FL440!?

Maximilian_Jenius

Super User
So, for Christmas last year my S.O. got me an aviation 2009 calendar.

With, August just around the corner I take a peak and the P-38 Lightning is the plane of the month.

In the lower bottom of the page are some quick stats. one being that the P-38 has a service ceiling of 44,000 ft. Incidently the P-51 which is the plane for the month of July is said to have a service ceiling of 41,000 ft.

Really?

I know the CRJ has a service ceiling of 41,000 ft. but doesn't mean that it can always get all the way up there. But in the right situations, it can...not sure if this is the same thing for both of these planes.

So, I guess my question is two pronged. Why can these planes if true reach that altitude, but a jet powered plane (keep in mind these are piston powered planes) such as an MD-80 series or Airbus A320 have a service ceiling of less than FL400.

Also, these planes being piston powered how can they reach that altitude and operate so far up with air so thin?

On the same calendar they have B-24's which are bombers and in the stats section say they can only attain an altitude of 28,000 ft. Knowing that these are bombers and piston powered at that, FL280 seems far more realisitc and attainable for piston powered planes than 44,000 ft.

Discuss..
 
man it is early in the morning.
1217.gif
 
It's weird. I woke up and typed forums.jetcareers.com in the address bar but it keeps going to Airliners.net. ;)
Must be the canadian internet connection.
 
Supercharged, turbosupercharged, turbocharged, turbo-normalized. My guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_V-1710

* Ahh, I knew there had to be more to this question, duh. I think I just saw the question:

"Also, these planes being piston powered how can they reach that altitude and operate so far up with air so thin?"
 
Weight, atmospheric conditions and how much low/high speed buffet protection you require.

I've been to FL420 before, but we were light, the ISA was relatively cool and it was smooth.

If you don't check your performance data before accepting (or requesting) a higher than planned cruse altitude, you're seriously asking for trouble.

High speed, swept-wing jet aircraft will eat your lunch if you don't understand the basics AND refer to the performance data, as that CRJ crew learned the hard way.


Note: Ooops! I guess I'd better read the question next time! DOH!
 
Remember also that until the -29 came along they were NOT pressurized. So it was one tough, COLD ride.

But the answer is wing and power. Other aircraft of that period also ventured up that high, especially the recce birds.
 
Remember also that until the -29 came along they were NOT pressurized. So it was one tough, COLD ride.

But the answer is wing and power. Other aircraft of that period also ventured up that high, especially the recce birds.
Did these planes have "coffin corner" type problems with high stall speeds?
I'm guessing the straight wings helped but my 100k education obviously is lacking....
 
But the answer is wing and power.

Remember, these were fighters not transports. Strap a wing and some control surfaces to a 2000 Hp engine and a monster prop, and you can get up there. Realisticly however, they never "worked" that high. Weighted down with ammo, fuel, and drop tanks, they would top out in the low 30s.

Also those engines were boosted pretty high, some engines pulled 60" MAP. There is nothing about a piston engine that prevents it from operating up high, you just need to pump plenty of air into the intake manifold. Experimental aircraft/engine combos could go even higher.
 
Did these planes have "coffin corner" type problems with high stall speeds?
I'm guessing the straight wings helped but my 100k education obviously is lacking....

I don't remember reading about any coffin corners for the WWII fighters but the P-38 was reportedly the first to run into compressibility problems where the controls 'froze'. That was solved with a dive brake which changed the airflow over the horizontal.

The fighter that many say was the fastest fighter and highest flying was the TA-152, a derivation of the bulldog FW-190. The -152 reportedly operated frequently in the mid 40's.

ta152h138wx.jpg


Now what is especially interesting in this photo is the FE-112. After WWII, the US collected as many of the Axis aircraft as they could and shipped them to the US. Many went to a field in Indiana, Freeman Field, the same one where the black airmen staged the 'mutiny'.

Anyway, the FE was used for 'foreign equipment or 'foreign evaluation'' according to some sites. This TA-152 was apparently brought to the states for testing. No telling what happened to this beautiful machine. Probably chopped up and buried.
 
I don't remember reading about any coffin corners for the WWII fighters but the P-38 was reportedly the first to run into compressibility problems where the controls 'froze'. That was solved with a dive brake which changed the airflow over the horizontal.

The fighter that many say was the fastest fighter and highest flying was the TA-152, a derivation of the bulldog FW-190. The -152 reportedly operated frequently in the mid 40's.

ta152h138wx.jpg


Now what is especially interesting in this photo is the FE-112. After WWII, the US collected as many of the Axis aircraft as they could and shipped them to the US. Many went to a field in Indiana, Freeman Field, the same one where the black airmen staged the 'mutiny'.

Anyway, the FE was used for 'foreign equipment or 'foreign evaluation'' according to some sites. This TA-152 was apparently brought to the states for testing. No telling what happened to this beautiful machine. Probably chopped up and buried.
That thing belongs out at Reno....
 
That thing belongs out at Reno....

Quick searches show none flying and only 1 or 2 preserved in museums. BUT on the other hand, some groups are going back and building new examples of WWII fighters. The MiG and Yaks are in that bucket along with two recent new-builds of FW-190s.

This video shows one of the new-build -190s. What is also interesting is at about :25 in the video note the yellow power lever. The -190 had a SINGLE power lever. No throttle and prop like other aircraft. One power lever. [YT]r1iY2oQTbaM&feature=related[/YT]

The -190 with its wide gear did not suffer the takeoff/landing accidents the -109 did. Note also the huge paddle blade prop with 3 blades. NO German fighter used a 4 blade prop.

This second video is of a "Dora" new build that now lives at Duxford. For unexplained reasons, the youtube won't imbed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=strKBh9otYc&feature=related
 
I don't remember reading about any coffin corners for the WWII fighters but the P-38 was reportedly the first to run into compressibility problems where the controls 'froze'. That was solved with a dive brake which changed the airflow over the horizontal.

The fighter that many say was the fastest fighter and highest flying was the TA-152, a derivation of the bulldog FW-190. The -152 reportedly operated frequently in the mid 40's.

ta152h138wx.jpg


Now what is especially interesting in this photo is the FE-112. After WWII, the US collected as many of the Axis aircraft as they could and shipped them to the US. Many went to a field in Indiana, Freeman Field, the same one where the black airmen staged the 'mutiny'.

Anyway, the FE was used for 'foreign equipment or 'foreign evaluation'' according to some sites. This TA-152 was apparently brought to the states for testing. No telling what happened to this beautiful machine. Probably chopped up and buried.

Is that the same as the Dora? (Looks like it to me, but I'm not expert. ) The Germans knew how to build pretty fighters.

It seems like they had several inventions that, had they come earlier or been deployed in greater numbers, might have changed things. (The ME 262, the V2, Focke Wulf D-9 "The Dora," and they developed a sub, Type XXI. . .I think, that was ahead of anything else in submerged speed, ability to stay submerged etc etc. If I remember right it went online in the last week or two of the war and never really saw any combat, but we copied many of the ideas afterward.)
 
So, I guess my question is two pronged. Why can these planes if true reach that altitude, but a jet powered plane (keep in mind these are piston powered planes) such as an MD-80 series or Airbus A320 have a service ceiling of less than FL400.

Also, these planes being piston powered how can they reach that altitude and operate so far up with air so thin?

On the same calendar they have B-24's which are bombers and in the stats section say they can only attain an altitude of 28,000 ft. Knowing that these are bombers and piston powered at that, FL280 seems far more realisitc and attainable for piston powered planes than 44,000 ft.

Discuss..

I'm sure, like the others said, much had to do with the high power/relatively low weight. If I remember correctly, the engines, at least one variant, in the P-38 and the p-51 were the same. (The Allison I think.) Anyway the engine had two superchargers.

And we get excited if we fly a plane with a single turbocharger!
 
I'm sure, like the others said, much had to do with the high power/relatively low weight. If I remember correctly, the engines, at least one variant, in the P-38 and the p-51 were the same. (The Allison I think.) Anyway the engine had two superchargers.

And we get excited if we fly a plane with a single turbocharger!
The Allison was only on the early variants of the P-51. The Allison V-1710 on the P-38 was turbocharged (it may have had an integral supercharger as well, I don't remember) while the Merlin on the later P-51s had (I think) a 2-stage, 2-speed supercharger.
 
The Allison was only on the early variants of the P-51. The Allison V-1710 on the P-38 was turbocharged (it may have had an integral supercharger as well, I don't remember) while the Merlin on the later P-51s had (I think) a 2-stage, 2-speed supercharger.

Thanks for that. They have both planes at the Hill AFB museum along with the Allison engine. Just going from memory from what I see there. I know the 51's. . . or like you said the later versions, had the 2 stage supercharger. I would give my left. . . . . big toe to fly one of those things.

BTW the Hill AFB museum in Ogden UT. has REALLY come a long way. Still free admission and has evolved into a world class museum. If any of you ladies or gents are in the area, and have a few hours, it is a must see. I had not been there for a year or so and they have picked up a P-47, greatly improved the displays, huge hangar devoted to mainly fighter aircraft etc. Good stuff.
 
The Allison was only on the early variants of the P-51. The Allison V-1710 on the P-38 was turbocharged (it may have had an integral supercharger as well, I don't remember) while the Merlin on the later P-51s had (I think) a 2-stage, 2-speed supercharger.

The V-1710-F3R was used in the P-51A... hp rating of 1150.

The -C15 variant (1040 hp) was used in the P-40.

The P-38 used several different different V-1710 variants... the two most important are the F2R and F17R.

The F2R was in the original Lightning and is very similar to the -F3R that was in the Mustang... 1150 hp.

The F17R was used in the "mature" Lightnings... those of the H/J/L models. This engine was rated at 1425 hp. It was essentially the same old Allison engine, but with the addition of a new type of intercooler (actually location) allowed for intake manifold temperatures, thus allowing for a substantial increase in rated power. With the additional water/alcohol injection system, the engine was capable of producing 1725 hp.


Max...

Judging from the 44000 foot ceiling, I gather the model in question is the more mature J model P-38. It was the only one that could go that high. Others were around 40000.
 
Back
Top