[ARC5] Was the P-51 Mustang unbeatable?

[Captain D.]

The "Dora" model of the FW-190 was every bit as good as the P-51.  There just wasn't enough of them to turn the tide in Europe. Mark D.WW2RDO  In a message dated 8/17/2021 9:19:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, scottjohnson1 at cox.net writes: 

I beg to differ:

The Thunderbird F-16s are not modified in any great fashion.  With a new paint job, and the removal of the smoke system, they are combat ready. Almost all military jet engines I can think of can run in any attitude.  Like larger aircraft reciprocating engines, they have a dry sump oiling system, which simply require that the oil tank have a pivoting pickup tube, or alternate pickups.

The Packard Merlin V-1650 was water cooled, so certainly it didn’t need as much displacement to make an equivalent amount of power.  Less frontal area as well.  The ultimate version of the Allison V-1710 made 3000 HP. Quite impressive for an engine that turned at less than 3000 RPM.  BTW, the Nakajima Sakae in the A6M was essentially a metric pattern Wright R-1830 (the Sakae was 1687 cu. In.)  It delivered about 1200 HP at takeoff, the V-1650-7 in the P-51D developed 1490 HP at T.O.

 

Scott

 

 

From: arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net <arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Robert Eleazer
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 5:40 PM
To: arc5 at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [ARC5] Was the P-51 Mustang unbeatable?

 

The ability to fly upside down is a compeletly useless capability for a military aircraft.  No production military aircraft, from 1944 or 1984 or 2021 is capable of flying upside down for more than 10 sec. Interesting that the P-40 flight manual, the F-86 flight manual and the F-16 flight manual all say the same thing on that subject.

 

Acro display aircaft, such as the Thunderbirds F-16's are various civilian airshow machines are modified with inverted fuel and oil systems.

 

Early war Spitfires and Hurricanes could not dive after enemy aircraft because they had float type carburetors in their Merlin engines that could handle neither negative G nor the flood of fuel that accompanies pulling out of negative G. US built engines, including the Allison and US built Merlins had pressure type carburetors that essentially were a form of throttle body injection and could handle shoving over into a dive with no problem.

 

The odd thing about the Merlin engined P-51 was that it was a world beater but was equipped with the smallest dispacement front line aircraft engine of the entire war.  Even the Japanese Zero had bigger engine.


Wayne

WB5WSV         

 

| 

 | 
Virus-free. www.avg.com
 |


 
______________________________________________________________
ARC5 mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/arc5/attachments/20210818/d907b70c/attachment-0001.html>