A6M5 Model 52 Zero
- Thread starter GregP
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #162
GregP
Major
Got it and will respond tomorrow morning ... it's late!
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #164
GregP
Major
Hi Hiromachi,
Sent the file in email. Hope you got it. I intended to attach several and could only find one ... but time is on our side!
- Greg
Edit: We are starting to get visitors for the airshow. We have a razorback P-47 and we just got another one in for the show (another P-47G), plus two more F-86's, two more Mustangs, and the show is still 2 months away! I'll get some pics going forward.
The Tigercat under restoration is coming along well. Again, I'll get some pics next weekend.
Sent the file in email. Hope you got it. I intended to attach several and could only find one ... but time is on our side!
- Greg
Edit: We are starting to get visitors for the airshow. We have a razorback P-47 and we just got another one in for the show (another P-47G), plus two more F-86's, two more Mustangs, and the show is still 2 months away! I'll get some pics going forward.
The Tigercat under restoration is coming along well. Again, I'll get some pics next weekend.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #167
GregP
Major
It is an article in an aviation magazine about the J2M, and I don't know how to post a pdf from my PC to the forum.
If I did, I would do it.
If I did, I would do it.
You might go to he 'Reply' button. Then, click the 'Go advanced' button. After the new window opens, scroll down a bit and you will se the 'Manage attachments' button; click it. The new window will open, and you will be asked to choose the file you want to upload.
- Thread starter
- #169
GregP
Major
OK, here's a try at it ...
Well, I have never managed to get that button to do anything on my PC or anyone else's PC, and it didn't do anyting again when I tried it. Ah well ...
Well, I have never managed to get that button to do anything on my PC or anyone else's PC, and it didn't do anyting again when I tried it. Ah well ...
- Thread starter
- #171
GregP
Major
Oh I found the "manage attachments" button a long time ago. But when I click it, nothing happens.
- Thread starter
- #173
GregP
Major
I use IE9 becuase, for some reason, this Toshiba won't let me upgrade it poast there and I haven't yet bit the bulklet abd dug in to find out why. I suppose I need to do that soon.
- Thread starter
- #175
GregP
Major
OK here is a try using Google Chrome ...
Here is an article from Air International. I have some other files on the J2M but must FIND them before I can do anything with them.
Thanks, Tomo. Maybe I'll switch browsers ... seems like maybe it is indicated.
Here is an article from Air International. I have some other files on the J2M but must FIND them before I can do anything with them.
Thanks, Tomo. Maybe I'll switch browsers ... seems like maybe it is indicated.
- Thread starter
- #177
GregP
Major
The J2M Raiden does not seem to have much in the way of articles or test data surrounding it's testing after WWII, but we can share what we find hopefully. It seems like a pretty decent plane and certainly looks the part of a tough customer when you see it in person.
Did you find anything more on Raiden Greg ?
And besides, I watched whole Planes of Fame youtube channel and got really interested in one thing, on a videos P-38 looks quite maneuverable but still it is a twin engine plane, you know any of the guys in cockpit ? Could you please describe their feelings about plane ?
And besides, I watched whole Planes of Fame youtube channel and got really interested in one thing, on a videos P-38 looks quite maneuverable but still it is a twin engine plane, you know any of the guys in cockpit ? Could you please describe their feelings about plane ?
- Thread starter
- #180
GregP
Major
First, yes, I know thw guys flying it (all of them).
The P-38 is VERY maneuverable but there was a snag when it went into combat in Europe in WWII. It had four things going against it.
1. There was very little training conducted on proper operation of the P-38 for ANY of the poilots who originally got to Europe. They were flying and operating it very wrongly. That took time to correct.
2. There was an issue with the intake manifolds that was masked by #3 below. It took about 4 months to fix once they knew to look for it. The fix was simple.
3. The P-38 was developed in the USA on American fuel. Thus it was jetted for American fuel. US fuels had about 2% aromatics in them in the aviation grade gasoline used. European fuels had about 20% aromatics in them, so the P-38's arrived jetted incorrectly for the fuel being used. This was a source of major confusion until someone about 9 months into it sent home a batch of European fuel and the issue showed up immediately on the test stand. There is nothing wrong with European fuel, but it was simply blended differently than ours. The British planes sent to the USA for evaluation weren't any happier running on US fuels than ours were running on European fuels. Once we KNEW, then the jetting could be altered and everyone was happy.
4. The cockpit heater was awful and pilots froze over Europe. The engines were simply too far away from the pilot and the air wasn't warm when it got to the cockpit. The fix as as simple as an electric heater, but it took a long time and the pilots over Europe weren't very happy about being so cold for so long.
Once the fuel and intake issues wre solved, the operational issues with the P-38 were solved. Right about then the P-51B was getting to Europe and there was simply no sense in maintaining two supply chains for fighters doing essentially the same job., and the vast majority of P-38's were released to the MTO and PTO theaters where they did VERY well. The top three USAAF pilots in the war flew the P-38, all in the PTO.
The biggest thing about the P-38 was the sheer number of things you had to do if you got bounced by enemy fighters.
You had to come up on the rpm for both engines, go to auto rich mixture for both engines, increase the throttle setting to combat, set the rpm and mixture for what you were doing, turn on the gunsight, drop tanks if you had them, and then fight. Many P-38's were shot down while the pilot was reconfiguring for combat and not reacting to being bounced.
Once the P-38 is configured for combat, it is nimble, maneuverable (if you are strong enough), and is a great gun platform.
The tactics evolved were to break away from the attack while dropping tanks and configuring for combat instead of trying to configure before reacting to the bounce. If the P-38's were the attackers, they were already properly configured and were not caught napping.
The guys who fly our P-38 are Steve Hinton, Kevin Eldridge, Chris Fahey, and Mike DeMarino. There might be another one but, if so, I can't think of him right now. All these guys love the P-38 and say it is a first class ride that is as maneuverable as any other fighter, but you have to muscle it around prior to the P-38J-25-LO. With the P-38J-25-LO, hydraulically boosted ailerons were fitted as was an electrically actuated dive recovery flap that ended the compressibility dive recovery issues. With that dive recovery flap, they could achieve 600 mph dive speeds and easily recover.
Lockheed manufactured 200 retrofit kits and sent them to Euope on a C-54 that was mistaken for an Fw 200 Condor and shot down by an RAF pilot. Talk about being in the wrong palce at the wrong time!
Ours is a P-38J-20-LO and has manual ailerons (armstrong assist, as we say) so it rolls as fast as you are strong. Our guys can really rack it around but are used to it. We are usually operating in the 180 - 350 mph range (180 - 280 mph most of the time) during an airshow and when they do fast breaks, it is usually at 250 mph and below. I'm sure it took some strength at 350+ mph to make it bank quickly. In the Horseman video above, Steve Hinton was using 3,000 rpm and 57 inches of Mercury at times after leaving formation, so he was putting out about 1,425 HP per side when he broke away from the two P-51's and went vertical.
According to these guys, the P-38's weakness mostly shows up when it gets bouced and must be reconfigured for combat quickly. If the P-38 initiates the attack, there is no disadvantage and the advantage of centerline armament comes directly into play.
They feel that while a Bf 109 or Fw 190 ambushing a P-38 might have an advantage, if the P-38 was ready for him or if the P-38 was doing the attacking, the advantage goes the other way. The Bf 109 was a good climbing fighter, but it wasn't going to out climb a P-38 enough to have any advantage if the P-38 is configured for combat. The turning circle with maneuvering flaps is VERY tight and it has enough power to maintain speed during high g turns. Prior to the P-38L-25-LO, diving was a good way to escape a P-38 as it could very quickly get to the critical Mach number.
However, if the enemy dived away, the P-38 did his job of chasing away the attackers of the bombers and could watch for the enemy to come back up and wait for a good bounce oportunity. All the former P-38 pilots who speak at the Museum's event days are still fond of it with the sole exception of one guy who flew it very early in Europe before the issues were fixed. He was cold, had backfiring issues, and had to have his engines changed at short intervals. He liked it when all as working but, early on, most weren't working too well.
Just for info, our Allisons have been generally reliable with some small exceptions. It's hard to blame the engine when it is operated too hot. If you aren't going to closely monitor the cylinder head temps, then the radiator door contol needs to be in atuo, not manual mode. Sometimes these things get learned the hard way. We've been operating this P-38 since 1988 (after restoration), so we now have 26 years of experience with it. Well ... not quite accurate. After restoration it was displayed at Palm Springs for 10 years and so we have 16 years experience plus the flgihts while it was at Palm Springs.
All in all, it is a complex aircaft but performs well. After the war it didn't fit into USAAF/USAF plans and was rapidly phased out ... but so were a lot of other planes. They were not dropped for cause, but rather in the general downsizing after WWII ended when everyone was moving to a non-war footing. Any single engine fighter is cheaper to operate than any twin fighter.
But if you are flying fighter operations over water, the big twin is a great comfort when one fan stops. The engine out characteristics of a P-38 are WAY better than for a P-51 or P-47! The Pacific Ocean is a big pond, so the P-38 was well suited to that location.
The P-38 is VERY maneuverable but there was a snag when it went into combat in Europe in WWII. It had four things going against it.
1. There was very little training conducted on proper operation of the P-38 for ANY of the poilots who originally got to Europe. They were flying and operating it very wrongly. That took time to correct.
2. There was an issue with the intake manifolds that was masked by #3 below. It took about 4 months to fix once they knew to look for it. The fix was simple.
3. The P-38 was developed in the USA on American fuel. Thus it was jetted for American fuel. US fuels had about 2% aromatics in them in the aviation grade gasoline used. European fuels had about 20% aromatics in them, so the P-38's arrived jetted incorrectly for the fuel being used. This was a source of major confusion until someone about 9 months into it sent home a batch of European fuel and the issue showed up immediately on the test stand. There is nothing wrong with European fuel, but it was simply blended differently than ours. The British planes sent to the USA for evaluation weren't any happier running on US fuels than ours were running on European fuels. Once we KNEW, then the jetting could be altered and everyone was happy.
4. The cockpit heater was awful and pilots froze over Europe. The engines were simply too far away from the pilot and the air wasn't warm when it got to the cockpit. The fix as as simple as an electric heater, but it took a long time and the pilots over Europe weren't very happy about being so cold for so long.
Once the fuel and intake issues wre solved, the operational issues with the P-38 were solved. Right about then the P-51B was getting to Europe and there was simply no sense in maintaining two supply chains for fighters doing essentially the same job., and the vast majority of P-38's were released to the MTO and PTO theaters where they did VERY well. The top three USAAF pilots in the war flew the P-38, all in the PTO.
The biggest thing about the P-38 was the sheer number of things you had to do if you got bounced by enemy fighters.
You had to come up on the rpm for both engines, go to auto rich mixture for both engines, increase the throttle setting to combat, set the rpm and mixture for what you were doing, turn on the gunsight, drop tanks if you had them, and then fight. Many P-38's were shot down while the pilot was reconfiguring for combat and not reacting to being bounced.
Once the P-38 is configured for combat, it is nimble, maneuverable (if you are strong enough), and is a great gun platform.
The tactics evolved were to break away from the attack while dropping tanks and configuring for combat instead of trying to configure before reacting to the bounce. If the P-38's were the attackers, they were already properly configured and were not caught napping.
The guys who fly our P-38 are Steve Hinton, Kevin Eldridge, Chris Fahey, and Mike DeMarino. There might be another one but, if so, I can't think of him right now. All these guys love the P-38 and say it is a first class ride that is as maneuverable as any other fighter, but you have to muscle it around prior to the P-38J-25-LO. With the P-38J-25-LO, hydraulically boosted ailerons were fitted as was an electrically actuated dive recovery flap that ended the compressibility dive recovery issues. With that dive recovery flap, they could achieve 600 mph dive speeds and easily recover.
Lockheed manufactured 200 retrofit kits and sent them to Euope on a C-54 that was mistaken for an Fw 200 Condor and shot down by an RAF pilot. Talk about being in the wrong palce at the wrong time!
Ours is a P-38J-20-LO and has manual ailerons (armstrong assist, as we say) so it rolls as fast as you are strong. Our guys can really rack it around but are used to it. We are usually operating in the 180 - 350 mph range (180 - 280 mph most of the time) during an airshow and when they do fast breaks, it is usually at 250 mph and below. I'm sure it took some strength at 350+ mph to make it bank quickly. In the Horseman video above, Steve Hinton was using 3,000 rpm and 57 inches of Mercury at times after leaving formation, so he was putting out about 1,425 HP per side when he broke away from the two P-51's and went vertical.
According to these guys, the P-38's weakness mostly shows up when it gets bouced and must be reconfigured for combat quickly. If the P-38 initiates the attack, there is no disadvantage and the advantage of centerline armament comes directly into play.
They feel that while a Bf 109 or Fw 190 ambushing a P-38 might have an advantage, if the P-38 was ready for him or if the P-38 was doing the attacking, the advantage goes the other way. The Bf 109 was a good climbing fighter, but it wasn't going to out climb a P-38 enough to have any advantage if the P-38 is configured for combat. The turning circle with maneuvering flaps is VERY tight and it has enough power to maintain speed during high g turns. Prior to the P-38L-25-LO, diving was a good way to escape a P-38 as it could very quickly get to the critical Mach number.
However, if the enemy dived away, the P-38 did his job of chasing away the attackers of the bombers and could watch for the enemy to come back up and wait for a good bounce oportunity. All the former P-38 pilots who speak at the Museum's event days are still fond of it with the sole exception of one guy who flew it very early in Europe before the issues were fixed. He was cold, had backfiring issues, and had to have his engines changed at short intervals. He liked it when all as working but, early on, most weren't working too well.
Just for info, our Allisons have been generally reliable with some small exceptions. It's hard to blame the engine when it is operated too hot. If you aren't going to closely monitor the cylinder head temps, then the radiator door contol needs to be in atuo, not manual mode. Sometimes these things get learned the hard way. We've been operating this P-38 since 1988 (after restoration), so we now have 26 years of experience with it. Well ... not quite accurate. After restoration it was displayed at Palm Springs for 10 years and so we have 16 years experience plus the flgihts while it was at Palm Springs.
All in all, it is a complex aircaft but performs well. After the war it didn't fit into USAAF/USAF plans and was rapidly phased out ... but so were a lot of other planes. They were not dropped for cause, but rather in the general downsizing after WWII ended when everyone was moving to a non-war footing. Any single engine fighter is cheaper to operate than any twin fighter.
But if you are flying fighter operations over water, the big twin is a great comfort when one fan stops. The engine out characteristics of a P-38 are WAY better than for a P-51 or P-47! The Pacific Ocean is a big pond, so the P-38 was well suited to that location.
