Comments for Meanwhile, out near Las Vegas...

Meanwhile, out near Las Vegas...

2009-11-19T13:55:32Z

...we find a little eye candy for Dusty.

A ~~P-51 Mustang~~, F-86 Sabre, P-38 Lightning, F-4 Phantom and A-10 Thunderbolt (clockwise from left) break over Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., for the Air Combat Command heritage flight during the 2009 Aviation Nation open house Nov. 13, 2009. The open house is an opportunity for the Las Vegas community to view aerial demonstrations and static displays of various aircraft from the military. The open house also acts as the final air show of the year for the U.S. Air Force Aerial Demonstration Squadron Thunderbirds. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Kevin J. Gruenwald)

Comment from BillT on 2009-11-22

2009-11-22T10:29:58Z

...probably the only four-engine transport to land on, and take off from an aircraft carrier.

The pilots found out the VOQ was under the catapults.

The "carrier" I staged from during the Cambodian Excursion required landing *widthwise*...

Comment from Casey on 2009-11-22

2009-11-22T09:39:23Z

Dear Bill,

I want my leg back.

Regards,
Casey

Heh.

P.S. Agree completely with respect to the Osprey and the Chinook. By interesting coincidence, the Chinook carries the same mark number as the celebrated Gooney Bird, C-47.

P.P.S. Hubert also has a
distinguished history, from the original Bell 204/205 to the twin-engine Bell 212, even if you saw one of the latter auger in back in the day... :(

Most of the time the glamorous birds (such as the Mustang and the Lightning) get the glory, while the packhorse birds get, well, laughter. I'd hate to think how WW2 would have gone absent the Skytrain, or Vietnam absent the Huey. Wasn't it Eisenhower who named the Skytrain as one of the five most vital weapons which defeated the Axis?

Then again there's the grand dame of packhorses, the C-130 "Herky" bird; probably the only four-engine transport to land on, and take off from an aircraft carrier.

Me, I've always had a soft spot in my heart for the PBY-5 Catalina as well...

Comment from BillT on 2009-11-21

2009-11-21T11:34:48Z

Heh. Do I know how to stir a pot, or do I know how to stir a pot?

I'm actually a fan of multi-engine aircraft, although I think sticking two of them in the same tube -- the fuselage -- of a combat aircraft without some form of ballistic protection between them is nuts.

I suppose this is why the Marines selected the twin-engine AH-1 SuperCobra, then later the AH-1Z Viper as attack helicopters. :)

They didn't select twin engines, they made it a requirement -- the Marines *do* fly over water a lot, and military requirements for single-engine aircraft operating over water are pretty restrictive. However, in the case of the UH-1Y and the AH-1Z, the requirement allowed Bell to use smaller engines, so the aircraft have a pretty limp single-engine performance curve. I saw a UH-1N (USN, twin-engines) crash in RVN when the pilot had one engine fail and he tried to make it to the runway at Vi Thanh on the remaining engine. Killed everybody on board.

But, all-in-all, the Marines made a pretty good decision -- they already *had* the airframes, and for a decent-sized investment in upgrading them, they got an extended lifetime and some additional capability.

Then they went and blew it by going with the V-22 rather than the CH-47D.

Comment from Casey on 2009-11-21

2009-11-21T10:05:44Z

Bill, with all respect, the "twice as likely engine failure" is a myth, and I'm speaking as someone who has studied probability and statistics.

The issue here is that the probability of multiple engine failures are independent, unless there's a common element such as fuel feed. A good example of independent probabilities is rolling two dice simultaneously. The result of die one is independent of the result of die two. On the other hand, two successive draws from the same deck of cards (absent returning the card to the deck & re-shuffling) is highly dependent. For example, if you draw the Jack of Spades, the next draw must exclude that probability. The general probability in this case would be 1:52, then 1:51, and 0so on. If one specifies black cards, the first draw is 1:26, while the second would be 1:25.

Let us return to to the simplicity of two independent probabilities. The probability of throwing a single six is 1:6. The probability of throwing two sixes at once (a sum of twelve) is 1:6 x 1:6 or 1:36. The probability of throwing two ones (a sum of two) is also 1:36. The probability of throwing a sum of 7 is 1:6, since there are six possibilities out of 36 which result in a six; 1&6, 2&5, 3&4, 4&3, 5&2, 6&1.

This tends to illuminate the odds behinds the game of "craps." :)

Given that any engine has a (say) 1 in 10 chance of failing (P = 0.1), the probability of two engines failing simultaneously is 0.1 x 0.1, or 0.01, or only one chance in 100. In other words, with a single engine plane -given engine failure P = 0.1- there is a 90% probability (0.9) the plane will come come. With a two-engine plane with equivalent performance, the independent probability of simultaneous failure of both engines is the product of their individual probabilities. In this case, the probability of failure (P= 0.1) of failure of an engine must be multiplied (e.g. 0.1 x 0.1), which gives a cumulative probability of 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01 of simultaneous failure, or in other words, the odds are 1:100 that both engines fail, as opposed to odds of 1:10 of one engine failing.

I suppose this is why the Marines selected the twin-engine AH-1 SuperCobra, then later the AH-1Z Viper as attack helicopters. :)

To put it another way, how many single-engine jets have the Navy and Marine Corps selected, vice twin-engine jets during the same time frame? :)

MCart, I forgot to mention Yamamoto. On the other hand, you neglected to mention that the Lightning collectively destroyed more Japanese aircraft than any other mark. Heh.

While MCart's "warm fuzzies" remark is echoed over here, I feel compelled to point out that the original Thunderbolt was a superior ground-attack aircraft, considering that massive air-cooled monster in front of the cockpit...

While the Lightning demonstrated the gifts of both the cutlass and the rapier, most Republic aircraft tended to the former (not that there's anything wrong with that!) {g}

Republic produced a very impressive series of "Thunder" aircraft of the "cutlass" style, while today's design tend towards not only the rapier, but the smallsword, such as the F-22 Raptor. I'm wondering if we should begin to re-orient towards (say) a "cutlass" or "claymore" style aircraft, instead of the eventual purity of the stiletto...

Comment from MCart on 2009-11-21

2009-11-21T07:31:16Z

That's the beauty of it. You can get home on one engine if you have to. In fact, the survivor in a head on collision between a P-38 and a ME-109 had to do just that. From Germany. They did much better in Africa and the Pacific, Lockheed had all kinds of trouble figuring out europe's cold weather with those Allison engines.

I see Casey and I have the same pile of books.

When we intercepted and decoded his arrival date, it was an element of P-38's that ended Admiral Yamamoto's career..

By the end of the war, P-38's destroyed more locomotives and other rail stock in Germany, than all other allied aircraft combined.

They were originally designed as fast-climbing flying anti-aircraft platforms, but surprisingly served as excellent ground attack, escort, and even dogfighters. Seeing an A-10 and a P-38 flying in formation gives me all kinds of warm fuzzies.

Comment from BillT on 2009-11-20

2009-11-20T08:30:30Z

Two engines = twice the chance of an engine failure.

That said, there were a few times I wished ol' Hubert had mounted a nose full of machineguns rather than radios...

Comment from Casey on 2009-11-19

2009-11-20T04:41:27Z

From what I've read, the first issue was that the Lightning was designed with a total purchase order of maybe 5 dozen. Total. Ever. So Lockheed didn't worry about optimizing for mass production.

Then the Army Air Force lost the single X-model during a publicity stunt, preventing Lockheed from getting many of the bugs out before initiating production.

The two-engine training was jacked up, and ended up killing a lot of pilots during engine failure during take-off and landing. It turned out the practical method was opposite the defined training method; reduce power on both engines, adjust trim, then carefully add power to the good engine. There were, by the way, no trainer versions of the P-38. Pilots got to learn on things like the Twin Beech.

They never put a decent heater or defroster in that plane. As best I can tell, Lockheed never researched conditions in northern Europe before the war.

Going back to 1-engine vs. 2-engine training, many Lightning pilots tried compete with -109s in maneuver combat, despite the higher wing loading and greater turn radius of the -38. Once the later models received hydraulically- boosted ailerons, and the pilots learned to take advantage of two engines (no torque to mess you up), they made the Jerry pilots heads spin, as well as their craft. ;)

Another issue was compressibility. The Lightning was just too aerodynamically clean. Since the Spits couldn't dive worth a darn, the Messerschmidt pilots got into the habit of diving away from trouble. The Lightnings could dive faster than the -109, and that was the problem. They'd hit a high sub-Mach number, lose lift over the wing, and encounter shock stall. If lucky, the pilot could hold on until hitting lower altitudes (and greater air density) and ride it out. The fix (air brakes) wasn't applied until late in the -J model. After that the Fork-Tailed Devil could chase their prey all the way to the deck, if necessary. Must have been a helluva surprise for many German pilots, later on.

The Lightning had greater range than even the fabled Mustang, and demonstrated the same versatility as that later twin-engine beast, the Phantom II.

The pedigree of the P-38 is demonstrated by the men who flew her: Dick Bong and Thomas B. McGuire were lightning jocks, as was #7 Charlie MacDonald. Charles Lindberg helped the 475th FG extend the range of their Lightnings via demonstration flights, and even shot down a Japanese plane during one mission. Antoine de Saint Exupéry flew the Lightning.

And -oh, yeah- there was a fighter jock from 8th AF that flew the Lightning whilst becoming an ace over Europe.. He later participated in the "police action" in Vietnam. You might have heard of him; Robin Olds. :)

Neffi: I agree. Completely. If I could own one warbird, it would be the Lightning. And if you can't afford to buy one, maybe you could build a 2/3-scale copy instead.

Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2009-11-19

2009-11-20T02:54:51Z

From what I've read, the P-38 had a tendency to say "I've come to kill you" to inexperienced pilots quite a bit, at least when it was first introduced.

They'd spot the enemy and firewall the throttles, but in their excitement, they'd forget to engage the superchargers...without the extra power they'd either stall or get shot down because they didn't have the speed.

Pretty bird though...my favorite has always been the F4U Corsair, though.

Comment from Neffi on 2009-11-19

2009-11-20T01:14:13Z

If there could be one... only one... aircraft in my life- it would be a P-38. As fighters they had their pros and cons- as did every fighter plane. The Spitfire in my opinion is the prettiest fighter ever built, but the Lightning sez "I have come here to kill you" better than any other...
And if I had about $2 mil I could get one... sigh

Comment from SangerM on 2009-11-19

2009-11-19T22:53:07Z

And I really shouldn't try to type so dang fast.... sheesh that set the record for poor spelling, typos, etc. Just bah.

Comment from SangerM on 2009-11-19

2009-11-19T22:42:49Z

The F4s don't have the same engine in all of them... It's just not quite the same. In fact, the F18 was doing a lot more screaming here a couple weeks ago than the F4. The 18 set of car alarms rattled windows, etc. The F4 was kind of weak, given its past. Sad, just sad....

As for privately owned, Sgt Hardkill, what's the criteria? I've seen a few F4s that I was pretty sure belonged to private individuals or groups, vice the military. We see them here pretty often, and one of them crapped out after an airshow a couple hears ago and I got pics. I'll check tonight for the names. As for who's using them, I can tell you there aren't many countries that still do for much of anything, at least none that are coming to us for training.... The F16 is not long enough in the tooth that it's becoming the fighter of choice, even for small and not-so-well-off former WP contries. And lots of them are pre-owned, and we act as the broker, etc. You'd be amazed at how many other countries are flying or wanting to fly F16s. F4s? not one request that I know of since at least 2005, and the last country I know of that was paying for F4 tng hasn't used that case since around 2000 or so.

But they still paint them here, so I know someone somwhere is using them for targets or the like.... :-)

Comment from AFSister on 2009-11-19

2009-11-19T18:47:11Z

We got to see a similar heritage flight in Dayton this summer. It was so freakin' cool.

Comment from Fishmugger on 2009-11-19

2009-11-19T18:40:47Z

Oh yeah.

Was down to Tyndall AFB on business a few months ago and they were flying F-22's on training missions. To see what the radar cross section is they also put up a RF-101 Voodoo and a F-4 Weasel. I was in total wonderment...one to see the F-22's in flight but also at the sight of a F-4 climbing into the sky. They're still noisy...ok real noisy. The kind of noise you can feel in your chest from over a mile away. Kind of like watching an old big block Chevy driving by and reliving your childhood.

Comment from Sgt Hardkill on 2009-11-19

2009-11-19T18:00:15Z

Just look at that beautiful F4. Wow. (All the aircraft are beautiful, but I have a thing for the F4.)

I saw a formation once of the F4, A10, F15, F16, and T38 at an airshow at Eglin AFB years ago. Behind the formation, you could follow a single trail of black jet smoke right up to the tail of the F4.

I miss that beautiful smoke trail laying against the sky...global warming in action, and I love it, man...

The Phantom you see there is a QF4. The only privately owned Phantom is a -D- model that belongs to the Collings Foundation.

Comment from jon spencer on 2009-11-19

2009-11-19T17:57:55Z

There are a few left flying with the USAF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/82d_Aerial_Targets_Squadron

Comment from John (not the Armorer) on 2009-11-19

2009-11-19T16:39:38Z

Still a nice picture, with or without any caption.

Is the Phanton still a USAF bird, or privately owned? The straight fighter birds went away a loooonnggg time ago, and I thought that even the "wild weasel" electronic warfare versions got scrapped several years ago.

Impressive machines, but noisy, at least from a vantage point 1,000 yards astern of a bird farm as they return home.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-11-19

2009-11-19T15:04:54Z

Hey - I leave the captions as the gubbermint people write them so that you guys have something to snipe.

And trust me, sometimes, when we snipe 'em, they get pissy and send me notes about how hard their jobs are. Well, okay, one of 'em did.

And I don't doubt that combat camera in combat is a hard job. But part of that job is getting the captions right.

Though that *really* pissy Sergeant First Class who essentially called me a chickenhawk disagreed.

Comment from RoyK on 2009-11-19

2009-11-19T14:34:30Z

Mabye the lead aircraft decided to 'man up' and 'grow a pair'?

Comment from Seanski on 2009-11-19

2009-11-19T14:30:38Z

Clockwise (starting on top) it should be: P-38, F-4, A-10 and F-86.

Comment from JoeC on 2009-11-19

2009-11-19T14:18:21Z

Great shot. Minor point... I think that is a P38 not a P51. The twin engines kinda, sorta give that away.....