Here is a list of ~66 of the 88 (or 87):
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b29_13.html

Does Arado Ar 96 help?

Nope. Enclosed cockpit & wrong tail surfaces.

KAFB Osprey damaged in Double Eagle landing

Interesting… didn’t recall hearing this on the local news this morning.

May have to run out to Double Eagle (about 20 minutes from my house) and take a look.

Rob

You won’t see much – it was really minor.

Here is a link that doesn’t demand you subscribe or answer a bunch of intrusive Bullshiite questions before you can read the story: http://www.kirtland.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123434332

CV-22 damaged at Double Eagle Airport

Posted 12/12/2014 Updated 12/12/2014 – KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M.

— A CV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft experienced a nose landing gear malfunction while landing at Double Eagle Airport near Albuquerque, N.M. at approximately 11:30 a.m. today. The aircraft was on a routine training mission at the time and sustained damage to the nose of the aircraft. There were no reported injuries.

A board of officers will investigate the incident.

Media Advisory:
For more information, call Kirtland AFB Public Affairs at (505) 846-5991.

Of interest, and as a follow on to Graham’s post, in the Korean War the USAF found that the armor plate fitted to Mig 15s was pretty much impervious to the 0.5 inch ammunition used by F86s.

Which was fine for the pilot (the armor was for the cockpit only)- but the rest of the aircraft was not protected by armor – and you were much more likely to hit the engine than the pilot anyway. Then there were the fuel tanks, etc – etc.

The RAF have the Hawk. USAF the T-38, which is being scheduled for replacement with T-X program.

The Hawk is capable of carrying some munitions, the T-38 none and the two principal T-X contenders, T-50 and M-346 are capable of carrying arms.

Both airforces are currently involved in COIN operations in Syria/Iraq. Yet neither seem interested in developing their trainers into something capable of carrying out these ground attack operations at a fraction of the cost of the top-line fighters.

Is it yet another case of ego-driven pilots or ex-pilots who are in charge waving their proverbial d**ks around, or is there a real need to have a $20k+ per flight hour aircraft running around dropping LGBs on pickup trucks?

1. The Hawk has a light-fighter variant – actually, there have been more than one.

The Hawk 50 was the original export trainer version, and offered a limited attack capability. 1977-1985

Another export version, the Hawk 60, was intended for conversion and weapons training. Weapons carriage is increased. 1982-1997

Hawk 100: two-seat advanced weapons trainer with additional avionics, an optional forward looking infrared, an optional laser rangefinder, a redesigned wing and HOTAS. 1989-1997

The Hawk 200 is a single-seat, lightweight multirole combat fighter with emphasis on air defence, air superiority, anti-shipping, air-denial, long-range interdiction, short-range close air support and ground attack. The Hawk 200 is equipped with a Northrop Grumman APG-66H multi-mode radar. 1990-1998

2. The USAF has issued development contracts for COIN versions of the T-6 and the PC9. Yes, for export, but still USAF funded.

3. The USAF already did the F-5 (fighter/strike version of the T38) – in the Vietnam War. They decided that a warmed-over trainer was a great low-budget aircraft for small poor nations or when you don’t care how many you loose, but that more-sophisticated aircraft were a better buy because you could use them in more than just low-intensity conflicts against poorly-equipped enemies.

Buying something just for Afghanistan/Iraq-type operations means fewer aircraft that are capable of combat against more-sophisticated enemies.

That’s five projects not one.

1. F-16 replacement
2. A-10 replacement
3. F/A-18 replacement
4. AV-8B replacement
5. F-15C replacement (eventually)

[Seven projects if you add the F-117 and F-111A to that.]

Except that the F-15E already replaced the F-111A in the 1990s, and the F-35 is NOT intended to replace the F-15E.

I was under the assumption that the Allison inline where nowhere near as powerful as the RR/Packard’s that’s all and now I have my answer.

Geoff.

Packard Merlin V-1650-1: 1,390 hp (1,040 kW); Based on Merlin 28. Used in P-40F/L
Packard Merlin V-1650-3: 1,280 hp (950 kW); Based on Merlin 63. Used in P-51B/C
Packard Merlin V-1650-7: 1,315 hp (981 kW); Similar to Merlin 66, primary powerplant of the P-51D Mustang

Allison V-1710-39: 1,150 hp (858 kW); P-40E, P-51A, A-36
Allison V-1710-115, 1,360 hp (1,015 kW); P-40N late-production
Allison V-1710-89/-91: 1,425 hp (1,060 kw); P-38H/J
Allison V-1710-111/113: 1,600 hp (1,194 kW); P-38L

All Merlins had superchargers – most 2-speed/2-stage.

P-40/P-51 Allisons had superchargers, usually single-stage.

The Allisons did just as well or better than Merlins below 12,000 feet – but their performance fell off noticeably at higher altitudes, while the Merlins retained their power at high altitude.

P-38 Allisons had turbosuperchargers, which did even better at high altitude than the Merlin’s 2s/2s superchargers – but were heavier and more complex (and thus less reliable).

In addition to an aversion to disrupting the production lines, there was the following:

The Allison-powered P-51 had no turbo-supercharger, which is why the Merlin improved its mid-high-altitude performance.

The P-38 had turbo-superchargers for its Allisons, which gave excellent high-altitude performance. Thus, any gains would be much smaller, and as the change-over would cause a significant disruption on production rate, the idea was dropped.

This article has a discussion of the proposal, phrased in terms of the benefits… but glossing over the problems (it only discusses performance to 30,000 feet).
The P-38 Lightning

In 1940 Packard Motors of Detroit began building the two-speed Merlin V-1650-1 (Merlin 28) under license from Rolls Royce. This engine had 1170 horsepower in high blower with a critical altitude of 21,000 feet. Lockheed ran a study comparing a Merlin XX powered Lightning with a standard V-1710 powered variant. The reported speed difference was over 25 mph, favoring the Merlin powered airplane. Climb performance was similar to the Allison powered machine.

Another Merlin vs. Allison comparison in 1942 involved the V-1710-89/91 Allisons (engines used in standard P-38J) and the Packard V-1650-3 two-speed, two-stage Merlin used in the P-51B/C. Utilizing Military Power speed was almost identical.

Yet another study in 1944 compared V-1710s producing 1725 bhp and “advanced” Merlins using “special” fuel and producing 2000 bhp (no altitude specified). The Merlin powered version could supposedly attain 468 mph at 30,000 feet, which was considerably better than the Allison powered version.

These studies were all conducted by Lockheed and exhibit a certain amount of optimism in regard to maximum speed for both types, but the consensus clearly shows better performance with the Merlin powered Lightning.

Note however, that the same article earlier says that the factory-set maximum manifold pressure ratings for the Allison engines were rarely followed by front-line units. They used significantly-higher manifold pressure settings (up to 60″ vs the factory 40″-45″!

As a result, combat units regularly achieved higher climb rates and maximum speeds than the factory did. Thus the above Lockheed factory comparison short-changes the performance the Allison was capable of.

This article mentions one of the areas where performance would have dropped with the Merlin (it discusses performance above 30,000 feet):
Whatever Happened To The P-38K ?

There were some performance areas that would suffer. While a gain in speed at medium altitudes was expected, the rate of climb would be reduced by as much as 400 feet per minute. Service ceiling would also be reduced as the Packard Merlin XX made considerably less power above 30,000 feet than did the Allison V1710.