I was looking for a list of all the WWII aircraft and their respective coefficients of drag. Couldn’t really find much info like you can with cars.
Also I’m mainly interested in piston aircraft. Although info on early jets would be interesting too for comparison purposes.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
No stats. But the mid-engine P-39 Airacobra might be considered.
I don’t have a definitive answer, but the P-51 Mustang or P-63 Kingcobra are likely candidates, as they were designed with a wing profile that in theory resulted in laminar flow over the airfoil. There is some debate over whether this was actually achieved in production aircraft, however.
The other feature of the P-51 was ‘Meredith Effect’ radiator arrangement where the air was ram-compressed by the intake scoop, heated by the radiator and thus acted like a ramjet, at least to offset drag if not add significant thrust. Meredith was British and the general idea was incorporated on British fighters also but it’s claimed to have been greater on the P-51 via the designers optimizing it.
It seems the P-51 was a quite ‘slippery’ fighter by WWII standards, though ‘the best’ is always tricky given the large number of fighter types used in WWII and significant differences among models of a given general type, and significant differences even in primary sources as to the speed of various a/c. It wasn’t particularly heavily powered in terms of hp per unit weight, but among the fastest. Late model (Griffon powered) Spits and Bf109’s were as fast or faster at similar altitudes, but seemed to require significantly more power per unit weight to achieve it.
For example a test of P-51B prototype showed a top speed of 441mph at 29k ft altitude at engine output of ~1275 hp at a weight of around 8400lbs (but firther down the page another test showed almost the same speed at 9200lb weight and lower engine output).
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html
A Spitfire XIV prototype topped out at 446mph at ~25k ft at 18psi boost pressure which would correspond to around 1700hp from its Griffon engine at that altitude, at 8400lb weight.
Is there such a thing as “best” aerodynamics ? I’ll admit I’m not engineer or physicist, not even a pilot, but from what I understand of combat planes, some were better at low alt vs. high alt, some were better at high speed vs. low speed, some could turn on a dime and some had to deal with not being able to (and, again, this varied depending on the exact altitude of the manoeuvre), some could *really *climb but not dive and vice versa, etc…
Yeah, all aircraft are compromises.
IMO, the best overall fighter was the Mustang.
Reread the first sentence. Coefficient of Drag. Based on wind tunnel test data
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
This NASA document, in appendix A, lists the zero-lift drag coefficient for some aircraft. Not many WWII fighters are listed, but among them, the P-51 has the lowest drag coefficient.
Worth noting that US fighters, at least by late war, were coated with a secret formula we know today as “Teflon” specifically to reduce drag. Certainly the Mustang was so coated.
No scientific opinion, but own personal (and obvious general opinion) is P-51.
It would be kind of strange if the aircraft at the end of, say, an intense 6 year period, weren’t more aerodynamic than those at the beginning …
You would think…until you consider the Me-163. Rockets do not necessarily lead to aerodynamics.
I don’t think that is true.
that does
I don’t think so either; and my hobby has been avionics for the last 40 years. That does not decrease the P-51 (esp C/D) “value” though.
*and my military rating in the USMC
Not necessarily - the coefficient of drag is not the most important parameter for fighter aircraft.
Also, drag coefficient is just a coefficient that relates drag to some dimension of the aircraft - in case of aircraft, I believe it’s the wing area. Which explains why the F-104G Starfighter has a higher zero-lift drag coefficient than the P-51.
I guess that will be of interest to the OP.
Early P-51’s (and many other fighters) with the rear canopy fairing were actually more aerodynamic than the bubble canopy variants. Better rear visibility was more valuable in a fighter.
Owned
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160801/affac2bab48b86484eb563916dd42fb8.jpg
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
You spelled Spitfire wrong.