PDA

View Full Version : P-51B faster than the P-47D27 at high alt...



Sir.Robin-1337
11-29-2004, 11:33 AM
whoopidooo... so what else is new?

Dunno who these Jug jocksā® are, thinking they rule the roost up high.
Mustang III owns. be sure.

Daiichidoku
11-29-2004, 11:50 AM
hehe....one could even tie a troll the size of the author's to a Jug and it would still waste any foolish pony daring to show it's flimsy, wing-snapping, radiator-dependent @ss up where the Gods reside, wether the B or the H...gimme a break

The mustang....a true jack-of-all-trades..does everything well, but does nothing great...theres always a type that will outclimb, outmanuver, outdive, outfirepower, out-anything the stang

I will admit that its a fine looking thing, and makes a great "sportplane" for weekend jaunts, but it has no business in a virtual combat situation

Woulda been mightily embarrasing if the pony went to combat in real numbers vs a Luftwaffe that wasnt "pacified" and lost its "cream" in the WF to Jugs n Spits first

Diablo310th
11-29-2004, 12:05 PM
Have to admit...the only ac that bothers me up high is a KI84. I ahven't had a chance to fly against teh Russian ac yet so i can't judge how they are. But at 8000-10,000m a Stang of any type doesn't bother me. I'm not bragging cause i'm far from being a great pilot but I ahve done alot of fighting up high in God's space in competitions and all only the Ki is a real pain.

Daiichidoku
11-29-2004, 12:13 PM
Diablo, funny Ki's are a problem for you up high in a Jug....for me, the only potential threat up high are the Spits (with that 20 mph speed overage at alt, dunno if thats been fixed in 301 or 302b yet)

Stangs, and even TA 152s bother me in the least at alt...which Ive always wondered about, with the 152 supposedly so great at alt

bolillo_loco
11-29-2004, 12:15 PM
I am by no means against american a/c. it is the opposite I like american a/c the best even though I am fond of the english tempest.

that being said.......the popular 443 mph figure for the 51b was taken from a mustang that got special treatment. it also took off with the rear fuel tank completely removed, while the 428-436 mph figure for various D model 47s was taken from a 47 that took off with full internal stores and recived no special treatment. the special treatment I speak of means........all suface areas were blended, gaps were filled, and it was sanded down to make it smooth and then got a nice wax job. I am not sure if you are aware of this. I use to be an avid mustang fan. a few years back flight sims caused me to do a lot of research. I was trying to prove the mustang right (being a mustang mania type person) when all I could find was data that proved me wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif the more I researched the more I liked the Jug and Lightning better.

Copperhead310th
11-29-2004, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir.Robin-1337:
whoopidooo... so what else is new?

Dunno who these Jug jocksā® are, thinking they rule the roost up high.
Mustang III owns. be sure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now i know your smoking crack. lol
no way.

k5054
11-29-2004, 01:14 PM
One Mustang III tested by Boscombe Down did 450mph at 27800ft, another managed 455. The biased USN P-51B/Corsair test has the Mustang doing 450 at altitude. In late 43 it was the fastest thing up there, beaten only by jets and the P-47M or N and Ta152 in 1945. Those who say it was a jack of all trades don't seem to know it was the fastest prop fighter for a year and more, together with the Spit 14, which had silmilar speed, better climb, no range.

P-47 fan though I am, when I researched what happened during Big Week, when the 38,47 and 51 were all employed against the same Luftwaffe, I found the P-51 scored more kills/sortie than the 47, which scored more than the 38. The 47 loss rate was far less than the other two. The P-51 scored better faster with all the units which flew it, even though they were fresh from the US (357th and 354th FG) and the -47 units were vets.

MEGILE
11-29-2004, 01:19 PM
hehe.. gotta remember to log out.

Interesting points indeed K5054

Korolov
11-29-2004, 01:28 PM
In game @ 9300m

P-47D-27 w/ Extra Ammo and 100% fuel: 708kmh (438mph)
P-51B-NA 100% fuel: 683kmh (423mph)

It seems in-game figures prove you wrong, Robin.

But that's still a pretty fast figure for the Mustang. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Copperhead310th
11-29-2004, 01:34 PM
Korolov

How do the German birds of the same year stack up against the P-47 & P-51 under the same conditions in regards to speed?

Sir.Robin-1337
11-29-2004, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
In game @ 9300m

P-47D-27 w/ Extra Ammo and 100% fuel: 708kmh (438mph)
P-51B-NA 100% fuel: 683kmh (423mph)

It seems in-game figures prove you wrong, Robin.

But that's still a pretty fast figure for the Mustang. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lies, lies, deceit, lies, propaganda and more lies.

Oleg told me so!

Korolov
11-29-2004, 01:59 PM
At these altitudes, not very good.

Same conditions as above:
Bf-109G-14 - 596kmh,
Bf-109G-10 - 640kmh
Bf-109G-6/AS - 614kmh
Fw-190A-9 - 570kmh
Fw-190A-8 - 595kmh
Fw-190D-9 - 643kmh

These planes are not very capable beyond 8000m, their speed and handling represents this. Their best performance is in the realm of about 6500 to 7500m; Fw-190As slightly lower, from about 5000 to 6000.

Korolov
11-29-2004, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir.Robin-1337:
Lies, lies, deceit, lies, propaganda and more lies.

Oleg told me so! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
11-29-2004, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
At these altitudes, not very good.

Same conditions as above:
Bf-109G-14 - 596kmh,
Bf-109G-10 - 640kmh
Bf-109G-6/AS - 614kmh
Fw-190A-9 - 570kmh
Fw-190A-8 - 595kmh
Fw-190D-9 - 643kmh

These planes are not very capable beyond 8000m, their speed and handling represents this. Their best performance is in the realm of about 6500 to 7500m; Fw-190As slightly lower, from about 5000 to 6000. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to latest Il-2 compare, 109K4 is faster than P-47D27 at all altitudes and 190D ('44) is faster up to 7250m.

Cheers,
Norris

MEGILE
11-29-2004, 03:23 PM
IL2 Compare also has the P-51B as faster than the P-47D27 at high altitude....
I guess IL2 Compare, like Sir.Robin, is wrong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Korolov
11-29-2004, 03:35 PM
Bf-109K-4 can't really be considered a '44 plane, even if it came into service of October that year. The G series planes were most common all the way to the end. Otherwise, I would have ran a test with it as well.

Additionally, remember that these test results were done at 9300m, and the conditions at that altitude are very different from the rated speeds for many planes. The P-51B, for example, reaches it's top speed at 8000m. Most 109s reach their top speed at about 7500m.

Lastly, IL-2 Compare shows the planes max performance with no fuel or ammo, at perfect atmospheric conditions. Live tests in the game are more reliable than the data acquired from IL-2 Compared.

Copperhead310th
11-29-2004, 11:19 PM
Sorry the P-47D-27 is faster than all FW-190 models at all altitudes. Belive it or not the p-47 is faster at sea leval the both FW-190D's...and at high alt.

(the sea level thing left me scratching my head going "that can't be right" but it is. i thought the Dora would be faster.)

The closest thing in the LW Aresnal that can even think about catching a Jug at alt is the TA-152H and even that has a hard go of it.
We typicaly opperate at altitudes of 27,000 feet. nothing can touch us up there. bad thing is....most of the time there is nothing up there to touch us. lol so we have to come down and fight near the hard deck. (10,000 feet)

Von_Rat
11-30-2004, 02:34 AM
huh..... last time i checked, the d9 was faster than p47 SL, by about 20 kph. crimea map.

yep,, just tested again,crimea map, 25% fuel, rads closed, everything maxed, on both d9 and p47d27.

d9 was more than 20kph faster IAS, at sea level.

MEGILE
11-30-2004, 04:55 AM
Yeah I thought we went over the whole D27 vs D9 thing. Didn't Korolov show that the FW-190D9 was faster at Sea Level?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VK_Dim
11-30-2004, 05:35 AM
I don't now where are yxou guys pulling your data from, but i can hardly go above 300km/h with 109 or 190 above 8km.
I'm probably doin something wrong.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-30-2004, 06:28 AM
Hi,

Not wanting to hijack this but, while I haven't checked against the Il-2 compare data specifically, I've not found the P47 to be faster than the 190 below 5k...In fact, I've had little trouble catching and bagging them.

Cheers,
Norris

MOhz
11-30-2004, 10:56 AM
Inless they are doing something wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ; I outran a P47D (no idea what fuel load they had)in a F8 with 50% fuel...

Korolov
11-30-2004, 12:57 PM
Below 5k, it's almost certain that the Fw-190 will outrun the P-47. When the fighting starts going beyond 6500m though, this is when the Fw-190 will start to lose it's edge.

robban75
11-30-2004, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

Not wanting to hijack this but, while I haven't checked against the Il-2 compare data specifically, I've not found the P47 to be faster than the 190 below 5k...In fact, I've had little trouble catching and bagging them.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Recent findings show that there is something not right in the speed department for the Wurgers. The P-47 is actually faster than the D-9 even at 3000m by about 10km/h, not much but it's enough. According to charts the D-9 '45 is some 50km/h too slow at this alt and the '44 D-9 is 40km/h too slow. There seems to be speed problems with the A-8 aswell, not sure about the other variants though. But Hunde is on it.

Chuck_Older
11-30-2004, 04:11 PM
Boring!

Sir.Robin-1337
11-30-2004, 04:31 PM
My thread has been deemed unsuitable for public viewing by chuckie. please lock it at once.

Thanks for the bump btw chuck.. makes my job easier.

Chuck_Older
11-30-2004, 06:08 PM
Being boring is your job? Lucky you. I guess "predictable" is just a sideline for you then, eh?

Ankanor
11-30-2004, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>POsted by Chuck_older

Being boring is your job? Lucky you. I guess "predictable" is just a sideline for you then, eh?

Posts: 3333 | Registered: Tue January 06 2004 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Congrats on your 3333rd post. Make a wish.

No, no, that won't do. The P-40 is good enough now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

bolillo_loco
12-01-2004, 12:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
One Mustang III tested by Boscombe Down did 450mph at 27800ft, another managed 455. The biased USN P-51B/Corsair test has the Mustang doing 450 at altitude. In late 43 it was the fastest thing up there, beaten only by jets and the P-47M or N and Ta152 in 1945. Those who say it was a jack of all trades don't seem to know it was the fastest prop fighter for a year and more, together with the Spit 14, which had silmilar speed, better climb, no range.

P-47 fan though I am, when I researched what happened during Big Week, when the 38,47 and 51 were all employed against the same Luftwaffe, I found the P-51 scored more kills/sortie than the 47, which scored more than the 38. The 47 loss rate was far less than the other two. The P-51 scored better faster with all the units which flew it, even though they were fresh from the US (357th and 354th FG) and the -47 units were vets. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you re-read the "usn biased test" you will note that they give the special preperations list for the mustang, it included all sheet metal blended, all gaps filled, seams were made flush, a/c was sanded down with fine grit sand paper, and then it was waxed. I believe it was running on 115/145 fuel and the engine was boosted accordingly. If I remember correctly the a/c was not flown with full internal fuel and ammo. I am sure all the 440+ mph figures are for specially prepped mustangs.

k5054
12-01-2004, 01:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you re-read the "usn biased test" you will note that they give the special preperations list for the mustang, it included all sheet metal blended, all gaps filled, seams were made flush, a/c was sanded down with fine grit sand paper, and then it was waxed. I believe it was running on 115/145 fuel and the engine was boosted accordingly. If I remember correctly the a/c was not flown with full internal fuel and ammo. I am sure all the 440+ mph figures are for specially prepped mustangs <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They gave a far more special job to the faster of the two Corsairs, including boost which was not allowed for service a/c at that time. The P-51B didn't get special boost, its speed was attained at high alt where no extra boost is available. As for the fuel, 115/145 or 150 oct was avaialable for 8th AF Mustangs, and RAF versions. These were the main users of the P-51B. Further, they did not have a high sortie rate, the escort missions were contingent on the bomber force, they didn't go every day. Plenty of time for the crew chief to get out the sandpaper and polish. They gave the a/c to a crew chief and crew for a reason. The guys took pride in THEIR a/c, and only lent it to the pilot for missions. Note the 8th frequently put the crew's names on the aircraft. you think they wouldn't polish it up?

In a sim world where Ki-84s are given performance to match a perfect example 'running US fuel', why wouldn't the P-51 be given the same consideration. It seems the only air arms which actually HAD the high-octane fuel have their planes modelled without it.
The P-51 was a genuine 440+ aircraft. The Boscombe Down 455mph test was achieved by using 2800rpm, not the usual 3000. It seems that at that speed the gain in prop efficiency from running slower gave more thrust than the so-called combat setting.

Von_Rat
12-01-2004, 01:57 AM
yes i just tested it, p47 is just slighty slower than d9 at 3000m, and i mean slighty.

what gives, shouldnt the d9 be alot faster than a p47 at this hieght.

bolillo_loco
12-01-2004, 05:20 AM
well k5054, you keep skirting the issue that I brought up, was the mustang given special treatment or not? you've read the report so just admit it. the mustang in question was not a run of the mill mustang. admit it......nobody will shun you.

I am not saying how any plane should or shouldnt be modeled in this game, just how the data in question has been attained. now I remember why I quit posting at this forum........its pointless.

Sir.Robin-1337
12-01-2004, 11:45 AM
Coincidently, it would appear that the Mustang III performed in real life, similarly to how it does in-game.
You learn something new everyday.

k5054
12-01-2004, 11:50 AM
Special treatment? I don't know. I don't think polishing the aircraft and bringing it to its best state for a performance test is exactly cheating. If it gaves the best possible result with everything perfect, isn't that the speed we want to see? If normal aircraft in squadron service were unable to make book figures, that is no surprise. And it applies to any fighter. It MAY apply more to the Mustang, which is said to have been very sensitive to surface smoothness according to some sources (others say laminar flow wasn't the reason the Mustang was fast...), however, it's also a fact that this was known, and crew chiefs did polish their charges. so, if some mustangs could be polished to get 450-455, then the book figure of 441 seems reasonable. I'm willing to accept the flight test figures of a respectable flight test organization, preferably not the manufacturers or tech intel units of limited resources. I find this data difficult to obtain in many cases, but the Mustang is not one such case. On this forum you may see many people who in their blind passion for one aircraft or another will argue one source of dubious data against any number which don't say what they want. I am not one of them. I accept all sources and come to a tentative conclusion based on many factors. I'm willing to be proved wrong.
Perhaps you'd like to post a few mustang flight tests which show that the P-51B, the one with the -3 engine, didn't have speed in the close neighbourhood of 440mph at 28-30,000ft.

If we are to say these flight tests must be disregarded because they do not represent a normal squadron service aircraft, then we have to throw away 90% of our current conceptions. No aircraft will be safe. Whiners here would have a field day.

Daiichidoku
12-01-2004, 12:13 PM
Easy to understand why Bolillo doesnt like posting here...at least about this kind of subject, cuz its...well....subjective, hehe

there is no standard, of course, to measure flight performance of any given type

Its inveitable to have slight differences in flight data for a given type, with so many different sources under many different conditions

Ive read that Oleg uses the best figures for every type, which is a logical way to do it...but Ive also read that he often uses prototype data for many of the Russian types...imagine if he used prototype data for unladen us and british types? hoo-boy!

As for manufacterer's data being something to take with a grain of salt, well, of course...but the same coudl also be said of Gov. data, too...if YOU were the head of a Russian design bureau, with the very real possibility of Gulag, would you tell comrade Stalin the latest product of Soviet air industry is anything less then sterling, or superior to any other non Red type? NO WAY!...a lil bit o fudge goes a long way to keeping your @ss away from siberia! (just an example, Im NOT picking on Russian test data in particular!)

Chuck_Older
12-01-2004, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir.Robin-1337:
Coincidently, it would appear that the Mustang III performed in real life, similarly to how it does in-game.
You learn something new everyday. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

??

I thought you had no interest in that stuff

k5054
12-01-2004, 12:37 PM
Apologies for what's going to be a long post. This below is something I posted on a newsgroup some years ago. I quote it exactly even though some specific data in it is now wrong (the MW in the FW). It attempts to tell you how to treat speed figures.
**************************


When you are looking at maximum speeds for WWII aircraft, a good
reference is essential. A top speed with no altitude is only half the
story, especially for a piston-engined aircraft. Your reference should
tell you what supercharging the engine employed, and its rated altitude
in each gear where applicable. For a multi-speed supercharger the max
speed should be given in each gear too. If there is a War Emergency Rating,
water injection, MW50 or GM-1, the conditions under which they apply
should be quoted. Example: The FW-190A had a BMW-801D engine typically
quoted as having 2100hp with boost and a top speed quoted as, say,
408mph at 18700ft. That engine had 1440hp at that height. The 2100 was
probably only available with MW50 at a very much lower height. So our
reference hasn't actually given a speed/power/height combination we can
use to estimate the drag. If we had those three data simultaneously
for one condition of flight (doesn't even have to be at max speed), we
could work out (approximately) pretty much the entire envelope, speed,
climb, ceiling, the works.
It would be nice if the reference book gave the source of the speed
data too. Very few do. Ideally we are looking for data produced by
the country's flight test establishment, Rechlin, Wright Field or
Boscombe Down etc, rather than manufacturer's data, which can be
optimistic. (Or just PR, the 390mph/20,000ft of the Bell XP-39 being a case
in point. It seems no such test result can now be found...) For late-war
fighters the ASI system could not be trusted at high mach. Test
establishments had the means to measure more accurately. Occasionally you
find personal histories which make speed claims on behalf of the aircraft
the author flew. They're fine as background data, but be aware that they
are not a basis for comparison between aircraft because of uncontrolled
conditions and inability to calibrate the ASI for high mach. Also the boost
pressure used in the field may not match engine limitations.

Once you get some good data, you still need to be aware of national
standards for presentation of the data. Sometimes the zero-speed
critical altitude of the engine is used as the datum altitude for top
speed. In fact the engine gets some benefit from ram air and has more
power when at top speed than when going slow. This can give a max
achieved top speed some 2-3000ft above the zero-speed critical altitude,
depending on the pressure recovery in the induction system, at typical
speeds and heights for a fighter. If the engine critical height and the
height quoted for top speed are the same, that raises a question of what
standard is being used. Sometimes the national standard is to give
speeds at fixed heights. Beware of round numbers, it's not likely that
the top speed is achieved at some exact multiple of 5000ft or
1000meters. (It helps to learn what one system's round numbers are
expressed in the other units, 1000meters=3280ft,600kph=373mph). Look for
aircraft types with the same engine to get their top speeds at similar
heights. If they don't, within a thousand feet or so, there is a
question to be answered. (Check that it IS the same engine, the R-2800
in a P-47 is turbo'ed and tops out at 30,000ft ish, in a F4U it is two-
stage mechanical with three effective gears and has three max speed
points up to around 20,000+).

Anyhow, given a speed/height which is a maximum in that supercharger gear,
you can infer some things about speeds at other heights. Above that point,
the aircraft will be slower progressively unless the gear is changed or
it has GM-1 or another LOX or NO boost system. Both power and form drag
decrease with air density, at say 3% per 1000ft at 20,000, but induced
drag increases as density decreases, and as the aircraft goes slower, so
although it may be only 5-10% of drag at rated alt, it soon goes way up.
Below the rated alt, the power is constant with height (unless there is
a gear change or WER boost is allowed) but form drag increases with density
(induced drag decreases, but from a small figure) so the aircraft goes
slower. By about 3-4 mph per 1000ft, (the plot is a straight line)
depending on aircraft characteristics (tends to be less for turbo types
or where the supercharger drive is hydraulic, DB60x engines or the Allison
in the P-63 or P-82). If the data doesn't match this, there's a question
to be answered. An small increase in power (in a new mark of the same
airframe) of X% should produce a max speed increase of X/3 %.
If the data doesn't match this, did the engine have a rated height change
too? Did extra guns or weight change the drag?

If two similar types with similar power at similar heights don't compare
closely, there's a question. There is no magic in aviation, just
physics. There must be a reason why. WW2 fighters were nearly all very
similar. Low-wing single-engine monoplanes with aspect ratio around 6,
1000-2000 hp piston engine, 150-300 sq ft wing area, 30-40 ft span, that
description probably covers at least 80% of 300,000+ fighters built
1936-1945.

lrrp22
12-01-2004, 12:48 PM
bolillo,

You're confusing 443 mph with 453 mph, which is the speed a P-51B-1-NA without fuselage tank achieved in NAA testing.

A production, fully combat-equipped RAF Mustang III (also a P-51B-1-NA) did 450 mph at 28,000 ft without wingracks, so the 440 mph@29,000 ft is fully legitimate for a standard production P-51B equipped with the V-1650-3 engine. The U.S. Navy also got 450 mph from a "slightly" cleaned-up -3-engined P-51B.

The fuselage tank was not 'removed' from the -1-NA since it wasn't installed until the -5-NA production block. -1-NA's in squadron service eventually had fuselage tank kits installed to become P-51B-7-NA's. Either way, installation of the fuselage tank would have virtually zero impact on top speed.

Also, all Mustangs left the factory with puttied and sanded wing joints, so that in no way represents special treatment.

There are many who populate these boards that look for any reason to discount the Mustang's performance figure, but the fact is that the testing, operational and historical records fully support the accepted numbers. In fact, many of the accepted numbers are conservative considering the increased power levels used by most Mustangs in combat service.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I am by no means against american a/c. it is the opposite I like american a/c the best even though I am fond of the english tempest.

that being said.......the popular 443 mph figure for the 51b was taken from a mustang that got special treatment. it also took off with the rear fuel tank completely removed, while the 428-436 mph figure for various D model 47s was taken from a 47 that took off with full internal stores and recived no special treatment. the special treatment I speak of means........all suface areas were blended, gaps were filled, and it was sanded down to make it smooth and then got a nice wax job. I am not sure if you are aware of this. I use to be an avid mustang fan. a few years back flight sims caused me to do a lot of research. I was trying to prove the mustang right (being a mustang mania type person) when all I could find was data that proved me wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif the more I researched the more I liked the Jug and Lightning better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
12-01-2004, 01:16 PM
The extent of the 'special treatment' the Navy's test Mustang received was limited to a light sanding of the paintwork, that's it. I believe the Navy test specifically states that the Mustang's finish was only "slightly" improved over production standards. The other aspects of its finish were standard production features and, like K5054 said, polished Mustangs were very common in squadron service. Of course, so were polished P-47's.

Even that light sanding likely left the wing's surface in a less 'polished' state than the wing of the natural metal Mustangs that began to arrive in England during April of '44. Those NMF Mustangs' puttied and sealed wings were coated with a very smooth application of silver lacquer that would have at least equalled the polished surface of an OD-painted version (all P-51B-1-NA's were painted Olive Drab over Neutral Grey).

Whether or not the Navy's example was using 115/145 grade fuel (highly unlikely) is irrelevant since it would have no affect on top speed over 25,000 ft or so. Also, I believe the Navy quotes a weight of around 9,100 lbs for its Mustang which was the full-up combat weight for that production block. IIRC, it is the 453 mph NAA test that quotes a lower tested weight.

In short bolillo, no, the 440 mph figures do not represent "specially prepared" performance numbers. Even with wing racks, an early block P-51B/C running at standard WEP setting should be good for ~440 mph.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
if you re-read the "usn biased test" you will note that they give the special preperations list for the mustang, it included all sheet metal blended, all gaps filled, seams were made flush, a/c was sanded down with fine grit sand paper, and then it was waxed. I believe it was running on 115/145 fuel and the engine was boosted accordingly. If I remember correctly the a/c was not flown with full internal fuel and ammo. I am sure all the 440+ mph figures are for specially prepped mustangs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

k5054
12-01-2004, 02:44 PM
Here's some figures that may be of interest when comparing the three US fighter types in the 8th AF. These are the stats, claims and losses, from 'Big Week', commonly acknowledged as a very important series of ops in the defeat of the LW, and one in which all three fighter types took part, against LW single and twin-engined fighters.

To compare how the various types did, look at the sorties/kill and sorties/loss figures. (It's good to get a low figure for sorties/kill and a high one for sorties/loss..)


Big Week 20-25 Feb 1944

Eighth AF strengths: 2 groups P-38 (55,20) 2 P-51 (354,357) 11 P-47.

These results are almost entirely air combat in the escort role, three
P-47 lost to flak are the only exceptions I know of. Kills are 'claimed confirmed'.

P-47 P-38 P-51 total
sorties 2594 384 359 3337

77.80% 11.50% 10.70%

kills 137 10 66 213

64% 5% 31%

losses 16 5 11 32

50% 16% 34%

sorties/kil 18.9 38.4 5.4 15.6 ave

sorties/loss 162 76.8 32.6 104 ave

loss/sortie 0.60% 1.30% 3.10% 1%

kills/loss 8.6 2 6 6.6

sortie count
date P-47 P-38 P-51 Total

20th 668 94 73 835
21st 562 69 68 699
22nd 535 67 57 659
23rd 0 0 0 0
24th 142 81 22 245
25th 687 73 139 899

week 2594 384 359 3337

Before 20 Feb 1944 P-38s flew around 1800 sorties for 69 losses and a
similar number of kills. Around 26 sorties/kill or loss.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

k5054
12-01-2004, 02:46 PM
..and as usual all attempts to format a table fail. Ah well....