Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: Steve.Bridges@Dayton.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: US Fighter Designations
Message-ID: <1990Aug5.042447.28242@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 5 Aug 90 04:24:47 GMT
References: <1990Jul31.223607.6367@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 49
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: Steve.Bridges@Dayton.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges)

[some stuff about various AAF/USAF fighters deleted...]
}P38: Lightning, Lockheed.  Maybe also thank you Kelly Johnson??????
}        Twin boom "boomer" that the Germans called the "fork tailed
}        devil".  HEAVILY armed; in the pacific was the aircraft
}        that shot down Adm. Yamamoto's plane.

}***     Also the plane that Richard Bong flew. He was the US top Ace of WWII.

Also beset by compressibility.  The solution was a dive flap.  When Lockheed's
P-80 suffered similer problems (member of the T-33 family), the dive flap was
the answer.

}P39: Airacobra, Bell Aircraft.  Sold lots to the Soviet Union during
}        WWII.  Unique design, never horridly impressive.

}***     Heh, heh. This was an interesting one. Had it's engine in the middle if
}***     the plane and a long propellor shaft through the cockpit. Was turbo-?
}***     at first until the government got a hold of it, i think. The gov't was
}***     also responsible for moving the engine back behind the pilot. not good
}***     if something blows. See Saburo Sakai's description of one in "Samurai!"
}***     He wasn't impressed. The Soviets, however, bought it in shiploads
}***     (pardon the pun :-) Was made all the way up to the P-39Q in 1944 or so.

Early version weren't turbocharged, not even a blower.  Poor altitude
performance.


}P61: Black Widow, Northrop.

}***     Know why it was called the Black Widow? it was so hard to fly. I think
}***     it was an attempt at a night fighter.

}	[mod.note:  I've heard that the maneuverability of this aircraft
}	was phenomenal, comparable to (for the time) modern single-engine
}	fighters.  Can anyone confirm or deny this ? - Bill ]

I've read several references to the performance of the P-61 that said
it was better than most WW-II era fighters.  No ailerons on this baby.  Used
full span spoilers.

-- 
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