If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#321
|
|||
|
|||
Eyeglasses
"Savageduck" wrote in message news:2009050220185823810-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom... On 2009-05-02 20:04:28 -0700, "Bill Graham" said: "Savageduck" wrote in message news:2009050219354029267-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom... On 2009-05-02 19:24:42 -0700, Savageduck said: On 2009-05-02 17:58:05 -0700, "Bill Graham" said: "Neil Harrington" wrote in message news "Savageduck" wrote in message news:2009050112220531729-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom... On 2009-05-01 11:39:50 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said: "Savageduck" wrote in message news:2009043014370550073-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom... On 2009-04-30 14:02:10 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said: His unofficial kill was on a long range P-38 patrol around Buna in New Guinea. My father recalls the P-47 incident. It was what made believers of all the fighter pilots. That took place at Dobodura NG. They had been trained to not change cruise settings from the manual. Lindbergh had them run with low RPM, high manifold pressure (which is counter manual & counter intuitive) and dialed back prop pitch. After his tour they were able to conduct long distance patrols far exceding specs, and return with fuel in reserve. -- Regards, Savageduck That's very interesting. I stand corrected on the kill. I think it was in his "Wartime Journals" that I read about the P-47 business, but I don't recall whether he went into much detail on the exact technique. I *thought* it involved going to a leaner mixture than pilots liked to use (for fear of burning the exhaust valves) but I don't remember now where I got that, and may be entirely mistaken. It is common practice to adjust your mixture to the leanest point after taking off and reaching your required altitude and heading, and then enriching it to the point where your cylinder head temperature steadies out and no longer rises...... As noted above, Lindbergh had these pilots cruise with lean fuel settings and high manifold pressure, which was counter intuitive for all of these pilots (and their manuals & training.) They and their crew chiefs all believed the engines would be damaged. It was only after Lindbergh demonstrated otherwise that they took his advice and had massive gains in range. These pilots conducted the longest raids of the war in any Theater. The strange thing was, they never used his techniques in the European Theater, given the ranges for many of the raids in the SW Pacific exceded those on the 8th AF daylight raids on Germany. This developed the myth of the P-51 to the cost of the European reputation of the P-47 & P38. This was certainly a political decision. There was one element I failed to reitterate, that was low RPM, along with the leaned fuel and high manifold pressure settings at altitude. -- Regards, Savageduck Too bad they didn't have variable pitch props.......They might have been able to improve their mileage even better........ If you had read the complete thread on this subject you might have seen the following "Lindbergh had them run with low RPM, high manifold pressure (which is counter manual & counter intuitive) and dialed back prop pitch." They certainly had variable pitch props, and these were also factored into the equation. -- Regards, Savageduck I am surprised.....I didn't know that the fighter pilots had that ability.....I thought that in WW-II, only the helicopters could do that in flight..... |
#322
|
|||
|
|||
Eyeglasses
On 2009-05-03 00:13:38 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:
"Savageduck" wrote in message news:2009050220185823810-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom... On 2009-05-02 20:04:28 -0700, "Bill Graham" said: Too bad they didn't have variable pitch props.......They might have been able to improve their mileage even better........ If you had read the complete thread on this subject you might have seen the following "Lindbergh had them run with low RPM, high manifold pressure (which is counter manual & counter intuitive) and dialed back prop pitch." They certainly had variable pitch props, and these were also factored into the equation. -- Regards, Savageduck I am surprised.....I didn't know that the fighter pilots had that ability.....I thought that in WW-II, only the helicopters could do that in flight..... Hamilton Standard developed variable pitch props in the 1920's. Lindbergh used a Hamilton Standard variable pitch prop on the Spirit of St. Louis in 1927. After the first two position pilot selected pitch adjustment, some of the newer designs were automatic variable pitch, which adjusted pitch via centripetal counter balancing so as to maintain optimal RPM. During WWII electrically controlled props were developed. Fighters and multi-engined aircraft benefited with auto-feathering props in the event of engine failure to reduce drag and improve gliding properties. They also had the benefit of full manual pitch adjustment. ....and as far as WWII helicopters go, I believe a little research on your part will show these were in minimal use and barely out of functional development, with a few exceptions such as the German Focke Fa224, Fa223 & Fa336. The USA had mostly experimental helicopters, but several such as the Sikorsky YR-4B, & R-4B "Hoverfly" and Sikorsky R-5A were used in limited operations. The British had the Wier W.5/6 and the Bristol RI/II, but mostly used the Sikorsky YR-4B/R-4B. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#323
|
|||
|
|||
Eyeglasses
Savageduck wrote: There was one element I failed to reitterate, that was low RPM, along with the leaned fuel and high manifold pressure settings at altitude. Too bad they didn't have variable pitch props.......They might have been able to improve their mileage even better........ If you had read the complete thread on this subject you might have seen the following "Lindbergh had them run with low RPM, high manifold pressure (which is counter manual & counter intuitive) and dialed back prop pitch." They certainly had variable pitch props, and these were also factored into the equation. Drag is proportional to velocity squared and so is lift. Drag is also proportional to angle of attack. Normal cruise speed is faster than maximum range speed. Slowing an airplane down 10-15 miles an hour from the normal cruise speed will significantly increase range. We routinely flew in the high arctic at speeds designed to optimize range to conserve fuel. Some of these flights lasted as long as 13 hours. We could move fuel from the cockpit between tanks and by playing with the residual fuel in the tip tanks and extreme fuselage tanks we moved the CofG so the trim was slightly nose down. This would extend range by reducing drag and increasing cruise speed. Running an engine at a lower RPM may or may not help with range. Lower RPM would mean lower friction losses that might be offset by lower engine efficiencies. Most large WW II era engines tended to have a relatively narrow efficient working range. To achieve the same power the manifold pressures and combustion pressures are higher and may impact engine life and reliability. Variable pitch props have been around since before WW II to match the engine torque curves to airspeed. Full pitch range and feathering were available on many WW II aircraft. w.. |
#324
|
|||
|
|||
Eyeglasses
"Savageduck" wrote in message news:2009050301414811967-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom... On 2009-05-03 00:13:38 -0700, "Bill Graham" said: "Savageduck" wrote in message news:2009050220185823810-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom... On 2009-05-02 20:04:28 -0700, "Bill Graham" said: Too bad they didn't have variable pitch props.......They might have been able to improve their mileage even better........ If you had read the complete thread on this subject you might have seen the following "Lindbergh had them run with low RPM, high manifold pressure (which is counter manual & counter intuitive) and dialed back prop pitch." They certainly had variable pitch props, and these were also factored into the equation. -- Regards, Savageduck I am surprised.....I didn't know that the fighter pilots had that ability.....I thought that in WW-II, only the helicopters could do that in flight..... Hamilton Standard developed variable pitch props in the 1920's. Lindbergh used a Hamilton Standard variable pitch prop on the Spirit of St. Louis in 1927. After the first two position pilot selected pitch adjustment, some of the newer designs were automatic variable pitch, which adjusted pitch via centripetal counter balancing so as to maintain optimal RPM. During WWII electrically controlled props were developed. Fighters and multi-engined aircraft benefited with auto-feathering props in the event of engine failure to reduce drag and improve gliding properties. They also had the benefit of full manual pitch adjustment. ...and as far as WWII helicopters go, I believe a little research on your part will show these were in minimal use and barely out of functional development, with a few exceptions such as the German Focke Fa224, Fa223 & Fa336. The USA had mostly experimental helicopters, but several such as the Sikorsky YR-4B, & R-4B "Hoverfly" and Sikorsky R-5A were used in limited operations. The British had the Wier W.5/6 and the Bristol RI/II, but mostly used the Sikorsky YR-4B/R-4B. IMO, helicopters are, " barely out of functional development " today.... During my lifetime, an enormous number of people I have either known personally, or who were public figures have died screwing around with those machines..... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|