Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Connection on April 30, 2006, 05:55:02 PM
-
...if they had decided to replace the Alissons with Merlins like they did with the Mustang?
-
Originally posted by Connection
...if they had decided to replace the Alissons with Merlins like they did with the Mustang?
well, we shall never really know :(
imagine a p51 with a gryffon! :rolleyes:
why they never did it is beyond me lol
-
I don't know but i bet it could deflect bullets like the Merlins in AH do.
-
Originally posted by Connection
...if they had decided to replace the Alissons with Merlins like they did with the Mustang?
The Allisons in the P-38 had turbosuperchargers from the start, the P-40 and P-51 Allison installation was lacking in this department, that's why putting Merlins in place of the Allison brought such a boost. A Merlin in the 38 wouldn't have changed too much... putting a better airscrew on however... ;)
-
Mossie with twin Griffons anyone ;) .
-
Griffon powered Mustangs race at Reno every year.
"Precious Metal" is the only one i know by name, but there are others
-
Lockheed studied the possible switch to Merlins. Several factors prevented the switch.
Negatives:
First, the Merlin installation would weigh more than the Allisons.
Allisons typically were more fuel efficient than Merlins, meaning reduced range.
There was insufficient production surplus at Packard to support the P-38.
The Chairman of the War Production Board was a General Motors Executive and GM owned Allison. You could expect opposition from the WPB.
Climb rate would not be as good from sea level to Critical Altitude.
Advantages:
Less complex engine installation without turbos and related plumbing.
Improved reliability when used over Northern Europe.
In summary, there was little to be gained and a better solution was switching to high activity props, which the WPB squelched anyway. Too bad, because those propellers demonstrated a 10% to 15% increase in range and a 15% increase in climb rate. Google the XP-38K.
My regards,
Widewing
-
As Widewing stated, they'd have been better of to replace the raggedy bellybutton Curtiss Electric props with Hamilton Standard High Activity Paddle props, first the three blade used on the P-47, and later the four blade version. Never spoke to a pilot from the era who didn't despise a Curtiss Electric prop.
They could also have used the Allison V1710 that was developed for and used in the P-82 twin Mustang, the turbocharging system used with the P-38 engines will work with the twin Mustang engines, which were the best of all the Allison V1710 series.
Just an FYI, no Merlin EVER won Reno until they figured out how to put the rods from an Allison in them.
Had the USAAC bothered to spend enough time and effort to instruct the pilots and crews of the 8th AF on how to fly and maintain the P-38, reliability issues would have been minimized as well. Pilots and planes were lost needlessly, because the pilots simply weren't told about the proper power settings, and how the plane should act.
Oh, and the Merlin was no flawless piece either. More than a few Mustangs were lost when the heads on the Merlins cracked and dumped coolant, or the plugs fouled so badly the engine simply shut down. A P-51 was lost about two years ago over a cracked head or other cooling system failure. I was told by a couple of guys who flew them that once a coolant leak happened on a Merlin P-51, you had a very few minutes to find a place to put it down, or it would sieze rapidly.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Mossie with twin Griffons anyone ;) .
Two for me and a coke please.
Bozon
-
Ponder on this....
A p38 with 2xGriffons :D
-
Actually, there's a MUCH easier and more effective swap available. Take two P-82 Mustang V1710 G6R engines and swap them in, hooking them to the original P-38 turbocharger system. Add the FOUR blade Hamilton Standard High Activity paddle props. The engine is a direct bolt in, no modifcations needed, other than swapping the rotation of one engine (easily done in about 3 hours, necessary only if you don't get one of each). The homework on the prop swap was already done by Lockheed on the P-38K. Now, add 150 fuel to allow the boost to run at 80". Now you have a P-38 with nearly 4500HP available under WEP conditions, and with props to use the power efficiently.
The G6R was rated at over 2000HP in many cases, and combined with the turbocharger system on the P-38 could maintain sea level power to over 30K. It was an improved version of the regular V1710 F15/17/30 series equipped with an improved crankshaft and a much better crank driven centrifugal supercharger capable of making in excess of 2000HP WITHOUT the add on turbocharger.
WEP, and possibly even military power, couldn't be used in level flight above 20K, as it would easily propel the P-38 into compression in level flight. However, below 20K it would be a monster, and above 20K, the ability to climb, and maintain speed and energy during combat maneuvers, would be added to the ability to fly in excess of 45K, and a 20% increase in range. There's no doubt, it still wouldn't be the fastest thing up there in levle flight. But the power available to climb and maneuver would give it extreme advantages in several areas.
As far as the power and reliability of the engines in this configuration, it actually has been tested. The twin Mustang Allison V1710 G6R engines were regularly combined with P-38 style turbocharging systens regularly in the old Unlimited Hydroplanes before the advent of helicopter turbines in the boats. There was at one time a good sized supply of the twin Mustang engines in surplus, and you could pick them up for a song. However, the hydroplane and tractor pulling guys used them up.
-
For operations in the ETO I think they would have preffered the Merlins in the early P-38s had they been able to make the switch. For the Pacific, where it was warmer, and the Allisons didnt have to deal with the very cold temps, and they tended to fly lower anyways, it would have made little difference. Since the P-38s had the seperate superturbochargers installed their performance at alt was always pretty good, unlike the Allisons in the single engined fighters, like P-40 and P-39.
Allison to Merlin switch would have made the most difference in the P-51, and the least in the P-38. Which is maybe why thats exactly what happened.
Since the P-40s and P-39s were already earmarked by the USAAF to be replaced during the war by the P-38 and P-47, modifying them would have been a waste of time and resources.
When the decision was made to convert the 8th AF FGs to P-51s in 1944, I think that quashed any serious discussion about improving the P-38 further than the J/L series, as they could see the war in its final year anyways. Its a cost-benefit call. Lots of a/c that would have been improvements never saw the light of day (on all sides) because the requirement wasn't there.
-
Actually, the G6 series Allison was available long before 1944. And the improvements would have made a great deal of difference to the P-39, the P-40, and the P-51. Of course, it would have made a big difference for the P-39 had the USAAC not removed the turbocharger.
The P-38K prototype also flew long before 1944. Actually 1943 is more like it.
Once you get above 20K, the temperature does not vary nearly so much as you might think from region to region.
The Merlin equipped P-51 had at least as severe a set of teething issues as the P-38 did. The high altitude issues with the P-38 were mostly related to maintenance and procedures, although the design did exacerbate those problems.
-
Once asked an old pilot if it wasn't cold at those alts like 30 or 40 K.
He said exactly what you did, that after 20 it didn't really matter so much.
He added that the air in the med up at 20K was colder than over N-Europe.
And, over 40K you can see the sky getting slowly darker...deeper blue.
-
Well, even by 1943 the USAAF was rapidly converting from the P-40 and P-39 to the P-38 and P-47, so I don't see why they would bother to upgrade them, only to retire them within months. Im not saying they couldn't have done upgrades, and im sure they considered that as an option, but in the end I think the right choice was made to move on to better types. The USA could produce large #s of a/c quickly, and so it makes sense based on its capacity for production.
The USN went the same way, going to the F4U and F6F and replacing the F4F rather than just improve it, although the FM-2 did see service in a niche role into 1945.
There were a lot of a/c that could have been upgraded, but design technology rose dramatically during the war, and newer types came out at a very fast pace.
In regards to the P-38, it was *the* premier USAAF fighter in 1942-43, and the demand for it in the ETO, MED and PAC outstripped Lockheeds ability to keep up to the orders, and any delay of it would have been quashed, my understanding is the fear of a production delay in the P-38K (perhaps in error, in retrospect), killed that program. To convert the P-38s over to the Merlin, even if they wanted to, would have in all likelyhood been cancelled if they felt production would have been slowed.
-
Originally posted by Squire
...although the FM-2 did see service in a niche role into 1945.
...
What was that niche? Jeep Carriers? ( I have no idea ) :)
-
CC, Jeep Carriers (CVEs), in primarily the anti-kamikaze role, which they did very good at.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Actually, the G6 series Allison was available long before 1944.
At least according to Whitney, the G series reached production stage 1946 (some flight testing 1945). Some features of the G series were introduced during production of the E and F series (late 1944 or 1945).
gripen
-
The G series was not produced until late 45 or early 46, because the planes that used it weren't being produced. It was however fully developed and ready for production. The twin Mustang was originally supposed to have used the Merlin, but when the war ended, so did the cheap license to produce the Packard version of the Merlin. So the production of the G6 series was cranked up.
It is true, the F series, namely the 15/17/30 models, used the majority of the features of the G6. The difference was the supercharger. It was felt the P-38 didn't need the new trick supercharger, since it had a turbocharger. However, the new supercharger would have allowed the P-38 more power, and allowed it to maintain sea level power to well over 35K.
The reason that the new supercharger didn't seem to be such a big deal anyway is that until mid 43 or so, the USAAC didn't seem to grasp the need for very high altitude performance. Too late they realized that performance above 20K was at least as important as below.
A P-40, or a P-39 for that matter, with over 500 more HP at 25K, would have been much more valuable, especially to the pilot, than what was actually produced. The USAAC and the War Production Board proved to be far more short sighted and politically/profit motivated than was good for the guys doing the fighting. Regardless of whether some planes were being "phased out", they were still being produced and sent into combat. They should have been produced with the best possible engines and systems, especially when it wouldn't cost much more, and wouldn't slow production. The G6 series could have been phased in without much if any production delay.
The situation was somewhat similar to the idiots who decided that it would be much faster and cheaper to make the first run of M-16 rifles without a chrome lined barrel, and to get the ammunition made with cheaper but dirtier powder. They shot themselves in the foot there too. They sent men into combat with far less useful and effective weapons than could easily have been provided. One need look no further than the Sherman tank in World War II. Generals running armored units as far back as 41-42 knew that the Sherman was not enough tank, and said so loudly. Not nearly enough. And yet it was 1945 before the Pershing saw any real service, if then. It is inexcusable to send men into combat with cheap ineffective weapons knowing that they could and should easily be equipped with better weapons.
The point is, it should be noted that despite the reputation today of having the finest and most technologically advanced weapons and systems, in the past the U.S. was known as much or more for expediency and ineffectiveness for the sake of volume and profit.
-
Isn't that the history of warfare? Generals and politicians ignoring the guys actually doing the fighting all for the benefit of the bottom line and public opinion, or just out of sheer "I've got the stars and you don't" arrogance? I mean, look what they did to Billy Mitchell.
-
accoring to early 30's army air corps boss Bejamin Foulois, Billy Mitchell did all that to himself
-
Another reason they never installed a Merlin on the P-38 was that there was no "reverse" turning Merlin engine available. They would have lost precious time engineering one, and they couldn't afford any delays in production (which was the WPB stated reason for not approving the P-38K).
Alternative would have been to do away with handed propellors, but that would have negated a lot of the handling characteristics that made the P-38 so poular.
-
Im not arguing what they should have done from the beggining (re the turbochargers), im just pointing out that by the time they fully realised their error, that better fighter types were already being phased in, such as the P-47 and P-38s, in quantity.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The G series was not produced until late 45 or early 46, because the planes that used it weren't being produced. It was however fully developed and ready for production.
What's the source for this? According to Whitney there appear to have been a lot developement going still going on 1945 (first flight tests took place 1945).
gripen
-
Star Wars has a high-performance P-38...
http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/p38starfighter/index.html
-
Gripen and I have hashed out the P-38 quite a bit over the years, here and on usenet. Ultimately, we agree that the P-38 was a dead end in terms of development. The basic design was past mature by 1944. It was limited by a wing design that allowed for a relatively low critical Mach of just .68, whereas virtually all of its contemporaries boasted .75 through .80 Mach. At high altitude, a low critical Mach means that buffeting is as near as a lazy relative.
While many of the initial deficiencies of the P-38 were corrected over time, basic problems endemic to the design remained. Complex system controls, poor heating, generally poor outward vision, high maintenence costs, high initial purchase cost and the limitations of the wing design. All of these things conspired against the Lightning. It was competitive throughout the war, but clearly had no future beyond VJ day.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The twin mustang was mentioned before on the thread. Does anyone have some specs on that? How did it compare to a P38 for instance?
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Gripen and I have hashed out the P-38 quite a bit over the years, here and on usenet. Ultimately, we agree that the P-38 was a dead end in terms of development. The basic design was past mature by 1944. It was limited by a wing design that allowed for a relatively low critical Mach of just .68, whereas virtually all of its contemporaries boasted .75 through .80 Mach. At high altitude, a low critical Mach means that buffeting is as near as a lazy relative.
While many of the initial deficiencies of the P-38 were corrected over time, basic problems endemic to the design remained. Complex system controls, poor heating, generally poor outward vision, high maintenence costs, high initial purchase cost and the limitations of the wing design. All of these things conspired against the Lightning. It was competitive throughout the war, but clearly had no future beyond VJ day.
My regards,
Widewing
Think that goes for just about every prop driven plane by the end WW2.
Spits had been pushed TO THE LIMIT. Same goes for 190/109.
Even the Spiteful with it's promising performance was shelved with the advent of the jet era.
-
Allow me to think out loud and ask a question...
Over the years I've seen many homebuilt kit P-51's come....the Stewart S-51 comes to mind. Has any such think happened with a P-38 style plane? You'd think with todays turboprop technology it would be something really impressive.
But then again, I dont know the legalities and licensing of blueprints for a late-model P-38 :) Im assuming Lockheed aint into licensing em?
-
I thought this was an interesting read.
LINK
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38K.html
P-38 with merlins and HS prop.
Not sure of accuracy just thought i'd share a find.
Bronk
-
That's Widewing's site, and that P-38 is powered by F-15 Allisons.
-
Hey Kev, about props being pushed past their limits by the end of WWII...
Don't forget about the Skyraider, which continued to be developed on from Korea through Vietnam. Granted, she's an attack plane and not a fighter, but that's still impressive.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
That's Widewing's site, and that P-38 is powered by F-15 Allisons.
Yea kev pointed that out for me. I skimmed it to fast.
Still an impressive test AC.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Hey Kev, about props being pushed past their limits by the end of WWII...
Don't forget about the Skyraider, which continued to be developed on from Korea through Vietnam. Granted, she's an attack plane and not a fighter, but that's still impressive.
Very true.
Main reason it was better for close air support to have a slower plane. (by jet standards).
Spits last combat flight was 1951, so they 'hung' on for a long time.
-
For sheer staying power you gotta give props to the F4U. First flew at the end of the 1930s and fought on with one airforce or another into the 70s.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Gripen and I have hashed out the P-38 quite a bit over the years, here and on usenet. Ultimately, we agree that the P-38 was a dead end in terms of development. The basic design was past mature by 1944. It was limited by a wing design that allowed for a relatively low critical Mach of just .68, whereas virtually all of its contemporaries boasted .75 through .80 Mach. At high altitude, a low critical Mach means that buffeting is as near as a lazy relative.
While many of the initial deficiencies of the P-38 were corrected over time, basic problems endemic to the design remained. Complex system controls, poor heating, generally poor outward vision, high maintenence costs, high initial purchase cost and the limitations of the wing design. All of these things conspired against the Lightning. It was competitive throughout the war, but clearly had no future beyond VJ day.
My regards,
Widewing
There's no doubt there were cheaper planes available. However, the same remains true today. An easy comparison is the F-15 and the F-16. No doubt the F-16 is cheaper and simpler. But that does not make it superior.
Lockheed certainly could have done more on the heating and on the complex controls. In fact Carlos' article on your site includes mention of the new control system Lockheed had, that, like may other things Lockheed had for the P-38, the War Production Board and the USAAC decided not to bother with.
Yes, the critical mach limit did hurt performance. But given the fact that once a prop plane enters a fight, it only gets slower, unless it dives, the critical mach limit becomes less a factor (not saying it isn't a factor at all, but just less a factor). It's a factor if you attempt to escape, or chase an escaping plane.
The basic design had limits. But the fact remains that more power and better props would have improved the performance in all areas except top speed and dive speed. Range, climb, acceleration, and turn performance would have been greatly improved. Even with maxed out Allisons and four blade Hamilton Standard High Activity paddle props, the P-38 still would not out run or out dive the fastest of the F4U, P-47, or P-51 series. But it would likely out accelerate them to 440MPH (or whatever the critical mach limit was at that particualr altitude), and it would also likely outclimb them as well as maintain speed better while climbing AND turning.
On the other hand if all you are going to do is run or dive, you aren't going to fight much. If you have to run or dive out, you've lost that fight, although admittedly you've had the ability to survive by running away. But if you cannot do anything but hope to score with a surprise high speed bounce, you don't have a truly superior plane. If you can only exhibit superior speed, and not by more than 40MPH or so, you don't have that great an edge.
Figure the average fight between prop planes begins at 360-380MPH at best, and only gets slower so long as the fight goes on, unless someone dives. Few, or more accurately, VERY few, fights began at over 400MPH, and even those were below 350MPH after the first or second turn. If you cannot out accelerate the opposing plane, you cannot even count on speed to save you after the second turn. Say the fight only drops your speed to 300MPH, you still have to out accelerate the slower plane until it can no longer accelerate. How long does it take to accelerate the faster prop planes from 300MPH to 420MPH?
The point is, had the P-38K gone into production, and the P-38 been allowed to continue to evolve with regards to engines and props (as well as the control system Lockheed already had, to name one example) it would have been far more competitive than it was to begin with, and also that it really was no more outclassed than the other prop planes after World War II ended and the jet age began. Now had the jet age NOT begun, then prop planes probably would have eclipsed the P-38 in time.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Very true.
Main reason it was better for close air support to have a slower plane. (by jet standards).
Spits last combat flight was 1951, so they 'hung' on for a long time.
Actually, even the A-10, the best close air plane there is, is slow as well, and not much faster than some World War II era planes. And it is a jet. Probably number two, the AC-130, isn't exactly a speed demon either. By the way, it's not just to be slow, but also to have TOT, or time over target. A good close air plane has to be able to loiter long enough to be able to have a long term effect on the battle.
-
Hi Hilts,
>Yes, the critical mach limit did hurt performance. But given the fact that once a prop plane enters a fight, it only gets slower, unless it dives, the critical mach limit becomes less a factor (not saying it isn't a factor at all, but just less a factor). It's a factor if you attempt to escape, or chase an escaping plane.
High-speed controllability is a very important factor in fighter combat, offensively as defensively.
If a fighter is losing the "low-speed" fight, he can always put the nose down and run for it. If the attacker is unable to follow, he won't get the kill. In the case of the dive-speed limited aircraft being the defender, not being able to run for it is a big problem, too.
(And while it's fairly simple to dive away from two or more enemies if you enjoy a dive speed advantage, out-manoeuvring two or more enemies can be a challenge even if you enjoy a manoeuvrability advantage.)
>But it would likely out accelerate them to 440MPH (or whatever the critical mach limit was at that particualr altitude), and it would also likely outclimb them as well as maintain speed better while climbing AND turning.
The problem is that the faster you go, the shallower the possible dive angle for attacking becomes.
Von Richthofen said, "What is a fighter aircraft good for that can climb above the enemy, but then can't dive down on him to attack?"
And another disadvantage of the P-38 wing that hasn't been mentioned yet is yielded less and less lift at increasing Mach numbers. The same trend was evident for aircraft with NACA 230xx wings, like the F6F and the Fw 190, but it wasn't nearly as pronounced for these. (The P-51's laminar wing was quite good in that regard so that at high altitude, it gained in manoeuvrability compared to most other WW2 fighters.)
Pacific Theatre veteran MF Kirby once mentioned that if the Japanese had known that the P-38 was not able to follow them through a split-S, they would have have been able to escape quite frequently. Now he was flying P-38s without the dive brakes, and the Japanese pilots probably had their own reasons to avoid split-Sing, but the P-38 is still at a serious disadvantage to other Western fighters if you compare permissible Mach numbers.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
What made Kirby think the P-38 couldn't follow the Japanese planes? The P-38 MIGHT suffer compression issues. However, most of the Japanese planes had at least as many problems, and some more severe. Controls froze, control surfaces ripped off, and most were slower than the P-38 to begin with.
Sure the lift goes away with increasing mach numbers. I think I already acknowledged the mach limit was a problem.
The assumption that mach number is THE deciding factor is assuming too much. It simply isn't, no matter how much anyone would like it to be. The fight simply doesn't stay close to ANY plane's mach number when you're talking about piston engine prop driven planes. It just DOESN'T. Mach limit is ONE factor, and one only. PERIOD. Piston engine prop driven planes simply didn't fight at that high a speed, especially not sustained fights of any real duration.
If you can hold a turn longer and steeper, and climb better, not to mention out accelerate your enemy, why would you want to DIVE to escape him? Only a fool dives against a plane he can't out run. However, if the fight gets slow, and you are losing, if you can out accelerate and out climb your opponent, you might make a quick dive to increase your acceleration advantage and then use superior climb to escape, once you've out accelerated and gained a little separation.
Anyone who judges planes strictly on speed and critical mach is bound to be sadly disappointed in his choice before it is over with. Otherwise the fighter version of the SR-71 would be unbeatable. Yes, there was a fighter version proposed and at one time under development. By your standards, nothing on the planet could hope to defeat it. Yet it was never put into production. Why? Because ultimate speed is not the overall defining factor, even in the jet age.
-
Hi Hilts,
>What made Kirby think the P-38 couldn't follow the Japanese planes?
Well, never to split-S was an established procedure with his outfit. He once related that there were certain rules you adhered to because you had seen the guys who broke them die. I don't know whether this was one of them, but it highlights a certain amount of cautious and conservative thinking.
>Sure the lift goes away with increasing mach numbers. I think I already acknowledged the mach limit was a problem.
Well, I thought it was worth pointing out that there were ill effects even below the limiting Mach number.
>The assumption that mach number is THE deciding factor is assuming too much.
Hm, I don't think I assumed that. It's still a very important factor, though.
>The fight simply doesn't stay close to ANY plane's mach number when you're talking about piston engine prop driven planes. It just DOESN'T.
Hm, I don't think I said it does. The point is that the successful conclusion of a fight is shooting the other guy down, and that's difficult if he has the option to evade by diving. On the other hand, if you are not capable of evading by diving, that will set you up for getting shot down yourself if the fight goes bad.
>If you can hold a turn longer and steeper, and climb better, not to mention out accelerate your enemy, why would you want to DIVE to escape him?
Because he has already saddled up, coming from a position of surprise, superior numbers, superior energy, or a combination of these. You wouldn't want to dive away at the head-on merge in a 1-vs.-1, but you wouldn't want to stay in quite a lot of less fairly balanced situations.
>By your standards, nothing on the planet could hope to defeat it.
Hm, I don't think I defined any standards yet.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Saxman
For sheer staying power you gotta give props to the F4U. First flew at the end of the 1930s and fought on with one airforce or another into the 70s.
Same for the P-38. The P-38 flew with some airforces until the late '60s, early '70s.
ack-ack
-
B52 has em beat :)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Pacific Theatre veteran MF Kirby once mentioned that if the Japanese had known that the P-38 was not able to follow them through a split-S, they would have have been able to escape quite frequently. Now he was flying P-38s without the dive brakes, and the Japanese pilots probably had their own reasons to avoid split-Sing, but the P-38 is still at a serious disadvantage to other Western fighters if you compare permissible Mach numbers.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
In McGuire's Combat Tactics For the SouthWest Pacific, he mentions that if you're jumped by Japanese planes that breaking to the right and going into a Split-S was a good defensive tactic as most Japanese planes couldn't follow.
His manual also stated that for some reason, Japanese pilots preferred breaking to the left as opposed to the right. Wonder why?
ack-ack
-
torque? which way did their engines spin?
-
Hi Ack-Ack,
>In McGuire's Combat Tactics For the SouthWest Pacific, he mentions that if you're jumped by Japanese planes that breaking to the right and going into a Split-S was a good defensive tactic as most Japanese planes couldn't follow.
Not necessarily a contradiction to what Kirby said.
In the defensve case, you would be slow, being attacked by fast Japanese aircraft. The speed picked up in a split-S would (hopefully) not suffice to bring you beyond the limiting Mach number. Being defensive, you would not be confined to track your target down, so an oblique split-S would be an option, too.
In the offensive case, you would be fast (bacause that was good tactics against Japanese aircraft), so trying to split-S would bring you to the limiting Mach number much more quickly.
(By the way, it's worth remembering that McGuire apparently was killed breaking the one rule Kirby explicitely pointed out: Not to turn with the Japanese.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hmmm... Which Japanese planes would that work best against...?
-
Twin engine bombers only :D
Or the Emily (big flying boat)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
(By the way, it's worth remembering that McGuire apparently was killed breaking the one rule Kirby explicitely pointed out: Not to turn with the Japanese.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Actually, that's not how he died. Yes, he was in an turning engagement when he died but it wasn't the cause.
ack-ack
-
Hi Ack-Ack,
>Actually, that's not how he died.
Hm, what exactly do you mean by "that"?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Exactly what he said. From what Weaver, his wingman said, McGuire's plane had an engine problem, and one did not respond when he throttled up after using differential throttling. The plane McGuire was flying was regularly flown by another pilot who did not fly as aggressively as McGuire did, and as such the plane was untested for McGuire's style of flying.
-
Hi Hilts,
>Exactly what he said.
Hm, I don't think I would have asked if I thought his post was perfectly unambiguous.
>From what Weaver, his wingman said, McGuire's plane had an engine problem, and one did not respond when he throttled up after using differential throttling. The plane McGuire was flying was regularly flown by another pilot who did not fly as aggressively as McGuire did, and as such the plane was untested for McGuire's style of flying.
So what was it that killed him in your opinion? My summary of the above would be "McGuire's style of flying", but I feel that might not be what you were aiming at.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
McGuire was an aggressive pilot, there are a lot of stories of him returning from missions with bent wings because of how he threw the plane around in combat.
What is the most likely cause of his death was a spin caused when throttling up one engine. In the P-38, when you cut back on one engine and then throttle it back up, you need to throttle down the 2nd engine as well and then advance both throttle together. Otherwise the P-38 can get into a very nasty spin and at the low altitude McGure was flying at, is usually 99.9999% fatal. It can also happen if the engine doesn't respond immediately like Savage explained and that might have been the case with McGuire. He was not flying his regular plane that was tuned to his aggressive flying style, so it's possible that it wasn't in as good shape as his was.
ack-ack
-
McGuire was an aggressive pilot, there are a lot of stories of him returning from missions with bent wings because of how he threw the plane around in combat.
What is the most likely cause of his death was a spin caused when throttling up one engine. In the P-38, when you cut back on one engine and then throttle it back up, you need to throttle down the 2nd engine as well and then advance both throttle together. Otherwise the P-38 can get into a very nasty spin and at the low altitude McGure was flying at, is usually 99.9999% fatal. It can also happen if the engine doesn't respond immediately like Savage explained and that might have been the case with McGuire. He was not flying his regular plane that was tuned to his aggressive flying style, so it's possible that it wasn't in as good shape as his was.
.... which, probably would have never happened if he did not try to turn with a Japanese plane in the first place?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
.... which, probably would have never happened if he did not try to turn with a Japanese plane in the first place?
But your implication is still wrong. It wasn't the turning with the Japanese plane that killed him, he died from a spin caused by asymetrical (sp?) power while he was in a turning engagement.
ack-ack
-
But your implication is still wrong. It wasn't the turning with the Japanese plane that killed him, he died from a spin caused by asymetrical (sp?) power while he was in a turning engagement.
[/quote
Fact or fiction? Is that the officially 'proven' reason behind McGuire's death, or is it just one of the many speculations behind it? I'm asking because I seem to remember a variety of reasons listed from McGuire's own recklessness to external drop tanks.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Exactly what he said. From what Weaver, his wingman said, McGuire's plane had an engine problem, and one did not respond when he throttled up after using differential throttling. The plane McGuire was flying was regularly flown by another pilot who did not fly as aggressively as McGuire did, and as such the plane was untested for McGuire's style of flying.
Savage, Im curious as to your comment about the pilot of the P38 that McGuire was flying that day. He was flying 9 kill Ace Fred Champlin's #112 Eileen-Anne. Champlain may have not bent P38s like McGuire did, (few if any others did) but I'd be hard pressed to describe him as not aggressive with 9 kills to his credit. He'd been flying combat with the 475th as long as McGuire had going back to the first days.
Did that comment come from a particular source regarding Champlin's bird and Champlin for that matter?
How would one tune a 38 to McGuire's style? And why wouldn't any front line 38 be tuned to get the best out of it? Kinda doubt that the crew chief of Champlin's bird took less care of it then McGuires crew cheif took of Pudgy.
-
Maguire went down after taking rounds in a break. He got greedy looking for 3 ro 4 kills, cant remember which, and went into a spin after breaking to tight with his DT's still attached. It was a 3 ship flight, with 1 member already being hit by a ki 43 that came in from the haze in front and got a shot. There was a ki 84 on a trianing flight in the area that also made and a pass and possibly hit Maguire in his break. The Ki 43 was destroyed in the engagement and the ki 84 got away.
Maguire made 3 mistakes
1. Hung around the fight after one of his wingmen had taken hits
2. Didn't drop his Dt's at the start of the fight so he could stay around longer to make his kills
3. His airspeed at the time of his break was below 150kias most definatily. This was a violation of his first rule, and he paid for it.
Also on previous flights Maguire had broken so hard he broke the spars on several occasions and was lucky to have made it back.
Vlkyrie
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Savage, Im curious as to your comment about the pilot of the P38 that McGuire was flying that day. He was flying 9 kill Ace Fred Champlin's #112 Eileen-Anne. Champlain may have not bent P38s like McGuire did, (few if any others did) but I'd be hard pressed to describe him as not aggressive with 9 kills to his credit. He'd been flying combat with the 475th as long as McGuire had going back to the first days.
Did that comment come from a particular source regarding Champlin's bird and Champlin for that matter?
How would one tune a 38 to McGuire's style? And why wouldn't any front line 38 be tuned to get the best out of it? Kinda doubt that the crew chief of Champlin's bird took less care of it then McGuires crew cheif took of Pudgy.
When I was involved in the project looking for the wreckage and the cause, we found through a couple of sources that Fed was not known for using differential throttling like McGuire was. It had nothing to do with his nature, but rather his flying style. The comment had nothing to do with Fred's willingness to mix it up, but rather how he flew when he did. The point is that the engines may not have been tuned for the way McGuire used the throttles, so that they may not have responded to the throttles the way Pudgy did. It doesn't have anything to do with how much peak power the engines made, or how well they ran, but rather how they responded to having the throttles opened and closed. So please, do not misunderstand the statement about the tuning of Champlin's plane as any sort of indictment of Champlin's flying abilities, aggressiveness, or anything else. Nor is it any sort of indictment of the plane itself, Champlin's crew chief, or McGuire's crew chief who was up late getting Champlin's bird ready for McGuire to fly it the next day. No doubt all involved were absolutely the best of the best, and America's finest.
By the way, with regards to what Thropp said about the fight where McGuire and Rittmayer died, I have a couple of problems with Thropp's account. First, he was far enough away from Weaver and McGuire that he did not see the crash itself, nor did he know who crashed. Second, his claim that McGuire took hits does not agree with the fact that Weaver said that he was under attack and McGuire was trying to clear him. Third, Thropp was evidently angry with Weaver, and felt Weaver abandoned him. Fourth, he also claims Rittmayer was faking engine trouble. Fifth, there are no reports of him making any effort at the time to correct what he claimed were errors and false statements in Weaver's report.
Fukuda, who shot Rittmayer down, was flying the second plane. He actually hit Rittmayer on an off angle nose to nose pass, and killed Rittmayer in the cockpit. Fukuda reported seeing Rittmayer wearing a scarlet scarf, Rittmayer wore no such scarf, and was certainly hit in the head or neck by Fukuda and was either dead or dying. Thropp was the other plane hit, taking damage to one engine. Fukuda was the pilot of the second plane which was not known to have been there with certainty until sometime in the seventies. The pilot of the first plane (I think his name was Sugimoto) was shot down, and killed by Phillipino guerillas as he was getting out of the wrecked plane.
Weaver, McGuire's wingman, and the pilot under attack calling for help originally, said the Japanese plane was behind him, trying to get in position for a shot and making good progress, and he saw and heard McGuire trying to gain position to clear him. He said McGuire's plane shuddered, the engines made an odd sound, and the plane snapped inverted and went in from about 1500 feet. That is consistent with one engine failing to respond when differential throttling is used. According to several of the best pilots with a lot of P-38 time, the only way to get a P-38 to snap over that way was to turn into a dead engine, or be in a turn and lose the inside engine. If McGuire did in fact try to use differential throttling to get inside the Japanese plane, and the P-38 was close to a high speed stall, and the inside engine didn't come back up when he throttled up, the P-38 would have instantly snapped inverted and spun, which is exactly what happened. And 1500 feet was not enough room to recover.
There were no bullet holes found in the wreckage seen after the crash, nor in the pieces seen later. Further, McGuire's body was later recovered and an autopsy performed. The findings were injuries consistent with a crash, and there was no mention of any bullet wounds or possible bullet wounds.
-
Originally posted by Valkyrie
Maguire went down after taking rounds in a break.
Vlkyrie
Wrong.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
When I was involved in the project looking for the wreckage and the cause, we found through a couple of sources that Fed was not known for using differential throttling like McGuire was. It had nothing to do with his nature, but rather his flying style. The comment had nothing to do with Fred's willingness to mix it up, but rather how he flew when he did. The point is that the engines may not have been tuned for the way McGuire used the throttles, so that they may not have responded to the throttles the way Pudgy did. It doesn't have anything to do with how much peak power the engines made, or how well they ran, but rather how they responded to having the throttles opened and closed. So please, do not misunderstand the statement about the tuning of Champlin's plane as any sort of indictment of Champlin's flying abilities, aggressiveness, or anything else. Nor is it any sort of indictment of the plane itself, Champlin's crew chief, or McGuire's crew chief who was up late getting Champlin's bird ready for McGuire to fly it the next day. No doubt all involved were absolutely the best of the best, and America's finest.
Thanks for the clarification Savage. I clearly misinterpreted what you were saying :)
-
Hi Ack-ack,
>But your implication is still wrong. It wasn't the turning with the Japanese plane that killed him, he died from a spin caused by asymetrical (sp?) power while he was in a turning engagement.
I believe Kweassa is right in identifying the attempt to turn with a Japanese plane as the true reason for McGuire's demise. It increased the risk far beyond what it would have been if he'd kept speed and altitude. (It also increased the chances of success, so McGuire really took a calculated risk.)
With regard to the asymmetrical thrust: It sounds as if McGuire wasn't intentionally running his engines asymmetrically, but the asymmetry resulted from a sudden technical problem? I might have misunderstood this initially.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I'd have to say, if you were to break down McGuires death into the simplest possible terms, the causes would be-
1) Failure to jettison his tanks
2) Attempting to turn a dangerously overloaded airplane with a much better turning enemy
3) Getting involved in a turnfight at both too low a speed and without enough altitude for a recovery in the event of a problem
4) Possible technical difficulty
5) Failure to follow his OWN written guidelines for air to air combat
all of which were coupled with-
6) Overly aggressive nature coupled with overconfidence and greed- he wanted to pass Richard Bong for the top score at any cost.
As much as I hate to downplay the outstanding heroism and unquestioned combat ability of one of the greatest pilots in the history of the USAAF, I'm sorry to say Tom McGuires death was his own fault.
Given the circumstances, the same thing probably would have happened to any pilot in any aircraft. Do you think Don Gentile would try to turn a P-51 with droptanks down low? Or Johnny Johnson in a Spit with a 45 Gallon slipper tank? Discretion is the better part of valor, but there is no cause to this incident, no matter which side you look at it from, other than pilot error.
Even Bong supposedly said, when he heard about it, "I was afraid this would happen". Tommy pushed himself too hard, and his luck finally ran out.
If this same type of death were to happen in AH, you would see him on 200 or the country channel laughing (or ranting) at his own stupidity and saying how he "should have known better".
-
McGuire had been grounded for a short period in order to allow Bong to go home the top ace and make his rounds and appearances as such.
McGuire wanted to go home. But he would not leave his beloved squad unless ordered to do so, because he felt he could not abandon his men. He felt his number was up, and that he had run out of luck. That was one reason he chose NOT to fly his own plane. He knew that if he matched or beat Bong, he would be ordered home immediately. Once the order grounding him was lifted, he decided to make a run at getting at least 2-3 kills in order to match or beat Bong, and go home.
In the fight, he CHOSE to engage and push his luck because his wingman was in a bad position and fighting for his life. He HAD to try to save Weaver, no other course of action would be acceptable, he could not leave one of his men to die in order to save himself. Did he push his luck? Sure he did. Was it to get the kill? Maybe somewhat, but mostly to save Weaver, the kill would have been icing on the cake. Did he run out of luck? Yes, just as he already felt he had.
From what is known about the fight, the best educated guess is that he applied assymetrical power in order to try to get inside the Japanese plane that was on Weaver, and as he pulled hard to turn, he plane shuddered at the edge of control. He likely pulled the outside engine back, and then tried to throttle BOTH engines up but only one responded, causing him to snap inverted and spin in.
With regards to his doctrine, published as the indoctrination to the tactics for the theatre, something must be stated. That was written as a guide for new pilots, new to the theatre. A more modern yet similar example is the "rookie indoctrination" that NASCAR commentator Benny Parsons used to give to rookie drivers at every track. He would often use the legendary "pass in the grass" by Dale Earnhardt to beat Bill Elliot as his example. He would show the pass on the monitor and then tell the rookies "I'm a NASCAR Winston Cup Champion, but I'm not Dale Earnhardt. I can't do what he did and you can't either, so don't try something like that." The same thing applied in McGuire's case. He certainly would not tell a new pilot with few hours in fighters and no combat experience to fight the Japanese the way he did. Eventually both McGuire and Earnhardt ran out of luck. It happens.
When McGuire's remains were recovered, in 1947, Charles Lindberg attended the funeral with McGuire's widow, as he had flown with McGuire during the war. He told McGuire's widow that "Tommy was the best pilot I've ever seen or flown with, and maybe even the best ever". A glowing endorsement considering who said it and who he had flown with.
-
I also remember reading that Lindbergh and Mrs. McGuire were pretty much the only people there other than the Air Force honor guard. Pretty sad way to send off a hero.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Thanks for the clarification Savage. I clearly misinterpreted what you were saying :)
Well, I did sort of leave that sort of vague to say the least. Better that you asked for clarification.
The rest below has nothing to do with what is above, I just saved time putting it in the same post. It is certainly NOT directed at Dan (Guppy35).
As another clarification, it may seem I was attacking or condemning Doug Thropp. Not really. Do I feel he is wrong? Yes. Do I feel his possible animosity towards Weaver, and to a lesser degree Rittmayer, colors his memory and thoughts on the flight? Yes, somewhat. Do I feel it is intentional on his part? No, not at all. He was clearly a good pilot and a good man, as McGuire felt he was good enough to be a member of the handpicked flight. I just disagree with his view.
Once again, having read reams of reports on McGuire and the incident in question, I don't think it was all greed and a desire to get the kill that was the cause.
Did McGuire choose to hold tanks? Yes. Why? Because he was not aware of the second enemy plane, and figured 4 on 1 was enough edge. And also because the mission was supposed to go much further. Was it a bad call? Sure, in view of what happened. As we all sit at our computers, knowing that there were TWO enemy planes, and any number of other things McGuire could not and did not know, it is easy to pass judgement on the decisions made in the heat of combat by a pilot with 38 confirmed kills. Hindsight is 20-20, as my elders often said. It's easy to question his motives as well. If you want to do so, fine. Just be sure you read more than a few cursory paragraphs before you do.
Was greed for the kill the reason he pulled so hard, and reached deep into his bag of tricks? Considering his love and devotion to his men, I doubt it. I'd guess that by the time Weaver was in trouble, the decision to hold tanks was forgotten, even though it was made only a few moments earlier, when the enemy plane was first spotted. McGuire's mind was surely focused solely on saving Weaver, and everything else was secondary.
It was simply a bad day in a WAR. Two veteran pilots got caught in a series of small mistakes and questionable decisions, and paid with their lives, and two other less experienced pilots barely escaped with their lives. One of the two enemy pilots was killed as well. It's called WAR. Unlike the GAME we play, WAR is a bad thing and people really die.
-
Originally posted by Treize69
I also remember reading that Lindbergh and Mrs. McGuire were pretty much the only people there other than the Air Force honor guard. Pretty sad way to send off a hero.
It was two years after the war. There were high ranking generals there as well. But two years after the war, people wanted to forget. As the great actor George C. Scott once said, "I spent nearly three years after the war burying dead soldiers, and seeing their families grieve. I spent that same time drowning in a bottle." By 1947, I'm sure the country was rather weary and somewhat jaded with regards men constantly being returned from battlefields thousands of miles away to be buried.
Remember that Bong was killed in a P-80 Shooting Star accident on 6 August 1945. The death of America's top scoring ace wasn't even front page news because of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It barely drew any coverage at all.
-
Yeah, I know. It just seems kind of sad that more people remember some of these guys on the 50th or 60th anniversary of their deaths than noticed at the time.
We Americans have a nasty tendancy to only recognize the great ones after they have passed into memory. :(
-
Hi Hilts,
>As we all sit at our computers, knowing that there were TWO enemy planes, and any number of other things McGuire could not and did not know, it is easy to pass judgement on the decisions made in the heat of combat by a pilot with 38 confirmed kills.
Actually, I think it's not that much what happened once the fight had begun but the way McGuire set up the fight that lead to his demise.
Once the fight breaks out, you just have to do what has to be done, and spinning out while trying to clear the wingman clearly is one of the things that can happen in the heat of combat.
Somehow, I could only find Weaver's combat report on the internet (attached below as it is from Google cache and likely to expire soon) and not the modern analysis which adds considerably more detail and accounts for Fukuda's fighter, which Weaver wasn't aware of.
However, by the WW2 report, it looks as if McGuire had already spun out by the time the Fukuda entered combat.
It also looks as if McGuire had decided to engage Sugimoto by a maximum performance turn, something at which Sugimoto's aircraft was far superior.
The really interesting question in my opinion is: Why didn't the US pilot manage to make their superior numbers tell? Why did the second section get attacked without the first section being able to help, and why wasn't the second section in a position to help the first section when Sugimoto switched targets?
Weaver's report describes a WW1 style Lufberry circle with Sugimoto outturning everyone else rapidly. Arranged like pearls on a string, the P-38s did not have any separation that would have been required for mutual support.
The four-finger formation had lost all of its capabilities by the decision to go for a hard turn immediately. That was the mistake that lead to the attacks on Thropp and Weaver, the latter in turn leading to McGuire's death.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
---cut-------------------------------------------------
431ST FIGHTER SQUADRON
475TH FIGHTER GROUP
APO 72
9 January 1945
INDIVIDUAL COMBAT REPORT OF CAPTAIN EDWARD R. WEAVER
A. Mission #1-668; 7 January 1945; 431st Ftr Sq; 4 P-38s.
B. Fighter Sweep to Negros Island
C. Time of attack: 0708/I.
Altitude: 1,400 feet
D. At 0620/I, 7 January 1945, I took off as #2 man in a flight led by Major McGuire, of 4 P-38s of the 431st Fighter Squadron. We climbed on course for Fabrica Airdrome on Negros Island leveling off at 10,000 feet. West of Leyte, cloud coverage became 10/10ths at 6,000 feet and remained so to the target area. Over Negros we descended through several layers of stratus clouds breaking out below the overcast at 1,700 feet, 10 miles NE of Fabrica Strip. We proceeded to that strip arriving at 0700/I and circled it at 1,400 feet for about five minutes. Major McGuire then set course at this attitude for the strips on the western coast of Negros. At about 10/15 miles west of Fabrica I saw a Zeke '52' coming directly towards us at 500 feet below and 1,000 yards ahead. By the time I radioed this information, the leader had seen the enemy, he was directly underneath us. Major McGuire, followed by his flight, made a diving turn to the left for an attack. The Zeke immediately dived to the left also and came around on the tail of #3 man, Lt. Thropp, who had previously been instructed by his element leader, Major Rittmayer, to change positions with him. The enemy was on the inside of this very tight turn at 300 feet and fired at Lt. Thropp. I radioed that the Zeke was directly behind us, and Major Rittmayer, in #4 position, fired a burst sufficient to make the enemy turn even more tightly and lose Lt. Thropp. That put the Zeke in range and inside of me, in #2 position. I radioed major McGuire that I was being attacked and increased my turn, diving slightly. The enemy stayed with me, but I was now inside and a little below my leader. At this time Major McGuire, attempting to get a shot at my attacker, increased his turn tremendously. His plane snap-rolled to the left and stopped in an inverted position with the nose down about 30°. Because of the attitude of my plane, I then lost sight of him momentarily. A second later I saw the explosion and fire of his crash. The Zeke broke off his attack just before Major McGuire's crash, and climbed to the North. It is my opinion that the enemy did not at any time change his attack from me to my leader. I believe his crash was caused by his violent attempt to thwart my attacker, although it is possible that the Major was hit by ground fire, which had now begun.
When the Zeke broke away to the North, I also turned in that direction and joined the remainder of the flight as #3 man. We all chased the enemy and Lt. Thropp, in #1 position, got in a burst just as the Zeke climbed into the overcast. A second later, as we turned to the South, the Zeke reappeared to the East and headed toward us. It got a burst at Lt. Thropp from 1000 o'clock high and I saw a slight amount of smoke come from Lt. Thropp's left engine. Pulling up my nose, I got a short burst from 30° below. Then I followed Major Rittmayer, the #2 man, in a 180° turn to the right to pursue the Zeke, who swung around and again attacked from 1000 o'clock high as we jettisoned our auxiliary fuel tanks. I saw hits on Major Rittmayer and again pulled up my nose turning to the right for a burst from 30° below. The Zeke, also being closed on by Lt. Thropp who was now above, behind and to the left of me, made a diving turn to the right from him and headed North. Lt. Thropp had continued his turn and started home with a bad left engine. The Zeke swung on his tail and fired just as Lt. Thropp entered the overcast. I was too far out of range to fire as the Zeke also climbed into the overcast, breaking off toward the South. I circled the bottom of the overcast for approximately three minutes waiting for the enemy to show himself again. Thinking that he might be above, I climbed through the overcast and looked for him there for a few minutes. Lt. Thropp radioed that he was all right and on his way home. I then gave up the hunt and set course for my base at 0715/I, landing at 0805/I.
EDWIN R. WEAVER
Captain, Air Corps
-
Gentlemen..
I am new here....so if I make some errors...I apologize....and I am not especially literate with this machine....
a question was posed about re-engining a P-38 with the P-51 engine...it didn't need more power, it needed more reliable power. A p-38 regularly broke the sound barrier in a dive, several test pilots died before they discovered control reversal after breaking the barrier...another problem was the fabric control surfaces, because of the assymetrical wing the control surfaces would develop flutter under certain conditions and in a matter of seconds the vibration would damage or completely destroy the device.
Several P-51 B models were reworked as F6 models....I purchased a B model with the Malcolm hood that was shipped to Australia as a photo recon ship...it was never used, and when I purchased it it had logged 43.5 hours on the hobbs meter. I shipped it to the Philippines where I owned an aviation electronics establishment and started rework. At that time the Philippine air force was converting from P-51's to F-86 and F100 jets from the U.S. Air National Guard, whom was updating their equipment.
My bird was never equipped with pylons, weapons, armor etc..the only armor was in the cockpit area...The camera was behind the pilot and weighed in nearly 450 pounds, the old ARC radio units were also power hogs and added another 230 pounds as they were powered by dynamotors...all of that went...we moved a battery and extended fuel tank aft for weight and balance....From the Philippine air force I purchased 2 each crated packard engines rated at 2100 horsepower...my plane was 2200 pounds lighter than a combat version with 30% more power....for sunday afternoon fun and giggles we would dogfight with the P.A.F sabres...I won most of the time.....could turn a lot faster, shorter and outclimb them if they spooled down.....
Some additional info on the Flying Tigers P-40......When the order came in from China for the planes, Curtiss was working to capacity...but greedy for the bucks they wanted the contract....They very carefully read the contract and accepted it with no changes. In their inexperience the Chinese had not required external armament pylons on the planes.....nor additional armor....no self sealing fuel tanks etc....
Curtis-Wright contacted their warehouse manager to get some reject engine parts inventoried...parts that were out of spec for production engines...they carefull miked each part out and placed them in carefully marked bins.....they used hand fitted cranks etc, and extremely tight tolerance parts..resulting in the first "Blueprinted" engines....when the engines were installed and test flown the Curtiss test pilots never pushed the engines hard because they wanted a deliverable and didn't want a destroyed engine......When Chennault got the planes they were several hundred pounds lighter than those going to the U.S./Turkey/U.K and the tight tolerance engines resulted in horsepower that was 4-500 horsepower more than the stock engine......look at the combat record with the zero-sen fighter over china...amazing....
Capt Chuck Phillips
Former S.E.Asia pilot
Air America, Lao Air, Angola
China Post 1
-
P-38 had fabric control surfaces? Every P-38 I've ever seen has been all metal construction.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by paladinsfo
A p-38 regularly broke the sound barrier in a dive, several test pilots died before they discovered control reversal after breaking the barrier
:confused:
-
I think he's talking about the airflow over the leading edge of the wings when the P-38 is in a compressability state. Because the airflow would break the mach barrier but not the plane.
ack-ack
-
The aircraft construction was all metal, but because of the flutter problem the control surfaces were metal frames covered with fabric and doped, as on a piper cub....the P-40 and the P-51 all had fabric covered control surfaces....
Several folks tried to fully metalized the aircraft by covering the surfaces with aluminum...the planes were either static displays or may have broken up in flight, but invariably the fabric stayed.
On the P-38....not leading edge conpression..in a power dive...
Initially all fighter aircraft are run through flight testing before being accepted for combat and the purchase is complete. Part of the test is a power dive from a specified altitude and a defined angle of dive. There is a cruise speed for aircraft and a never exceed speed. In the tests the P-38 was so clean aerodynamically that at 80% power the aircraft could easily exceed the design speed and actually broke the sound barrier, and cause control reversal. Initially two pilots were killed and a third barely escaped before losing the aircrft during flight tests..He ...said that when he tried to pull out of the dive the controls would not respong and the harder he pulled back, the steeper the plane dived....At a later date the same thing happened to the test pilot and for some unexplained reason he pushed forward on the controls and the aircraft climbed out of the dive. Prior to breaking the sound barrier he described the aircraft as shaking so badly that he thought he would break up in mid air then suddenly all was quiet, with virtually no sound in the cockpit....The air speed indicator was pegged full scale. When he recovered from the dive and was suddenly climbing then as he fell below the speed of sound the aircraft again reacted as though it was going to fail.....It was quite a while before they realized exactly what happened..The final write up was still top secret at the end of the war, and became public in the early 50's....
-
EDIT: ack-ack already said it.
-
Leitwolf...I like your avatar, I had for many years a Siberian wolf pup that I raised from about 6 weeks old until he passed away....In Alaska he would wait by the plane while we loaded for a trip north, then sit in the co-pilots position like he owned it...he was around 200 plus pounds at full growth...
-
Originally posted by paladinsfo
The aircraft construction was all metal, but because of the flutter problem the control surfaces were metal frames covered with fabric and doped, as on a piper cub....the P-40 and the P-51 all had fabric covered control surfaces....
Several folks tried to fully metalized the aircraft by covering the surfaces with aluminum...the planes were either static displays or may have broken up in flight, but invariably the fabric stayed.
The P-38 was one of the first fighters to be build with an all metal flush riveted skin. If you notice from this picture you'll see that the flight controls are aluminum sheet metal.
(http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/walkaround/p38l-eaa09.jpg)
(http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/walkaround/p38l-eaa12.jpg)
(http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/walkaround/p38l-eaa23.jpg)
(http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/walkaround/dsc00726.jpg)
(http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/walkaround/dsc00730.jpg)
Do I need to show more? Oh..why not, showing that you're a fake is fun. Here are some more.
(http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/walkaround/dsc00731.jpg)
(http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/walkaround/dsc00732.jpg)
(http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/walkaround/dsc00749.jpg)
OK, now to address your other assertion...
On the P-38....not leading edge conpression..in a power dive...
Initially all fighter aircraft are run through flight testing before being accepted for combat and the purchase is complete. Part of the test is a power dive from a specified altitude and a defined angle of dive. There is a cruise speed for aircraft and a never exceed speed. In the tests the P-38 was so clean aerodynamically that at 80% power the aircraft could easily exceed the design speed and actually broke the sound barrier, and cause control reversal. Initially two pilots were killed and a third barely escaped before losing the aircrft during flight tests..He ...said that when he tried to pull out of the dive the controls would not respong and the harder he pulled back, the steeper the plane dived....At a later date the same thing happened to the test pilot and for some unexplained reason he pushed forward on the controls and the aircraft climbed out of the dive. Prior to breaking the sound barrier he described the aircraft as shaking so badly that he thought he would break up in mid air then suddenly all was quiet, with virtually no sound in the cockpit....The air speed indicator was pegged full scale. When he recovered from the dive and was suddenly climbing then as he fell below the speed of sound the aircraft again reacted as though it was going to fail.....It was quite a while before they realized exactly what happened..The final write up was still top secret at the end of the war, and became public in the early 50's.... [/B]
The P-38 was one of the first airplanes fast enough to encounter "compressibility" (more properly called shock stall) problems in high altitude, high speed dives. The basic problem was that in a sustained dive from high altitude, speed quickly built to the point that the airflow over parts of the airplane (such as the upper surface of the wing) reached supersonic speeds. Not that the airplane itself was breaking the sound barrier, but the airflow in certain places was. A shock wave forms. This destroys the lift over that part of the wing. It also causes the air flowing off the wing to affect the tail in an unusual manner: it increases lift at the tail (Which is normally negative--an airplane is balanced by the weight in front of its wings, a down force; the lift of its wings, an up force; the negative lift of its tail, a down force--imagine a teeter/totter).
This loss of lift from the wings, coupled with increased lift from its tail, causes the nose of the airplane to go down. The increased dive angle causes the speed to increase farther. And so on, in a vicious and often fatal circle. The natural response of the pilot is to pull back on the yoke, which normally causes the elevators at the tail to increase the down force at the tail, and brings the nose up to pull out of the dive. But something terrifying happens. As the pilot tries to pull the stick back, the up force on the tail increases. No matter how hard he pulls, the aerodynamic force on the tail pushes harder. The controls have been described as feeling as if they were set in concrete. At this point the airplane is totally out of the pilot's control; there is literally nothing he can do.
The P-38 was not the only airplane to encounter this effect in dives from very high altitudes (where the air is thin), the P-47 and F4U both suffered the same problem. But the P-38 was different. The big radial engine fighters would dive uncontrollably toward the earth until they reached the thicker air at lower altitudes. There two things happened: 1. The speed of sound increases as an inverse function of altitude (that is, the speed of sound goes up as the altitude gets lower); 2. The increased drag of the thick air on their large frontal surfaces would tend to limit further speed increases.
The result was that when the speed of sound went up as the airplane got lower, the shock waves started to dissipate (the airflow over the wings began to fall back below the increased speed of sound), and as the increased drag started to affect the airplane, the speed of the airflow also decreased, and the shock waves dissipated more. Finally the pilot would begin to get some control back, and still pulling back as hard as he could on the stick, would wind up in a screaming zoom climb (unless he was unfortunate enough to have begun the process over mountains high enough to intrude before he reached the thicker air of lower altitudes).
The way in which the P-38 differed was in its extremely "clean" (streamline) design. Its drag was so low that the thicker lower air often (not always, some pilots did survive compressibility dives in P-38's) did not have enough effect for the pilot to regain control in time: the P-38 just dove straight into the ground like an arrow. The problem was magnified by a "flutter" (increasing amplitude vibration) set up in the tail by these excessive speeds, which often caused the tail to come off.
Lockheed and the Air Corps lost a number of test pilots and aircraft trying to understand and solve these problems. The P-38 had taken them into flight regimes unknown (or at best poorly understood) at that time.
A harrowing series of test dives, at progressively steeper angles, was required to plot the boundaries of these effects. The eventual solution included counter balancing and raising the tail of the airplane some 30 inches, and developing high speed dive flaps to control the rate of descent.
And one more fun fact...the F-90 penetration fighter was the first Lockheed aircraft to break the sound barrier – during a 60-degree dive at 900 mph.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by paladinsfo
Several P-51 B models were reworked as F6 models....I purchased a B model with the Malcolm hood that was shipped to Australia as a photo recon ship...it was never used, and when I purchased it it had logged 43.5 hours on the hobbs meter.
Voss?
Originally posted by paladinsfo
Capt Chuck Phillips
Former S.E.Asia pilot
Air America, Lao Air, Angola
China Post 1 [/B]
You forgot to add "Flew F-16s for the CIA during First Desert War" to your signature.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by paladinsfo
In the tests the P-38 was so clean aerodynamically that at 80% power the aircraft could easily exceed the design speed and actually broke the sound barrier, and cause control reversal. Initially two pilots were killed and a third barely escaped before losing the aircrft during flight tests..He ...said that when he tried to pull out of the dive the controls would not respong and the harder he pulled back, the steeper the plane dived....At a later date the same thing happened to the test pilot and for some unexplained reason he pushed forward on the controls and the aircraft climbed out of the dive. Prior to breaking the sound barrier he described the aircraft as shaking so badly that he thought he would break up in mid air then suddenly all was quiet, with virtually no sound in the cockpit....The air speed indicator was pegged full scale. When he recovered from the dive and was suddenly climbing then as he fell below the speed of sound the aircraft again reacted as though it was going to fail.....It was quite a while before they realized exactly what happened..The final write up was still top secret at the end of the war, and became public in the early 50's....
Wow... theres just no words...
That is just ridiculously incorrect, are you making this up as you go along?
-
Good post ack-ack. Ill add that during the misdiagnosis of the "tail flutter" symptom, they actually reskined the elevators and horizontal stablizer sections with much thicker aluminum to try to stiffen up the tail. But the structure of the tail was not the cause at all of the shaking control colum that the test pilots were assuming were the elevator surface fluttering. Instead it was as akak described, the disturbed airflow comming off the wings, and causing erratic negative pressure on top of the tail assembly.
The compression itself was a function of the thick cord of the wing, which once critical mach (.68 for the P-38) was reached, could not allow air to flow around the foil efficently any more. With the wing displacing air quicker than the air could smoothly flow around it, super sonic shock waves of air formed on top of the wing, creating negative lift on the wing. Further exasberated by the disturbed air flow to the tail.
Now some take this info, and take it to mean that the 38 in general was poorly designed. The design was not a matter of growing pains from the same engineer who designed the U2 and the SR-71. The design was actually to the specifications set out by the Army Air Corps design competition. To get the fuel capacity for the specified range, in the basic design Johnson had envisioned, the P-38s cord profiles needed to allow for the internal volume.
In that it was sucessful, and the P-38 was the first US fighter to have the range to make the North Atlantic Ferry under its own power.
Now back to the idea of parts of the aircraft displacing more air than can smoothly flow around it. This also had an effect on airspeed instrumentation of the period. Which led to, in a number of different aircraft, false readings when reaching high speeds. This often times is the source of incorrect citations of "speed" "facts" when refering back to historical information. I don't know if that is the "source" in this case, but it is non the less, wrong.
-
Turns out a big part of the problem with the P-38 was how the flashing and such around the side windows fit up. Proper fit up would result in big gains in how the plane handled and when it entered "mach tuck". Oddly enough, though fillets were fitted where the two inner wings join the center nacelle, greatly increasing the speed at which "mach tuck" began, and also reducing the buffeting, few, if any, other efforts like that were made. Those fillets dropped the speed at which air accelerated on the wings by a large margin. But notice where the dive flaps are located, as compared to where the thick section of wing and the radius fillets are located. The fillets and the thick sections of wing where air accelerates are both between the outer engine fuselages and the center nacelle. And yet the dive flaps are outboard of the engine fuselages. Directly in front of the Folwer flaps. Even though dive flaps did not reach the field until 1944, at least 90% of the work on compressibility was done before mid 1943.
Look closely around the cockpit of a P-38. Next to the windows you see the red "No Step" signs. This is where the fit up and adjustment is so critical. Several Lockheed tech bulletins were issued on the subject. Airflow is so critical in this area that failing to completely roll up the side windows can result in severe control issues.
The most notable crashes supposedly related to compressibility were due to parts failures. The famous crash that killed Ralph Virden, and resulted in the plane hitting a house, was actually caused by a spring tab failure that allowed full deflection of the elevators at over 300MPH, creating a force in excess of 12G. The crash involving Col. Ben Kelsey USAAF, was caused by the dive flap handle failing when Kelsey was testing the dive flaps.
Clarence "Kelly" Johnson predicted compressibility problems before the plane was ever built. In fact, he wrote a paper on the subject while the P-38 was in its very early stages. And actually, the first to experience it was not a Lockheed pilot, but a regular Army pilot, and he recovered. He reported it, and then testing began. At the altitude where Virden lost the YP-38 he was flying, it is doubtful he even experienced compression at all.
Most reports indicated that the majority of P-38's lost to terminal dives were the result of pilots wanting to see what happened if you exceeded the placarded speeds and angles.
And no P-38 I've ever seen even referred to has fabric control surfaces of any kind. They had all metal skin, period.
-
As Raptor put it wow .
Gentlemen.. I am new here....so if I make some errors...I apologize
Not to be a smart arse, but you better start apologizing :D
-
Originally posted by paladinsfo
Gentlemen..
I am new here....so if I make some errors...I apologize....and I am not especially literate with this machine....
a question was posed about re-engining a P-38 with the P-51 engine...it didn't need more power, it needed more reliable power. A p-38 regularly broke the sound barrier in a dive, several test pilots died before they discovered control reversal after breaking the barrier...another problem was the fabric control surfaces, because of the assymetrical wing the control surfaces would develop flutter under certain conditions and in a matter of seconds the vibration would damage or completely destroy the device.
Several P-51 B models were reworked as F6 models....I purchased a B model with the Malcolm hood that was shipped to Australia as a photo recon ship...it was never used, and when I purchased it it had logged 43.5 hours on the hobbs meter. I shipped it to the Philippines where I owned an aviation electronics establishment and started rework. At that time the Philippine air force was converting from P-51's to F-86 and F100 jets from the U.S. Air National Guard, whom was updating their equipment.
My bird was never equipped with pylons, weapons, armor etc..the only armor was in the cockpit area...The camera was behind the pilot and weighed in nearly 450 pounds, the old ARC radio units were also power hogs and added another 230 pounds as they were powered by dynamotors...all of that went...we moved a battery and extended fuel tank aft for weight and balance....From the Philippine air force I purchased 2 each crated packard engines rated at 2100 horsepower...my plane was 2200 pounds lighter than a combat version with 30% more power....for sunday afternoon fun and giggles we would dogfight with the P.A.F sabres...I won most of the time.....could turn a lot faster, shorter and outclimb them if they spooled down.....
Some additional info on the Flying Tigers P-40......When the order came in from China for the planes, Curtiss was working to capacity...but greedy for the bucks they wanted the contract....They very carefully read the contract and accepted it with no changes. In their inexperience the Chinese had not required external armament pylons on the planes.....nor additional armor....no self sealing fuel tanks etc....
Curtis-Wright contacted their warehouse manager to get some reject engine parts inventoried...parts that were out of spec for production engines...they carefull miked each part out and placed them in carefully marked bins.....they used hand fitted cranks etc, and extremely tight tolerance parts..resulting in the first "Blueprinted" engines....when the engines were installed and test flown the Curtiss test pilots never pushed the engines hard because they wanted a deliverable and didn't want a destroyed engine......When Chennault got the planes they were several hundred pounds lighter than those going to the U.S./Turkey/U.K and the tight tolerance engines resulted in horsepower that was 4-500 horsepower more than the stock engine......look at the combat record with the zero-sen fighter over china...amazing....
Capt Chuck Phillips
Former S.E.Asia pilot
Air America, Lao Air, Angola
China Post 1
Very curious about your F6 in particular that it was a malcom hooded bird. I've seen one photo of a 'pickled' malcom hooded F6C being loaded for the Pacific and always wondered what the story was on those.
What serial was your bird? I'd love to track the history on it. Even more importantly, considering the rarity of that particular variant. What ever became of yours? The surviving B/C model Mustangs are fairly well documented. If you've got one hiding some where, please share :)
-
scorpion bites are know to affect the memory in the subaracnoid area of your brain
-
Originally posted by paladinsfo
There is a cruise speed for aircraft and a never exceed speed. In the tests the P-38 was so clean aerodynamically that at 80% power the aircraft could easily exceed the design speed and actually broke the sound barrier, and cause control reversal. Initially two pilots were killed and a third barely escaped before losing the aircrft during flight tests..He ...said that when he tried to pull out of the dive the controls would not respong and the harder he pulled back, the steeper the plane dived....At a later date the same thing happened to the test pilot and for some unexplained reason he pushed forward on the controls and the aircraft climbed out of the dive. Prior to breaking the sound barrier he described the aircraft as shaking so badly that he thought he would break up in mid air then suddenly all was quiet, with virtually no sound in the cockpit....The air speed indicator was pegged full scale. When he recovered from the dive and was suddenly climbing then as he fell below the speed of sound the aircraft again reacted as though it was going to fail.....It was quite a while before they realized exactly what happened..The final write up was still top secret at the end of the war, and became public in the early 50's....
Make note of this, it's the gospel: No propeller driven aircraft EVER came close to exceeding Mach one. Any report of such an occurance is pure poppycock.
My regards,
Widewing
-
roflmaoolmlol
:lol :lol :lol :noid :noid :noid :D
-
When fishing, you need patience.
You kinda blew it. ;)
-
Enjoyed reading about the 38 being covered in rocket fuel fabric and occasionally exploding like the Hindenburg while exceeding Mach 1 while sipping gently on 80 % power.
O yea.
Welcome back Voss! Missed ya. Hows the latest vaporware comming along?
-
What a coincidence, I too own a P-51. Except mine is an H model. Sometimes on Sundays when I get a bit bored, I fly over to the nearest airforce base and dogfight the jets there. Sometimes the F-16s get me, but most the time I get them.
I'm glad to meet you Paladin. I was getting a bit lonely seeing as how I've been the only rich, P-51 owning, war hero on this message board.
-
I dont own a p-51 :(
but I steal my gramma's when she isnt looking, the Washington ANG is terryfied of me. Because I beat them like a drunken lumberjacks wife.
-
sorry to burst your bubble...I was a civilian and in Iraq for other reasons the week before he went into Kuwait.......
The reports that I read on the P-38 were written in english and had the heading of the Lockheed test facility...I read them in the mid 1950's.....
and from the remarks I assume that this is not a forum of Pilots but wannabes......
-
Well, both actually.
And some even owned P51's :D
-
There are many pilots who regularly post here. We have
1 actual F-15 pilot.
Two commercial pilots
Several flying crewmembers of military aircraft.
Many people who have private pilot licenses.
Those who have flown but don't have PPLs.
Then we have individuals who are expert historians on certain types of aircraft.
But in all seriousness, we'll stop razzing ya. I'd love to hear more about your Mustang and the dogfights you were in. So please, continue...
-
"...I assume that this is not a forum of Pilots but wannabes......"
lol. "Glass house" and all that.
Er but I once knew this guy who, along with his dad, owned a bon_A_fide B-17 named the "Lazy Susan."
-
Would he really type out those very long and detailed replies though? That seems above and beyond for trolling.
-
Search for the user ID "Straiga" and you'll soon see that some trolls will post a wall of text to hoodwink people. For some of them( ex/Straiga, Voss and another named Ken Strohm) it is how they get thier kicks or fill some defective mental need.
-
I don't consider what Straiga/Voss did trolling. If someone pretended to be Straiga/Voss, that would be trolling. But S/V were doing something more sinister and decietfull than trolling.
-
Originally posted by paladinsfo
Gentlemen..
I am new here....so if I make some errors...I apologize....and I am not especially literate with this machine....
a question was posed about re-engining a P-38 with the P-51 engine...it didn't need more power, it needed more reliable power. A p-38 regularly broke the sound barrier in a dive, several test pilots died before they discovered control reversal after breaking the barrier...another problem was the fabric control surfaces, because of the assymetrical wing the control surfaces would develop flutter under certain conditions and in a matter of seconds the vibration would damage or completely destroy the device.
Several P-51 B models were reworked as F6 models....I purchased a B model with the Malcolm hood that was shipped to Australia as a photo recon ship...it was never used, and when I purchased it it had logged 43.5 hours on the hobbs meter. I shipped it to the Philippines where I owned an aviation electronics establishment and started rework. At that time the Philippine air force was converting from P-51's to F-86 and F100 jets from the U.S. Air National Guard, whom was updating their equipment.
My bird was never equipped with pylons, weapons, armor etc..the only armor was in the cockpit area...The camera was behind the pilot and weighed in nearly 450 pounds, the old ARC radio units were also power hogs and added another 230 pounds as they were powered by dynamotors...all of that went...we moved a battery and extended fuel tank aft for weight and balance....From the Philippine air force I purchased 2 each crated packard engines rated at 2100 horsepower...my plane was 2200 pounds lighter than a combat version with 30% more power....for sunday afternoon fun and giggles we would dogfight with the P.A.F sabres...I won most of the time.....could turn a lot faster, shorter and outclimb them if they spooled down.....
Some additional info on the Flying Tigers P-40......When the order came in from China for the planes, Curtiss was working to capacity...but greedy for the bucks they wanted the contract....They very carefully read the contract and accepted it with no changes. In their inexperience the Chinese had not required external armament pylons on the planes.....nor additional armor....no self sealing fuel tanks etc....
Curtis-Wright contacted their warehouse manager to get some reject engine parts inventoried...parts that were out of spec for production engines...they carefull miked each part out and placed them in carefully marked bins.....they used hand fitted cranks etc, and extremely tight tolerance parts..resulting in the first "Blueprinted" engines....when the engines were installed and test flown the Curtiss test pilots never pushed the engines hard because they wanted a deliverable and didn't want a destroyed engine......When Chennault got the planes they were several hundred pounds lighter than those going to the U.S./Turkey/U.K and the tight tolerance engines resulted in horsepower that was 4-500 horsepower more than the stock engine......look at the combat record with the zero-sen fighter over china...amazing....
Capt Chuck Phillips
Former S.E.Asia pilot
Air America, Lao Air, Angola
China Post 1
Amusing, but riddled with errors.
Curtiss did not build engines for P-40s... Allison did.
AVG Tomahawks DID have self sealing fuel tanks, but their sealing was external rather than internal (per P-40B Vs P-40C).
No Zeros were ever encountered by the Flying Tigers. They fought exclusively against the JAAF. Many AVG pilots referred to the Ki-43 as a Zero, not knowing any better at the time.
I think the Fabric control surfaces and Mach busting has been previously addressed.
My regards,
Widewing
-
SHANANAGINS!!!
1950s...1970s...1990's...2000's..amazing life..should write a book and a video game based on your life
-
Originally posted by paladinsfo
sorry to burst your bubble...I was a civilian and in Iraq for other reasons the week before he went into Kuwait.......
The reports that I read on the P-38 were written in english and had the heading of the Lockheed test facility...I read them in the mid 1950's.....
and from the remarks I assume that this is not a forum of Pilots but wannabes......
OOoo...we've got at least a dozen guys here who have been to Iraq and showed us their pictures.
Show and tell time!
Lets see ur 51, with Reg #'s in the clear.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
...No Zeros were ever encountered by the Flying Tigers. They fought exclusively against the JAAF. Many AVG pilots referred to the Ki-43 as a Zero, not knowing any better at the time....
It had surprised me that this still goes on.
I have a book by a Hurricane pilot who was at Singapore & in the photos section there is a picture of a Ki.43 labeled "zero" & I thought, "WoW, this guy, a pro, an actual WWII fighter pilot & all these years later he still doesn't know what he was fighter", but I got On Boyington's Wing a month ago & read in it that at the time "zero" meant "any jap fighter" and "zeke" meant specificly an A6m.
To use McLurg's example "I saw two zeros, and they were tonys" is a perfectly logical sentence.
This is backed up in a lot of the VMF 214 combat reports than are quoted in the book & also suggests that AVG pilots claiming to have encountered "zeros" is not a mistake
-
Originally posted by Debonair
This is backed up in a lot of the VMF 214 combat reports than are quoted in the book & also suggests that AVG pilots claiming to have encountered "zeros" is not a mistake
When the AVG first went into combat, there was no naming system in place yet (Zeke, Oscar, Tony and so on). Moreover, they flew for the Nationalist Chinese. Previously, the IJN had deployed early Zeros to China to obtain some combat experience with the type. Chennault had examined one of these A6Ms that had crash landed due to mechanical problems. He discussed the Zero and its performance with the AVG during their training in 1941. The primary Japanese fighter encountered during the first weeks of the war was the Ki-27 (Nate). This fighter had fixed landing gear. Few Ki-43s were in theater, but when it was encountered it met the general description of the Zero; radial engine, retractable gear, etc.
AVG pilots simply referred to the Ki-43 as the "Zero". They referred to the Ki-27 as the Type 97 in combat reports.
Even though Chennault identified downed Ki-43s for what they were, the AVG pilots continued to call them "Zeros" out of habit. This carried over to some of the pilot's post-war writings.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hi Debonair,
>I have a book by a Hurricane pilot who was at Singapore & in the photos section there is a picture of a Ki.43 labeled "zero"
I found a similar example in "Hurricane over Sumatra", where from post-war analysis it's clear that the RAF Hurricanes there fought against Ki-43 units - and they refer to the Ki-43 as "Navy Nought" :-)
With regard to the Flying Tigers, it had occurred to me that it might be possible to check the combat reports to see if cannon damage was sustained by any of the AVG aircraft, because only the A6M was cannon-armed. However, a few days ago I found a remark that showed that 12.7 mm high explosive projectiles were mistaken for cannon shells in one example, and as the Ki-43 carried 12.7 mm guns (or 12.7 mm one gun) and the Japanese employed HE ammunition, there went my infallible proof :-/
(I think I have also read about "fixed gear Zeros", by the way - which supports your point about any Japanese fighter being called "Zero" :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by paladinsfo
I assume that this is not a forum of Pilots but wannabes......
you come to a site for a game with cartoon airplanes and are shocked to find wannabes?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Turns out a big part of the problem with the P-38 was how the flashing and such around the side windows fit up. Proper fit up would result in big gains in how the plane handled and when it entered "mach tuck".
Hm... The fitting of the windows or the wing fillet might have a effect on onset of the buffeting but overall the loss of the lift (resulting the tuck under) in the center wing section happens at well over 2m wide area so the windows or the fillets can't have any large effect on tuck under.
The critical mach number of the standard P-38 for the pitching moment changes was roughly mach 0,68 at 1g in pretty much all tests done in flight or wind tunnel. That includes several tests made by Lockheed, NACA and RAE using several different airframes and several different wind tunnels. The only exception being the "Swordfish" P-38 which was modified according to NACA suggestions and reached around mach 0,7 when the tuck under started.
For further information see here (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4305/ch9.htm) and here (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-rm-a7c24/).
gripen
-
GREAT LINKS Gripen!!!!
This one had me pondering :
"Gilruth based his small-model wing-flow technique on the physical fact that air above the wing of a high-speed airplane, like the P-51 Mustang, went quite smoothly and uniformly through the speed of sound. "
I've heard about a P51 pilot claiming exactly this, - that they mached with the control surfaces. (They'd vibrate, freeze up, then unlock at a higher speed). Will take me some time to read up a little more, but me lucky bastige just got an au-pair girl to the household who is about to graduate as an aeronautical engineer (aerodynamics, hehe :D)
She's already had her eyes grow bigger from that file :)