Navalized P-38 Lightning?

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Harry Andreas wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

P-47C, 2,220.


P-47D-25, 2,540.

Very interesting post Guy.
Question, I Thought the D-25 had a much more powerful engine and the 4
blade prop.

Both had 4-blade props, although the D-25 had the paddleblade prop. I don't
think the t/o power was substantially different (Pete Stickney undoubtedly has
the numbers), just the D-25 had water injection for a W.E. rating.

A quick search tells me that there isn't any real difference. The
-21, -57 and -63 were all Factory TSB1 models. The only differences
were the water injection kits on the -57 adn -63, and a different
ignition harness on the -63.
Dry ratings certainly won't be any different.

That's what I thought, although I had a vague memory that some models were rated at
2,100 vs. 2,000 hp.

snip

As a side note - I've had some mail server problems (House server),
and soem connectivity problems. It's likely that my attention will be
a bit spotty for the next week or so.

Guy, did you get the F-102 stuff I sent?

Nope, haven't seen anything. What day did you send it? It's possible that I deleted
it unwittingly as Spam, but I check the senders and subjects (fairly quickly) before
they go to the trash.

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:

Peter Stickney wrote:

snip

Guy, did you get the F-102 stuff I sent?

Nope, haven't seen anything. What day did you send it? It's possible that I deleted
it unwittingly as Spam, but I check the senders and subjects (fairly quickly) before
they go to the trash.

Which reminds me, have you seen the F-104A and F-105B "Phase II Flight Evaluation" files
at Stinet? Good Stuff. Unfortunately, I don't seem to qualify under any of the
appropriate categories to order any of the stuff that isn't online (maybe I can become a
student at a Historically Black College), so I can't get my hands on "A Comparative
Analysis of USAF
Fixed-Wing Aircraft Losses in Southeast Asia Combat", record number ADC016682.

Guy

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Guy Alcala wrote:

Peter Stickney wrote:

snip

Guy, did you get the F-102 stuff I sent?

Nope, haven't seen anything. What day did you send it? It's possible that I deleted
it unwittingly as Spam, but I check the senders and subjects (fairly quickly) before
they go to the trash.

Which reminds me, have you seen the F-104A and F-105B "Phase II Flight Evaluation" files
at Stinet? Good Stuff. Unfortunately, I don't seem to qualify under any of the
appropriate categories to order any of the stuff that isn't online (maybe I can become a
student at a Historically Black College), so I can't get my hands on "A Comparative
Analysis of USAF
Fixed-Wing Aircraft Losses in Southeast Asia Combat", record number ADC016682.

Oh, yeah! I've got the Phase II reports on teh F-104A, the F-101A, and
teh F-195B, _and_ all the stuff on the RB-57A and the B-57B, and
everything ever reported on the XC-120 ('cause the Germans can't be
weird enough) And about a zillion other things, too.
I haven't checked through the applicable categories, yet.
They've got the Operational Suitability tests for various F-86s there,
and the Project Gunval reports, as well.

They keep digitizing stuff all the time, as well. I just printed off
the German wind tunnel data reports on cleanup efforts for the Me 262.
Perhaps I can translate it into English for the Rootin' Teuton.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Guy Alcala wrote:

Peter Stickney wrote:

snip

Guy, did you get the F-102 stuff I sent?

Nope, haven't seen anything. What day did you send it? It's possible that I deleted
it unwittingly as Spam, but I check the senders and subjects (fairly quickly) before
they go to the trash.

Which reminds me, have you seen the F-104A and F-105B "Phase II Flight Evaluation" files
at Stinet? Good Stuff. Unfortunately, I don't seem to qualify under any of the
appropriate categories to order any of the stuff that isn't online (maybe I can become a
student at a Historically Black College), so I can't get my hands on "A Comparative
Analysis of USAF
Fixed-Wing Aircraft Losses in Southeast Asia Combat", record number ADC016682.

Oh, yeah! I've got the Phase II reports on teh F-104A, the F-101A, and
teh F-195B, _and_ all the stuff on the RB-57A and the B-57B, and
everything ever reported on the XC-120 ('cause the Germans can't be
weird enough) And about a zillion other things, too.
I haven't checked through the applicable categories, yet.
They've got the Operational Suitability tests for various F-86s there,
and the Project Gunval reports, as well.

I know, and I don't qualify for access to any of the F-86 stuff either. But I'd _really_ like
to get ahold of the Fixed-wing losses study, as I've been looking for years for a statistical
comparison of F-105 and F-4 losses by cause, and that's just what that includes, according to
the citation.

Guy

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Harry Andreas wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

P-47C, 2,220.


P-47D-25, 2,540.

Very interesting post Guy.
Question, I Thought the D-25 had a much more powerful engine and the 4
blade prop.

Both had 4-blade props, although the D-25 had the paddleblade prop. I don't
think the t/o power was substantially different (Pete Stickney undoubtedly has
the numbers), just the D-25 had water injection for a W.E. rating.

A quick search tells me that there isn't any real difference. The
-21, -57 and -63 were all Factory TSB1 models. The only differences
were the water injection kits on the -57 adn -63, and a different
ignition harness on the -63.
Dry ratings certainly won't be any different.

That's what I thought, although I had a vague memory that some models were rated at
2,100 vs. 2,000 hp.

The 2100 HP engines would be the 'C' series engines.

snip

As a side note - I've had some mail server problems (House server),
and soem connectivity problems. It's likely that my attention will be
a bit spotty for the next week or so.

Guy, did you get the F-102 stuff I sent?

Nope, haven't seen anything. What day did you send it? It's possible that I deleted
it unwittingly as Spam, but I check the senders and subjects (fairly quickly) before
they go to the trash.

I'll resend, both to you, and to Dan Ford, as of 23:30 EST

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Harry Andreas wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

P-47C, 2,220.


P-47D-25, 2,540.

Very interesting post Guy.
Question, I Thought the D-25 had a much more powerful engine and the 4
blade prop.

Both had 4-blade props, although the D-25 had the paddleblade prop. I don't
think the t/o power was substantially different (Pete Stickney undoubtedly has
the numbers), just the D-25 had water injection for a W.E. rating.

A quick search tells me that there isn't any real difference. The
-21, -57 and -63 were all Factory TSB1 models. The only differences
were the water injection kits on the -57 adn -63, and a different
ignition harness on the -63.
Dry ratings certainly won't be any different.

That's what I thought, although I had a vague memory that some models were rated at
2,100 vs. 2,000 hp.

The 2100 HP engines would be the 'C' series engines.

snip

As a side note - I've had some mail server problems (House server),
and soem connectivity problems. It's likely that my attention will be
a bit spotty for the next week or so.

Guy, did you get the F-102 stuff I sent?

Nope, haven't seen anything. What day did you send it? It's possible that I deleted
it unwittingly as Spam, but I check the senders and subjects (fairly quickly) before
they go to the trash.

I'll resend, both to you, and to Dan Ford, as of 23:30 EST

H'mm, nothing's shown up (other than Spam) as of 22:05 PST - 01:05 EST.

Guy

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Harry Andreas wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

P-47C, 2,220.


P-47D-25, 2,540.

Very interesting post Guy.
Question, I Thought the D-25 had a much more powerful engine and the 4
blade prop.

Both had 4-blade props, although the D-25 had the paddleblade prop. I don't
think the t/o power was substantially different (Pete Stickney undoubtedly has
the numbers), just the D-25 had water injection for a W.E. rating.

A quick search tells me that there isn't any real difference. The
-21, -57 and -63 were all Factory TSB1 models. The only differences
were the water injection kits on the -57 adn -63, and a different
ignition harness on the -63.
Dry ratings certainly won't be any different.

That's what I thought, although I had a vague memory that some models were rated at
2,100 vs. 2,000 hp.

The 2100 HP engines would be the 'C' series engines.

snip

As a side note - I've had some mail server problems (House server),
and soem connectivity problems. It's likely that my attention will be
a bit spotty for the next week or so.

Guy, did you get the F-102 stuff I sent?

Nope, haven't seen anything. What day did you send it? It's possible that I deleted
it unwittingly as Spam, but I check the senders and subjects (fairly quickly) before
they go to the trash.

I'll resend, both to you, and to Dan Ford, as of 23:30 EST

H'mm, nothing's shown up (other than Spam) as of 22:05 PST - 01:05 EST.

Odd. Try dropping me a line at:

and I'll piggyback on your return address.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster