Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: eddiek on August 03, 2001, 04:52:00 PM
-
I realize this has probably been brought up earlier, as I recall numerous posts regarding the P-38 FM.
Reason I ask is that I found some charts from Lockheed-Martin on the P-38L-5-LO, and was curious as to the differences in performance there versus the AH P-38L.
Here are the links if ya wanna glance at them:
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/ClimbChart.html (http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/ClimbChart.html)
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/SpeedChart.html (http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/SpeedChart.html)
-
the porked one with tinfoil armour of course. what a silly question! :D :D :D
-
I have seen discussion about this on rec.aviation.military but all information seems to be somewhat unaccurate. Anyway, there appear to wide range of engine rating claims for P-38L. Sometime ago I got a reprinted P-38 manual (Pilot's Flight Instructions for Army Models P-38H Series, P-38J Series, P-38L-1 L-5 and F-5B Airplanes) and here are ratings for the P-38L which are same as for P-38J (fuel grade 100/130):
WEP: 1600hp 3000rpm 60" 25800ft no ram (28700ft with ram)
MIL: 1425hp 3000rpm 54" 26600ft no ram (29000ft with ram)
My friend has the America's Hundred thousand book but engine rating values in that book appear to be very unaccurate, for example it claims WEP critical altitude 26500ft for the P-38H while manual gives 7000ft (10k with ram). The AHT also continously mixes rammed and non rammed critical altitudes, that's why it gives different ratings for the P-38J and P-38L. Overall it seems to be a great book but from the engine view point it contains a lot errors.
Then there is a book called Vee's for Victory, I have not seen this book but according to a newsgroup discussion it claims that by manufacturer the V-1710 F-30R/L was also rated for 1725hp 3200rpm 60" with grade 150 fuel but this rating was never authorized for service use by the USAF.
Then there is this web page which claims 1725hp at 64", no fuel grade or rpm is claimed. Well, to me it seems to be similar biased comparison as the Navy's F4U vs P-51 test. In both cases testers (Lockheed or Navy) used higher than normal ratings to make their plane to look better.
I've got a book (The Mustang by Ken Delve) which contains data from a report called Tactical Employment Trials P-51B (USAAF, February 1944). And in these tests this early P-51B without fuselage tank (3000rpm 67") actually outclimbed P-38J-1 (3000rpm 60") at combat load. And if we want better values for the P-51, why don't we use 150 octane fuel (80"), with this rating the P-51B climbed initially over 4700fpm and the P-51D did 4500fpm (RAF and RR tests). And these ratings were really used in combat (V-1 hunt).
Gripen
-
The 64" MAP jumped out at me too, but I was not sure if it was a typo or what. Curiously enough, the TAS with seems to correspond on the graph with what AH lists as the top speed for our P-38 on WEP.....about 414(???).
I know there has been a lot of books and other materials over the years on the various planes and such. I definitely remember a book on planes that I checked out and read that listed the various speeds of the planes, and 440 mph was what that particular book listed for the P-38........don't ask for the name of the book, though, 'cause that was back in the early 80's.... :D
My own opinion is that all manufacturers, of all nationalities, fudged a bit on their performance figures, just enough to make their plane "shine" a bit more than the others............but that is just my opinion.
Curiously enough, you are the first I have seen to criticize the AHT book by Dean.......have been intending to buy one just to have. I doubt the engine #'s are off intentionally, I imagine the author, even after years of research, did his best. You always have to consider the source of any information, and anyone who believes that any one source is the "bible" and totally infallible needs only to look around at the world, the real one, and see that for any event, there will be differences in perspective. The authors are human, and therefore subject to error.
What I try to do is get as much data as I can and derive my own conclusion after analyzing it.
You can find books on any plane in the AH planeset, or books that have information on them if the book is not dedicated to that plane, and get varying reports of "how it was." Ya gotta keep an open mind, IMO.
-
You can read the whole thread on rec.aviation.military at the google archive http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=9932e8fe0ffe68a5,41&start=0 (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=9932e8fe0ffe68a5,41&start=0)
CC Jordan, the only source I've seen for the 1725hp figures for the Lightning, sometimes posts here as widewing.
-
eddiek,
Well, actually that P-51B-1 report lists top speed 422mph for the P-38J-1 (3000rpm 60") but I don't know if the J-1 was better streamlined than later L model.
BTW it also lists just 433mph for the P-51B.
Gripen
-
"but I don't know if the J-1 was better streamlined than later L model."
its lighter and some say the green paint is more aerodynamic *grin* ;)
-
Talking about the various accounts and how each could be and likely was biased by the author's own likes/dislikes: Yesterday I read an article from a Grumman test pilot who was involved in testing the F6F-3 against the F4U Corsair.....in the article, he said that due to an airspeed indicator flaw, the F6F showed 20 knots less even when the two planes were side by side in stable formation! Instrument errors could have and I think DID contribute to the differing #'s we see.
I will scan and post that text in the next day or two. It made for some very interesting reading.
-
Originally posted by Tac:
"but I don't know if the J-1 was better streamlined than later L model."
its lighter and some say the green paint is more aerodynamic *grin* ;)
Thanks, I've read that USAF made compromise between weight, drag, camouflage and manufacturing costs, that's why they rejected painting. The RAF also studied this but they decided to keep painting.
Anyway, I searched a bit usenet with coogle and also this BBS. It seems that this Widewing/CC has posted maybe thousands of lines on this subject and there appear to be several different engine ratings claimed by him. The problem is that despite many requests he does not reveal his sources.
BTW Does anybody know if the Germans really used that "Fork tailed devil" nickname? One newsgroup poster wrote that he has interviewed german pilots couple decades but so far he had not meet a pilot which had known this. Only source for this appears to be Martin Caiden's book which seems to be at least partially fictious (for example story about that captured Italian P-38).
gripen
-
Hi Gripen,
>I've read that USAF made compromise between weight, drag, camouflage and manufacturing costs, that's why they rejected painting.
USAAF aircraft were easily detected and identified as enemy at extreme ranges by Luftwaffe pilots when their bare aluminium skin flashed in the sun. Of course, with the degree of air superiority the USAAF held when they dropped camouflage, this was a minor problem for them. It's my impression that Luftwaffe camouflage wasn't optimzed for air-to-air combat either - the main goal seems to have been protection of the planes when dispersed around the base since allied "Jabos" were a constant threat. Air-to-air camouflage would have resulted in lighter schemes I think.
>Anyway, I searched a bit usenet with coogle and also this BBS. It seems that this Widewing/CC has posted maybe thousands of lines on this subject and there appear to be several different engine ratings claimed by him. The problem is that despite many requests he does not reveal his sources.
I think the best numbers I've seen in CC Jordan's posts were 442 mph at 24500 ft for a modified P-38J-5LO with the engine running at 60" Hg, 3215 rpm. If I remember correctly, the aircraft didn't actually achieve this speed due to technical problems, but it was extrapolated from partial test data. CC Jordan also mentioned that in bench tests, 3200 rpm induced detonation, and one of the four test engines broke down as a result.
In short, I don't think either the power setting or the speed could be expected to have been used operationally.
Kelly Johnson as the designer of the P-38 pointed out two of what he considered the main deficits of the P-38: Its low limiting Mach number and the inability of the turbochargers to take back pressure so that the exhaust thrust couldn't be exploited(worth perhaps 200 HP per engine at high speed, by my rough estimate).
The speeds achieved by the fastest P-38 variants in level flight at its best altitudes weren't far from its critical Mach number. 442 mph at 24500 ft would be close to 0.64 Mach, with the critical Mach number of the P-38 being 0.65 Mach. (Dive flaps could effect recovery from dives up to 0.68 Mach, though.)
>BTW Does anybody know if the Germans really used that "Fork tailed devil" nickname? One newsgroup poster wrote that he has interviewed german pilots couple decades but so far he had not meet a pilot which had known this. Only source for this appears to be Martin Caiden's book which seems to be at least partially fictious (for example story about that captured Italian P-38).
I really love Martin Caidin's books, and it's my impression that they were actually well researched in comparison to other contemporary publications. However, some of what he wrote was following the ancient rule of "if in doubt, print the legend", and the "Gabelschwanzteufel" was one case of that.
In no German publication I've ever found that term used, and it's not my impression that the "Lightning" - as Luftwaffe pilots called it - was seen as killer by its opponents anyway. What the Luftwaffe pilots really feared were "Mustangs" - those really were the symbol of USAAF air power, and the Luftwaffe pilots were entirely focused on them. "Auf verlorenem Posten" ('Forlorn Hope') by Robert Jung is an excellent example for the view of a young Luftwaffe pilot who's aware that in the face of allied airpower, he'll probably end as cannonfodder.
By the way, I think that any use of the term "Gabelschwanzteufel" in the Luftwaffe during WW2 would have been suppressed immediately since it expressed a defeatist perspective towards enemy weaponry. In a totalitarian dictatorship fully aware of the possibilites of propaganda, such a term certainly would have met immediate resistance.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I don't believe either that these high ratings were used in service. The V-1710 was allready near limits at 3000rpm and 60" at high altitudes (as seen in practice), as for comparison the B-series R-2800 (same compression ratio) was limited to 52" without water injection and even with water normal ratings were about 56-60". Overall I think that these "hot rod" ratings are mostly myths and very poorly documented.
I have read just Me 109 (what was the name?) book by Martin Caidin and I have mixed feelings about it. It was quite poor, many writers have done better. I have read a lot critics about accuracy of his Saburo Sakai book. Generally I tend to doubt Caidin's books but I admit that he could tell good stories :)
Mein deutsch ist nicht gutt aber... that "Gabelschwanzteufel" does not sound like a nickname given by the Germans at all.
gripen
-
I just recently read "Forked Tailed Devil" myself (a good buy at $1.00 at the local used book store) and was wondering about that same thing. I just can't imaging the Luftwaffe pilots calling it that.
Caidins book has some great stories about the development and testing of the 38, as well as the problems getting it deployed.
As far as the Italian p-38 story being fictitious, it does seem extraordinary, but I have never seen that it was untrue....what have you seen, Gripen? Just curious is all.
The book was written in the early 70's and it has alot of personal interviews and ancedotal type stuff in it. We all know the problems with ancedotal evidence, so the reader needs to take it for what it is. Its a good read, I recommend it to all.
StuB
P.S. According to Caiden there was a model fitted with paddle bladed props, etc, that didn't see combat.
Well, ok, so they only made one......I still want it in Aces High!
Originally posted by gripen:
BTW Does anybody know if the Germans really used that "Fork tailed devil" nickname? One newsgroup poster wrote that he has interviewed german pilots couple decades but so far he had not meet a pilot which had known this. Only source for this appears to be Martin Caiden's book which seems to be at least partially fictious (for example story about that captured Italian P-38).
gripen
-
Originally posted by DmdStuB:
As far as the Italian p-38 story being fictitious, it does seem extraordinary, but I have never seen that it was untrue....what have you seen, Gripen?
Actually this story is so often questioned that they think to put it to the FAQ at the 12 O'clock High BBS. Anyway, here is it again cut and pasted from the newsgroup (or find it yourself with coogle):
"Ok, let's start again... ;) The only P-38 ever owned by the Regia Aeronautica
was captured on 12 June 1943 in Sardinia where a ferrying US pilot landed by
mistake due to the malfunctioning of the compass. Soon brought to the Italian
Test Center of Guidonia (near Rome), this aircraft was flown *with Italian
markings* by Col. Angelo Tondi (Chief test pilot of the center) in half a dozen
scrambles against USAAF bombers attacking Rome and Central Italy's targets.
On 11 August 1943 Col. Tondi intercepted off the coast the B-17F s/n 42-30307
of 419th BS, 301st BG and shot down it at 12.00 hrs*. This was the only
successful interception completed by this aircraft and soon after the P-38 was
grounded due to the bad quality of the Italian petrol that had corroded the
fuel tanks.
* (cfr. Missing Air Crew Report n.490 available at the National Archives)
All the above is obviously proved not only by photographic evidence but also by
the accounts of Col. Tondi and by the documents of the Guidonia Test Center
reporting all the scrambles effected by the P-38. This material is available to
the researchers at the Italian Air Force Historical Branch.
I would like to add that the recurring story of the Italian-flown P-38 and the
use of a YB-40 to counter it has been based only on "rumors" during the war,
that in turn gave life to some "humorous" (in my view) accounts reporting even
that the P-38 was flown by a "daring Italian pilot, Lieutenant
Guido Rossi"... who had had a love affair with the wife of the YB-40 pilot...!
That "material" was seized acritically by Martin Caidin and used in his works,
so the tale went on and on...
This is only an example of the damage that a lack of serious historical
research can do in spreading "urban myths"...
Ferdinando D'Amico
===========================
Mr. D'Amico is a qualified researcher in the field of wartime Italian air
combat. He is known for going directly to the pilots to answer specific
questions. I recieved other replies that were variations on the same
information.
Originally posted by DmdStuB:
P.S. According to Caiden there was a model fitted with paddle bladed props, etc, that didn't see combat.
Well, ok, so they only made one......I still want it in Aces High!
AFAIK that's true, it was the XP-38K. It also had water injection (like later P-47s)which probably had finaly solved detonation problems.
gripen
[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]
-
I've seen several times where it was Ju-52 pilots that dubbed the P-38 that. I believe it originated when the LW were still executing airborne and glider missions in North Africa, Italy, and the Medd. In general.
-
Jigster,
What's the source?
gripen
-
I asked today same question about "Gabelschwanzteufel" at 12 O'clock high and actually got some interesting answers. See yourself:
12 O'clock High! (http://disc.server.com/Indices/3051.html)
To sum up: This nickname appears to be used at least among german ground forces and one claimed that 1943 Life magazine contains an article where this is mentioned. Also correct translation of the word "gabelschwanz" appears to be "twin-tailed" and it means shape of the aircraft (like FW-189, Fokker G1 or P-38).
gripen
[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]
-
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fw189.html (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fw189.html)
I want this one in aces high!
Also, please note the krauts pathetic attempt at achieving the magnificience of a P-38... copy cats ;) *grin*
-
Originally posted by gripen:
I don't believe either that these high ratings were used in service. The V-1710 was allready near limits at 3000rpm and 60" at high altitudes (as seen in practice), as for comparison the B-series R-2800 (same compression ratio) was limited to 52" without water injection and even with water normal ratings were about 56-60". Overall I think that these "hot rod" ratings are mostly myths and very poorly documented.
No, these reports are not mythical. I have spoken with many P-47 pilots who will confirm that tech reps from both Republic and Pratt & Whitney were eager to teach crew chiefs how to modify waste gates and re-time their engines to gain a considerable power increase. Likewise, fighter squadrons receiving the P-38L were quietly instructed on resetting the prop governors on the Allisons to allow them to turn 3,200 rpm.
A typical P-38L-5-LO so "adjusted" could be expected to reach, and even exceed 440 mph in clean configuration. Granted, to operate these engines at high rpm and high MAP (64"), a minimum octane rating of 125 was strongly recommended. Ironically, General Doolittle ordered that specially blended fuel be stockpiled for use by 8th AF P-38s. This was done to reduce the risk of detonation damage that had become a plague for units operating the P-38J in the ETO. Doolittle specified 140-150 octane, perfect for the P-38Ls then arriving in the theater. When the Lightnings transferred to the 9th AF, so did the fuel. Eventually, the limited stocks were depleted and all P-38s reverted to standard 100-130 (AN-F-28) avgas.
Generally, unauthorized field modifications were not documented to protect the guilty.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hello again Widewing!
Man, you are HARD to get in touch with, been trying for 3 weeks......
Private message me, please?
-
Widewing,
The highest rating ever used in service for the R-2800 B-series engines appear to be 2535hp (2700rpm 64"). This was used somewhere in the pacific to get the Jugs of the ground on short airfields. This rating caused very fast overheating and shortened life of the engine considerably. I believe that some early Jugs might be modified from the original 56" rating but anything above say 62" as standard would have showed up in the engine overhaul statistics which is not the case (see USAAF statistical digest). It's hard to believe these hot rod rating rumours when for example couple weeks ago one jug avdocate argued here that the R-2800 C-series "was just basically the incorporation of the performance mods they had already been installing in the field successfully on the D model 47's".
I don't know what you are talking about the fuels. The standard USAF fuel at 1944 was the 100/130 (AN-F-28 according to P-38 manual) this means that it had rich "octane rating" 130 (right term is grade 130). The 115/145 fuel (grade 145) became available 1945 but AFAIK it was in very limited use (at least USAAF statistical digest does not even list it during war). There was a special version of the earlier 100/125 fuel (grade 125) for the P-38 at 1942 or 1943 but 1944-45 standard fuel was the 100/130 (which also had different versions and quality varied too).
The HTC crew have made it very clear that there should be verifyable documentation if want those hot rod ratings to the Aces High.
gripen
[ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]
-
Originally posted by gripen:
Widewing,
The highest rating ever used in service for the R-2800 B-series engines appear to be 2535hp (2700rpm 64"). This was used somewhere in the pacific to get the Jugs of the ground on short airfields. This rating caused very fast overheating and shortened life of the engine considerably. I believe that some early Jugs might be modified from the original 56" rating but anything above say 62" as standard would have showed up in the engine overhaul statistics which is not the case (see USAAF statistical digest). It's hard to believe these hot rod rating rumours when for example couple weeks ago one jug avdocate argued here that the R-2800 C-series "was just basically the incorporation of the performance mods they had already been installing in the field successfully on the D model 47's".
I don't know what you are talking about the fuels. The standard USAF fuel at 1944 was the 100/130 (AN-F-28 according to P-38 manual) this means that it had rich "octane rating" 130 (right term is grade 130). The 115/145 fuel (grade 145) became available 1945 but AFAIK it was in very limited use (at least USAAF statistical digest does not even list it during war). There was a special version of the earlier 100/125 fuel (grade 125) for the P-38 at 1942 or 1943 but 1944-45 standard fuel was the 100/130 (which also had different versions and quality varied too).
The HTC crew have made it very clear that there should be verifyable documentation if want those hot rod ratings to the Aces High.
gripen
[ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]
I would expect overheating running high MAP settings during takeoff and climbout at low altitudes in hot, humid climates. My personal experience with R-2800 engines leads me to believe that cylinder head temps would be in the red within 3 to 4 minutes. However, the modifications to the waste gates and engine timing were for the purpose of short duration usage at high altitudes. With outside air temps in the -50 degree F. range, overheating was not an issue. Moreover, in an emergency situation, you will find damn few pilots who care one whit whether they shorten the life of the engine should they employ maximum power for excessive periods of time. When measured against one's own ass, engines were insignificant.
Now let's discuss "pilot's manuals" for a moment. As a general rule, power settings in these documents are extremely conservative. I don't know a single veteran fighter pilot (and I know a great many) who did not exceed recommended power settings with some frequency as the need arose. There are many reasons that caused the military to adhere to modest power settings in their tech-pubs. They are reasonable and should be followed during normal operation of the aircraft. However, even the most ardent supporter of rules for rules sake cannot ignore the fact that all bets are off in combat, and the aircraft will generally be pushed beyond normal operating limits.
Indeed, one of the problems with reviewing or using manuals and standard issue documentation is that it will set peacetime limits for combat situations where there are no practical limits. Combat pilots were of one mind, in that they wanted the highest possible performance and the worn-out or damaged engines be damned.
By the way, verification of high performance mods came from both Republic and Lockheed test pilots and technicians. These men (Carl Bellinger being but one) discussed test flying P-47C and D fighters with modified engines to test performance and reliability. likewise, Jimmy Mattern and Tony LeVier have talked both publically and privately about the many performance mods made to the P-38 over its operational life. Some of these found their way into operational aircraft through the work of factory tech reps.
Allow me to drop a simple example of conservative limits. The 4 cam, 24 valve V-6 engine in my car is redlined at 6,600 rpm per factory recommendation. Nonetheless, the manufacturer has tested the engine to 8,000 rpm for hundreds of hours. Occational over-revving of the engine is generally harmless with minimal errosion of expected engine life.
As to fuel.... I have a copy of the Doolittle order issued to formulate special avgas specifically for the P-38. Since Doolittle did not assume command of the 8th
AF until January of 1944, you will find no reference to this in documents dated in 1942 or 1943. Regardless, Doolittle was an acknowledged expert in aviation gasoline formulation, having led the team that developed 100 octane fuel for Gulf Oil in the 1930s. By the way, the fuel worked. Detonation related engine failures were immediately reduced by over 60% once the new fuel was in the logistic system. Specific instructions were issued that this fuel NOT be used in the P-51, whose Packard Merlin already suffered from spark plug fouling due to unburned anti-knock additives. Typically, the Allison ran higher combustion chamber temperatures than the Merlin. The only recognized advantage to this was that the Allison tended towards more complete combustion of the intake charge, but its inherently poor exhaust scavaging limited any power gain theorized. Packard's engine was much less prone to detonation due to lower temps, but would always be prone to plug fouling. This lead to frequent "blowing out" of the plugs during prolonged periods at cruise power settings. Failure to do this would lead to serious misfires, or even the loss of one or more cylinders. Not a good thing to experience when Luftwaffe fighters were near about.
I have no problem with HTC sticking to offically recognized power settings, as long as they do so across the board. However, I would always argue that all facts are reported by the people who observed them. Likewise, all "manuals" are the result of actual testing. It has always amazed me that some people will take their facts from some text or book, that reports what was observed by people to refute what other people observed or did. All written data is based upon human observation, and those experiences outside of the codified documents cannot be excluded nor ignored based upon the lack of official sanction. Which, always leans to conservatism, as is the nature of any military of governmental organization. In summation, just because the official manual establishes limits, it does not, by proxy, exclude facts that demonstrate these limits were, in fact, highly conservative. Statistical analysis is frequently useless, except as a tool to support theory, which by itself cannot be proven by its own self-title.
My regards,
Widewing
[ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: Widewing ]
-
gripen said:
It's hard to believe these hot rod rating rumours when for example couple weeks ago one jug avdocate argued here that the R-2800 C-series "was just basically the incorporation of the performance mods they had already been installing in the field successfully on the D model 47's".
You can't write off the arguments and data from folks like Widewing just because I was mistaken. I can make the same argument that it's hard to believe what you are saying because I was mistaken. Neither argument makes any sense that way.
BTW, if anybody can point me to a good link where I can learn more about the development of the RR-2800 series, specifically the development of the C, I would appreciate it. Since I learned my understanding of the C model was not correct, I'd like to learn more about it. :)
Lephturn
-
Widewing,
I know that you have posted thousands of lines about these topics so to avoid further waste of banwidth... Please, post verifyable evidence that proves your arguments:
1. The R-2800 B-series engines were routinedly modified for above 2500hp ratings.
2.The fighter squadrons receiving the P-38L quietly resetted the prop governors on the Allisons to allow them to turn 3,200 rpm and these ratings were really used in combat.
3. There was better fuel than the 100/130 available for the P-38L units.
So far you have provided just a lot of words, without verifyable evidence from your side there is no reason to continue.
Lephturn,
Well, I just used your argument as an example what kind rumours I've heard here, I'm sorry if that bothers you. Anyway, here is some sources for the R-2800 stuff:
White: Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of WWII, 1995.
Jane's Yearbooks from forties or early fifties.
The Pratt & Whitney Aircraft story, 1952.
Schlaifer and Heron: Developement of Aircraft Engines and Developement of Aviation Fuels, 1950.
Manuals (try museums)
gripen
[ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]
[ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]
-
Well... I think Widewing is involved with the same guys that print Warren Bodhies books,hell he might BE Bodhie?,lol. He even gave me a tip they where getting ready to reprint it and to go ahead and place an order. He was right on...
xBAT
P.S. Bodhies book is full of orginal documents from lockheed dealing with the 38. I have NO idea about the engine specs but I'd trust Widewing as much as I would anybody else here. Have you read Bodhies books?
Oh..if I'm butchering W.B's name..sorry, at work and in a hurry.
[ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: batdog ]
[ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: batdog ]
-
I know who Widewing is and that causes me to smirk quite a bit when an occasion liek this arises. Which it has a few times here. :D
Westy
[ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]
-
Hehe, gripen it doesn't "bother me", on the contrary I was glad to learn I was wrong on that one so I can correct the situation. I was just pointing out that simply because I said something wrong it doesn't invalidate everybody else here.
Anyway, I do see your point. Thanks for the resource information.
Lephturn
-
keep the info coming boys, HT might... MIGHT.. I repeat MIGHT someday stumble on this thread hehe. <S>
-
Originally posted by gripen:
Widewing,
I know that you have posted thousands of lines about these topics so to avoid further waste of banwidth... Please, post verifyable evidence that proves your arguments:
"Posted thousands of lines"?? Well, I've published thousands of lines on various aviation topics in 5 magazines and contributed to several books. This may or may not qualify me as an expert, but I'm the closest thing to an expert you are likely to encounter. Want confirmation? Feel free to contact any of the following authors:
Warren Bodie
Walt Boyne
Dan Ford
Francis (Diz) Dean
Eric Bergerud
Gail Halvorsen
Al Blackburn
Bruce Gamble
Steve Pace
Just to name a few who can testify to my credentials.
As for "verifiable evidence", I find it remarkable that you have yet to understand what has already been written. Do you have the capability to verify anything? Or are you just blowing smoke up our collective asses?
Fact: There were no field modifications to powerplants or engine sub-systems that were authorized by the USAAF.
Fact: Some local commands allowed unauthorized modifications to sub-systems, provided that these modifications were instituted and supervised by factory representatives.
Fact: Such modifications, being unauthorized, were never documented in officially approved maintenance publications (because career bureaucrats would object to any deviation from regulation and approved USAAF operational procedure).
Fact: Hundreds of maintenance procedures were modified in the name of expedience and from lessons learned in the field.
This isn't difficult to follow, just read it again slowly.
1. The R-2800 B-series engines were routinedly modified for above 2500hp ratings.
I don't recall anyone claiming that actual engines were modified. This is a red herring.
Sub-systems were modified, engines were tuned or "adjusted" for a specific result. I suspect that you don't really understand the question, much less the answer.
2.The fighter squadrons receiving the P-38L quietly resetted the prop governors on the Allisons to allow them to turn 3,200 rpm and these ratings were really used in combat.
Some fighter squadrons allowed this adjustment as a matter of course. Indeed, some groups allowed unauthorized prop governor settings, re-indexing of props and changes in ignition timing. All being within the authority of the respective maintenance officer and crew chiefs. One need only talk to the pilots and mechanics. Jack Ilfrey, Arthur W. Heiden, and Stan Richardson have all confirmed that they were aware that P-38L fighters had been tuned to utilize full factory (Allison) authorized power settings. IE: 3,200 rpm @ 64 in/Hg, which generated 1,725 hp in the 1710-F30 engines. This is also confirmed by Ben Kelsey and Hub Zemke. For the record, I have in my possession, nearly 7 hours of taped interviews with Kelsey and Zemke. These interviews were conducted by Warren Bodie at his home in the 1970s.
3. There was better fuel than the 100/130 available for the P-38L units.
Perhaps you were not paying attention, so I'll state it again. I have, as part of my personal collection, a copy of Doolittle's order specifying the formulation to be manufactured for use in 8th AF P-38 aircraft.
In addition, I have a copy of Doolittle's letter to the Deputy Commanding General of all U.S. Army Air Forces, where he urgently recommends that 2,000,000 gallons of his special brew be blended and distributed to the various P-38 groups of the 8th AF. A copy of this letter has been published by John Gray in his history of the 55th Fighter Group. His initial requirement was for 110-130 octane, but he subsequently upped it to 140-150 when preliminary testing showed only a marginal improvement in detonation reduction. As important as the increase in octane was the method of obtaining that rating. He specifically required a reduction in tetra-ethel lead, preferring iso-araffins which did not come out of solution at low temperatures typically found in P-38J intercooler cores.
So far you have provided just a lot of words, without verifyable evidence from your side there is no reason to continue.
Listen Buster, all you have provided to date on this topic is to insult Lephturn and display the type of false arrogance typical of your ilk.
(snip)
White: Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of WWII, 1995.
Jane's Yearbooks from forties or early fifties.
The Pratt & Whitney Aircraft story, 1952.
Schlaifer and Heron: Developement of Aircraft Engines and Developement of Aviation Fuels, 1950.
Manuals (try museums)
I have poured over several hours of phone interviews and written correspondence with Harvey Lippincott. Harvey was a Pratt & Whitney factory representative assigned to the 8th AF. After retirement, Harvey became the official historian for United Aircraft. Not only was Harvey aware of waste gate modifications to P-47s, he was a leading proponent of such field mods. Harvey not only confirms what the pilots and mechanics have stated, he has described the actual methodology.
For Allison engines, you need Whitney. White comes nowhere near Whitney's research.
My observation is this: Anyone with a library card can obtain the typical and essentially basic data found in most published works. I suggest that you actually interview those people involved in the design, development and operation of the aircraft and engines in question. Until you do so, you will never have anything beyond second and third hand material. Moreover, to dismiss the testimony of the personnel who operated and maintained the aircraft, clinging blindly to service manuals and such worthless publications as Janes, is approaching the height of thickheadedness. If you want the full diversity of facts, get off your bellybutton and track down the people involved. Furthermore, you had better get started soon. Some of the best authorities have already passed on. Cass Hough, Ben Kelsey, Carl Bellinger, Jimmy Mattern, Bob Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Kelly Johnson, Lowery Brabham, Bill Pascalis and dozens more are no longer available to enlighten. Yet, each and every one of the above has been interviewed by either me or Warren. Therein lies our advantage. We went to the source, not to someone else's half-assed research.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing,
As far as my limited abilities to understand these things go, I do not see any publically available source in your post which supports your three questioned claims.
gripen
PS. Thanks for calling me buster and nice words about my ilk.
PS2. The Manufacturer claims 1725hp at 3200rpm 60" for the F30.
-
http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/Widewing.html (http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/Widewing.html)
How are books written... they A: take info from OTHER books or B: they get info from the source. Widewing is saying he obtained his info from the source. Once again due to the nature of the info he gave me about ordering my book he is certainly part of, if not the main fiqure, of the publishers named widewing. Warren Bodie is considered to be one of the best sources of info in regards to the 38 and 47 I think. I hardly think this indiv would allow a publisher to discredit or rep him if they couldnt hold thier salt.
Oh and the term "buster" he used is a give away to his generation perhaps...
xBAT
[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: batdog ]
-
So, does Warren Bodie claim in his books that P-47Ds were routinedly hot rodded for above 2500hp ratings, P-38Ls were setted quietly for the 3200rpm or there were something higher grade fuel than the 100/130 (or it's variants) available for the P-38L during war?
If so, is there some hard evidence (other than oral) which could be verified? Like microfilms in the NARA or something.
gripen
PS. I knew this was going be huge waste of bandwidth.
-
Originally posted by gripen:
So, does Warren Bodie claim in his books that P-47Ds were routinedly hot rodded for above 2500hp ratings, P-38Ls were setted quietly for the 3200rpm or there were something higher grade fuel than the 100/130 (or it's variants) available for the P-38L during war?
If so, is there some hard evidence (other than oral) which could be verified? Like microfilms in the NARA or something.
gripen
PS. I knew this was going be huge waste of bandwidth.
It's only a waste of bandwidth because your cranial/rectal interface has obscured your ability to comprehend simple statements which clearly define why some things will not be found in official government archives.
I told you where to find the Doolittle letter. So, get off your backside and go get it.
As to Warren commenting on overboosting R-2800 engines, the answer is yes, he does offer the recollections of the man responsible for such testing at Republic.
Oh, and by the way, you won't find that information at NARA either......
My regards,
Widewing
-
in warren bodies book "the lockheed P-38 lightning" he does make mention several times about the 1,725hp rating in the P-38L. unless I have read the book wrong and or fogotten what I have read he specifically states that the P-38L-1-LO used the same rating as the 38J ie 1,600hp@60"MAP of which 1,290 a/c were manufactured, he states that the P-38L-5-LO had the 1,725hp rating and did 440mph and that 2,200 of these a/c were manufactured from october 1944 thru june 1945. thats what bodie says.
I can only ask questions just like anybody else here. what never made any sense to me is if you look in the pilots manual and other common publications for the P-38 these inconsitancies jump out at you. consider this if you will, all books agree on these figures. P-38F 395mph on 1,325hp x 2. P-38H 402mph but at altitude the engines were restricted somewhere around the same power as the P-38F due to inner cooler limitations. if I am not mistaken the 38H only made 1,600hp up to 10,000ft and could not use 60" above that altitude. and at 25k it would be using power at or near military as maximum power, ie 1,350 to 1,425. now you look at the 38J which could make 1,600hp up to 26,400 ft. the books say it could do 414mph. it just doesnt add up to me.
395mph on 1,325hp
402mph on just a little more power
414mph on 1,600hp. I understand the J/L had a bit more drag than the H and earlier models, but it was not that excessive. what is 60 to 80lbs of drag when you have 3000+lbs of drag to begin with? it doesnt add up when you consider you have just added 400-600 more hp and you only gain 10-20mph. I am sorry, but just like usual I cannot provide any answers to the problems.
-
Originally posted by batdog:
http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/Widewing.html (http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/Widewing.html)
How are books written... they A: take info from OTHER books or B: they get info from the source. Widewing is saying he obtained his info from the source. Once again due to the nature of the info he gave me about ordering my book he is certainly part of, if not the main fiqure, of the publishers named widewing. Warren Bodie is considered to be one of the best sources of info in regards to the 38 and 47 I think. I hardly think this indiv would allow a publisher to discredit or rep him if they couldnt hold thier salt.
Oh and the term "buster" he used is a give away to his generation perhaps...
xBAT
[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: batdog ]
Warren and I are friends, and have worked together on several magazine projects as well as assisting him in collecting data for
his many book projects. However, I am not connected with Widewing Publications in the sense that I make any decisions whatsoever. The company consists of Warren alone. Sure, he uses the talents of others, but strictly on a contract basis. We work together because our writing styles are similar and we both have extensive backgrounds in aviation history as writers and historians.
However, I cannot hope to compare my accomplishments to Warren's. He is one of the very few successful author/publishers extent. Moreover, at 78 years old, he still has a tremedous desire to write and publish.
Aviation writing is his vocation and avocation. He literally breathes aviation history. I have somewhat more diverse interests, including writing about other topics. Indeed, unlike Warren, I have hobbies completely unrelated to aviation and writing, such as competitive boxing and shooting. Warren, on the other hand, loves to tool through the mountains of North Carolina in his Jaguar XK-8. Which, need I say, is a big step up from my Miata and Subaru WRX (although the WRX is a rather potent little monster).
Some Aces High members have attempted to contact Warren via the web page I maintain for him on my web site. I have given him the ok to reply should he so desire. Those of you who wish to write Warren may do so using the online form provided. He truly relishes hearing from those who have enjoyed his books. However, Warren is a very busy man, so be patient waiting for a reply. By the way, don't write anything that you don't want me to see, because I get copies of all correspondence via the web page. ;)
My regards,
Widewing
AKA: Corey C. Jordan
-
Doh...I just recieved an email from the man himself :) :) :)
Okay... I'm no expert but lets thank about some common sense here. I am an ex-grunt. We were often told what to do or not to do w/equipment/weapons. This seldom stoped us from doing what was needed for the enviroment at hand. A prime example is the m60 machinegun. One will uselly keep a light film of oil on the bolt. This was ignored by myself and others in the Mojave desert in NTC and we fired our wep dry. WHY? Because sand+oil is a bad idea. The wep would fire and never lockup w/out the oil...you add oil it was jam city.
Okay now picture this... you have some young mechnics working on their pilots planes. They hear you can do some mod's to make his machine better... and bring his bellybutton home. What are you going to do? Your going to give him his mod's especialy if a tech rep says it works.
I dont know squat about engines, rpms, backpressure or whatever. I do KNOW a soldier will do what it bloody takes often pushing the limits on equipment and body to get the job done. Its uselly the indiv's who werent even close to being there that seem to often be the skeptics...
xBAT
-
Widewing,
Please calm down, I have not questioned if such "Doolittle memo" exist nor if some P-47Ds were modified. I questioned your claim that there were somekind of special fuel for the P-38L (which could allow those 1725hp ratings for the F30). And I also questioned that popular argument here that P-47Ds were routinedly hot rodded for above 2500hp ratings, which is clearly above physical limits of the R-2800 B-series engine.
And again, we need hard data.
gripen
[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]
-
Although it seems to me quite probable that some US aircraft had hotrodded engines, or used Doolittle's 140-150 octane fuel, I doubt very much we will see this modeled in Aces High until a reasonable body of verifiable evidence is presented.
Even unofficial modifications leave a paper trail. Mechanics and crew chiefs write letters home and quite possibly memoirs. If this practice was widespread then references to it will appear in the first hand accounts of the ground and aircrews involved.
Merely noting that Doolittle wrote letters containing pertanent facts is insufficient. Information on where the letter may be obtained (i.e. pg 571 in Doolittle's autobiography or whatever...) so that HTC may obtain the letter and evaluate its content is what is required if you want them to consider changing their FMs. If you ever want to see HTC take this stuff seriously, then a paper trail (memoirs, letters, air force documents or whatever) is going to have to be presented to them.
Hooligan
-
I would like to point out there are diff ways to measure HP. Do/did they use a standard test? I know in cars there is at least 2 places HP is often "measured"?
xBAT
-
I don't know if there was some kind of standard test, maybe inside one country but probably not globally. AFAIK testing itself was pretty much similar everywhere; dynamometer and special testing room where conditions could be adjusted.
gripen