Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: beau32 on September 06, 2010, 02:49:51 PM
-
http://jamesreese.org/hangarflying/
Lockheed produced a series of newsletters called Hangar Flying filled with tips and humorous cartoons. These are about the P-38.
(http://jamesreese.org/hangarflying/images/S_p121.jpg)
(http://jamesreese.org/hangarflying/images/S_p152.jpg)
-
I like this one
(http://jamesreese.org/hangarflying/images/S_i5p6i1.jpg)
Something we all need to learn in AH
-
For some reason I like this one. :)
(http://jamesreese.org/hangarflying/images/S_i10p4i1.jpg)
-
I like this one
(http://jamesreese.org/hangarflying/images/S_i5p6i1.jpg)
Something we all need to learn in AH
Funny you say that. Several years ago, I was corresponding with a gent who had flown the P-51 in the war. I was curious about aspects of the plane, particularly the war emergency power method that it used. I was playing Fighter Ace at the time and in FA, the WEP on most US planes would 'recharge'. If you turned it off for a period of time, you would basically get a new timer on it.
I asked the gentleman if that was how it actually worked on the P-51. He said there was no injection system like some planes had on the P-51. He said that basically you could do what was called 'breaking the wire'. He told me that the throttle had a small wire at the 100% setting but with enough pressure on the throttle you could break the wire and go past 100% to like 110% throttle. He then told me that they were told to do this only in the most dire situations because 1) it would overheat the engine in about 2 minutes time and 2) anytime someone did do it, that plane had to be taken out of service until the engine could be thoroughly inspected for damage.
I thought that was pretty ironic seeing how people use the hell out of WEP in these games. The only games I've seen where overuse of WEP will get you into trouble are IL-2 and Wings of Prey. Running WEP in those games causes overheat pretty quickly.
-
As a 38G flyer, I have never used wep, not even once! :)
-
As a 38G flyer, I have never used wep, not even once! :)
You've never had a running engine stay attached to a plane long enough to burn it up or wear it out, either. :devil
-
Funny you say that. Several years ago, I was corresponding with a gent who had flown the P-51 in the war. I was curious about aspects of the plane, particularly the war emergency power method that it used. I was playing Fighter Ace at the time and in FA, the WEP on most US planes would 'recharge'. If you turned it off for a period of time, you would basically get a new timer on it.
I asked the gentleman if that was how it actually worked on the P-51. He said there was no injection system like some planes had on the P-51. He said that basically you could do what was called 'breaking the wire'. He told me that the throttle had a small wire at the 100% setting but with enough pressure on the throttle you could break the wire and go past 100% to like 110% throttle. He then told me that they were told to do this only in the most dire situations because 1) it would overheat the engine in about 2 minutes time and 2) anytime someone did do it, that plane had to be taken out of service until the engine could be thoroughly inspected for damage.
I thought that was pretty ironic seeing how people use the hell out of WEP in these games. The only games I've seen where overuse of WEP will get you into trouble are IL-2 and Wings of Prey. Running WEP in those games causes overheat pretty quickly.
See this thread as it happened to my aircraft: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,241456.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,241456.0.html)
-
As a 38G flyer, I have never used wep, not even once! :)
Nah, it is his extreme self control and iron will.
-
Wow!
Thank you for the link.
There are some very artistic drawings. This is my favorite in terms of drawing style, story & set-up.
http://jamesreese.org/hangarflying/images/S_i8p5i1.jpg
-
I think there are a couple more issues that this guy is missing. They're wonderful though.
Reminds me of some virtual pilots I know.
(http://i547.photobucket.com/albums/hh473/cactuskooler/S_i7p6i2-1.jpg)
-
I'm curious about what these fillets near the cockpit are that apparently heavily affected the stall characteristics of the aircraft. Anyone happen to have an image of them?
-
I'm curious about what these fillets near the cockpit are that apparently heavily affected the stall characteristics of the aircraft. Anyone happen to have an image of them?
I think that they were put in to correct severe tail buffetting that was otherwise generated by turbultent flow from the junction between the wings and the fuselage. They were on all P-38's from D's on forward, I think -- if so, they'll be in just about any P-38 pic.
-
Ahh, it's the smoothing junction between the wing and fuselage. I thought it would be some sort of vertical projection out of the top of the wing. Kinda scary that they were "peeling off" like that.
Image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightning72/3968644331/in/set-72157621249387970/)
-
I think that they were put in to correct severe tail buffetting that was otherwise generated by turbultent flow from the junction between the wings and the fuselage. They were on all P-38's from D's on forward, I think -- if so, they'll be in just about any P-38 pic.
I think the word you are searching for is 'parasite' since most of the flow this airplane ever saw (99.9%) was turbulent and only about 2-3mm was ever laminar beyond the stagnation point. I have said before... the tail buffeting of the P-38 was brought on by inadequate tail boom stiffening.
Maybe thats why 38 pilots need viagra at an early age. :D
-
"Parasite" isn't the word I was looking for. The flow over surfaces is indeed turbulent -- the entire plane's surface was not designed to produce and could not produce laminar flow. No WWII airplane did that. Even laminar-flow wings on the likes of the P-51 probably didn't produce laminar flow once you factor in design variation, surface roughness, dirt, etc., and even if they did, they didn't produce laminar flow over the whole airframe. Also, just because there is a non-laminar layer of flow does not mean that huge increases in turbulence off a junction can't cause problems.
The tail buffetting that the wing fillet eliminated was not due to inadequate tail stiffening according to the following.
"Wind tunnel tests at Cal Tech established that tail flutter was the result of turbulent airflow created by the sharp juncture at wing and fuselage, and it was eliminated by a wing fillet that smoothed out the airflow over the tail." From American Aviation, by Christy and Cook, and you can see the excerpt here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=E6yzMq7Z-yIC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=p-38+wing+fillet&source=bl&ots=lLWgRD_uDN&sig=yYV4Ff__D6DJeLVdQinv-gLdSy0&hl=en&ei=gNiLTMLFHo6msQOzuYCIBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=p-38%20wing%20fillet&f=false
Other references saying the same:
The Lockheed P-38 Lightning, by Bodie. The marvelous and definitive book on all aspects of the P-38.
http://www.amazon.com/Lockheed-P-38-Lightning-Warren-Bodie/dp/0962935956/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284234200&sr=8-1
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/p38_lightning.htm
http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p38.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning
-
I realize parasitic drag is usually thought of as drag caused by air friction. However parasitic drag is also defined as a combination of air friction across surfaces as well as interference drag. Interference drag would be the interaction of two aerodynamic bodies and yes that includes the junction of fuselage with wing as well as engine/tail booms with wing that required fillets to correct.
Parasite drag is the "turbulent drag" that was causing the problem and was further aggravated by the inadequately stiffened booms.
-
Oh... by the way.
The P-51 was the first laminar flow design ever implemented. You are correct in saying that it did not experience laminar flow... but only if you mean over the entire wing. Yes the P-51 was designed for laminar flow and yes it did experience laminar flow over 40-50% of its airfoil by design. Yes there were problems with reduced performance over theoretical and design potential... but to say that the P-51 never experienced laminar flow over any portion of its airfoil is not an honest statement. If the Mustang never experienced any form of laminar flow then it would never have the performance it did and does.
-
but only if you mean over the entire wing.
Yes, that's what I mean.
-
In that case it doesnt matter. In having laminar flow over 40-50% of the surface area you are eliminating that much effective drag (turbulent) and because the layers are not separated until the point of minimum pressure the effective profile drag is much less whereas on an aircraft with turbulent drag over the entire wing surface (99.9%) the profile drag can in effect be as much as doubled. Also... the laminar airfoil of the P-51 eliminates the increase of the coefficient of drag for the majority of the effective AOA. What that means is that as a pilot increases the AOA the coefficient of lift increases but the coefficient of drag remains constant for 65% (approximately) of the effective AOA. This is why a P-51 can raise its nose as much as eight degrees (or a little more) and the drag remains the same as if the wing were level and the P-51 can use its E to zoom to great advantage. No P-51 should ever zoom straight up unless the pilot is willing to give up a great deal of his E to do it (the coefficient of drag will climb at a greater rate than on a Spitfire for instance).
-
If you want to talk about P-51's, why not make a new topic instead of continuing to post such things in this P-38 topic?
-
Here, I created this:
Topic: The P-51 and its laminar-flow wing
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,296622.0.html
Now, this P-38 topic can be left in peace to talk about P-38's instead of getting contantly derailed.
-
Brooke I was talking about airflow and correctly your misinformation. Like I said... you were looking for the word parasite/parasitic.
Dont get your panties in a bunch for not knowing the subject very well. :rofl
And on subject... P-38s were never as good as their press. War propaganda you know... cant afford to waste efforts on a technically complex aircraft thats difficult to manufacture and kills its own pilots after all! :D
-
Brooke I was talking about airflow and correctly your misinformation. Like I said... you were looking for the word parasite/parasitic.
No, that is the incorrect term. See above.
Dont get your panties in a bunch for not knowing the subject very well. :rofl
I seem to know it better than you do.
And on subject... P-38s were never as good as their press. War propaganda you know... cant afford to waste efforts on a technically complex aircraft thats difficult to manufacture and kills its own pilots after all! :D
You can certainly have your opinion.
-
I seem to know it better than you do.
Not at all. You dont understand that interference drag is just a component of parasite drag and your argument against laminar flow is generated by someone else who is arguably in the dark on the subject.
-
Not at all. You dont understand that interference drag is just a component of parasite drag and your argument against laminar flow is generated by someone else who is arguably in the dark on the subject.
This from the guy who thinks the P-38 issue was just tail stiffness.
-
And on subject... P-38s were never as good as their press. War propaganda you know... cant afford to waste efforts on a technically complex aircraft thats difficult to manufacture and kills its own pilots after all! :D
LOL! It wasn't?
ack-ack
-
I think the word you are searching for is 'parasite' since most of the flow this airplane ever saw (99.9%) was turbulent and only about 2-3mm was ever laminar beyond the stagnation point. I have said before... the tail buffeting of the P-38 was brought on by inadequate tail boom stiffening.
Maybe thats why 38 pilots need viagra at an early age. :D
You have no idea at all what you're talking about. What you know about a P-38 would fit on the head of a sewing pin and leave room for a medium sized herd of elephants to tango drunk.
The problem with the P-38 was that air accelerated to the speed of sound over the high aspect ratio wing that created the superior flying characteristics. That buffeted the tail. The tail actually did not flex, Lockheed proved that in the NACA wind tunnel in 1941 and in 1942.
The P-38 had a better than 6-1 kill ratio in Europe, and even better than that in the Pacific. It was the P-38 and the P-47 that kept the strategic bombing campaign going before the P-51 reached Europe, despite the P-38 facing 10-1 numerical superiority by the Germans deep in enemy territory because the 8th AF was stupid enough to send the P-38's they needed to the Mediterranean, and so short sighted as to not fit the P-47 for the correct drop tanks. It was the P-38 that was the first Allied fighter over Berlin, twice, when every other aircraft had to turn back. The P-51 showed up after the P-47 and P-38 had cut the Luftwaffe up and faced Germans who were not as well trained, had less experience, beat up aircraft, and not enough fuel. It was the ground work of the P-47 and the P-38 that helped the ground troops take ground, the ground work that the fragile P-51 handled poorly.
I suggest you take a couple of doses of scorpion venom for your paranoid dementia, and call somebody who cares in the morning. It's the P-51 pilots that need Viagra, the P-38 pilots can get it up easily, since the P-38 out climbs the P-51 to 20k.
-
You have no idea at all what you're talking about. What you know about a P-38 would fit on the head of a sewing pin and leave room for a medium sized herd of elephants to tango drunk.
The problem with the P-38 was that air accelerated to the speed of sound over the high aspect ratio wing that created the superior flying characteristics. That buffeted the tail. The tail actually did not flex, Lockheed proved that in the NACA wind tunnel in 1941 and in 1942.
The P-38 had a better than 6-1 kill ratio in Europe, and even better than that in the Pacific. It was the P-38 and the P-47 that kept the strategic bombing campaign going before the P-51 reached Europe, despite the P-38 facing 10-1 numerical superiority by the Germans deep in enemy territory because the 8th AF was stupid enough to send the P-38's they needed to the Mediterranean, and so short sighted as to not fit the P-47 for the correct drop tanks. It was the P-38 that was the first Allied fighter over Berlin, twice, when every other aircraft had to turn back. The P-51 showed up after the P-47 and P-38 had cut the Luftwaffe up and faced Germans who were not as well trained, had less experience, beat up aircraft, and not enough fuel. It was the ground work of the P-47 and the P-38 that helped the ground troops take ground, the ground work that the fragile P-51 handled poorly.
I suggest you take a couple of doses of scorpion venom for your paranoid dementia, and call somebody who cares in the morning. It's the P-51 pilots that need Viagra, the P-38 pilots can get it up easily, since the P-38 out climbs the P-51 to 20k.
Isn't there a quote attributed to Gerald Johnson along the lines of "The P-38 and P-47 pilots took out the Luftwaffes best, the the P-51s handled the rest"?
-
Not at all. You dont understand that interference drag is just a component of parasite drag and your argument against laminar flow is generated by someone else who is arguably in the dark on the subject.
Yeah it's not like our two tops scoring aces flew it...
-
Isn't there a quote attributed to Gerald Johnson along the lines of "The P-38 and P-47 pilots took out the Luftwaffes best, the the P-51s handled the rest"?
hhmm...i dunno, but if you don't mind, that looks like sig material to me. :aok
-
LOL! It wasn't?
ack-ack
No that is why the top scoring American aces both flew it. Wait a second... :rolleyes:
-
No that is why the top scoring American aces both flew it. Wait a second... :rolleyes:
Not to mention the main USAAF fighter in the PTO with the most kills of any USAAF plane with more aces than any other USAAF fighter in the PTO. Heck, more USAAF pilots made aces in the P-40 than the P-51 in the PTO.
ack-ack
-
top scoring american aces.....
richard bong.......40 kills. flew p-38
thomas mcguirre....38 kills. flew p-38
david mccampbell.....34 kills. flew f6f
greg boyington.......28 kills. 6 as a tiger, 22 in the corsair.
robert johnson.....27 kills. flew p-47
Charles MacDonald..27 kills. flew p-38
looks like george preddy is top scoring mustang ace at 27. from what i'm reading though, it looks like 3 of his 27 were in p-47's, and it mentions him making a statemnet of the p-38 being the finest airplane he ever flew.
i'd hafta say the ole p-38 o doom has earned her place in history. :aok
-
the only reason the P-51 is considered the best is because they had the 8th Air Force convert most of their FGs to the 51 and as a result got more kills as they outnumbered the 38
-
Not meaning to bash the P38 dweebs because I have much respect for that plane, but weren't most of the kills in the Pacific against more unexperienced than experienced Japanese pilots?
-
Not meaning to bash the P38 dweebs because I have much respect for that plane, but weren't most of the kills in the Pacific against more unexperienced than experienced Japanese pilots?
possibly kind of like the majority of the p-51's kills over europe were against the less experienced luftwaffe pilots?
-
possibly kind of like the majority of the p-51's kills over europe were against the less experienced luftwaffe pilots?
I had feeling I was going to get this kind of response :neener:
-
I had feeling I was going to get this kind of response :neener:
wellllll...you know..........the p-38 and p-47 drivers took on the luftwaffe's best early on, while the spitfires and/or hurricanes had to turn around due to lack of fuel.........then the p-51 came along for clean up. :aok it's still an important role though.
as much as i like the p-38, and even with the stuff i posted about the aces......for some reason, i feel that the hellcat, and corsair had more effect against the japanese than the lightning did.
-
Not meaning to bash the P38 dweebs because I have much respect for that plane, but weren't most of the kills in the Pacific against more unexperienced than experienced Japanese pilots?
No, not really.
-
Not meaning to bash the P38 dweebs because I have much respect for that plane, but weren't most of the kills in the Pacific against more unexperienced than experienced Japanese pilots?
The P-38 was the main USAAF fighter that broke the back of the IJAF and IJNAF in the Pacific, much like how the P-47 is the USAAF plane that broke the Luftwaffe's back over Europe.
ack-ack
-
I had feeling I was going to get this kind of response :neener:
It's generally because the misinformed have this vision of hordes of P51Ds taking it to the Luftwaffe and clearing the skies when in fact the D model Stangs only got there just prior to D-Day. The best of the LW drivers had been eliminated by this time due to the effort of the guys driving everything but 51Ds from 39-mid 44. In terms of the USAAF in the ETO that would be the Jug drivers, the 38 drivers. Add the B Pony drivers who started arriving in December 44 and joined the effort with a great bird going through a host of growing pains with frozen guns, motor mount troubles, no fuselage tank to begin with etc. Then figure the Bigweek through the Berlin Missions of March-April 44 and you've got it.
It doesn't mean the Mustang pilots didn't play a role. But because the Mustang, in particular the D-model got the ink and shows up most on the warbird circuit, that guys seem to think it won the war.
Go visit the US Cemetary at Normandy sometime and note all the ground attack pilots buried there. Those Jug and 38 drivers who did the heavy lifting in that role played a huge part in winning the war and paid for it. Same goes for the Tiffie drivers. Follow the route from Caen to Falaise and note all the Tiffie driver graves. Same deal. Most would have been happy to be up their out of the flak escorting bombers.
-
The P-51 and B-17 got to be the movie stars. I've met P-47 and B-24 pilots who griped about that.
-
Not meaning to bash the P38 dweebs because I have much respect for that plane, but weren't most of the kills in the Pacific against more unexperienced than experienced Japanese pilots?
Not really, no. The P-38 began arriving in Australia in the fall of '42 and the 39th FS began operations out of 14-Mile near Port Moresby in October of that year, with the first P-38 victory being scored on November 26th (actually an interesting story).
At the start of the war the IJN (Imperial Japanese Navy) was in charge of the air war in the Pacific with the Army concentrating on events in the CBI (China, Burma, India).
The 11th Sentai of the JAAF was the first army unit to arrive in New Guinea and had prior combat experience in China. It arrived at Rabaul on December 18th, 1942. Two days later they were escorting D3A's to Buna and the flight was intercepted by P-38's from the 9th FS (Richard Bong was among the pilots who made the intercept).
-
Okay, I thought I was going to get verbally ganged on here for my comment, :cheers: . I was always under the impression the P38 came out about the time most of the more experienced sticks of the Japanese forces were long since fish food. I stand corrected. :salute
-
as much as i like the p-38, and even with the stuff i posted about the aces......for some reason, i feel that the hellcat, and corsair had more effect against the japanese than the lightning did.
well cap, it seems different if you bring phillipine phandango into this... :cry
-
Okay, I thought I was going to get verbally ganged on here for my comment, :cheers: . I was always under the impression the P38 came out about the time most of the more experienced sticks of the Japanese forces were long since fish food. I stand corrected. :salute
No worries. :)
For some reason I think it's easy to think of the 38 arriving later in the war than it did (at least I have to remind myself to the contrary). But at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor the USAAF had 69 P-38's in it's inventory (D&E models). The first combat victory for the 38 was in the Aleutians in early August 1942.