Yeah that's right. It's amazing even with the straps pulled as tight as you can manage the human body can stretch enough the head can still get banged against the canopy.
Unless you're really small like Eric Brown. That's the only reason he survived flying the Dh.108 and Geoffrey de Havilland didn't.
I read somewhere that is what he claimed was the reason he'd survived some crashes. He could hunch down and make himself small in the cockpit. I would be inclined to ascribe it to his superb skill and a little bit of luck.
Last edited:
On what looks to me like a spinning top, yeah. A bit too on the nose for me. And is that a shark, or what?
It is a spinning top. I think that's supposed to be a bird standing on top of the spinning top. I like the sense of humour the drawing illustrates.On what looks to me like a spinning top, yeah. A bit too on the nose for me. And is that a shark, or what?
If it had been on any bird but one dedicated to spin testing, I'd like it.
Well the test pilot was called Fish, so I suspect that it is a fish on a spinning top!!!!
At risk of derail, in ref this thread (which, I'm ashamed to admit, I somehow overlooked ), can I offer a thought?
The rad relocation might be assisted by changing the mounting. Which is to say, horizontal rather than vertical. IDK if that would fix the "beard" of the Js or lead to a shallower Mustang-style scoop, or just needlessly complicate the airflow through & gain little or nothing.
I do agree with Draconis, the NACA fix is probably the best route. This could be looking for some fairly minor gain for major effort.
In ref the heat of airflow across the turbo, you might risk increasing the chance of bearing failure, which is already a hazard for the heat in the system. Why go looking for trouble?
BTW: bump.
), can I offer a thought?The rad relocation might be assisted by changing the mounting. Which is to say, horizontal rather than vertical. IDK if that would fix the "beard" of the Js or lead to a shallower Mustang-style scoop, or just needlessly complicate the airflow through & gain little or nothing.
I do agree with Draconis, the NACA fix is probably the best route. This could be looking for some fairly minor gain for major effort.
In ref the heat of airflow across the turbo, you might risk increasing the chance of bearing failure, which is already a hazard for the heat in the system. Why go looking for trouble?
BTW: bump.
Last edited:
Yes, the NACA wing redesign would have been a really good idea to pursue. It would've solved or improved two major problems. It would've increased the critical mach number for the P-38 and solved the cockpit heating deficiency which was a major problem if you wanted a better Lightning for the ETO escort missions or any prolonged high altitude missions.
For the OTL P-38 there were a number of improvements that were delayed or deferred entirely. The dive recovery flap installation was delayed too long. And the poor canopy design was permanently deferred. Along with a few other things. They were too busy building them to fix them.
I think the OTL redesign of the intercooler starting with the P-38J was less then optimal. The draggy big chin nacelles is reported to have reduced 10 MPH off the top speed. A better approach would have been to leave the nacelles unchanged and install a box type intercooler in the wing root of each outer wing panel. This could have used the existing charge air piping in the two booms that were used for the previous wing leading edge intercooler design.
With an 8" by 6" size opening in the leading edge near the wing root with ducting channeling air to the intercooler. And with the exit flow located just forward of the main spar on the wing underside regulated by a fully closable flap door. This would have IMO given the P-38 a more effective and more fully regulated intercooler then both the old leading edge design and the newer chin mounted design. With less drag then the wider chinny nacelles that the P-38Js and Ls had. And there still would have been room for the leading edge fuel tanks in the outer wing panels though they would have been a little bit smaller.
I think this "what if" idea for the OTL P-38 is a far better idea on how to improve the OTL P-38 then my speculation about trying to fit a Mustang style rad and oil cooler style housing on the P-38. I also think my intercooler location concept may be the best idea I've come up with on the topic of improving the OTL P-38. Others may have different opinions on that.
I thought it was an intriguing idea, if it could be made to work. It was also better than anything I'd thought of (curse youI also think my intercooler location concept may be the best idea I've come up with on the topic of improving the OTL P-38. Others may have different opinions on that.
).
Thanks for sharing! I discovered this a week or two ago. I haven't watched the latest yet but I am excited to see what he comes up with. I especially want to see if he uncovered the NACA reports in his research and get his take on the possibilities.
It's incredibly detailed. If you love warbirds, or anything WW2 aviation, you'll like it.
Errolwi
Monthly Donor
Yes, I watched the German Props in World War Two 3 vs. 4 blade a couple of months ago, seems well done.
Regarding the importance of reducing drag as much as possible. Putting any kind of housing around or over the turbocharger exhaust was avoided because it could produce back pressure that would reduce the effectiveness of the turbocharger. The reason there was a streamlined housing covering the front half of the P-47s' turbo wasn't primarily to reduce drag but to protect the turbo blades from foreign object damage while taking off and landing. Especially on take off where the full power prop wash is powerful enough to lift and toss gravel, stones, soil and twigs along under the belly of the P-47. This is happening while the tail is still low on the ground and the turbocharger right in the path of any prop wash tossed debris. Hence the need for a housing facing forward there.
But it's also true that reducing drag is a good thing where possible. For example the clunky looking topside of the P-38s' booms could have stood a redesign to reduce the drag from all those scoops. But how? They all had some function. Also I would guess that the air intake scoop for the turbo-supercharger could have benefitted from a redesign with drag reduction in mind. One of the NACA intakes designs may have been an improvement.
Greg stresses the higher cost of the P-38 compared to other U.S. fighters but I wonder just how big a factor that really was in the AAF decision making process. The U.S could afford the price. It wasn't because the P-51 was cheaper that the 8th Air Force replaced the P-38 with it. For everywhere else Lockheed couldn't keep up with the demand. The air force Generals wanted more P-38s and they didn't care about the price.
But it's also true that reducing drag is a good thing where possible. For example the clunky looking topside of the P-38s' booms could have stood a redesign to reduce the drag from all those scoops. But how? They all had some function. Also I would guess that the air intake scoop for the turbo-supercharger could have benefitted from a redesign with drag reduction in mind. One of the NACA intakes designs may have been an improvement.
Greg stresses the higher cost of the P-38 compared to other U.S. fighters but I wonder just how big a factor that really was in the AAF decision making process. The U.S could afford the price. It wasn't because the P-51 was cheaper that the 8th Air Force replaced the P-38 with it. For everywhere else Lockheed couldn't keep up with the demand. The air force Generals wanted more P-38s and they didn't care about the price.
Greg’s mention of the turbo installation got me thinking about it earlier today. Maybe @phx1138 can apply a little bit of his automotive knowledge and help me out here but I was wondering: does the turbo have to be installed either purely vertically or purely horizontally, or can they theoretically be installed at any incidence? (I would think that properly balanced rotating masses on properly toleranced bearings would be pretty forgiving as to orientation but I am not sure). I am thinking one could repackage the turbo installation in such a way that it is canted aft. Doing so should, I would think, allow an aerodynamic shroud to be placed afore the exposed portion of the turbine housing while still allowing the expanded exhaust gasses to exit more-or-less unrestricted into the free air. Packaging may be tricky with the main gear directly below but I think a little creativity could solve it. It may force a slight bulge at the shroud but it shouldn’t be any more than the shroud tested on the original design and unlike that it should be free of back pressure.
On the B-29 the turbochargers were installed on the side of the engine nacelles. Mounted vertically with a short housing over the output and a separate housing for the waste gate. Perhaps this reflect better turbocharger design for a late war airplane. I'm thinking if they can be mounted vertically they can be mounted at smaller tilts too.
Attachments
Last edited:
Sorry, I've got nothing. The installations I've seen are more about packaging close to the engine, to avoid losses in the piping, & the P-38 is already out of bounds for what I'd consider acceptable.
AIUI, tho, you're right, if the mounting is rigid, it shouldn't matter. As noted, the feed in/out, & the constriction(s) that induces with the tubing bends to accommodate an off-angle, seem like bigger issues.