Why P51 was Faster than the BF 109

Hippycrowe
Bullet Banger
Bullet Banger
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:26 pm
Location: Findlay Ohio

Re: Why P51 was Faster than the BF 109

Post by Hippycrowe »

The P-38 was exceptionally quiet for a fighter, due to its exhaust being muffled by turbo-superchargers.

Found this onine 10 facts about the P38 and it was one of the only a few planes built before and throughout the war.

DaleH
Member
Member
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:24 pm
Age: 57
Location: Mass, USA

Re: Why P51 was Faster than the BF 109

Post by DaleH »

Awesome Lighting cut-away graphic! Love those kind of pics!

SWIHARTMARK
Member
Member
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:09 pm
Age: 54
Location: DAYTON, OHIO

Re: Why P51 was Faster than the BF 109

Post by SWIHARTMARK »

The leading edge of the wing had inlets for cooling the turbo-superchargers for the Allisons. Once damaged, not so good. It did lower drag though. The man who designed the SR-71 designed the P-38. They managed to get 1710 HP out of the Allison eventually from a start of 1110 HP. I do remember either reading or watching a video on the P-40 that its Allisons were never supercharged, hence a lower performance. Other planes had a higher priority on those parts.

The cooler on the Mustang was under the fuselage I think. The P-38 did have overheating problems with its cooling system. I do know Doolittle liked to fly a P-38. That was stopped real fast though.

Best Regards,

Mark

SWIHARTMARK
Member
Member
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:09 pm
Age: 54
Location: DAYTON, OHIO

Re: Why P51 was Faster than the BF 109

Post by SWIHARTMARK »

I stand corrected, the P-40 did have a supercharger. That's what I get for listening to the History Channel. It does seem the Allison had problems at higher altitude though. The Army liked it for its reliability. Also, the P-40 was high the price of a P-38 and could out turn a ME-109 at low altitude.

Best Regards,

Mark

HectorFuego
Member
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 6:29 pm
Location: Lee's Summit, MO

Re: Why P51 was Faster than the BF 109

Post by HectorFuego »

Just stumbled across this video and thought it might be relevant. Kinda helps you appreciate the P51 a little more. Oh, don't play it at full volume.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6DWBkF7NUI

Hector
If you can't kill it with a 30-06 you ain't in North America.
The first rule of intelligent tinkering is, "Save all the pieces."
It'll feel better when it quits hurtin'.

User avatar
Tommy Atkins
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 911
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:47 pm
Age: 66
Location: Hagerstown, MD

Re: Why P51 was Faster than the BF 109

Post by Tommy Atkins »

It was "blown" but only single-stage unlike the Merlins with the 2-stage units. You can see the side by side comparison with the (Packard) Merlin & the Alison well in these shots.
Allison:
DSCF9946.JPG
DSCF9946.JPG (171.16 KiB) Viewed 2510 times

User avatar
Tommy Atkins
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 911
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:47 pm
Age: 66
Location: Hagerstown, MD

Re: Why P51 was Faster than the BF 109

Post by Tommy Atkins »

DSCF9882.JPG
DSCF9882.JPG (191.26 KiB) Viewed 2510 times
(Packard) Merlin:

Hippycrowe
Bullet Banger
Bullet Banger
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:26 pm
Location: Findlay Ohio

Re: Why P51 was Faster than the BF 109

Post by Hippycrowe »

Why didn't they put the Merlin in the P38.

SWIHARTMARK
Member
Member
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:09 pm
Age: 54
Location: DAYTON, OHIO

Re: Why P51 was Faster than the BF 109

Post by SWIHARTMARK »

The Merlin had a two staged turbo-supercharger, while the Allison had a single stage. This meant significant problems with where to put ducting for cooling the contraption. Also, a Mustang is half the cost of a P-38 and had fewer problems with installing it. As such, the US Army Air Corps felt it was more efficient to use the Merlins on P-51's. The P-38's turbo-supercharger problems seem to be epic. I know Lindberg had to show mechanics stuff about the carburetors to get all the MPH they could out of them that contradicted the specs. The Army also felt the P-38 already had enough power with two engines and the Allison was significantly upgraded from its original design.

I've found that increasing horsepower and performance on an aircraft to be a far more complex thing than doing it with a car. The physics are much more demanding.

I did find that P-51s were used in ground attack mode in Korea since they could fly from Japan and do it. Also, loads were available to give away to the ROK.

I'm surprised I found all this stuff right off the internet, which easily surpasses most stuff I see on cable. Before the net, this would be hard to look up this quick if you could even track down the book or magazine it was in.

Best Regards,

Mark

Hippycrowe
Bullet Banger
Bullet Banger
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:26 pm
Location: Findlay Ohio

Re: Why P51 was Faster than the BF 109

Post by Hippycrowe »

To bad the Vought F4U Corsair didn't get a chance to fight the Germans,the British had them but by the time the British used them for top cover during the Tirpitz raid there were almost no German planes left.

Post Reply

Return to “General Off Topic”