You'd be very right. I've read everything from Thunderbirds to Test Pilot to Devil Take All (but managed, somehow, to miss the sequels to Cyborg.
Which does leave me with more to read. ) Which does leave me with more to read. )
I think I own almost all of his books, including a few hard back copies of The Saga of Iron Annie. Got hooked in grammar school and used Cyborg as a reference for a science fair project on the Boston Arm (which I think Caidin got some ideas from back in the late 60s). Who knew I'd be an old fart before they got some of it working.You'd be very right. I've read everything from Thunderbirds to Test Pilot to Devil Take All (but managed, somehow, to miss the sequels to Cyborg.
Data recovery about 99.9% successful. It seems the only file (that I've found so far) that I'll have to re-create is the XP-81 "Design Calculations" which includes weight-and-balance, etc. The performance calculator (including the ATL Allison TC fitted into the XP-81) is still good at least, as are all of the drawing, designs, and redesigns for both NACA P-38 and XP-81. All of my research PDFs are recovered, including all the old NACA reports, the (partial) P-38 assembly manual, as well as various PIH/POHs (Pilot Instruction Handbooks / Pilot Operating Handbooks). Of course, all of my Narrative files appear in order as well but as I previously stated they were actually of least concern to me.
In all, I was able to recover about 16.8 GBs of the 12 GBs of valuable data I thought I lost--that's including all manner of old deleted and over-written files as well. Most of it is various other writings, world-building, game-design, house-rules for various games (AD&D, D&D, 40k, etc), and artwork, etc.
In all, I was able to recover about 16.8 GBs of the 12 GBs of valuable data I thought I lost--that's including all manner of old deleted and over-written files as well. Most of it is various other writings, world-building, game-design, house-rules for various games (AD&D, D&D, 40k, etc), and artwork, etc.
"In all, I was able to recover about 16.8 GBs of the 12 GBs of valuable data I thought I lost--" It's a good day when you recover more data then you lost.
It's even better when you recover more than the the drive was supposed to hold
"We recovered 12 TB of data from your hard drive"
"Umn, it was only a 1TB drive..."
"Ya we got some extra stuff including... Oh look it had Classified Documents on it! We're finding those things everywhere..."
Randy
It's a good day when you recover more data then you lost.
That's the beauty of partition tables. It's also why I always dispose of drives by running them through a DoD rated three+ pass wiper followed by physical destruction. You'd be amazed at some of the data I've recovered for people over the years which they thought they wiped years earlier.It's even better when you recover more than the the drive was supposed to hold
I can neither confirm nor deny..."We recovered 12 TB of data from your hard drive"
"Umn, it was only a 1TB drive..."
"Ya we got some extra stuff including... Oh look it had Classified Documents on it! We're finding those things everywhere..."
As of this date there are about 11 airworthy P-38s of several types, mostly Ls, still being flown. Almost all are located in the U.S. Of the 10 flyable P-38s based in the U.S. all look very authentic for the most part. But only one (as far as I can tell) still has functional turbochargers that are being operated in flight. That is P-38L 44-53186 named Pudgy V. When being flown the turbochargers produce a very distinctive sound.
No doubt there are several reasons why the other surviving P-38s do not use operational turbochargers. The expense and difficulty of maintaining them. The reluctance and non-necessity of using high boost on these old engines mounted on old airframes. The lack of availability of high octane leaded avgas thereby greatly limiting the boost.
This all would make Pudgy V a rarity among rarities. I wonder how long the owners will be able to keep flying the plane with operating turbochargers.
Here is another video of Pudgy V on a test flight. Just after the 2 minute mark the pilot pushes up the throttles for take-off. Listen carefully you'll hear the whine of the turbochargers spooling up. Listen during the flight and after landing to see if you can hear more turbo sounds.
Here is a video of 5 other P-38s flying together at an airshow. Can anybody hear from any of these 5 Lightnings the distinctive sound of the turbochargers?
A disclaimer, my hearing is a little sketchy. I've been watching these videos using headphones with the volume cranked up. But I'm still not certain exactly what I've been hearing. So, I'd like to hear what other listeners think.
No doubt there are several reasons why the other surviving P-38s do not use operational turbochargers. The expense and difficulty of maintaining them. The reluctance and non-necessity of using high boost on these old engines mounted on old airframes. The lack of availability of high octane leaded avgas thereby greatly limiting the boost.
This all would make Pudgy V a rarity among rarities. I wonder how long the owners will be able to keep flying the plane with operating turbochargers.
Here is another video of Pudgy V on a test flight. Just after the 2 minute mark the pilot pushes up the throttles for take-off. Listen carefully you'll hear the whine of the turbochargers spooling up. Listen during the flight and after landing to see if you can hear more turbo sounds.
Here is a video of 5 other P-38s flying together at an airshow. Can anybody hear from any of these 5 Lightnings the distinctive sound of the turbochargers?
A disclaimer, my hearing is a little sketchy. I've been watching these videos using headphones with the volume cranked up. But I'm still not certain exactly what I've been hearing. So, I'd like to hear what other listeners think.
Last edited:
Why were the propellers never improved on the OTL P-38 for the entire length of their production run? Despite the ever increasing horsepower ratings of the V-1710 engines with the newer turbochargers and better intercoolers installed on the newer model P-38s. This extra horsepower couldn't be used efficiently by the old propellers.
Here is a video from Greg where this is discussed starting at the 20:10 mark. Greg also mentions the well known reasons against starting production of the P-38K and also mentions the complications and expense of switching ongoing production from the existing Curtiss Electric propellers to the Hamilton Standard high activity hydraulic propellers. AKA paddle-bladed propellers.
Here also is a short excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the P-38 describing the P-38K and mentioning similar reasons why the P38-K was never put into production.
"Two P-38Ks were developed from 1942 to 1943, one official and one an internal Lockheed experiment. The first was actually a battered RP-38E "piggyback" test mule previously used by Lockheed to test the P-38J chin intercooler installation, now fitted with paddle-bladed "high activity" Hamilton Standard Hydromatic propellers similar to those used on the P-47. The new propellers required spinners of greater diameter, and the mule's crude, hand-formed sheet steel cowlings were further stretched to blend the spinners into the nacelles. It retained its "piggyback" configuration that allowed an observer to ride behind the pilot. With Lockheed's AAF representative as a passenger and the maneuvering flap deployed to offset Army Hot Day conditions, the old "K-Mule" still climbed to 45,000 feet (14,000 m). With a fresh coat of paint covering its crude, hand-formed steel cowlings, this RP-38E acts as stand-in for the "P-38K-1-LO" in the model's only picture.[132]
The 12th G model originally set aside as a P-38J prototype was redesignated P-38K-1-LO and fitted with the aforementioned paddle-blade propellers and new Allison V-1710-75/77 (F15R/L) powerplants rated at 1,875 bhp (1,398 kW) at War Emergency Power. These engines were geared 2.36 to 1, unlike the standard P-38 ratio of 2 to 1. The AAF took delivery in September 1943, at Eglin Field. In tests, the P-38K-1 achieved 432 mph (695 km/h) at military power and was predicted to exceed 450 mph (720 km/h) at War Emergency Power with a similar increase in load and range. The initial climb rate was 4,800 ft (1,500 m)/min and the ceiling was 46,000 ft (14,000 m). It reached 20,000 ft (6,100 m) in five minutes flat; this with a coat of camouflage paint, which added weight and drag. Although it was judged superior in climb and speed to the latest and best fighters from all AAF manufacturers, the War Production Board refused to authorize P-38K production due to the two- to three-week interruption in production necessary to implement cowling modifications for the revised spinners and higher thrust line.[132] Some had also doubted Allison's ability to deliver the F15 engine in quantity.[133] As promising as it had looked, the P-38K project came to a halt."
I think many readers are familiar with these events. However the abandoned P-38K model doesn't fully explain why the OTL P-38 was never fitted with more efficient propellers at some point during it's long production run. I don't think it needed to be done as was designed for the P-38K. I think there was a possibility it all could have been done much more simpler, faster and cheaper. I'll describe what I mean by that.
The P-38 didn't necessarily need the Allison 75/77 engines to have paddle-bladed propellers fitted. Any of the later model engine and turbocharger combinations would have sufficed. Once the P-38 had engines that could produce better then about 1300 HP that's when improved propellers were needed to better utilize the increased power.
They didn't have to be Hamilton Standard props. Taking the P-47 as an example the Thunderbolts had their old propellers replaced with paddle-bladed propellers to improve climb rate and speed. The increased power produced by the newer R-2800 engines required a better matching propeller. Replacing the props was simple. The P-47s previously fitted with the older narrow bladed Curtiss Electric props got new paddle bladed Curtis Electric props. Same thing for the P-47s using Hamilton Standard propellers. They got new HS props.
And these exchanges did not require changes to the already installed propeller pitch controls. They did not need to change the engine to propeller gear ratio. And there was no need to make changes to the height of the propeller thrust line. Simply pull off the old narrow bladed prop and mount the new paddle bladed prop. Why couldn't the same thing been done to later P-38 models with their more powerful engines?
The OTL P-38 was using the old narrow bladed Curtis Electric propellers. Curtis Electric was building 4 bladed paddle bladed props for the P-47. How difficult would it have been for them to redesign the 3 bladed propellers they were already producing for the P-38 into a 3 bladed high activity paddle bladed propeller for production?
No need to change anything on the existing P-38 production line. The same Curtis Electric propeller pitch controls would suffice. I don't see any pressing reason to change the engine to propeller gear ratio. And if Curtis Electric can fit the pitch control mechanism into the same size propeller spinner then no need to change the front of the engine cowling. Maybe it would even have been possible to retrofit the P-38s with new paddle bladed propellers in the field same as was done with the P-47.
Here is a video from Greg where this is discussed starting at the 20:10 mark. Greg also mentions the well known reasons against starting production of the P-38K and also mentions the complications and expense of switching ongoing production from the existing Curtiss Electric propellers to the Hamilton Standard high activity hydraulic propellers. AKA paddle-bladed propellers.
Here also is a short excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the P-38 describing the P-38K and mentioning similar reasons why the P38-K was never put into production.
"Two P-38Ks were developed from 1942 to 1943, one official and one an internal Lockheed experiment. The first was actually a battered RP-38E "piggyback" test mule previously used by Lockheed to test the P-38J chin intercooler installation, now fitted with paddle-bladed "high activity" Hamilton Standard Hydromatic propellers similar to those used on the P-47. The new propellers required spinners of greater diameter, and the mule's crude, hand-formed sheet steel cowlings were further stretched to blend the spinners into the nacelles. It retained its "piggyback" configuration that allowed an observer to ride behind the pilot. With Lockheed's AAF representative as a passenger and the maneuvering flap deployed to offset Army Hot Day conditions, the old "K-Mule" still climbed to 45,000 feet (14,000 m). With a fresh coat of paint covering its crude, hand-formed steel cowlings, this RP-38E acts as stand-in for the "P-38K-1-LO" in the model's only picture.[132]
The 12th G model originally set aside as a P-38J prototype was redesignated P-38K-1-LO and fitted with the aforementioned paddle-blade propellers and new Allison V-1710-75/77 (F15R/L) powerplants rated at 1,875 bhp (1,398 kW) at War Emergency Power. These engines were geared 2.36 to 1, unlike the standard P-38 ratio of 2 to 1. The AAF took delivery in September 1943, at Eglin Field. In tests, the P-38K-1 achieved 432 mph (695 km/h) at military power and was predicted to exceed 450 mph (720 km/h) at War Emergency Power with a similar increase in load and range. The initial climb rate was 4,800 ft (1,500 m)/min and the ceiling was 46,000 ft (14,000 m). It reached 20,000 ft (6,100 m) in five minutes flat; this with a coat of camouflage paint, which added weight and drag. Although it was judged superior in climb and speed to the latest and best fighters from all AAF manufacturers, the War Production Board refused to authorize P-38K production due to the two- to three-week interruption in production necessary to implement cowling modifications for the revised spinners and higher thrust line.[132] Some had also doubted Allison's ability to deliver the F15 engine in quantity.[133] As promising as it had looked, the P-38K project came to a halt."
I think many readers are familiar with these events. However the abandoned P-38K model doesn't fully explain why the OTL P-38 was never fitted with more efficient propellers at some point during it's long production run. I don't think it needed to be done as was designed for the P-38K. I think there was a possibility it all could have been done much more simpler, faster and cheaper. I'll describe what I mean by that.
The P-38 didn't necessarily need the Allison 75/77 engines to have paddle-bladed propellers fitted. Any of the later model engine and turbocharger combinations would have sufficed. Once the P-38 had engines that could produce better then about 1300 HP that's when improved propellers were needed to better utilize the increased power.
They didn't have to be Hamilton Standard props. Taking the P-47 as an example the Thunderbolts had their old propellers replaced with paddle-bladed propellers to improve climb rate and speed. The increased power produced by the newer R-2800 engines required a better matching propeller. Replacing the props was simple. The P-47s previously fitted with the older narrow bladed Curtiss Electric props got new paddle bladed Curtis Electric props. Same thing for the P-47s using Hamilton Standard propellers. They got new HS props.
And these exchanges did not require changes to the already installed propeller pitch controls. They did not need to change the engine to propeller gear ratio. And there was no need to make changes to the height of the propeller thrust line. Simply pull off the old narrow bladed prop and mount the new paddle bladed prop. Why couldn't the same thing been done to later P-38 models with their more powerful engines?
The OTL P-38 was using the old narrow bladed Curtis Electric propellers. Curtis Electric was building 4 bladed paddle bladed props for the P-47. How difficult would it have been for them to redesign the 3 bladed propellers they were already producing for the P-38 into a 3 bladed high activity paddle bladed propeller for production?
No need to change anything on the existing P-38 production line. The same Curtis Electric propeller pitch controls would suffice. I don't see any pressing reason to change the engine to propeller gear ratio. And if Curtis Electric can fit the pitch control mechanism into the same size propeller spinner then no need to change the front of the engine cowling. Maybe it would even have been possible to retrofit the P-38s with new paddle bladed propellers in the field same as was done with the P-47.
Last edited:
Were the existing thin-blade props being used on any other aircraft? What I mean is, would the 3-blade paddle prop have constituted an additional product vs a replacement product, and if so did CE have the production capacity to add another product line?
While 2-3 weeks is significant in terms of production numbers, is it really so important that one would chose to deprive himself of a truly massive upgrade? It seems to me that the value of the 38K far outweighed the couple hundred aircrafts not built in the meantime.
I...admit it's not my field specifically or anything, but I would immediately assume that you have to change the engine to propeller gear ratio? Or at least that you'd be really, really stupid not to. The entire point is being able to move more air per prop revolution, so you can move as much air as your engine power permits at a low enough prop RPM that the outer (idk, several inches, foot, foot and a half?) don't run into transonic speeds, hit critical mach for whatever the heck prop blade airfoil it's using, and tank its efficiency (as those outer inches or foot are generating the same or more drag but less or no thrust).
This is especially important at high altitude; as the speed of sound drops, the RPM at which your prop tips start going transonic drops accordingly, so the lower a prop RPM your prop can actually absorb full engine power at, the more thrust you can produce at higher altitudes.
If you don't change the gear ratio, of course, you'd probably still benefit; prop speeds would still slow and prop efficiency would still increase. However, the engine RPM at full throttle would decrease (because it can't turn as fast as it used to, the prop is far harder to turn than the old one); idk how peaky the power curve looks for the engines at this particular stage, but if this decrease drops your full-throttle engine RPM out of the engine's peak power band, you'd benefit a lot less than you could have. Theoretically, you might even not benefit at all, though I doubt the engines' power curve is that peaky.
Edit: It occurs to me that it's at least possible that if the reduction gear ratio was chosen back when the plane was first designed, the many, many engine upgrades since then might well have put full-throttle engine RPM considerably above peak power, and changing to the paddle-bladed prop without changing gear ratio would get you back down into the peak of the power band, rather than out of it. But once again, I have absolutely no idea what the power curve looks like for the current engine.
Edit2:
This also feels like a bad assumption; once again, not an expert, not my field, but my gut instinct is "the prop blades are like twice as big, the mechanisms to change their pitch are gonna need beefed up a bit".
Last edited:
I think Curtis would have simply switched the existing P-38 narrow bladed propeller production line over to the new paddle bladed production. I don't think it would have been a lengthy job to do that.
@thepsyborg These are all interesting points you mention.
Whether they were narrow bladed or paddle bladed propellers all were the constant speed propeller type. As engine RPMs increase the constant speed propeller will change the pitch of the propeller blade to take an increasing larger bite of the air, i.e. coarse pitch. This also will protect the propellers from over speeding and going supersonic at the blade tips. Even with more powerful engines. The constant speed function will keep increasing the coarse pitch of the blades so that the higher loading of the propellers will limit the propeller and engine RPM. This will happen automatically when the pitch control lever is set for auto.
The only benefit I can see by reducing the engine to propeller gear ratio is would increase the torque being applied to the propeller which should result in a faster acceleration of the engine and propeller. This wasn't considered sufficient enough to change the gear ratios on the P-47s when the propellers were changed.
The mechanisms that controlled the pitch of the constant speed propeller blades and when the pitch angle would change was built into the propeller hubs. This was true whether they were narrow bladed or paddle bladed. Either electrically controlled or hydraulically controlled. The settings for the constant speed mechanism was controlled from the cockpit by the propeller pitch lever on the throttle quadrant. The connection from the cockpit to the propeller was different for the Curtis Electric then for the Hamilton Standard hydraulic propellers. The slightly larger HS hydraulic constant speed mechanism would have required a larger spinner for the P-38. I don't think the Curtis Electric hub would have needed a larger spinner even with the paddle blades.
What I'm largely basing my assertions on is the experience the USAAF had in fitting the new paddle bladed propellers on their P-47 fleet in the U.K. These were field modifications on existing aircraft, not newly built. They simply exchanged the propellers. CE paddle bladed for CE narrow. HS paddle bladed for HS narrow. No change to the cockpit pitch control. And no change to the engine to propeller gear ratio. And this modification was highly praised by the pilots flying those planes.
You might find Greg's account of this interesting. Beginning at the 17:20 mark.
Whether they were narrow bladed or paddle bladed propellers all were the constant speed propeller type. As engine RPMs increase the constant speed propeller will change the pitch of the propeller blade to take an increasing larger bite of the air, i.e. coarse pitch. This also will protect the propellers from over speeding and going supersonic at the blade tips. Even with more powerful engines. The constant speed function will keep increasing the coarse pitch of the blades so that the higher loading of the propellers will limit the propeller and engine RPM. This will happen automatically when the pitch control lever is set for auto.
The only benefit I can see by reducing the engine to propeller gear ratio is would increase the torque being applied to the propeller which should result in a faster acceleration of the engine and propeller. This wasn't considered sufficient enough to change the gear ratios on the P-47s when the propellers were changed.
The mechanisms that controlled the pitch of the constant speed propeller blades and when the pitch angle would change was built into the propeller hubs. This was true whether they were narrow bladed or paddle bladed. Either electrically controlled or hydraulically controlled. The settings for the constant speed mechanism was controlled from the cockpit by the propeller pitch lever on the throttle quadrant. The connection from the cockpit to the propeller was different for the Curtis Electric then for the Hamilton Standard hydraulic propellers. The slightly larger HS hydraulic constant speed mechanism would have required a larger spinner for the P-38. I don't think the Curtis Electric hub would have needed a larger spinner even with the paddle blades.
What I'm largely basing my assertions on is the experience the USAAF had in fitting the new paddle bladed propellers on their P-47 fleet in the U.K. These were field modifications on existing aircraft, not newly built. They simply exchanged the propellers. CE paddle bladed for CE narrow. HS paddle bladed for HS narrow. No change to the cockpit pitch control. And no change to the engine to propeller gear ratio. And this modification was highly praised by the pilots flying those planes.
You might find Greg's account of this interesting. Beginning at the 17:20 mark.
Aha. I had missed the constant-speed prop issue*...although really, I think you'd still really want a higher reduction gear ratio, even if you certainly didn't need it? It does clarify things quite a bit- due to the constant-speed prop, the engine and propeller are going to be at basically the same speed all the time (when at full power); the propeller pitch varies with air density and throttle setting to take a bigger "bite" of the air at higher power and higher altitude.
So far so good.
However, all this means is that- at full throttle- the paddle-bladed prop will be turning at the same speed, with a finer prop pitch.
And to the best of my knowledge the standard prop tips were already well into the transonic range at altitude- I haven't checked all the math myself, but at 350mph TAS and 3000 (engine) RPM (1500 prop RPM), this post claims tip speeds of Mach 0.928 at sea level (already fast enough for modern supercritical airfoils to being looking askance) and Mach 1.067 at 35,000 feet (which is nowhere NEAR the Lightning's ceiling).
Finally, there's no reason the paddle-bladed prop couldn't be set to just as coarse a pitch as the narrow, slowing it down...except that would reduce engine RPM and thus power, unless you change the reduction gear ratio.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no longer even remotely worried about the paddle-blade field swap causing any negative effects whatsoever. It would certainly be a dramatic improvement, and absolutely worth doing in the field. But it could be better- increasing the reduction gear ratio would give you (at the same engine RPM) a slower-turning prop, with comparable pitch to the original narrow-bladed one (rather than the field-swap's same-speed/finer-pitched prop). And (given the clear mach effects the default prop diameter+speed were already running into) the slower-turning prop would in turn retain more prop efficiency into higher altitudes, increasing rate of climb and top speed at altitude accordingly.
*I really shouldn't have; my maternal grandfather spent WW2 in Hartford, CT building Hamilton-Standard hydraulic constant-speed props.
So far so good.
However, all this means is that- at full throttle- the paddle-bladed prop will be turning at the same speed, with a finer prop pitch.
And to the best of my knowledge the standard prop tips were already well into the transonic range at altitude- I haven't checked all the math myself, but at 350mph TAS and 3000 (engine) RPM (1500 prop RPM), this post claims tip speeds of Mach 0.928 at sea level (already fast enough for modern supercritical airfoils to being looking askance) and Mach 1.067 at 35,000 feet (which is nowhere NEAR the Lightning's ceiling).
Finally, there's no reason the paddle-bladed prop couldn't be set to just as coarse a pitch as the narrow, slowing it down...except that would reduce engine RPM and thus power, unless you change the reduction gear ratio.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no longer even remotely worried about the paddle-blade field swap causing any negative effects whatsoever. It would certainly be a dramatic improvement, and absolutely worth doing in the field. But it could be better- increasing the reduction gear ratio would give you (at the same engine RPM) a slower-turning prop, with comparable pitch to the original narrow-bladed one (rather than the field-swap's same-speed/finer-pitched prop). And (given the clear mach effects the default prop diameter+speed were already running into) the slower-turning prop would in turn retain more prop efficiency into higher altitudes, increasing rate of climb and top speed at altitude accordingly.
*I really shouldn't have; my maternal grandfather spent WW2 in Hartford, CT building Hamilton-Standard hydraulic constant-speed props.
Last edited:
Yes, I think that's right. Further illustrating that the War Production Board should have approved production of the P-38K. It would've been the best possible choice. And even if the F15 engines were not available in numbers at first the -K could still have used earlier versions of the V-1710 until Allison got up to speed on the F15 versions.
But they didn't approve it and neither was a more expedient if a less efficient option like I've described chosen. Instead they did nothing.
Not the only example of the OTL P-38 not receiving a useful upgrade during its entire production run. But possibly the most important one.
Does anybody know what were all the 21 modifications that comprised the Black Jack modification project for the P-38?
The link to the Youtube video starts at the point where Tony Levier begins discussing the modification kits. He said it was called the Black Jack project because there were 21 modifications. The dive recovery flap kits and aileron boost kits are well known but what were the other mods? @EverKing do you have any information on this?
Also I would recommend watching the entire video as the late, great Tony LeVier describes his experiences of the history and testing of the P-38 in his own words.
The link to the Youtube video starts at the point where Tony Levier begins discussing the modification kits. He said it was called the Black Jack project because there were 21 modifications. The dive recovery flap kits and aileron boost kits are well known but what were the other mods? @EverKing do you have any information on this?
Also I would recommend watching the entire video as the late, great Tony LeVier describes his experiences of the history and testing of the P-38 in his own words.
Last edited:
Sorry I haven't been around to take part in the discussions. Life has been...life.
In any case, I don't have any information of the specifics involved with the lost modification kits beyond what we already knew. That being said, given the time-frame I suspect most of the modifications could be deduced by looking at the variances in the (OTL) production blocks between about the J-10 (or 15) and the J-25, including the J-20. I can dig through to see what those modifications entailed but from memory they included revised electrical systems, revised auxiliary fuel controls, new turbo regulators, the dive flaps, the aileron boosters, and the supporting systems and modifications to support their installation (updated hydraulic installations, etc.).
I'll dig through what notes, manuals, and sources I have to see if I can't glean a few more specifics.
In any case, I don't have any information of the specifics involved with the lost modification kits beyond what we already knew. That being said, given the time-frame I suspect most of the modifications could be deduced by looking at the variances in the (OTL) production blocks between about the J-10 (or 15) and the J-25, including the J-20. I can dig through to see what those modifications entailed but from memory they included revised electrical systems, revised auxiliary fuel controls, new turbo regulators, the dive flaps, the aileron boosters, and the supporting systems and modifications to support their installation (updated hydraulic installations, etc.).
I'll dig through what notes, manuals, and sources I have to see if I can't glean a few more specifics.
Hi EverKing, thanks for getting back to me. If you're able to dig up a little more info on the Black Jack project that'll be great. I couldn't find anything relevant with my recent online searches. In fact until I saw the Tony LeVier video I didn't know there was so much more planned in Northern Ireland then just installing the DRF kits.
Which leads to a puzzling consideration. How much cargo could one cram into a single C-54? When the C-54 was shot down they lost all the DRF kits. But did the AAF lose everything else with it too? All the aileron boost kits? And all the other modification kits as well? All of that in one C-54? That's why it would be interesting to know what the entire list of the Black Jack mods were. If everything wasn't lost in that one plane I wonder if the AAF continued with some of the modifications at a slower pace at the various P-38 bases in East Anglia.
Last edited: