Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WWII Fighter Comparison II Corsair v Mustang.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • USSWisconsin
    replied
    Thats awesome Chogy! Beautiful machine work!

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied
    Correct on the "G" analysis. A boeing 777 at 300 knots and 2G has the exact same turn radius as an F-16 at 300 knots and 2G. What counts is the lift and drag, which varies with shape, wing loading, powerplant, and airfoil. One airplane will have an energy surplus vs. the other.

    The P-51 shines from it's very high L/D, but the Corsair is no slouch.

    USSWisconsin - your video has opened the door to allow me a blatant "look at me" moment... ;) I posted this once in the Modeler's corner. My shop-built 9-cylinder radial. I was very happy, when it finally ran, to hear the distinct radial engine tones, rather than a typical small-engine chainsaw snarl.


    That's part of the problem. Machines should sound and run smooth. Not sputter and chug.
    Note how I said "100 Harleys in symphony." Going from 2 to 9 or 18 cylinders removes the sputter and chug, and produces a unique sound that is unmistakeable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    I did not go to the start so I am not sure if anyone brought this up already.

    You are comparing 2 aircraft which came from 2 totally different requirement specifications and were used for different missions.

    The Corsair was a naval fighter which was designed for fleet defense; the Mustang was an interceptor which became a strategic bomber escort. Both excelled in the designed roles and also were used effectively in other roles. The Corsair became an excellent strike fighter, night fighter and interdiction aircraft. The Mustang served as a highly effective high speed recce aircraft and proved a great fighter at all altitudes.

    That is my attempt to muddy the waters of debate!

    Leave a comment:


  • 1979
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    At 300mph plus in a sustained 3g turn to stall the Mustang would turn inside the Corsair by a wide margin.

    at 300 mph and a sustained 3g turn the Mustang has a turn radius of 2143 feet and a full 360 deg circle takes 30.5 seconds. (turn rate 11.8 deg/sec).
    at 300 mph and a sustained 5g turn the Mustang has a turn radius of 1244 feet and a full 360 deg circle takes 17.7 seconds. (turn rate 20.3 deg/sec).
    In order for a mustang to turn inside a corsair turn it has to :

    a) pull more g load than the corsair
    b) fly slower than the corsair
    c) both.

    Leave a comment:


  • clackers
    replied
    The love of Lt Col Bill Crump for his Mustang was apparent:

    The P51D was the answer to a fighter's dream. A wonderful flying machine, it possessed an excellent view of the world around, was a fantastic gun platform and was designed to combat all enemies at any distance from base. With a well trained pilot aboard, the P51D was a match for any and all piston-engined fighters. When you shove 61 inches of manifold pressure to that Rolls-Royce Merlin, and that enormous four-bladed propeller starts chewing up the atmosphere ahead, you receive an undeniable communique. You are going somewhere aloft, and fast. Then when you start manouevering this creature and become aware of the positively sensual balance of the controls, you just might find yourself humming a love song. Every airman worth his tin wings nurses a sneaking suspicion he is a natural as a fighter pilot, and those of us who were blessed enough to fly the Mustang were certain of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Boat
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    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
    The TA-152 was actually powered by a Jumo 213 inline V12. From the D model onwards the 190 utilised this engine.

    If the question is which aircraft was a better fighter (as in A2A combat) then in my opinion it has to go to the P-51. The superior ground attack capabilities of the Corsair dont make it a better fighter.

    The P-51 had the advantage of being more pilot friendly. Pilots fresh from training had a better chance of quickly getting their heads around a 51 than Corsair.

    Leave a comment:


  • USSWisconsin
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    That's part of the problem. Machines should sound and run smooth. Not sputter and chug.

    I heard a P-51 at an air show and the sound of that smooth V12 was unforgettable.

    From all the numbers and analysis so far in this thread, it looks like the P-51 was elegance to F4U's brute strength. Sometimes brute force is good. You can always get the job done with enough brute force. However, elegance will improve efficiency.

    My favorite WW2 American fighter is the P-38. Now if only the P-38 could be equipped with 2 Merlins instead of the 2 Allisons...
    The real bane of the V1710 Allison was that it didn't have the intercooler and second stage blower the Merlin did in the P39, P40, and P51A (the prototype XP-39 did have the turbo, but it was removed for export and never put back).

    BUT on the P-38 it had a turbocharger and an intercooler - that made the Allison a great engine - in this trim, the Merlin didn't really have any edge on it. Some of the fastest piston engine experimental fighters and racing planes actually prefered the Allison. Water injection was added on late war turbo intercooled versions and it could match or better the Merlin in this trim.

    Leave a comment:


  • USSWisconsin
    replied
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    BLASPHEMY!! No engine on earth sounds as unique, as cool, as the big-bore WW2-vintage radial engines. The Merlin snarls; the big Wrights and Pratts sound like 100 Harleys in symphony. ;)

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    My favorite WW2 American fighter is the P-38. Now if only the P-38 could be equipped with 2 Merlins instead of the 2 Allisons...
    Good choice, g! The P-38 is MY favorite WWII fighter, also!

    Intereristingly, Lockheed DID propose installing Packard-built Merlins in the P-38, but the WPB nixed the idea, saying all of the US-built Merlins were required for P-51 production. If you read Warren M. Bodie's book, he's got some evidence that a high-ranking member of the WPB had a financial interest in seeing the Alison division of GM keep cranking out the 1710, so he put the kibosh on the Merlin-powered version. Low-level speed & performance weren't improved any with the Merlin, but high-altitude performance was (though, interestingly, at a slight decrease in range).

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    BLASPHEMY!! No engine on earth sounds as unique, as cool, as the big-bore WW2-vintage radial engines. The Merlin snarls; the big Wrights and Pratts sound like 100 Harleys in symphony. ;)
    That's part of the problem. Machines should sound and run smooth. Not sputter and chug.

    I heard a P-51 at an air show and the sound of that smooth V12 was unforgettable.

    From all the numbers and analysis so far in this thread, it looks like the P-51 was elegance to F4U's brute strength. Sometimes brute force is good. You can always get the job done with enough brute force. However, elegance will improve efficiency.

    My favorite WW2 American fighter is the P-38. Now if only the P-38 could be equipped with 2 Merlins instead of the 2 Allisons...

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    The Merlin sounds better (smoother) than the R-2800.
    BLASPHEMY!! No engine on earth sounds as unique, as cool, as the big-bore WW2-vintage radial engines. The Merlin snarls; the big Wrights and Pratts sound like 100 Harleys in symphony. ;)

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    The Merlin sounds better (smoother) than the R-2800.

    Leave a comment:


  • USSWisconsin
    replied
    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)

    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).

    ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN ENGINE
    Attached Files
    Last edited by USSWisconsin; 24 Mar 11,, 17:46.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    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,, 16:53. Reason: Add Photo

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied


    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X