Aircraft Trivia Quiz

Here's a tricky one but did happen.

What damage 800 allied aicraft and killed 45 peolpe in Italy 1944?

T_Terrific wrote:

bondoman wrote: TT- aren't you running a quiz here? Jaypack got my question, I'd say give he/she a chance to go for it. Wooooooooooo-K, chief I hope Jaypack did not take our off-topic comments between actual questions as indicating he did not have the next turn to ask a question. I consider a little off or on-topic informational dialog in addition to the actual question/answer  now and then to be a perfectly healthy sharing of additional information that is a legitimate addition to this forum. But....in deference to your stated objection, I shall refrain further comment until after tomorrow. Tom

No, I didn't take it that way, I just forgot to check my post!

 I can't really come up with a good question right now, so if someone else wants to go, feel free to!

*and for the record, I'm a he*...

bondoman wrote:

TT- aren't you running a quiz here? Jaypack got my question, I'd say give he/she a chance to go for it.

Wooooooooooo-K, chief

I hope Jaypack did not take our off-topic comments between actual questions as indicating he did not have the next turn to ask a question.

I consider a little off or on-topic informational dialog in addition to the actual question/answer  now and then to be a perfectly healthy sharing of additional information that is a legitimate addition to this forum.

But....in deference to your stated objection, I shall refrain further comment until after tomorrow.

Tom

hudskit wrote:

Tom, As much as I truly love the P-38-and consider the XP-38 the most beautiful aircraft to ever fly-it was the most successful twin engine pre-war design agreed- but the most manuverable twin engine to fly and fight during the war would have to be the perhaps the P-61-with it's complex set of spoilers and flaps- that enabled it to out turn and outmanuver just about anything flying at that point in time. The marines had a far better name for the P-38- "Flying Foxhole" - which with it's design and size seems to suit it. Regards, Keith

Hi Keith,

This is one "spitting contest" I won't get into, inasmuch the record of the P-38 dogfighting throughout the war, unlike the P-61's being more limitated to later-war night operations, tend to speak for themselves. I have a book titled "Night Fighters",and it documents ther development from WWI, and an early victory for the P-61 was blasting an unaware Ju-88 night fighter out of the air. In their testomony in the book "Against the Bombers", the Germans admitted that the P-61 so devastated their morale that they refused to engage it, night or day. Essentially, it wound up being a victum of it's own success.

It might have eventually bettered the P-38, but the opportunity simply was not there to prove it.

I don't write them, I simply read and repeat them.

Sorry

Tom

wdolson2 wrote:

T_Terrific wrote: In the battle for Palau Island, it shows Marine pilots doing napalm bomb runs within 1000 yards of their airfield in their F4U's (known as the shortest bomb run in history) where they drop their loads before they even get their wheels up! My father was a combat photographer in the USAAF and was attached to various units.  At the time of the Leyte invasion, he was attached to a B-25 unit which became the first bomber unit to operate from the beachhead.  The only other planes at the base were a couple of P-38 squadrons with Bong and McGuire.    He said the Japanese were so close to the end of the runway that they were dropping their bombs almost before they got their landing gear up.   Don't know if anyone was counting the distance, but it sounds like the experiences of the Marines at Palau and the fighting at Leyte were similar in that resepct.  Bill

The main battle on Palau was called the "Battle of Bloody Nose Ridge"

It was not unlike the battle for Mt Suribachi on Iwo Jima, wherein it had a complete network of anthill-like tunnels.

The motion-picture photography of the F4U napalming that position with its wheels down is quite graphic and striking, even in black-and-white.

In the "Crusade in the Pacific" movie series, the on-going footage of Marines flushjing Japanese out is so extensive and graphic, it makes the modern "fire fight" stuff in action movies look like kids with cap guns.

Is is fascinating how many M-1 Carbines were field modified to full auto.

Tom

Tom,

As much as I truly love the P-38-and consider the XP-38 the most beautiful aircraft to ever fly-it was the most successful twin engine pre-war design agreed- but the most manuverable twin engine to fly and fight during the war would have to be the perhaps the P-61-with it's complex set of spoilers and flaps- that enabled it to out turn and outmanuver just about anything flying at that point in time. The marines had a far better name for the P-38- "Flying Foxhole" - which with it's design and size seems to suit it.

That the P-38 was tremendous as a offensive fighter in the Pacific there can be no doubt- at the higher altitudes that our bombers it escorted usually flew at it truly was at it's best- and the Zero/Oscar was at it's worst. The Zero's controls dramatically stiffened at altitude-and it lost a great deal of it's manuverability- allowing the p-38 to become more than it's match . Down lower where the Zero thrived in combat it was a different and much tougher opponent for the Corsairs, hellcats and p-40's that worked those lower altitudes.

Regards, Keith

T_Terrific wrote:

In the battle for Palau Island, it shows Marine pilots doing napalm bomb runs within 1000 yards of their airfield in their F4U's (known as the shortest bomb run in history) where they drop their loads before they even get their wheels up!

My father was a combat photographer in the USAAF and was attached to various units.  At the time of the Leyte invasion, he was attached to a B-25 unit which became the first bomber unit to operate from the beachhead.  The only other planes at the base were a couple of P-38 squadrons with Bong and McGuire.   

He said the Japanese were so close to the end of the runway that they were dropping their bombs almost before they got their landing gear up.   Don't know if anyone was counting the distance, but it sounds like the experiences of the Marines at Palau and the fighting at Leyte were similar in that resepct.

 Bill

Screaminhelo wrote:

T_Terrific wrote: Then I am sure that you know that the attribute that the P-38 had that actually made it unique for a twin engined WWII fighter was that it was the only one amongst the warring powers that could dogfight successfully. Tom You might even say magnificantly

For the PAC, the USAAF asserts the P-38 had the highest number of kills, which rivals the USN claim for the Hellcat.

As an aside, I just picked up the 1951 series "Crusade in the Pacific" at my local Dollar store since it was only $6.00 for three DVD's, and it has a bunch of P-38J photo ops, both air and ground photos, with engine panels off as well as on test stands, etc. I was fascinated to see the teardrop-shaped dimples in the long-range tanks that matched the underwing pylons as they showed them being shackled up.

One other interesting feature is a complete WWII USN enacted training film on ditching an aircraft using an F4U.

In the battle for Palau Island, it shows Marine pilots doing napalm bomb runs within 1000 yards of their airfield in their F4U's (known as the shortest bomb run in history) where they drop their loads before they even get their wheels up!

Other details include the final locking of F4F wings with a speed-socket wrench by deck hands, etc.

Love those discount stores!

Tom

bondoman wrote:

Tintin is aboard a dhow in the Red Sea when attacked by aircraft. He manages to shoot one down with an assault weapon. What type of aircraft attacked his boat?

A Mosquito

T_Terrific wrote:

Then I am sure that you know that the attribute that the P-38 had that actually made it unique for a twin engined WWII fighter was that it was the only one amongst the warring powers that could dogfight successfully. Tom

You might even say magnificantly

Then I am sure that you know that the attribute that the P-38 had that actually made it unique for a twin engined WWII fighter was that it was the only one amongst the warring powers that could dogfight successfully.

Tom

Cadin got the statistics and the history of the aircraft correct.  I can't speak on some of the personal accounts, but "the Fork Tailled Devil" is a pretty accurate history.

Screaminhelo wrote:

O.K.  I am a fan of the 'Devil.  Anyway, read Martin Cadin's "Fork Tailed Devil".  It is a must read for P-38 fans and should be on the list for WWII aviation history buffs.

I used to be an avid fan of Cadin's books until I discovered a couple of his typically underdog "heroes" in his book "The Ragged Rugged Warriors" were completely fictictous.

Since then I would only pick one up maybe at a thrift store or something, and then only read it as fiction.

I am sure there is a better book on the P-38.

Tom

Tom-
To add to that, Lockheed originally designed the P-38 to be more or less hand built.  The original specification was for a limited number of a high performance interceptor.  They didn't plan to build more than about 1000 airframes in the entire production run.  As the fortunes of war changed the need from interceptors protecting CONUS to escort fighters protecting the bombers, the AAF found it simpler and faster to change the spec rather than issue a new one. 

As a result, the P-38 went from a hotrod, high altitude, interceptor to a somewhat troubled escort fighter that excelled at low altitude and was a bit anemic at high altitude.  Lockheed developed the airplane from here to produce a fighter (J & L) that earned it's place in the debate over the best fighter of WWII.

O.K.  I am a fan of the 'Devil.  Anyway, read Martin Cadin's "Fork Tailed Devil".  It is a must read for P-38 fans and should be on the list for WWII aviation history buffs.

Screaminhelo wrote:

Sorry to have been out of pocket for so long, I had to go on a short notice trip (thank goodness for the A-bag!) Bondoman got the answer that I was looking for with tri-cycle landing gear. Kudos to Davros for the bonus. There were other twin-engine fighter designs flown, with counter-rotating props and centrally mounted armament. Tom, Good question on the production run, keep it in your pocket. Again, sorry for the delay.

No problemo, Screamin.

Actually, Telsono, although that is a good answer, it is not the one I was looking for.

As I said, the answer would come by careful reading of that website and then putting "two-and-two together", not by gleening anything specific from it.

In fact, the answer is more "brick-and-morter" then technology oriented, and is in respect to the manufacturing method itself, not the thing being made.

My question is based on a little realized factoid that I got from hob-nobbing with one particular "Pilot's Lounge Expert" at my LHS.

So, out of fairness, I don't mind telling you-all the answer I was looking for. It turns out that the first order of 1000 (the "G" model) were in fact not mass-produced on an assembly-line, but essentially like the Supermarine Spitfire, they were hand-made en mass on their main production floor, since Lockheed did not get the idea that the Army was serious about ordering any more at the time, and it was not until they ordered 2000 of the "J" model  did they tool up for a fully automated production line.

I figured on "switching the question" if Screamin did not return anyway.

Tom

Sorry to have been out of pocket for so long, I had to go on a short notice trip (thank goodness for the A-bag!)

Bondoman got the answer that I was looking for with tri-cycle landing gear.

Kudos to Davros for the bonus.

There were other twin-engine fighter designs flown, with counter-rotating props and centrally mounted armament.

Tom,
Good question on the production run, keep it in your pocket.

Again, sorry for the delay.

Tom -

 Would the answer invoilve the improvements in the cooling system because of the problems with CAT. "New core-type intercoolers and re-designed oil and coolant radiator ducts." This allowed the P-38 to utilize the full power capacity of the engines.

There was also a mentioned in the article the "K" version that didn't enter production. This was the Packard/Merlin engined version. According to another article I read on it Lockheed claimed it would have only taken a short time to re-tooled the production lines, a few weeks. It wasn't produced as the P-38 was the major user of the Allison engines and the engine switch would have devastated that company.

Remember also that it cost approximately to build one P-38 what it took to build two P-51's.  

Mike T.

bondoman wrote:

But TT you are in this too!! And you had more answers that I did. If helo doesn't show up I for one would declare you the de facto winner and you could ask the next question.

I just did ask the next question

Helo is obviously "out of pocket" (I would guess he took a Labor Day vacation this week), so why don't y'all take a stab at it?

If you like I can re-post it with slight enhancements:

The "G" model Lightning was the first run of 1000+ as ordered by the U.S. Army.

The "J" model was the most produced at over 2000 units.

What was the difference between these two in their manufacturing runs * at Lockheed that resulted in many of the cosmetic differences?

*This is a major hint ! You might even say "massive".

With a careful reading of this particular P-38 history website one can derive the answer to this question.:

 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-wayne.html

Now this is not a "no-brainer" question, but in fact a reading comprehension question, which is why I am offering the website. The answer is not one that will "jump out" at you, but force you to think to get it.

Tom

But TT you are in this too!! And you had more answers that I did. If helo doesn't show up I for one would declare you the de facto winner and you could ask the next question.

If Screaminhelo does not "reappear" to say "who got it best", I am willing to do a "run off" deciding between you two guys if you like.

I believe I have seen this question asked elsewhere, and I believe I may have already known the answer, so I do not mind deferring to one of you two guys. Either that or since a friend of mine is a P-38 buff, I am probably loaded with more off-beat P-38 trivia then there is info on all the websites.

Otherwise the forum is wide-open again for anyone by this Saturday afternoon.

My runoff question would be a rewording of my vague "bonus question" I suggested above:

The "G" model Lightning was the first run of 1000+ as ordered by the U.S. Army.

The "J" model was the most produced at over 2000 units.

What was the main difference between these two in their manufacturing at Lockheed?

With a careful reading of a particular P-38 history website one can infer the answer to this question.

Otherwise we wait to see if Screaminhelo returns.

Tom

I'm breaking my own rule by replying to this thread; (I don't fancy trying to come up with a new question but I'll risk it) could it be the contra-rotating props? Also; Lockheed had originally intended to name it the Atalanta until we Brits gave it the name Lightning.

We got the second-class version because the U.S. wouldn't let the turbo superchargers be exported but, at least, our choice of name won

 Another feature:

A calculated zero-lift drag coefficient of just over .020 or the innovative intercooler design that enabled it?

Or the 400+mph it resulted in, which was a first also.

As a bonus, you could also ask what was the main reason for the cosmetic differences between the "G" and the "J" models.

That would be a nasty one, though as it is not explicitly available on any website I am aware of, but you can infer it from one site I am fond of.

Tom

A tricycle landing gear arrangement on a fighter.

Also, I just picked this up and hadn't thought about it, but it did not have a convergant aiming point, which is/was not a first but had not been the case for a while.

 One feature:

Twin boom/engine with a "gondola" cockpit design?

Tom

This may be opening my self up to multiple answers but I will throw this one out there anyway and see what we get.

While the P-38 was a unique fighter in many ways, the roll out of the XP-38 marked a first for fighter aircraft, what was this pioneering feature of the Lightning?

Bonus:  What was the name originally given to the P-38?