Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

M.B-5

Scrublord
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    44

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by M.B-5

  1. M.B-5
    Yet they sure did prove useful for the F4U & P-51 et al... Lockheed didn't use the P-38's multi-framed canopy on their next fighter, the P-80, did they. The USAAF deemed the P-38 as effectively passe`, & rather than 'polish the turd' - ordered the P-82, instead. In fact, the USAAF had major concerns about the P-38's shortcomings as a fighter, in the intense combat ETO. Summarized as: "...airspeed limitations are low... ...tail buffeting... ...cause structural failure... ...definitely objectionable & hazardous.." See full report here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-67869.html
  2. M.B-5
    No. Even as a kid, I was amazed to see the internal workings of the Hercules, & again, to conflate multiplicity with complexity - is technically incorrect. Please refer to Roy Fedden's list of patently revealed sleeve-valve merits, Meplat - to gain a "better" appraisal, (as linked in the article below). http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1941/1941 - 2830.html
  3. M.B-5
    Meplat, with no moving parts above the piston, & many fewer parts overall than a poppet valve mill, the sleeve valve is indeed quite "straightforward" by comparison, & on the record, Kiwi Bristol mech/techs got 3,000hr TBOs from their Hercs..
  4. M.B-5
    Yeah fair enough, boss - can/will do.
  5. M.B-5
    Ok "D.J.T.", so you hold the ah, 'trump cards', I geddit, & aint no sorry sucka caint beat the house, just like in Vegas...
  6. M.B-5
    The thread is about WW2, era machines though, right? However Kermit Weeks is in the process of restoring his super-rare Sabre-Tempest to fly, & has a couple of NOS Sabres - on hand for it. Mike Nixon reckons the Sabre is less complex than popularly supposed, being more a case of multiplicity of parts, & is a "straightforward" engine to overhaul.
  7. M.B-5
    J_G_T's kindly posted figures for the F4U's R-2800 - gives a max cruise oil consumption of 16 Qt/hr!
  8. M.B-5
    Actually, the RAF flew their Sabres, & flew them hard* - for 10 years post-war, so they can't have been all that bad... * At power levels that would make an R-2800 wilt, from heat-soak, & need a lie down.
  9. M.B-5
    That door swings both ways, does it not? I was responding to his querying my apparent misapprehension - as it happens. & do the 'guidelines' include a basic standard of language usage requirement?
  10. M.B-5
    The final Sabre made 3,500hp for take-off - from 2238 CI, somewhat better than the R-2800's 1 per..
  11. M.B-5
    Here are the Bristol Hercules consumption figures, they are fairly good, Meplat - can you post those for the R-2800? http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946 - 2242.html
  12. M.B-5
    Huh? Oh, I geddit, 'haze the newbie'... aww c'mon, jeeze... Anyhow... this period 'Flight' article shows how the liquid-cooled engine still offered a superior installed power-to-weight ratio. ( Sabre versus R-2800). http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946 - 1443.html
  13. M.B-5
    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
  14. M.B-5
    "...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.
  15. M.B-5
    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.
  16. M.B-5
    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).
  17. M.B-5
    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
  18. M.B-5
    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'
  19. M.B-5
    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.
×
×
  • Create New...