Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Hey Surgeon, I can get how "fresh meat" would be your thing,

- it sure beats hacking on stinkin' ol' corruption-raddled gangrenous rot...

But - if facts can intrude on the niceties fo' a mo', then fo' sure, we can straighten some sheets..

 

You want WW2 piston-power for fighter take-off, forget about a lazy-bones radial, check this intense machine out...

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1945/1945 - 2284.html

 

&, liquid-cooling allowed that "climbing" power rating to be enabled for an hour, something an air-cooled engine aint doin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers, LC. 

You may find some data of interest in this table here too;

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1947/1947 - 1491.html

 

Note also the fuel efficiency of the sleeve-valve Napier Sabre V, 56.7 gallons per hour making 890hp/2500rpm,

versus the R-R Merlin 500 @ 71.5 gph for 90 hp more at 2650rpm  - while needing another +6.5lb of forced induction boost.

 

For comparison, an earlier Napier, an unsupercharged sea-level DOHC 4V W12 Lion race engine on 10:1 comp ratio made 880hp @ 50 gph.

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1945/1945 - 1118.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, M.B-5 said:

Hi y'all.

 

Some interesting views put forth, here in this thread.

Do allow some corrections, though, won't you fellas...

 

1,The rear "Aux" fuselage tank in the P-51 wasn't actually a "drop tank" - it was for transit flying & was used 1st,

rather than in combat.

2, P-38 did ok against the lesser forces of Nippon, but could not technologically* hack the pace in the ETO,

  & was replaced by the P-51.

3, P-47, like the other P&W R-2800 powered fighters  - was a real gas-hog,  even at a slow cruise speed,

& like the P-38, was dumped by the 8th AF, on the advent of the P-51 - arriving in numbers.

4, P-51 did not need the "dive flaps" belatedly attached to both P-38 & P-47 to recover control,

& pull out safely - from 'Mach crit' high speed dives.

5, Victory stats collected by the USAAF in the ETO, confirmed their top choice of the P-51 as air-superiority fighter,

- was the right one**.

 

* P-38 was a real handful of control complexity to simply fly, let alone operate in combat - esp' against the faster diving 109/190, whose pilots could spot the big twin-boom Lockheed from a distance,

& then choose an attack profile - to suit themselves. 

 

**The RAF wanted all the Mustangs they could get, (even the Allison powered ones, which they used 'til war's end),

but didn't want P-38's, & relegated the hundreds of lend-lease P-47's they received - solely to combat against the lesser forces of Nippon, too. 

 

 

 

 



Hello M.B-5, and welcome to SH!

I am not well-versed in the specifics myself, but I would suspect that plenty of P-38 fans would come forth to defend its honor, even in spite of its shortcomings in the European theater.  Among other things, a lot of the P-38s in combat early on in Europe were the downgraded export models which lacked handed propellers, and, at least according to some sources, received inferior maintenance to P-38s in the Pacific Theater.  P-38 was a very maintenance-intensive bird, and it would not give its best performance if not looked after very carefully.

There were other problems too, like improperly mixed fuel.  The Americans were far, far ahead of other nations in av-gas formulation in WWII, and some of the fuel used in the ETO didn't have the anti-knock agents mixed correctly.  Bottom line was that the V1710s in a combat wing of P-38s were very likely not performing how they would on a test stand in the Indianapolis factory.

By the time the P-51 showed up, these problems were a lot better understood, so in large part the P-51 benefited from a lot of experience gained on earlier models of fighter.

I'm a little curious to know why exactly a Bf 109 could out-dive a P-38.  According to the parasite drag and thrust chart posted before, the P-38 had a very low drag coefficient despite being twin engine.  Might have had something to do with the fairly low Mcrit.

I have been unable to find good specific fuel consumption charts for the most common WWII piston engines, but my book on Allied piston engines claims that the R2800 was in the middle of the pack for efficiency.  True, it did guzzle fuel, but it produced a ridiculous amount of energy while doing so.  The lower fuel consumption of the P-51 vs the P-47 is, I would think, less a function of the Merlin being a more efficient engine than the R2800 and more a function of the Merlin being a much smaller engine than the R2800.

Sleeve valve engines generally had higher compression ratios, so I would expect them to have a modest advantage in specific fuel consumption compared to conventional poppet-valve engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

AHH, FRESH MEAT

The_Butcher_(Diablo_I).gif

Fuck, you have not seen my late granpap angry.

 

 

To re-illustrate for our confused poster...

 

The man already had a mechanics ticket in 1938. When he enlisted.

He was all but thrown out in 1968.

 

So, when I roll in about aviation history, rest assured it's from a pretty unique viewpoint. 

 I have worked on, and restored a number of Ww2 aircraft, and later, armor.

 

So.. When I say "What the fuck are you on about?!?"  it is without malice, but amazement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No docs in this post, sorry.

 

The P-38 was designed as an interceptor.  As such, it was expected that the pilot could do things like switch fuel tanks, change prop pitch, and adjust the mixture at his leisure.  The main reason for the difference in combat performance between the PTO and ETO was the lack of an Integrated Air Defense System in the PTO.  Japanese interceptors were trying to climb up to reach the American strikes and the P-38's had the advantage in situational awareness and energy.  In the ETO the Germans had the edge in both due to their high quality (for the time) IADS.  The P-38's switchology was too difficult for the average pilot whereas the P-51 gave the pilot a better chance.  Other factors in the P-38's performance in the ETO were lack of experience and relative numbers.  The P-51 arrived when the US had more knowledge and more planes and the Germans had fewer.

 

The P-47 was a better fighter bomber than the P-51 due to greater range-payload and lower vulnerability.  The P-47 was capable of handling the German fighters but at $80,000 a piece vs $50,000 for a P-51 the P-47 had to be used where it was most effective.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any info. on bubble canopies?  I've read that many pilots preferred the razorback P-47 because it was faster, a more stable gun platform, and easier to escape from if the plane became inverted on the ground compared to the bubble canopy version.

 

Of course, we all know that the F-35 will be clubbed like a baby seal because it lacks a bubble canopy.  The reason the US lost so many planes in Vietnam?  Yes, you guessed it, no bubble canopies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we lost so many planes in Vietnam,  is in the infinite wisdom of the Air Force and Navy leadership decided missiles made ACM obsolete. They then stopped training fighter pilots in ACM. Once they learned the errors of their ways and started teaching ACM again, the K/D ratio went right back up to near Korea War levels, and bubble canopies had very little to do with it. 

 

It's also a bit of a stretch to say the F-35 doesn't have a bubble canopy. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P-38 missed out on a bubble canopy upgrade, unlike the P-47, & P-51.

P-47D got an improved windshield & bubble canopy - which was pretty much a straight copy

- from the Hawker Typhoon.

 

When the 'Mighty 8th' cast-off its P-38 & P-47 units for the more effective P-51, the 9th 'tactical' AF got them,

for 'mud-moving' tasks, even though they were expensively optimised for high-altitude work with turbochargers,

& not at their best - down low. 

 

The 9th AF quickly found the P-38 to be too big, & too vulnerable/costly to use in the A2G role,

( as were the A-20/A-24/A-26 in the ETO) & so then tried them as defacto medium bombers

( Mosquito style) instead, but they weren't too effective in this, either.

 

The 9th AF P-47s suffered fairly heavily in their new tactical duties on ground support for the invasion forces,

losing nearly 1500 in combat between D-day & VE-day, both to flak & Luftwaffe anti-JaBo ops,

which proved more profitable for the Jagdwaffe, than vainly trying to battle the P-51s.

 

Ironically, the P-51's outright victory figures ( & victoty-to-loss ratios)  for both A2A, & A2G ops

- were better than the putatively 'rugged' P-47, let alone the pretty-much unwanted P-38.

 

Both 109/190 could lose the low Mach/high drag handicapped P-38 in a dive, as well as being able to contend effectively in A2A combat  with the fat-as P-47 below 15,000ft, (esp' when the 'Jug' was bomb-laden,

& even a forced ordnance jettison - was rated a 'success' for the hard-pressed LW fighters).

 

The P-38's low limiting dive-speed of ~440mph EAS was poor versus the single-engines fighters in the ETO,

(  ~100mph less - than some, such as the Tempest).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, M.B-5 said:

P-38 missed out on a bubble canopy upgrade, unlike the P-47, & P-51.

P-47D got an improved windshield & bubble canopy - which was pretty much a straight copy

- from the Hawker Typhoon.

 

When the 'Mighty 8th' cast-off its P-38 & P-47 units for the more effective P-51, the 9th 'tactical' AF got them,

for 'mud-moving' tasks, even though they were expensively optimised for high-altitude work with turbochargers,

& not at their best - down low. 

 

The 9th AF quickly found the P-38 to be too big, & too vulnerable/costly to use in the A2G role,

( as were the A-20/A-24/A-26 in the ETO) & so then tried them as defacto medium bombers

( Mosquito style) instead, but they weren't too effective in this, either.

 

The 9th AF P-47s suffered fairly heavily in their new tactical duties on ground support for the invasion forces,

losing nearly 1500 in combat between D-day & VE-day, both to flak & Luftwaffe anti-JaBo ops,

which proved more profitable for the Jagdwaffe, than vainly trying to battle the P-51s.

 

Ironically, the P-51's outright victory figures ( & victoty-to-loss ratios)  for both A2A, & A2G ops

- were better than the putatively 'rugged' P-47, let alone the pretty-much unwanted P-38.

 

Both 109/190 could lose the low Mach/high drag handicapped P-38 in a dive, as well as being able to contend effectively in A2A combat  with the fat-as P-47 below 15,000ft, (esp' when the 'Jug' was bomb-laden,

& even a forced ordnance jettison - was rated a 'success' for the hard-pressed LW fighters).

 

The P-38's low limiting dive-speed of ~440mph EAS was poor versus the single-engines fighters in the ETO,

(  ~100mph less - than some, such as the Tempest).

I'm waiting for you to explain how the P-38 could have benefited from a" bubble canopy"..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you sat in a P-38?

There are canopy frames which intrude on a clear view, & they're lateral-wise, right at eye-level,

annoyances which are notably absent from a proper,  blown 1-piece - bubble canopy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, M.B-5 said:

Have you sat in a P-38?

There are canopy frames which intrude on a clear view, & they're lateral-wise, right at eye-level,

annoyances which are notably absent from a proper,  blown 1-piece - bubble canopy.

 

My grandad was a senior tech for Allison pre WW2, and spent the majority of WW2, working on P-38's, winning a bronze star for keeping them in the business of killing Nazis.. 

Prior to opening a business restoring WW2 armor, I worked on more than a few WW2 aircraft, being an A&P mechanic with more than a bit of hands on experience on WW2 era aircraft..

 

A blown/"Malcom Hood" would have contributed jack and/or shit to the performance/effectiveness of the P-38.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, M.B-5 said:

Hi y'all.

 

Some interesting views put forth, here in this thread.

Do allow some corrections, though, won't you fellas...

 

1,The rear "Aux" fuselage tank in the P-51 wasn't actually a "drop tank" - it was for transit flying & was used 1st,

rather than in combat.

2, P-38 did ok against the lesser forces of Nippon, but could not technologically* hack the pace in the ETO,

  & was replaced by the P-51.

3, P-47, like the other P&W R-2800 powered fighters  - was a real gas-hog,  even at a slow cruise speed,

& like the P-38, was dumped by the 8th AF, on the advent of the P-51 - arriving in numbers.

4, P-51 did not need the "dive flaps" belatedly attached to both P-38 & P-47 to recover control,

& pull out safely - from 'Mach crit' high speed dives.

5, Victory stats collected by the USAAF in the ETO, confirmed their top choice of the P-51 as air-superiority fighter,

- was the right one**.

 

* P-38 was a real handful of control complexity to simply fly, let alone operate in combat - esp' against the faster diving 109/190, whose pilots could spot the big twin-boom Lockheed from a distance,

& then choose an attack profile - to suit themselves. 

 

**The RAF wanted all the Mustangs they could get, (even the Allison powered ones, which they used 'til war's end),

but didn't want P-38's, & relegated the hundreds of lend-lease P-47's they received - solely to combat against the lesser forces of Nippon, too. 

 

 

 

 

 

I have some objections to this post. 

 

1: You seem to have misread something in the thread here, I don't recall anyone claiming the rear fuselage tank was a drop tank, and I even posted a pic showing its capacity. 


2: The P-38 did just fine in every theater it fought in. It may not have done as well in the hands of the 8th, but there were other issues involved, that had more to do with the 8th Air Force's problems in how they handled the P-38, funny how their use Alaska and Iceland had few issues with cold weather operations and the P-38. To dismiss its success in the Pacific like the Japanese were vastly inferior to the Germans is a cop out, and German aircraft were not all that great, and neither were their pilots by 43/44.  The P-38 was never fazed out of the ETO, the 9th used them to the end, they were in demand in every theater and stayed in demand in every theater right to the end of the war, but the P-51 coming onto the scene dropped the demand a lot in Europe.  The P-38 was actually more technologically advanced than the P-51 as well. The turbo system was cutting edge. The P-51 did save the 8th Air Forces bacon, and for that, it gets all the glory, because the 8th got a lot of press.  By 1944, the US was producing the best-trained pilots in the world, period. 

 

3: Odd, I do not see anything I would call a VAST difference in fuel consumption at various setting in the R-2800 and Merlin.  Some sure, but nothing I would call vast. I would chalk up range differences mostly being fuel tank capacity of the plane. As the war progressed, the P-47 and P-38 also gained fuel tanks and late war P-47s would outrange the P-51.

P-51-engine-operation.png

Scan_Pic0020-1600x1214.jpg

4: The P-51 didn't get dive flaps, not because it couldn't get into compressibility, but because it took a little longer and pilots were trained to avoid diving with to much power. When it did get into compressibility it had a tendency to lose its tail when trying to pull out. Granted a weak tail was a known issue. The reason it was a big deal on the P-38 is that the P-38 was one of the first planes clean and heavy enough to run into it. The P-51 benefited from a lot of lessons the US Air Force learned because of the P-38. 

 

5: Yeah, sounds like they surveyed only P-51 and Bomber pilots in the 8th. Wooooopdy doo. A link to a source on this would be nice though. 

 

All WWII Aircraft had complex controls, at least on the US side of things, it wouldn't be until later P-47 models were they started toying with a lot of automatic controls. The P-38 was a tad worse, but the very well trained pilots coming out of the US training system could handle it fine since they tended to send the best performers into the P-38 pipeline, well at least the ones that went everywhere but the 8th Air Force. 

 

p51-engine-controls.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, M.B-5 said:

P-38 missed out on a bubble canopy upgrade, unlike the P-47, & P-51.

P-47D got an improved windshield & bubble canopy - which was pretty much a straight copy

- from the Hawker Typhoon.

 

When the 'Mighty 8th' cast-off its P-38 & P-47 units for the more effective P-51, the 9th 'tactical' AF got them,

for 'mud-moving' tasks, even though they were expensively optimised for high-altitude work with turbochargers,

& not at their best - down low. 

 

The 9th AF quickly found the P-38 to be too big, & too vulnerable/costly to use in the A2G role,

( as were the A-20/A-24/A-26 in the ETO) & so then tried them as defacto medium bombers

( Mosquito style) instead, but they weren't too effective in this, either.

 

The 9th AF P-47s suffered fairly heavily in their new tactical duties on ground support for the invasion forces,

losing nearly 1500 in combat between D-day & VE-day, both to flak & Luftwaffe anti-JaBo ops,

which proved more profitable for the Jagdwaffe, than vainly trying to battle the P-51s.

 

Ironically, the P-51's outright victory figures ( & victoty-to-loss ratios)  for both A2A, & A2G ops

- were better than the putatively 'rugged' P-47, let alone the pretty-much unwanted P-38.

 

Both 109/190 could lose the low Mach/high drag handicapped P-38 in a dive, as well as being able to contend effectively in A2A combat  with the fat-as P-47 below 15,000ft, (esp' when the 'Jug' was bomb-laden,

& even a forced ordnance jettison - was rated a 'success' for the hard-pressed LW fighters).

 

The P-38's low limiting dive-speed of ~440mph EAS was poor versus the single-engines fighters in the ETO,

(  ~100mph less - than some, such as the Tempest).

3

 

The P-38 didn't need a bubble, and if anyone had proposed one, it wouldn't have made it into production, because the P-38 was considered too important to slow the production down for a minor thing no one complained about. 

 

The mighty 8th was mighty good with the press, but are hardly a shining example of a great Air Force. Go read about the things the 5th did. 

 

The 9th used the P-47 and P-38 right to the end of the war, so what's your point?

 

On the 9ths P-47s stats, do you have links or references, cause that sounds interesting, but well you know...

 

By the point in the war, we are talking about most German pilots could barely fly, so talking about how they could, if they really knew their shit, outperform a P-38 or any other allied fighter by flying their German shitbird to the limits is pretty silly if you ask me. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, M.B-5 said:

Have you sat in a P-38?

There are canopy frames which intrude on a clear view, & they're lateral-wise, right at eye-level,

annoyances which are notably absent from a proper,  blown 1-piece - bubble canopy.

 

 

Were you in a neck brace when you sat in a P-38? You know you can move your head around right? The general complaint by P-38 pilots about visibility was they couldn't see below it will cause the engines got in the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Were you in a neck brace when you sat in a P-38? You know you can move your head around right? The general complaint by P-38 pilots about visibility was they couldn't see below it will cause the engines got in the way. 

In truth, I was... Just got out of a plane crash...

 

But yeah..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shit, like it or not, most of the P-38 info in wart-chunder I provided.

last I heard, my name was still in the credits, even if I can't post int he forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Collimatrix said:



Hello M.B-5, and welcome to SH!

I am not well-versed in the specifics myself, but I would suspect that plenty of P-38 fans would come forth to defend its honor, even in spite of its shortcomings in the European theater.  Among other things, a lot of the P-38s in combat early on in Europe were the downgraded export models which lacked handed propellers, and, at least according to some sources, received inferior maintenance to P-38s in the Pacific Theater.  P-38 was a very maintenance-intensive bird, and it would not give its best performance if not looked after very carefully.

There were other problems too, like improperly mixed fuel.  The Americans were far, far ahead of other nations in av-gas formulation in WWII, and some of the fuel used in the ETO didn't have the anti-knock agents mixed correctly.  Bottom line was that the V1710s in a combat wing of P-38s were very likely not performing how they would on a test stand in the Indianapolis factory.

By the time the P-51 showed up, these problems were a lot better understood, so in large part the P-51 benefited from a lot of experience gained on earlier models of fighter.

I'm a little curious to know why exactly a Bf 109 could out-dive a P-38.  According to the parasite drag and thrust chart posted before, the P-38 had a very low drag coefficient despite being twin engine.  Might have had something to do with the fairly low Mcrit.

I have been unable to find good specific fuel consumption charts for the most common WWII piston engines, but my book on Allied piston engines claims that the R2800 was in the middle of the pack for efficiency.  True, it did guzzle fuel, but it produced a ridiculous amount of energy while doing so.  The lower fuel consumption of the P-51 vs the P-47 is, I would think, less a function of the Merlin being a more efficient engine than the R2800 and more a function of the Merlin being a much smaller engine than the R2800.

Sleeve valve engines generally had higher compression ratios, so I would expect them to have a modest advantage in specific fuel consumption compared to conventional poppet-valve engines.

 

 

Nah, the dumbass Brits ordered their P-38s with non-contra rotating props and no turboes because they wanted commonality with the early P-40s. Lockheed warned them how bad that would be, but Brits being Brits, they did their thing, then canceled the order at like 8 planes when they realized how dumb their decision was.   No combat P-38s had non-contrarotating props. 

 

The clearest reason for the 8th Air Forces P-38 problems were morale and competence related to the guys maintaining the planes right up to the Generals. 

 

See my post a few back for fuel consumption charts

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Nah, the dumbass Brits ordered their P-38s with non-contra rotating props and no turboes because they wanted commonality with the early P-40s. Lockheed warned them how bad that would be, but Brits being Brits, they did their thing, then canceled the order at like 8 planes when they realized how dumb their decision was.   No Combat P-38s had non-contrarotating props. 

 

The clearest reason for the 8th Air Forces P-38 problems were morale and competence related to the guys maintaining the planes right up to the Generals. 

 

See my post a few back for fuel consumption charts

 

Yeah, grandad did have some less than kind words about some "mechanics".

By the time he was a CWO4, I'm sure he saw all kinds of ass-hattery.

When he had me working on his Navion in JHS, it was brutal. 

But looking back, it was worth it.  "Be meticilous in your work" .

 

Also- "sleeve valve mills love to fucking eat oil" .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Hey @Collimatrix

 

The early F4U-1 models had fuel tanks in the outer wing panels, these were dropped by the -1D model, they were not popular and like the main tank had a tendency to leak. 

 

The P-38 gained wing tanks when the moved the intercoolers from the leading edge of the wing, they used the space for a 55-gallon tank in each.  The early wing leading edge intercooler was a big part of the early P-38s issues. 

p38feul.png

F4u-1-fuels.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Oh Hey @Collimatrix

 

The early F4U-1 models had fuel tanks in the outer wing panels, these were dropped by the -1D model, they were not popular and like the main tank had a tendency to leak. 

 

The P-38 gained wing tanks when the moved the intercoolers from the leading edge of the wing, they used the space for a 61-gallon tank in each.  The early wing leading edge intercooler was a big part of the early P-38s issues. 

They always had issues with the prestone tanks as well.  That shit would seep through the smallest crack. (it still does)

One of my grandad's anecdotes was of a pilot who claimed his P38 was "the tits", but it always came back with scary low prestone.

 

Turned out that at manually applied high boost, it was leaking (spraying) prestone into the intake after the pressure carb, and providing a skosh of ADI.

Once it was fixed, "it never ran the same".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, M.B-5 said:

 

Both 109/190 could lose the low Mach/high drag handicapped P-38 in a dive, as well as being able to contend effectively in A2A combat  with the fat-as P-47 below 15,000ft, (esp' when the 'Jug' was bomb-laden,

& even a forced ordnance jettison - was rated a 'success' for the hard-pressed LW fighters).

 

The P-38's low limiting dive-speed of ~440mph EAS was poor versus the single-engines fighters in the ETO,

(  ~100mph less - than some, such as the Tempest).

 

 

Whoah whoah whoah.

The critical mach number problem was mainly an issue of sonic shock waves forming over the wings of the aircraft.  All wings will do this if the airflow over them gets fast enough, the problem was just that most airfoils designed in the 1930s would form shock waves at fairly low mach numbers.  The reason that the Tempest out-dives a Lightning is that it has laminar flow wings, not that it has a single engine.  Laminar flow wings have a higher critical mach number than the traditional airfoil designs that were used in the late 1930s.

Very few Axis fighters had laminar flow wings, the J2M Raiden being the only one I can think of offhand.  The Bf 109, being a mid 1930s legacy design definitely started with traditional airfoils, and I can find no reference to the Bf 109 having ever been re-designed to have laminar flow wings.  Likewise, the FW-190 seems to have lacked laminar flow wings as well.  So the Bf 109 and FW-190 would also have problems with their critical mach numbers while diving, and most likely at around the same airspeeds as the P-38.  If their airfoils were slightly less cambered or had a slightly higher chord to thickness ratio then Mcrit may have been somewhat higher, but it would have been a small difference of degree rather than kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎15‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 1:14 AM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Don't forget the wonderful for making the plane handle poorly so it was drained before the drop tanks behind the pilot fuel tank in the P-51D.

 

"...drop tanks behind the pilot..."

 

Yeah, sorry to be a grammar Nazi, J_G_T, but that's a real lousy sentence.

 

& sleeve-valve engine oil-consumption was certainly better than the big US radials, with their loose clearances

plus a multitude - of leaky joints...

 

The P-51 was not only much more fuel efficient/aero-slick than the R-2800 powered gas-hogs,

_ its cruise speed was ~ 100mph faster.

 

Funny that both the P-51 & P-47 were deemed worthy of significant revision (despite being in high demand),

but the P-38 wasn't, - due to the Lockheed being fairly close to being past its 'best by date' - by USAAF appraisal/reckoning.

 

& the German forces were a far more effective/dangerous enemy than those of Hirohito,

just as the USAAF losses lists - clearly show.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

 

 

Whoah whoah whoah.

The critical mach number problem was mainly an issue of sonic shock waves forming over the wings of the aircraft.  All wings will do this if the airflow over them gets fast enough, the problem was just that most airfoils designed in the 1930s would form shock waves at fairly low mach numbers.  The reason that the Tempest out-dives a Lightning is that it has laminar flow wings, not that it has a single engine.  Laminar flow wings have a higher critical mach number than the traditional airfoil designs that were used in the late 1930s.

Very few Axis fighters had laminar flow wings, the J2M Raiden being the only one I can think of offhand.  The Bf 109, being a mid 1930s legacy design definitely started with traditional airfoils, and I can find no reference to the Bf 109 having ever been re-designed to have laminar flow wings.  Likewise, the FW-190 seems to have lacked laminar flow wings as well.  So the Bf 109 and FW-190 would also have problems with their critical mach numbers while diving, and most likely at around the same airspeeds as the P-38.  If their airfoils were slightly less cambered or had a slightly higher chord to thickness ratio then Mcrit may have been somewhat higher, but it would have been a small difference of degree rather than kind.

 

No, the 109/190 readily exceeded the P-38's Vne in the dive, & like the P-51, didn't need 'dive flaps' to regain control.

 

The thick-winged Typhoon was still cleared to dive at a 525mph EAS limit, though the Tempest's 'high speed wing ' profile allowed a later onset of drag/extra control capability & gave another ~25mph advantage - across the flight regime , by comparison.

 

P-38 'buffet' - bad enough to cause structural damage - was noted by the USAAF as a fundamental problem.

 

The Tempest was very robust though, with an ultimate stress rating of 14G, rather more than the USAAF design max.

 

See: period drag/structure documents; http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/structure-weight-data-and-drag-analysis.42716

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Collimatrix
      At the end of January, 2018 and after many false starts, the Russian military formally announced the limited adoption of the AEK-971 and AEK-973 rifles.  These rifles feature an unusual counterbalanced breech mechanism which is intended to improve handling, especially during full auto fire.  While exotic outside of Russia, these counter-balanced rifles are not at all new.  In fact, the 2018 adoption of the AEK-971 represents the first success of a rifle concept that has been around for a some time.

      Earliest Origins


      Animated diagram of the AK-107/108
       
      Balanced action recoil systems (BARS) work by accelerating a mass in the opposite direction of the bolt carrier.  The countermass is of similar mass to the bolt carrier and synchronized to move in the opposite direction by a rack and pinion.  This cancels out some, but not all of the impulses associated with self-loading actions.  But more on that later.

      Long before Soviet small arms engineers began experimenting with BARS, a number of production weapons featured synchronized masses moving in opposite directions.  Generally speaking, any stabilization that these actions provided was an incidental benefit.  Rather, these designs were either attempts to get around patents, or very early developments in the history of autoloading weapons when the design best practices had not been standardized yet.  These designs featured a forward-moving gas trap that, of necessity, needed its motion converted into rearward motion by either a lever or rack and pinion.
       

      The French St. Etienne Machine Gun
       

      The Danish Bang rifle
       
      At around the same time, inventors started toying with the idea of using synchronized counter-masses deliberately to cancel out recoil impulses.  The earliest patent for such a design comes from 1908 from obscure firearms designer Ludwig Mertens:


       
      More information on these early developments is in this article on the matter by Max Popenker.
       
      Soviet designers began investigating the BARS concept in earnest in the early 1970s.  This is worth noting; these early BARS rifles were actually trialed against the AK-74.
       

      The AL-7 rifle, a BARS rifle from the early 1970s
       
      The Soviet military chose the more mechanically orthodox AK-74 as a stopgap measure in order to get a small-caliber, high-velocity rifle to the front lines as quickly as possible.  Of course, the thing about stopgap weapons is that they always end up hanging around longer than intended, and forty four years later Russian troops are still equipped with the AK-74.

      A small number of submachine gun prototypes with a BARS-like system were trialed, but not mass-produced.  The gas operated action of a rifle can be balanced with a fairly small synchronizer rack and pinion, but the blowback action of a submachine gun requires a fairly large and massive synchronizer gear or lever.  This is because in a gas operated rifle a second gas piston can be attached to the countermass, thereby unloading the synchronizer gear.

      There are three BARS designs of note from Russia:

      AK-107/AK-108
       


      The AK-107 and AK-108 are BARS rifles in 5.45x39mm and 5.56x45mm respectively.  These rifles are products of the Kalashnikov design bureau and Izmash factory, now Kalashnikov Concern.  Internally they are very similar to an AK, only with the countermass and synchronizer unit situated above the bolt carrier group.


       

      Close up of synchronizer and dual return spring assemblies

      This is configuration is almost identical to the AL-7 design of the early 1970s.  Like the more conventional AK-100 series, the AK-107/AK-108 were offered for export during the late 1990s and early 2000s, but they failed to attract any customers.  The furniture is very similar to the AK-100 series, and indeed the only obvious external difference is the long tube protruding from the gas block and bridging the gap to the front sight.
       
      The AK-107 has re-emerged recently as the Saiga 107, a rifle clearly intended for competitive shooting events like 3-gun.
       

       
      AEK-971

      The rival Kovrov design bureau was only slightly behind the Kalashnikov design bureau in exploring the BARS concept.  Their earliest prototype featuring the system, the SA-006 (also transliterated as CA-006) also dates from the early 1970s.



      Chief designer Sergey Koksharov refined this design into the AEK-971.  The chief refinement of his design over the first-generation balanced action prototypes from the early 1970s is that the countermass sits inside the bolt carrier, rather than being stacked on top of it.  This is a more compact installation of the mechanism, but otherwise accomplishes the same thing.


       

      Moving parts group of the AEK-971

      The early AEK-971 had a triangular metal buttstock and a Kalashnikov-style safety lever on the right side of the rifle.



      In this guise the rifle competed unsuccessfully with Nikonov's AN-94 design in the Abakan competition.  Considering that a relative handful of AN-94s were ever produced, this was perhaps not a terrible loss for the Kovrov design bureau.

      After the end of the Soviet Union, the AEK-971 design was picked up by the Degtyarev factory, itself a division of the state-owned Rostec.



      The Degtyarev factory would unsuccessfully try to make sales of the weapon for the next twenty four years.  In the meantime, they made some small refinements to the rifle.  The Kalashnikov-style safety lever was deleted and replaced with a thumb safety on the left side of the receiver.


       
      Later on the Degtyarev factory caught HK fever, and a very HK-esque sliding metal stock was added in addition to a very HK-esque rear sight.  The thumb safety lever was also made ambidextrous.  The handguard was changed a few times.



      Still, reception to the rifle was lukewarm.  The 2018 announcement that the rifle would be procured in limited numbers alongside more conventional AK rifles is not exactly a coup.  The numbers bought are likely to be very low.  A 5.56mm AEK-972 and 7.62x39mm AEK-973 also exist.  The newest version of the rifle has been referred to as A-545.

      AKB and AKB-1


      AKB-1


      AKB


      AKB, closeup of the receiver

      The AKB and AKB-1 are a pair of painfully obscure designs designed by Viktor Kalashnikov, Mikhail Kalashnikov's son.  The later AKB-1 is the more conservative of the two, while the AKB is quite wild.

      Both rifles use a more or less conventional AK type bolt carrier, but the AKB uses the barrel as the countermass.  That's right; the entire barrel shoots forward while the bolt carrier moves back!  This unusual arrangement also allowed for an extremely high cyclic rate of fire; 2000RPM.  Later on a burst limiter and rate of fire limiter were added.  The rifle would fire at the full 2000 RPM for two round bursts, but a mere 1000 RPM for full auto.

      The AKB-1 was a far more conventional design, but it still had a BARS.  In this design the countermass was nested inside the main bolt carrier, similar to the AEK-971.

      Not a great deal of information is available about these rifles, but @Hrachya H wrote an article on them which can be read here.
       
       
    • By Collimatrix
      Tank design is often conceptualized as a balance between mobility, protection and firepower.  This is, at best, a messy and imprecise conceptualization.  It is messy because these three traits cannot be completely separated from each other.  An APC, for example, that provides basic protection against small arms fire and shell fragments is effectively more mobile than an open-topped vehicle because the APC can traverse areas swept by artillery fires that are closed off entirely to the open-topped vehicle.  It is an imprecise conceptualization because broad ideas like "mobility" are very complex in practice.  The M1 Abrams burns more fuel than the Leo 2, but the Leo 2 requires diesel fuel, while the omnivorous AGT-1500 will run happily on anything liquid and flammable.  Which has better strategic mobility?  Soviet rail gauge was slightly wider than Western European standard; 3.32 vs 3.15 meters.  But Soviet tanks in the Cold War were generally kept lighter and smaller, and had to be in order to be moved in large numbers on a rail and road network that was not as robust as that further west.  So if NATO and the Warsaw Pact had switched tanks in the late 1950s, they would both have downgraded the strategic mobility of their forces, as the Soviet tanks would be slightly too wide for unrestricted movement on rails in the free world, and the NATO tanks would have demanded more logistical support per tank than evil atheist commie formations were designed to provide.
       

       
      So instead of wading into a deep and subtle subject, I am going to write about something that is extremely simple and easy to describe in mathematical terms; the top speed of a tank moving in a straight line.  Because it is so simple and straightforward to understand, it is also nearly meaningless in terms of the combat performance of a tank.
       
      In short, the top speed of a tank is limited by three things; the gear ratio limit, the power limit and the suspension limit.  The tank's maximum speed will be whichever of these limits is the lowest on a given terrain.  The top speed of a tank is of limited significance, even from a tactical perspective, because the tank's ability to exploit its top speed is constrained by other factors.  A high top speed, however, looks great on sales brochures, and there are examples of tanks that were designed with pointlessly high top speeds in order to overawe people who needed impressing.
       

      When this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're going to see some serious shit.
       
      The Gear Ratio Limit
       
      Every engine has a maximum speed at which it can turn.  Often, the engine is artificially governed to a maximum speed slightly less than what it is mechanically capable of in order to reduce wear.  Additionally, most piston engines develop their maximum power at slightly less than their maximum speed due to valve timing issues:
       

      A typical power/speed relationship for an Otto Cycle engine.  Otto Cycle engines are primitive devices that are only used when the Brayton Cycle Master Race is unavailable.
       
      Most tanks have predominantly or purely mechanical drivetrains, which exchange rotational speed for torque by easily measurable ratios.  The maximum rotational speed of the engine, multiplied by the gear ratio of the highest gear in the transmission multiplied by the gear ratio of the final drives multiplied by the circumference of the drive sprocket will equal the gear ratio limit of the tank.  The tank is unable to achieve higher speeds than the gear ratio limit because it physically cannot spin its tracks around any faster.
       
      Most spec sheets don't actually give out the transmission ratios in different gears, but such excessively detailed specification sheets are provided in Germany's Tiger Tanks by Hilary Doyle and Thomas Jentz.  The gear ratios, final drive ratios, and maximum engine RPM of the Tiger II are all provided, along with a handy table of the vehicle's maximum speed in each gear.  In eighth gear, the top speed is given as 41.5 KPH, but that is at an engine speed of 3000 RPM, and in reality the German tank engines were governed to less than that in order to conserve their service life.  At a more realistic 2500 RPM, the mighty Tiger II would have managed 34.6 KPH.
       
      In principle there are analogous limits for electrical and hydraulic drive components based on free speeds and stall torques, but they are a little more complicated to actually calculate.
       

      Part of the transmission from an M4 Sherman, picture from Jeeps_Guns_Tanks' great Sherman website
       
      The Power Limit
       
      So a Tiger II could totally go 34.6 KPH in combat, right?  Well, perhaps.  And by "perhaps," I mean "lolololololol, fuck no."  I defy you to find me a test report where anybody manages to get a Tiger II over 33 KPH.  While the meticulous engineers of Henschel did accurately transcribe the gear ratios of the transmission and final drive accurately, and did manage to use their tape measures correctly when measuring the drive sprockets, their rosy projections of the top speed did not account for the power limit.
       
      As a tank moves, power from the engine is wasted in various ways and so is unavailable to accelerate the tank.  As the tank goes faster and faster, the magnitude of these power-wasting phenomena grows, until there is no surplus power to accelerate the tank any more.  The system reaches equilibrium, and the tank maxes out at some top speed where it hits its power limit (unless, of course, the tank hits its gear ratio limit first).
       
      The actual power available to a tank is not the same as the gross power of the motor.  Some of the gross horsepower of the motor has to be directed to fans to cool the engine (except, of course, in the case of the Brayton Cycle Master Race, whose engines are almost completely self-cooling).  The transmission and final drives are not perfectly efficient either, and waste a significant amount of the power flowing through them as heat.  As a result of this, the actual power available at the sprocket is typically between 61% and 74% of the engine's quoted gross power.
       
      Once the power does hit the drive sprocket, it is wasted in overcoming the friction of the tank's tracks, in churning up the ground the tank is on, and in aerodynamic drag.  I have helpfully listed these in the order of decreasing importance.
       
      The drag coefficient of a cube (which is a sufficiently accurate physical representation of a Tiger II) is .8. This, multiplied by half the fluid density of air (1.2 kg/m^3) times the velocity (9.4 m/s) squared times a rough frontal area of 3.8 by 3 meters gives a force of 483 newtons of drag.  This multiplied by the velocity of the tiger II gives 4.5 kilowatts, or about six horsepower lost to drag.  With the governor installed, the HL 230 could put out about 580 horsepower, which would be four hundred something horses at the sprocket, so the aerodynamic drag would be 1.5% of the total available power.  Negligible.  Tanks are just too slow to lose much power to aerodynamic effects.
       
      Losses to the soil can be important, depending on the surface the tank is operating on.  On a nice, hard surface like a paved road there will be minimal losses between the tank's tracks and the surface.  Off-road, however, the tank's tracks will start to sink into soil or mud, and more power will be wasted in churning up the soil.  If the soil is loose or boggy enough, the tank will simply sink in and be immobilized.  Tanks that spread their weight out over a larger area will lose less power, and be able to traverse soft soils at higher speed.  This paper from the UK shows the relationship between mean maximum pressure (MMP), and the increase in rolling resistance on various soils and sands in excruciating detail.  In general, tanks with more track area, with more and bigger road wheels, and with longer track pitch will have lower MMP, and will sink into soft soils less and therefore lose less top speed.
       
      The largest loss of power usually comes from friction within the tracks themselves.  This is sometimes called rolling resistance, but this term is also used to mean other, subtly different things, so it pays to be precise.  Compared to wheeled vehicles, tracked vehicles have extremely high rolling resistance, and lose a lot of power just keeping the tracks turning.  Rolling resistance is generally expressed as a dimensionless coefficient, CR, which multiplied against vehicle weight gives the force of friction.  This chart from R.M. Ogorkiewicz' Technology of Tanks shows experimentally determined rolling resistance coefficients for various tracked vehicles:
       

       
      The rolling resistance coefficients given here show that a tracked vehicle going on ideal testing ground conditions is about as efficient as a car driving over loose gravel.  It also shows that the rolling resistance increases with vehicle speed.  A rough approximation of this increase in CR is given by the equation CR=A+BV, where A and B are constants and V is vehicle speed.  Ogorkiewicz explains:
       
       
      It should be noted that the lubricated needle bearing track joints of which he speaks were only ever used by the Germans in WWII because they were insanely complicated.  Band tracks have lower rolling resistance than metal link tracks, but they really aren't practical for vehicles much above thirty tonnes.  Other ways of reducing rolling resistance include using larger road wheels, omitting return rollers, and reducing track tension.  Obviously, there are practical limits to these approaches.
       
      To calculate power losses due to rolling resistance, multiply vehicle weight by CR by vehicle velocity to get power lost.  The velocity at which the power lost to rolling resistance equals the power available at the sprocket is the power limit on the speed of the tank.
       
      The Suspension Limit
       
      The suspension limit on speed is starting to get dangerously far away from the world of spherical, frictionless horses where everything is easy to calculate using simple algebra, so I will be brief.  In addition to the continents of the world not being completely comprised of paved surfaces that minimize rolling resistance, the continents of the world are also not perfectly flat.  This means that in order to travel at high speed off road, tanks require some sort of suspension or else they would shake their crews into jelly.  If the crew is being shaken too much to operate effectively, then it doesn't really matter if a tank has a high enough gear ratio limit or power limit to go faster.  This is also particularly obnoxious because suspension performance is difficult to quantify, as it involves resonance frequencies, damping coefficients, and a bunch of other complicated shit.
       
      Suffice it to say, then, that a very rough estimate of the ride-smoothing qualities of a tank's suspension can be made from the total travel of its road wheels:
       

       
      This chart from Technology of Tanks is helpful.  A more detailed discussion of the subject of tank suspension can be found here.
       
      The Real World Rudely Intrudes
       
      So, how useful is high top speed in a tank in messy, hard-to-mathematically-express reality?  The answer might surprise you!
       

      A Wehrmacht M.A.N. combustotron Ausf G
       
      We'll take some whacks at everyone's favorite whipping boy; the Panther.
       
      A US report on a captured Panther Ausf G gives its top speed on roads as an absolutely blistering 60 KPH on roads.  The Soviets could only get their captured Ausf D to do 50 KPH, but compared to a Sherman, which is generally only credited with 40 KPH on roads, that's alarmingly fast.
       
      So, would this mean that the Panther enjoyed a mobility advantage over the Sherman?  Would this mean that it was better able to make quick advances and daring flanking maneuvers during a battle?
       
      No.
       
      In field tests the British found the panther to have lower off-road speed than a Churchill VII (the panther had a slightly busted transmission though).  In the same American report that credits the Panther Ausf G with a 60 KPH top speed on roads, it was found that off road the panther was almost exactly as fast as an M4A376W, with individual Shermans slightly outpacing the big cat or lagging behind it slightly.  Another US report from January 1945 states that over courses with many turns and curves, the Sherman would pull out ahead because the Sherman lost less speed negotiating corners.  Clearly, the Panther's advantage in straight line speed did not translate into better mobility in any combat scenario that did not involve drag racing.
       
      So what was going on with the Panther?  How could it leave everything but light tanks in the dust on a straight highway, but be outpaced by the ponderous Churchill heavy tank in actual field tests?
       

      Panther Ausf A tanks captured by the Soviets
       
      A British report from 1946 on the Panther's transmission explains what's going on.  The Panther's transmission had seven forward gears, but off-road it really couldn't make it out of fifth.  In other words, the Panther had an extremely high gear ratio limit that allowed it exceptional speed on roads.  However, the Panther's mediocre power to weight ratio (nominally 13 hp/ton for the RPM limited HL 230) meant that once the tank was off road and fighting mud, it only had a mediocre power limit.  Indeed, it is a testament to the efficiency of the Panther's running gear that it could keep up with Shermans at all, since the Panther's power to weight ratio was about 20% lower than that particular variant of Sherman.
       
      There were other factors limiting the Panther's speed in practical circumstances.  The geared steering system used in the Panther had different steering radii based on what gear the Panther was in.  The higher the gear, the wider the turn.  In theory this was excellent, but in practice the designers chose too wide a turn radius for each gear, which meant that for any but the gentlest turns the Panther's drive would need to slow down and downshift in order to complete the turn, thus sacrificing any speed advantage his tank enjoyed.
       
      So why would a tank be designed in such a strange fashion?  The British thought that the Panther was originally designed to be much lighter, and that the transmission had never been re-designed in order to compensate.  Given the weight gain that the Panther experienced early in development, this explanation seems like it may be partially true.  However, when interrogated, Ernst Kniepkamp, a senior engineer in Germany's wartime tank development bureaucracy, stated that the additional gears were there simply to give the Panther a high speed on roads, because it looked good to senior generals.
       
      So, this is the danger in evaluating tanks based on extremely simplistic performance metrics that look good on paper.  They may be simple to digest and simple to calculate, but in the messy real world, they may mean simply nothing.
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      I realized that we have a thread for transmissions and final drives, but not for engines.
      I'll start with this post about the Japanese 10 ZF engine from the Type 74 tank.  As far as I know, not much has been published in English about this engine.  It's a rather interesting one in that it's an air-cooled 2 stroke diesel.  


    • By Scolopax
      First official render of Northrop Grumman's LRSB is out.  We have a designation, but the Air Force is still looking for a name.
       

       
      Still not much other info out yet.
×