   1.70E+03   9.35E+05   1.35E+04   1.57E-03      5.40E-01
A20            3.39E+02  4.97E+02   2.70E+03   1.49E+06   1.24E+04   1.63E-03      4.62E-01
Me109G-2  4.06E+02   5.95E+02   1.48E+03   8.11E+05   2.96E+04   9.05E-04    2.64E-01
La-7          4.23E+02   6.20E+02   1.78E+03   9.76E+05   2.10E+04   1.22E-03       2.07E-01
Me-410    3.88E+02   5.69E+02   3.50E+03   1.93E+06   2.96E+04   9.05E-04      7.18E-01

All power, alt, speed numbers came from Angelucci/matricardi. I can't explain the relative aerodynamic inefficiency of some of these - notably the d-9 but especially the 410 and Vengeance. That last has a Cd by surface area that looks like a twin. The K-4 perhaps raises a bullsh*t call as well since I doubt that 452 number came from a standard production fit and finish.

One possibility I considered on the power output numbers is that they're shammy or highly variable. Perhaps the measurement standards even disagree. And, of course, I don't eve nwant to get into fitments. For all I know, that G-2's top speed included Werfergranat attachment hardware. God knows what hanging under the Vultee's wings.

Give us the Vengeance and then Perk it! Why? Because it sucks and no one will fly it without some sleight of hand indicating that it doesn't suck.

Anyway, I sh*t and I grinned, so, mission accomplished.

Finally, Oh Krusty receptacle, while I share your misgivings about the P40 as a platform, it isn't especially bad from a Cd and area perspective.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2009, 12:12:06 PM by PJ_Godzilla »
Logged
Some say revenge is a dish best served cold. I say it's usually best served hot, chunky, and foaming. Eventually, you will all die in my vengeance vomit firestorm.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »