A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Auto conversions & gear boxes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2  
Old February 24th 04, 02:47 AM
Big John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Corkey

The P-40 wouldn't go supersonic. Had a few hours in bird and took one
to about 20K and rolled over at full thottle. Huffed and puffed on way
down and I started my pull out about 10K and was level about 3K.

Bird did not have a Mach meter, only a ASI. As I remember only got a
little over 400 mph max (high drag, low power).

That one dive conviced me it was a subsonic aircraft )

Big John

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:45:15 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

On 23 Feb 2004 09:32:01 -0800,
(Jay) wrote:

For props, bigger is better for static thrust (look at a helecopter)
but what about for top speed, a more desireable figure of merit for
fixed wing aircraft? I seem to remember hearing somewhere that for
top speed there is an optimal prop length that is not infinite. You
need to generate a stream of air that is going faster than the speed
that you want to fly.

You just described the reason no piston engined WWII fighter ever flew
faster than the speed of sound. The prop needed to produce enough
thrust to pull the airplane into supersonic speed, but the prop was
running into the wall of drag as the tips neared supersonic speed and
the fuselage was producing enormous drag too.

The prop tips would have to go supersonic if the airplane was to go
that fast too, and props of that era were not designed for supersonic
speeds.

Even going straight down at full power, just too much drag. They went
fast enough to scare the bajeebers out of a number of pilots though.
:-) They also went fast enough to lock up the controls and in some
cases, cause the destruction of the airplane... and the pilot.

Corky Scott


  #3  
Old February 24th 04, 11:58 AM
Blueskies
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If I remember correctly, the nose down full throttle was a tactic used to escape the zero's. They knew they would not
break the plane and the enemy often did. Same was true of the Wildcat, no limitation, plane would reach terminal
velocity...

--
Dan D.



..
"Big John" wrote in message ...
Corkey

The P-40 wouldn't go supersonic. Had a few hours in bird and took one
to about 20K and rolled over at full thottle. Huffed and puffed on way
down and I started my pull out about 10K and was level about 3K.

Bird did not have a Mach meter, only a ASI. As I remember only got a
little over 400 mph max (high drag, low power).

That one dive conviced me it was a subsonic aircraft )

Big John

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:45:15 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

On 23 Feb 2004 09:32:01 -0800,
(Jay) wrote:

For props, bigger is better for static thrust (look at a helecopter)
but what about for top speed, a more desireable figure of merit for
fixed wing aircraft? I seem to remember hearing somewhere that for
top speed there is an optimal prop length that is not infinite. You
need to generate a stream of air that is going faster than the speed
that you want to fly.

You just described the reason no piston engined WWII fighter ever flew
faster than the speed of sound. The prop needed to produce enough
thrust to pull the airplane into supersonic speed, but the prop was
running into the wall of drag as the tips neared supersonic speed and
the fuselage was producing enormous drag too.

The prop tips would have to go supersonic if the airplane was to go
that fast too, and props of that era were not designed for supersonic
speeds.

Even going straight down at full power, just too much drag. They went
fast enough to scare the bajeebers out of a number of pilots though.
:-) They also went fast enough to lock up the controls and in some
cases, cause the destruction of the airplane... and the pilot.

Corky Scott




  #4  
Old February 24th 04, 05:14 PM
Big John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dan

The P-38 had high speed dive problems. After a number crashed they
went back and retrofitted them with 'dive' brakes (narrow strips on
top of wing that could be raised to increase drag). These slowed the
bird down enough it could be pulled out

The P-47 also had some dive problems. It wanted to tuck at high speed
in a dive. To recover you kept full throttle on and when you got to a
lower altitude you slowed down in the thicker air and regained enough
control to recover.

The P-51 was red lined at 505 mph. I have had it up to that speed and
didn't have any problems recovering from dive.

I have friends who were in Europe and told of far exceeding the 505
red line when getting away from 109/190's. The 109 had a structural
problem in their tail and it would come off if they got too fast in a
dive (per word passed to our fighter jocks).

All of this in a time and land far away )

Big John

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:58:03 GMT, "Blueskies" wrote:

If I remember correctly, the nose down full throttle was a tactic used to escape the zero's. They knew they would not
break the plane and the enemy often did. Same was true of the Wildcat, no limitation, plane would reach terminal
velocity...


  #5  
Old February 24th 04, 09:03 PM
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Big John" wrote in message

The P-38 had high speed dive problems. After a number crashed they
went back and retrofitted them with 'dive' brakes (narrow strips on
top of wing that could be raised to increase drag). These slowed the
bird down enough it could be pulled out

Wasn't part of that fix also a mass balancer on the elevator, that was a
blob raised up on an arm above the elevator?
--

Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/20/2004


  #6  
Old February 24th 04, 09:39 PM
Richard Lamb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Morgans wrote:

"Big John" wrote in message

The P-38 had high speed dive problems. After a number crashed they
went back and retrofitted them with 'dive' brakes (narrow strips on
top of wing that could be raised to increase drag). These slowed the
bird down enough it could be pulled out

Wasn't part of that fix also a mass balancer on the elevator, that was a
blob raised up on an arm above the elevator?
--

Jim in NC


More likely the mass balance was used to raise the flutter speed of the
elevator. Get it up above the airplane's speed range.

Also, while on the subject of P-38 lore...

I thought the dive brakes retro on the P-38 was on the bottom of the
wing?

Part of the problem was that even though the airplane was traveling at
less than transonic speed, there were places that the "air" was getting
supersonic and creating shock waves.

(I put that in quotes, because it's really the airplane that's moving,
not the air. The air just gets out of the way - rapidly. Can't blame
it.)

Then, as speed builds, the shock waves move aft?

The Bell X-1 had some problems with the shock waves moving aft on the
elevator. Moved right back to the elevator hinge line and elevator
control was rather - uhm - nonexistent?

The airplane also had a variable incidence stabilizer for elevator trim.
Chuck tried flying the airplane with the trim switch and the "all
flying"
tail, or stabilator was born.

If this is happening on the wing, as the pressure point moves aft the
nose tucks down very nicely!

As pressure increases due to decreasing altitude, the airplane might
slow
enough to return to normal subsonic conditions, and regain control.

But you'd best be hauling that nose up now!


Let's say you recover control at 25,000 feet?
You are pointed straight down at 500 mph.

You are going a little faster than 8 miles a minute,

and you are slightly more than 4 miles up...

I think it takes about 1.6 seconds from initiation
for the seat to clear the airframe...


Richard
  #7  
Old February 25th 04, 04:24 AM
Big John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Richard

You talk like you have been in the business.

Your right, the speed brakes were at about 30% chord on the bottom of
the wing.

The mass balance was directed by the AAC to correct elevator flutter
but Kelly Johnson said they were not needed and tests they ran proved
him right. However AAC said put on so they did. Kelly said that a
number of Pilots were killed when they bailed out and hit the weights
(

My roommate bought the farm turning final on his second flight
checking out in '38 at Kimpo Air Base, Korea. Probably got slow and
stalled the bird?

Big John

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:39:43 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:

Morgans wrote:

"Big John" wrote in message

The P-38 had high speed dive problems. After a number crashed they
went back and retrofitted them with 'dive' brakes (narrow strips on
top of wing that could be raised to increase drag). These slowed the
bird down enough it could be pulled out

Wasn't part of that fix also a mass balancer on the elevator, that was a
blob raised up on an arm above the elevator?
--

Jim in NC


More likely the mass balance was used to raise the flutter speed of the
elevator. Get it up above the airplane's speed range.

Also, while on the subject of P-38 lore...

I thought the dive brakes retro on the P-38 was on the bottom of the
wing?

Part of the problem was that even though the airplane was traveling at
less than transonic speed, there were places that the "air" was getting
supersonic and creating shock waves.

(I put that in quotes, because it's really the airplane that's moving,
not the air. The air just gets out of the way - rapidly. Can't blame
it.)

Then, as speed builds, the shock waves move aft?

The Bell X-1 had some problems with the shock waves moving aft on the
elevator. Moved right back to the elevator hinge line and elevator
control was rather - uhm - nonexistent?

The airplane also had a variable incidence stabilizer for elevator trim.
Chuck tried flying the airplane with the trim switch and the "all
flying"
tail, or stabilator was born.

If this is happening on the wing, as the pressure point moves aft the
nose tucks down very nicely!

As pressure increases due to decreasing altitude, the airplane might
slow
enough to return to normal subsonic conditions, and regain control.

But you'd best be hauling that nose up now!


Let's say you recover control at 25,000 feet?
You are pointed straight down at 500 mph.

You are going a little faster than 8 miles a minute,

and you are slightly more than 4 miles up...

I think it takes about 1.6 seconds from initiation
for the seat to clear the airframe...


Richard


  #8  
Old February 24th 04, 11:10 PM
Big John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Morgans

I remember reading something about the mass balancer as you call it
but can't remember what it was the solution for. It could have been to
prevent the elevator from causing trouble when in the shock wave at
high mach?

Here is what I found on Internet. They say the strip was on the bottom
of the wing but I thougth I remembered it to be on the top. In any
event it stopped the dive problem.

Quote

Earlier Lightnings had problems with high-speed dives. When the
airspeed reached a sufficiently high value, the controls would
suddenly lock up and the Lightning would tuck its nose down, making
recovery from the dive difficult. In the worst case, the wings of the
Lightning could be ripped off if the speed got too high. This problem
caused the Lightning often to be unable to follow its Luftwaffe
opponents in a dive, causing many of the enemy to be able to escape
unscathed. The problem was eventually traced to the formation of a
shock wave over the wing as the Lightning reached transonic speeds,
this shock wave causing the elevator to lose much of its
effectiveness. The problem was not cured until the advent of the
P-38J-25-LO, which introduced a set of compressibility flaps under the
wing which changed the pattern of the shock wave over the wing when
they were extended, restoring the function of the elevator.

Unquote

Big John

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:03:44 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Big John" wrote in message

The P-38 had high speed dive problems. After a number crashed they
went back and retrofitted them with 'dive' brakes (narrow strips on
top of wing that could be raised to increase drag). These slowed the
bird down enough it could be pulled out

Wasn't part of that fix also a mass balancer on the elevator, that was a
blob raised up on an arm above the elevator?


  #9  
Old February 25th 04, 03:37 PM
Bob Chilcoat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

According to Warren Bode in his definitive book on the P-38, the bob weights
in the center of the elevator were mandated by the Army after one of the
YP-38's shed its tail in a dive. Further dive tests seemed to indicate that
the problem was tail flutter at certain speeds. The bob weights were added
but did not solve the problem. Wind tunnel tests eventually traced the
"flutter" problem to buffeting from turbulence off the joint between the
wing and the center fuselage pod. After a fillet was added to soften this
joint, the "flutter" problem disappeared, but the Army would not let Johnson
remove the bob weights. He hated them (the elevator was already
counterbalanced by concealed weights in the tail cones) and felt that their
only contribution was to kill a few pilots who hit them in bailouts. The
"compressability tuck" problem was investigated at the same time, but was
only solved by means of the dive brakes that were added to the P-38J-25-LO
and subsequent models. As it turned out, the compressability problem could
not occur in any P-38's if dives were initiated below 25,000 feet. Since
most P-38 operations during the war were below that altitude, few pilots
encountered the problem in combat.
--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Big John" wrote in message

The P-38 had high speed dive problems. After a number crashed they
went back and retrofitted them with 'dive' brakes (narrow strips on
top of wing that could be raised to increase drag). These slowed the
bird down enough it could be pulled out

Wasn't part of that fix also a mass balancer on the elevator, that was a
blob raised up on an arm above the elevator?
--

Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/20/2004




  #10  
Old February 25th 04, 07:05 PM
Big John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Bob

Your right

I posted a follow on to thread covering essentially what you said and
it never made it? I have had several disappeared like that and need to
find out what is happening. I thought at first someone was going in
and deleting my posts but I normally don't get into a Peeing contest
with most posters and need to be censored ).

In any event, glad you posted so some of the young ones will know what
happened a long time ago in a land far away )

Big John

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:37:57 -0500, "Bob Chilcoat"
wrote:

According to Warren Bode in his definitive book on the P-38, the bob weights
in the center of the elevator were mandated by the Army after one of the
YP-38's shed its tail in a dive. Further dive tests seemed to indicate that
the problem was tail flutter at certain speeds. The bob weights were added
but did not solve the problem. Wind tunnel tests eventually traced the
"flutter" problem to buffeting from turbulence off the joint between the
wing and the center fuselage pod. After a fillet was added to soften this
joint, the "flutter" problem disappeared, but the Army would not let Johnson
remove the bob weights. He hated them (the elevator was already
counterbalanced by concealed weights in the tail cones) and felt that their
only contribution was to kill a few pilots who hit them in bailouts. The
"compressability tuck" problem was investigated at the same time, but was
only solved by means of the dive brakes that were added to the P-38J-25-LO
and subsequent models. As it turned out, the compressability problem could
not occur in any P-38's if dives were initiated below 25,000 feet. Since
most P-38 operations during the war were below that altitude, few pilots
encountered the problem in combat.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Auto Alternator on an O-320-E2D Ebby Home Built 8 November 26th 03 02:46 PM
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. Bart Hull Home Built 1 November 24th 03 02:46 PM
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. Bart Hull Home Built 2 November 24th 03 05:23 AM
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. Bart Hull Home Built 0 November 24th 03 03:52 AM
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. Bart D. Hull Home Built 0 November 22nd 03 06:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.