Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: HellFire on March 04, 2009, 12:19:42 AM
-
I've read articles regarding the 3 airplanes listed under Subject, & noticed quite a few similarities between the planes. Would someone who's an expert & familiar with the a/c in question, make & post the following films for our perusal, pls?
(1) P51-D vs F4u-4 (2) P51-D vs P38-L (3) F4U-4 vs P38-L
I've searched our bulletin board and in "Films" & found the subjects mentioned
missing. Would any of the experienced trainers acquiesce to this request? TY.
-
P-51D vs. P-38L with equal pilots, unless the P-51D is going to Boom and Zoom with a significant energy and altitude advantage, the P-38L is going to win. In a co-Energy fight, the P-38L will be able to gain the advantage by keeping the fight in the vertical, where it excels far better than the Mustang. If the P-51D tries to turn, the P-38L again has the edge.
Basically, the best chance is for the P-51D to come in fast from an altitude advantage and try and BnZ or if you're like most P-51 drivers, wait until the Lighting is engaged with another bandit and then come in for the pick.
The P-51D driver also has to be careful when he makes his high speed passes. The good P-38 drivers will know how to wear you down and bleed enough of your energy to either steal the advantage from you and match your energy state and get you as you go vertical or force you into a turn fight and get you that way.
ack-ack
-
F4U-4
-
As a pure dogfighter in a co alt co E situation with equal pilots, the P-38L is easily the equal to the P-51. The F4U-4 is an entirely different subject, that plane is likely the best piston engine prop driven fighter built. The combination of excellent HP and an efficient prop is difficult to beat. The F4U-4 is what the P-38K would have been.
-
The F4u-4 was the best WW2 prop fighter ever built, I think the F6F-6 would have been a monster as well. The Bearcat trumps even the -4.
-
The F4u-4 was the best WW2 prop fighter ever built, I think the F6F-6 would have been a monster as well. The Bearcat trumps even the -4.
i thought the bearcat was an F8F?
-
i thought the bearcat was an F8F?
it is, F6F is the Hellcat.
-
The F4u-4 was the best WW2 prop fighter ever built, I think the F6F-6 would have been a monster as well. The Bearcat trumps even the -4.
Well, yeah, I left a little bit of room there, didn't I? To be more clear, the F4U-4 is the best piston engine prop driven fighter to see actual serious combat. The F8F is actually a World War II piston engine prop driven fighter. As is the F7F. But neither saw real serious combat, if any combat at all. Wasn't their fault the enemy was already done. Sort of like the fact that it was not Lockheed's fault that the WPB and the USAAF couldn't see the real potential of the P-38K. I've always wondered what the P-38K could have done with a four blade version of that prop.
-
Well, yeah, I left a little bit of room there, didn't I? To be more clear, the F4U-4 is the best piston engine prop driven fighter to see actual serious combat. The F8F is actually a World War II piston engine prop driven fighter. As is the F7F. But neither saw real serious combat, if any combat at all. Wasn't their fault the enemy was already done. Sort of like the fact that it was not Lockheed's fault that the WPB and the USAAF couldn't see the real potential of the P-38K. I've always wondered what the P-38K could have done with a four blade version of that prop.
The same Curtis Electric prop with four blades would likely not fit on the aircraft. Clearance would be an issue.
I'd like to see the 38 with Merlins and the cuffed blades of the Mustang. The drop in weight from removing the turbo's and equipment with additional streamlining from removing the intercoolers. That'd be badarse imho.
-
Clearance would be an issue.
Why would clearance be an issue? The diameter of the prop would remain the same.
-
Why would clearance be an issue? The diameter of the prop would remain the same.
NOT that i should go here......
but since it was asked about ingame........i've had a well flown p47 give me fits in my 38J. i think it was n72. was surprised to see him in an american ride....and VERY surprised a p47 outperformed me in a slow speed turnfight.
-
Yeah, the "wt F ?!?!" factor is higher with some guys in the Jug. Fit ter give me conniptions.
-
and VERY surprised a p47 outperformed me in a slow speed turnfight.
It shouldn't. Only reason it did is that somewhere along the line you messed up.
ack-ack
-
The same Curtis Electric prop with four blades would likely not fit on the aircraft. Clearance would be an issue.
I'd like to see the 38 with Merlins and the cuffed blades of the Mustang. The drop in weight from removing the turbo's and equipment with additional streamlining from removing the intercoolers. That'd be badarse imho.
I was talking about a 4 blade version of the 3 blade Hamilton Standard Paddle prop used on the P-38K. They raised the gear box up and raised the centerline of the prop shaft to make it fit the P-38.
According to the study Lockheed did, the Merlin would add weight, not remove it. At least that's what Warren Bodie said, and he had access to the original study.
-
It shouldn't. Only reason it did is that somewhere along the line you messed up.
ack-ack
yea...i figured that...it was a rare occasion i didn't have film running.......which sucked for me.
-
Why would clearance be an issue? The diameter of the prop would remain the same.
It was meant with regards to the hub size increasing to accomodate another blade. The hub for the Curtis is very tight. Adding a fourth blade means that the hub spreads out to accomodate another blade which WILL increase the diameter.
-
I was talking about a 4 blade version of the 3 blade Hamilton Standard Paddle prop used on the P-38K. They raised the gear box up and raised the centerline of the prop shaft to make it fit the P-38.
According to the study Lockheed did, the Merlin would add weight, not remove it. At least that's what Warren Bodie said, and he had access to the original study.
Thanks for the clarification.
As for the weight, I can't believe that the Merlin installation weighed more. Think of all the items and equipment that can be yanked if the Allison is gone. All the steel ducting for the turbo, the stainless tub and housing the turbo sits in, the armour plate used to protect the pilot from the turbo, the intercoolers and all that steel intake structure. It'd be interesting to weight the Allison and the Merlin, then start weighing removed components I have around the shop to see what the difference is.
-
The F4u-4 was the best WW2 prop fighter ever built, I think the F6F-6 would have been a monster as well. The Bearcat trumps even the -4.
You may find it interesting that I have been conversing with author Robert Dorr about the F4U-4. He is also a Technical Editor for Air Power History magazine. This is the official publication of the Air Force Historical Foundation. The magazine recently published at article titled "The P-51 Mustang: The Most Important Aircraft in History?" Bob wrote, "The current Air Power History (where I am technical editor) has an article asserting that the P-51 Mustang is not merely the best fighter of the war but the greatest airplane of all time. A popular text making the rounds on the Internet claims that the F4U-4 Corsair was really the best fighter of the war; we would like to publish this in APH but cannot identify the originator."
Guess who wrote that F4U-4 piece 11 years ago? Uh huh, yours truly. Can someone say justice prevails?
I wrote to Bob and explained in detail why the F4U-4 was simply the finest fighter to see combat in WWII. I quoted a story I got from a retired USAF Brig.General. In 1941, he joined the RCAF and was trained on Hurricanes. He flew Spitfires in Britain and eventually transferred to the USAAF. He flew P-51s in the ETO. Post war, he stayed in the Air Force Reserve. Sometime prior to the Korean war, he encountered a Navy F4U-4B while flying a P-51D. The two pilots engaged in some determined mock combat. His description of the fight was simple and directly to the point. "My Mustang had nothing for that Corsair. I could not prevent it from getting on my tail and then could do nothing to shake it off."
I offered to polish up that old piece and include actual Navy test data. I also mentioned that one of our Aces High guys had recently finished the restoration of an F4U-4... I directed him to a copy of the F4U-4's detail specification. I doubt that he had any idea that these resources were out there.
It looks like I may be writing the P-51 rebuttal piece... Should be fun, and will generate some heat. It will also generate lots of light too. In August of 1945 the top three performing fighters in the US inventory were all painted blue. F8F-1, F7F-3, and the F4U-4.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Grab your flame-proof undies, WW. The Pony fanboys will be coming after you with torches and pitchforks.
But it's about time the Hog got some love from a wider audience. :salute
-
Thanks for the clarification.
As for the weight, I can't believe that the Merlin installation weighed more. Think of all the items and equipment that can be yanked if the Allison is gone. All the steel ducting for the turbo, the stainless tub and housing the turbo sits in, the armour plate used to protect the pilot from the turbo, the intercoolers and all that steel intake structure. It'd be interesting to weight the Allison and the Merlin, then start weighing removed components I have around the shop to see what the difference is.
If you consider the power the P-38 had available, you'd have to figure that the props it had just weren't getting the job done. The chin mounted intercoolers just do not add enough drag to absorb all of the HP they allowed the Allisons to produce, after all, the H model and earlier didn't have them, and they were considerably slower that the later models, especially the L model running at full Lockheed/Allison rated boost and RPM (a difference of between 15 and 30 MPH, depending on models compared, and as much as 300HP per engine). Another thing to consider is that a turbocharger loves a load, and the more efficient the prop, the more it loads the engine, since it loses less to slippage.
The performance difference between the K model mule, with ill fitting cowl panels and all, and the J and L models is considerable, not just top speed, but especially climb rate and range (top speed increase wasn't worth a lot at altitude to the P-38, since above 25K you could get it to compress at or before 465MPH), as well as acceleration. The K model didn't have a lot more power (as compared to the J and L models), but evidently those Hamilton Standard Paddle props are a lot more efficient than the Curtiss Electric props are (as well as a lot more reliable according to the pilots). According to Bodie, the K model mule was actually a well worn and abused G model that had the chin intercoolers grafted on and the gear box cowls crudely fitted as well. The gear boxes were bigger and taller, and raised the centerline of the props several inches, so the cowls that covered them had to be quickly cobbled up by hand, they supposedly didn't really fit the prop hubs and spinners or the rest of the plane either, and the same could be said of the intercooler installation. Since there were only one or two (only one K mule was ever photographed, and there are only a couple of pictures of it) were ever built and it/they were built by hand, there's no way to tell how much the poor fit hurt the aerodynamics, but they felt it was enough to make a measurable difference.
I'm pretty sure the Merlin itself weighs a good bit more, the Allison was fairly light for it's size and displacement, Allison was originally a pure racing engine company from what I've read, and the V-1710 was first designed for the Navy to be used in lighter than air craft. I think the weight gain was fairly considerable. I'd have to drag out the book, (I don't know where it is right now, we're remodeling) but I seem to remember the total weight gain for the plane was around 1000 pounds (about 500 pounds per side I guess), despite losing most of the extensive exhaust system, the turbocharger, the intercooler, and the plumbing, which I agree is strange. Best I can remember, they anticipated little gain in speed, and an actual reduction in rate of climb, and possibly range. The desire was actually to reduce cost and complexity.
I don't know that the Merlin can be reassembled to run counter-clockwise the way the Allison can (the Allison was actually designed originally so that it could be shut down and re started running in the opposite direction), that would also cause problems, as one side would have to have a gear box with an extra gear or idler gear to make the props run in opposite directions (or the engine reversed in some other manner). Those helical cut gears in gear boxes don't like running the other way, and they usually don't like having gears added in to reverse them. That's why we use straight spur cut gears in high HP applications, but they bring in their own problems, and I can see where props might not like straight cut gears (harmonics and backlash).
The Merlin, unless tuned so that it gives up power below 22-25K feet, would give up power compared to the turbocharged Allison above 26K feet, further reducing speed and climb above that altitude. The only thing holding the Allison back from performing at altitude without the turbocharger was the crank driven supercharger. Given an equal amount of boost in stock form, the Allison actually makes more power (we tested that fooling with pulling tractors). If you put a crank driven supercharger on an Allison that made the same boost as a Merlin had, the Allison would make more power. Of course, the advantage of the supercharger on the Merlin series is it could be tuned for particular altitudes, the way it was in the Spitfires (there were high and low altitude specific versions of the Spitfire). So you can move the critical altitude to suit your purpose or mission.
But it is really hard to beat a turbocharger for great performance at a wide range of altitudes. In those days, turbocharging still had a ways to go, but even then it held some pretty significant advantages.
A late P-38 with the Hamilton Standard paddle props would have been far easier to produce and offered a lot more than a Merlin conversion. Removing the Curtiss Electric props would have removed a great deal of electrical load (the electrical system was almost overloaded if everything worked properly, and if the props acted up the generators were toast) and solved reliability issues. It would have also increased performance significantly by all measures, top speed, rate of climb, acceleration, and range. It would have required far less work with regards to changes. The gear boxes would fit the plane, props, and engines, all that was really required was a new set of dies to properly form the spinners, shrouds, and cowls. I'd be willing to bet it would have been a lot easier to get more Hamilton Standard paddle props than it would have been to get that many more Merlins. It would likely have been cheaper as well, since Packard was paying a license fee to Rolls Royce to build Merlins.
-
Grab your flame-proof undies, WW. The Pony fanboys will be coming after you with torches and pitchforks.
But it's about time the Hog got some love from a wider audience. :salute
Shoot, he's been wearing Nomex long johns and a fire suit for years. And the P-51 guys have been on him like white on rice for a long time, a real long time.
I've always felt the blue rides have been overlooked. While the P-51 is without a doubt an excellent aircraft, and admittedly one of the finest of its time, it has always gotten far more credit than it earned, at the expense of several excellent aircraft.
-
For that matter, the P-47 was far more important than the Mustang.
Hell, I could argue that for all the derogatory press she's been given, the F4F was the fighter that won the Pacific War, and therefore was ALSO by FAR more important than the Mustang. Guadalcanal broke the back of Japanese air power and its dominance of the Pacific, and it wasn't the Henderson P-400s that did it. The F4U, F6F and P-38 were really just the final nails in the coffin.
-
It was meant with regards to the hub size increasing to accomodate another blade. The hub for the Curtis is very tight. Adding a fourth blade means that the hub spreads out to accomodate another blade which WILL increase the diameter.
Rgr, thought about that after posting, but didn't think it would be significant enough increase but there actually wasn't too much room after all. The new blade already increased the diameter and after that the distance to the fuselage wasn't too great anymore...
(http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Xp-38k.jpg)
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38K.html (http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38K.html)
-
Rgr, thought about that after posting, but didn't think it would be significant enough increase but there actually wasn't too much room after all. The new blade already increased the diameter and after that the distance to the fuselage wasn't too great anymore...
(http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Xp-38k.jpg)
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38K.html (http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38K.html)
The propeller in that picture is the Hamilton Standard High Activity paddle prop, so the change in hub diameter would be different, since the Hamilton Standard is hydrostatic and not electric like the Curtiss Electric prop. There isn't a lot of room there for the hub and spinner to get bigger without the cowl covering the gear box and joining to the fuselage getting almost as big as the fuselage, but there is room. A four blade Curtiss would have been close to useless as far as gains go, because the three blade was so terribly inefficient. The spinner covering a Curtiss prop hub is full, I noticed that when I was talking to Steve and Bob one day up at Middlesboro. But I don't think the spinner covering a Hamilton Standard prop hub is quite as full. The easy thing to do is to compare the spinner covering a Hamilton Standard 4 blade P-51 prop to the one covering the Curtiss on a P-38. I don't have a reference photo handy. I know Widewing did some scale comparisons for the article you got that photo from. Maybe he has done others that he has not published, or maybe he has photos he can use to do a quick and rough comparison. Or maybe Bodhi has access to the parts, photos, or drawings.
I stand corrected, by the way, I remembered the P-38K mule as being a heavily reworked G model, and it was actually an E model that had seen even more use, abuse, and modification.
-
Shoot, he's been wearing Nomex long johns and a fire suit for years. And the P-51 guys have been on him like white on rice for a long time, a real long time.
I've always felt the blue rides have been overlooked. While the P-51 is without a doubt an excellent aircraft, and admittedly one of the finest of its time, it has always gotten far more credit than it earned, at the expense of several excellent aircraft.
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.......
i thought i had read somewhere a long time ago, that the f4f, f6f, and corsairs were the first american fighters actually designed to dogfight? whereas the p51, p47, p38 were more intended to intercept enemy bombers....and to protect friendly bombers?
-
P-51D vs. P-38L with equal pilots, unless the P-51D is going to Boom and Zoom with a significant energy and altitude advantage, the P-38L is going to win. In a co-Energy fight, the P-38L will be able to gain the advantage by keeping the fight in the vertical, where it excels far better than the Mustang. If the P-51D tries to turn, the P-38L again has the edge.
Basically, the best chance is for the P-51D to come in fast from an altitude advantage and try and BnZ or if you're like most P-51 drivers, wait until the Lighting is engaged with another bandit and then come in for the pick.
The P-51D driver also has to be careful when he makes his high speed passes. The good P-38 drivers will know how to wear you down and bleed enough of your energy to either steal the advantage from you and match your energy state and get you as you go vertical or force you into a turn fight and get you that way.
ack-ack
Actually in real life the p51 had a much better climb rate, and accelleration rate than the P-38. As did most single engine fighters verse the P-38. A function of mass. In AH the difference is barely noticible or non-existant. Co-alt, equal energy states the P38 will outturn the P51. The P51s advantages are to out dive and return with a higher energy state.
-
Well, yeah, I left a little bit of room there, didn't I? To be more clear, the F4U-4 is the best piston engine prop driven fighter to see actual serious combat. The F8F is actually a World War II piston engine prop driven fighter. As is the F7F. But neither saw real serious combat, if any combat at all. Wasn't their fault the enemy was already done. Sort of like the fact that it was not Lockheed's fault that the WPB and the USAAF couldn't see the real potential of the P-38K. I've always wondered what the P-38K could have done with a four blade version of that prop.
I would have liked to have seen the A-1(Spad, skyraider?) make it in.
-
Actually in real life the p51 had a much better climb rate, and accelleration rate than the P-38. As did most single engine fighters verse the P-38. A function of mass. In AH the difference is barely noticible or non-existant. Co-alt, equal energy states the P38 will outturn the P51. The P51s advantages are to out dive and return with a higher energy state.
Wrong. The P-51 did not outclimb the P-38, ask the guys who flew both, Stan Richardson and Art Heiden will both tell you that the P-51 could not out climb a P-38, and they flew the real thing, in the skies over Europe, fighting for their lives. Nor did it out accelerate the P-38. Only at certain speeds and certain altitudes, and not many of them, either, did the P-51 out accelerate the P-38. You can talk mass all you want, but you're ignoring an important factor, HORSEPOWER.
-
this is a real world thread, not a game thread?
-
Back to the OP. Pilots and E states being equal , the 51 finishes a distant third.
As far as AHII goes, compared to the other late war rides, the 51 is really quite mediocre.
-
Wrong. The P-51 did not outclimb the P-38, ask the guys who flew both, Stan Richardson and Art Heiden will both tell you that the P-51 could not out climb a P-38, and they flew the real thing, in the skies over Europe, fighting for their lives. Nor did it out accelerate the P-38. Only at certain speeds and certain altitudes, and not many of them, either, did the P-51 out accelerate the P-38. You can talk mass all you want, but you're ignoring an important factor, HORSEPOWER.
P 38L climb rate 20k in 7 min American Warplanes of WW2
P 51 climb rate 3475f/m (American Warplanes of WW2)
Checked various sites on the web specs varied widely depending on the site.
P38L wt; 17,500Lbs
P 51D 9200Lbs
Horsepower
P38L 2 x 1425Hp (production engine)
P51 1590HP
Probably the best example is in Osprey book P38 Lightning Aces of the Pacific and CBI. By John Stanaway. Page 45 tells of a mock combat between Capt. Joe Forster(P38) and a P51 pilot. "When the two fighters eventually flew combat against each other from an equal start at altitude, the superb Mustang easily prevailed,..."
-
P 38L climb rate 20k in 7 min American Warplanes of WW2
P 51 climb rate 3475f/m (American Warplanes of WW2)
Checked various sites on the web specs varied widely depending on the site.
P38L wt; 17,500Lbs
P 51D 9200Lbs
Horsepower
P38L 2 x 1425Hp (production engine)
P51 1590HP
Probably the best example is in Osprey book P38 Lightning Aces of the Pacific and CBI. By John Stanaway. Page 45 tells of a mock combat between Capt. Joe Forster(P38) and a P51 pilot. "When the two fighters eventually flew combat against each other from an equal start at altitude, the superb Mustang easily prevailed,..."
Wrong again. Like I said, Captain Stan Richardson Jr. and Captain Art Heiden flew both planes, in combat. I know both of them, and corresponded with them directly, so did Widewing. Both said that the P-38 consistently climbed better than the P-51. We're talking about TWO pilots who flew BOTH planes, in the same time period, in combat.
The P-38L does not weigh 17,500 pounds, it is closer to 16,000. And the -30 Allison in the P-38L makes 1725HP, not 1450HP.
No, the best books on the subject of the P-38, especially for technical data, are "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning" by Warren Bodie, and "America's Hundred Thousand". For the P-38J, with less powerful engines than the P-38L, the rate of climb at sea level was 4000 FPM, the rate of climb at 23,400 feet was 2900FPM, and the time from take off to 23,400 feet was 6 minutes and 12 seconds. The P-38J engines at 1612HP had 112HP less than the P-38L engines. Take off weight was 16,597 pounds, over 900 pounds lighter than your incorrect numbers, but actually heavier than actual operating numbers.
-
P 38L climb rate 20k in 7 min American Warplanes of WW2
P 51 climb rate 3475f/m (American Warplanes of WW2)
Checked various sites on the web specs varied widely depending on the site.
P38L wt; 17,500Lbs
P 51D 9200Lbs
Horsepower
P38L 2 x 1425Hp (production engine)
P51 1590HP
Probably the best example is in Osprey book P38 Lightning Aces of the Pacific and CBI. By John Stanaway. Page 45 tells of a mock combat between Capt. Joe Forster(P38) and a P51 pilot. "When the two fighters eventually flew combat against each other from an equal start at altitude, the superb Mustang easily prevailed,..."
You're not getting it...
When 8th AF fighter squadrons transitioned from P-38s to P-51s, the first thing they discovered during a combat mission was the P-51 was still climbing as they crossed the enemy coast. When flying the P-38s, as they crossed the enemy coast, they were already at altitude and settled into cruise.
Many pilots in P-38 groups did not view the P-51 as a step up. Those who had mastered the complex P-38 generally preferred the Lightning. Those who were uncomfortable in the P-38 were happy to get the more simple P-51. It was easier for low-time fighter pilots to fly. However, in the Pacific, P-38 groups nearly mutinied when told that they may have to switch to P-51s. General Kenney preferred the P-38 and refused to transition veteran P-38 Groups into the Mustang. P-51s in the 5th AF came with new units.
A P-38J outclimbs a P-51D by just over 15%.
Acceleration is a function of several factors.
Initial acceleration is calculated as Thrust-drag/mass. Run this for the P-38L and P-51D and the P-38L wins. With twice the available thrust, the P-38L was a powerful fighter.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Probably the best example is in Osprey book P38 Lightning Aces of the Pacific and CBI. By John Stanaway. Page 45 tells of a mock combat between Capt. Joe Forster(P38) and a P51 pilot. "When the two fighters eventually flew combat against each other from an equal start at altitude, the superb Mustang easily prevailed,..."
Nice editing... How about quoting the entire story, rather than your hacked up version? I know why, because it shows that your assertions have been incorrect. Selective quoting, eh?
Here's a scan of that portion of the page in Stanaway's book.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/P-38vsP-51.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
I know the record of the 38 in the Pacific theater. Bong and McGuire obviously having such outstanding success in it against Japanese machines......but what was the reason the P38 units did not enjoy equivalent success as the the P47 and P51 units did in Med/Europe theater? Is this even a true statement? Was the P38 the ultimate US combat aircraft of WW2?
-
I know the record of the 38 in the Pacific theater. Bong and McGuire obviously having such outstanding success in it against Japanese machines......but what was the reason the P38 units did not enjoy equivalent success as the the P47 and P51 units did in Med/Europe theater? Is this even a true statement? Was the P38 the ultimate US combat aircraft of WW2?
A lot of people point fingers at some of the mechanical 'teething' problems the Lightning face (heating problems, insufficient crew training on 2 engine aircraft, oil pump problems) as the main reason but in my opinion it had more to do with the political bickering, attitude and bias of the 8th High Command. Other AF units that flew the Lightning up until wars end in the ETO/MTO area thought very highly of their plane and were successful in the same mission types the Lightings flew in the 8th before being withdrawn.
Was the P-38 a failure in the ETO? Only with the 8th AAF and again, it was due (in my opinion) to the High Command than the plane.
ack-ack
-
Pffft If the turbo had been retained in the 39. We wouldn't even have this discussion of whats better. ;) :D
-
Nice editing... How about quoting the entire story, rather than your hacked up version? I know why, because it shows that your assertions have been incorrect. Selective quoting, eh?
Here's a scan of that portion of the page in Stanaway's book.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/P-38vsP-51.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
And what was the end line? Just what I quoted; which is also my initial comment. Co-alt equal E. No creative editing. No skulduggery. No hacking.
How many duels start on the taxi way?
What was my original comment? "Actually in real life the p51 had a much better climb rate, and accelleration rate than the P-38. As did most single engine fighters verse the P-38. A function of mass. In AH the difference is barely noticible or non-existant. Co-alt, equal energy states the P38 will outturn the P51. The P51s advantages are to out dive and return with a higher energy state.
('Much better rate of climb." Much better" overstatement. I should have typed better rate of climb)
You think you can win in a P51 coalt-equal E against a P38. and turnfight? In AH? Co-Alt the 51s advantages are to extend and return with a higher energy state. (also it has a better roll rate) I want to be in the 38. I think Steve got my point; the P51 finishes third.
As per other assertions of pilots prefering to stay with thier P38s rather than changing to a new aircraft. There were also pilots in the Pacific that prefered the P38J vs P38L. Pilot preference is not always about perfomance.
-
Keep repeating yourself. It helps. Well, it helps show how completely misled you are, anyway. You bring nothing to prove the P-51 out climbs the P-38. The P-38 has better power loading as well as a wing designed for more lift. The P-51 doesn't have a better rate of climb, never mind a much better rate of climb. The P-38 is superior in climb, and superior in acceleration at most speeds and most altitudes.
In case you have a difficulty with math, the figures I posted for the P-38J show an average climb rate from sea level to 23,400 feet of about 3700 FPM, which covers your post of the P-51D being good for about 3400 FPM by about 300 FPM.
-
Oh, and while we're at it, Widewing's years as a published author on the subject of World War II aircraft trumps what little you have brought to the discussion. He's got more valid and accepted sources in one shirt pocket than you have in your entire house.
-
i am a F4U-1A lover. what about a match up between it & the 38L? i know the 38L can out climb & accelerate the -1A but doesn't the -1A own the 38L in every other category? i believe the -1A can consistently kick the 38L's but if the pilots are equal. i would like to hear from any & all but especially from ack ack & widewing.
-
i believe the -1A can consistently kick the 38L's but if the pilots are equal. i would like to hear from any & all but especially from ack ack & widewing.
I like this guy. :D
Seriously tho:
F4U-1A is faster up until 25k. It's close, with WEP being more pronounced.
P-38L will out-climb and out-accelerate. Rate of roll at high speeds is also better. Otherwise the F4U has the edge in rudder and elevator authority at high speeds. E retention could go either way. I've lost and caught P-38s in the Zoom with the 1A, depending on E-state.
F4U generally has the advantage once the flaps come out if the fight is level or nose-down, especially due to the Hog's superior elevator response at higher speeds.
If the 38L can keep the fight SUSTAINED nose-high he should be able to take control. However underestimate the 1A's zoom potential and you got a dead Lightning.
-
You may find it interesting that I have been conversing with author Robert Dorr about the F4U-4. He is also a Technical Editor for Air Power History magazine. This is the official publication of the Air Force Historical Foundation. The magazine recently published at article titled "The P-51 Mustang: The Most Important Aircraft in History?" Bob wrote, "The current Air Power History (where I am technical editor) has an article asserting that the P-51 Mustang is not merely the best fighter of the war but the greatest airplane of all time. A popular text making the rounds on the Internet claims that the F4U-4 Corsair was really the best fighter of the war; we would like to publish this in APH but cannot identify the originator."
Guess who wrote that F4U-4 piece 11 years ago? Uh huh, yours truly. Can someone say justice prevails?
I wrote to Bob and explained in detail why the F4U-4 was simply the finest fighter to see combat in WWII. I quoted a story I got from a retired USAF Brig.General. In 1941, he joined the RCAF and was trained on Hurricanes. He flew Spitfires in Britain and eventually transferred to the USAAF. He flew P-51s in the ETO. Post war, he stayed in the Air Force Reserve. Sometime prior to the Korean war, he encountered a Navy F4U-4B while flying a P-51D. The two pilots engaged in some determined mock combat. His description of the fight was simple and directly to the point. "My Mustang had nothing for that Corsair. I could not prevent it from getting on my tail and then could do nothing to shake it off."
I offered to polish up that old piece and include actual Navy test data. I also mentioned that one of our Aces High guys had recently finished the restoration of an F4U-4... I directed him to a copy of the F4U-4's detail specification. I doubt that he had any idea that these resources were out there.
It looks like I may be writing the P-51 rebuttal piece... Should be fun, and will generate some heat. It will also generate lots of light too. In August of 1945 the top three performing fighters in the US inventory were all painted blue. F8F-1, F7F-3, and the F4U-4.
My regards,
Widewing
Widewing,
if I can be of service, I'll gladly help. Especially since our neighbors finished the most accurate Mustang to ever grace the skies since WW2.
Please advise as to what you need. <S>
-
If you consider the power the P-38 had available, you'd have to figure that the props it had just weren't getting the job done. The chin mounted intercoolers just do not add enough drag to absorb all of the HP they allowed the Allisons to produce, after all, the H model and earlier didn't have them, and they were considerably slower that the later models, especially the L model running at full Lockheed/Allison rated boost and RPM (a difference of between 15 and 30 MPH, depending on models compared, and as much as 300HP per engine). Another thing to consider is that a turbocharger loves a load, and the more efficient the prop, the more it loads the engine, since it loses less to slippage.
The performance difference between the K model mule, with ill fitting cowl panels and all, and the J and L models is considerable, not just top speed, but especially climb rate and range (top speed increase wasn't worth a lot at altitude to the P-38, since above 25K you could get it to compress at or before 465MPH), as well as acceleration. The K model didn't have a lot more power (as compared to the J and L models), but evidently those Hamilton Standard Paddle props are a lot more efficient than the Curtiss Electric props are (as well as a lot more reliable according to the pilots). According to Bodie, the K model mule was actually a well worn and abused G model that had the chin intercoolers grafted on and the gear box cowls crudely fitted as well. The gear boxes were bigger and taller, and raised the centerline of the props several inches, so the cowls that covered them had to be quickly cobbled up by hand, they supposedly didn't really fit the prop hubs and spinners or the rest of the plane either, and the same could be said of the intercooler installation. Since there were only one or two (only one K mule was ever photographed, and there are only a couple of pictures of it) were ever built and it/they were built by hand, there's no way to tell how much the poor fit hurt the aerodynamics, but they felt it was enough to make a measurable difference.
I'm pretty sure the Merlin itself weighs a good bit more, the Allison was fairly light for it's size and displacement, Allison was originally a pure racing engine company from what I've read, and the V-1710 was first designed for the Navy to be used in lighter than air craft. I think the weight gain was fairly considerable. I'd have to drag out the book, (I don't know where it is right now, we're remodeling) but I seem to remember the total weight gain for the plane was around 1000 pounds (about 500 pounds per side I guess), despite losing most of the extensive exhaust system, the turbocharger, the intercooler, and the plumbing, which I agree is strange. Best I can remember, they anticipated little gain in speed, and an actual reduction in rate of climb, and possibly range. The desire was actually to reduce cost and complexity.
I don't know that the Merlin can be reassembled to run counter-clockwise the way the Allison can (the Allison was actually designed originally so that it could be shut down and re started running in the opposite direction), that would also cause problems, as one side would have to have a gear box with an extra gear or idler gear to make the props run in opposite directions (or the engine reversed in some other manner). Those helical cut gears in gear boxes don't like running the other way, and they usually don't like having gears added in to reverse them. That's why we use straight spur cut gears in high HP applications, but they bring in their own problems, and I can see where props might not like straight cut gears (harmonics and backlash).
The Merlin, unless tuned so that it gives up power below 22-25K feet, would give up power compared to the turbocharged Allison above 26K feet, further reducing speed and climb above that altitude. The only thing holding the Allison back from performing at altitude without the turbocharger was the crank driven supercharger. Given an equal amount of boost in stock form, the Allison actually makes more power (we tested that fooling with pulling tractors). If you put a crank driven supercharger on an Allison that made the same boost as a Merlin had, the Allison would make more power. Of course, the advantage of the supercharger on the Merlin series is it could be tuned for particular altitudes, the way it was in the Spitfires (there were high and low altitude specific versions of the Spitfire). So you can move the critical altitude to suit your purpose or mission.
But it is really hard to beat a turbocharger for great performance at a wide range of altitudes. In those days, turbocharging still had a ways to go, but even then it held some pretty significant advantages.
A late P-38 with the Hamilton Standard paddle props would have been far easier to produce and offered a lot more than a Merlin conversion. Removing the Curtiss Electric props would have removed a great deal of electrical load (the electrical system was almost overloaded if everything worked properly, and if the props acted up the generators were toast) and solved reliability issues. It would have also increased performance significantly by all measures, top speed, rate of climb, acceleration, and range. It would have required far less work with regards to changes. The gear boxes would fit the plane, props, and engines, all that was really required was a new set of dies to properly form the spinners, shrouds, and cowls. I'd be willing to bet it would have been a lot easier to get more Hamilton Standard paddle props than it would have been to get that many more Merlins. It would likely have been cheaper as well, since Packard was paying a license fee to Rolls Royce to build Merlins.
Holy wall of text Virgil!
I'll have to look into this for an educated reply, but I am going to guess and say that the decrease in weight and streamlining for a Merlin vs. an Allison is gonna be huge let alone add the extra horsepower...
-
The propeller in that picture is the Hamilton Standard High Activity paddle prop, so the change in hub diameter would be different, since the Hamilton Standard is hydrostatic and not electric like the Curtiss Electric prop. There isn't a lot of room there for the hub and spinner to get bigger without the cowl covering the gear box and joining to the fuselage getting almost as big as the fuselage, but there is room. A four blade Curtiss would have been close to useless as far as gains go, because the three blade was so terribly inefficient. The spinner covering a Curtiss prop hub is full, I noticed that when I was talking to Steve and Bob one day up at Middlesboro. But I don't think the spinner covering a Hamilton Standard prop hub is quite as full. The easy thing to do is to compare the spinner covering a Hamilton Standard 4 blade P-51 prop to the one covering the Curtiss on a P-38. I don't have a reference photo handy. I know Widewing did some scale comparisons for the article you got that photo from. Maybe he has done others that he has not published, or maybe he has photos he can use to do a quick and rough comparison. Or maybe Bodhi has access to the parts, photos, or drawings.
I stand corrected, by the way, I remembered the P-38K mule as being a heavily reworked G model, and it was actually an E model that had seen even more use, abuse, and modification.
Virgil,
The spinner size does not dictate the size of the hub. It only dictates conformity to airflow. Both the '38 and ' 51 are perfect examples of it. Decrease of hub size would only dictate a smaller hub and NOT smaller spinner. A larger hub would dictate a larger spinner as size required.
Note the shaft of the Curtiss Electric Blades and the addition of the paddle on the Mustang and Thundebolt Curtiss cuffed blades.
-
Bodhi, what I was saying is the spinner COVERS the hub, I agree on hub size, hub size is the determining factor, the spinner just covers it. Meaning that the hub cannot be larger than the spinner. So if the spinner on a four blade Hamilton Standard on a P-51 is not drastically larger than the spinner on the three blade Hamilton Standard they used on the P-38K mule, then it is likely that the four blade version of the Hamilton Standard would likely fit on the P-38 as well. These days, since "Glacier Girl" is no longer close enough that I can go see her, I have no way to make that comparison myself. I could probably get by to see "Sweetie Face", if she's still here.
-
Holy wall of text Virgil!
I'll have to look into this for an educated reply, but I am going to guess and say that the decrease in weight and streamlining for a Merlin vs. an Allison is gonna be huge let alone add the extra horsepower...
Okay, I looked at what Bodie had in "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning", The weight gain for the Merlin installation, according to the Lockheed engineering study on the project, was in excess of 1000 pounds, so the Merlin installation was heavier, not lighter. Bodie did think performance would improve, however, the study showed a reduction in climb and range. The actual goal of the installation was to reduce cost and complexity, and no doubt, that would have been the case.
Now, as to power, I disagree, the -30 Allison's made 1725HP each. And they made that much power just about all the way to about 29K feet. They could have made more, and did make more on the 150 fuel. Not only that, but the Allisons in the P-38K could exceed 1800HP, so there was more power to be had. Like any engine making more power, the tune up and fuel quality was more critical, meaning a better fuel supply would be needed (the 150 would have to be there, and be of good quality), something that was just as critical for the Merlin. The tune up was a problem for the Lightning with the Allison engine, as Tony Levier had to repeatedly address poor maintenance issues with the groups he visited in Europe on his tour. So the advantage there goes to the Merlin, slightly.
On streamlining, Lockheed did a lot of work on that chin mount intercooler setup, just like they did on the bigger covers and scoops for the Prestone radiators on the later planes. The bigger scoops for the Prestones actually improved aerodynamics and reduced drag over the older, smaller scoops. So I do not agree that the aerodynamic package would improve, either.
On other thought on the Merlin swap. The P-38, with the Allisons, was already having a problem with prop efficiency, even if you feel the Merlin could make more HP, the Curtiss Electric props on the P-38 couldn't use all the HP the Allisons could make, increasing HP will only make that worse. The P-38 does as well as it does, as Widewing says, due to thrust. It was already at the point where more HP was not going to make more thrust, and neither would increasing RPM. The dramatic improvement seen in the P-38K was a lot more due to the better props than it was the increase in HP.
-
Bodhi, what I was saying is the spinner COVERS the hub, I agree on hub size, hub size is the determining factor, the spinner just covers it. Meaning that the hub cannot be larger than the spinner. So if the spinner on a four blade Hamilton Standard on a P-51 is not drastically larger than the spinner on the three blade Hamilton Standard they used on the P-38K mule, then it is likely that the four blade version of the Hamilton Standard would likely fit on the P-38 as well. These days, since "Glacier Girl" is no longer close enough that I can go see her, I have no way to make that comparison myself. I could probably get by to see "Sweetie Face", if she's still here.
I agree on that. I believe the hub is larger on the Mustang blades than on the Curtiss blades, but that should not matter as the Curtiss blades are substantially longer.
-
I agree on that. I believe the hub is larger on the Mustang blades than on the Curtiss blades, but that should not matter as the Curtiss blades are substantially longer.
Yes, it is. The picture that was posted, of the P-38K, shows how much larger the spinner is to cover the hub on the Hamilton Standard three blade prop they had on the K model. I would not find it at all hard to believe that the 4 blade version of the Hamilton Standard is also slightly larger than the 3 blade version. Just looking at that picture (and that's all we'll ever have, evidently a couple of pictures remain, but no drawings or papers) shows that the spinner is considerably bigger, and there's room for what looks like maybe 4" more diameter before the spinner and cowl would be bigger than the rest of the fuselage.
-
Photos courtesy of Widewing's site (http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html)
(http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Xp-38k.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38props.JPG)
ack-ack
-
What was my original comment? "Actually in real life the p51 had a much better climb rate, and accelleration rate than the P-38. As did most single engine fighters verse the P-38. A function of mass. In AH the difference is barely noticible or non-existant. Co-alt, equal energy states the P38 will outturn the P51. The P51s advantages are to out dive and return with a higher energy state.
Your original statement was and is incorrect. The P-38J or L would walk away from a P-51D when accelerating from low speed. Likewise, war time tests consistently show that the P-38J and L easily out-climbed the P-51D. What is so hard to grasp?
Here's the data:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38j-67869-climb.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342-climb.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
In Aircraft of the Aces "Mustang Aces of the Eighth Air Force" by Jerry Scutts we find this paragraph at the bottom of page 15:
"The conversion of all groups to P-51s lay in the future and one unit, the 56th, resisted all attempts to part from its beloved P47s.
As one of the original saviors of the Eighth, the 'Wolfpack' was allowed this indulgence. Not that 'Hub' Semke's outfit was the only one to protest at the impending conversion.
In particular the 364th and 479th FGs, which arrived in ETO with P38s during early 1944, howled loudly at the decision. However, most complaints were forgotten
once crews experienced the superiority of the P-51 over the P-38 in combat."
I think in the end analysis, the truest most remarkable statement any of us could make here today is that both the P38 and P51 were better than the other :t
-
I'm pretty sure at least one P-38 group also kept their favorite birds, I do not have the name of the group handy. They were not part of the 8th AF.
-
Something strange with those graphs?
So far as I can make out from America's Hundred Thousand, the P-38's only got 56% internal fuel, the P-51 77%.
Hardly service conditions in either case, nor does it seem an equal comparison.
<shrug> No skin off mine in the end.
-
Your original statement was and is incorrect. The P-38J or L would walk away from a P-51D when accelerating from low speed. Likewise, war time tests consistently show that the P-38J and L easily out-climbed the P-51D. What is so hard to grasp?
Here's the data:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38j-67869-climb.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342-climb.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
Your first chart posted is for a P38J. Our discussion was for the P38L/P51D. P38L climb rate 2850(P38J also listed as 2850) Horsepower listing for the P38L: 1475 hp Allison V-1710-1111/113(not 1700) Climb rate to 20k 7 minutes. Which is verified by your second chart. P38L Max speed; 414-420(?)
P51D 1790Hp. P51 climb rate; 3475@175ias. (P51 flight manual) Top speed 437 There is also test data on a P51B/D Allison/Merlin engines on the same website where you got your charts as well as a initial acceleration chart. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/)
The history of the Allison engine in the Mustang is well known so a retelling would be redundant. Your contention is that a plane with a higher mass an a lower top speed is going to out accelerate a smaller mass plane with a higher top speed won't work. There isn't enough horsepower. Having two engines doesn't mean twice the power. Usually adding a second engine nets about 1.5 (or less) more power than one engine due to the mass and weight of redundant equipment. On the P38 there essentially 3 fuselages. The P38 may get an initial jump from the counter rotating propellers and that effect is reduced as speed increases.
"The Allison engines of the Lightnings proved to be somewhat temperamental, with engine failures actually causing more problems than enemy action. It is estimated that every Lightning in England changed its engines at least once. Nevertheless, the ability of the Lightning to return home on one engine was exceptional and saved the life of the pilot of many a wounded Lightning. Experienced pilots could handle the Lightning satisfactorily at high altitude, but too many of the Eighth Air Force pilots did not have the training or experience to equip them for flying this temperamentally-powered aircraft in combat."(http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_17.html)
Altitude(Pacific vs Europe)/cold weather performance of the Allison engines, and the insurance of a second engine for long over water flights were among the considerations of the deployment of the P38.
Here is a link in AH about a comparison of P38L vs P51d forum;http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=25938.0
-
Your HP rating for the P-38L is the commonly published military power rating, and not the actual War Emergency Power rating. The WEP rating for the -30 Allison in the P-38L is 1725HP. The P-38J engines had a verified 1612HP at WEP, and that was verified in testing by the USAAF, not just claimed by Lockheed and Allison. It is extremely doubtful the later L model would have nearly 300HP per engine less than the earlier J model.
According to Warren Bodie, Lockheed engineer and author of "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning", a book considered to be the final authority on the P-38, the P-38L had -30 Allison engines rated at 1725HP in WEP, and a top speed of around 440MPH at 20K-23K feet, according to Lockheed and Allison data. Bodie and the Lockheed documents are THE source for P-38 data, Warren Bodie was a Lockheed engineer for decades, worked in the Lockheed Skunk Works, and knew many of the engineers and pilots directly involved in the P-38 from beginning to end, personally.
And 1725HP per engine is 1725HP per engine, it does not matter how many there are. The power loading on the P-38 was better than on the P-51. The P-38L had 4.92HP/LB, the P-51D had 5.30HP/LB. The P-38 had a high aspect ratio wing that the P-51 did not. The P-38 would easily outclimb the P-51, and up to about 350MPH, it would out accelerate it.
The only problem with the "cold weather" theory about European operations is that at 25K feet, it is just as cold over the equator as it is over Europe. It's also just as cold over the south west Pacific ocean area at 25K feet as it is at 25K feet over Europe. The P-38 operated successfully, even in the dead of winter, in Alaska.
The reason the 8th AF found the Allison temperamental was they failed to operate it properly. Lockheed test pilot Tony Levier found that not only were pilots flying the P-38 at the wrong settings, but the maintenance crews were not properly adjusting the turbochargers or the fuel system.
The correct settings for cruise were 1600RPM, 32" MAP, and autolean. Pilots were flying the P-38 in cruise at 2500RPM, 15" MAP, and autorich. It was using more than twice the amount of fuel, fouling spark plugs, flooding fuel into the engine oil, keeping the coolant too cold, and keeping the oil too cool. Pilots went into combat with an engine that for the most part was not even warmed up to proper operating temperature. When they slammed the throttles open, they had practically no boost, the spark plugs were fouled, and the engines were dead cold.
Further, the crews had incorrectly set the turbocharger adjustments, so that the engines bucked and surged almost all the time. Not only that, but the fuel was poorly mixed, and the tetraeathyl lead was not homogeneous in the gasoline, so the octane could be as much as 20 points low.
After Levier demonstrated the correct settings and showed the crews the correct way to test and adjust the systems, pilots who had been complaining of rough engines and had come home with blown engines on a tea cup full of fuel now came home bragging how well the engines ran, and with 100 or more gallons of fuel to spare.
Also, not all of the P-38's in Europe had engines replaced, that is a complete exagerration. For example, Art Heiden flew his plane "Lucky Lady' (seen on postage stamps) for 324 hours of combat missions, without a single abort, and without a single engine change. Richard Loenhert flew his plane "California Cutie" for hundreds of hours with no aborts and no engine changes as well. It was not nearly so uncommon as you might think.
-
Your first chart posted is for a P38J. Our discussion was for the P38L/P51D. P38L climb rate 2850(P38J also listed as 2850) Horsepower listing for the P38L: 1475 hp Allison V-1710-1111/113(not 1700) Climb rate to 20k 7 minutes. Which is verified by your second chart. P38L Max speed; 414-420(?)
P51D 1790Hp. P51 climb rate; 3475@175ias. (P51 flight manual) Top speed 437 There is also test data on a P51B/D Allison/Merlin engines on the same website where you got your charts as well as a initial acceleration chart. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/)
The history of the Allison engine in the Mustang is well known so a retelling would be redundant. Your contention is that a plane with a higher mass an a lower top speed is going to out accelerate a smaller mass plane with a higher top speed won't work. There isn't enough horsepower. Having two engines doesn't mean twice the power. Usually adding a second engine nets about 1.5 (or less) more power than one engine due to the mass and weight of redundant equipment. On the P38 there essentially 3 fuselages. The P38 may get an initial jump from the counter rotating propellers and that effect is reduced as speed increases.
"The Allison engines of the Lightnings proved to be somewhat temperamental, with engine failures actually causing more problems than enemy action. It is estimated that every Lightning in England changed its engines at least once. Nevertheless, the ability of the Lightning to return home on one engine was exceptional and saved the life of the pilot of many a wounded Lightning. Experienced pilots could handle the Lightning satisfactorily at high altitude, but too many of the Eighth Air Force pilots did not have the training or experience to equip them for flying this temperamentally-powered aircraft in combat."(http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_17.html)
Altitude(Pacific vs Europe)/cold weather performance of the Allison engines, and the insurance of a second engine for long over water flights were among the considerations of the deployment of the P38.
Here is a link in AH about a comparison of P38L vs P51d forum;http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=25938.0
Let's cut to the chase, okay. You are really miles behind the curve when it comes to discussing the P-38. I've been writing about the Lightning for many years. I've researched it as much or more than anyone else in the aviation history writers community. I found material Bodie never saw. I've talked to dozens of pilot who flew both in the P-38 and the P-51 in combat, several of those aces.
In general terms, you are quoting Joe Baugher (who basically plagiarized several books) and God knows what other pulp aviation books from the Barnes & Noble discount rack.
Virgil Hilts explains the P-38 problems in the 8th AF well. Poor training, incorrect procedures, lousy fuel blending as well as other details led to the P-38's troubles in the ETO. As was explained, the air temperature at 30,000 feet is the same at any location on earth.
If you want accurate information on the P-38, start here: Der Gabelschwanz Teufel (http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html) then move on to Bodie's "Lockheed P-38 Lightning". This will give you the basic background you need to only begin to understand the P-38.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Not to stir the pot, but is there now any evidence as to where the whole Gabel-thing came from? Last I heard, there were no contemporary German-language references to same.
-
The F4u-4 was the best WW2 prop fighter ever built, I think the F6F-6 would have been a monster as well. The Bearcat trumps even the -4.
Actually the F7F was the best WW2 fighter ever built
-
I'm pretty sure at least one P-38 group also kept their favorite birds, I do not have the name of the group handy. They were not part of the 8th AF.
474th FG 9th AF
-
Actually the F7F was the best WW2 fighter ever built
So true, the Tigercat sure is a beauty.
-
Actually the F7F was the best WW2 fighter ever built
Are you forgetting about that nice little a/c from deHavilland?
-
Are you forgetting about that nice little a/c from deHavilland?
I'm assuming you mean the marvelous Hornet...
Yet, the Tigercat raised fighter design to a fine art. IMHO, except perhaps for the Spitfire, no prop fighter ever built was so perfect in form.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I'm assuming you mean the marvelous Hornet...
Yet, the Tigercat raised fighter design to a fine art. IMHO, except perhaps for the Spitfire, no prop fighter ever built was so perfect in form.
My regards,
Widewing
Yet Grumman still felt the need to build half the fuselage with exterior button head rivets...
I shake my head every time I look at it... It'd be 20 kts faster without that!
-
It shouldn't. Only reason it did is that somewhere along the line you messed up.
ack-ack
Actually ack, sir IIRC the D-11 can out turn the G in a sustained turn according to (i believe) Gonzo's page
-
Actually ack, sir IIRC the D-11 can out turn the G in a sustained turn according to (i believe) Gonzo's page
By about 3 yards, but the G does a 360 over 3 seconds faster.
-
Daimler-Benz 605 > Anything powered by Rolls, Allison or Pratt.
(runs and hides)
:noid
-
Here is a link in AH about a comparison of P38L vs P51d forum;http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=25938.0
Good news Skuzzy, search function works. Even from June 01, 2000.
-
The only problem with the "cold weather" theory about European operations is that at 25K feet, it is just as cold over the equator as it is over Europe. It's also just as cold over the south west Pacific ocean area at 25K feet as it is at 25K feet over Europe.
(http://www.auf.asn.au/metimages/lapseprofile.gif)
-
In Aircraft of the Aces "Mustang Aces of the Eighth Air Force" by Jerry Scutts we find this paragraph at the bottom of page 15:
"The conversion of all groups to P-51s lay in the future and one unit, the 56th, resisted all attempts to part from its beloved P47s.
As one of the original saviors of the Eighth, the 'Wolfpack' was allowed this indulgence. Not that 'Hub' Semke's outfit was the only one to protest at the impending conversion.
In particular the 364th and 479th FGs, which arrived in ETO with P38s during early 1944, howled loudly at the decision. However, most complaints were forgotten
once crews experienced the superiority of the P-51 over the P-38 in combat."
I think in the end analysis, the truest most remarkable statement any of us could make here today is that both the P38 and P51 were better than the other :t
IIRC, "Hub" Zemke was on leave when the 56th "protested the impending conversion." Consequently, when the opportunity arose, he took command of the 479th FG who were to convert from P-38s to P-51s. Ironically, Zemke, while flying through severe turbulence over Germany, lost a wing on his P-51 and was captured.
wrongway
-
Does anyone have data on the rate of operational losses per sorties flown? Losses due to technical malfunctions and operational losses, as well as operational readiness rates should also have a bearing on the judgement of which of the three fighters were the most effective in the war.