Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 86

Thread: WWII Fighter Comparison II Corsair v Mustang.

  1. #16
    FreeGeneral Senior Contributor Big K's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Dec 06
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey, Turkey
    Posts
    2,511
    what about the maintenance issues? which one is easier or faster or cheaper?
    Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.

  2. #17
    In Memoriam/Battleship Enthusiast Defense Professional USSWisconsin's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Dec 08
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,434
    I think that AC vs LC engines would be a factor here, the Corsair lacking the additional complexity of a LC engine could simplify maintenance.
    "If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

  3. #18
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by USSWisconsin View Post
    I think that AC vs LC engines would be a factor here, the Corsair lacking the additional complexity of a LC engine could simplify maintenance.
    Possibly offset but the Corsair needing heavier construction for carrier landings and salt air exsposure. If not more complex, heavier.

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Possibly offset but the Corsair needing heavier construction for carrier landings and salt air exsposure. If not more complex, heavier.
    Definitely. IIRC, a carrier-based aircraft vs. a land-based aircraft was, on average, 12% heavier due to things like strengthened landing gear and the extra naval gear for landing on an aircraft carrier (arrestor hook, etc.).
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  5. #20
    In Memoriam/Battleship Enthusiast Defense Professional USSWisconsin's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Dec 08
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,434
    The arrester gear would be more work, but a stronger structure shouldn't be - it could be less (less flexing and fatigue). The lack of all that cooling system stuff, pipes, hoses, pumps, radiators, reservoirs - would reduce the number of engine related work significantly, and it would be one less liquid store they would have to maintain in logistics.
    "If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

  6. #21
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by USSWisconsin View Post
    The arrester gear would be more work, but a stronger structure shouldn't be - it could be less (less flexing and fatigue). The lack of all that cooling system stuff, pipes, hoses, pumps, radiators, reservoirs - would reduce the number of engine related work significantly, and it would be one less liquid store they would have to maintain in logistics.
    True but more weiht means more bracing and bolts/rivets that need to be moved to even gaina ccess. Given the Corsais overall larger size the lower complexity is probalby offset vis a vis the Mustang.

  7. #22
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,921
    I know I have read of many instances of naval aircraft built at the Bethpage Ironworks with air cooled engines making it home with several cylinders shot away....same with some P-47s.

    Pratt & Whittney made some damn good engines.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  8. #23
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    I know I have read of many instances of naval aircraft built at the Bethpage Ironworks with air cooled engines making it home with several cylinders shot away....same with some P-47s.

    Pratt & Whittney made some damn good engines.
    Yup, P&W and Wright radials were the only engines allowed on carrier based aircraft for this reason. At first the Navy was willing to trade the reduced performance for the relaibility but then the NACA (National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics) hoods were developed and the performance loss was minimized and fully erased by the end of WWII.

    Liquid cooled max end of WWII
    P-51H 487mph
    Spitfire Mk XIV 465mph (RR Griffon 61 powered 2 stage super charger w/ 150 octane fuel and 25lbs boost)

    Radial max end of WWII
    TA-152 471mph
    P-47N 473mph
    F4U-4 445mph

  9. #24
    Senior Contributor 1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 09
    Location
    România
    Posts
    1,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    I know I have read of many instances of naval aircraft built at the Bethpage Ironworks with air cooled engines making it home with several cylinders shot away....same with some P-47s.

    Pratt & Whittney made some damn good engines.
    However, the fuselage mounted fuel tank and the hydraulic system was prone to leaks, which covered the pilots windshield.
    these were partially resolved in the field by covering the joints with ducktape.
    J'ai en marre.

  10. #25
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Pratt & Whittney made some damn good engines.
    Still do . . . . . .
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  11. #26
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,921
    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    Still do . . . . . .
    Don't disagree!
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  12. #27
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Chogy's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Apr 09
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,754


    Pratt R-2800 engine - these are simply magnificent. Sadly, the big radials are no longer economically viable. At the end of WW2, science had wrung as much power per unit weight out of piston engines as it was possible to do. Then along comes the gas turbine that turned the engine world on its head, delivering VAST power per unit weight, and completely destroying the big radials as viable powerplants.

    The power of a Rolls-Royce Trent gas turbine (B-777) is almost inconceivable. 100,000 pounds of thrust.

    Cooling was always a problem, but as Z mentioned, the highly-researched NACA cowlings ended up completely negating any drag penalty from the frontal area, much like the P-51 radiator actually turns the waste heat into measurable forward thrust.

  13. #28
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Chogy View Post


    Pratt R-2800 engine - these are simply magnificent. Sadly, the big radials are no longer economically viable. At the end of WW2, science had wrung as much power per unit weight out of piston engines as it was possible to do. Then along comes the gas turbine that turned the engine world on its head, delivering VAST power per unit weight, and completely destroying the big radials as viable powerplants.

    The power of a Rolls-Royce Trent gas turbine (B-777) is almost inconceivable. 100,000 pounds of thrust.

    Cooling was always a problem, but as Z mentioned, the highly-researched NACA cowlings ended up completely negating any drag penalty from the frontal area, much like the P-51 radiator actually turns the waste heat into measurable forward thrust.
    As a footnote, the ultimate development of the radial engine after WWII was the Wright R-3350 Turbo-Compound engine, which developed 3,400 HP. However, the engine was considerably more complicated than a normally-aspirated radial and, therefore, somewhat less reliable. The last application for this engine was the Lockheed EC-121 Warning Star, which served until 1982.

    Last edited by Stitch; 24 Mar 11, at 16:53. Reason: Add Photo
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  14. #29
    In Memoriam/Battleship Enthusiast Defense Professional USSWisconsin's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Dec 08
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,434
    We had a couple of the R-2800's at the UW Madison, one was a cutaway, I wish I had some pictures, but a favorite distraction of mine was studying that cutaway - I can still remember the giant "4 barrel" carburetor (similar to the black one in the upper left hand corner of the lower picture above)- even more impressive when you looked at the cars they built during that period, these engines were amazing.

    for contrast - here is the liguid cooled engine the P-51 was designed with, the Allison V-1710 (1710 cid, the P-38, P-39 and P-40 also used it)
    Attachment 24745Attachment 24746
    http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%201383.html this describes the Allison in detail

    the Rolls Royce Merlin (1647 cid) was very similar, but had a two stage, intercooled, supercharger, making it better at altitude and more heavily boosted (AND it was strong enough to take it).
    Attachment 24747Attachment 24748
    ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN ENGINE
    Last edited by USSWisconsin; 24 Mar 11, at 17:46.
    "If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

  15. #30
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    The Merlin sounds better (smoother) than the R-2800.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. WWII fighter comparison I Zero v P-40
    By zraver in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 24 May 11,, 18:13
  2. P-51 Mustang v. Bf-109K/Fw-190D
    By Triple C in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 26 Jul 08,, 23:31
  3. WWII Germany Vs WWII Russia
    By Cosmobreeze in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 28 Jun 07,, 22:33
  4. India May Split Fighter Buy Between MiG-35 and Western Fighter
    By outofshdw in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 28 Feb 07,, 06:54
  5. 2005 Mustang
    By Praxus in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 17 Feb 04,, 23:20

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •