In article rE22b.184820$Oz4.48642@rwcrnsc54, Loren Coe says...

Lindberg is credited with discovering how to lean out the fuel
mix safely, adding 50% to the range spec'd by the manufacturer.
his efforts resulted in the Yamamoto score. sez here, anyway.

This is in the recent biography of lindberg. Supposedly
Roosevelt had a major hardon for him, because of his
effectiveness in the 'america first' pacifist movement
before the war.

So every time lindberg tried to enlist or work on some
war-related aviation project, Roosevelt personally stepped
in and queered the deal with his influence. This happened
several times until lindbergh was able to get himself
posted to a south pacific island as a civilian advisor.

The story goes he arrived at the CO's tent and said
he was reporting for duty, and the CO kept him waiting
around outside for an hour or so and forgot about him.
When the CO went to leave, lindbergh was still there.

"Now just who the hell *are* you, anyway?" the CO
was reported to demand. He was suprised to find out
the answer.

The crew chiefs apparently realized early on that Lindberg's
plane was returning from the missions with a lot more fuel
than the others. They pointed this out to him, and he
realized that his mix settings during cruise were much
different than the rest of his mates. The CO found out
about this and reported it up the line. Lindberg was summoned
to meet with MacArthur, and explained how he did this
(extended the patrol range). MacArthur was flabbergasted
that this could be done, Lindbergh did not quite grasp
the tactical importance, until it was spelled out to
him by the general.

There was initially some reticence on the part of the
flyers to adopt the new lean mix settings, they were
afraid that they would burn up their motors. They
agreed to it however after lindbergh talked with them,
and explained that the engines in the planes were
rated for wartime service, and could take the
punishment.

All this from that biography.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

A friend of mine, a tail gunner on a Liberator, during WWII told me that
"runnin' lean" was used to get the plane back to England. This was
frowned upon (overheated the engines) and the pilots would get "chewed
out" for it. But it didn't stop them on the next time out.

Leo (pearland, tx)

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:52:40 GMT, "Mark Fields"
wrote:


"Joe Kultgen" wrote in message
l.net...
In article ,
says...
Watching the history channel about the P38. A plane which has
interested me since I was little. The design which uses a short
central fuselage with two long outboard ones (are those outboard ones
called fuselages?) which support the tail isn't used anymore, is it?
If not,why? Since this plane was, in it's day, considered a great
plane. Idle minds want to know.
ERS



Someone already mentioned the P-61:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap25.htm

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap3.htm

There's an interesting article in todays (Aug 24, 2003) "Dayton Daily News"
about the T-82. That plane was based on using two P-51H models and joining
them together at the wong and horizontal stabilizer. There is a static
model on display at the Air Force Museum at Wright Patternson:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap34.htm

The article mentions that 282 of the P-82's were built, and only 5 were
known to have survived into the 1990's. There is some controversy about one
of the aircraft. In 1966 the aircraft was a static display at a Texas air
base, and when it was supposed to be re-inventoried at Wright-Patternson the
Confederate Air Force asked and was given permission to restore the plane to
flying status. It was the only one of it's kind in flying status. Since
the the Confederate Air Force sold the plane which was against the agreement
they had in place with US Air Force Musuem at Wright-Patternson (main
location). Actually there are two pages of articles, a lot of stuff is
gone, mussing from the museum inventories around the nation. It seems there
was sloppy bookeeping and artifacts could easily get into the hands of
private collectors. That's what the article alleges, anyway. One
interesting item missing was the original wood pattern used by the foundry
that cast the alumium block for the Wright 1903 machine.

Mark Fields



FWIW , I saw it on display behind ropes in Harlingen Tx. 1979.
I heard the CAF isn't there anymore cause of the salt breeze , approx.
35 miles from the Gulf.

In article , scharkalvin wrote:

the C-119 Flying
Boxcar which was a medium size transport plane (pre Viet Nam era). I'm sure
there have been others, including some non-American designs. Now that I
think of it, Rutans globe girdling plane was a kind of distorted similar
design.


Anybody remember the movie "The flight of the Phoenix", which featured
the C-119?

that has played several times recently on AMC(?), where they actually
fly out on an _engine_, wondered how true... the guy that only
designed model planes seems to ring true, tho. --Loren

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:32:42 -0400, scharkalvin
wrote:

Tom wrote:
And Cessna manufactured a twin engine, twin boom plane.

The engine were mounted at the front and rear of the cabin/cockpit.


The good ole 337 Skymaster - better known as the "Huff & Puff" or
"Suck & Blow".

I used to hear them refered to as "Mix-Masters".

yup

gunner
"The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better,
on average, than the citizens of Baltimore.
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee,
but why this is more stylish than
sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know."
-- P.J O'Rourke (1989)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:33:11 GMT, "Mark Fields"
wrote:

snip
We went
in the B-24 (Strawberry Bitch), B-17 (Shoo-Shoo Baby), C-47, C-46, B-36
(only in the cockpit area, not allowed to go back the chute to the tail
section, and just about all the fighters, including the P-51, P-38, Fw-190,
Bf-109, Me-262, etc.

Wow! That was some night. And the Bock's Car too, that would really
be something to think about.

I still think that there should be a B-36 on static display in Tokyo,
right across the street from the Imperial Palace.

A few years back I got my 6' 7" 240 pound adult son, who is a WW II
warbird nut, a chance to sit in the cockpit of an original condition
P-51. He was stunned at how cramped the cockpit was.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Loren Coe wrote:

In article , scharkalvin wrote:


the C-119 Flying
Boxcar which was a medium size transport plane (pre Viet Nam era). I'm sure
there have been others, including some non-American designs. Now that I
think of it, Rutans globe girdling plane was a kind of distorted similar
design.


Anybody remember the movie "The flight of the Phoenix", which featured
the C-119?



that has played several times recently on AMC(?), where they actually
fly out on an _engine_, wondered how true... the guy that only
designed model planes seems to ring true, tho. --Loren



I don't know if it was a true story but they actually built and flew the
modified
plane for the movie. The plane is never shown landing, because it crashed
and killed the stunt pilot.

Fred

In article , Jack Erbes wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:33:11 GMT, "Mark Fields"
wrote:

snip
We went
in the B-24 (Strawberry Bitch), B-17 (Shoo-Shoo Baby), C-47, C-46, B-36
(only in the cockpit area, not allowed to go back the chute to the tail
section, and just about all the fighters, including the P-51, P-38, Fw-190,
Bf-109, Me-262, etc.

[....]
A few years back I got my 6' 7" 240 pound adult son, who is a WW II
warbird nut, a chance to sit in the cockpit of an original condition
P-51. He was stunned at how cramped the cockpit was.

as a young lad in 1950's Ellensberg, Wa., went to an airshow where
a WWII surplus Mustang was taking on riders for 5min flights. what
i remember most was the noise, man was that thing _LOUD_, and the
amount of fuel they added after just a few flights.

i cannot honestly remember much about the plane, i do understand now
that it must have been a type of trainer or had been modified to
accomodate a rider. haven't thought about that for many moons.

--Loren




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Howdy!

In article ,
Peter T. Keillor III wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 05:16:44 GMT, "Capt. Doug"
wrote:

Roy wrote in message Another thought, a twin engined aircraft is a lot
harder to control when the engines are spaced so far apart if an engine
fails. Things
work a lot better if the motors are closer to centerline in those cases.

If the props on the P-38 were any closer together, they would have been
hitting something besides air. Twin engine airplanes aren't harder to
control so long as the engineers did their job properly.

D.

Jeffrey Ethell, the author of those great color photo books of WWII
aviation, died in a P-38. http://www.aafo.com/news/old/ethell.htm

P-38's tended to snap inverted on loss of an engine, especially on
takeoff (low airspeed, high power). The only antidote was to chop
power immediately. Ironically, Jeff Ethell wrote of this behavior in
an article I read in Flying, IIRC, shortly before his death.

Multi-engine airplanes have a speed designated "Vmc" to indicate the
lowest speed at which you can keep it right side up with one engine
running. If you are going slower, you have to reduce power or you lose
it.

For a P-38, I saw a quote from the operating manual that said somheting
like:

While taking off, if under 120 knots and an engine fails, pull power on
both engines and land straight ahead.

For most twins, one engine causes more problems with control when it goes.
For the P-38, both engines were "really bad". If they turned the other
way, it would have made this problem less bad (at the expense of other
control issues).

yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

On 25 Aug 2003 14:00:53 GMT, (Michael Houghton)
wrote:

Howdy!

In article ,
Peter T. Keillor III wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 05:16:44 GMT, "Capt. Doug"
wrote:

Roy wrote in message Another thought, a twin engined aircraft is a lot
harder to control when the engines are spaced so far apart if an engine
fails. Things
work a lot better if the motors are closer to centerline in those cases.

If the props on the P-38 were any closer together, they would have been
hitting something besides air. Twin engine airplanes aren't harder to
control so long as the engineers did their job properly.

D.

Jeffrey Ethell, the author of those great color photo books of WWII
aviation, died in a P-38. http://www.aafo.com/news/old/ethell.htm

P-38's tended to snap inverted on loss of an engine, especially on
takeoff (low airspeed, high power). The only antidote was to chop
power immediately. Ironically, Jeff Ethell wrote of this behavior in
an article I read in Flying, IIRC, shortly before his death.

Multi-engine airplanes have a speed designated "Vmc" to indicate the
lowest speed at which you can keep it right side up with one engine
running. If you are going slower, you have to reduce power or you lose
it.

Really ? How do you find out this # ? I've never lost an engine , my
dad was mostly with me and only told me that the Aztex was a bitch in
his last power plant shut down on take off , but never instructed me
on what the best way to dealt with it should be. Say, like what is it
for a king air or a 210 ? I've always liked twin engine planes just
cause you can trim the engines so it will follow the VOR.


For a P-38, I saw a quote from the operating manual that said somheting
like:

While taking off, if under 120 knots and an engine fails, pull power on
both engines and land straight ahead.

For most twins, one engine causes more problems with control when it goes.
For the P-38, both engines were "really bad". If they turned the other
way, it would have made this problem less bad (at the expense of other
control issues).

yours,
Michael

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:48:26 GMT, ff wrote:

I don't know if it was a true story but they actually built and flew the
modified
plane for the movie. The plane is never shown landing, because it crashed
and killed the stunt pilot.

And that was Paul Mantz, one of Hollywood's best ever stunt pilots.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 21:27:26 -0500, "Tim Williams"
wrote:

"Jack Erbes" wrote in message
.. .
I still think that there should be a B-36 on static display in Tokyo,
right across the street from the Imperial Palace.

Imperial Palace? We have one of those in town :^)

Is it a Chinese restaurant?

The one in Tokyo is where the Emperor has always lived. My memories
of the area are a little dated, circa 1950 or so, but the Imperial
Palace was downtown, near the Imperial Hotel (a Frank Lloyd Wright
design) and also in the vicinity of the Dai-ichi Building where you
could occasionally see Douglas MacArthur coming and going from his
staff car (a big black four door sedan something like a pre-war
Packard or DeSoto).

The reason I know all that is there was a major bus stop in front of
the Dia-ichi Building and when we rode the bus in from Grant Heights
housing area we always got off there. It was great then. Lots of
shopping on the Ginza, 365 Yen to the Dollar, and Americans still got
a little bit of respect from the general populace.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Jack Erbes" wrote in message
...
Imperial Palace? We have one of those in town :^)

Is it a Chinese restaurant?

Yup. Good eats

Snip interesting story

Tim

--
In the immortal words of Ned Flanders: "No foot longs!"
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

Hi Bert,

Saw your rerference to the Vampire and couldn't resist replying as it was
one of my favourite aeroplanes as a kid one that has a lot of good
memories for me. Did you ever see any flying while they were in service?

One other twin boom beastie from the UK was the Whitworth Argosy, plus
the Vamp's cousin the Sea Venom and of course the Sea Vixen.

Ian

In article ,
says...
There have been quite a few twin-boom aircraft over the years. One of
the earliest jet-age examples was the de Havilland Vampire, a single
engine jet fighter. One of the larger twin-booms was the Fairchild
C-119, a twin prop cargo plane. Perhaps the latest production
twin-boom is the Sukhoi S-80, a twin turboprop regional transport that
made its debut a couple of years ago. A google search on "twin boom"
airplane turns up some very odd birds.

Bert

In article ,
says...
Just to nit pick, people on RAP agreed a few years ago that the plane in the
movie was a C-82 Packet, the forerunner of the C119, but also ISTR that it
was a British plane of similar design (perhaps in the original book?). I
can't seem to find anything about that on the net at the moment.
--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

Bob, I've not seen the movie however it could have been any one of the
following 2 aircraft.

Whitworth Argosy
http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/argosy.html
This link is to the civilian version.

Or the slightly older Blackburn Beverly
http://www.sweptwings.co.uk/pr_30_sq...chive_text.htm

Of interest is the Hamilcar Glider

http://www.mktharbrorbl.ukvet.net/hamilcar.htm

Ian
60s RAF brat.

As a kid, I saw them flying over Victoria, B.C. I think the old Spitfire
squadron was re-equipped with them. They were the first jet airplanes I ever
saw!

Steve Rayner.


"Ian W" wrote in message
. ..
Hi Bert,

Saw your rerference to the Vampire and couldn't resist replying as it was
one of my favourite aeroplanes as a kid one that has a lot of good
memories for me. Did you ever see any flying while they were in service?

One other twin boom beastie from the UK was the Whitworth Argosy, plus
the Vamp's cousin the Sea Venom and of course the Sea Vixen.

Ian

In article ,
says...
There have been quite a few twin-boom aircraft over the years. One of
the earliest jet-age examples was the de Havilland Vampire, a single
engine jet fighter. One of the larger twin-booms was the Fairchild
C-119, a twin prop cargo plane. Perhaps the latest production
twin-boom is the Sukhoi S-80, a twin turboprop regional transport that
made its debut a couple of years ago. A google search on "twin boom"
airplane turns up some very odd birds.

Bert

scharkalvin wrote in message ...
What about the moskeeto?

The Mosquito was a conventional twin-engined single-tailed layout.
Its claim to fame was being built of wood. Aluminum was in short
supply when it was designed, so deHavilland employed spruce and birch
and some fabric. Very powerful, very fast, very strong. My granddad
was a lumber shipper in B.C., Canada, in those days and some of the
best spruce went to deHavilland factories.

Dan

Sunworshiper wrote in message Really ? How do you find out this # ?

It has to do with something called 'P factor'. When climbing, one side of
the propeller's disk will have more thrust than the other, Designers prefer
to have the side with more thrust be closer to the centerline so that the
rudder has more directional control.

I've never lost an engine ,

Good, they can be hard to find.

my dad was mostly with me and only told me that the Aztex was a bitch in
his last power plant shut down on take off , but never instructed me
on what the best way to dealt with it should be. Say, like what is it
for a king air or a 210 ?

A 210 is a single-engine. The Aztec is rather benign as concerns engine out
characteristics. Step on the rudder pedal on the side of the good engine and
she'll keep on trucking (if she isn't overweight). King Air is the same-
very benign if you just step on the rudder pedal of the good engine. Knowing
which engine is the good engine seems to confuse some pilots. This is where
training, training, and more training are good things.

I've always liked twin engine planes just
cause you can trim the engines so it will follow the VOR.

Uhm... Who told you that? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

D.

Hey Dan,

The local CHAA is rebuilding a Mosquito for museum display. Amazing
the strength of the wood. While it will never be certified, they are
doing the work as though it will fly, including two brand new RR
Merlin engines (story in itself). This particular plane was "lost"
near the Arctic Circle in the 1950's, while being used in aerial
surveying. It sat there for over 40 years, and was dug out of the
sand-banks of lake or a river and brought to Windsor.

For flyers, an interesting pilot story about the crash itself at:

http://www.mossie.org/windsor/mossie_down.htm

And more about the project at:

http://www.ch2a.ca/

I believe there is also a fellow in New Zealand that is building these
as new. For sure he is coldforming the fuselages halves.

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

On 26 Aug 2003 17:21:41 -0700, (Dan
Thomas) wrote:

scharkalvin wrote in message ...
What about the moskeeto?

The Mosquito was a conventional twin-engined single-tailed layout.
Its claim to fame was being built of wood. Aluminum was in short
supply when it was designed, so deHavilland employed spruce and birch
and some fabric. Very powerful, very fast, very strong. My granddad
was a lumber shipper in B.C., Canada, in those days and some of the
best spruce went to deHavilland factories.

Dan

Actually, this wasn't a C-119, but an earlier plane of the same
configuration (C-82?). In the movie they do indeed fly out using just
one boom and a spliced wing. This contraption was actually built for the
movie ... it flew, sort of. It then crashed and killed the stunt pilot.

Dan Mitchell
==========

Loren Coe wrote:

In article , scharkalvin wrote:

the C-119 Flying
Boxcar which was a medium size transport plane (pre Viet Nam era). I'm sure
there have been others, including some non-American designs. Now that I
think of it, Rutans globe girdling plane was a kind of distorted similar
design.


Anybody remember the movie "The flight of the Phoenix", which featured
the C-119?

that has played several times recently on AMC(?), where they actually
fly out on an _engine_, wondered how true... the guy that only
designed model planes seems to ring true, tho. --Loren

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 02:55:48 GMT, "Capt. Doug"
wrote:

Sunworshiper wrote in message Really ? How do you find out this # ?

It has to do with something called 'P factor'. When climbing, one side of
the propeller's disk will have more thrust than the other, Designers prefer
to have the side with more thrust be closer to the centerline so that the
rudder has more directional control.

Lost me a bit. Climbing , one side , you mean pitch thrust being
different cause the angle of attack of the prop. airfoil? Or yaw?
Interesting , but I'm not an areodynamic engineer. I would think that
wouldn't be a factor (pun intended) that would over come an
intentional yaw.

I've never lost an engine ,

Good, they can be hard to find.

my dad was mostly with me and only told me that the Aztex was a bitch in
his last power plant shut down on take off , but never instructed me
on what the best way to dealt with it should be. Say, like what is it
for a king air or a 210 ?

A 210 is a single-engine. The Aztec is rather benign as concerns engine out
characteristics. Step on the rudder pedal on the side of the good engine and
she'll keep on trucking (if she isn't overweight). King Air is the same-
very benign if you just step on the rudder pedal of the good engine. Knowing
which engine is the good engine seems to confuse some pilots. This is where
training, training, and more training are good things.

Sorry , 410? That looks a little bigger than what I was thinking of.
I know one when I see one. I just kind of liked it and was thinking
it was a Piper. I was tring to list small twins like Beechcraft ,
Cessna , and Piper is all. Hell , I'd be happy with a Grummin Tiger?
A small single engine plane , smooth all over , areobatic , tri-gear ,
and you can pull the canopy back in flight. No Trade-a-Planes around.

I've always liked twin engine planes just
cause you can trim the engines so it will follow the VOR.

Uhm... Who told you that? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

D.



Ahh... My dad/flight instructor and 101 reconnaissance pilot. Why?
Is there something wrong with that? Granted, if the air mass is
moving too fast. You can trim the rudder , set the rpm's different ,
or push the rudder for an hour. Hey, that's what he told me , he was
an unorthodox person . He typically would tell me where we are going
and figure it out , then push the seat all the way back and read a
paper back.

It sure seemed to work , now you got me going. Are you saying that if
each engine is at a different rpm that it will only crab/yaw and still
fly in the same line in the air mass as if the engines and or the
props are set the same? I don't think so. I could be wrong, enlighten
me. I can understand it being inefficient. If you lost a wing tip
would the plane still follow the same line as before it bailed?

Do you need some? Have you tried it? Maybe he was faking me out to
see if I would say something. He's been dead for 2 decades and always
had a weird instructional way , like 'When I say rabbit , you jump!"

writes:

It has to do with something called 'P factor'. When climbing, one side of
the propeller's disk will have more thrust than the other, Designers prefer
to have the side with more thrust be closer to the centerline so that the
rudder has more directional control.

Lost me a bit. Climbing , one side , you mean pitch thrust being
different cause the angle of attack of the prop. airfoil? Or yaw?
Interesting , but I'm not an areodynamic engineer. I would think that
wouldn't be a factor (pun intended) that would over come an
intentional yaw.

To climb an aircraft, you increase the wing angle of attack by raising
the leading edge. Since the wing is rigidly attached to the airplane,
you pitch the entire airplane nose up. Now the engine crankshaft is not
parallel with the airflow; it's also pitched up with the front of the
crank higher than the rear. The crankshaft tilt also tilts the
propeller hub, so the propeller axis is no longer parallel to the air
flowing past it. This causes the rising blade of the propeller to meet
the air at a shallower angle, producing less thrust, while the falling
blade of the propeller meets the air at a greater angle, producing more
thrust.

Thus, the prop produces more thrust on one side of the aircraft than the
other. In a single-engine plane, this tends to make it yaw, and rudder
is used to counteract this. In a twin, if the props rotate in opposite
directions, the effect cancels - until one engine fails. When that
happens, you're better off if the plane is designed so that the
high-thrust side is inboard of the engine, closer to the fuselage,
rather than outboard. That requires having both props turn so they move
inboard at the top of their arc (i.e. clockwise rotation on the left
engine, CCW on the right engine).

Dave

(Ian Sutherland) wrote in message . com...

Hi Guy's, just for interest, there is also one being built in York in
Yorkshire U.K. I haven't done a net search for it but I'm sure there
would be something. When I saw it in 2000, it was almost complete. It
is expected to get it to the taxying stage. It started when someone
found a part of a Mosquito in a back garden (may have been a chicken
coop) He started restoring it in his backyard, but it is now in an
aircraft museum with many helpers. I think the 2 Merlins came from
Canada. If anyone wants more info & there is nothing on the net, send
me a message, I will have pamphlets that I will dig up.
Cheer's, Ian S. (Oz).

I had heard or read somewhere that an outfit in Britain was going
to produce Spitfires, brand new, again. For rich guys only, of course.
Is this still in the works, or was it something other than a Spit?
They were going to use the marine version of the Merlin, with a few
changes (dual ignition and gear reduction?) which is apparently still
in production. There was another company that was offering an FW190
kit, with some Polish radial engine nearly identical to the original,
for something like US$400K. What became of that?
A production Mossie would be a seller, I'm sure, but the labour
costs would be horrendous, not to mention the difficulty in getting
decent wood anymore.

Dan

Sunworshiper wrote in message Climbing , one side , you mean pitch thrust
being
different cause the angle of attack of the prop. airfoil? Or yaw?

Mr. Martindale explains it better than I.

Sorry , 410?

The Cessna 411 had a problem with single-engine operation. The rudder and
horizontal stabilizer weren't large enough to counter assymetric thrust. The
rest of the 400 series had a much larger tail and were benign during
single-engine operation.

I'd be happy with a Grummin Tiger?

The Tiger is a sweet plane.

I can understand it being inefficient.

It would be inefficient. And if you set the props at different RPMs, they
drone out of synch, which I find to be quite irritating.

D.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:41:18 +0000 (UTC), (Dave
Martindale) wrote:

To climb an aircraft, you increase the wing angle of attack by raising
the leading edge.

nope. you climb an aircraft by increasing power, thereby increasing
lift. pitch up results in a climb only at the expense of airspeed, at
a constant power setting. one thing drilled into me during flight
training was "power=altitude; attitude=airspeed". if you want to go
up 1000ft, goose the power.

writes:

To climb an aircraft, you increase the wing angle of attack by raising
the leading edge.

nope. you climb an aircraft by increasing power, thereby increasing
lift. pitch up results in a climb only at the expense of airspeed, at
a constant power setting. one thing drilled into me during flight
training was "power=altitude; attitude=airspeed". if you want to go
up 1000ft, goose the power.

This can be argued endlessly among pilots, but it's really an argument
about control. If you want to climb, should you increase power or
pitch? Your instructor will tell you one or the other, but they really
mean that it's more effective to control X with Y, not that Y is the
only way to get X, nor that Y affects only X.

The real truth is that you can climb by increasing power while keeping
airspeed constant (or keeping pitch attitude constant, which isn't the
same), or you can climb by pitching the nose up a modest amount while
keeping power constant. Either one works. But for the most effective
climb, you increase power *and* pitch the nose up *and* decrease the
airspeed to the best rate of climb speed.

However, we're talking about P-factor in this thread. This is caused by
the propeller disc not being perpendicular to the airflow, i.e. the nose
being pitched up. Adding power without pitch will indeed cause a climb,
but it won't create P-factor, so it's not so interesting for this
thread.

Dave (private pilot single engine land)

Sunworshiper wrote in message One time he asked me if I would like to go
up and do areobatics at night

Just a word of caution here- although the Tiger does wonderful rolls, it
wasn't meant for aerobatics. It won't recover from a spin.

D.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 02:00:45 GMT, "Capt. Doug"
wrote:

Sunworshiper wrote in message One time he asked me if I would like to go
up and do areobatics at night

Just a word of caution here- although the Tiger does wonderful rolls, it
wasn't meant for aerobatics. It won't recover from a spin.

D.


Really . I was lead to believe it could be thrown backwards or about
any situation and get out of it . No spins! That's scary , I can't
handle that. I'm sure they make better planes now , plus I'd have to
have a tail dragger to land on the beach.

BTW, I loved that show about getting a P-38 out of the ice. That
puppy was crushed junk and they still got investors to pay to get it
out ! Wish I could find investors like that. Maybe the footage payed
for it , but I don't know. Should have just left it there.

Thanks

Sunworshiper wrote in message Wish I could find investors like that.

Finding investors like that is easy. Convincing them that they will make
money on their investment is the hard part.

Maybe the footage payed for it , but I don't know. Should have just left
it there.

Naw, It's better to share it with future generations so that they will have
an appreciation of their heritage.

D.

Capt. Doug wrote:

Sunworshiper wrote in message Really ? How do you find out this # ?


It has to do with something called 'P factor'. When climbing, one side of
the propeller's disk will have more thrust than the other, Designers prefer
to have the side with more thrust be closer to the centerline so that the
rudder has more directional control.

In my stash, I've got a book or two on the P-38. The Anmerican version used
handed engines--IIRC, the tops of the propellers went inward to the fuse. The
Brits ordered a version that 1) used the same handed engine and 2) deleted the
turbocharger. They hated it so much those planes got used by the USAAF for
training.

FWIW, the XP38 crashed on its first cross country flight (literally, Burbank to
NYC). The plane was coming in to the final location (Long Island?) and both
engines' carbs iced up. No serious problems, though the prototype was written
off.

One of the reasons why the 8th airforce didn't like the P-38 for escort duties
in Europe was the fact that the cockpit heating sucked. With the range of the
plane, it was rough on the pilot. He generally had to be helped/pulled out of
the cockpit after a mission. OTOH, in the Pacific, heating wasn't as big an issue.

BTW, anybody remember how many kills Charles Lindberg had in the P-38? I
gather they were unofficial, since he was a civilian....

Pete Brooks

RAM^3 wrote:


BTW, Harold, that was the Northrup P-61 "Black Widow" - it had a 3-man crew
and could out-maneuver any other AAF airplane, including the P-38 and the
P-51.

Hell, the Zero could outmaneuver any US aircraft, but that didn't stop P-38s
and Corsairs from shooting them out of the sky. You fight to your strength,
not your opponent's. (Hint, both the P-38 and Corsair used an 'swoop and fire'
approach. Works wonders if you have more airspeed and altitude to play with...)

Pete Brooks

In article , pete brooks says...

BTW, anybody remember how many kills Charles Lindberg had in the P-38? I
gather they were unofficial, since he was a civilian....

He was *indirectly* responsible for many, many kills, including
the admiral who was shot down - because he was directly responsible
for the procedural changes which increased the operating range
of the p38 by about fifty percent.

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 04:42:01 GMT, pete brooks wrote:
RAM^3 wrote:
BTW, Harold, that was the Northrup P-61 "Black Widow" - it had a 3-man crew
and could out-maneuver any other AAF airplane, including the P-38 and the
P-51.

Hell, the Zero could outmaneuver any US aircraft, but that didn't stop P-38s
and Corsairs from shooting them out of the sky. You fight to your strength,
not your opponent's. (Hint, both the P-38 and Corsair used an 'swoop and fire'
approach. Works wonders if you have more airspeed and altitude to play with...)

Pounce and trounce. Altitude and speed are life. Hanging around in the fur ball
to maneuver gets you killed. The technique was to slice through the enemy
formation. Take your shot, and dive away, preserving your speed. Then climb
and do it again if necessary. Most kills never saw the plane that got them.

Gary

pete brooks wrote in
m:

jim rozen wrote:
In article , pete
brooks says...


BTW, anybody remember how many kills Charles Lindberg had in the
P-38? I gather they were unofficial, since he was a civilian....


He was *indirectly* responsible for many, many kills, including
the admiral who was shot down - because he was directly responsible
for the procedural changes which increased the operating range
of the p38 by about fifty percent.

According to the P-38 book, he was *very* directly responsible for a
few kills himself. He'd fly from base to base, and ran into Zeros
from time to time...

Pete Brooks



The only recorded instance was 1 with the 475th Fighter Group.

FWIW, the cruise control techniques that he taught had already been used by
those pilots who'd been flying the P-38 in the Pacific Theater since the
beginning of the war.