![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John,
I saw your post on the same subject after I sent mine. Sorry for the duplication, but at least yours did make it to my newsreader at least. My late father (http://users.erols.com/viewptmd/Dad.html) flew the P-38, among many other aircraft, and we still have his "Flight Manual" for it (and one for the P-40, and the B-25). I remember reading warnings about "compressability" in the manual when I was younger, and wondering what that was all about. My brother in Columbus has the manuals now, so I can't refer to it. -- Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways) "Big John" wrote in message ... 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |