A what if about the P-51...

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Colin1

Early in 1944, comparative trials were flown between the Corsair in F4U-1 and F4U-1A versions and the P-51B. The Corsairs were flown at a weight of 12,162lbs against 9,423lbs for the Mustang. The Corsair had an equal range to the Mustang and twice the firepower, the Corsair also proved to be faster than the Mustang at all heights up to about 24,200ft, above which the Mustang had the edge. The Corsairs climbed better to 20,000ft and once again, the Mustang had the edge in climb above this height.
The Corsair proved better than the Mustang in level-flight acceleration, manoeuvrability and response as well as a lower stalling speed while the Mustang had a better dive acceleration.

There are some items that should be clarified on the Navy 1944 test comparison. The P-51B tested had the -3 engine, not the available and more powerful (at low altitude) -7 engine. Also, the F4U-1 that was tested was highly modified and was apparently an F4U-4 testbed. Another note is that the F4U-1A was a water injected version (the P-51B-3 actually outperfomed this version in airspeed except at around 15k). Had the P-51B-7 been tested, it would have easily out performed both aircraft in airspeed, except around 15k, from SL up and would have most likely outperformed both in climb. The P-51B would have had a range advantage over the newer F4U-1D and -4, which removed wing tanks. In any event, the Navy knew it already had a plane that would meet its needs without buying an AF aircraft. I am surprised this test was even run. Probably at the demands of some senator.....from California!

[renrich]

I believe that a substantial drag penalty would have resulted if a P51 had been fitted with a turbo supercharger. That additional drag would probably have more than offset any increase in performance at high altitudes.

[Condora]

Originally Posted by Clay_Allison

The only thing wrong with it was we never had enough of them and they cost twice as much as a single-engined plane. It was amazing though because it was a legitimate twin-engined dogfighter, not a big lazy battleship like the Mosquito, Black Widow, and Beaufighter.

Hey, don't trash the Mosquito!
It was good enough to be the basis for a fighter (the Hornet).

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by renrich

I believe that a substantial drag penalty would have resulted if a P51 had been fitted with a turbo supercharger. That additional drag would probably have more than offset any increase in performance at high altitudes.

I definitely think that the bulkiness of a P-47 type turbo supercharger would have significantly affected the cleanliness of the P-51 airframe.

[Daviducus2]

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by Condora

Hey, don't trash the Mosquito!
It was good enough to be the basis for a fighter (the Hornet).

It was an incredible plane. I base part of my belief that the US should have tried to make a small single-engine export fighter on the success of the Mozzie.

[Condora]

Originally Posted by Clay_Allison

It was an incredible plane. I base part of my belief that the US should have tried to make a small single-engine export fighter on the success of the Mozzie.

Single-engine? Why, the Hornet was a dream!
One of the most beautiful airplanes I've seen. I just wish there was ONE still intact...

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by Clay_Allison

I base part of my belief that the US should have tried to make a small single-engine export fighter on the success of the Mozzie.

I'm not sure I understand you

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by Colin1

I'm not sure I understand you

Sorry, should have been more specific. I mean to say that the Mozzie proves that wood can work in combat aircraft. I made the mistake of thinking everyone had heard my "plywood powerhouse" theory. I've said in other threads that the US should have made a light plywood fighter to lend lease to allies who had a hard tome getting planes.

[Shortround6]

Light weight fighters were losers.

The idea is atractive on the surface and has been pursued by a number of nations and/or companies but the only times it has been successful is when a breakthrough in engine technology has allowed the "light weight fighter" to use an engine with a much higher power to weight ratio than the conventional "heavy fighter".

If you are using planes of the same technolagy level, say piston engine planes of 1940 then the light fighter has several strikes against it.
1. the higher power engines ussually had better power to weight ratios than medium powered engines, they also had better power to frontal area ratios.
2. the was a certain amount of 'fixed' weight in a fighter. pilots couldn't be scaled down by much, instraments, radios, oxogen equipment etc. this weight is a smaller fraction of the larger fighters weight which means that on a percentage basis it should be able to carry more armament, or more fuel than the light fighter.
3. light fighters have limited growth potential. They are less adaptable to other roles.

Now Mr. Allison may have a different idea of a light fighter than I do but the Bell XP-77 was a first class turkey. The French Caudron series seem to be total failures as combat planes. Lots was promised but little delivered. The Italian Ambrosini series may have had serious issues also.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Shortround6

Now Mr. Allison may have a different idea of a light fighter than I do but the Bell XP-77 was a first class turkey.

Was it? Only 2 were built and one crashed and the concept for a light weight fighter to be built from non strategic materials simply vanished as the war went on. Additionally during its development, the Army and Navy (yes they were interested in the aircraft as well) changed specifications which had the aircraft over weight and behind schedule. Although some say its performance was disappointing, to get 330 mph out of a 550 hp engine is nothing to scoff at.

Had the need been there and more time been available for development and the design specs not changed, the P-77 had some potential. It would not have been a major impact fighter like the P-51 or P-47, but it could have served well if time and money became a factor. Additionally the tricycle landing gear would have been a plus for green pilots.

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by Shortround6

Light weight fighters were losers.

The idea is atractive on the surface and has been pursued by a number of nations and/or companies but the only times it has been successful is when a breakthrough in engine technology has allowed the "light weight fighter" to use an engine with a much higher power to weight ratio than the conventional "heavy fighter".

If you are using planes of the same technolagy level, say piston engine planes of 1940 then the light fighter has several strikes against it.
1. the higher power engines ussually had better power to weight ratios than medium powered engines, they also had better power to frontal area ratios.
2. the was a certain amount of 'fixed' weight in a fighter. pilots couldn't be scaled down by much, instraments, radios, oxogen equipment etc. this weight is a smaller fraction of the larger fighters weight which means that on a percentage basis it should be able to carry more armament, or more fuel than the light fighter.
3. light fighters have limited growth potential. They are less adaptable to other roles.

Now Mr. Allison may have a different idea of a light fighter than I do but the Bell XP-77 was a first class turkey. The French Caudron series seem to be total failures as combat planes. Lots was promised but little delivered. The Italian Ambrosini series may have had serious issues also.

I don't like the XP-77, XP-57 or any other plan that uses a second rate engine. On the other hand, the Miles M.20 was a fantastic plane that tested very well. the British just didn't need it because they already had a non-strategic-materials fighter (the Hurricane). The VG-33 was another good example that I think was a very good plane. The MB2 looks awful but might have been good with a decent power plant as it tested well. The Finns made a prototype wooden copy of the Bf-109 toward the end of the war.

My definition of a light fighter is any fighter that gets the most horsepower per pound that is possible from non-strategic materials and an adequate armament package.

[Shortround6]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Was it? Only 2 were built and one crashed and the concept for a light weight fighter to be built from non strategic materials simply vanished as the war went on. Additionally during its development, the Army and Navy (yes they were interested in the aircraft as well) changed specifications which had the aircraft over weight and behind schedule. Although some say its performance was disappointing, to get 330 mph out of a 550 hp engine is nothing to scoff at.

Had the need been there and more time been available for development and the design specs not changed, the P-77 had some potential. It would not have been a major impact fighter like the P-51 or P-47, but it could have served well if time and money became a factor. Additionally the tricycle landing gear would have been a plus for green pilots.

There is some doubt as to weither the XP-77 did manange the 330mph. Or if it did was it carring guns at the time. Major discrepancies in climb performance figures. The two .50 cal mg armament wasn't very impressive for the time it was concieved let alone built (granted it was concieved with a 20mm cannon but think about it). Some sources say initial performance estimates were based on faulty wind tunnel data.
Full scale testing in NACA wind tunnel couldn't cure engine overheating problems.
Bell's other commitments and the reakization that this thing wasn't going to hit perforemance estimates may have also slowed work.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by Clay_Allison

Sorry, should have been more specific. I mean to say that the Mozzie proves that wood can work in combat aircraft. I made the mistake of thinking everyone had heard my "plywood powerhouse" theory. I've said in other threads that the US should have made a light plywood fighter to lend lease to allies who had a hard tome getting planes.

My bad
you were talking about wood, I thought you were talking about engines - a single-engined aircraft based around the success of a twin-engined aircraft?!?!

[Shortround6]

Originally Posted by Clay_Allison

I don't like the XP-77, XP-57 or any other plan that uses a second rate engine. On the other hand, the Miles M.20 was a fantastic plane that tested very well. the British just didn't need it because they already had a non-strategic-materials fighter (the Hurricane). The VG-33 was another good example that I think was a very good plane. The MB2 looks awful but might have been good with a decent power plant as it tested well. The Finns made a prototype wooden copy of the Bf-109 toward the end of the war.

My definition of a light fighter is any fighter that gets the most horsepower per pound that is possible from non-strategic materials and an adequate armament package.

I am having a little trouble with your defintion. It is all well and good as you state it but your examples seem a bit fuzzy if "light" has any reference to weight.
Yes, the Miles M.20 was a fantastic airplane, it was also one ton heavier than a MK I Spitfire when loaded. The Martin Baker was only about 250lb lighter than the Spitfire.
The Hurricane wasn't exactly non-strategic-materials fighter. The vast majority of production were fabric covered from the cockpit back but the wings were aluminum covered and the frame work was a mixture of steel and aluminium.
THe VG-33 while using a smaller wing was actually just about the same weight as a Dewoitine D.520.
How much more than the 109 did the Finnish fighter weigh?
Japanese made a wooden prototype of the Ki 84. it gained 600lbs which was If I remember correctly lighter than the all steel version.

tell me you want a non-aluminium or non-strategic-materials fighter. I just get confused when you call it "light"