Yup..got some original printings of several other books back to 1954...
1942 and on: RAF fields 'proper' P-38s - consequences?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Can only post what I see..
fubar57
General
Curious which of your many books told you that "The Mustang was actively in used in every TO from 1940 to 1945." Your quote
Shortround6
Major General
I've got books that go back to 1941, if not before, not that I rely on some of them.
Mr. Cooke was the associate editor of "Flying Aces Magazine"
While some of the pictures in the book are interesting, some of the text needs a healthy dose of scepticism no matter how much it may favor any planes that are my favorites.
Most people, for instance, don't know that the XP-51 used an Allison engine of 960hp at 12,000ft that gave it a maximum speed of more than 400mph
Mr. Cooke was the associate editor of "Flying Aces Magazine"
While some of the pictures in the book are interesting, some of the text needs a healthy dose of scepticism no matter how much it may favor any planes that are my favorites.
Most people, for instance, don't know that the XP-51 used an Allison engine of 960hp at 12,000ft that gave it a maximum speed of more than 400mph
Kevin J
Banned
I've got books that go back to 1941, if not before, not that I rely on some of them.
View attachment 550458
Mr. Cooke was the associate editor of "Flying Aces Magazine"
View attachment 550459
While some of the pictures in the book are interesting, some of the text needs a healthy dose of scepticism no matter how much it may favor any planes that are my favorites.
Most people, for instance, don't know that the XP-51 used an Allison engine of 960hp at 12,000ft that gave it a maximum speed of more than 400mph
Looks like that last cover slipped past the censor. Now remind me, who was fighting who in WW2?
Conslaw
Senior Airman
For a given amount of resources, you could actually have fewer than half as many P-38s available for combat as P-51s. How? Assume you have 32 aircraft engines. You can field 16 P-38s or 32 P-51s. But, let's say 5 engines need service today. You will have 27 P-51s availablle. Best case scenario, you lose 3 P-38s. (2 engines out on 2 and one engine out on one), but the worst case scenario - one engine out on 5 planes - leaves you with only 11 combat ready planes.
Simon Thomas
Senior Airman
There are 137 days between 24 April 1940 and 9 September 1940.
The 102 days that is usually quoted is from the Contract date of 29 May 1940.
The contract on 24 April was an internal NAA general order NA-73.
The letter of intent signed by the BPC was on 11 April 1940.
Either way, it was a stunning engineering achievement to go from a basic three view and a few rough calculations to a flying aeroplane in 6 months.
Dates from "Mustang Designer: Edgar Schmued and the P-51", Ray Wagner, 2000.
PERFECT Point.... and flew in Combat within 2 years
The P-38 started in 1938.
Too many features were new and unsorted.
The British rejected them because of the Tail Flutter.
Still a chronic issues with the later more powerful models which impacted aiming.
Similar issue with the Mig-15 in Korea.
Below that flutter speed were deadly !
Last edited:
Dan
In your post 141 it was stated that both top P-38 pilots were shot down by Japanese Aces.......
Out of curiosity, when was Dick Bong shot down? I also understand that to this day there is still some doubt about Tom McGuire's demise, whether he stalled and crashed, or was hit in his final dogfight.
Thanks
Eagledad
In your post 141 it was stated that both top P-38 pilots were shot down by Japanese Aces.......
Out of curiosity, when was Dick Bong shot down? I also understand that to this day there is still some doubt about Tom McGuire's demise, whether he stalled and crashed, or was hit in his final dogfight.
Thanks
Eagledad
Bong lost his life testing a P80 shooting Star.
McGuire and his wing man both went down. Both were aces. They were shot down because of over confidence in a big contested fight that day. Most books said he had his tanks on and turned to shoot and his Plane stalled. I know that the top P47 Pilot Johnson met a similar fate target fixated on a bomber and a Ki43 nailed him. The long elevator was an Achilles Heal in the Lightning. Hit that and break it in two or hit the tail jamming them up the Lightning was done for. You do not fight low and slow against a Ki43 which also had a excellent climb rate and energy retention.
Since we won the war the books say what they want. I suspect from other writings suggesting he was hit focused on shooing down a plane. Then again we do not have a accurate version from Japanese side. What was interesting in WW2 Fighter to fighter combat was nearly one to one in the Pacific through out most of the war. Another book confirming this was the battles around New Guinea P39 vs Zero. Both shooting down 15 though the P39 lost 44 in combat during that period in 1943.
Dan,
More information on McGuire's demise maybe found here:
Pacific Wrecks
I believe that Johnson was a typo, as Neel Kearby was the top scoring P-47 pilot in the Pacific. Your description of his end is similar to the information found here:
Pacific Wrecks
FYI
Eagledad
Edited Corrected link to Kearby
More information on McGuire's demise maybe found here:
Pacific Wrecks
I believe that Johnson was a typo, as Neel Kearby was the top scoring P-47 pilot in the Pacific. Your description of his end is similar to the information found here:
Pacific Wrecks
FYI
Eagledad
Edited Corrected link to Kearby
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
I just checked in America's Hundred Thousand and found that P-38s with the dive brakes didn't reach combat units until June 1944. Some of these were kits retrofitted to existing P-38Js, but it also means it is the earliest the P-38J-25 could have made it to the front, as they had the brakes fitted from factory, and were the first ones with the boosted ailerons.
So, until June 1944 the P-38 rolled at the astounding peak rate of 39 degrees per second.
Thank you...blew that one .... you are correct on Neal Kerby....damn iPad keeps changing my spelling of Kerby
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
It is a little more complicated plus a little artistic stretching of definitions.
First, Kindelberger gave Schmued carte blanche to assemble his Design group, followed with Rice picking the Project manager and manufacturing team to a.) take the design emerging from Schmued's group. b.) oversee the assembly of NA-73X in the Experimental hanger, c.) start work on the manufacturing tooling, work stations and processes to build repetitive versions of NA-73.
The last of the design drawings from Schmued's group emerged between July 30th and August 1st, although the Experimental Department began fabricating the empennage and fuselage in early July (in parallel). To quote Schmued (from Wagner and his personal manuscript) - "We scheduled completion of engineering to be completed and delivered to Experimental Department in 100 days. It took 102 days to complete it."
There was Never a mandate to complete and fly a prototype within 120 days. Noted in the LOI and subsequent Contract) was the stipulation that first airplane was to flown by January 1st, 1941. Had a 120 day stipulation been agreed, NAA had to deliver X73 on or about August 19th 1940 based on earliest start of April 12th. Based on April 24th start, then 120 days would have been ~ August 21st. Based on April 24, 102 days would be August 3rd. Based on my research April 21 is more likely date of start work by Schmued on X-73 and complete the 1620 Specification for NA-73. The 1620 Spec was dated April 24th.
The actual REAL rat in the woodpile was Allison, which agreed to a 120 day delivery for the 1710-39 and got caught like a doe in the headlights and The AAC came through in October with one of their own delivered/unused spare engines (40 day delay from Allison commit). This could be construed as the first of the many 'capital offenses' committed by Allison in their relationship with NAA.
The point to be made is that there is a.) no precise date Defined as 'Project Start' for Schmued's Design team, nor a precise date for 'Design completed and Delivered to Experimental for Fabrication, and b.) no precise date for Start Fabrication in the Experimental Department. What is 'known' is the the end of July'ish was delivery of Design package, September 9 was the roll out date of X-73 (with dummy engine), and c.) memories absent the project record details are 'suspect'.
Summary - the first PRODUCTION X-73 flew in April 1941. The first ALLISON supplied V-1710 replacing the AAC loaner was early 1941. (at that time more major issues found between as delivered and as designed surfaced - (requiring changes to engine mount and firewall). The first Prototype flew on October 26 - literally only two weeks after receiving engine to complete installation, make changes to engine mounts, wire the instrument panel and complete control linkages, test the engine/instruments and controls, taxi tests etc.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Really??? And what book was that from???
Was that from a Dick Bong pilot report?
Now I really have to call the BS detector.
The MiG-15 "snaked" at certain speeds and lost aileron authority at slower speeds, and had violent mach tuck tendency at high mach numbers, but this is for another discussion.
I guess you been hitting that vast library you have, hope none of the pages were stuck together!
Last edited:
Wow flyboy...for all your experience about the P38 you know the plane had flutter issues from the start.
Especially approaching .68 Mach in their dive tests. Pilots died because of the the tail failing and breaking.
In fact there were two issues and hard to separate, Compressibility and Tail Flutter.
The Tail Flittering got solved first after a lot of Wind-tunnel Testing.
Adding Filets around the Wing, Cockpit and Engine Nacelles.
They never solved the compressibility issue.
The British rejected the early Lightings because of this issue...there was a big huge legal fight about it!
Then Pearl Harbor happened and US wanted the planes.
If you cut the P38 in half and made two planes.
You may have had a way to prolong Compressibility.
But you had 4 large protrusions...two engines one in each fuselage, another fuselage between the engines and a big Tail.
That is a lot to push through the air...best the Lightning got was around .74 Mach...
No matter what the Lockheed Engineers did with that configuration.
it was not going any faster and considering there were other flight performance issues to deal with.
What made the Lighting effective was its watering can guns and cannon all in the nose.
It had enough performance to win a fair share of battles with a competent pilot.
One on one could not dive fast enough safely and separate enough distant in an emergency.
This is key in any combat situation air, ground or water.
The Lightning was just not as versatile as the single engine planes.
Which were just as fast more maneuverable and did not have as many cranky issues.
It was a unique plane but got to remember design and testing started in 1937-1938.
And war had not started in Ernest yet.
Yet the P36 already was already fighting in China, later in France.
Even the later model F7F Tigercat had similar flutter and compressibility issues.
After the war the P38 was completely retired from US and other air forces.
Bottom line, It was not economical to keep around.
On a contract in Marietta Ga was interviewing Designers for Lockheed in 1977/78/79
Some of those guys worked on the C122 Connie and used the wind tunnel tests from the P38.
They used a similar tail configuration off of the Lightning.
There had to be a battle going on between Alison and US Army.
Do know there was a money issue at one one time.
Did it have anything to do with the development of the two stage Supercharger..?
So in between those speeds the MiG 15 was dangerous...correct..?
Yes another discussion.
fubar57
General
The compressibility issue was never solved?
