Best World War II Aircraft?

[B-17engineer]

Originally Posted by Doughboy

I agree.

That's the beauty of a book. It's well researched and is MOST of the time reliable.

[Doughboy]

Originally Posted by B-17engineer

That's the beauty of a book. It's well researched and is MOST of the time reliable.

I agree 100%.

[Njaco]

Jeez, I give up! My eyes are bleeding.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Dark Matter

Its so confusing these days becuase every site says somthing diferent

I stick with one clasification.

Well, according to Warbird Alley, the P-51D tops out at 437mph. The P-47D, 433mph.
Not much difference.
The Jug was tough as nails and flew like it was on rails.
Many who piloted the ol' bird had a real affection for it.
I believe it had a nickname of "Cadillac of the Sky", or something like that, because it was big, roomy, powerful and flew quite "nicely".
Problem was, it didn't have the range of the 51D and what we needed was a competitive escort fighter that had enough range to see the job through.
The P-38 and P-47 just didn't have the legs, plain and simple, so the nod went to the 51D and its miserly P-M engine.
There never was any debate about which one was better. They were all great fighter planes!
..and I bet if I were a soldier back then, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care what kind of plane it was, as long as it was one of ours and was enough to get my @$$ out of the pickle I'm sure it would've been in when those planes arrived on the scene.
I've heard that "lost some cylinders" story before too. Many variations over the years.
Remember, its an 18 cylinder engine, so unless it looses something like 9 or 11 cylinders, its really not that much of a claim. I mean, the guy lost 4 cylinders? That means he still had 14 working just fine.
Dark Matter also forgot to tell the famous story of the P-47 that clipped a tree or a telephone pole (depending on who's telling the story) and lost 4 feet of one wing, turned around and landed with no further mishap.
I'm sure that guy's nickname was "Ace" for a LOOOONG time.




....oh, it was a QUOTE?! dam kids...GET OFFA MY LAWN! Go play in the street or somethin'!.....






Elvis

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Dark Matter

Heres what I think:
Climb rate: P-47

Please show me the rate of the climb for both aircraft. The P-51 had a higher rate of climb (not by much, but it was higher).

Originally Posted by Dark Matter

Endurance and reliability: P-47

Show some proof of this. You have to back up your opinifacts....

(man this is getting tiring...)

Originally Posted by Dark Matter

Advancedness: P-47

How was it more advanced? List all ways that is was more advanced. If you say something like "Avionics", then you have to list what avionics it had to make it more advanced. If you say something like "aerodynamics" then you have to list what features it had to make it more advanced.

Get started!

Originally Posted by Dark Matter

Its so confusing these days becuase every site says somthing diferent

I stick with one clasification.

The P-51D was faster. Why don't you try doing some real research before you post.

You stick with the one classification that proves your point (which is nothing more than opinion). The problem is that your point is not fact and wrong in many cases.

[PJay]

I believe the P-51 was cheaper than the Thunderbolt. 2 very fine aircraft.

[German Ace]

Originally Posted by PJay

I believe the P-51 was cheaper than the Thunderbolt. 2 very fine aircraft.

Yes and yes.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Elvis

[ The P-38 and P-47 just didn't have the legs, plain and simple, so the nod went to the 51D and its miserly P-M engine.

Elvis - remember the first Allied fighters over Berlin were P-38s on March 4, 1944. The P-38's had the legs, just had a few too many problems in ETO cold air at high altitude - and cost 2x P-51

I've heard that "lost some cylinders" story before too. Many variations over the years.
Remember, its an 18 cylinder engine, so unless it looses something like 9 or 11 cylinders, its really not that much of a claim. I mean, the guy lost 4 cylinders? That means he still had 14 working just fine.

The question was when the oil loss finally occurred. While you could keep a 'hot' Merlin in the air longer by moving mixure to rich, the jug would go much longer with cans missing but eventually enough oil blows out of the holes to freeze up the engine.

[Shortround6]

Originally Posted by drgondog

The question was when the oil loss finally occurred. While you could keep a 'hot' Merlin in the air longer by moving mixure to rich, the jug would go much longer with cans missing but eventually enough oil blows out of the holes to freeze up the engine.

A lot more too it than that although I agree with what you have said.

This is assuming of course that when the cylinder departed company with the crankcase it didn't distort the crankcase or leave too much of the piston and/or piston rod flapping around in the breeze.

If pistons departed with the cylinder the balance of the crankshaft assembly just might be a little out of wack.

Wonder just what the firing order turned into or what the vibration was like.
Try just pulling the spark plugs from a few cylinders and see what an engine does.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by drgondog

The question was when the oil loss finally occurred. While you could keep a 'hot' Merlin in the air longer by moving mixure to rich, the jug would go much longer with cans missing but eventually enough oil blows out of the holes to freeze up the engine.

Yes, lack of oil will eventually freeze up any engine.
The gist I always got from the several variations I've heard of that story was that it conveyed the idea of the R-2800's "toughness" and "duirablity", almost to (...wait for it...) "legendary" proportions.
I've always viewed that story as a sort of "word-of-mouth-advertising" for Pratt & Whitney, and really nothing more, although I'm sure there's some truth in there somewhere.
BTW, thanks for reminding me about the P-38. You're right, I incorrectly stated earlier that it didin't have the legs for the mission, when in reality, it actually did.
In fact, you just reminded me of a story I heard about Lindbergh serving a short stint with a P-38 wing somewhere in the Pacific and he figured out how to get some extra range out of that plane.
Its my understanding that he determined that a slight increase in boost, combined with adjusting more pitch into the props, would allow lowering the engine rpm (this is all at "cruise") .
The result just about doubled the plane's range.



Elvis

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Shortround6

Try just pulling the spark plugs from a few cylinders and see what an engine does.

One thing it will do is rock vigorously from side to side.
Of course, some engines had that trait built into them (can you say "Odd Fire V-6"?).
My dad once told me that back in the 50's, Chrysler hadn't quite figured out the firing order on some of their V-8's, so they put it on the marketing department and for a few years, Chrysler advertised their V-8 engines as having "Floating Power".
Eventually, they figured it out and that was the end of "Floating Power".






Elvis

[Shortround6]

On any radial engine the cylinders were steel. Some were all steel and and the fins cut into them and others were a steel liner with aluminium fins. On the R-2800 you had a steel "pipe" 5 3/4 in inside diameter with 'depending on model' an an aluminum muff around it or all steel fins. The piston had a 6in stroke, this is a rather massive piece of engine to go missing.
Considering that the BMEP was over 200lb per sq in the peak pressures may have been over 600PSI which measn a force of just under 16 tons was trying to pull the cylinder from the crankcase over 1300 times a minute at full throttle.
It is going to take more than a 7.9mm bullet to remove one of these cylinders. The fact the engine would stay running in any form or for more than a few seconds is amazing. I am sure that many engines may have given up on the spot but the few that did make it back helped the legend.
What these acounts don't tell is how much of the cylinder is gone.
Just the head?
Partway down the barrel?
gapping hole in the crankcase where the cylinder mounting flange ( or bolt circle) used to be?

By the way "floating power" was used beore WW II and was used to describe mounting the engine with rubber bushings around the mounting bolts to isolate vibration from the rest of the car or plane.
At least that's my loose interpritaions of the phrase as used in quotes in the 1943 edition of "Aircraft Power Plants " by Arthur Fraas

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Shortround6

By the way "floating power" was used beore WW II and was used to describe mounting the engine with rubber bushings around the mounting bolts to isolate vibration from the rest of the car or plane.
At least that's my loose interpritaions of the phrase as used in quotes in the 1943 edition of "Aircraft Power Plants " by Arthur Fraas

Ah Shortround, I'm getting wise to your ways.
Once again. you skew a response, in order (it seems) to either make yourself sound superior, annoy others, or both.
I see a definate pattern developing here.


Elvis

[stang]

if I had to guess what you were in i'd have to guess a p-51 mustang due to the ten rockets you had not sure but maybe the h series. new to site but enjoy learning about those wonderful aircraft

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by stang

if I had to guess what you were in i'd have to guess a p-51 mustang due to the ten rockets you had not sure but maybe the h series. new to site but enjoy learning about those wonderful aircraft

Welcome - also remember 10 rockets won't bring 100,000 troops on the European continent and there aren't P-51 still being used in air forces today. Again welcome and Czech your 6!