P-40 Engine Settings as I found them (a bit weird)

[Crump]

 

 

Reposting pictures about the P-38's leading edge intercoolers has no bearing on the P-40

 

 

 

That is not a P-38 in the cartoon, it is a P-40.  While the caption mentions the P-38, that cartoon clearly does not exclude the Allison in the P-40.  

[Venturi]

That is not a P-38 in the cartoon, it is a P-40.  While the caption mentions the P-38, that cartoon clearly does not exclude the Allison in the P-40.  

 

Quoted for future reference.

[Dakpilot]

 

 

I have posted accounts from current Allison V-1710 builders and racers regarding the engine's durability and potential use/capabilities

I have posted numbers from high-octane fuel deliveries to the USSR under lend-lease for use in these aircraft, showing that fuel nor oil was an issue

I have shown multiple period anecdotal stories (not all of the ones I actually have) showing the overboost capabilities of the engine - and that was at least 60", probably 65-66", in level flight at sea level, without blowing up

 

If all the above does not convince, then you have another agenda entirely. In any case it is up to the developers and I have presented the evidence. 

 

 

 

Although reports from current V-1710 engine builders are important, valid and interesting, all of these engines are built using the much later versions, different crank, block etc. not those from the E model engine

 

No one is questioning that High octane US fuel was delivered, but the many accounts of Russian pilots using Russian fuel and even the different settings when using it would lead to the conclusion that with fuel availability it was at least showing that there is more than a "non issue" and has some relevance, however I have no problem that the P-40 would be modelled in game with the optimal fuel available

 

There are also many anecdotes of extreme unreliability of the Allison (P40E) especially in Russian use, while I am a fan of the P40 and Allison engines the 'whole picture' must be taken into account, most of the experience written is with the later models that were much more widely used, also with lend lease P-40's

 

Having operated/flown with large capacity WWII engines and known very many other pilots, if the few outlier ways that they were used were taken as normal it would give a different spin on reality, especially when considered that the few extreme instances are the ones spoken of in bars and "anecdotes" that get the attention and lead to "legends'' re-quoted as facts

 

I have no agenda other than accuracy, but I do feel it is better not to speak in 'absolutes' 

 

As I have agreed, there are some instances where time limits are demonstrably too short in game compared to available figures

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

That is not a P-38 in the cartoon, it is a P-40.  While the caption mentions the P-38, that cartoon clearly does not exclude the Allison in the P-40.  

So the person who made the cartoon has no idea on plane types

 

 

Edited April 10, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Venturi]

As I have already said, the historical accounts are only important, for IL2 modeling purposes, insofar as they indicate what the engine was actually ideally capable of, given the equipment's limitations.

I do not deny that the Russians likely had some trouble. With complexity of management, especially when it allows "pushing the envelope", then you can get and will get users who then push it too far and blow up the engine, especially if they are used to another type which is limited differently, where they are not used to managing MAP or having to worry about the RPM come up too quickly. If they aren't trained, then that's what happens no matter who's doing the flying. See previous anecdote about the failed landing.

The Allison as installed in the P40E (and pre-J P39s) was very different than most Russian engines in that it was more of a "hot-rodder's" engine ... it could give excellent performance beyond ratings, but you better know what you were doing.

 

It is interesting to note that no one has mentioned anything about the exact same engine being used in the P39... The only differences in the dash revision being the gearbox and related installation differences... and the majority of the lend-lease P-40s were P-40Bs or (mostly) Es... something like 1,500 aircraft

I'd recommend you buy and read Vees to get a more complete picture of what I'm relaying. That book draws on all sources including official technical orders and official correspondence/interviews. As I've said earlier, in each chapter there's about 4-5 double sided pages of references. Whitney actually was good friends with two men who were instrumental in the early Allison company and who also lived in Sacramento, CA along with him, who had all sorts of access and insider info...

I enjoy engines with character and for this sim I'd like to have the real Allison V-1710 please stand up.


 

Although reports from current V-1710 engine builders are important, valid and interesting, all of these engines are built using the much later versions, different crank, block etc. not those from the E model engine

No one is questioning that High octane US fuel was delivered, but the many accounts of Russian pilots using Russian fuel and even the different settings when using it would lead to the conclusion that with fuel availability it was at least showing that there is more than a "non issue" and has some relevance, however I have no problem that the P-40 would be modelled in game with the optimal fuel available

There are also many anecdotes of extreme unreliability of the Allison (P40E) especially in Russian use, while I am a fan of the P40 and Allison engines the 'whole picture' must be taken into account, most of the experience written is with the later models that were much more widely used, also with lend lease P-40's

Having operated/flown with large capacity WWII engines and known very many other pilots, if the few outlier ways that they were used were taken as normal it would give a different spin on reality, especially when considered that the few extreme instances are the ones spoken of in bars and "anecdotes" that get the attention and lead to "legends'' re-quoted as facts

I have no agenda other than accuracy, but I do feel it is better not to speak in 'absolutes'

As I have agreed, there are some instances where time limits are demonstrably too short in game compared to available figures

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited April 10, 2016 by Venturi

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Not getting into the debate because I know too little on the subject to be useful, but I can translate two excerpts of Pokryshkin's memoirs where he mentions the P-39's engine, boosting and reliability.

[Venturi]

I believe he was assigned a P-39K and he was one of the top scoring aces using that type. I'd personally love to read his memoirs.

 

Not getting into the debate because I know too little on the subject to be useful, but I can translate two excerpts of Pokryshkin's memoirs where he mentions the P-39's engine, boosting and reliability.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

You can find them in Spanish here: http://www.rkka.es/Otros_articulos/16_Pokryshkin/000.htm

 

If you read a bit of Spanish or can put up with Google Translate, you're good to go. I'll see if I can translate the passages tomorrow, and if I take too long do send me a PM reminding me, my memory can be unreliable from time to time.

[Dave]

Allison V-1710F3R's installed in the P40E weren't fitted with a MAP regulator. The first Allison V1710 to receive the MAP regulator was the F4.

 

The P40E could be operated at War Emergency Power. WEP was not a physical attribute of the engine but a nominal value; the output of a calculation; an estimate; a manifold pressure at RPM beyond which the best information available to the engineering team at the time suggested the engine would likely sustain damage after 5 minutes and which should therefore only be used under defined "emergency" conditions.

 

The maximum manifold pressure achievable on an engine where the throttle lever was not pneumatically isolated from the carburettor butterfly (i.e. not limited by a MAP regulator) was not fixed. The MAP corresponding to full throttle (throttle lever at the end of its travel) in such an engine was determined by airspeed, ambient pressure, ambient temperature and engine RPM in addition to static engine design factors such as the volumetric flow capacity of the intake tract, valve timing, scavenging potential, bore, stroke, CR, etc. The engine doesn't say "sh1t - sorry - can't open the butterfly any further because the manual says so". Under some conditions sufficient fuel flow to maintain a stoichiometric mixture (actually the target at high boost was 10.2:1) could not be maintained, which would result in a lean mixture, attendant excess heat and detonation. Excessive combustion chamber pressure would also result in detonation. But the MAP which constitutes "excessive" is still variable and dependent upon ambient conditions; particularly ambient pressure, ambient temperature, the engine's ability to dissipate heat, the extent to which compression has been effected by intake ram effect or the supercharger impeller, the concentration and composition of air and fuel impurities and the octane rating of the fuel. The difference with a MAP regulator is that the relationship between throttle lever position and manifold pressure is fixed, within the response of the regulator and below the critical altitude for the engine (where the altitude is calculated for "standard" sea-level barometric pressure and temperature). In this case the maximum manifold pressure attainable was set on the ground. The only change here is that the physical limit was determined by ground crew whereas in the former case the limit was determined by circumstances and the pilot. Neither of these values (the respective physical limits) was necessarily, or in practice, the "limit" stipulated in published operating procedures. These facts are attested to by period documents from operational units, period memoranda from the manufacturer's engineers, interviews with pilots who flew the P40E and, in the case of the VVS, serviceability records which document P40s routinely returning from sorties with blown engines and the rapid decline in operational P40 numbers due to engine attrition, indicating that they pushed them even harder than the already extreme abuse the V1710 received from the DAF operators, where continued use at 58"-60"HgA was normal.

[Dave]

A MAP regulator does not allow for a HIGHER manifold pressure because it cannot alter the MAP at which the engine detonates.

What it can do is allow the pilot to set the desired manifold pressure to some value and not bother continually checking that the value hasn't increased or decreased, reducing their cognitive load. With the increased confidence that they would not accidentally overboost their engine less experienced pilots could better exploit the P40.

Many pilots (especially EATS) arrived at their operational units with less than 100 hours total flying time in their logbooks.WGCDR Bobby Gibbes DSO, DFC and Bar, OAM, OC 3SQN RAAF 42-43 and P40E ace stated in a 1993 interview of his rookie pilots "[they had] to concentrate on flying the aeroplane, as the Empire Air Scheme guy had to do. He had to worry about flying and also about shooting." The MAP regulator was introduced to address this detractor from combat effectiveness.

It does not in any way increase the maximum manifold pressure attainable, nor does it alter the engine's ability to withstand higher manifold pressures. When MAP regulators were retrofitted or applied to V1710-39s in other aircraft no other modifications were made to the engines to permit higher manifold pressures.


In other news, I found this tonight on the 3SQN association website:
 

Austin Smith wrote from the Atlanta in the USA:

"My grandfather, Sam Wickham, an American, served with the RAAF 3rd Squadron in North Africa in 1941-42 as a representative of Allison Motors. The Tomahawk and Kittyhawk I fighters that 3SQN flew used Allison engines. My grandfather was there to service their needs and report back any issues the engines were having with the desert climate. I have a great deal of pictures from his time with 3 Squadron and I came to your website after googling a few of the names he had written on the back of the pictures, among them "Frank Fischer", and "Jeffries." I'm very curious about this time in my grandfather's life as he talked about it often until he passed away on 2003. I was curious if anyone from the unit might still be alive and knowledgeable of my grandfather. I would love to be able to speak with someone who might have known him from the desert?"

Austin included this nice picture of Bobby Gibbes taken by Sam. [Click for a larger version.]

That picture is quite similar to the War Memorial's widely-used photo 011961 - which can now be recognised as a print that the famous photographer Damien Parer must have obtained from Sam. We also found mention of Sam in Brian Thompson's diary on our website and referred Austin to another engineering report written by Ken McRae during the war. We're looking forward to seeing more of Sam's photos.

I'd like to track this guy down.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Dave

[Dave]

Today I found in AWM archives several references to a number of engineering reports written by WGCDR McRae on their use of the Allison V1710-39, including a mention of it made by Bobby Gibbes about comparative perfomance tests that the two of them conducted between a Kittyhawk Ia, Spitfire V(trop), captured Bf109F4 and Bf109G2 ("Black 6").

I am searching for these documents now. WGCDR McRae was the DAF's senior engineer and was considered the preeminent expert on the Allison employed in the Tomahawks and Kittyhawks in North Africa.

 

It is a huge pity that we lost him in 2007 shortly after WGCDR Gibbes.

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4915/inmemoriam/story1.htm

Edited April 11, 2016 by Dave

[Dave]

For the benefit of those for whom English is not their first language (and those who struggle with English comprehension) I have added the redundant punctuation and some bold emphasis in case you still can't follow:

 

As can be seen from the attached chart #C-234, two copies of which are enclosed, on the average engine 66" boost is approximately 1745 B.H.P at sea level or 1770 H.P. at 2000 feet, and can only be obtained either under ramming flight conditions at 3000 R.P.M. or, by overreving the engine, it can be obtained to considerably higher altitudes.

 

 

Ramming flight conditions are just any airspeed where air is forced into the ram-tunnel such that dynamic air pressure created by the aircraft's motion increases the static air pressure inside of the intake tract ahead of the supercharger above ambient. In other words - straight and level at speed or diving. You know - most of the time you actually want it. Such as when you are diving from Angels 5 down to 2 when bouncing or diving out.

 

Importantly and interestingly, the question for which this is cited as supporting evidence isn't even whether the engine can take it. So we finally have consensus that 66" was not a physical limit of the engine. Instead the objection now is that it was supposedly not even achievable.

 

Meanwhile the preceding paragraph to the one quoted (left out of context for some reason) clearly establishes that it was not only achievable but acknowledged common practice to set manifold limits (on carburettors that could be restricted) to 66" and that Allison had by then conceded that on the very same -39 engines they had previously limited to 44", 60" was in fact perfectly safe after all.

 

Squadron records show that the same units operating at these higher manifold pressures were averaging 40-50 flight hours between overhauls before dust filters were fitted, and 120-140 hours between overhauls after dust filters were fitted.

 

As an interesting historical aside, Adolf Galland stated that JG27's 109F4s were getting 18-20 hours between overhauls. 

Edited April 12, 2016 by Dave

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Having trouble finding the second bit, but here is the first. They don't say all that much, and have no value beyond anecdotal notes for the curious.

 

For context, Captain Paskeev was leading a flight of four, while Pokryshkin and his wingman Golubev flew in a pair separate from them, covering the flight.

 

In that moment the leader of the attack flight broke hard to the side and headed in a dive towards Krasnodar. He was leaving behind him a thick column of smoke. No, he wasn't on fire. The pilot must have started to boost the engine.

 

"But what is he doing, why is he retreating" I thought, uneasy and angry. "Is it possible that fear got into him and he left his three young pilots to their fortunes?"

 

Abandoning the fray with the Messers, I entered a steep dive towards our three aircraft, which were starting to spread out. It was too late, however. The aircraft belonging to Kozlov, Paskeev's wingman, had lost control and fell to the ground.

 

The other pair of young pilots formed up with me, and us three started to repeal the Messerschmitts' attacks. Only then I suddenly thought of Golubev. Where is he? When did we get separated?

 

The bomber formation got closer and closer to our first line of defense. We didn't have the strenght to stop them. All we could do was enter the thickest group of Junkers, break their formation and force them to drop their bombs there and then, before reaching the target.

 

I led my three aircraft in an attack. The young pilots followed me relentlessly. We came in fast, above and behind the bombers and opened fire with cannos and machine guns. The return fire from the gunners was not going to stop us. The nerves of the Hitleries couldn't handle it - the bombers turned to different directions and started dropping their bombs without order or sense. Right after dispersing a group of Junkers, we attacked another, and then another one... Since we were surrounded by their own bombers, the Messers had a hard time attacking us. However, as soon as the bombers retreated we three were faced with ten enemy fighters. There was no way to run away from them. Therefore, we had to fight. On top of that, we had little ammunition left.

 

What's going on though? The Hitlerites turned around and took a heading West. I looked around and filled with joy, saw a large formation of our fighters approaching us to help.

 

Once we arrived from this mission, the first thing I asked was if Golubev and Paskeev had returned. They told me Golubev hadn't, but Paskeev arrived safe and sound.

 

- What's with his aircraft?

- The engine seized, replied the mechanic.

 

I understood it right away. If you flew for a long time using boost, the engine could become useless. Was it possible that Paskeev did that intentionally to hide his cowardness? This was insuficient for me to make such a grave accusation. On top of that, I had to investigate this down to the last detail. One thing was clear however: we lost two pilots and two new aircraft for no reason. And the main culprit was Paskeev.

 

[Crump]

 

 

A MAP regulator does not allow for a HIGHER manifold pressure because it cannot alter the MAP at which the engine detonates.

 

While it does not change the detonations limits, it most certainly did allow for a higher manifold pressure clearance in the operating limitations.  Why?  Without the MAP regulator, the manifold was a closed system and the pressure had to be manually maintained by the pilot adjusting the throttle.  It was harder to operate and required more attention from the pilot which is less attention he can devote to the enemy.

 

 

 

Read what I wrote in its entirety...

 

 

 

The MAP regulator made life easier for pilots and reduced the engine managment required.  It also allowed for a HIGHER manifold pressure because it did not need to maintain a buffer for maneuvering.

 

[Dave]

A MAP regulator does not allow for a HIGHER manifold pressure. Period. End of story. No wiggle room. No obfuscation. It doesn't.

Looks like we have agreement on the remainder then. Good to see.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

A MAP regulator does not allow for a HIGHER manifold pressure. Period. End of story. No wiggle room. No obfuscation. It doesn't.

Looks like we have agreement on the remainder then. Good to see.

Ok, Imagine you don't have the Regulator and you make a sharp downward turn and you come out at higher speed than before that manouver and at lower altitude. Because of Higher Speed/Ram and Lower Altitude you Manifold Pressure is now higher, lets say it rose from 52" to 56" and 56" was your upward PERMISSIBLE limit, you would enter the manouver at a lower MAP.

With a Regulator it doesn't matter and you can enter that manouver at 56" and the Regulator does all the adjsuting and maintaining 56".

That's why you can fly at higher MAPs with a Regulator than without. 

There is no difference in permissible MAP, but one has a built in buffer, the other has to be operated constantly by the pilots and to have a buffer for  Aerobatics, you simply tell him that he has to stay at i.e. 52" and maintain that. He may get to 56" without danger, but if you tell him he can, he will exceed that and go to 60" and more and risk his engine. 

[Crump]

 

 

That's why you can fly at higher MAPs with a Regulator than without. 

 

Listen to him Dave......

[JtD]

Ok, Imagine you don't have the Regulator and you make a sharp downward turn and you come out at higher speed than before that manouver and at lower altitude. Because of Higher Speed/Ram and Lower Altitude you Manifold Pressure is now higher, lets say it rose from 52" to 56" and 56" was your upward PERMISSIBLE limit, you would enter the manouver at a lower MAP.

With a Regulator it doesn't matter and you can enter that manouver at 56" and the Regulator does all the adjsuting and maintaining 56".

You're right, but what Dave's saying is that in both cases the engine is running at the same 56". I thought we were looking at the in game P-40 and look at what boosts might be feasible to implement. Not at what figure some dude back in the last century put into a manual. And since engines run on physics, not regulations , I suppose the presence of a MAP regulator is of no concern to us. If we do that downward turn and end up with 65", then we just might be in trouble like the guys were back in the day.

[Crump]

 

 

I suppose the presence of a MAP regulator is of no concern to us.

 

 It makes a huge difference in how the aircraft is operated.  You do simulate the pilot part of this, right??

 

One is set it and forget it....if you have a MAP regulator.

 

Without the MAP regulator, it requires management or you will blow your engine.  Yes, you will blow your engine up.  

 

Additionally, shoving the throttle to the stops will not cause the engine to achieve 66"Hg or higher in level flight either.  That is not possible.  Only under denser than standard atmospheric conditions at low altitude and high speeds can such high boost be obtained.

[JtD]

I'm guessing the context was too much for you so you just had to senselessly pick a random dozen words?

 

Anyway, thanks for stating the obvious.

[Venturi]

This whole discussion reminds me of the difference in German vs. American helmet straps in WW2.

 

The GIs never wore theirs buckled, but the Germans always wore theirs buckled.

 

When asked why, the Americans said, "because if a shell goes off by you, the shrapnel may not get you, but the concussion blast will lift the helmet so hard it will snap your neck, if the strap is buckled."

 

When asked why, the Germans said, "because we were told to, it is not permissible to unbuckle."

 

LOL

[Crump]

 

 

When asked why, the Americans said, "because if a shell goes off by you, the shrapnel may not get you, but the concussion blast will lift the helmet so hard it will snap your neck, if the strap is buckled."

 

 

Any survivable concussion will not snap your neck   If had enough force to do that, it would not be survivable in the first place.  More combat fairey.....

I'm guessing the context was too much for you so you just had to senselessly pick a random dozen words?

Anyway, thanks for stating the obvious.

 

 

You say it is of no concern yet the obvious is that it should be.....

[Venturi]

LMAO

 

 

Any survivable concussion will not snap your neck   If had enough force to do that, it would not be survivable in the first place.  More combat fairey.....

 

[Crump]

Again...a concussion that is survivable cannot break your neck.  I am sure that they found bodies with snapped necks.  That is isn't the cause of death.  BTW, concussion damage was not very well know in World War II.

 

We buckle our helmets in combat....in US Army today.   We also know that even the shock of an interior charge can cause damage.

 

The Mi steel pot was uncomfortable and the buckle is a pain in butt to fasten.  That is why the wore them unbuckled.  The blast makes a good excuse for those who do not know any better.

[Venturi]

Funny how documents mean so much in one context, but mean nothing in another???

 

LMAO

[Crump]

 

 

Funny how documents mean so much in one context, but mean nothing in another???   LMAO

 

It is not talking about anything measured or aircraft engineering limitations.....

[Venturi]

So why'd you comment on it as being an authority, then?

 

It is not talking about anything measured or aircraft engineering limitations.....

[Crump]

I commented on what I know from experience.  The army issued multiple helmut designs over the years, I started out with an M1 steel pot and ended with a ACH.

 

The number one killer on the battlefield today is the IED.  Blast injury is what kills...If you do CQB then blast injury is a also a huge concern due to breaching and interior charges......

 

There has been a lot of science put into this since 1945 Venturi.  

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK224907/

 

For a single blast, a unfasten chinstrap would be Ok....but soldiers do not face a single blast.  A concussion large enough to snap your neck will kill you anyway irregardless of your chinstrap being fastened or not.  You can die of blast injury from a lot less.  Guys have ended up in Landstuhl days after a blast injury just from blast lung complications.  They are running around a little sore and the next minute they are frothing at the mouth with embolized lungs.

[Crump]

It is more combat fairey stuff.  Just like those guys who felt they could overboost their engines without consequences.  We only hear from the successful.  Your story bank is a little lopsided!!

 

That is what that Allison engineer is telling you.  The engine limits were set by the design strength of motor.  The engineers gave them all the engine had to offer!!

 

That some did not believe it and choose to look to the combat fairey is not relevant.

Yes there were guys who took their chinstraps off too and they did it because they believed the blast injury would break their necks.  That does not mean they were correct......

[MiloMorai]

That some did not believe it and choose to look to the combat fairey is not relevant.

 

 

Fairey was a British aviation company (1915-1960). They built combat a/c such as the Firefly, Barracuda, Fulmar and Swordfish.

 

The pixie people is spelt F A E R I E.

[Crump]

I'm guessing the context was too much for you so you just had to senselessly pick a random dozen words?

 

Anyway, thanks for stating the obvious.

 

 

Let's spell it out for you since this seems to be a tough concept.

 

If you pushed the throttles to the stops in a Allison F3R engine without the MAP regulator...

 

You will ONLY see 52"Hg on the manifold pressure gauge in level flight.  You will not see 56"Hg, 66"Hg, or anything else.  When you maneuver, the manifold pressure will rise and fall with propeller load.

A MAP regulator does not allow for a HIGHER manifold pressure. Period. End of story. No wiggle room. No obfuscation. It doesn't.

 

 

This is wrong.

 

If you push the throttle to the stops, you will see 56"Hg in a MAP regulator equipped engine in level flight.  End of story...period.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Crump

[Venturi]

They are running around a little sore and the next minute they are frothing at the mouth with embolized lungs.

 

Technically an embolus is an arterial occlusion.

Alveolar sheer stress and flash pulmonary edema/ALI is a different animal and is what is seen in concussive injury.

 

Unless you want to argue on MY technical ground, I'd keep your mouth shut on this one.

Let's spell it out for you since this seems to be a tough concept.

 

If you pushed the throttles to the stops in a Allison F3R engine without the MAP regulator...

 

You will ONLY see 52"Hg on the manifold pressure gauge in level flight.  You will not see 56"Hg, 66"Hg, or anything else.

 

LOL....

[Crump]

 

Due to pulmonary or vascular tearing, air may enter the arterial circulation (air emboli) and result in embolic events involving the central nervous system, retinal arteries, or coronary arteries.

 

 

From:

 

 

Blast Injuries Blast Lung Injury: An Overview for Prehospital Care Providers

 

 

https://www.acep.org/uploadedFiles/ACEP/Practice_Resources/disater_and_EMS/disaster_preparedness/BlastInjury_Lung_Prehospital_Eng.pdf

 

 

 

 

Technically

 

Our medics were very good and if they say it was an embolism....I believe them. 

[Venturi]

Sure, your medics are good.

[LukeFF]

I've seen (and read) it all now. 

[Crump]

 

 

Sure, your medics are good.

 

What is your big issue?  That blast lung does not cause embolism?  That folks cannot develop it 48 hours from the injury?  Or that they do not froth from the mouth. Or that you won't snap you neck with your chin strap on and can still die of blast lung?

 

 

 

 

Alveolar sheer stress and flash pulmonary edema/ALI is a different animal and is what is seen in concussive injury.

 

The guys keeled over with an air embolism.  

 

 https://books.google.com/books?id=F8LHF6DRZ-cC&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=blast+lung+frothing+at+the+mouth&source=bl&ots=RFpWFQcNqt&sig=9l4MdB3INwlCWFMdy0eoLWL7Vxc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijvsP075HMAhWBdh4KHYz2CAkQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=blast%20lung%20frothing%20at%20the%20mouth&f=false

 

 

Sure, your medics are good.

 

Best in the world. ...they do veterinary services, pharmaceuticals, surgery, pediatrics...in addition to the best trauma guys around,

 

They are not what you are thinking of as a "medic". 

[Crump]

BTW Venturi...

 

You do know I retired from the US Army before I went into aerospace. It was my GI Bill that helped me make the move.

[Venturi]

And so, obviously, you will need services at the VA.

If you want to really know why your caricature of a clinical vignette is wrong, then feel free to PM me. 

 

Otherwise, I suggest you stop spouting about things you know nothing of than a CDC handout to pre-hospital care providers.

[Crump]

Honestly...I could care less outside of the fact the notion a chin strap will break your neck before the blast damage will kill you is quite silly.

[Venturi]

Its funny you say that Crump, because actually antlato-occipital subluxion during endotracheal intubation can also transect C1-C2 level spinal cord. And that's gently using a laryngoscope.

Depends on the spinal integrity, of course. But I have no trouble believing that someone could not only break their neck, but also be decapitated. In fact it happens all the time with motorcycles.