Pelican Parts Forums - All Things Aviation Related

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - All Things Aviation Related (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/1034871-all-things-aviation-related.html)

My daughter just got a job at Epic Aircraft in Bend, OR. She'll be doing materials testing in the lab. They make a pretty nice turbo-prop.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1722539745.jpg

The unit featured in the above MAFFS video is the 146th AW of the CA Air National Guard, of which I have been a member of for 30 years.

Today we had a fantastic party celebrating our 100th anniversary as an Air Wing. Too bad I can’t upload any videos, but here are some still shots.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1722817166.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1722817166.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1722817166.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1722817166.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1722817493.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1723272001.jpg

How did the P-47 fly faster than the P-51 given that it was so non-aerodynamic compared to the 51?

The P-47 Thunderbolt and the P-51 Mustang were both designed and built for different purposes, but they both achieved great success in combat. The P-47 was a heavy fighter-bomber that could carry a large payload of bombs and rockets, while the P-51 was a long-range escort fighter that could protect the bombers from enemy fighters. Both planes had their advantages and disadvantages.

The answer is not so simple but in general, the P-51 was faster than the P-47 at low and medium altitudes, while the P-47 was faster than the P-51 at high altitudes. The reason for this is mainly due to the different engines and turbochargers that each plane used. The P-51 used a Packard V-1650 Merlin engine, which was a liquid-cooled V12 engine that produced 1,720 horsepower. The P-47 used a Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp engine, which was an air-cooled radial engine that produced 2,500 horsepower. The Merlin engine had a better power-to-weight ratio and was more efficient than the Double Wasp engine, which gave the P-51 an edge at lower altitudes.

The Double Wasp engine had a huge turbocharger that boosted its performance at higher altitudes. A turbocharger is a device that compresses the air entering the engine, increasing its density and oxygen content. This allows the engine to burn more fuel and produce more power. The turbocharger of the P-47 was located behind the cockpit and connected to the engine by a long duct. The duct had an intercooler that cooled down the compressed air before it reached the engine.

The turbocharger of the P-47 was very effective at high altitudes, where the air pressure and temperature were lower. It could maintain a constant manifold pressure of 52 inches of mercury up to 30,000 feet, while the Merlin engine could only reach 42 inches of mercury at 25,000 feet. This gave the P-47 a significant advantage in speed and climb rate at high altitudes, where it could reach over 700 km/h.

The aerodynamics of each plane also played a role in their speed performance. The P-51 had a sleek and streamlined design that reduced drag and increased lift. It also had laminar flow wings that smoothed out the airflow over the wing surface, further reducing drag. The P-47 had a bulky and rugged design that increased drag and weight. It also had conventional wings that created more turbulence and drag. The aerodynamics of the P-51 gave it an edge in maneuverability and agility over the P-47.

So, to sum up, the P-51 was faster than the P-47 at low and medium altitudes because of its lighter weight, more efficient engine, and better aerodynamics. The P-47 was faster than the P-51 at high altitudes because of its powerful turbocharger and larger engine. Both planes were excellent fighters that served their roles well in World War II.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe (Post 12300274)

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrochex (Post 12300391)

More bad for Boeing, https://dailycaller.com/2024/08/09/things-just-got-worse-boeing/

Not to mention Boeings Starliner stuck at the space station. It might be six more months before the astronauts can come back home.

If it's Boeing I ain't goin....

Yikes - That Boeing story is bad. I wonder if the news will find it's way up to the ISS and the stranded astronauts. Can you imagine reading that article - I'd be asking for a trip home on Musk's spacecraft.

Perhaps it's time for a new builder of airliners to take the place of Boeing. Space X and Sierra Nevada are already building spacecraft. The Blended Wing Body (BWB) looks interesting.

https://www.jetzero.aero/

Quote:

Originally Posted by KNS (Post 12300479)

The BWB was developed by MDC, but Boeing was not fond of the concept. The folks behind the design, Mark Page, Dr. Leibeck, and Blaine Rawden are all at JetZero. They are teamed with Scaled Composites for a large-scale flying demonstrator.

Kodiak Alaska February 2008.

The Coast Guard was kind enough to give us a lift from village to village.

In this photo two Marine reservists and a Coast Guard dental tech secure our equipment as the Jayhawk takes off.

I think the Jayhawk is related to Paul. 😄

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1723318330.jpg