Author Topic: Thinking about me P-38 as I'm bored at work...  (Read 2683 times)

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8804
Thinking about me P-38 as I'm bored at work...
« Reply #60 on: December 31, 2001, 11:11:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bonden:
Widewing:

"Goodson relates that he had used his primer pump to keep cylinder head temps down after taking a hit in his oil cooler. He barely made it back to Britain from the easten edge of France. However, he was flying a P-47D-10 at the time, which has an air-cooled R-2800 radial engine".

Book says they were in Mustangs. Just relayin what I've read. Perhaps the author did get it wrong or misinterpreted but, I would be disappointed to have to add grains of salt to every WW2 account I have read!

Anyway, appreciated your reply. It's a good read. ("Death Squadron") none the less.    :)

regards

Goodson originally used the primer pump  to cool the engine while flying his beat-up P-47D. Godfrey used the primer pump to cool his leaking Mustang on the suggestion of another pilot who knew of Goodson's experience several months earlier.

Godfrey was flying a P-51B. So, the book is correct on that.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline bolillo_loco

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 127
Thinking about me P-38 as I'm bored at work...
« Reply #61 on: December 31, 2001, 03:32:00 PM »
yes I realize that the corsair chart is in knots, could  somebody please post the corsair dive restriction speeds in mph ias/tas for 1G 3Gs and 5Gs at 10,000ft from america's hundred thousand?

since the 38 is restricted to 440 IAS  with dive recovery flaps at 10,000ft for what looks like a 5G pull out and not 1 G, it looks like it was not that far behind the corsair at all.

I have read where others have stated that the 47 and 51 pilot could dive from high altitude and compress, then just wait to hit dense air and the plane would recover. I do not believe this statement because when reading the pilots manual, they gave quite a few pull out charts for 350mph ias and 450 mph ias and different angles of attack that one would need to begin pull out. It also stated that once the plane encountered compressablility one had to recognize the warning signs early and reduce power and wait to recover. There are quite a few graphs and warnings about compressability in the P-51 manual. This would lead me to believe that none of the ww2 a/c including the 51 were safe in high speed dives from hi ias and hi altitude. they just didnt recover on their own from these altitudes on their own the pilot really had to know what to do not to make the dive worse.

what I am saying is that take a 47/51 to 30,000ft and make a power dive beginning from an airspeed of 400 mph tas, you should not recover. The fact that so many rumors surrounded the 38 most likely terrified pilots and they were very careful not to dive too fast may be one reason why less 38's were lost in dives vs 47's or 51's.

mechanical reliability, anybody who has Roger Freemans book on the mustang, turn to the back and read all the mechanical problems and restrictions that were placed on the 51 due to mechanical problems, it looks like the 51, 47, and 38 all had about the same about of problems in this area, ie a lot.

thanks

Offline bolillo_loco

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 127
Thinking about me P-38 as I'm bored at work...
« Reply #62 on: December 31, 2001, 03:42:00 PM »
also on the speed chart if you look to the far right colum it says ias is 161 and the tas is 168. also in the chart if it says the ias at 252 is really 377 tas how do you know how tas was measured?

Offline wells

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 166
Thinking about me P-38 as I'm bored at work...
« Reply #63 on: December 31, 2001, 05:00:00 PM »
IAS is converted to CAS (instrument installation error)

CAS is converted to EAS (equivalent airspeed is corrected for compressibility)

Then, EAS is converted to TAS

In Aces High, IAS = CAS, or so I thought Pyro mention at one time.

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Thinking about me P-38 as I'm bored at work...
« Reply #64 on: December 31, 2001, 05:50:00 PM »
bolillo_loco,
First it should be noted that you can easily do speed conversions with that chart yourself, so please...

The P-51 could be recovered from dive when desired even if it was at compressebility speeds. But increased g load at compressebility speeds caused increased buffeting which could damage plane so that's why manual recommended that plane should be dived to the lower altitudes where it came out of compressebility self. Anyway, a skilled pilot could recover  the P-51 anytime if he wanted that and it was pretty much same with the F4U and P-47 (if elevator lockup did not exist, or with dive flaps on later models). BTW I believe I have told all this to you before...

About problems of the P-51 it should be noted that there are several books (I have seen Freeman's book too) which lists problems including mission aborts (again help yourself) and so on... there were problems but these were solvable or tolerable and it's same with the P-47. But in the case of the P-38 problems were never fully solved and if there were less P-38s than P-51s and P-47s then there were certainly less diving accidents too. Generally the P-51 and P-47 were far better high altitude fighters than the P-38.

BTW I wonder if you have a somekind of obsession about the P-38 because you continously try to bend all data to favor it...

gripen

Offline bolillo_loco

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 127
Thinking about me P-38 as I'm bored at work...
« Reply #65 on: December 31, 2001, 07:08:00 PM »
IF the 51 recovers all by itself and so does tne P-47 then why do the pilots manuals for these respective a/c and or training films show graphs and flim clips of what happens when you start a power dive (full throttle all the way down) and do not reduce power the plane will fly into the ground? there is a film at zenos which shows the altitude needed to recover from a downward maneouver at high speeds. at very high speeds and high altitude the 47 will not recover from the split s, atleast that is what the film clip shows.

It seems that the L version solved early problems and or brought the probles of the earlier 38s up to the standards of other a/c of the day.

I pointed out how Freeman's book showed many of the problems that the 51 had and not all of these were fixed by wars end. airframe failures due to excessive gs either in combat maneuvers or pull outs plauged the 51 till the end of the war, atleast that is what Roger Freeman's book states. Seems the 51D gained too much weight for the airframe. this is understandable since it was not as big as either a 47 or a 38.

I am not bending information. I am only restating what I have read. when I made mention of martin caiden's and warren bodie's books it was said that both the authors were questionable. I guess roger freemans books are not any good either.

Is name calling next?

thanks.

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Thinking about me P-38 as I'm bored at work...
« Reply #66 on: December 31, 2001, 07:29:00 PM »
Hi Bolillo_loco,

>I have read where others have stated that the 47 and 51 pilot could dive from high altitude and compress, then just wait to hit dense air and the plane would recover.

Don't mix the P-47 and the P-51 here: The P-47 did indeed have history of compressiblity-induced "graveyard dives" just like the P-38. The P-51 did not.

As quoted by you, the statement is not correct: The P-51 would not recover by itself, but after diving at constant true air speed to a lower altitude where the Mach number for this air speed was lower, it was fully controllable once again.

>I do not believe this statement because when reading the pilots manual, they gave quite a few pull out charts for 350mph ias and 450 mph ias and different angles of attack that one would need to begin pull out.

The P-51 manual makes it quite clear that the only danger in high-speed diving with the Mustang is failing to pull up in time to avoid hitting the ground.

The P-38 (and the P-47, too) are in a much more dangerous category: They will destroy themselves in mid-air if they get too fast. They'd develop a pitching-down moment much more powerful than the pilot's controls to counter it, forcing the aircraft into a negative-G (outside) loop that would quickly exceed the structural limits of the airframe.

Any P-38 attempting to go to the P-51's maximum possible Mach number would end up as a cloud of debris even before hitting the ground - dive brakes or not.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Thinking about me P-38 as I'm bored at work...
« Reply #67 on: January 01, 2002, 12:11:00 AM »
bolillo_loco,
I wonder who has claimed that the P-51 or P-47 recovers all by itself? I quess you have missunderstood something now, actually a lot believe or you are trying to bend data to favor the P-38 again...

The L version did not fix aerodynamic problems mentioned before and it's reliability at high altitude was never really tested in service because it was used mostly as a fighter bomber.

All mentioned planes could damaged or even destroyded with too high g load including the P-38. With correct fuel management and trim use   g loads were not a problem for the P-51. BTW I have pointed this out couple times before...

So far I have not said anything about Freeman's credibility (but you have). Also I have not questioned Bodie's credibility but questioned his claim about 1725hp rating as the standard. Caiden's credibility is an another story but I'm not alone in that case...

gripen

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
Thinking about me P-38 as I'm bored at work...
« Reply #68 on: January 01, 2002, 02:21:00 AM »
The P-38 is one of the few planes in the arena that has a sizeable advantage in at least one category against virtually every other aircraft.

No matter what it goes up against.. it can do at least one thing better.

AKDejaVu

Offline bolillo_loco

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 127
Thinking about me P-38 as I'm bored at work...
« Reply #69 on: January 01, 2002, 04:18:00 AM »
well then I am sorry I misunderstood you grippen I have been known to do that and my misunderstanding of data and the way I pose questions is not always the best way I am sure.

but keep the stuff coming any way I enjoy reading what you all of you people have to say, hohun, wells, widewing, and f4udoa to mention a few.  :) atleast I am not drunk anymore and ranting and raving.

what I am trying to understand is since the 38 dive chart is G rated it looks to be just a bit but not too far behind the corsair for similar g load pull outs. I do understand that if both planes were at 30,000 ft at the same speed the 38 would suffer more from compression due to the fact that the 38 will pick up speed much more quickly than the F4UD. I get the opinion that some believe that at 20,000 ft from low to medium ias that if you dove a 38 it would just compress and go into the ground or break up in mid air, but then again I could be wrong.

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Thinking about me P-38 as I'm bored at work...
« Reply #70 on: January 01, 2002, 04:44:00 AM »
bolillo_loco,
Well, seems that your serie of missunderstandings still continue; those flight envelopes just gives us buffeting (or stall or tuck under or what ever) boundary. In practice this means that forexample the F4U started to buffet at high speeds when limits were reached but pull out was still possible. Also I don't know if the P-38 was much better than the F4U in the dive acceleration.

gripen

Offline Guppy

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Thinking about me P-38 as I'm bored at work...
« Reply #71 on: January 01, 2002, 08:36:00 AM »
HoHun,

Does the P-51 manual say anything about the possibility of the Mustang shedding wings in a high-speed dive and pullout? I seem to recall a thread about that on these boards, some time ago.

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Thinking about me P-38 as I'm bored at work...
« Reply #72 on: January 01, 2002, 09:11:00 AM »
Hi Bolillo_loco,

>I get the opinion that some believe that at 20,000 ft from low to medium ias that if you dove a 38 it would just compress and go into the ground or break up in mid air, but then again I could be wrong.

I'm beginning to share Gripen's impression that you're falling victim to selective perception when it comes to the P-38. Here's what I actually wrote:

"Any P-38 attempting to go to the P-51's maximum possible Mach number would end up as a cloud of debris even before hitting the ground - dive brakes or not."

The advantage of a P-38 in a dive is better initial acceleration (i. e. higher specific excess power at slow speed). The disadvantages are lower top speed, lower critical Mach number, and a negative pitching moment in a dive.

What happens if a P-38 goes into a diving contest with the P-51 from equal, low speed? First, it will have the advantage of higher specific excess energy and accelerate faster. Knowning that, the P-51 pilot will put his nose down sharpy. At high altitude and low speed, the thrust to weight ratio of a propeller fighter may be 1:5 (high estimate in favour of the P-38).

If you're going straight down - which the Mustang pilot will - the "thrust to weight ratio" of gravity is 1. The benefit of propeller thrust is comparatively small that way, and the benefit of the P-38's higher specific excess power is even smaller. What's more, diving straight down will result in rapid acceleration so that the P-38 will leave its region of superiority very quickly. Besides, with increasing speed, the thrust provided by the propeller will drop, making it pretty much insignificant in comparison to the "thrust" provided by gravity.

In short, the "better initial dive acceleration" observed in a low G pushover is a good estimate of specific excess power for this flight situation, but in an all-out combat dive, it means little.

Now we have two aircraft going steeply down at high speed. As soon as each of them reaches the level top speed for the altitude, it starts losing energy. The P-38 is slower, so its acceleration will begin to fall back behind that of the P-51. Soon, the P-38 will reach its critical Mach number, which means a dramatic drag rise, so it will fall back behind the P-51 even more. Extending the dive recovery flaps now will add yet more drag, and let the P-51 pull away even further. When the P-38 comes up against the maximum allowable Mach number with dive brakes extended, it can't hold the dive angle or it will enter a negative-G loop overstressing the structure. So the P-38 will have to break off chase of the P-51 that's far ahead by now anyway.

Even worse: The steeper the dive is, the more allowance the P-38 pilot has to make for the additional acceleration during the pull-out process. The above sequence is probably only possible for fairly shallow dives - in a vertical dive, the P-38 pilot would have to begin the pull-out very early to make sure he doesn't exceed the maximum Mach number with dive brakes extended in the pull-out. Due to the uncontrollable nose-down moment this would stop the pull-out and push the plane into the dive again - and into self-destruction.

The P-38 certainly was a very successful fighter in several theatres, but with regard to high-speed diving, it was simply crippled. Not due to bad design, I'm sure - in fact, the P-38 was a very advanced and sophisticated aircraft in many areas.

Widewing summed it up pretty well:

"So, if you find fault in the aerodynamics, you do so only with the hindsight advantage of 65 years of development in the science of aerodymanics since Johnson first penned the concept in the Fall of 1936. "

The British aerodynamicist Sir Morien Morgan stated the same in greater detail:

"Looking back, I think that the greatest problem at the end of the 1930s was that it was extremely difficult to visualize what combat would be like in the new monoplane fighters; the only air fighting experts we had were from the First World War and that had been twenty years earlier. I think we all paid too much attention to the behaviour of an aeroplane flying on a calm sunny day and harmonizing the controls so that they could do nice aerobatic displays; we seemed to miss the importance of handling at speeds around the maximum permissable, in fast dives. Before the war, I remember, people thought that it was rather an academic exercise to scream downhill at one's maximum permissable speeds."

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Thinking about me P-38 as I'm bored at work...
« Reply #73 on: January 01, 2002, 09:21:00 AM »
Hi Guppy,

>Does the P-51 manual say anything about the possibility of the Mustang shedding wings in a high-speed dive and pullout?

It warns several times against pulling out abruptly. Since the manual considers 4 G "about what the average pilot can withstand without blacking out", I'd say their main concern was G-induced loss of consciousness.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline Vector

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 534
Thinking about me P-38 as I'm bored at work...
« Reply #74 on: January 01, 2002, 09:49:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Guppy:
HoHun,

Does the P-51 manual say anything about the possibility of the Mustang shedding wings in a high-speed dive and pullout? I seem to recall a thread about that on these boards, some time ago.

S!
I recall reading somewhere that even P-47 pilots been warned not to add too much manual trim to get out of the compressions, it'd broke the airframe.