Jump to content

Farky

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

152 Excellent

About Farky

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

409 profile views
  1. Not really. Standard propeller from P-47D-28 until end of production was Curtiss Electric. Last Thunderbolt produced with Hamilton Standard Hydromatic propeller was block P-47D-27-RE.
  2. It was common practise, at least by USAAF in ETO. It was rather on squadron level, it looks like belting wasn't usually chosen by individual pilots but by squadron CO. Some fighter squadrons did prefered belting without tracers, some did prefered a certain type of ammunition. For example during "Big Week" (February 1944), 56th Fighter Group squadrons did have different beltings - 61st FS prefered API only belting, 62nd FS was using API + T and 63rd FS AP + I. And even than, some pilots were using different belting within this squadrons - some pilots of 63rd FS were at that time using API ammo only or I ammo only belting.
  3. Removing underwing pylons wasn't standard procedure on "Bubble canopy" P-47s. However, at least 56th FG did removed them on some Thunderbolts (including P-47D-28), it was rather field modification. For example famous "Gabby" Gabreski was flying without underwing pylons -
  4. Here is a thing - DF loop on Thunderbolt do not fit any Pacific scenario. It doesn't fit in any scenario with exception of CBI theater of operations. It was possible to have DF loop and dorsal fin, but I am curious too.
  5. I seems that you are still missing my original point. There were post saying that P-38 was too much COMPLICATED for "green" pilots, you need to do too many things. And I am saying that if this is true, P-51 and P-47 were similarly complicated for them, since you need to do same things in those airplanes. You still need to flip same amount of switches and move same amount of levers. Can you do these things much easier? Maybe, some of them, but you still need to do them.
  6. So you did not even bother to look at the pictures, let alone try imagine doing "from cruising to combat" check list, ok. Rau is not comparing the P-38 with other aircrafts, there is no such thing indicated in his report. He is saying that P-38 is too much complicated for "green" pilots, that's all. And he sees main "cure" for this situations mainly in one lever for mixture/RPM/MAP. Guess what - engines in other US fighters have at that time (June 1944) also seperate levers for mixture, RPM and MAP, just like P-38. Rau had at the time of his report (June 1944) combat experience in Thunderbolt and Lightning, he was flying on Mustang, but later. I did, that is what I am trying to say here all the time. If someone is saying that droping tanks was much more complicated P-38 than in P-51 or P-47, he did not try imagine that himself. Let's say I am flying in early J model of P-38 and I need to drop tanks, my hands are on throttle quadrant and control column - I need select right fuel tank on two fuel selectors on left hand side of cockpit first. I can easily reach them with my left hand, they are behind throttle quadrant, they look like this (figure 8 and 7, their position is indicated by red arrow on next picture ) - When this is done, i reach for the box right behind the throttle quadrant. I need to engage Master switch ON ( figure 24 on next picture), than i need to flip two Tank selector switches (figure 20) and I can engage both these Tank selector switches together, no doubt. Then I press Tank release button (figure 27) and I am done, drop tanks are gone. Is it really much more complicated to drop tanks in P-38 than in P-51 or P-47? Workload for this operation is significantly higher than in other US fighters?
  7. Very good advice. Look at the cockpit layout of these airplanes in manuals and imagine you have been "bounced". Go through all thing you need to do, all switches and levers, step by step. I bet that you don't find P-38 far more complicated than P-51 or P-47 anymore. Cockpit of P-38 was more complicated in general (more gauges etc.) for sure, that is not the point.
  8. No, because that wasn't my point at all.
  9. - Colonel Rau is talking about ONE switch - Gun heater switch. On early models up to P-38J-5 was very easy to reach and handle gun heating control, on late models not so much. Take a look were all switches were in cockpit of P-38 and how they actually look. Nothing particularly more difficult in regards to handling them than in Mustang. - pilots of Mustangs and Thunderbolts in ETO were using gloves too, regularly. - turbos weren't fragile, issues with P-38 engines in ETO were about using wrong combinations of RPM and MAP and poor fuel distribution (difficulty with vaporization of the fuel). Wrong combinations of mixture/RPM/MAP was dangerous in P-51, just like in P-38. - your available time to react was the same. It is about the time you see the enemy, not the time he sees you. It is debatable whether the switches and levers in P-38 were in a worse positions than P-51. Maybe, maybe not. If I take a look on cockpit layout of various models of both airplanes, I think that some switches in P-38 were in better position than in P-51 and vice versa. Not in combat, not in case you were "bounced". There is only one exception - in P-38, you have two fuel tank selectors instead of one in P-51. On the other hand, fuel tank selector in Mustang is arguably more difficult to reach than in Lightning.
  10. As far as I know, Col. Rau does not compare workload of P-38 with P-51 or P-47. Ok, you are "bounced" in Mustang or Thunderbolt flying at economy cruising with drop tanks. What exactly do you do differently in comparison with P-38?
  11. To be fair, workload in P-38 was basically the same as in Mustang or Thunderbolt. When you are "bounced" flying P-51 or P-47, you need to do same things as in Lightning.
  12. And yet they were cleared by 8th AF (sole user of 150 Grade fuel) only for 67 inHg, never for 70 inHg.
  13. P-47D were using 67 inHg with 150 Grade fuel, not 70 inHg.
  14. Official USAAF service instructions -
  15. Sorry but no. All four models (-89, -91, -111 and -113) had the same Blower Gear Ratio (8.1:1).
×
×
  • Create New...