quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:
The army generals did not, so they assumed an easy victory over the American mongrel race.

The Japanese never planned to truly "win" against the US, as in defeat/conquer the US. They knew this was not realistic.

The Japanese plan was a lightning strike to seize resource-rich territory in a wide swath of the South Pacific, then consolidate their holdings into an impenetrable defensive ring of naval forces and fortified islands, soundly beat back the first few attempts to retake these areas while inflicting high casualties on the Allies, and then use this position of defensive strength (combined with a lack of Allied will to continue paying such a high cost) to negotiate a diplomatic settlement to end the war and retain these new possessions. Then they could return their focus to finishing conquering China, using the additional resources now available from these new holdings (namely oil).

And even that plan was a long shot. Certainly not "easy".

I don't see how your point is any different than mine. Japan thought that the US wouldn't have the stomach to defeat them. They were wrong,and they paid for it.

This past summer my wife and I together with my oldest son and his wife visited the National Cryptologic Museum at NSA. We got a terrific docent-led tour, that included viewing multiple Enigma machines and a replica of the device used to decode the Japanese “Purple” code. Well worth a visit, but be sure to ask for a docent tour.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
P-38 was a great plane. It's one "flaw" was that in a dive the wing surfaces would actually go "supersonic" (or I should say the wind around the wings) and the pilot would lose all control.

That plane was hot. Just ask Major Bong.

The P38 had numerous flaws, and the aircraft didn't reach it's full potential until the 'J' and 'L' variants. Many of the flaws that were proving fatal in the cold air of the northern european theatre weren't issues in the warmer med or pacific environments.

quote:

Originally posted by apprentice:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

The P-38 also had counter-rotating engines, but both of them rotated in the "wrong" direction! The port engine rotated counter-clockwise and the starboard engine rotated clockwise. Thus both engines could be termed the "critical engine."

I do not know why the P-38 was built this way, the design engineers must have had a reason, but I have no idea what it was. Perhaps one of the members who has better knowledge of this will chime in. Bueller? Anyone? Guppy?

All I can tell you about it is that back in my combat flight simulator days, the P-38 was the only plane I never had to counter steer during take off. Engine torque on every other plane made it so I had to use some rudder to keep the nose pointed correctly.

Actually, of the three forces that contribute to an airplane's tendency to veer left during take-off, engine torque is not the major one. The big one is P-factor.

The left-turning tendency is cancelled by counter-rotating propellors, whether they rotate in the "correct" direction, as in some Piper products, or in the "wrong" direction, as in the P-38. "Correct" and "wrong," in the sense that I am using those words, don't really mean anything as long as both engines are producing power, in which case asymmetrical forces cancel each other out, but they become very significant if one engine fails and you try to maintain flight on the remaining engine.

Cynical bastard here

"ISOROKU YAMAMOTO, who led the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, was a special student at Harvard from 1919 to 1921."

Tadamichi Kuribayashi is best known for being overall commander of the Japanese garrison during the Battle of Iwo Jima. "For a short time, he studied at Harvard University."

Maybe Harvard should cite that as a reason for discriminating against Asian (and Asian-Americans).

I seem to recall that the reason for the propellers rotating the way they did was, in an engine out situation, to use the torque of the remaining engine to help “lift” the side with the dead engine. I don’t know how effective it was in a real life situation.


As for the shoot down of Yamamoto the kill was originally credited to Tom Lamphier, as much as anything because he was Flight Lead, it was a pretty hectic situation with the “killer” section concentrating on the Bettys and the other P-38s dealing with Yamamoto’s protection fighters. Over time, as the situation was looked at more closely forensically it was determined that Lamphier was out of position to have fired at Yamamoto and it was actually Rex Barber who scored the kill. I think it was in an issue of ‘Wings/Airpower’ magazine that I read this.

If you want to know a LOT more about this, click here... https://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/g4m/2656.html

The aircraft still exists where it crashed on southern Bougainville inland

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by apprentice:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

The P-38 also had counter-rotating engines, but both of them rotated in the "wrong" direction! The port engine rotated counter-clockwise and the starboard engine rotated clockwise. Thus both engines could be termed the "critical engine."

I do not know why the P-38 was built this way, the design engineers must have had a reason, but I have no idea what it was. Perhaps one of the members who has better knowledge of this will chime in. Bueller? Anyone? Guppy?

All I can tell you about it is that back in my combat flight simulator days, the P-38 was the only plane I never had to counter steer during take off. Engine torque on every other plane made it so I had to use some rudder to keep the nose pointed correctly.

Actually, of the three forces that contribute to an airplane's tendency to veer left during take-off, engine torque is not the major one. The big one is P-factor.

The left-turning tendency is cancelled by counter-rotating propellors, whether they rotate in the "correct" direction, as in some Piper products, or in the "wrong" direction, as in the P-38. "Correct" and "wrong," in the sense that I am using those words, don't really mean anything as long as both engines are producing power, in which case asymmetrical forces cancel each other out, but they become very significant if one engine fails and you try to maintain flight on the remaining engine.

Reggie Fountain did lots of testing chasing high speed records on boats, and inward counter rotating props was one of those tests. I'm not sure about airplanes, but at least on the race boats having both engines turn inward created more lift and more top speed. It had negative effects though and the boats didn't turn nearly as sharp, and low speed maneuvering (docking) was not nearly as good as the counter rotating props turning outward. Not sure If the lightning's props had an inward rotation because it made them faster or not, or the engineers just didn't know any better at the time.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

P-38 was a great plane. It's one "flaw" was that in a dive the wing surfaces would actually go "supersonic" (or I should say the wind around the wings) and the pilot would lose all control.

It actually had another major design "flaw." In a conventional twin-engine airplane, both propellors rotate clockwise (when looking forward). Because of this, the starboard engine has a greater moment arm than the port engine. In the event of an engine failure, if the port engine fails, the yawing tendency is greater than it is if the starboard engine fails. Thus, the port engine is called the critical engine.

Not too long ago, Piper dealt with this problem in some of its twin engine airplanes by using counter-rotating ("CR") engines: the port propellor rotates clockwise, as it always had, but in the CR models, the starboard propellor rotates counter-clockwise. In these CR models, there is no "critical engine."

The P-38 also had counter-rotating engines, but both of them rotated in the "wrong" direction! The port engine rotated counter-clockwise and the starboard engine rotated clockwise. Thus both engines could be termed the "critical engine."

I do not know why the P-38 was built this way, the design engineers must have had a reason, but I have no idea what it was. Perhaps one of the members who has better knowledge of this will chime in. Bueller? Anyone? Guppy?

I seem to recall being told it was done for maneuverability, but I am not enough of an aerodynamicist to understand why having two critical engines would aid maneuverability.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
Reggie Fountain did lots of testing chasing high speed records on boats, and inward counter rotating props was one of those tests. I'm not sure about airplanes, but at least on the race boats having both engines turn inward created more lift and more top speed. It had negative effects though and the boats didn't turn nearly as sharp, and low speed maneuvering (docking) was not nearly as good as the counter rotating props turning outward. Not sure If the lightning's props had an inward rotation because it made them faster or not, or the engineers just didn't know any better at the time.

P38s don’t have an inward rotation, they have an outward rotation.

P-factor is the yawing moment created because at high angles of attack (think slow flight, or trying to climb out in a twin while carrying one engine), the down-going blade has a higher angle of attack and “gets a bigger bite” than the up-going blade. Most US aircraft engines turn the propellers clockwise when viewed from the cockpit. Many European aircraft engines turn the prop counter-clockwise (or as the Brits say, anti-clockwise) when viewed from the cockpit.

On a common US twin (I’ll use the Beech Travel Air, but the example applies to most), both props turn clockwise when viewed from the cockpit. This mean the left engine’s down-going blade (and center of thrust) is closer to center of gravity than the center of the engine, while the right engine’s down-going blade (and center of thrust) is farther from the center of gravity than the center of the engine. This means the right engine alone produces more yawing moment than the left engine alone. That is why the left engine is considered the critical engine on the typical US twin.

On the aircraft where the manufacturer “fixed” the problem with counter-rotating engines, they mounted the engines such that the downgoing blades (and center of thrust) were inboard on both sides, thus “no critical engine” (or the pessimist would say both engines are critical ).

On the Lightning, the down-going blades are outboard on both sides, leading to more of a handful on losing either engine rather than less.

Your comment on Reggie Fountain may explain why (and maybe whoever told me maneuverability wasn’t crazy, though I still don’t understand what effect would cause that.).

Cheers,

-Nick