Fuel Consumption & Warbird Rides

[b29driver]

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

The P-47 cannot be utilized as a "ride experience " aircraft because it is licensed as an experimental aircraft. The Mustangs and T-6's used are limited category. Single engine experimental A/C don't qualify under the FAR exemption.

[kmiles]

Although you would not be able to sell "flights or rides" in a 2 seat P-47, you could use it as some sort of membership benefit. There are several operators here in the US and at least one in Canada that I know of that give "rides" that way. It is probably a grey area, but it has worked for some organizations for some time now.

[mgeorge51]

P-51 historically 60 gph at 36 inches and 2400rpm. Yelds 318 mph true 8 to 12 thousand feet. Lot of guys are pumping it up to 63 to 65 gph at a lower power setting sighting the poor fuels we have now. I am pretty happy were I am at so I am going to stay with my settings. (it will be 20 years in Feb 09). I bought the airplne to go fast and I am going to go fast in it. I don't recall ever having to add oil to the Mustang but if the Corsair doesn't need some, something is probably wrong.

Corsair 80 to 85 gph at 30 inches and 2000rpm, indicating 210 kts at same altitudes as above.

Never flew a jug but I have been told 90 to 100 gph for 180 kts indicated.

Corsair fuel gauge seems to move faster then any I have ever used, especially if you forget to move the mixture to auto lean as I did on my very first flight from Rockford to Springfield.

[b29flteng]

I recall Elmer Ward telling me he would get 40 gph with his P-51 in long range cruise at about 20,000 ft. I have no idea what power settings he was using. By the way the B-29 gets 500 gph for the first hour or in the pattern, and 400 gph after that in cruise. Geez!

[Bill Greenwood]

You can certainly get a lot better mileage from a Merlin than 60 gph. Why do guys run such high rpm, 2400 in a Mustang and burn so much fuel? I think part of it is they have plenty of fuel on board, so don't worry about it. 'And it is fun to go fast and the engine sounds better. Some guys believe that rpms below say 2000 in some way hurt the engine. That's, to me, one part science, one part old wives tale, and one part voodo, but the idea has a lot of followers even savvy guys like Mike Nixon, Jack Roush.
From the RAF Mustang III Pilot Notes, 2400 rpm & 35 in is 59 gph US. 1800 & 30 in is 40 gph. 1800 & 20in is 28 gph. Now no self respecting Mustang pilot is going to fly so slow that some oil dripping, mis firing T-28 might pass him, but it can be done. What if you were half way back from Japan and low on fuel?
The Rolls Royce manual gives Merlin oil consumption as from 2 quarts up to 1 1/2 gal per hour. Running the engine harder, faster and when it is hotter will put consumption near the upper end. Some guys now use an after market piston ring that is said to lower oil consumption. Some knowledgeable builders think this low oil flow may wear the liners faster. Who knows for sure?

[Bill Greenwood]

Just for interest, I do know something about cruise in a Merlin Spitfire. I flew 1025 hours all over the US and part of Canada, and since they won't bring Oshkosh or Midland to Colorado, I did a lot of time spent going someplace.
My normal economy cruise at 11,500 east or 10,500 west would be using 1800 rpm and zero boost,(30 in) which is 47 gal per hour U S. Speed would be about 190 indicated which works out to 215 knots true, 245 mph true airspeed. You will usually get a tailwind going east so I might even go at 15, 500 and coming back there may be a headwind so go 10,5. If I don't need quite that economy I may use +2 (34in) and go a little faster and burn 53 gph. For playing around acro I might use +4 and 2400 which is 288 knots true, or 331 mph, but burns about 80 gph.

Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[bdk]

I recall Elmer Ward telling me he would get 40 gph with his P-51 in long range cruise at about 20,000 ft. I have no idea what power settings he was using.

I understand that Elmer really babied his engine and got about double the life out of a set of heads and banks, but that is only hearsay- I didn't hear it directly from him.

[BigGrey]

I think Elmer told me he got about 1100 hours out of his previous engine. He used rings out of a diesel engine for his new engine. I can't remember if they were for a Detroit or a Cat.
It sure was fun to ride with Elmer as he babied his engine!

Les

[mgeorge51]

Elmer did fly at very low settigs I believe his son Scott told me they flew at settings as low as 26 to 28 in cruise but I don't remember the Rpm's. I think they got 1200 hours on the lower end. Once again speed costs

[bdk]

It sure was fun to ride with Elmer as he babied his engine!

Another hearsay story was that he drug his wingtip in Lake Matthews. That's why one wing extension didn't have the black camo scheme on it.

[Canso42]

I can't add anything technical to this discussion but I do appreciate all the gph figures. Several times I've had friends ask me about such things but B-17 and B-25 are the only ones I know any gph figures about.

Doug

[makin' boost]

I'm new here so be easy on me. I do understand the concept speed = $$$ . Can anyone give me an idea about the fuel and oil consumption for; T-6, B-25 + A-26. How about engine overhaul costs ?

[retroaviation]

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.

Come on Eric.........Let's get an Airtruck!!!

Gary