cheddar cheese
Major General
FLYBOYJ said:
Everything I have read so for back up these statements. Does anyone know the planes exact serial number?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
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.
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.
=S=
Lunatic
While true that YIPPEE had no guns, armor, a fancy polished paint job, I could tell you with deep conviction that no rivets were filed flat! This is a major no-no!
Most of the rivets on the P-38 (and most American planes of the day) were either AN 430 Button Head rivets, AN470 Universal Head rivets, or AN426 100 degree countersunk rivets. Engineers specify the location of these rivets based on strength requirements. While the countersunk rivets are desirable for aerodynamic purposes, the button head and universal head rivets are used where strength is an issue. The AN470 rivet head is a bit streamlined and is used much more than the standard button head, hence it's name. You just can't go replacing an AN470 with an AN426 without weakening the rivet joint, but you could the other way around providing you drill out the entire countersink before driving the universal rivet and go up to 2 sizes larger in diameter, if possible.
Now on the AN426 (flush) rivets, the only thing you could do to the head is a process called "micro shaving." When driving flush rivets, sometimes the rivet doesn't always seat flush in the countersink, especially if the countersink is "dimpled" in lieu of forming a countersink into the skin material. This process is accomplished with a special milling tool called a "micro-shaver," and when using this tool you normally could only shave about .002 from the head of a countersunk rivet to get it flush, however on very large countersunk rivets you could go as deep as .015. This process is carefully monitored so the operator doesn't mill into the adjoining skin.
ANY FILING OR ALTERATION ON THE HEAD OF A BUTTON OR UNIVERSAL HEAD RIVET IS CAUSE FOR REJECTION!
The only thing that possibly could of been done in this situation is an engineering authorization to allow the replacement of the button or universal head rivets with the countersunk rivets, but I believe by doing so would for set up restrictions in some of the performance envelope (G loading) because the structure would not have been as strong.
Overall I doubt this was done during this period because although "YIPPEE" was a great PR and marketing tool, the time to go through the structure and drill out each universal head rivet and replace it with a countersunk rivet would of been immense. To do it on the production line would of been a nightmare because that would of generated dozens of engineering changes for a "one shot deal."
At that time (1944) the commitment was to roll off the assembly lines as many P-38s as possible, not custom modify one aircraft for demo purposes, unless the government wanted it done and was paying for it, and I don't think that was the case for "YIPPEE" 8)
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.
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...........
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.
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).
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 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.
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?
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.
wmaxt said:3) The demonstration aircraft were off the line - why would they build special aircraft for their testing?
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.
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!
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!
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
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
wmaxt said:Does anyone know where to go to gain access to information that would back this data up either for or against?
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".
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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
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!