Fuel Consumption & Warbird Rides

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:22 pm

I was thinking about the rides idea with a P-47 and this thought occurred to me.

I'm still convinced that one of the reasons the P-51 made it to the "big time" in Europe, and eventually in the Pacific as well, was not so much that the Merlin was so much better than the Radials, but because it was essentially more efficient fuel wise. Also, the P-51 was cheaper to produce, and had longer range.

So - here is the question:

What is the difference in fuel burn with the average P-51 on the civilian market and the Corsairs and P-47s. Obviously, there may be some differences between wartime power settings and what most owners will run them at today. Does this significantly effect the operating costs?

And of course this begs this follow up: What would the costs be to operate a P-47 as a two-seater, assuming you could get the aircraft configured and ready to fly.

Ryan

EDowning · **Posted:** Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:55 pm

From my perspective, the Mustang is essentially cost free to operate.

Trey Carroll · **Posted:** Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:13 pm

Nathan Davis told me once that Mustangs are the most economical fighter (or un-economical, your choice)

Skyraiders, ummm, a close 2nd?

Warbird Kid · **Posted:** Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:34 pm

EDowning wrote:

From my perspective, the Mustang is essentially cost free to operate.

So does that mean there may be a new pony in the stable soon??!?!?!?! :wink:

EDowning · **Posted:** Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:02 pm

Warbird Kid wrote:

Quote:

So does that mean there may be a new pony in the stable soon??!?!?!?!

No, no Mustang for me. I like them well enough, would love to fly one, but I will keep my resources free for other types of airplanes. Just gotta be different I guess.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11330

EDowning wrote:

From my perspective, the Mustang is essentially cost free to operate.

Are you suggesting that their period of depreciation is over?

As I recall, a Mustang is about 60 GPH in cruise and a P-47/Corsair about 90 GPH. R-2800 burns more oil, but you don't have to adjust the valves as often.

JDK · **Posted:** Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:23 pm

EDowning wrote:

Just gotta be different I guess.

Good man. Like the poor, Mustang owners will always be with us.

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:32 pm

The P-51 was successful as a fighter because it met the needs of its time. By the time it came into effective service in 1943, the need was for a long range escort offensive fighter. In this realm, the 51 stands out. The D has 245 US gal internal, a Spitfire Mk IX has 168 internal with the aft tank, and external tanks give the 51 even more fuel margin. As for long range cruise, fuel consumption can be less than 60 gph. Lot's of civilian guys use 60 gph, but they use fairly high rpm, 2300 or 2400. On long range missions if you run 1600 or 1800 the Merlin would be down to 45 gph. The Spit is superior for climb, ceiling, max dive, and maneuverability, but the 51 can do all these things almost as well. Also the 51 can cruise faster than most other fighters so it gets the best of both worlds for long range. And when the 51 gets wherever it it going, it can be effective from down low to 40,000, like a Spit and I don't think a Corsair or Jug does that as well.

kmiles · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:58 pm

If you are talking fuel burn only, the Merlin would be more efficient. If you take total cost per hour, the overhaul cost and TBO of the Merlin would bring the cost closer if not more than the 2800 per hour. We operate both a Mustang and a Corsair, and the round engine is much more user friendly. Sure you have to wipe the oil off of the aircraft after every flight, but that is part of saying that you fly a Corsair (or any other round engine aircraft). The merlin is much cleaner, but you have to have a mechanic nearby for the frequent inspections/maintenance.

As for operating a P-47 two seater if one existed, you could probably expect the 75-80 gallons per hour using modern settings. That would be a little more than what you would use with a Merlin. The modern settings make a bit of difference in fuel burn, but the big advantage is engine life. Very few people could afford to operate any radial engine if they had the short TBO that they had during the war. With smart decisions on power settings, and a good overhaul shop, getting 1000 or 1100 hours out of a radial engine these days is pretty easy. Getting more than 1200 hours is quite possible with the right care.

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:10 pm

KMiles. As I read Ryan's topic, he was asking about the 51 vs other fighters in combat, not which one you find easiest to maintain today. In combat the fuel economy and capacity make the 51 stand out as a late war offensive escort. The military really wasn't primarily concerned with other maintenance factors. As for today,Mike George has both a 51 and a Corsair, likes each of them, but I don't think he'd part with the 51 first.

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:40 pm

IIRC the P-47 was good for about 600 gph at war emergency power.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:17 pm

Bill Greenwood wrote:

KMiles. As I read Ryan's topic, he was asking about the 51 vs other fighters in combat, not which one you find easiest to maintain today. In combat the fuel economy and capacity make the 51 stand out as a late war offensive escort. The military really wasn't primarily concerned with other maintenance factors. As for today,Mike George has both a 51 and a Corsair, likes each of them, but I don't think he'd part with the 51 first.

Sorry, I was really asking about current operations.

Ryan

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:22 pm

Ok Ryan, I am corrected. I think most P-51 owners use about 60 gph figure for cruise flight at power settings around 36in mp and 2300 rpm. My guess is a R-2800 is about 80 to 90 gph? Of course if you are doing rides most are likely to be a half hour so you really aren't at cruise much.
I think a lot of people might be willing to buy a Jug ride since that would be pretty rare. To really sell well, dual controls, even if only rudimentary would be good.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11330

POF P-47G has a 2nd seat, but no controls.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:24 pm

The answer earlier about the maintenance on the radials being cheaper than the Merlin maintenance was interesting, and along the lines of what I'm looking for. I'm certain that there must be other costs involved as well - paperwork wise, parts cost, etc... Which is another part of what I was asking.

Ryan

Warbird Information Exchange

Fuel Consumption & Warbird Rides

Who is online