# F4U F6F P-38 P-47 or P-51 Which plane was best by war's end



## Sal Monella (Apr 27, 2005)

By the end of WWII, which American fighter had progressed into the best fighter to fighter combat plane? Put differently, which version or model of these American fighters had evolved into the very best fighter to fighter plane.

Since disagreements always seem to arise over which versions or models to include, note the following:

As long as the version or model was operational and actually saw combat, meaning actually fought in air to air engagements, it is fair game.

F4U-
F6F-
P-38-
P-47-
P-51-


----------



## Jank (Apr 27, 2005)

Did the F4U-4 see actual combat? I say Corsair if she did. Otherwose the P-47-n.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 27, 2005)

Jank said:


> Did the F4U-4 see actual combat? I say Corsair if she did. Otherwose the P-47-n.



Yes the F4U-4 did see fairly extended service from about April '45.
So is the P-38L in the running. I think all 3 were capable, depending on Pilot skills to determine a winner.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 27, 2005)

I'll go with the F4U...I also like the P-51, but feel the F4U was also an exceptional all-rounder, and hardier, and we flew 'em too......


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 28, 2005)

Here's some Kiwi Corsairs for ya Gem. Being led by an Aussie of course!


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 28, 2005)

Whoops! that pic was a bit big, Sorry


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

i can't help but laugh at that pic..............

and i'd say corsair, i dunno what varient as i don't know much about the plane............


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 28, 2005)

I think the title goes to the F4U-4. 8) 

Wildcat, I like the picture, was the Boomerang flying full throttle?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

keep up!!! it's just over taken the corsairs


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think the title goes to the F4U-4. 8)
> 
> Wildcat, I like the picture, was the Boomerang flying full throttle to keep up?



In overall performance and maneuverability the title goes to the F4U, however in "looks" the P-51D trashes the Corsair ! 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 28, 2005)

I don't think so! I think the Corsairs are at "flight idle." - The boomerang is wide opened!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

the corsairs do look kinda small compared to the 'rang though........


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't think so! I think the Corsairs are at "flight idle." - The boomerang is wide opened!


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 29, 2005)

Hey! leave the poor little Boomerang alone!

Bullies!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

Well, As much as Id love to say the P-38L ill have to go with the majority and say F4U-4. On looks though P-47 wins it


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 29, 2005)

I'll put my vote to the F4U-4 as well. Although I reckon their all pretty damn good.


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> On looks though P-47 wins it



That fatty ?!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

Its a beauty, closely followed by the P-38 and Hellcat... 8)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2005)

The P-51D looks better ! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

Naw!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2005)

that's a ing shot to use when trying to show the looks of the P-47...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

I know, I just liked the picture 8)







Better?


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2005)

No, don't listen to him Lanc, he's delusional !   


Here's the proof:


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

Now I like the P-51 as much as the next man, but theres something about Radial engines that give the P-47 the edge...


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 29, 2005)

I still go with the P-38L/F4U-4 their specs are almost Identical The P-38 was better in max acceleration and range. Climb, load capacity and top speed are so very close. the Corsair is carrier capable.
With everything so close the extra acceleration of the Lightning suggests its energy retention is a little better which would give it an edge.

The P-47N was starting to show it's abilities so it might be in the running too. 

I'll stick with P-38 as No. 1 and the FF4U-4 as 1.01. they are so close.

wmaxt


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 29, 2005)

The P-47N wasn't starting to show its abilities any more than the F4U-4. If I'm not mistaken, the F4U-4 arrived at he front lines in June of '45. The P-47N arrived at the front lines in May of the same year. 

I'm obviously a fan of the P-47. 8) 

From: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic8.html

Test comparisons were made with a P-47D-30-RE throughout the early portion of the evaluation period. Much to everyone’s surprise, the XP-47N, with its greater wingspan and higher weight actually proved to have better roll performance than the D model. At 250 mph TAS, the N attained a maximum roll rate just over 100 degrees/second. The P-47D-30-RE could manage but 85 degrees/second at the same speed. At higher speeds, the N widened the gap further. 

In mock combat with a P-47D-25-RE, the new fighter proved to be notably superior in every category of performance. In short, the XP-47 waxed the venerable D model regardless of who was piloting the older fighter. The new wing was part of this newfound dogfighting ability, however, the more powerful C series engine played a role too. The additional horsepower allowed the N to retain its energy better than the older Thunderbolt. 

Perhaps the greatest performance increase was in maximum speed. Though not as fast as the stunning P-47M, the heavier N was fully 40 mph faster than the P-47D-25-RE and could generate speeds 30 mph greater than its principal rival, the Mustang. *Scorching along at 467 mph @ 32,000 ft.*, the N could not be caught by any fighter in regular service with any air force on earth with the single exception of its M model sibling. This combination of wing and engine had pushed the N model up to the top rank of the superlative prop driven fighters then in existence.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 29, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> The P-47N wasn't starting to show its abilities any more than the F4U-4. If I'm not mistaken, the F4U-4 arrived at he front lines in June of '45. The P-47N arrived at the front lines in May of the same year.
> 
> I'm obviously a fan of the P-47. 8)
> 
> ...



That's why I mentioned that I think it was a contender. 

I'm not totaly positive but I belive the F4U-4 was introduced in late March early April it had the advantage of being able to be sent to the FSs in 1s and 2s as replacements where the P-47 had to be sent in in squadron strength to reduce the effects of dissimalar aircraft. 

The P-51H was being formed up in the war zone so it's speed advantage would have been short lived at best.

Speed isn't the definning attribute to being the best - that speed doesn't last through the first turn. It is an advantage where it can be used.

These aircraft are so close that it pretty much comes down to mission/prefference as to which is really better ie. the P-38 could fly the furthest while the F4U-4 could land on a carrier. Either could take on anybody when they got there.

wmaxt


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 29, 2005)

Actually you said, "... so it might be in the running too."

I was just trying to push it over the edge into actual contender status.

A contender *is* in the running as opposed to "might be." 

There was another post not too long ago that knocked around a hypothetical match up between the F4U-4 and the P-47N. In the end, the consensus seemed to be that at altitudes less than 30K, the Corsair held the edge but over 30K, the Thunderbolt was superior. It's turbo-supercharger maintains a lot more power at high altitudes.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 29, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Actually you said, "... so it might be in the running too."
> 
> I was just trying to push it over the edge into actual contender status.
> 
> ...



Thats ok with me the P-47M/N was a fine aircraft - are there any left?

The P-38s turbos also kept it going above 30k and the power alerons kept it nimble at high speeds without tourturing the pilot. 

wmaxt


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 29, 2005)

Today, I think so but I really don't know. I have heard that they don't utilize the turbo-supercharger on P-47's that are still flying as the performance edge they confer is not needed for the softball flights they now do.

September 10th and 11th, at the Cincinnatti-Lunken airshow in Ohio will feature a large fly in of P-47's. "Can You Hear the Thunder" I think they are expecting about seven. I haven't made up my mind as to whether I will attend or not yet.

I thought P-38 pilots were tortured by their environmental controls. I read somewhere that the cockpit heater had two modes, on and off. Switched on, it would pipe uncomfortably hot air into the cockpit. Switched off, you'd freeze.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 30, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Today, I think so but I really don't know. I have heard that they don't utilize the turbo-supercharger on P-47's that are still flying as the performance edge they confer is not needed for the softball flights they now do.
> 
> September 10th and 11th, at the Cincinnatti-Lunken airshow in Ohio will feature a large fly in of P-47's. "Can You Hear the Thunder" I think they are expecting about seven. I haven't made up my mind as to whether I will attend or not yet.
> 
> I thought P-38 pilots were tortured by their environmental controls. I read somewhere that the cockpit heater had two modes, on and off. Switched on, it would pipe uncomfortably hot air into the cockpit. Switched off, you'd freeze.



The P-38 had poor environmental systems. It had roll up windows on either side of the canopy but in flight they caused turbulance over the stabalizor and elevator if opened. Heat was finaly adequate in the late J and L models but cooling was never really addressed. I don't know about the issue you mentioned as this is the first time I've heard about it. There are controls for the heat in the cockpit.

I read somewhere that P-47s had Air conditioning in some of the later models, is this true?

wmaxt


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 30, 2005)

"_I don't know about the issue you mentioned as this is the first time I've heard about it._"

I could be wrong.

"_I read somewhere that P-47s had Air conditioning in some of the later models, is this true? _"

I don't know.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 30, 2005)

I recall reading somewhere the P-47 even had an ashtray !!...probably spurious, but they apparently were quite an 'armchair' fighter....I'm not sure how many Thunderbolts are left today - I'd walk on cut glass to see 7 of 'em, if I was stateside, you're really lucky that you've a plentiful quantity available over there...Someone dug a 'razorback' up out of Indonesia awhile back, and it was in our Transport Museum for a spell but I believe it was swapped recently for another restoration project, a P-40 I think,...so they're still out there in the swamps n' jungles.....

I was lead to believe the XP-51G was the fastest Mustang variant, and first flew Aug. 9th 1944, the engine delivering more than 2,000 hp @ 20,000, climbing to that in 3.4 mins. The max speed of 495 mph was attained at 22,800 ft., although the max ceiling was 46,000 ft, the pilot, Robt. 'Bob' Chilton using a Canadian breathing-device that kept pressure in his lungs...North American Aviation were trying to break the 500 mph mark, but only clocked an unofficial 497 mph....

Many thanks for your pic, Wildcat....- During the Pacific, when us colonials were mopping-up the Japs, I believe the Boomerangs were called 'Smokey's', as they marked the enemy positions first with smoke bombs, for the Corsairs to dive-bomb with 1,000 lb 'daisy-cutters' and then strafe.......

Cheers


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 30, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> I'd walk on cut glass to see 7 of 'em



I've seen 8 Spits flying at the same time, that was pretty good


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 30, 2005)

This "Can you hear the Thunder" event will also feature an actual living Thunderbolt ace and is being billed as the last large reunion there will ever be of Thunderbolts.

I haven't decided if I'm going yet. I'm in California which a couple of thousand miles from Ohio.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 1, 2005)

The XP-51G was developmental platform for the P-51H.

From: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_12.html

Work on the conversion of the fourth and fifth NA-105 airframes as XP-51Gs began in January 1944, with the Merlin 145M engines arriving in February. Five-bladed propellers were fitted, but the XP-51G was otherwise similar to the XP-51F. The date of the first flight of the XP-51G is a matter of some dispute--most sources claim that first XP-51G was flown by Ed Virgin on August 10, 1944, but the manufacturer credits Bob Chilton with the first flight on August 12, while other s claim that Joe Barton may have taken the XP-51G up for the first time on August 9. The second machine followed on November 14. The engine was the Rolls-Royce Merlin 145M engine rated at 1910 hp., driving a Rotol propeller with five wooden blades (almost identical to the propellers of the Spitfire XIV). However, the XP-51G flew only once with the five-bladed propeller during a 20-minute flight, and all other flying was carried out with a more conventional Aeroproducts Unimatic A-542-B! four-bladed propeller. It was readily apparent that this was the hottest Mustang yet-- maximum speed was 472 mph at 20,750 feet.

The third XP-51F was shipped to the United Kingdom on June 20, 1944 after preliminary flight checks. It was painted in RAF camouflage and was named Mustang V. The RAF serial number was FR409. The A&AEE at Boscombe Down found the Mustang V to weigh only 7855 pounds in interceptor trim. They rated it very highly except for a severe lack of directional stability which required frequent heavy application of rudder in certain flight conditions.

The second XP-51G was shipped to the United Kingdom in February 1945. This plane was also named Mustang V, and bore the RAF serial number FR410. It is widely reported to have achieved a speed of 495 mph during tests at the A&AEE at Boscombe Down in February 1945, although NAA claimed only 472 mph for the other G at the same altitude. However, by this time RAF priorities had changed, and no further flight testing took place. The fate of FR410 after the end of test flying is uncertain. 

Specification of XP-51G:

One Rolls-Royce Merlin 145M engine rated at 1910 hp., driving a maximum speed was 472 mph at 20,750 feet, and an altitude of 20,000 feet could be reached in 3.4 minutes. Service ceiling was 45,700 feet. 

Normal range was 485 miles, and maximum range was 1865 miles. 

Weights were 5750 lbs. empty, 7265 lbs. normal loaded, and 8885 lbs. maximum. 

Wingspan was 37 feet 9 1/4 inches, length was 32 feet 2 3/4 inches, height was 8 feet 8 inches, and wing area was 233 square feet.


----------



## Anonymous (May 1, 2005)

I think it is hard to choose between the P-47N and the F4U-4. Both were 460+ mph class fighters. The P-47N had the range advantage, but the F4U-4 could launch from carriers.

I'd say the F4U-4 was the better interceptor, the P-47N the better patrol/escort plane.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (May 1, 2005)

The P-47s did launch from carriers on occasion. Here they are on the deck of the Manila Bay during the Okinawa battle. Obviously, they would have great difficulty landing back on them.


----------



## Anonymous (May 1, 2005)

evangilder said:


> The P-47s did launch from carriers on occasion. Here they are on the deck of the Manila Bay during the Okinawa battle. Obviously, they would have great difficulty landing back on them.



Are you sure they launched off them? W/o a catapult launch it would be hard for the P-47 to get airspeed even using the whole flight deck, though I suppose it would be possible if the CV did 20+ knots into a 20 mph headwind.

Some CVL's were used to transport USAAF aircraft, and some transports were setup with a flat top to do the same job. The planes were then craned off the ship.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (May 1, 2005)

They did launch from the Manila Bay and landed on Okinawa. It was rare, but they did. Obviously, they didn't land on the carrier though.

If they could launch a loaded B-25, the P-47 shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## Anonymous (May 1, 2005)

That is true. I just wasn't aware it had ever actually been done.


----------



## evangilder (May 1, 2005)

I forgot where I read about it, although I am sure I was reading about the battle of Okinawa at the time. Although I might have been reading it with one of the fighter group histories. It was the quickest way to get the P-47s where they needed them at the time.


----------



## evangilder (May 1, 2005)

Sorry, my bad, it was off of Saipan:

_After loading 37 Army P-47 fighters, Manila Bay sailed 5 June for the Marianas. Steaming via Eniwetok, she reached the eastern approaches to Saipan 19 June. During the next 4 days she remained east of the embattled island as ships and planes of the Fast Carrier Task Force repulsed the Japanese Fleet in the Battle of the Philippine Sea, and inflicted staggering losses on the enemy, thus crippling the Imperial Navy’s air strength permanently.

On 23 June Manila Bay came under enemy air attack during refueling operations east of Saipan. Two fighter bombers attacked her from dead ahead, dropping four bombs which exploded wide to port. Intense antiaircraft fire suppressed further attacks; and, as a precautionary and rather unusual move which Admiral Spruance later characterized as “commendable initiative,” Manila Bay launched four of the Army P-47’s she was ferrying to fly protective CAP until radar screens were clear of contacts. The Army fighters then flew to Saipan, their intended destination. Manila Bay launched the remaining planes the next day and returned to Eniwetok, arriving 27 June. After embarking 207 wounded troops, she departed 1 July, touched Pearl Harbor the 8th, and reached San Diego 16 July. 
http://www.answers.com/topic/uss-manila-bay
_


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 1, 2005)

Interesting.


----------



## wmaxt (May 1, 2005)

I belive all major single engine fighters were transported and flown off carriers in WWII. The P-39s had the most problems doing it.

I feel the P-38L must still be in the mix. 

Except for speed 443mph isn't quite 460mph but a match for the Corsair in climb (C.C.Jordan has a AAF test showing 4.91min to 20,000ft and W.Brodie has released test results of about 5.0min 20,000ft) and maneuvering was very close if not as good. Load, range and acceleration were better in the P-38L as was high altitude performance.

The P-38 out climed, out ranged and carried more than the P-47 and was as nimble.

The P-38L exceled at both tasks, any altitude escort and low level attack/ground support. With the P-38 air to air combat at any altitude was possible on a compettitive basis.

Good arguments that it was the best AND most versatile!

wmaxt


----------



## Anonymous (May 1, 2005)

I've never seen P-38 climb times like that for a combat configured aircraft. The best time I've seen is 5.9 minutes to 20K for a P-38j pulling 60" hg. of manifold pressure.

I don't think it is fair to compare a non-combat configured P-38 incarnation with a combat configured F4U-4.

On the other hand, the P-38j was in action over a year earlier than the F4U-4.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2005)

gut the corsair was an exeptional groud attack aircraft was well as the P-38, and i believe could go further on internal fuel, you take the drop tanks off a P-38 and you're going nowhere...........


----------



## The Jug Rules! (May 2, 2005)

I'd have to say the P-47n and the -4 Corsair


----------



## mosquitoman (May 2, 2005)

That avatar's a bit big Jug


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2005)

just a touch.........


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 2, 2005)

Definitely an attention getter.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2005)

YEah. Could you shrink it please?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2005)

although there has been bigger........


----------



## mosquitoman (May 2, 2005)

Has there?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2005)

yes we've had a phull size photo once, although only for a few minutes.........


----------



## evangilder (May 2, 2005)

Please shrink that avatar. It really screws up the rest of the postings.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2005)

If deleted it for now. HE can adjust when he next comes on 8)


----------



## evangilder (May 2, 2005)

Thanks. Didn't there used to be a limit on the size of 100x100 pixels?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2005)

I thought there was. Indeed it sill says thats the limit. Perhaps theres some sort of error in the coding.


----------



## wmaxt (May 2, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I've never seen P-38 climb times like that for a combat configured aircraft. The best time I've seen is 5.9 minutes to 20K for a P-38j pulling 60" hg. of manifold pressure.
> 
> I don't think it is fair to compare a non-combat configured P-38 incarnation with a combat configured F4U-4.
> 
> ...



Those times are supposed to be Half fuel, amo ballast and guns. The graph in Planes and Pilots of WWII shows a clean (no drop tanks) climb time of just a bit over 5min to 20,000ft in WEP, 1,725hp, and a little over 7min to 20,000 in normal power, 1,100hp. this is a graph and a little intrepratation is required. A normal climb of 11min to 25,000ft @ 19,400lbs is shown in the flight manual for both J and L models.

As to range full internal fuel the P-38L is rated to 1,200mi @ 285mph, 30,000ft with a 50 gal reserve. Source P-38L flight manual. I belive that's a little more than the F4U-4 on internal fuel. 

My bottom line is that these three aircraft could each be the best depending on the mission and or the Pilot. They all have advantages the others don't in certain flight regimes. The P-38L is perhaps the most versatile but that can hurt it at times too.

Wmaxt


----------



## The Jug Rules! (May 2, 2005)

Whoops! I cant see it...


Is it gone now?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2005)

Yeah it was a bit big, had to remove it. Possibilities of down-sizing it to a smaller size?


----------



## The Jug Rules! (May 2, 2005)

I didn't look at it after I posted it...sorry!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2005)

Thats ok.


----------



## Anonymous (May 2, 2005)

Well, in general I agree, all 3 were very good fighters.

As for the P-38 climb, the attached chart shows the P-38j at a takeoff weight of 16,415 lbs and a climb at 60" hg manifold pressure. My P-38 manual indicates that 65" manifold pressure was possible for the L model at 3000 rpm but it is not clear how long or under what conditions this could be used (it may not have been allowable for climb). It is clear from the nature of the graph that this is not a "normal" setting.

I've not seen a better climb rate for the P-38 listed in any reliable source. The only better climb rates I've seen are for the K model which of course was not produced.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## wmaxt (May 2, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Well, in general I agree, all 3 were very good fighters.
> 
> As for the P-38 climb, the attached chart shows the P-38j at a takeoff weight of 16,415 lbs and a climb at 60" hg manifold pressure. My P-38 manual indicates that 65" manifold pressure was possible for the L model at 3000 rpm but it is not clear how long or under what conditions this could be used (it may not have been allowable for climb). It is clear from the nature of the graph that this is not a "normal" setting.
> 
> ...


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 2, 2005)




----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 2, 2005)

Nice chart RG_Lunatic.

I am surprised that the maximum speed data is so close between the P-51B and P-47D.

Sea Level
P-51B (359mph)
P-47D (354mph)

20,000ft.
P-51B (419mph)
P-47D (419mph)

Is that that data for the P-47D with the the paddle blade? The P-47D sure is a dog in a climb at critical altitude. (1,280 ft. min. @ 25,400 ft.)

And check out the take off distance! I recall reading the following joke known among P-47 pilots:

Q - How much runway does a P-47 need to take off?

A - All of it!

Why is the service ceiling so low? I thought the P-47 had a service ceiling of almost if not 42K?


----------



## Anonymous (May 2, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Nice chart RG_Lunatic.
> 
> I am surprised that the maximum speed data is so close between the P-51B and P-47D.
> 
> ...



The P-47D was a fast plane. Also, note the figures for the P-51B are at MP not WEP (I'm not sure what WEP manifold pressure would be though - 70"?).



DAVIDICUS said:


> Is that that data for the P-47D with the the paddle blade? The P-47D sure is a dog in a climb at critical altitude. (1,280 ft. min. @ 25,400 ft.)



I don't believe the P-47 had a paddel prop or water injection. This chart is apparently from very early 1944 and the non-Vought data is older than the chart.



DAVIDICUS said:


> And check out the take off distance! I recall reading the following joke known among P-47 pilots:
> 
> Q - How much runway does a P-47 need to take off?
> 
> A - All of it!



Well, that is takeoff distance with full drop fuel and drop tanks. A fully loaded P-47 needed a lot of runway!



DAVIDICUS said:


> Why is the service ceiling so low? I thought the P-47 had a service ceiling of almost if not 42K?



US service ceilings were based upon a 500 fpm climb at MP (except where Normal Power is noted), where most other nations rated the service cieling based upon a 100 fpm climb at WEP. So it's totally apples and oranges. Most altitudes quoted on most sources use the 100 fpm rating so the cielings listed are much higher.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 2, 2005)

Thanks.

I'd sure love to get a hold of some data on the paddle prop P-47D. 8)


----------



## Anonymous (May 2, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I'd sure love to get a hold of some data on the paddle prop P-47D. 8)



Unfortunately I don't think it is available. By the time the paddle props came onto the production line P-47's, the P-47D line was already terminal. Since no new P-47D orders were to be forthcomming, there was little need for such tests. The Paddle props and ADI were retrofitted to many P-47D's (including those with birdcage canopies) in the field. By that point, the testing was on the R-2800(C) powered models - namely the M and N.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 2, 2005)

I haven't seen any test data on the P-47N either for that matter. What was the climb rate and time to altitude numbers? Speed at altitude? etc.

Do you have anything on this? (Oh please, please, please ...)


----------



## Anonymous (May 2, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> I haven't seen any test data on the P-47N either for that matter. What was the climb rate and time to altitude numbers? Speed at altitude? etc.
> 
> Do you have anything on this? (Oh please, please, please ...)



Unfortunately no  

There are some interesting documents on the P-47 at:

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/air-manuals/usaaf/

This includes some interesting doc's on the P-47 (and other planes) and the P-47N pilot handbook (which includes no climb/speed chart).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 2, 2005)

Yeah, I downloaded the pilot handbook hoping it would have some interesting performance figures.  

It is an excellent site though with a wealth of information. Thanks for bringing that site to everyone's attention.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 2, 2005)

Yeah, some interesting stuff. Thanks RG.


----------



## Anonymous (May 3, 2005)

I think RING'S PRO DOCS is the richest sight on the web for Primary Source Documents.

It is not easy to navigate all of it, as it is done by a variety of people in a variety of places, but it has some amazing documents.

Do yourselves a favor and download what you want as offline content (or however works for you). There is no telling when it might vanish. I've captured most of the aircraft material, but not much of the other material.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (May 3, 2005)

The P-47s had paddle blade props for most, if not all of the later models. Ask any former crew chief on a P-47 and they will tell you that the paddle blades were MUCH better than the Curtiss Electric "toothpick" blades. One of the guys at our museum said he was glad to see the Curtiss Electric Blades go. They often got runaways, or in some cases, the prop literally came apart while in flight! 

Hard to really tell well from photos, but one is from the prototype, with the car-type door and the Curtiss Electric props. The other is the Hamilton Standard paddle blades. Like I said, the picture does not show it very well.


----------



## Anonymous (May 3, 2005)

I've seen photos with thicker paddle blades than that:






My reading has indicated that the field unit upgrades to the Paddle props occured during the Spring and Summer of 1944, and became a production item on the P-47D-20-RE. Curtis also made paddle props for the P-47, and these were fitted to units produced at the Evansville plant.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (May 3, 2005)

That sounds about right. I just remember Joe saying the he "hated those damn toothpick props".


----------



## The Jug Rules! (May 3, 2005)

The only information I got on the Jug after the Paddle blade prop was added was from The book that Robert Johson wrote. He said that he could stick with a Spitfire 9, and hang onto Me-109's and Fw-190's better than ever.


----------



## wmaxt (May 4, 2005)

How do I post a graph from my computer to the forum?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2005)

what's it saved as??


----------



## Anonymous (May 4, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> How do I post a graph from my computer to the forum?



You have two options.

1) attach the graphic to the post, it will then be uploaded (when you hit "add attachment") and appear at the end of the post. Allowable types and sizes found here -> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attach_rules.php

2) upload the graphic to the web (or locate one already on the web), either your own webspace or to another post on this forum (I have a thread in the sigs forum for this purpose) and then put the url pointing to it in your post and surround with the image tags. Example:

{img}http://www.wherever.net/yourimage.jpg{/img}

where square brackets are used instead of curly brackets. This allows you to put the image in the middle of the post instead of at the end.

Note: to get the url of an image, right click on the image, select "properties", highlight the url to the image, and then copy (ctrl+c) the url address into the copy buffer. Then switch to your post input and paste (ctrl+v) it into the post. Then put the image tags around it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## wmaxt (May 4, 2005)

Thanks! I copied it off so I can keep it. I was going to post the graphs from the Planes and pilots of WWII of the Lockheed P-38 tests but found out after a little checking they are Copyrighted and are forbidden to post on a public forum with out specific permission.

These graphs are in the third part of the P-38 article and comfirm the P-38 performance figures I have been submitting. The tests were done using fresh aircraft in combat average trim - half internal fuel, ammo ballast, guns and no external stores. They also show 1,725hp @ 64in/hg, 28,700ft (Allison sometimes states 1,750hp for the 111/113 engines) 5.0min +/- to 20,000ft, and 443+/- top speeds. It also shows the "Standard" performace figures of 1,425hp @54in/hg (military power) and 414mph and a Normal power 1,100hp climb of 9+ min to 20,000ft. P-51 info is also included for comparison. I have seen this info elsewhere and will post it when I find it again in a format I can post.

The source of this information is in part Warren Bodie who is considered in aviation and aviation history circles a serious, respected, accurate and reliable source.

The Planes and pilots web page is at http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html

wmaxt


----------



## Anonymous (May 5, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Thanks! I copied it off so I can keep it. I was going to post the graphs from the Planes and pilots of WWII of the Lockheed P-38 tests but found out after a little checking they are Copyrighted and are forbidden to post on a public forum with out specific permission.
> 
> wmaxt



If these are government/military tests the information cannot be privately copyrighted, as it is by default property of the public. If they are lockheed tests, then the authors of the book again have no proprietary rights to them, they'd be lockheed property - thus the author's copyright would be meaningless. In order to copyright something you have to own the rights to it in the first place. Simply having exclusive access to something does not convey such rights.

A good example of this is the Aussie who found a trunk of unpublished Beatles material they recorded impromptu while in Austrailia at some beach house. He tried to copyright it but the law said no - it was property of the Beatles.

"half" internal fuel is contrary to US combat testing procedures, which dictate that the plane should have full internal fuel and that climb tests be conducted first after takeoff.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (May 5, 2005)

The data seems to correspond to this chart:







from: http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html

found on this sub-page: http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-3.html

along with some other interesting charts.

Since this is unverified company data with no references listed and it does not conform to other known test data, I'm a bit skeptical of its validity. If you can provide more context for the test - i.e. that it is at half fuel, that tends to legitimize it some - but the P-51 climb shown is at full fuel (minus 25 lbs out of the rear tank)!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

Great chart!


----------



## wmaxt (May 5, 2005)

I was of the understanding that it was half fuel used in Military Testing.  These are supposed to be Military Standard Test conditions. The chart would be meaningless if they were configured differently. Also the normal power climb is a match for published climb data. The other charts also show figures as is seen published in other places like the 414mph @ 1,425hp. I feel the data there not only makes sense, jibes with published data but is accurate. These graphs also match many of the Pilot accounts of relative performance of the P-38 though the subjective nature of those accounts must be taken into account.

I will look for better confirmation for/against and post it when I find it. C.C. Jordan "Claims" to have AAF tests that confirm the data in these charts. They are supposed to be available as Paper records in the AAF archive. Where that is and how to access them well your guess is probably a lot better than mine. The sad part in that I worked near Wright Patterson AFB a few years ago and probably could have checked it out if I'd known (presuming the AAF archive is there).

The rest of the charts are in the third part of the P-38 article in Planes and Pilots of WWII. For anybody interested in the Air War over Europe should check it out. Their web address is shown above.

wmaxt


----------



## Anonymous (May 5, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> I was of the understanding that it was half fuel used in Military Testing.  These are supposed to be Military Standard Test conditions. The chart would be meaningless if they were configured differently.
> 
> wmaxt



There were. And these were full fuel - climb test, speed test, altitude test - in that order. Sometimes the altitude test was done seperately for fuel availability reasons. Altitude was supposed to be measured under the definition service ceiling = 500 fpm climb at normal power, but this seems to have also typically been supplanted by the 100 fpm climb at MP figures, and sometimes even at WEP (for the few planes which could make WEP at extreme altitude) data which is almost always quoted.

Manufacturer tests however were not subject to these standards. Also, manufacture climb tests sometimes use the "wheels off" standard used by many other nations for time-to-climb - the US military standard was "brake off", which can make a huge difference.

The only thing that makes me suspicious about these figures is that I'm pretty sure they come from Lockheed, not the USAAF, and the figure for the (I'm pretty sure a late model) P-38J is 5.9 minutes to 20K @ 60" hg. The late model P-38J had the same engines as the P-38L but weighed less and carried less fuel. I don't think 4" more manifold pressure would make an almost 2 minute difference in climb. Clearly however, 1/2 fuel + 64" hg. (or more) manifold pressure + measure from "wheels off" could make that much difference. Also, doing the test from cold condtions could add a little to the climb (denser air makes for better airfoil lift and more engine power).

What I'd really like to see is the date and location of the test and the test conditions from Lockheed.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > I was of the understanding that it was half fuel used in Military Testing.  These are supposed to be Military Standard Test conditions. The chart would be meaningless if they were configured differently.
> ...



I worked with flight test engineers at Lockheed, some of them were there in the early 40s and it seems that the engineers along with guys from design (Ole Kelly to name one) would set the profile for the flight test on "inhouse stuff." I could tell you that when I was there and these guys were getting ready to retire, much of the midset was the same in 1980 as it was in 45'.


----------



## wmaxt (May 5, 2005)

I can understand your reluctance to accept this data at face value but a couple of things to consider. 

If Lockheed was selling me this aircraft with this data I'd think twice too. This data was researched and released through Bodie in the late '80s not by Lockheed to sell the plane.

The P-38J had V1710-17 /15 series engines of 1,600hp. The P-38L had V1710-30 series engines of 1725hp.

The P-38L in METO power is 1,425hp and 414mph, 1,725 in WEP to get to 443mph. A 29mph increase for 600hp.
The P-51D in METO is 1,495hp for 424mph and 1,650hp in WEP for 437mph. A 13mph change for 155hp. 

That's 4 times the hp for the P-38 to have roughly twice the increase in speed. Which with the P-38 nearing it's criticle mach works with the "As speed doubles drag (and hp) increasses by four times" rule. Remember were only talking an increase of 6.5% in speed. I also say up front that more speed from the P-38 would need extensive redesign like the P-51 and P-47 got to get their speeds above 450mph.

If we can get better definition of the tests and they are lower I'll accept it but at least for now these are the best indication of the P-38 performance above METO throttle settings. So for now I'm going to stick with these numbers.

I will keep on looking and I will post the data I find regaurdless if it matches or is lower. I am sure you will too. 

wmaxt


----------



## Anonymous (May 6, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> I can understand your reluctance to accept this data at face value but a couple of things to consider.
> 
> If Lockheed was selling me this aircraft with this data I'd think twice too. This data was researched and released through Bodie in the late '80s not by Lockheed to sell the plane.
> 
> ...



The info I have for the J series is that it had the Allison V-1710-89(91) engines, developing 1425 HP (normal power), vs the L series V-1710-F30R(F30L), also refered to as the -111/113 engines developing 1475 HP (normal power). The empty weight of the L was over 1300 lbs higher than the empty weight of the J.

The big problem I have with the Lockheed figures is that I suspect these derive from the "YIPPEE" plane, which was a P-38J, the 5000th unit off the line, and it had the engines off the L version so it was really sort of a light-weight L.











This plane was hopped up and used for both flight tests and stunt flying by Lockheed test pilots at airshows. I think it also had water-injection (which i don't think the production units had but I'm not sure of that). It was painted Red with the word "YIPPEE" painted across the bottom of the wing in big letters.

Edit: (here's a quote I found since writing this post)


> The 5,000th Lightning built, a P-38J, was painted fire-engine red, and had the name "YIPPEE" painted on the underside of the wings in big letters. This aircraft was used by Lockheed test pilots Milo Burcham and Tony LeVier in remarkable flight demonstrations, performing such stunts as slow rolls at treetop level with one prop feathered to show that the P-38 was not the unmanageable beast of legend. Their exploits did much to reassure pilots that the Lightning might be a handful, but it was no "widow maker".
> click here for link



While this plane showed the potential of the P-38, it is not representative of the planes combat performance levels. Lockheed would however have the data related to it and for company vanity reasons sneak it in as P-38J or L data. Lockheed is a very proud company after all (and with good reason).

So I'm suspicious of the Lockheed company test data as I think I've got good reason to believe it does not reflect a real combat plane's performance. For that matter, I'm somewhat suspicious of all company data unless it is confirmed by miltary testing at a later date and within reasonable margins of comparability.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2005)

> So I'm suspicious of the Lockheed company test data as I think I've got good reason to believe it does not reflect a real combat plane's performance. For that matter, I'm somewhat suspicious of all company data unless it is confirmed by miltary testing at a later date and within reasonable margins of comparability.



RG - I would definitely agree with you!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2005)

yes i never believe predicted figures or figures of prototypes untill they haved pulled off them stats in combat.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2005)

Even during the war years as so true today, the manufacturer has one thing in mind - SELL AIRPLANES. Sure, they want to give you a quality product, but they are going to make that product look as good as possible, so they could MOVE UNITS and MAKE PROFITS. You should have seen what the Lockheed marketing pukes did and said during the L1011 days!


----------



## wmaxt (May 6, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Even during the war years as so true today, the manufacturer has one thing in mind - SELL AIRPLANES. Sure, they want to give you a quality product, but they are going to make that product look as good as possible, so they could MOVE UNITS and MAKE PROFITS. You should have seen what the Lockheed marketing pukes did and said during the L1011 days!



While I do agree with both you and RG at least to a point. There are at least two refrences that dissagree with your points. Again these graphs were not made public until the late '80 and not by Lockheed even then.

RG that engine data is for the Sub Series of the engines. the actuall series numbers for the L was like this V-1710-30-111/113 with the 111/113 denoting right or left rotation and other specific build details like intake manifolds. These engines are in those logs starting with P-38L-1-LO. My source for the engine data is the Lockheed build logs as published in Warren Bodies Book "The P-38 Lightning" as well as the "Planes and Pilots" web site. As you have noted and backed up the J engine (which was also used in the H model) was capable of 1,600hp, 125 extra hp out of an additional 4in/hg is not unreasonable with an engine of that size. Isn't the difference between 1,425hp @ 54in/hg to 1,600hp at 60in/hg simalar? Warren Bodie is respected for his accuracy not fabricationand has been since the 1950's.

Water injection is not referenced in the production aircraft.

There is NO reference anywhere that YIPPEE was "Hopped up". The plane Tony LeVier used in the ETO for exhibitions was available off the line there. There is no reason to belive the red plane was different. The aircraft Mattern used for the same purposes was also picked out of delivered aircraft supplies.

As you have noted before RG derated data was released while the aircraft were in service and that data continues to be used today. That does not make the data more correct.

Skepticism is good but we know that the usual specs for the P-38 are at METO power because they specify the power level. The WEP capabilities MUST be between the two numbers. The numbers used in the "Planes and Pilots" article may be high but there as/more accurate as a comparison of WEP figures of other aircraft to the P-38s METO figures so many people use. This data is not unreasonable considering were talking a 6.5% increase above 20,000ft. Lets at least get information that relates on a one on one basis!

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> There is NO reference anywhere that YIPPEE was "Hopped up". The plane Tony LeVier used in the ETO for exhibitions was available off the line there. There is no reason to belive the red plane was different. The aircraft Mattern used for the same purposes was also picked out of delivered aircraft supplies. wmaxt



I believe you are quite correct. After Tony LeVeir retired he ran an aviation safety consulting company out of the old Burbank Facilities, my ex-wife worked close to his office. Back then I did some part-time freelance writing for a local aviation newspaper called Aerotech News and Review. I interviewed LeVeir on two occasions and remember him taking about "YIPPEE." It was stock and he, "Fish" Salmon and Milo Burcham all flew that aircraft around at one time or another. I remember him telling me that only thing special about "YIPPEE" was the paint.


----------



## wmaxt (May 6, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > There is NO reference anywhere that YIPPEE was "Hopped up". The plane Tony LeVier used in the ETO for exhibitions was available off the line there. There is no reason to belive the red plane was different. The aircraft Mattern used for the same purposes was also picked out of delivered aircraft supplies. wmaxt
> ...



Thanks! You may know more of the truth about the P-38 than any of us.

Belive it or not I want the correct data to use. I also agree that one set of data without back-up is suspect. I've looked at the data presented in these references from many angles as presented here and feel that it is not unreasonable as presented in the "Planes and Pilots" web page. Saying that does not mean it is all correct with out a doubt but it fits the empirical data from first hand accounts to the tests that are considered gospel.

Lets level the playing field?

wmaxt


----------



## Anonymous (May 7, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > There is NO reference anywhere that YIPPEE was "Hopped up". The plane Tony LeVier used in the ETO for exhibitions was available off the line there. There is no reason to belive the red plane was different. The aircraft Mattern used for the same purposes was also picked out of delivered aircraft supplies. wmaxt
> ...



Several references I've read indicate the YIPEE had the engines from the L, not the J. However, this may have applied to all the very late J series planes, just before the switch over to L production? Also that it was carefully polished, the non flush rivets were filed flat, and it had no armor and faked guns.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 7, 2005)

RG said:


> Also that it was carefully polished, the non flush rivets were filed flat, and it had no armor and faked guns.



which would have had a huge effect on top speed as was shown with that specail Bf-109 that i believe it was alder posted the stats for, and it's rediculous to believe stats from a plane with no armour, heavily polished and had fake guns, as being the same as data a combat ready plane could reach...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > There is NO reference anywhere that YIPPEE was "Hopped up". The plane Tony LeVier used in the ETO for exhibitions was available off the line there. There is no reason to belive the red plane was different. The aircraft Mattern used for the same purposes was also picked out of delivered aircraft supplies. wmaxt
> ...



Everything I have read so for back up these statements. Does anyone know the planes exact serial number?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2005)

S/N 44-23296 - Yippiee's S/N


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Also that it was carefully polished, the non flush rivets were filed flat, and it had no armor and faked guns.
> ...


----------



## Anonymous (May 7, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> RG said:
> 
> 
> > Also that it was carefully polished, the non flush rivets were filed flat, and it had no armor and faked guns.
> ...



Well, I know it was carfully polished. I think it had fake guns and the pilot armor removed - but I cannot find the article on the YIPPEE to confirm this.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2005)

Yippee had guns, see the photo. It was at this time when some manufacturing engineers at Lockheed got into polishing aircraft. Yippee was probably amoung the first, the XP-80R is a well know expamle of this.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 7, 2005)

yes but that picture shows what appear to be guns, it does not show if they're fake or not..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2005)

I would think that those are real guns. During that time (1944) I don't think anyone wanted to waste time fabricating fake guns and removing them would mean plugging the gun port holes and adding ballast to take up the gun weight for weight and balance purposes. I think the easiest thing to do was to leave them installed. I think those are real guns are installed and possibly deactivated.


----------



## Anonymous (May 7, 2005)

I believe the barrels were cut off and for show only. I saw a photo of the YIPPEE from its tour through Europe with the 431st FS showing booze packed into several compartments of the plane. One compartment was the nose section and it had a caption that said something like "Extra ballast was needed to keep the YIPPEE properly balanced" (in reference to the other photos showing booze packed into the tail boom compartments and behind the pilot).

As for actual balance, the plane would be in balance w/o the rear armor. As for the dificulty in "fabricating" guns, it would be easy to cut barrels, or even use full barrels, and only use the foward part of the mounts to secure them.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I believe the barrels were cut off and for show only. I saw a photo of the YIPPEE from its tour through Europe with the 431st FS showing booze packed into several compartments of the plane. One compartment was the nose section and it had a caption that said something like "Extra ballast was needed to keep the YIPPEE properly balanced" (in reference to the other photos showing booze packed into the tail boom compartments and behind the pilot).
> 
> As for actual balance, the plane would be in balance w/o the rear armor. As for the dificulty in "fabricating" guns, it would be easy to cut barrels, or even use full barrels, and only use the foward part of the mounts to secure them.



Agreed - see the photo. Cutting barrels could be messy (I think the only way you're going to do that is with a cutting torch). Even in that photos of YIPPEE those barrels look pretty intact. You're not going to separate the front part of the gun barrel, its probably one piece, so I think the guns would remain in tact.

Removing armor plate is generally not a problem, the worse thing you would have to do is add ballast forward or aft of the datum line


----------



## wmaxt (May 7, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the barrels were cut off and for show only. I saw a photo of the YIPPEE from its tour through Europe with the 431st FS showing booze packed into several compartments of the plane. One compartment was the nose section and it had a caption that said something like "Extra ballast was needed to keep the YIPPEE properly balanced" (in reference to the other photos showing booze packed into the tail boom compartments and behind the pilot).
> ...



Ballast was added in the Droop Snoots and any P-38 that did not have Guns or cameras to maintain the center of gravity.

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (May 7, 2005)

You know guy's I agree 1 set of info is suspect to a point. Manufactures data can be suspect, even if it is published by a respected author.

To this point the arguments have been derogatory, inuendo, supposition, antagonistic and a lot of I"ve never seen this data so it has to be bad. Let's look at what we have so far.

1) I've never seen this data - So all that means is that you've never seen it before - not that it doesn't exist or that it isn't good.
2) I've never seen this data before and it's suspect as is manufactururs data to sell the aircraft.
a) It's been used here before, at least the chart on roll rate. Do we only use data we like?
b) Lockheed did NOT have to sell the P-38 in mid '44 they already had a contract for as many P-38s they could build. The P-38 was in demand everywhere but the 8th airforce. The war was expected to last another 2+ years at this point in mid '44, and a second source was in the works at this time (Consolidated which built 113 L models).
c) This data was for internal use only.
d) The military was also known for biased tests of aircraft it liked/disliked.
3) The demonstration aircraft were off the line - why would they build special aircraft for their testing?
4) Why is 125hp extra so hard to accept from a new series of engine that can handle a little more boost. Remember the K model, with High Output engines of the series (-15) the P-38G used, 1,875hp for max projected speeds of 450+ and a climb rate of 5,000+ feet initial? the data for the L is in the middle of the J/K data where it should be. 
5) The L model should be better than the J why would you send out an airplane with less performance than that of its predessor? You wouldn't, not into combat!
6) A lot of new data has come out since the '80s, mostly through the freedom of information act. Just because this comes from Lockheed makes it automaticaly wrong and if so by how much? Maybe they are high but again by how much? Using the standard 414mph as the ultimate top speed of the P-38L is also crap especiale since it is at METO power!
7) I've already shown the numbers are reasonable. To discount them because we haven't seen them before is rediculous. Though I agree that until they are verified they need to be taken with a grain of salt.

The biggest question I have at this point is why is it so important to some to disscount this data as out of hand? It is certainly not to give the P-38 its true performance capabilities.

wmaxt


----------



## Anonymous (May 7, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> You know guy's I agree 1 set of info is suspect to a point. Manufactures data can be suspect, even if it is published by a respected author.
> 
> To this point the arguments have been derogatory, inuendo, supposition, antagonistic and a lot of I"ve never seen this data so it has to be bad. Let's look at what we have so far.
> 
> 1) I've never seen this data - So all that means is that you've never seen it before - not that it doesn't exist or that it isn't good.



Agreed, that alone is not enough to discount it.



wmaxt said:


> 2) I've never seen this data before and it's suspect as is manufactururs data to sell the aircraft.
> a) It's been used here before, at least the chart on roll rate. Do we only use data we like?



The roll rate chart matches other data reasonably, and therefore is more easily accepted.



wmaxt said:


> b) Lockheed did NOT have to sell the P-38 in mid '44 they already had a contract for as many P-38s they could build. The P-38 was in demand everywhere but the 8th airforce. The war was expected to last another 2+ years at this point in mid '44, and a second source was in the works at this time(Consolidated which built 113 L models).
> c) This data was for internal use only.
> d) The military was also known for biased tests of aircraft it liked/disliked.



"d" is only slightly true and not in the context of altering the test data.

"c" I agree with, the problem is we do not no the full conditions of the test nor do we have the specifics of the test or any comment that the data is based on an actual flight test. Compilation data is often much more favorable than a standard test where everything but occassionaly the service cieling data is collected in a single run under specified conditions.

Finally, there is also the argument of company pride. Lockheed is a very proud company (rightfully so) and the desire to make its famous P-38 stack up against other WWII fighters as well as possible in a comparison would be high. The fact that this data was released so long after the war, but before the FoIA laws required it, with no real verfiable documentation, tends to cast suspicion on why it was released and thus the validity of the data.



wmaxt said:


> 3) The demonstration aircraft were off the line - why would they build special aircraft for their testing?



Lots of "special aircraft" were configured for testing - the P-38K is a case in point. Surely many minor variations were tried on test aircraft. But... this was not a test aircraft, it was a demonstration aircraft. The desire to wow the audience, especially pilots, would have been significant.



wmaxt said:


> 4) Why is 125hp extra so hard to accept from a new series of engine that can handle a little more boost. Remember the K model, with High Output engines of the series (-15) the P-38G used, 1,875hp for max projected speeds of 450+ and a climb rate of 5,000+ feet initial? the data for the L is in the middle of the J/K data where it should be.



It's not. What is questionable is that this is enough added HP given the weight difference to justify a decrease in the time to climb to 20k of 18%.

Also, as I said before, I believe the YIPPEE was a J series plane with L series engines. Some sources list it as having been an L for this reason. Quite a few sources indicate that the late model J series was the best performing of the service P-38's.



wmaxt said:


> 5) The L model should be better than the J why would you send out an airplane with less performance than that of its predessor? You wouldn't, not into combat!



Increase fuel supply and thus range, but also weight, mean less performance. The P-51B performed better in most respects than the P-51D, so this argument is obviously invalid.



wmaxt said:


> 6) A lot of new data has come out since the '80s, mostly through the freedom of information act. Just because this comes from Lockheed makes it automaticaly wrong and if so by how much? Maybe they are high but again by how much? Using the standard 414mph as the ultimate top speed of the P-38L is also crap especiale since it is at METO power!



I agree, the P-38L was faster than 414 mph, all I'm saying is that we simply don't have any good data concerning its true performance.



wmaxt said:


> 7) I've already shown the numbers are reasonable. To discount them because we haven't seen them before is rediculous. Though I agree that until they are verified they need to be taken with a grain of salt.
> 
> The biggest question I have at this point is why is it so important to some to disscount this data as out of hand? It is certainly not to give the P-38 its true performance capabilities.
> 
> wmaxt



The numbers are reasonable but high. As I've said before, I suspect they reflect a J series plane with the L series engines (or J series engines modified to L series specs) that was polished up and carefully tuned for improved demonstration performance. But we just don't know for sure.

In general, I'm just opposed to taking company figures as fact. We do this all the time for many planes - especially Axis planes. However I don't think such figures reflect actual combat performance. I'm opposed to taking such data, or any data that is not obtained from actual flight tests of aircraft under known conditions, as "truth". To accept the Lockheed data, as presented, would set a bad precident.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 8, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Ballast was added in the Droop Snoots and any P-38 that did not have Guns or cameras to maintain the center of gravity. wmaxt



This is common on any WW2 or post war civilian operated combat flighter aircraft when removing armament and any armor plating. 

Post war jets (Migs, F-86 etc.) and helicopters are REAL critical in this area!


----------



## wmaxt (May 8, 2005)

Does anyone know where to go to gain access to information that would back this data up either for or against?

RG, the military aircraft tests were biased, that was my point and it is still true. You are the one pushing the "Modified Test Aircraft".

The graph on roll rates is acceptabe bucause it matches other released data? The graphs accompaning it also have data that matches other released data. Are we back to choosing what we like? All of these points only add to the likely hood that this info is correct. 

As to the K, yes new modifications and improvements were tried - I notice that it is designated that way too.

The P-51D was essentialy of the same performance catagory as the B model, a lateral move not a downward one. The extra visability was considered worth the slight loss of speed esp with the H model on the horizon. My comment on not sending less capable aircraft still stands.

As for releasing this data before the FoIA, it was almost 50 years since production endded, and what 10 P-38s were still flying? Are you infering that Lockheed was trying to sell more P-38s.

My biggest issue here is that in order to debunk this info (that is probably true) the only recourse is to accuse Lockheed of cheating. The only indication of cheating is that some people don't like the information as presented. 

A funny part of this is that YIPPEE was a demonstration aircraft not a test aircraft or racer and every thing it did, could and was done by any P-38 chosen (in military demonstrations the plane used was aquired from the nearest depot in reguards to the demonstration point, and in some cases off the line). To make it slicker would actually be a hinderance in any maneuver requiring a dive as the speed increase is, in most cases, a problem near the ground.

I for one would really like to know the truth. I know I'm not the only person that thinks this data is close if not completely valid but confirmation would be appreciated either way. 

wmaxt


----------



## Anonymous (May 8, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Does anyone know where to go to gain access to information that would back this data up either for or against?



If you can gather enough info about the test - where it was done, when it was done, who did it, name of the test, etc... then you can do an FoIA inquiry, it's pretty cheap. The less info you have the more expensive the research request, as they charge by the hour after the initial fee is used up, and the odds of getting back anything of value go way down.



wmaxt said:


> RG, the military aircraft tests were biased, that was my point and it is still true. You are the one pushing the "Modified Test Aircraft".



Explain how. USN tests were very strait forward. Usually an instructor and 3 fresh flight school grads took up for fresh planes and conducted the tests according to the specified test methods. Full internal fuel was loaded, climb tests were conducted, speed tests were conducted, and finally if fuel provided altitude tests might be conducted. That was pretty much it. 



wmaxt said:


> The P-51D was essentialy of the same performance catagory as the B model, a lateral move not a downward one. The extra visability was considered worth the slight loss of speed esp with the H model on the horizon. My comment on not sending less capable aircraft still stands.



Climb to 20k took about 1 minute longer. Top speed was down by almost 10 mph. Turning capability was inferior. Vision, firepower, and range were increased.

With the P-38L vs. the late J, the range was increased, so the performance may have dropped slightly. Why would this not be possible? If they accepted a slight reduction in combat performance in the P-51D vs. the P-51B for an increase in range, why not for the P-38L vs. the P-38J?



wmaxt said:


> As for releasing this data before the FoIA, it was almost 50 years and what 10 P-38s were still flying? Are you infering that Lockheed was trying to sell more P-38s.



Actually, IIRC this data came out in 1972, about 27 years after the end of WWII.

No, I'm implying that Lockheed is a proud company and one of its people may have seen the data being released as not giving the P-38 it's due and decided to rectify this. Not everything is about money.



wmaxt said:


> My biggest issue here is that in order to debunk this info (that could very well be true) the only recourse is to accuse Lockheed of cheating. The only indication of cheating is that some people don't like the information as presented. The funny part is that YIPPEE was a demonstration aircraft not a test aircraft or racer and every thing it did, could and was done by any P-38 chosen (in military demonstrations the plane used was aquired from the nearest depot in reguards to the demonstration point). To make it slicker would actually be a hinderance in any maneuver requiring a dive as the speed increase is, in most cases, a problem near the ground.



Cheating? Not quite, simply presenting the most favorable information without presenting the full information so it could be put in proper context.

As for the dive's, the YIPPEE was a late mode J, it had dive recovery flaps, so that's not a problem.



wmaxt said:


> I for one would really like to know the truth. I know I'm not the only person that thinks this data is close if not completely valid but confirmation would be appreciated either way.
> 
> It's time the P-38 took its rightfull place in the hierachy of WWII piston aircraft.
> 
> wmaxt



Well, in general I agree. I believe the P-38's performance was better than that generally reported. However, I simply don't like the idea of setting a precident of always using the best data available no matter the source, and no matter the number of unknowns about the conditions of the test.

What we really need to do is try to get a hold of a primary source document that confirms the performance claims from Lockheed.Unfortunately, Lockheed does not answer questions about is history. So the only sources will be the military or secondary sources.  

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## wmaxt (May 8, 2005)

YIPPEE was a J-10 without the flaps (though they could have been retrofitted).
Also, most demonstrations are at altitudes below 10,000ft so they can be seen easily, the dive flap requirement in negligable. This was not a test aircraft.

Every account comparing the J to the L is that it was a Significantly better aircraft in every way. Until we get data that matches this we don't have the correct data!

So are you suggesting the we continue to use data that is off by 20+ mph and climb data that's off by 1 to 2 minuets to 20k? That's worse than using information from a respected Author.

I wonder if there's any way to contact Warren Bodie, who probably has the information we need? I belive he was born in the '20s so time is running out if it hasn't already.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 8, 2005)

Warren Bodie would be the best guy to contact. With the Burbank facilities closed and demolished, I know much of the archived stuff (old drawings, engineering papers etc.) are gone. There used to be an excellent library at the Burbank facilities, in the early 80s I spent hours in there looking over all kinds of papers, company periodicals and engineering reports. Even then (1982), much of the old brass was gone or getting ready to retire and the custodians of the library really didn't appreciate the value in saving much of this archived information.

I believe if any significant archived stuff exists, it would be either at the Lockheed Martin Georgia facilities or the Skunkworks facility in Palmdale CA. If someone has an "in" with Brodie, he might know who to talk to today and find out where you could get some is this P-38 performance information.

Keep this in mind; In 1990 the Chino Air Museum requested some P-38 data for repairs to their museum's P-38, the brass at Burbank denied this request. When I heard about this I queried my boss and volunteered to help. He told me that even if I was doing this on my time, there was still an "outlay of overhead" and the company couldn't afford to spend overhead on "freebie"projects! Several months later close to 6,000 people were layed-off (me being one of them). As RG stated, you're going to get little or no help from Lockheed unless you're lucky enough to have someone like Warren Brodie who might know who to direct these requests to!


----------



## Anonymous (May 8, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Every account comparing the J to the L is that it was a Significantly better aircraft in every way. Until we get data that matches this we don't have the correct data!



I've read that the late J series was the best P-38 version, and that some of the very late J series planes had the same engine power coupled with the dive brakes, power ailerons, but without the extra fuel tanks and thus weight of the L series.



wmaxt said:


> So are you suggesting the we continue to use data that is off by 20+ mph and climb data that's off by 1 to 2 minuets to 20k? That's worse than using information from a respected Author.
> 
> wmaxt



No. I believe both sets of data should be considered. What we do have is known military test results for the P-38J, and company tests for the L.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

Food for thought; the US military, 60 years ago or today will not put out a "TO" (Technical Order) which is essentially the pilot's manual (and all other flight and maintenance manuals) unless what is in that book matches exactly what the aircraft is advertised to do. The data in the pilot's manual should be the basis of any analysis. If any test reports exist showing higher over-all performance, so be it, but be rest assured, as far as the USAAF was concerned, what was in the pilot's manual is gospel - period!


----------



## Anonymous (May 10, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Food for thought; the US military, 60 years ago or today will not put out a "TO" (Technical Order) which is essentially the pilot's manual (and all other flight and maintenance manuals) unless what is in that book matches exactly what the aircraft is advertised to do. The data in the pilot's manual should be the basis of any analysis. If any test reports exist showing higher over-all performance, so be it, but be rest assured, as far as the USAAF was concerned, what was in the pilot's manual is gospel - period!



Perhaps higher performance levels were not issued, but TO's were issued restricting performance to something below the advertised levels. I know there were several such TO's w.r.t. the P-39, for example.

The F4U-4 pilots manual lists 4.9 minutes to 20k (based on 1946 flight tests), where Vought lists 5 minutes to 20K (based on 1944 flight tests). Not sure what's up there???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Food for thought; the US military, 60 years ago or today will not put out a "TO" (Technical Order) which is essentially the pilot's manual (and all other flight and maintenance manuals) unless what is in that book matches exactly what the aircraft is advertised to do. The data in the pilot's manual should be the basis of any analysis. If any test reports exist showing higher over-all performance, so be it, but be rest assured, as far as the USAAF was concerned, what was in the pilot's manual is gospel - period!
> ...



I think what you're seeing is a phenomena during aircraft manufacturing that could only be labeled as "build of of tolerances," which may cause aircraft to perform differently depending where and when they were manufactured. For example, you many be producing 300 aircraft down an assembly line. Fabricated parts and sub assemblies carry a manufacturing tolerance of say +/- .010. combine this when assembled and then placed into larger sub assemblies, the variances begin. When larger assemblies hit the assembly jigs, the tolerances may now be a lot tighter, thus resulting in rework during major assembly. This may produce additional variances in dimensions through out the airframe assembly process. To further compound this situation, while you're manufacturing these aircraft the assembly tooling wears. By the time you get to the 300th aircraft, that aircraft may be dimensionally in tolerance, but may different in its asymmetry from the first aircraft assembled, while still being in tolerance. This could definitely cause performance variances between aircraft, therefore when the TOs are produced they would normally reflect the most conservative numbers

When I worked at several aircraft manufacturers, I seen this happen quite often. You usually get an aircraft at some point of the manufacturing process that performs better than advertised. As a result of this, aircraft manufacturers have adopted a process called 
Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing which considers total tolerances of detailed parts and sub assemblies as compared to adjoining parts during the assembly process. This process did not exist during WW2.


----------



## wmaxt (May 10, 2005)

Tolerances do change and affect each aircraft differently. It is also true the T.O. is considered the only facts that apply. It is equaly true that variances in the field make a huge difference in the performance of individual aircraft. Which plane is waxed, which has paint etc.

In '43/'44 Art Heiden flew 300+ combat hours with the same engines and no aborts. This was a time where P-38 engine problems were the highest. An egine issue or Pilot/maintenance issues and what other capabilities were affected?

There is also a story about a "Perfect B-17" that needed NO trim adjustments for the airframe. It wen't through the war (1 1/2 tours I belive), the red cross ferry flights, arial mapping tour, a year of "Geologic Year" studies in both the artic and the antartic and never had an injury or death on board. The aircraft was brought back to the US in the '80s to be restored for a museum. 5 of the original crew met the plane as it landed.

Everything that happens to an aircraft affects its performance. I think this is why the AAF never puts the Max performance figures in it's T.O.s/flight manuals. In practice settings lower than shown in the manuals are often used especialy in formation situations. Performance figures were reduced after the war in some cases too.

wmaxt


----------



## evangilder (May 10, 2005)

You wouldn't happen to know which B-17 that is, would you? I am curious.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

When I worked at Lockheed building P-3s our subcontractor who built the wing dropped a right wing at their factory. It was repaired and shipped to Burbank. During final assy., it was discovered that part of the flap bay was rebuilt outside the assembly jig and this resulted in a slightly wider gap between the right flap and right wing as compared to the left wing and left flap. I was told by our production flight test guys that at max power and at altitude the P-3 would not trim through its vertical axis. Not only did this particular aircraft trim straight, it was about 10 knots faster! The customer who this plane was going to at first was not going to accept it, but changed their minds when they saw the test results! (NS if you're reading this it was the 5th or 6th CP-140 built!  ).


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 10, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> (NS if you're reading this it was the 5th or 6th CP-140 built!  ).


An interesting bit of trivia that I knew nothing about. Cool!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > (NS if you're reading this it was the 5th or 6th CP-140 built!  ).
> ...



It might be S/S 140106 or 07.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Everything that happens to an aircraft affects its performance. wmaxt



I've flown airplanes that were repaired after a major accident. Although repaired correctly, for the most part, they are never the same.


----------



## wmaxt (May 11, 2005)

evangilder said:


> You wouldn't happen to know which B-17 that is, would you? I am curious.



evan, I don't remember I watched its aquisition, return and delivery pretty closely but it was 1986 or so and I only remember the gist of it now.

I think it was to go to a museum on the East Coast maybe even the Air and Space museum.

wmaxt


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 11, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It might be S/S 140106 or 07.


I actually know a couple of guys who do a lot of the maintenance on the ones that fly out of CFB Greenwood. I may just pass this on to them. 
For all I know that particular aircraft might be out on the west coast, but what the hell. You never know.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > It might be S/S 140106 or 07.
> ...



I also know on one CP-140 that Lockheed mislocated a bomb bay bulkhead, causing the bomb bay doors not to fit. A special set were made for that particualr aircraft and the CAF were given an extra set of bomb bay doors just for that aircraft. I would guess that would of been aroud the 10th unit built.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 12, 2005)

Christ, were they _all_ defects?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Christ, were they _all_ defects?



Yep, at that time Lockheed was hiring a bunch of "newbees," some of them straight out of trades school or some hired from a Lockheed run training program. In the late 1970s, early 80s there were alot of projects going and many of these newbees were let loose on the P-3 and L1011 subassembly. If they got good in their trade they had the opportunity to transfer to a higher paying job in the "Skunk Works," working on a "classified project." The P-3 fuselages were assembled at Burbank, plant A1 at a dreadful place known as "the docks." It is there where the nose section (Built by Fleet Industries, Ft. Erie Ont.) was joined up with 2 barrel sections, made in Burbank, and a "stubwing" center fuselage made by Canadair. When the "barrel" that involved the bomb bay area on this bird was being built, some brainiac decided to remove the assembly before the thing was fully assembled. Everything shifted and the idiot supervisor though he could continue to assemble the thing outside the tooling. Later his screw-up was discovered, needless to say he was applying at McDonnell Douglas the following week!

Anyway, somewhat back to the subject thread: 

Friends, take a look at the P-38 nose section. Turn it upside down and you got a P-80 nose section! I was told this was done on purpose to utilize some of the same P-38 tooling to rapidly develope the P-80!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2005)

Wow so it is! I would never have noticed that


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Wow so it is! I would never have noticed that



I believe the wing tips, some of the landing gear components (the landing gear was built by a company called Menasco based a few miles from the Burbank plant), and some of the controls surfaces sub assemblies might also be common.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

Interesting I never realized that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

I think other things like rudder pedals and control knobs were also common between the two aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

It makes an easier way to build and faster too.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 17, 2005)

I actually knew this info as well.... It makes u wonder why more facilities didnt do this as well.... Woulda saved a hell of alot of $$$.......


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 17, 2005)

I didn't know that part about the nose section. Interesting.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

In todays world, much of the F-117A was taken from other aircraft, primarily from the F-16. No wonder Lockheed eventually bought the F-16 division of General Dynamics!


----------



## lesofprimus (May 17, 2005)

LoL....


> No wonder Lockheed eventually bought the F-16 division of General Dynamics!


Now that was funny................


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2005)

The F-117 used parts off other aircraft to cover it's development though, didn't it? I heard it uses the rear-undercarriage off an A-10.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The F-117 used parts off other aircraft to cover it's development though, didn't it? I heard it uses the rear-undercarriage off an A-10.



Yep - MLG from an A-10, F-16 FBW system, F-18 engines w/o afterburner from what I could remember


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

That I did not know. I knew that Lockheed bought the F-16 division but I did not know the F-117 was incorporated from different parts! Besides obvious reasons such as cost, I wonder why they did this.


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2005)

To cover it's development. It was a secret project. In the orders for these parts it just looks like they're repairing A-10s and stuff.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2005)

The Skunk Works - These guys are always thinking!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2005)

plan_D said:


> To cover it's development. It was a secret project. In the orders for these parts it just looks like they're repairing A-10s and stuff.



There was also a bunch of fictitious companies made up to hide the fact that Lockheed was building a classified aircraft. When I was working on the P-3 program in the early 80s, I would visit suppliers in the LA area. While at these suppliers I would see co-workers who were on the 117 program. These guys would see me and pretend they didn't know me. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2005)

i didn't know that, quite amazing.......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2005)

Intra Systems West, JR Ramsey Inc. are two that come to mind. During this period Lockheed was building the P-3, L1011 subassemblies, and conducting P-3 and S-3 experimental flight testing on 1 or 2 aircraft. These programs were know as "white world." You would guess these programs encompassed about 1000 people max., but yet 6,000 people worked at Burbank, all in the Skunk Works and many in buildings 309 and 310 (long demolished). It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

plan_D said:


> To cover it's development. It was a secret project. In the orders for these parts it just looks like they're repairing A-10s and stuff.



A secret project that everyone knew was being developed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > To cover it's development. It was a secret project. In the orders for these parts it just looks like they're repairing A-10s and stuff.
> ...



To a point.... We laughed when the F-19 model came out!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

I thought it was inspired by GI-Joe!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I thought it was inspired by GI-Joe!



There was a legend that a Lockheed security guy purposely leaked disinformation about the F-19 to the model folks during a pub crawl.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

That would be funny. I would have loved to have been at that table.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2005)

You bet! STORYTIME: My last month at Lockheed there were these two spotters taking photos of the 737 used to transport folks to the various "sites." I came out of an entrance where these guys were taking their pictures. I was wearing a black suit, white shirt, black tie and sunglasses. They asked me if I came off "that" plane. I said in a very monotone voice "YES." (I was actually in an adjoining building). Then they asked if I worked for Lockheed, I told them "NO, I'M NOT FROM THIS SYSTEM." As I was walking away, I could hear their cameras clicking away! By the time I got to my car I just about peed myself from laughing so hard!


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 19, 2005)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 20, 2005)




----------



## evangilder (May 20, 2005)

Hilarious! Were you coming out of the Janet terminal, by chance?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2005)

Exactly! Came out of the Janet terminal. These guys probably thought I was a MIB or an alien! I was even carrying a metal "Zero" briefcase!


----------



## evangilder (May 20, 2005)

Too funny. It would have been even better if you had had a hat made of tinfoil to put on! The people hanging out there shure seem to be wearing them!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Too funny. It would have been even better if you had had a hat made of tinfoil to put on! The people hanging out there shure seem to be wearing them!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

That is some good stuff. The press out there can be so manipulitive. They were probably reall pissed off once they realized what had just gone down.


----------



## superunknown (May 25, 2005)

I'm not sure really which one was best by the end of the war, they all had their good points. But I will tell you one thing, the P-51 was best overall since it was re-developed and re-used so many times post war. P-82 Twin Mustang, F-6, Cavalier Mustang, Cavailer Turbo Mustang, Piper Enforcer. As late as the 1980's this bird was still being considered as a viable aircraft for the USAF. So from a design development point of view the P-51 wins hands down.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2005)

but in terms of ability, some of the others did do better........


----------



## wmaxt (May 25, 2005)

superunknown said:


> I'm not sure really which one was best by the end of the war, they all had their good points. But I will tell you one thing, the P-51 was best overall since it was re-developed and re-used so many times post war. P-82 Twin Mustang, F-6, Cavalier Mustang, Cavailer Turbo Mustang, Piper Enforcer. As late as the 1980's this bird was still being considered as a viable aircraft for the USAF. So from a design development point of view the P-51 wins hands down.



The Mustang was a good aircraft but its Only outstanding attribute was it's long range in a single engine fighter. The Cavalier and Enforcer were exreriments (that failed to meet their intended purpose) based on a restored P-51 aitframes only because there were some available. The P-82 was only an attempt to be able to relieve a pilot on those 12 hour missions. The P-38 (amoung others) was much more versatile than the P-51 ever thought of being and the P-51 started out as an attack plane (P-40 replacement).

The only things a P-51 did as well or better than a P-38L (the contemporary of the D model) was a faster cruise (~50mph) and it's cost
The Spit (IX on) didn't have the range but was better everywhere else.
The P-47N cost more but was as good/better for everything else
The F4U-4 was short only on range and a minor cost differential but was better everywhere else.

The P-51 had the following advantages:
1) it was competitive with its main adversaries
2) it was cheap (important, but if you were fighting for your life, do you want to fight someone with a knife - another knife or a gun?)
3) POLITICS


wmaxt


----------



## superunknown (May 25, 2005)

Right OK, I think you missed the point. The fact is the P-51 has served in more countries than any of the others (post war), has been through a longer development used in a wider variety of roles than the others, makes it "better" from a DESIGN DEVELOPMENT view point. I did say that I was unsure as to what aircraft was better by the end of WW2, it would depend on where it was being used, what it was used for and by whom. The P-51 was a jack of all trades, easy to fly, cheap, and easy to maintain. 
Also I think you got a bit mixed up, the Mustang was not designed as an attack aircraft (A-36), this was just a role that was given to it by the USAAF due to a lack of ground support aircraft. The USAAF didn't intially even want the Mustang, it was built for the RAF as a pursuit aircraft. It was faster than the Spitfire V (which was the main RAF fighter at the time) and had a longer range, its only shortcoming was the fact that it had a crap climb rate due to its underpowered Allison engine (RAF Mustang I). 

Politics didn't really come into it either, the RAF were desperate for a fighter after the P-40 didn't deliver, so NA decided to embark on their own project instead of building P-40's. The outcome was the Mustang, when the USAAF saw how much potential it had they also bought it.

The Cavalier Mustang was not an experiment, it saw service with the USAF (along with the piper enforcer which I forgot to mention) during the late 60's who used it for counter insurgent forward air control duties. So as I said, by the end of the war it may not have been the best, but long afterwards it was still around.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

I disagree, I understand the points that you are making but I would go with the P-47N. It was more durable and a much better aircraft. The P-51 was great but it was quite overated as well.


----------



## superunknown (May 26, 2005)

I don't think the P-51 was best, I'm just saying it outlived all the competition, thats all. I wouldn't be able to pick one from the list because as I said earlier, it would depend on what it was used for, where it was used and who was using it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

Okay now that I agree with.


----------



## wmaxt (May 26, 2005)

I to can agree with that statement.

The P-51 was supposed to be P-40s but NAA talked the British into a replacement instead. The P-40 had been relegated to ground support by that time (primarily) and without a high blower section they never had a prayer of being anything else. The A-36 and it's British equivalent the Mark I were low altitude support aircraft as designed with the Allison. Your right it was faster below 15,000ft than the Spit V but was never intended to replace or even bolster the Spitfire. It was also never intended to be a persuit plane.

As for politics it came into being as the Merlin P-51 at a time where the AAF could say (only by bad mouthing or removing credit from the P-38 and to some extent the other Allied fighters) it saved the bombers because it was the only (single engine) fighter that could escort the bombers all the way. It was then championed as the best to cover up the fact that the Idea of self escorting bombers was very wrong and they had the P-38 all along.  I can smell Congressional Investigation. It's never mentioned that the P-38 was there in larger/equal numbers through the most criticle period before July '44. The real problem with the P-38 was that a second source wasn't available until Jan. '45.

I do stand on all the points I stated above. look through the PR and check it out.

You do have a point that it was a good solid aircraft and between cost and numbers built it had staying power.

If I came on to strong - Sorry  Welcome to the forum!

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2005)

Very interesting points about the polotics side.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2005)

One point though - 2 engines 2x the cost to operate


----------



## wmaxt (May 27, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> One point though - 2 engines 2x the cost to operate



Very True but in the heat of war you get the best, win the war, then if your the winner count the cost. But again cost is counted in other ways too including attrition and results. The 8th air Force page admits to 451 P-38s and 2,201 P-51s lost to combat. P-38s flew a little less than 2/3 the sorties the P-51s did and many of those were the more dangerous attack missions. That's 4+ Mustangs for each P-38 and pilot at that rate the Mustang is a lot more expensive. 

The combination today is the Twin engine F-15 and the single engine F-16 there is and was a place for both.

My beef is the lack of credit where its due. 

As far as Dolittle was concerned it was not about cost or capabilities (once the mininum performance threshold was crossed) but logistics. He accepted the fact that the P-38 could do the job (he allowed the 474th to keep theirs) but didn't want to deal with the masive and duplicate/triplicate (P-47) spares issues. Remember the three fighters in the ETO were completly different except in the ammo for their guns. Thats what got the P-38 in trouble with the Brittish who wanted commonality with the Tomahawks.

Oh well, it worked out in the end.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> but didn't want to deal with the masive and duplicate/triplicate (P-47) spares issues.



You have a great point - I think this is what the Italians were up against!

Be aware there are those bureaucrats who do look at cost issues (even in a wartime setting) and operating aspects of multi-engine fighters are always considered. I've worked on US government contracts and dealt with some of these "geniuses"


----------



## wmaxt (May 27, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > but didn't want to deal with the masive and duplicate/triplicate (P-47) spares issues.
> ...



I Agree, I've worked with them too, but all costs must be included including the reduced loss rate of the bombers/crews and survivability etc. 

Double check the first paragraph of the reply above, i was edditing it when you wrote this one.

And the Itallians a tighter budget.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > wmaxt said:
> ...



Yep - that's true and is considered by MOST of the folks who hold the purse strings.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > One point though - 2 engines 2x the cost to operate
> ...



Very good way of putting it.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 1, 2005)

I have yet to lock down the loss rate thing, another source I've found shows the loss of 1,758 P-38s and 2,520 P-51s. When adjusted on a sortie basis the loss percentage is .1% different (1.2% for the P-51 abd 1.3% for the P-38) considering the mission difficulty the P-38 still came home more often.

Cost wise to maintain (overhaul) the AAF used more than twice the manhours to maintain a Merlin (417) as for an Allison (191). Reference AAF archives. I averaged the manhours required from July '43 to Aug '45.

Lastly the P-38s shot down about 1/3 the German aircraft with the following difficulties:
Green US pilots against the Expert German pilots
Close escort and attack (including 600,000lbs bombs) missions limited oportunities 
Poor tactics durring the P-38 phase in Europe

My estimate is that the P-38 would have exceeded the P-51s in every area in the ETO had they been given the chance

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2005)

Agree!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2005)

I agree too. P-38 was underrated 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2005)

Agreed as well. One thing to look at also is maintenance problems. Lets say a P-51 lost an engine for some reason, being shot, or just mechanical failure it went down. That is a loss of an aircraft. The P-38 had 2 engines. It lost one it atleast had a chance to get home.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2005)

And that's why I think so many pilots loved her!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 1, 2005)

But u have to remember, there were several guys who got chopped in half because of that extra engine... Jack Ilfrey almost got scalped by a flying prop after a rather hairy ground strafing mission......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2005)

Read that about Ilfrey - I guess that the compromise for having the extra engine


----------



## evangilder (Jun 2, 2005)

Not to mention getting out of it without hitting the tail boom, or worse, one of the counterweights! OUCH!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2005)

but going back to maintenacne, merlin parts were much more readily available than alison parts, especailly in England.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Not to mention getting out of it without hitting the tail boom, or worse, one of the counterweights! OUCH!



The idea was to crawl out the cockpit, along the tail boom and _then_ dive off


----------



## evangilder (Jun 2, 2005)

I know, I have the pilots manual. That all sounds easy enough, but I tried the crawl on a P-38 that was sitting in a hangar. Not too hard, but add wind from forward movement, possible turbulence and a poorly behaving airplane and you have a manuever that would be difficult at best. I know some were able to, but it could not have been easy.

One of the other things it said in the pilots manual is to roll inverted if possible, pop the canopy, undo the safety belts, and fall out. Great, if you can get your shot up aircraft into that position! 

Still, it's better than one of Kelly Johnson's designs that had a propeller forward and aft! Getting out of that would likely have resulted in the pilot becoming pink mist!


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but going back to maintenacne, merlin parts were much more readily available than alison parts, especailly in England.....



These are averaged manhour numbers for work done overhauling engines at depots. With Packard building Merlin parts right there in the states parts would not have been an issue. 

The Merlin was a great engine but as I understand it was never successfuly turbo charged and I've also read in several places that the cams had a life of about 40 running hours. It had a few quirks not a big deal for an engine as reliable and powerful as it was.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > but going back to maintenacne, merlin parts were much more readily available than alison parts, especailly in England.....
> ...



I'm not sure of that wmaxt. I don't think any maintenance officer would tolerate a 40 hour engine change on a continual basis. I've heard that under combat conditions we were looking at 100 hour engine changes on the average, but I could be wrong. From what I understand, both Packard and RR Merlins were pretty reliable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2005)

Found this site, some interesting things this guy saya about the P-38 and P-51. hH mentions a Guy named Win Painter, he's a flight instructor at the civillain test pilot school in Mojave. I've flown with Win a few times, great guy. Anyway some interesting stuff from a P-38 and P-51 vet.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6940/heidenspeaks.html


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 7, 2005)

Nice find! 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2005)

Thanks CC!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 7, 2005)

Well its obvious that id like it  I got a little annoyed at the music though...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Well its obvious that id like it  I got a little annoyed at the music though...



Any why didn't you post that on the "What Music are You listening to" thread?!?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 7, 2005)

Because I was on this thread at the time of reading it... 

Anywhos I love the P-38. Lockheed are my favourite plane manufacturers and I believe the great aircraft company of all time


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Because I was on this thread at the time of reading it...
> 
> Anywhos I love the P-38. Lockheed are my favourite plane manufacturers and I believe the great aircraft company of all time



Thanks CC - I worked for them for over 10 years. I used to walk through the old Burbank plant and think about the history beind the place. When it was torn down I was in tears  

I was there when they were having a birthday celebration for Kelly Johnson right before he passed away. In one day there were P-38, SR-71, and U-2 flybys!


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 7, 2005)

i personally like the f4u corsair.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 7, 2005)

> I'm not sure of that wmaxt. I don't think any maintenance officer would tolerate a 40 hour engine change on a continual basis. I've heard that under combat conditions we were looking at 100 hour engine changes on the average, but I could be wrong. From what I understand, both Packard and RR Merlins were pretty reliable.



Just the cams and probably the lifters. I only ran accross that statement once the comment was that the cam hardening technics were not up to the task at the time. The point I was making was that the Allisons had its own advantages with regaurds to the Merlin which also had both strong and weak points not that it was inferior. One of its weaker points is that it was more costly to maintain and again the cost differential between the P-38 and P-51 narrows.

An interesting point is that when they beef up Merlins for racing they use 'Type 3' Allison connecting rods.

Heiden is more out spoken about the P-38 in many other places like the "Planes and Pilots of WWII" articles but he does have some good points. Another good site is "P-38 online". I can post the addresses if you like. An interesting site concerning combat losses is the "8th Air Force Combat Losses" Site.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2005)

Interesting!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 7, 2005)

CC how are lockheed the greatest aircraft manufactures of all time?? yeah they're good but i'd give the greatest to boeing.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> CC how are lockheed the greatest aircraft manufactures of all time?? yeah they're good but i'd give the greatest to boeing.........



Lockheed has built more record breakers and history makers than any other aircraft manufacturer in history....

1st large military aircraft contract to be built at one facility - Lockheed Hudson, 1940

1st 400 mph fighter - P-38, also set a coast to coast speed record during testing.

1st Successful production American jet fighter - P-80, numerous speed records in the late 1940s.

1st Jet Trainer T-33

Long Range distance Holder - P2V Prototype "Truluctent Turtle"

1st carrier Jet Trainer, TV-1 Sea-star

L1049 "Connie" Numerous world distance records, 30 years of service.

C-130 - Ultimate cargo workhorse, USAF tried 2x to replace her, the only thing that replaces a C-130 is another C-130.

F-104, first aircraft to hold simultaneous speed and altitude records.

U-2, numerous altitude and climb to altitude records NOTE: Some of them were made when NASA retired its last U-2 in 89.'

SR-71 - Need I say more?!?

L1011 - First aircraft with microwave landing system. So good Boeing wanted to build 1011s in the early 1980s.

F-117A - First stealth strike aircraft

F-22 - TBD

F-35, set numerous records as a prototype (X-35)

and I'm just getting warmed up...... 8)


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 7, 2005)

Art Heiden's comments on his web page comparing the P-38 and P-51 concentrate on the P-38J-10 and earlier without the wing leading edge tanks. They also match the other data I've been able to find. Also for some reason the AAF in the ETO never used the 300gal drop tanks. His comments on the J-25/L models are even more positive for the P-38.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2005)

Oh - I forgot, the C-130J set about 50 world records back in 1999!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2005)

The C-130 wouldn't be what it is today though without the ideas of the RAF. It was the RAF that extended it, it was always a great aircraft though.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The C-130 wouldn't be what it is today though without the ideas of the RAF. It was the RAF that extended it, it was always a great aircraft though.



Good point D - I worked for both Lockheed and Boeing, Lockheed listens to its operators, Boeing, well in my experience tries to tell its operators what they really want!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2005)

And that in itself makes Lockheed better! 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2005)

Yep Boeing, they are a great all-time manufacturer and was very well at exploiting all ready developed technology. 

Lockheed was and still is the bench mark


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 7, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep Boeing, they are a great all-time manufacturer and was very well at exploiting all ready developed technology.
> 
> Lockheed was and still is the bench mark



If only we could get into their archives!

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Yep Boeing, they are a great all-time manufacturer and was very well at exploiting all ready developed technology.
> ...



Not to long ago that was do-able


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

Id go with Lockheed anyday. Boein is a great producer but they mostly dwell in the passenger aircraft such as airliners which is all good but Lockheed goes down and makes some the greatest military aircraft of all times.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2005)

Oh, forgot a few things about Lockheed.....

1st manufacturer to use a production line "chain" (like the auto manufacturers do). P-38s, F-80s and F-104s produced in plant B-1 were "pulled" with a chain drive down the assembly line.

Developed Polaris and Trident missles

Agena Space vehicle used on the Gemini space missions

1st company to mill titanium

1st radar avoiding aircraft (have blue)

Leader in pre WW2 supercharger development.

OK, I'll stop now....... 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

You really can not compare the two. Yes Boein has built some of the best military aircraft such as the B-17 and the B-29 however there main area lies in airliners wheareas Lockheed concentrates on military.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 9, 2005)

It does now, but Lockheed also built the L-1011 and one of my favorites, the Constellation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

Yes the Constellation was great. I went walking through Eisenhowers Constellation at Fort Rucker Alabama and it was a great plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2005)

evangilder said:


> It does now, but Lockheed also built the L-1011 and one of my favorites, the Constellation.



I worked in the building where the Connie was built, B304, the P-3 was also built there. In 1980 some maintenance guys were doing repairs on some plumbing and I got to see what was an apartment on the 2nd floor mezzanine. I was told that Howard Hughes would stay there for several days at a time monitoring the progress of TWA 1049 production!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

Speaking of Howard Hughes. I just saw The Aviator. Great movie!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2005)

Yes it was, he had alot of business dealings with Bob Gross, Lockheed President, Walt Disney and Al Menasco, landing gear and engine manufacturer in Burbank. AKA the "Morman Mafia."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

He was a business man for most, but he loved the dream of flying.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 9, 2005)

I finally saw the Aviator a couple of weeks ago. I enjoyed it, but was a little disappointed with the abrupt ending.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2005)

That's what made aviation great in the day. Gross, Johnson, Douglas, Hughes, Northrop were businessmen, but they loved flying or aviation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

And they had the money to explore there crazy ideas. (well crazy for the time)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2005)

i haven't seen the aviator yet......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2005)

Good flick, Decapprio does well, good flying scenes


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

I agree I hate the actor but the movie was great and he did really well playing the part.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree I hate the actor but the movie was great and he did really well playing the part.



Yea, he's part of the Liberal Hollywood group. They should all be kicked in the nuts!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## trackend (Jun 10, 2005)

Worth getting on DVD then guys for my collection?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

I bought it.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 10, 2005)

Me too, and I am glad I did.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

Love the scene when he's flying the XF-11


----------



## evangilder (Jun 10, 2005)

Yeah, that's pretty amazing!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

I really liked Catherin Hepburn in the movie. I dont remember who played her but it was a great job.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 10, 2005)

I gotta see the Aviator too. Birthday list is lengthening...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

I can not even think about my birthday yet.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 10, 2005)

I have to think about it. 16 in 4 months! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

25 in 3 months.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 10, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yea, he's part of the Liberal Hollywood group. They should all be kicked in the nuts!



Liberal men don't have nuts.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, he's part of the Liberal Hollywood group. They should all be kicked in the nuts!
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Could not have said it better myself.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 12, 2005)

Speaking of Liberal Hollywood, my wife rented "Team America, World Police" 
which we watched tonight.

Funny movie that really slams liberal Hollywood.


----------



## trackend (Jun 12, 2005)

Glad you said that you found Team America funny Dave as I am going to buy it for my collection.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 12, 2005)

Team America is hilarious!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2005)

Damn I really gotta see it. Made by the same people as South Park aint it?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 12, 2005)

Yep.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2005)

i wanna see it too.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

That movie is awesome. I especially love the puppet sex scene!

*"America.......FUCK YEAH"!!!!!!!!*


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2005)

I should be borrowing it off a mate tomorrow


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

Its deffinatly funny.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2005)

I've had it on DVD for a whole <cough> illegally.....who said that?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 14, 2005)

"*America.......f**k YEAH"!!!!!!!!*" 

Its been a few days since I saw the movie and that song is still going through my head.




_Its not about sex, its about trust Gary._


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 14, 2005)

Speaking of flims I just picked up the entire Band of Brothers boxset from ebay for £16.99! (plus £7 postage) but talk about bargain!


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 14, 2005)

Bargain, yes.

Funny, no.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 14, 2005)

Excellent, yes.

Steamy hot lesbian porn, no.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 14, 2005)

What?  Now you tell me!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 14, 2005)

Come on, it's called _Band of Brothers_. That title hardly conjures up the image of sweaty love ladies sitting on each others face or enjoying a nice cucumber moment. 

With a name like that it's obviously about a long night in a YMCA with some extremely mysterious men. A rough trick named Jim and a big man called Molly. 

I'm sure you and lanc will have a gay old time watching it together.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 14, 2005)

Reminds me of a certain part of Ricky Gervais Politics


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2005)

Did you get the box set that comes in the can. Thats the one I got.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 15, 2005)

I dont know yet. I should think it is, but wont be too bothered if it isnt.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 16, 2005)

Great P-38 Stuff and other things as well:

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-3.html


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 16, 2005)

Yep thats a great site, one I use regularly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2005)

Its got some good charts.


----------



## Insagor (Feb 26, 2008)

Hey all, I came across this thread in looking for some info on my build of Yippee. I thought you may find it interesting that I was able to obtain a copy of the Individual Aircraft Record Card from the USAF. Yippee S/N 44-23296 was accepted on 5-14-44, delivered to Long Beach, CA 5-23-44 and arrived for duty (yes, she was a regular fighting P-38J!) on 6-28-44. She was assigned to the Fifth Air Force, Pacific Theater with the 475th Fighter Group, and served until written off due to a flying accident, 29Jan45.

Dave


----------

