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. Which does leave me with more to read. )
"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 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..."
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?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?
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.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. Some had also doubted Allison's ability to deliver the F15 engine in quantity. As promising as it had looked, the P-38K project came to a halt."
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).I don't see any pressing reason to change the engine to propeller gear ratio.
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".The same Curtis Electric propeller pitch controls would suffice.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.