Favorite fighter/interceptor?

[drgondog]

chuck, I don't have anything to add about P38 v P51 but I was glad to hear you mention your brother's comments about ACM at 20000 ft. I believe many of us on this forum wrongly put too much emphasis on high altitude combat and capabilities. I would bet that only a tiny minority of ACM took place above 25000 feet and most was well below that.

ACM at 20-30,000 was largely important only for 8th and 12/15th AF bomber escort as that is where the 'targets were' (both the bombers and the German fighters).

In winter of 1944-1945 many of the missions, particularly in bad weather, were flown in the middle altitudes in the ETO.. There were a lot more combats at low to medium altitude in this period than before.

 

[drgondog]

While I have no where near the technical expertise of many if not most of the posters in this forum I will, for old times sake, champion my favorite fighter/interceptor, the P-38L. I confess to a bias because my brother flew them with the 479th and later flew the P-51D. He always said that of the two, given his choice, he'd rather fly the P-38. I suppose he may have had a preference based on the fact that it was the first plane he flew in combat but, he said that his experience in air combat lead him to like the P-38's sub-20,000 ft. performance better than the 51's. Apparently, by the time he got into combat _mid-'44) many of the dogfights quickly got down below 20,000 and he felt no plane could out dive the 38. That's my recollection of his preferences. I wish he were here to participate but, sadly, he passed away 8 years ago.

Chuck - it is a curious fact that the 479th had the best air to air ratio of all the P-38 equipped groups I have studied (FAR better than the 20th, 55th and 364th) - and higher than say the 56th FG as well. Having said that the comparisons of the competition the 479th faced was lower to significantly lower than the 'early' 8th AF FC Groups.

Drgondog, I didn't realize your credentials until you posted them here since I am so new to this wonderful site. Let me say that as an old Army pilot, I really appreciated the effort of those Bell engineers when it came to the Huey and the Cobra. I flew both and loved them.

I was fortunate to work with and for two giants in the airframe biz before I got out in 1973. Kelley Johnson at Lockheed and Bart Kelly at Bell.

Although I did design work I was brought in from Lockheed to jump start Bell in the use of advanced structural computer modelling - mostly NASTRAN. At Lockheed I worked on a team supporting the Skunkworks trying to develop advanced aero models using relaxation computational methods for distributed source-sink pairs.

The Marine J Cobra was my favorite because the USMC was always trying to move the needle on advanced ground support capability. We put a Wecom 30mm (Col Chinn's stolen Mk103/108 concepts) to replace the Ge 20mm and we put 5" Zuni Rockets on the outer pylon. We also 'did' an XM-97 20mm system hanging on the outer pylons

I am reasonably sure You personally can identify with the blast effects of a Zuni on the ammo doors and canopy latches of a Cobra!!

We shut down the 30mm short recoil system immediately because it fired at the natural frequency of the Cobra airframe - and damn near had a tail boom 'diverge' on us.

We never did completely solve the Zuni launch blast effect. The over pressure wave deflected the canopy so much we couldn't design a latch system that would keep her buttoned up. I was riding a J during one of the tests and we not only lost the canopy but it clattered around in the rotors before going away.

Bell was a great place to work and got me back to Texas.

Regards,

 

[drgondog]

It's really a no-brainer for anyone with even a slight insight into aerodynamics....

So, where do you want to start?

Flat plate drag, zero lift drag, wetted surface drag, friction drag, transonic drag, drag rise, drag buckets, induced drag, lifting line theory, tip vortices, laminar flow, turbulent flow, laminar flow transition to turbulent flow and boundary layer theory?

Do you want to discuss solutions to Navier-Stokes and the applied computational mathematics to solve it? How about boundary conditions which must be applied to temperature thresholds approximating 'yield' and must be accounted for in aeroelasticity for mach 3 capable craft?

Do you want to trip into orthogonal matrix decompositions for Performance calculations along all three axes? six degrees of freedom?

How about simulating lift lines or lift by the use of complex variables or distribution of sources and sinks to model lift and pressure distributions and moment coefficients? How would you model the pressure distribution on a centerbody covering at the axis of a ducted fan rotor? What assumptions would you use for the flow around that centerbody at the blade/centerbody axis?

Are you more interested in modelling wing/body interference and the effects it has on airflow and drag calculations? How about talking about Karman doublets and therories of alternating vortices in stimulating resonance?

Have you done any aero modelling using finite element, relaxation model techniques? any structural modelling using NASTRAN or STARDYNE to design a helicopter or something as simple as an F-16 canopy that will survive a Mil Spec Chicken test - do you know what that is?

You are a pro Soren, I know, you assured everybody that you are a giant among men in this field and certainly far more competent than me.

I am NOT a 'pro' but I can discuss each of theses topics plus many more.. so I am confident that you have many, many more levels of expertise in aero than I do.

BTW an amateur in this field often thinks of themselves as 'pros' - because they don't know what they don't know. I know there is a lot that I don't know - but flat plate drag ain't one of those subjects.

 

[chuckn49]

Thanks for the information on the 479th air-to-air kill ratio, Drgondog. I was not aware of that. My brother, in many ways, was a hero to me. I used to listen to him talk about flying in the P-38 and the P-51. He did 100 missions before rotating stateside. Once home, he thought he'd be put into a training role like so many others before him but, instead, ended up preparing for the pacific. He was in California, though, when the war finally ended. Eventually, he retired as a Colonel.

I flew the AH-1G, not the J. We had the 2.75" rockets, 40 mm grenade launcher and, of course, the mini-guns. It was the first helicopter I ever knew to be looped though never officially as far as I know. I know, now, that others were but, I can assure you it was not a maneuver taught in flight school. I liked flying the Loach even better, though.

 

[Soren]

Let the fight begin!

Again you come up with something I never said Bill, you're the master of blowing things up to something they're not.

I have never refered to myself as an expert or "pro" within aerodynamics Bill, but I am neither an amateur, and with your background you're not an amateur either. What surprises me though, considering your background, is that you need so much time to figure these things out;

I presented the FPA chart where both the Spitfire, D-9, A-8, -51B D were all included, and what was exceedingly clear was that the P-51 had the lowest drag. Yet you somehow saw it fit to jump on me with these snide remarks"So, Soren, explain how the P-51B was faster than both with inferior aerodynamics and power. Ditto on climb, or every close performance comparison in all regimes? and "It is pretty clear that I'm a little 'slow' because I challenge quite a bit of what you say when not accompanied by a fact base... and, if the Dora was so clean, why the issues with the engine seal in attaining predicted speeds from wind tunnel drag?

So if you understand the chart why the comments above ?


Furthermore in the very same post I provided the FW aerodynamics charts for the FW190 Ta152 series, where you can clearly see the lower drag and higher thrust values of the D-9 vs the A-8. Why do you ignore this ?


Now as to discussing various aerodynamical subjects, I'd be more than happy to do that with you Bill.

 

[Wayne Little]

While you blokes are having your 'discussion' my vote is for the Ta152.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am actually having fun reading this. Eventually it will get to the point of the thread being closed.

 

[Njaco]

Unfortunately. My favorite, my opinion would be to fly the Me 262.

Because I like it.

 

[drgondog]

Thanks for the information on the 479th air-to-air kill ratio, Drgondog. I was not aware of that. My brother, in many ways, was a hero to me. I used to listen to him talk about flying in the P-38 and the P-51. He did 100 missions before rotating stateside. Once home, he thought he'd be put into a training role like so many others before him but, instead, ended up preparing for the pacific. He was in California, though, when the war finally ended. Eventually, he retired as a Colonel.

I flew the AH-1G, not the J. We had the 2.75" rockets, 40 mm grenade launcher and, of course, the mini-guns. It was the first helicopter I ever knew to be looped though never officially as far as I know. I know, now, that others were but, I can assure you it was not a maneuver taught in flight school. I liked flying the Loach even better, though.

HugHes LOH?

Lol Chuck - I had the difference between G and J doped when you indicated USA.

Naw, the only reason I brought up the J is that the Marine Program Officer, Major Kragaskis had so many cute things he wanted to try and convinced USMC to do it. AFAIK he was the first to loop a J - which for most pilots in 1969-1970 could be a fatal expression of 'free to be me'.

As you well know the blades would have had a tendency with the semi articulated rotor system to unload' in a loop, and the abrubt 'reload' could be non repeating experience. I seem to recall a G going down at Rucker with some confusion regarding either a very tight turn or attempted loop?

No, We had no data on the exhaust characteristics, and discovered the amazing difference firing the 5" Zuni versus even ripple fire w/2.75's. The first tests were on the ground and blew the ammo door cover off and sprung the canopy. The bird was grounded while we had a new door flown in and found the latches damaged also.

The 7.62 was a whole different experience from the 3 barrel XM-188(? CRS) 20mm also .. felt like a pogo stick in the gunner's seat.

I was in that ship coming back from the Flight Test center in South Arlington when Major Krazy looped it.

I might have had a 'swab test' when we got on the ground.

 

[chuckn49]

I did, indeed, fly the Mattel Messcherschmidt, the OH-6 by Hughes. It was a wonderful flying machine and very, very crashable (a big plus when you find yourself hovering over a quad-fifty at 30'). I irreverently call it the Mattel Messcherschmidt because it reminded me so much of the ubiquitous TH-55 also by Hughes which we all called by that name.

I heard, but never saw a Cobra looped by an Army Warrant in 'Nam in '68 or so and heard other stories of people doing it. I was too fond of my butt to ever try it (no guts) but it could sure be honked around pretty hard.

There was a problem, briefly, with a couple of Cobra's lost due to rotor failure -- an event sure to increase the pucker factor in any aviator, methinks. I believe there were cracks that appeared in them requiring a fix from Bell. As you know, it was essentially the same rotor system as the "C" model Huey which I had the pleasure of flying.

Never heard of a Cobra lost at Rucker, though. Most, in those years. were at Hunter but, I didn't follow up on a lot of them so I'm sure it may have happened.

 

[drgondog]

I did, indeed, fly the Mattel Messcherschmidt, the OH-6 by Hughes. It was a wonderful flying machine and very, very crashable (a big plus when you find yourself hovering over a quad-fifty at 30'). I irreverently call it the Mattel Messcherschmidt because it reminded me so much of the ubiquitous TH-55 also by Hughes which we all called by that name.

I heard, but never saw a Cobra looped by an Army Warrant in 'Nam in '68 or so and heard other stories of people doing it. I was too fond of my butt to ever try it (no guts) but it could sure be honked around pretty hard.

I heard the same story - could have been true.

There was a problem, briefly, with a couple of Cobra's lost due to rotor failure -- an event sure to increase the pucker factor in any aviator, methinks. I believe there were cracks that appeared in them requiring a fix from Bell. As you know, it was essentially the same rotor system as the "C" model Huey which I had the pleasure of flying.

Never heard of a Cobra lost at Rucker, though. Most, in those years. were at Hunter but, I didn't follow up on a lot of them so I'm sure it may have happened.

Chuck - it could have been at Hunter.. we are dealing with 40 years of memories that have been abused by single malt and Hops of various types and vintages

What I recall is that the blade failed but not in the normal manner - it was unloaded somehow and deflected (or out right bending failure) and came through cockpit.

The G had a beefed up rotor which came from the J as I recall. It was rated for higher performance and gross weight than Army G.

Hughes beat us on the Apache because they had a lower vibration 'load' and crash survivability than our King Cobra (model 309). The King had the first semi rigid four blade we ever designed - primarily because of performance and attempts to isolate/reduce vibration loads due to two rotor articulated systems.

We had a very bright Brit leading the crash survivability team but he left in middle of program to go lead Hughes Airframe Structures. My first exposure to concept of 'elastic deformation' to absorb energy in crash while protecting crew area (not first 'awareness' but first serious design effort)..

Suprisingly it was easily modelled in Nastran with very good agreement to actual crash test deformations later.

It has been a LONG time since I even thought about this stuff. The thing I reflect on is that I have my name on a lot of drawings and even one patent (as a contributor) on the Nodal Pylon Vibration Isolation System.. I'm going to have to search on the precise name but Bart Kelly and Jan Drees (aero and performance) were the principals. You would have been amazed at how smooth the ride was on a UH-1H and Jet Ranger at 130-140 kts

 

[SoD Stitch]

chuck, I don't have anything to add about P38 v P51 but I was glad to hear you mention your brother's comments about ACM at 20000 ft. I believe many of us on this forum wrongly put too much emphasis on high altitude combat and capabilities. I would bet that only a tiny minority of ACM took place above 25000 feet and most was well below that.

Yes; my (limited) experience has been that, even though a furball might start out at 25,000 ASL+, it would quickly degenerate below that, as each contestant would try to get into an advantageous position, trading altitude for speed. I have no doubt that many an aerial engagement that started out at ~20-25,000 ASL ended up (for better or worse) at treetop height. As chuck stated, this is where the P-38 (particularly the J L models) shined, as they were able to sustain a tighter turn at lower speeds than most of their adversaries at those altitudes (or lack thereof!).

 

[drgondog]

Yes; my (limited) experience has been that, even though a furball might start out at 25,000 ASL+, it would quickly degenerate below that, as each contestant would try to get into an advantageous position, trading altitude for speed. I have no doubt that many an aerial engagement that started out at ~20-25,000 ASL ended up (for better or worse) at treetop height. As chuck stated, this is where the P-38 (particularly the J L models) shined, as they were able to sustain a tighter turn at lower speeds than most of their adversaries at those altitudes (or lack thereof!).

IIRC the P-38L was a distinct step above the J in nearly every important category including climb, roll, acceleration, turn and dive management - to the point it was for all intents and purposes the equal (except cost) of the P-51B and H, the F4U-4, the P47D-30 and above.

I would have to give an edge of the 38L over the P-51D/K in several areas including low and high speed roll, climb and acceleration. Usually one of those will work for you.

The dive brakes, boosted ailerons, upgraded engines took the L to the point that the P-38 should have been in 1943 except for the disaster on the prototypes.

 

[chuckn49]

Drgondog, again your superior knowledge has me at a distinct disadvantage. After all, I was just a dumb pilot and all the mechanics would start my day by telling me: "I told Orville and I told Wilbur and I'm telling you; it'll never get off the ground." Well, they were wrong. Getting it off the ground wasn't the hard part: keeping it off the ground was.

Anyway, I didn't realize the G model's rotor system was from the J model. It must have been a retro-fit because I'm pretty sure the models I flew had rotor systems originally from the C model Huey which I also flew (much harder to fly than the Cobra due to weight problems -- the aircraft's, not mine .
As you say, though, we're both trying to remember 40 years ago (I wish you hadn't reminded me of how much time has gone by ).

That J model must have been some bird with those twin engines, etc. We thought the G model was pretty hot stuff and, compared to the C model it replaced it really was. A loaded C model was almost impossible to autorotate -- it would just fall through the flare and break backs.

I flew H models and I flew Rangers but, I don't remember the vibration system you mentioned. Here again, it has been 40 years. I do know I suffered high frequency hearing loss in my right ear as a result of that darn turbine whine, though.

 

[magnocain]

(ducking)
(technobable bullets whistling over my head)
while your p38's (i think you are talking about p38's) are dogfighting, the F4U will zoom by and accomplish the mission
"ahh!"
(technobable bullets whistling past my face)
(ducking)

 

[drgondog]

Drgondog, again your superior knowledge has me at a distinct disadvantage. After all, I was just a dumb pilot and all the mechanics would start my day by telling me: "I told Orville and I told Wilbur and I'm telling you; it'll never get off the ground." Well, they were wrong. Getting it off the ground wasn't the hard part: keeping it off the ground was.

Anyway, I didn't realize the G model's rotor system was from the J model. It must have been a retro-fit because I'm pretty sure the models I flew had rotor systems originally from the C model Huey which I also flew (much harder to fly than the Cobra due to weight problems -- the aircraft's, not mine .
As you say, though, we're both trying to remember 40 years ago (I wish you hadn't reminded me of how much time has gone by ).

Chuck I know the Cobra G rotor was both thicker in chord and greater span than the C. Whether it was a J rotor - I honestly cannot remeber for sure.

That J model must have been some bird with those twin engines, etc. We thought the G model was pretty hot stuff and, compared to the C model it replaced it really was. A loaded C model was almost impossible to autorotate -- it would just fall through the flare and break backs.

Auto rotate is one of those interesting 'concepts' which occasionally works in real life. Every time I see a movie in which a helo loses a tail rotor I cringe

I flew H models and I flew Rangers but, I don't remember the vibration system you mentioned. Here again, it has been 40 years. I do know I suffered high frequency hearing loss in my right ear as a result of that darn turbine whine, though.

I lost all of my high frequency hearing (both ears) due to recip engines and shooting over 45+ years. I shot both hand thrown and box flyers for a long time and din't wear ear protection in the case of Box birds because I wanted to hear and see when the bird was released... and I never use them for any kind of hunting these days as there ain't much to protect..

As to the nodal platform - I don't know whether it was used on military birds. I went out of airframe biz in 1973.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I lost all of my high frequency hearing (both ears) due to recip engines and shooting over 45+ years.

My high freq hearing is terrible as well and that is just from flying Blackhawks for 6 years, so I can imagine how your hearing is after 45+!

 

[drgondog]

My high freq hearing is terrible as well and that is just from flying Blackhawks for 6 years, so I can imagine how your hearing is after 45+!

The real long term damage is shooting Chris. most of the hours in a recip were with earphones of sometype - whereas I have careless guys in a duck blind or hunting quail let one loose close to an ear... a lot of times.

I don't imagine that the Blackhawk or a CH 53 would be much less punishing. At least I haven't spent a lot of time next to an amplifier for a head banger group..

 

[Soren]

I'm sure many of us have suffered some hearing damage, I myself have been very careful to look out for my hearing, but walking around with ear plugs just isn't an option always and my hearing isn't as good as it used to be.

 

[davparlr]

What hearing? I would feel lost without my friend the little bell ringing all the time. The only advantage is that I cannot hear crickets.