Regarding the F-80 Shooting Star

[KJ_Lesnick]

I remember reading of a record setting flight flown in an P-80 flying nonstop across the US -- a distance of 2,457 miles from LA and NY.  Assuming it's not classified, how the hell did they manage to get the plane to fly that far?

KJ

[rickshaw]

Inflight refuelling?   The USAF in its early days utilised probe and drogue refuelling using a probe on a drop tank.  I know the F-84 used them, not sure about the P-80.

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

Inflight refuelling?

Unsure, as it was still the USAAF and one of the first orders of business for the (then) new USAF was to develop aerial refueling capabilities.  The USAAF did do research on refuelling in '42, but the design was cancelled under the attitude that the B-29 could provide sufficient range as to eliminate any benefit.

KJ

[pyro-manic]

Wiki says non-stop, unrefuelled.  Perhaps with drop tanks fitted it's ferry range was enough? Wiki quotes a range of 1200 miles for the P-80, so if this is an operational range, the ferry range would be double that, which is close to the stated distance covered.

[Mossie]

I'm guessing he took advantage of the jet stream, the westerly direction of the flight suggests this.  The only outward signs of any long range capability are larger tanks than usual for a P-80A.

Here's a newsreel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuhttlQ4d3g

[The Rat]

Interesting that he dropped the tip tanks, if that film is to be believed (and I see no reason not to). The normal tanks actually increased the efficiency of the wing, so maybe those larger ones had a negative effect. And yes, I agree that those tanks do look larger than standard.

[KJ_Lesnick]

pyro-manic

Wiki quotes a range of 1200 miles for the P-80, so if this is an operational range, the ferry range would be double that, which is close to the stated distance covered.

Maybe it could do 1,200 miles w/o drop-tanks and more with?


Mossie

I'm guessing he took advantage of the jet stream, the westerly direction of the flight suggests this.  The only outward signs of any long range capability are larger tanks than usual for a P-80A.

Yup, and with the jet-stream the aircraft wouldn't have to use quite as much power for a given speed and/or could have flown a touch higher, and larger fuel tanks would add more fuel to the aircraft.  I would assume the airplane for a ferry flight was stripped down as much as possible to keep it nice and light, any non-essential equipment removed, the engines fine-tuned, and all the rivets sanded down, and the plane polished until nice and mirror smooth? 

Admittedly in those days, there was probably a lot less non-essential equipment than modern day for just straight-forward flying as it had no radar and computers to operate them, no missiles.  I guess the gun, ammunition, and lead-computing gunsight were removed at least


The Rat

The normal tanks actually increased the efficiency of the wing, so maybe those larger ones had a negative effect.

You're correct about the aerodynamic benefits of the tank -- I guess they reduced vortex strength at the tip.  I guess it's possible they carried them until it became beneficial to toss them off in favor of reducing weight (in some circumstances it's overall better to sacrifice some aerodynamic efficiency if it trims off enough weight -- that's why swing-wings aren't used much anymore) -- even empty tanks weigh something?


KJ

 

[jcf]

With special 310-gal wingtip tanks, and why would a publicity stunt that was all over the news at the the time, be 'classified'?

There were a number of publicity/record flights involving the P-80 at the time, including air race wins.

If you don't have your own references on Lockheed aircraft or the USAF immediately post-war, then Google truly is your friend.
Amazon list 15 used copies of Francillon's Lockheed Aircraft since 1913, starting at $28.00.