Originally posted by gripen:
Widewing,
I know that you have posted thousands of lines about these topics so to avoid further waste of banwidth... Please, post verifyable evidence that proves your arguments:
"Posted thousands of lines"?? Well, I've published thousands of lines on various aviation topics in 5 magazines and contributed to several books. This may or may not qualify me as an expert, but I'm the closest thing to an expert you are likely to encounter. Want confirmation? Feel free to contact any of the following authors:
Warren Bodie
Walt Boyne
Dan Ford
Francis (Diz) Dean
Eric Bergerud
Gail Halvorsen
Al Blackburn
Bruce Gamble
Steve Pace
Just to name a few who can testify to my credentials.
As for "verifiable evidence", I find it remarkable that you have yet to understand what has already been written. Do you have the capability to verify anything? Or are you just blowing smoke up our collective asses?
Fact: There were no field modifications to powerplants or engine sub-systems that were authorized by the USAAF.
Fact: Some local commands allowed unauthorized modifications to sub-systems, provided that these modifications were instituted and supervised by factory representatives.
Fact: Such modifications, being unauthorized, were never documented in officially approved maintenance publications (because career bureaucrats would object to any deviation from regulation and approved USAAF operational procedure).
Fact: Hundreds of maintenance procedures were modified in the name of expedience and from lessons learned in the field.
This isn't difficult to follow, just read it again slowly.
1. The R-2800 B-series engines were routinedly modified for above 2500hp ratings.
I don't recall anyone claiming that actual engines were modified. This is a red herring.
Sub-systems were modified, engines were tuned or "adjusted" for a specific result. I suspect that you don't really understand the question, much less the answer.
2.The fighter squadrons receiving the P-38L quietly resetted the prop governors on the Allisons to allow them to turn 3,200 rpm and these ratings were really used in combat.
Some fighter squadrons allowed this adjustment as a matter of course. Indeed, some groups allowed unauthorized prop governor settings, re-indexing of props and changes in ignition timing. All being within the authority of the respective maintenance officer and crew chiefs. One need only talk to the pilots and mechanics. Jack Ilfrey, Arthur W. Heiden, and Stan Richardson have all confirmed that they were aware that P-38L fighters had been tuned to utilize full factory (Allison) authorized power settings. IE: 3,200 rpm @ 64 in/Hg, which generated 1,725 hp in the 1710-F30 engines. This is also confirmed by Ben Kelsey and Hub Zemke. For the record, I have in my possession, nearly 7 hours of taped interviews with Kelsey and Zemke. These interviews were conducted by Warren Bodie at his home in the 1970s.
3. There was better fuel than the 100/130 available for the P-38L units.
Perhaps you were not paying attention, so I'll state it again. I have, as part of my personal collection, a copy of Doolittle's order specifying the formulation to be manufactured for use in 8th AF P-38 aircraft.
In addition, I have a copy of Doolittle's letter to the Deputy Commanding General of all U.S. Army Air Forces, where he urgently recommends that 2,000,000 gallons of his special brew be blended and distributed to the various P-38 groups of the 8th AF. A copy of this letter has been published by John Gray in his history of the 55th Fighter Group. His initial requirement was for 110-130 octane, but he subsequently upped it to 140-150 when preliminary testing showed only a marginal improvement in detonation reduction. As important as the increase in octane was the method of obtaining that rating. He specifically required a reduction in tetra-ethel lead, preferring iso-araffins which did not come out of solution at low temperatures typically found in P-38J intercooler cores.
So far you have provided just a lot of words, without verifyable evidence from your side there is no reason to continue.
Listen Buster, all you have provided to date on this topic is to insult Lephturn and display the type of false arrogance typical of your ilk.
(snip)
White: Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of WWII, 1995.
Jane's Yearbooks from forties or early fifties.
The Pratt & Whitney Aircraft story, 1952.
Schlaifer and Heron: Developement of Aircraft Engines and Developement of Aviation Fuels, 1950.
Manuals (try museums)
I have poured over several hours of phone interviews and written correspondence with Harvey Lippincott. Harvey was a Pratt & Whitney factory representative assigned to the 8th AF. After retirement, Harvey became the official historian for United Aircraft. Not only was Harvey aware of waste gate modifications to P-47s, he was a leading proponent of such field mods. Harvey not only confirms what the pilots and mechanics have stated, he has described the actual methodology.
For Allison engines, you need Whitney. White comes nowhere near Whitney's research.
My observation is this: Anyone with a library card can obtain the typical and essentially basic data found in most published works. I suggest that you actually interview those people involved in the design, development and operation of the aircraft and engines in question. Until you do so, you will never have anything beyond second and third hand material. Moreover, to dismiss the testimony of the personnel who operated and maintained the aircraft, clinging blindly to service manuals and such worthless publications as Janes, is approaching the height of thickheadedness. If you want the full diversity of facts, get off your bellybutton and track down the people involved. Furthermore, you had better get started soon. Some of the best authorities have already passed on. Cass Hough, Ben Kelsey, Carl Bellinger, Jimmy Mattern, Bob Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Kelly Johnson, Lowery Brabham, Bill Pascalis and dozens more are no longer available to enlighten. Yet, each and every one of the above has been interviewed by either me or Warren. Therein lies our advantage. We went to the source, not to someone else's half-assed research.
My regards,
Widewing
