huntzing@PICA.ARMY.MIL (CCL-S) (08/07/90)
From: "Hugh A. Huntzinger" (CCL-S) <huntzing@PICA.ARMY.MIL> terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) writes: >raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET writes: >:all the more when the winner, YF-16 was single engined, giving the Navy >:a good excuse (actually F-8U, A-4, A-1 Skyradier**, A-7 are all SE) to >:choose the loser of the fly off. >The situation was a little more complicated than that. Yes, the Navy >has a preference for 2 engined planes, whatever the reason. The... The Navy preference to non-single-engined aircraft has surface before; I've heard the "over water" arguement, but have also heard the argument that 2x engines means 2x likely to have a problem. Interestingly, the requirement doesn't seem too new. I first heard about it in a biography of Lindburg - he apparently helped a lot during WW-II despite being a prewar isolationist. I think he did a duration flight with the P-38 Lightning trying to sell it to the Navy, but all my references are too old (High School report, 1970's). Anyone up on this one? -hh
chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey) (08/11/90)
From: Irving Chidsey <chidsey@smoke.brl.mil>
In article <1990Aug7.041144.7722@cbnews.att.com> huntzing@PICA.ARMY.MIL (CCL-S) writes:
<
<I first heard about it in a biography
<of Lindburg - he apparently helped a lot during WW-II despite being a
<prewar isolationist. I think he did a duration flight with the P-38
<Lightning trying to sell it to the Navy, but all my references are too
<old (High School report, 1970's). Anyone up on this one?
A long time ago I read that he spent considerable time out there
teaching the pilots how to fly for maximum range. IF my memory is correct,
he enabled them to more than double their operational range. I think a
big part was convincing the pilots and the brass that the official cruize
speed should be ignored for if you wanted maximum range.
Irv
--
I do not have signature authority. I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DOA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.
Irving L. Chidsey <chidsey@brl.mil>Steve.Bridges@Dayton.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) (08/13/90)
From: Steve.Bridges@Dayton.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) In <1990Aug7.041144.7722@cbnews.att.com> huntzing@PICA.ARMY.MIL (CCL-S) writes: >From: "Hugh A. Huntzinger" (CCL-S) <huntzing@PICA.ARMY.MIL> >terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) writes: >>raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET writes: >>:all the more when the winner, YF-16 was single engined, giving the Navy >>:a good excuse (actually F-8U, A-4, A-1 Skyradier**, A-7 are all SE) to >>:choose the loser of the fly off. >>The situation was a little more complicated than that. Yes, the Navy >>has a preference for 2 engined planes, whatever the reason. The... >The Navy preference to non-single-engined aircraft has surface before; >I've heard the "over water" arguement, but have also heard the argument >that 2x engines means 2x likely to have a problem. Interestingly, the >requirement doesn't seem too new. I first heard about it in a biography >of Lindburg - he apparently helped a lot during WW-II despite being a >prewar isolationist. I think he did a duration flight with the P-38 >Lightning trying to sell it to the Navy, but all my references are too >old (High School report, 1970's). Anyone up on this one? Yep. One of my favorite books is _Forked Tail Devil_ by Martin Caiden. Covers the entire history of the P-38. Lindberg did fly some P-38 missions in the Pacific (primarly out of the Port Moresby area) to teach long range cruise procedures to the Army P-38 pilots stationed there. The main technique was to lean the engines out, pull back on the manifold pressure, and use high rpm on the props. This is called running the engine undersquared, since the general technique for an engine with a constant speed prop is to set the manifold pressure, and then the prop rpm should be set to the manifold pressure times 100. For example, 24" manifold pressure and 2400 rpm. The P-38 group in the area (20th F.G.?) was getting 800 mile combat radius out of their P-38F and G models. This was before the J and L models that could handle the big drop tanks and had bigger internal tankage. As far as I know, the Navy was never interested in the P-38 because it wasn't capable of ship board operations. Even Marine squadrons operated some off of carriers. Another good book about VF-17 (the Jolly Rogers) is called _Jolly Roger_, and was written by their commander (can't remember his name). VF-17 was the first squadron to take the F4U to war as a carrier based airplane on the U.S.S. Bunker Hill. ..s -- Steve Bridges | NCR - USG Product Marketing and Support OLS Steve.Bridges@Dayton.NCR.COM | Phone:(513)-445-4182 622-4182 (Voice Plus) ..!ncrlnk!usglnk!uspm650!steve | AOPA #916233 ..!uunet!ncrlnk!usglnk!uspm650!steve| PP-ASEL, AMEL From att!cs.nps.navy.mil!schweige Sun Aug 12 13:28:26 1990 Received: by att.att.com; Sun Aug 12 13:28:26 1990 Received: by cs.nps.navy.mil (5.51/1.26) id AA15833; Sun, 12 Aug 90 10:24:12 PDT To: sci-military@cs.nps.navy.mil Path: cs!schweige From: schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Aircraft designations, the other P's Message-Id: <1201@cs.nps.navy.mil> Date: 12 Aug 90 17:24:09 GMT References: <1990Aug2.042324.3112@cbnews.att.com> <1990Aug9.020128.9029@cbnews.att.com> Reply-To: schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA Lines: 34 Status: R Navy patrol (P) aircraft designations from 1962 on (based on information from United States Navy Aircraft Since 1911, 2nd Edition by Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, United States Naval Institute Press, 1976): P-1 - not used. P-2 - redesignation of Lockheed P2V Neptune P-3 - redesignation of Lockheed P3V Orion P-4 - redesignation of Convair P4Y (previously PB4Y) Liberator and Privateer (the version of the P4Y redesignated was the QP-4B target drone). P-5 - redesignation of Martin P5M Marlin P-6 - may not have been officially used. The Martin P6M Seamaster may not have been officially redesignated. P-7 - Lockheed (?) LRAACA Also, regarding Navy usage of the Attack (A) series designations since 1962: A-1 - Douglas AD Skyraider A-2 - North American AJ Savage A-3 - Douglas A3D Skywarrior A-4 - Douglas A4D Skyhawk A-5 - North American A3J Vigilante A-6 - Grumman A2F Intruder A-7 - LTV Corsair II A-8 - not used as such, AV-8 Harrier Jeff Schweiger -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************