Jack 'Pap' Papesh on B-17 Engine

Jack 'Pap' Papesh on B-17 Engine

Jack 'Pap' Papesh on B-17 Engine

Here we see Jack 'Pap' Papesh on top of the engine nacelle of a B-17F or B-17G undergoing rather dramatic wing repairs.

Pictures provided by Sgt. Robert S. Tucker Sr. (Member of: The American Air Museum in Britain {Duxford} ).
Robert S. WWII Photo Book, Mighty 8th. AF, Ground Crew


Jack 'Pap' Papesh on B-17 Engine - History


Contents

Rogers was born on his parents' Dog Iron Ranch in the Cherokee Nation of Indian Territory, near present-day Oologah, Oklahoma, now in Rogers County, named in honor of his father, Clem Vann Rogers. The house in which he was born had been built in 1875 and was known as the "White House on the Verdigris River". [2] His parents, Clement Vann Rogers (1839–1911) and Mary America Schrimsher (1838–1890), were both of mixed race and Cherokee ancestry, and identified as Cherokee. [8] Rogers quipped that his ancestors did not come over on the Mayflower, but they "met the boat". [9] His mother was one quarter-Cherokee and born into the Paint Clan. [10] She died when Will was eleven. His father remarried less than two years after her death.

Rogers was the youngest of eight children. He was named for the Cherokee leader Col. William Penn Adair. [11] Only three of his siblings, sisters Sallie Clementine, Maude Ethel, and May (Mary), survived into adulthood.

His father, Clement, was a leader in the Cherokee Nation. An attorney and Cherokee judge, he was a Confederate veteran. He served as a delegate to the Oklahoma Constitutional Convention. Rogers County, Oklahoma, is named in honor of him. [2] He served several terms in the Cherokee Senate. Clement Rogers achieved financial success as a rancher and used his influence to help soften the negative effects of white acculturation on his people.

Roach (1980) presents a sociological-psychological assessment of the relationship between Will and his father during the formative boyhood and teenage years. Clement had high expectations for his son and wanted him to be more responsible and business-minded. Will was more easygoing and oriented toward the loving affection offered by his mother, Mary, rather than the harshness of his father. The personality clash increased after his mother's death when the boy was eleven. Young Will went from one venture to another with little success. Only after Will won acclaim in vaudeville did the rift begin to heal. Clement’s death in 1911 precluded a full reconciliation. [12]

Will Rogers attended school in Missouri, at the Willow Hassel School at Neosho, and Kemper Military School at Boonville. He was a good student and an avid reader of The New York Times, but he dropped out of school after the 10th grade. [9] Rogers later said that he was a poor student, saying that he "studied the Fourth Reader for ten years". He was much more interested in cowboys and horses, and learned to rope and use a lariat. [9]

First jobs and British Army Edit

Rogers worked at the Dog Iron Ranch for a few years. Near the end of 1901, when he was 22 years old, he and a friend left home hoping to work as gauchos in Argentina. [9] They arrived in Argentina in May 1902, and spent five months trying to make it as ranch owners in the Pampas. Rogers and his partner lost all their money, and he later said, “I was ashamed to send home for more.” The two friends separated and Rogers sailed for South Africa. It is often claimed he took a job breaking in horses for the British Army, but the Boer War had ended three months earlier. [13] Rogers was hired at James Piccione's ranch near Mooi River Station in the Pietermaritzburg district of Natal. [14]

Rogers began his show business career as a trick roper in "Texas Jack's Wild West Circus" in South Africa:

He [Texas Jack] had a little Wild West aggregation that visited the camps and did a tremendous business. I did some roping and riding, and Jack, who was one of the smartest showmen I ever knew, took a great interest in me. It was he who gave me the idea for my original stage act with my pony. I learned a lot about the show business from him. He could do a bum act with a rope that an ordinary man couldn't get away with, and make the audience think it was great, so I used to study him by the hour, and from him I learned the great secret of the show business—knowing when to get off. It's the fellow who knows when to quit that the audience wants more of. [13]

Grateful for the guidance but anxious to move on, Rogers quit the circus and went to Australia. Texas Jack gave him a reference letter for the Wirth Brothers Circus there, and Rogers continued to perform as a rider and trick roper, and worked on his pony act. He returned to the United States in 1904, appeared at the St. Louis World's Fair, and began to try his roping skills on the vaudeville circuits.

Vaudeville Edit

On a trip to New York City, Rogers was at Madison Square Garden, on April 27, 1905, when a wild steer broke out of the arena and began to climb into the viewing stands. Rogers roped the steer to the delight of the crowd. The feat got front page attention from the newspapers, giving him valuable publicity and an audience eager to see more. Willie Hammerstein saw his vaudeville act, and signed Rogers to appear on the Victoria Roof—which was literally on a rooftop—with his pony. For the next decade, Rogers estimated he worked for 50 weeks a year at the Roof and at the city's myriad vaudeville theaters. [13]

Rogers later recalled these early years:

I got a job on Hammerstein's Roof at $140 a week for myself, my horse, and the man who looked after it. I remained on the roof for eight weeks, always getting another two-week extension when Willie Hammerstein would say to me after the Monday matinee, 'you're good for two weeks more'. Marty Shea, the booking agent for the Columbia, came to me and asked if I wanted to play burlesque. They could use an extra attraction. I told him I would think about it, but 'Burlesque' sounded to me then as something funny." Shea and Sam A. Scribner, the general manager of the Columbia Amusement Company, approached Rogers a few days later. Shea told Scribner Rogers was getting $150 and would take $175. "'What's he carrying?', Scribner asked Shea. 'Himself, a horse, and a man', answered Shea." Scribner replied, "'Give him eight weeks at $250'". [15]

In the fall of 1915, Rogers began to appear in Florenz Ziegfeld's Midnight Frolic. The variety revue began at midnight in the top-floor night club of Ziegfeld's New Amsterdam Theatre, and drew many influential—and regular—customers. By this time, Rogers had refined his act. His monologues on the news of the day followed a similar routine every night. He appeared on stage in his cowboy outfit, nonchalantly twirling his lasso, and said, "Well, what shall I talk about? I ain't got anything funny to say. All I know is what I read in the papers." He would make jokes about what he had read in that day's newspapers. The line "All I know is what I read in the papers" is often incorrectly described as Rogers's most famous punch line, when it was his opening line. [16] [17]

His run at the New Amsterdam ran into 1916, and Rogers's growing popularity led to an engagement on the more famous Ziegfeld Follies. At this stage, Rogers's act was strictly physical, a silent display of daring riding and clever tricks with his lariat. He discovered that audiences identified the cowboy as the archetypical American—doubtless aided by Theodore Roosevelt's image as a cowboy. Rogers's cowboy was an unfettered man free of institutional restraints, with no bureaucrats to order his life. When he came back to the United States and worked in Wild West shows, he slowly began adding the occasional spoken ad lib, such as "Swingin' a rope's all right. if your neck ain't in it." Audiences responded to his laconic but pointed humor, and were just as fascinated by his frontier Oklahoma twang. By 1916, Rogers was a featured star in Ziegfeld's Follies on Broadway, as he moved into satire by transforming the "Ropin' Fool" to the "Talkin' Fool". At one performance, with President Woodrow Wilson in the audience, Rogers improvised a "roast" of presidential policies that had Wilson, and the entire audience, in stitches and proved his remarkable skill at off-the-cuff, witty commentary on current events. He built the rest of his career around that skill.

A 1922 editorial in The New York Times said that "Will Rogers in the Follies is carrying on the tradition of Aristophanes, and not unworthily." [18] Rogers branched into silent films too, for Samuel Goldwyn's company Goldwyn Pictures. He made his first silent movie, Laughing Bill Hyde (1918), which was filmed in Fort Lee, New Jersey. Many early films were filmed and produced in the New York area in those years. Rogers could make a film, yet easily still rehearse and perform in the Follies. He eventually appeared in most of the Follies, from 1916 to 1925.

Films Edit

Hollywood discovered Rogers in 1918, as Samuel Goldwyn gave him the title role in Laughing Bill Hyde. A three-year contract with Goldwyn, at triple the Broadway salary, moved Rogers west. He bought a ranch in Pacific Palisades and set up his own production company. While Rogers enjoyed film acting, his appearances in silent movies suffered from the obvious restrictions of silence, as he had gained his fame as a commentator on stage. He wrote many of the title cards appearing in his films. In 1923, he began a one-year stint for Hal Roach and made 12 pictures. Among the films he made for Roach in 1924 were three directed by Rob Wagner: Two Wagons Both Covered, Going to Congress, and Our Congressman. He made two other feature silents and a travelogue series in 1927. After that, he did not return to the screen until beginning work in the 'talkies' in 1929.

Rogers made 48 silent movies, but with the arrival of sound in 1929, he became a top star in that medium. His first sound film, They Had to See Paris (1929), gave him the chance to exercise his verbal wit. He played a homespun farmer (State Fair) in 1933, an old-fashioned doctor (Dr. Bull) in 1933, a small town banker (David Harum) in 1934, and a rustic politician (Judge Priest) in 1934. He was also in County Chairman (1935), Steamboat Round the Bend (1935), and In Old Kentucky (1935). His favorite director was John Ford.

Rogers appeared in 21 feature films alongside such noted performers as Lew Ayres, Billie Burke, Richard Cromwell, Jane Darwell, Andy Devine, Janet Gaynor, Rochelle Hudson, Boris Karloff, Myrna Loy, Joel McCrea, Hattie McDaniel, Ray Milland, Maureen O'Sullivan, ZaSu Pitts, Dick Powell, Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, Mickey Rooney, and Peggy Wood. He was directed three times by John Ford. He appeared in four films with his friend Stepin Fetchit (aka Lincoln T. Perry): David Harum (1934), Judge Priest (1934), Steamboat Round the Bend (1935) and The County Chairman (1935). [19]

With his voice becoming increasingly familiar to audiences, Rogers essentially played himself in each film, without film makeup, managing to ad-lib and sometimes work in his familiar commentaries on politics. The clean moral tone of his films resulted in various public schools taking their classes to attend special showings during the school day. His most unusual role may have been in the first talking version of Mark Twain's novel A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. His popularity soared to new heights with films including Young As You Feel, Judge Priest, and Life Begins at 40, with Richard Cromwell and Rochelle Hudson.

Newspapers and magazines Edit

Rogers was an indefatigable worker. He toured the lecture circuit. The New York Times syndicated his weekly newspaper column from 1922 to 1935. [20] Going daily in 1926, his short column "Will Rogers Says" reached 40 million newspaper readers. He also wrote frequently for the mass-circulation upscale magazine The Saturday Evening Post. Rogers advised Americans to embrace the frontier values of neighborliness and democracy on the domestic front, while remaining clear of foreign entanglements. He took a strong, highly popular stand in favor of aviation, including a military air force of the sort his flying buddy General Billy Mitchell advocated.

Rogers began a weekly column, titled "Slipping the Lariat Over", at the end of 1922. [21] He had already published a book of wisecracks and had begun a steady stream of humor books. [9] Through the columns for the McNaught Syndicate between 1922 and 1935, as well as his personal appearances and radio broadcasts, he won the loving admiration of the American people, poking jibes in witty ways at the issues of the day and prominent people—often politicians. He wrote from a nonpartisan point of view and became a friend of presidents and a confidant of the great. Loved for his cool mind and warm heart, he was often considered the successor to such greats as Artemus Ward and Mark Twain. Rogers was not the first entertainer to use political humor before his audience. Others, such as Broadway comedian Raymond Hitchcock and Britain's Sir Harry Lauder, preceded him by several years. Bob Hope is the best known political humorist to follow Rogers's example.

Radio Edit

Radio was the exciting new medium, and Rogers became a star there as well, broadcasting his newspaper pieces. From 1929 to 1935, he made radio broadcasts for the Gulf Oil Company. This weekly Sunday evening show, The Gulf Headliners, ranked among the top radio programs in the country. [22] Since Rogers easily rambled from one subject to another, reacting to his studio audience, he often lost track of the half-hour time limit in his earliest broadcasts, and was cut off in mid-sentence. To correct this, he brought in a wind-up alarm clock, and its on-air buzzing alerted him to begin wrapping up his comments. By 1935, his show was being announced as "Will Rogers and his Famous Alarm Clock".

In 1908, Rogers married Betty Blake (1879–1944), and the couple had four children: Will Rogers Jr., Mary Amelia, James Blake, and Fred Stone. Will Jr. became a World War II hero, played his father in two films, and was elected to Congress. Mary became a Broadway actress, and James "Jim" was a newspaperman and rancher Fred died of diphtheria at age two. [3] The family lived in New York, but they spent summers in Oklahoma. In 1911, Rogers bought a 20-acre (8.1 ha) ranch near Claremore, Oklahoma, which he intended to use as his retirement home. He paid US$500 an acre, equal to $13,888 per acre today. [3]

From about 1925 to 1928, Rogers traveled the length and breadth of the United States in a "lecture tour". (He began his lectures by pointing out that "A humorist entertains, and a lecturer annoys.") During this time he became the first civilian to fly from coast to coast with pilots flying the mail in early air mail flights. The National Press Club dubbed him "Ambassador at Large of the United States". He visited Mexico City, along with Charles Lindbergh, as a guest of U.S. Ambassador Dwight Morrow. Rogers gave numerous after-dinner speeches, became a popular convention speaker, and gave dozens of benefits for victims of floods, droughts, or earthquakes.

Rogers traveled to Asia to perform in 1931, and to Central and South America the following year. In 1934, he made a globe-girdling tour and returned to play the lead in Eugene O'Neill's stage play Ah, Wilderness!. He had tentatively agreed to go on loan from Fox to MGM to star in the 1935 movie version of the play. But, concerned about a fan's reaction to the "facts-of-life" talk between his character and the latter's son, he declined the role. He and Wiley Post made plans to fly to Alaska that summer.

Rogers was a Democrat, but has historically been known as apolitical. He supported Republican Calvin Coolidge as well as Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was his favorite president and politician. Although he supported Roosevelt's New Deal, he could just as easily joke about it:

Lord, the money we do spend on Government and it's not one bit better than the government we got for one-third the money twenty years ago. [23]

Rogers served as a goodwill ambassador to Mexico, and had a brief stint as mayor of Beverly Hills. The California city was incorporated, and thus run by an appointed city manager. The "mayor's office" was a ceremonial one: Rogers made more jokes about do-nothing politicians such as himself. During the depths of the Great Depression, angered by Washington's inability to feed the people, he embarked on a cross country fundraising tour for the Red Cross.

Presidential campaign, 1928 Edit

Rogers thought all campaigning was bunk. To prove the point, he mounted a mock campaign in 1928 for the presidency. His only vehicle was the pages of Life, a weekly humor magazine. Rogers ran as the "bunkless candidate" of the Anti-Bunk Party. His campaign promise was that, if elected, he would resign. Every week, from Memorial Day through Election Day, Rogers caricatured the farcical humors of grave campaign politics. On election day he declared victory and resigned (he did not actually receive any state electoral votes).

Asked what issues would motivate voters? Prohibition: "What's on your hip is bound to be on your mind" (July 26).

Asked if there should be presidential debates? Yes: "Joint debate—in any joint you name" (August 9).

How about appeals to the common man? Easy: "You can't make any commoner appeal than I can" (August 16).

What does the farmer need? Obvious: "He needs a punch in the jaw if he believes that either of the parties cares a damn about him after the election" (August 23).

Can voters be fooled? Darn tootin': "Of all the bunk handed out during a campaign the biggest one of all is to try and compliment the knowledge of the voter" (September 21).

What about a candidate's image? Ballyhoo: "I hope there is some sane people who will appreciate dignity and not showmanship in their choice for the presidency" (October 5).

What of ugly campaign rumors? Don't worry: "The things they whisper aren't as bad as what they say out loud" (October 12). [24]

After Rogers gained recognition as a humorist-philosopher in vaudeville, he gained a national audience in acting and literary careers from 1915 to 1935. In these years, Rogers increasingly expressed the views of the "common man" in America. He downplayed academic credentials, noting, "Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects." [25] Americans of all walks admired his individualism, his appreciation for democratic ideas, and his liberal philosophies on most issues. Moreover, Rogers extolled hard work in order to succeed, and such expressions affirmed American theories about how to realize individual success. Rogers symbolized the self-made man, the common man, who believed in America, in progress, and in the American Dream of upward mobility. His humor never offended even those who were the targets of it. [26]

In the 1920s, the United States was happy and prosperous in various ways [27] (leading to the nickname Roaring Twenties), but it also suffered from rapid change and social tensions. Some people were disenchanted by, and alienated from, the outside world. [27] Many common people believed that World War I had resulted in extensive and largely senseless carnage, and they supported isolationism for the US. According to scholar Peter Rollins (1976), Rogers appeared to be an anchor of stability his conventional home life and traditional moral code reminded people of a recent past. His newspaper column, which ran from 1922 to 1935, expressed his traditional morality and his belief that political problems were not as serious as they sounded. In his films, Rogers began by playing a simple cowboy his characters evolved to explore the meaning of innocence in ordinary life. In his last movies, Rogers explores a society fracturing into competing classes from economic pressures. Throughout his career, Rogers was a link to a better, more comprehensible past. [28]

In 1926, the high-circulation weekly magazine The Saturday Evening Post financed a European tour for Rogers, in return for publication of his articles. Rogers made whirlwind visits to numerous European capitals and met with both international figures and common people. His articles reflected a fear that Europeans would go to war again. He recommended isolationism for the United States. He reasoned that for the moment, American needs could best be served by concentrating on domestic questions and avoiding foreign entanglements. He commented:

America has a unique record. We never lost a war and we never won a conference in our lives. I believe that we could without any degree of egotism, single-handed lick any nation in the world. But we can't confer with Costa Rica and come home with our shirts on. [29]

Rogers was famous for his use of language. He effectively used up-to-date slang and invented new words to fit his needs. He also made frequent use of puns and terms which closely linked him to the cowboy tradition, as well as speech patterns using a southern dialect. [30]

Brown (1979) argues that Rogers held up a "magic mirror" that reflected iconic American values. Rogers was the archetypical "American Democrat" thanks to his knack of moving freely among all social classes, his stance above political parties, and his passion for fair play. He represented the "American Adam" with his independence and self-made record. Rogers furthermore represented the "American Prometheus" through his commitment to utilitarian methods and his ever-optimistic faith in future progress. [31]

Will Rogers became an advocate for the aviation industry after noticing advancements in Europe and befriending Charles Lindbergh, the most famous American aviator of the era. During his 1926 European trip, Rogers witnessed the European advances in commercial air service and compared them to the almost nonexistent facilities in the United States. Rogers' newspaper columns frequently emphasized the safety record, speed, and convenience of this means of transportation, and he helped shape public opinion on the subject. [32]

In 1935, the famed aviator Wiley Post, an Oklahoman, became interested in surveying a mail-and-passenger air route from the West Coast to Russia. He attached a Lockheed Explorer wing to a Lockheed Orion fuselage, fitting floats for landing in the lakes of Alaska and Siberia. Rogers visited Post often at the airport in Burbank, California, while he was modifying the aircraft. He asked Post to fly him through Alaska in search of new material for his newspaper column.

After making a test flight in July, Post and Rogers left Lake Washington in Renton in the Lockheed Orion-Explorer in early August and then made several stops in Alaska. While Post piloted the aircraft, Rogers wrote his columns on his typewriter. Before they left Fairbanks, they signed and mailed a burgee, a distinguishing flag belonging to the South Coast Corinthian Yacht Club. The signed burgee is on display at South Coast Corinthian Yacht Club in Marina del Rey, California. On August 15, they left Fairbanks for Point Barrow.

About 20 miles southwest of Point Barrow, having difficulty figuring their position due to bad weather, they landed in a lagoon to ask directions. On takeoff, the engine failed at low altitude, and the aircraft plunged into the lagoon, shearing off the right wing, and ended up inverted in the shallow water of the lagoon. Both men died instantly. Rogers was buried August 21, 1935, in Forest Lawn Park in Glendale, California [33] it was a temporary interment. He was reinterred at the Will Rogers Memorial in Claremore, Oklahoma.

Experts have studied the factors in the accident, and still disagree about it. Bobby H. Johnson and R. Stanley Mohler argued in a 1971 article that Post had ordered floats that did not reach Seattle in time for the planned trip. He used a set that was designed for a larger type of plane, making the already nose-heavy hybrid aircraft still more nose-heavy. [34] But, Bryan and Frances Sterling maintain in their 2001 book Forgotten Eagle: Wiley Post: America's Heroic Aviation Pioneer that their research showed the floats were the correct type for the aircraft, [35] thereby suggesting another cause for the crash.

In 1962, the town of Higgins, Texas (near a ranch where Rogers had worked in 1922), began an annual observance of Will Rogers Day, in honor of the cowboy philosopher, who remained a close friend of Frank Ewing, the son of his old employer.

Oklahoma honors Edit

Before his death, the state of Oklahoma commissioned a statue of Rogers, to be displayed as one of the two it has in the National Statuary Hall Collection of the United States Capitol. Rogers agreed on the condition that his image would be placed facing the House Chamber, supposedly so he could "keep an eye on Congress". Of the statues in this part of the Capitol, the Rogers sculpture is the only one facing the Chamber entrance—a stakeout location for camera crews looking to catch House members during and after voting. It is also a common background for reporters and lawmakers, with staff often directing the media to be at the “Will Rogers stakeout” at a certain time. According to some Capitol guides, each US president rubs the left shoe of the Rogers statue for good luck before entering the House Chamber to give the State of the Union address. [36]

A state appropriation paid for the work. It was sculpted in clay by Jo Davidson. He had been a close friend of Rogers. Davidson had the work cast in bronze in Brussels, Belgium. Dedicated on June 6, 1939, before a crowd of more than 2,000 people, the statue faces the floor entrance of the House of Representatives Chamber next to National Statuary Hall. The Architect of the Capitol, David Lynn, said there had never been such a large ceremony or crowd in the Capitol. [1]

His birthplace of the Dog Iron Ranch is located two miles east of Oologah, Oklahoma. When the Verdigris River valley was flooded to create Oologah Lake as part of a major dam project, the Rogers house was preserved by being moved about ¾ mile (1.2 km) to its present location overlooking the original site.

The family tomb is at the Will Rogers Memorial Museum, constructed in nearby Claremore on the site purchased by Rogers in 1911 for his retirement home. On May 19, 1944, [37] Rogers's body was moved from a holding vault in Glendale, California, [37] to the tomb. After his wife Betty died later that year, she was also interred there. A casting of the Davidson sculpture that stands in National Statuary Hall, paid for by Davidson, was installed at the museum. Both the birthplace and the museum are open to the public.

Many landmarks were named in Rogers' honor: Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City, where a recent expansion and renovation included the installation of a statue of Rogers on horseback in front of the terminal. The Will Rogers Turnpike is the section of Interstate 44 between Tulsa and Joplin, Missouri. Near Vinita, Oklahoma, a statue of Rogers was installed at the service plaza that spans the interstate.

Thirteen public schools in Oklahoma have been named for Rogers, including Will Rogers High School in Tulsa. The University of Oklahoma named the large Will Rogers Room in the student union for him. [38] The Boy Scouts of America honored him with the Will Rogers Council and the Will Rogers Scout Reservation near Cleveland.

In 1947, a college football bowl game was named in his honor, but the event folded after the first year.

The Academy of Western Artists, based in Gene Autry, Oklahoma, presents an annual Will Rogers Medallion award for excellence in western literature. [39]

Colorado memorial Edit

The Will Rogers Shrine of the Sun is the name of an 80-foot observation tower on Cheyenne Mountain west of Colorado Springs, at the base of Pikes Peak near the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo.

California memorials Edit

Rogers's California home, stables, and polo fields are preserved today for public enjoyment as Will Rogers State Historic Park in Pacific Palisades. His widow, Betty, willed the property to the state of California upon her death in 1944, under the condition that polo be played on the field every year it is home to the Will Rogers Polo Club. [40]

Several schools have been named for him: Will Rogers Elementary School in Santa Monica, Will Rogers Elementary School in Ventura, middle schools in Long Beach and in Fair Oaks.

Will Rogers Memorial Park, a small park at Sunset Boulevard and Beverly Drive in Beverly Hills, was named after him, as is Will Rogers State Beach in the Pacific Palisades.

U.S. Route 66 is known as the Will Rogers Highway a plaque dedicating the highway to the humorist is located at the western terminus of Route 66 in Santa Monica.

The California Theatre in San Bernardino is the site of the humorist's final show. He always performed in front of a special jewelled curtains and had two of them. While he was using one, he would send the other to the site of his next performance. The curtain used in his final show was retained by the California Theatre. Two memorial murals by Kent Twitchell were installed on the exterior of the fly loft. The California Theatre named one of its reception spaces as the Will Rogers Room.

Texas memorials Edit

The Will Rogers Memorial Center was built in Fort Worth, Texas, in 1936. It includes a mural, a bust and a life-size statue of Will Rogers on Soapsuds, titled Into the Sunset and sculpted by Electra Waggoner Biggs.

A casting of Into the Sunset stands at the entrance to the main campus quad at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas. This memorial was dedicated on February 16, 1950, by Rogers' longtime friend, Amon G. Carter. Another casting is held at the Will Rogers Memorial in Claremore, Oklahoma.

Washington State memorial Edit

A small monument at the Renton airport commemorates the starting point of the fatal 1935 Post-Rogers flight. [41]

National tributes Edit

In 1936, the NVA Hospital located in Saranac Lake, New York was renamed as the Will Rogers Memorial Hospital by the National Vaudeville Artists association. [42]

On November 4, 1948, the United States Post Office commemorated Rogers with a three-cent postage stamp. In 1979, it issued a United States Postal Service 15-cent stamp of him as part of the "Performing Arts" series.

In 1976, Rogers was among the historical figures depicted in the artwork Our Nation's 200th Birthday, The Telephone's 100th Birthday by Stanley Meltzoff for Bell System. [43]

The Barrow, Alaska airport (BRW), located about 16 miles (26 km) from the location of the fatal airplane crash, is known as the Wiley Post–Will Rogers Memorial Airport.

The Rogers-Post Site, overlooking the lagoon where the plane crashed, has two (or possibly one remaining) monuments. It is on the National Register of Historic Places. A plaque to Rogers and Post was also erected in Barrow.

The final ship of the Benjamin Franklin-class submarines, USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659) was launched in 1966, and commissioned the following year.

On November 4, 2019, Google celebrated his 140th birthday with a Google Doodle. [44]

Rogers was portrayed by A.A. Trimble in cameos in both the 1936 film The Great Ziegfeld, [45] and the 1937 film You're a Sweetheart. [46]

Rogers was portrayed by his son, Will Rogers Jr., in a cameo in the 1949 film Look for the Silver Lining, [47] and as the star of the 1952 film The Story of Will Rogers. [48]

James Whitmore portrayed Rogers in eight runs of the one-man play Will Rogers' USA between 1970 and 2000, including a limited run on Broadway in 1974, and as a television film in 1972. Whitmore changed the monologue each time he performed it, using quotations from Rogers as commentary on events current at the time of the performance. [49]

The Tony Award-winning musical The Will Rogers Follies, produced on Broadway in 1991, starred Keith Carradine in the lead role. Carradine also played Rogers in the 1994 film Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle. [50]

Silent films Edit

  • Laughing Bill Hyde (1918, film debut) - Bill Hyde
  • Almost a Husband (1919) - Sam Lyman
  • Jubilo (1919) - Jubilo
  • Water, Water, Everywhere (1919) - Billy Fortune
  • The Strange Boarder (1920) - Sam Gardner
  • Jes' Call Me Jim (1920) - Jim Fenton
  • Cupid the Cowpuncher (1920) - Alec Lloyd
  • Honest Hutch (1920) - Hutch
  • Guile of Women (1920) - Hjalmar Maartens
  • The Illiterate Digest (1920)
  • Boys Will Be Boys (1921) - Peep O'Day
  • An Unwilling Hero (1921) - Dick
  • Doubling for Romeo (1921) - Sam Cody / Romeo
  • A Poor Relation (1921) - Noah Vale
  • One Glorious Day (1922) - Professor Ezra Botts
  • The Ropin' Fool (1922, Short) - 'Ropes' Reilly (the ropin' fool)
  • The Headless Horseman (1922) - Ichabod Crane
  • Fruits of Faith (1922, Short) - Larry
  • One Day in 365 (1922, unreleased)
  • Hollywood (1923) - Himself
  • Jus' Passin' Through (1923, Short) - Jubilo
  • Hustling Hank (1923, Short) - Hank
  • Uncensored Movies (1923, Short) - Lem Skagwillow
  • Two Wagons Both Covered (1923, Short) - Bill Bunian / Joe Jackson
  • The Cowboy Sheik (1924, Short) - Two Straw Bill
  • The Cake Eater (1924, Short)
  • High Brow Stuff (1924, Short)
  • Going to Congress (1924, Short) - Alfalfa Doolittle
  • Don't Park There (1924, Short)
  • Big Moments From Little Pictures (1924, Short) - Himself / Rufus the bullfighter / Robin Hood / Son / Police Chief
  • Jubilo, Jr. (1924, Short) (part of the Our Gang series) - Himself
  • Our Congressman (1924, Short) - Alfalfa Doolittle
  • A Truthful Liar (1924, Short) - Ambassador Alfalfa Doolittle
  • Gee Whiz Genevieve (1924, Short)
  • Tip Toes (1927) - Uncle Hen Kaye
  • A Texas Steer (1927) - Cattle Brander
  • In Dublin (1927, Short) - Himself
  • In Paris (1927, Short) - Himself
  • Hiking Through Holland (1927, Short) - Himself
  • Hunting For Germans In Berlin (1927, Short) - Himself
  • Through Switzerland And Bavaria (1927, Short) - Himself
  • In London (1927, Short) - Himself
  • Roaming The Emerald Isle (1927, Short) - Himself
  • Prowling Around France (1927, Short) - Himself
  • Winging Round Europe (1927, Short) - Himself
  • Exploring England (1927, Short) - Himself
  • Reeling Down The Rhine (1927, Short) - Himself
  • Over The Bounding Blue (1928, Short) - Himself

Sound films Edit

  • Happy Days (1929) - Minstrel Show Performer
  • They Had to See Paris (1929) - Pike Peters
  • So This Is London (1930) - Hiram Draper
  • Lightnin' (1930) - Lightnin' Bill Jones
  • A Connecticut Yankee (1931) - Hank Martin
  • Young as You Feel (1930) - Lemuel Morehouse
  • Ambassador Bill (1931) - Bill Harper
  • Business and Pleasure (1932) - Earl Tinker
  • Down to Earth (1932) - Pike Peters
  • Too Busy to Work (1932) - Jubilo
  • State Fair (1933) - Abel Frake
  • Doctor Bull (1933) - Dr. George 'Doc' Bull
  • Mr. Skitch (1933) - Mr. Ira Skitch
  • David Harum (1934) - David Harum
  • Handy Andy (1934) - Andrew Yates
  • Judge Priest (1934) - Judge Priest
  • The County chairman (1935) - Jim Hackler
  • Life Begins at 40 (1935) - Kenesaw H. Clark
  • Doubting Thomas (1935) - Thomas Brown
  • Steamboat Round the Bend (1935) - Doctor John Pearly
  • In Old Kentucky (1935) - Steve Tapley (final film role)

Biographies Edit

  • Carnes, Mark C. Will Rogers and "His" America (2010).
  • Ketchum, Richard M. Will Rogers: His Life and Times (1973)
  • O'Brien, P. J. (1935). Will Rogers, Ambassador of Good Will Prince of Wit and Wisdom. online edition
  • Robinson, Ray (1996).American Original: A Life of Will Rogers. 288 pp. online edition
  • Rogers, Betty (1941). Will Rogers: His Story As Told By His Wife. 312 pp.
  • Rollins, Peter C. (1984). Will Rogers: A Bio-Bibliography. Greenwood, 282 pp. , and Frances N. Sterling (1989). Will Rogers' World. (1993). Will Rogers: A Biographyexcerpt and text search

Scholarly studies Edit

  • Brown, William R. (1979). "Will Rogers and His Magic Mirror". Chronicles of Oklahoma. 57 (3): 300–25.
  • Coleman, Timothy S. "All We Know of Nation Is What We See in the Pictures: Will Rogers and the National Imaginary in 1920s and 1930s America". PhD dissertation, Wayne State U. 2003. 183 pp. DAI 2004 64(12): 4245-A. DA3116488 Fulltext: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
  • Jenkins, Ronald Scott. "Representative Clowns: Comedy and Democracy in America". PhD dissertation Harvard U. 1984. 208 pp. DAI 1984 45(4): 1187-A. DA8416931 Fulltext: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
  • Johnson, Bobby H. and R. Stanley Mohler. "Wiley Post, His Winnie Mae, and the World's First Pressure Suit". Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1971.
  • Roach, Fred, Jr. "Will Rogers' Youthful Relationship with His Father, Clem Rogers: a Story of Love and Tension". Chronicles of Oklahoma 1980 58(3): 325–42. 0009-6024
  • Roach, Fred Jr (1979). "Vision of the Future: Will Rogers' Support of Commercial Aviation". Chronicles of Oklahoma. 57 (3): 340–64.
  • Rollins, Peter C. "Will Rogers: Symbolic Man, Journalist, and Film Image". Journal of Popular Culture 1976 9(4): 851–77.
  • Rollins, Peter C. (1979). "Will Rogers, Ambassador sans Portfolio: Letters from a Self-made Diplomat to His President". Chronicles of Oklahoma. 57 (3): 326–39.
  • Smallwood, James M. (1988). "Will Rogers of Oklahoma: Spokesman for the 'Common Man ' ". Journal of the West. 27 (2): 45–49.
  • Southard, Bruce (1979). "Will Rogers and the Language of the Southwest: a Centennial Perspective". Chronicles of Oklahoma. 57 (3): 365–75.
  • Ware, Amy (2009). "Unexpected Cowboy, Unexpected Indian: The Case of Will Rogers". Ethnohistory. 56 (1): 1–34. doi: 10.1215/00141801-2008-034 .

Books by Rogers Edit

  • Rogers, Will (1975) [1924]. Joseph A. Stout, Jr. (ed.). Rogers-isms: The Cowboy Philosopher On Prohibition. Stillwater: Oklahoma State University Press. ISBN0-914956-06-X .
  • Rogers, Will (2003) [1924]. Illiterate Digest. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN978-0-7661-4321-0 .
  • Rogers, Will (1977) [1926]. Joseph A. Stout (ed.). Letters of a Self-Made Diplomat To His President. Stillwater: Oklahoma State University Press. ISBN0-914956-09-4 .
  • Rogers, Will (1982). Steven K. Gragert (ed.). More letters of a self-made diplomat. Stillwater: Oklahoma State University Press. ISBN978-0-914956-22-8 .
  • Rogers, Will (1927). There's Not A Bathing Suit in Russia.
  • Rogers, Will (1982) [1928]. "He chews to run": Will Rogers' Life magazine articles, 1928 . Stillwater: Oklahoma State University Press. ISBN0-914956-20-5 .
  • Rogers, Will (1983). Steven K. Gragert (ed.). Radio Broadcasts of Will Rogers. Stillwater: Oklahoma State University Press. ISBN0-914956-24-8 .
  • Sterling, Bryan and Frances (2001). Forgotten Eagle: Wiley Post: America's Heroic Aviation Pioneer. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers. ISBN0-7867-0894-8 .
  • Rogers, Will (1926). Letters of a Self-Made Diplomat to His Presidentonline edition
  • Rogers, Will, and Joseph H. Carter. Never Met a Man I Didn't Like (1991) excerpt and text search
  • Rogers, Will. Will Rogers at the Ziegfeld Follies. ed. by Arthur Frank Wertheim, (1992). 288 pp.
  • Rogers, Will. Will Rogers' Weekly Articles. Vol. 1, The Harding/Coolidge Years, 1922–1925. ed. by James M. Smallwood, (1980). 431 pp.
  • Rogers, Will. Will Rogers' Weekly Articles. Vol. 2: The Coolidge Years, 1925–1927. ed. by Steven K. Gragert, (1980). 368 pp.
  • Rogers, Will. Will Rogers' Weekly Articles. Vol. 3: The Coolidge Years, 1927–1929. ed. by Steven K. Gragert, (1981). 304 pp.
  • Rogers, Will. Will Rogers' Weekly Articles. Vol. 4: The Hoover Years, 1929–1931. ed. by Steven K. Gragert, (1981). 278 pp.
  • Rogers, Will. Will Rogers' Daily Telegrams. Vol. l, The Coolidge Years, 1926–1929. ed. by James M. Smallwood, 1978. 453 pp.
  • Rogers, Will. Will Rogers' Daily Telegrams. Vol. 4, The Roosevelt Years, 1933–1935. ed. by James M. Smallwood, (1979). 457 pp.
  • Rogers, Will. Convention Articles of Will Rogers. ed. by Joseph A. Stout, 1976. 174 pp.
  • Rogers, Will. The Writings of Will Rogers. Volume 3: Illiterate Digest. ed. by Joseph A. Stout, Jr., 1974. 230 pp. online edition
  • Rogers, Will. Autobiography (1948), ed. by Donald Day 410 pp online edition
  • Rogers, Will. Rogers-isms: the Cowboy Philosopher on the Peace Conference, (1919). Online at Project Gutenberg
  • Sterling, Bryan B., and Frances N. Sterling, eds. Will Rogers Speaks: Over 1,000 Timeless Quotations for Public Speakers (And Writers, Politicians Comedians, Browsers) (1995).
  • The Papers of Will Rogers
    • Rogers, Will (1996). Steven K. Gragert and M. Jane Johansson (ed.). The Papers of Will Rogers: The Early Years : November 1879 – April 1904 . Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN978-0-8061-2745-3 .
    • Rogers, Will (2000). Steven K. Gragert M. Jane Johansson (eds.). Papers of Will Rogers : Wild West and Vaudeville, April 1904 –September 1908, Volume Two . Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN978-0-8061-3267-9 .
    • Rogers, Will (2005). Steven K. Gragert M. Jane Johansson (eds.). The Papers of Will Rogers: From Broadway to the National Stage, September 1915 – July 1928. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN978-0-8061-3704-9 .
    • Rogers, Will (2005). Steven K. Gragert M. Jane Johansson (eds.). The Papers of Will Rogers: From Broadway to the National Stage, September 1915 – July 1928. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN978-0-8061-3704-9 .
    • Rogers, Will (2006). Steven K. Gragert M. Jane Johansson (eds.). The Papers of Will Rogers: The Final Years, August 1928 – August 1935. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN978-0-8061-3768-1 .

    Articles by Rogers Edit

    1. ^ ab
    2. Curtis, Gene (June 5, 2007). "Only in Oklahoma: Rogers statue unveiling filled U.S. Capitol". Tulsa World . Retrieved July 21, 2007 .
    3. ^ abc
    4. "RSU and Will Rogers Museum to Discuss Possible Merger" (Press release). Rogers State University. April 18, 2007. Archived from the original on November 7, 2007 . Retrieved July 20, 2007 .
    5. ^ abc
    6. Schlachtenhaufen, Mark (May 31, 2007). "Will Rogers grandson carries on tradition of family service". OkInsider.com. Oklahoma Publishing Company. Archived from the original on September 28, 2007 . Retrieved July 21, 2007 .
    7. ^
    8. Video: Man of the Year 1935: Will Rogers. Man of the Year (TV Show). 1945 . Retrieved February 21, 2012 .
    9. ^
    10. Ben Yagoda (2000). Will Rogers: A Biography. pp. xiii, 190. ISBN9780806132389 .
    11. ^
    12. Keyes, Ralph (2006). The Quote Verifier: Who Said What, Where, and When. New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 125. ISBN978-0-312-34004-9 .
    13. ^ 1930, in Paula McSpadden Love, The Will Rogers Book (1972), pp. 166–67
    14. ^ Yagoda, p. 8
    15. ^ abcde
    16. "Adventure Marked Life of Humorist". The New York Times. August 17, 1935 . Retrieved July 20, 2007 .
    17. ^ Carter, Joseph H. and Larry Gatlin. The Quotable Will Rogers. Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith, Publisher, 2005:20.
    18. ^"Origin of County Names in Oklahoma". Oklahoma History Society's Chronicles of Oklahoma. 2:1, March 1924 (Retrieved January 18, 2009)
    19. ^ Fred Roach, Jr., "Will Rogers’ Youthful Relationship with His Father, Clem Rogers: a Story of Love and Tension", Chronicles of Oklahoma 1980 58(3): 325–42. 0009-6024
    20. ^ abc
    21. "Chewing Gum and Rope in the Temple". The New York Times. October 3, 1915. p. 90.
    22. ^ Yagoda, p. 56
    23. ^ Will Rogers on Sam Scribner, January 1925 newspaper article, New York City
    24. ^
    25. Ratcliffe, Susan, ed. (2017). Oxford Essential Quotations (5 ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN9780191843730 . Retrieved March 15, 2021 .
    26. ^
    27. Rogers, Will (September 30, 1923). "Slipping the Lariat Over". The New York Times.
    28. ^
    29. "Give A Thought To Will". The New York Times. November 13, 1922. p. 13.
    30. ^
    31. Lamparski, Richard (1982). Whatever Became Of . Eighth Series. New York: Crown Publishers. pp. 106–07. ISBN0-517-54855-0 .
    32. ^
    33. "Will Rogers: Weekly Articles". www.willrogers.com. Will Rogers Memorial Museums. July 1, 2012. Archived from the original on July 1, 2012.
    34. ^
    35. Rogers, Will (December 31, 1922). "Slipping the Lariat Over (December 31, 1922)". The New York Times.
    36. ^
    37. "Will Rogers: Radio Pundit". www.willrogers.com. Will Rogers Memorial Museums. March 31, 2008. Archived from the original on October 15, 2008.
    38. ^ Paula McSpadden Love, The Will Rogers Book, (1972) p. 20.
    39. ^ James E. Combs and Dan Nimmo, The Comedy of Democracy (1996) pp. 60–61
    40. ^ Paula McSpadden Love, The Will Rogers Book, (1972) p. 119.
    41. ^ James M. Smallwood, "Will Rogers of Oklahoma: Spokesman for the 'Common Man'", Journal of the West 1988 27(2): 45–49. 0022-5169
    42. ^ ab
    43. Bryson, Bill (2013), One Summer: America, 1927, Doubleday, ISBN978-0767919401 , OCLC841198242
    44. ^ Peter C. Rollins, "Will Rogers: Symbolic Man, Journalist, and Film Image". Journal of Popular Culture 1976 9(4): 851–77. online
    45. ^ Peter C. Rollins, "Will Rogers, Ambassador sans Portfolio: Letters from a Self-made Diplomat to His President", Chronicles of Oklahoma 1979 57(3): 326–39. Quote from Paula McSpadden Love, The Will Rogers Book, (1972) p. 177.
    46. ^
    47. Southard, Bruce (1979). "Will Rogers and the Language of the Southwest: a Centennial Perspective". Chronicles of Oklahoma. 57 (3): 365–75.
    48. ^
    49. Brown, William R. (1979). "Will Rogers and His Magic Mirror". Chronicles of Oklahoma. 57 (3): 300–25.
    50. ^
    51. Roach, Fred Jr (1979). "Vision of the Future: Will Rogers' Support of Commercial Aviation". Chronicles of Oklahoma. 57 (3): 340–64.
    52. ^
    53. "Will Rogers' Burial". The Philadelphia Inquirer. September 19, 1936. p. 6 . Retrieved March 8, 2017 – via Newspapers.com.
    54. ^ Johnson, Bobby H. and R. Stanley Mohler, "Wiley Post, His Winnie Mae, and the World's First Pressure Suit"., Annals of Flight, Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1971.
    55. ^
    56. Sterling, Bryan and Frances (2001). Forgotten Eagle: Wiley Post: America's Heroic Aviation Pioneer. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers. ISBN0-7867-0894-8 .
    57. ^
    58. "Police Dept., police explorers strolls through the streets of the U.S. Capitol, stops for visits". The Anderson Independent-Mail. July 18, 2007. Archived from the original on September 30, 2007 . Retrieved July 20, 2007 .
    59. ^ ab
    60. "Body of Will Rogers to be Sent Home". The Daily Tribune. May 19, 1944. p. 1 . Retrieved March 8, 2017 – via Newspapers.com.
    61. ^
    62. "Oklahoma Memorial Union – Will Rogers Room". Union.ou.edu . Retrieved August 14, 2009 .
    63. ^
    64. "Will Rogers Medallion Award". cowboypoetry.com . Retrieved July 3, 2012 .
    65. ^
    66. "Will Rogers Polo Club". Archived from the original on April 29, 2009.
    67. ^Point of No Return: The Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base (Renton)
    68. ^
    69. Raymond W. Smith (July 1983). "National Register of Historic Places Registration: Will Rogers Memorial Hospital". New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Archived from the original on January 27, 2012 . Retrieved July 10, 2010 .
    70. ^"Stanley Meltzoff Archives: The 1976 Bell System Telephone Book Cover"JKL Museum of Telephony (December 19, 2015) retrieved March 16, 2021
    71. ^
    72. "Will Rogers' 140th Birthday". Google. November 4, 2019.
    73. ^
    74. "The Great Ziegfeld (1936) Full Cast & Crew". IMDb . Retrieved April 15, 2019 .
    75. ^
    76. "You're a Sweetheart (1937) Full Cast & Crew". IMDb . Retrieved April 15, 2019 .
    77. ^
    78. "Look for the Silver Lining (1949) Full Cast & Crew". IMDb . Retrieved April 15, 2019 .
    79. ^
    80. "The Story of Will Rogers (1952) Full Cast & Crew". IMDb . Retrieved April 15, 2019 .
    81. ^ Dennis McClellan, "James Whitmore dies at 87 veteran award-winning actor brought American icons to the screen", Los Angeles Times, February 7, 2009.
    82. ^
    83. "Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle (1994) Full Cast & Crew". IMDb . Retrieved April 15, 2019 .
    84. ^
    85. "Will Rogers: A Biography". C-SPAN. September 25, 1994 . Retrieved March 21, 2017 .
    • "Humor’s sober side: Being an interview with Will Rogers, another of a series on how humorists get that way by Josephine Van de Grift," Bisbee Daily Review, October 15, 1922, p. 4.
    • O'Brien, P. J. (1935). Will Rogers: Ambassador of Good Will, Prince of Wit and Wisdom . N.P.: Winston. [ISBN missing]
    • "Claim Will Rogers Is Free To Insult Race Under Agreement". Kansas City (MO) Plaindealer, February 2, 1934, p. 2.
    • "Protest Will Rogers' Radio Speech". Pittsburgh Courier, January 27, 1934, p. 1.
    • Sterling, Bryan B., and Frances N. Sterling, eds. (1995). Will Rogers Speaks: Over 1,000 Timeless Quotations for Public Speakers (And Writers, Politicians Comedians, Browsers). 0871317958
    • "Will Rogers Hurls Back A Second Insult". Baltimore Afro-American, February 3, 1934, p. 1.
    • Yagoda, Ben (2000). Will Rogers: A Biography. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN978-0-8061-3238-9 .

    All references to Will Rogers concerned with early life and the annual celebration in or around Higgins,Texas are taken from the Texas State Historical Association.


    The Catch-22 of unleaded avgas

    To PB or not to PB, that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler to endure the pings and knock of inadequate octane in our airplanes’ engines or to rise up and add lead to suppress them.

    If you look at a periodic table, most elements are identified by the first letter of the name. But some are less obvious. For instance, PB is the symbol for lead. When they were laying out the periodic table, they thought that one of the major uses for lead was a carpenter’s plumb bob and so they decided to use PB.

    Lead as a soft low melting temperature metal has many uses in batteries, shot gun shells, auto body filler, etc. It is also used as an additive in paint and gasoline. But lead can be a health hazard if it enters a person’s bloodstream. So why is it so widely used?

    The main answer is that lead, in most forms, will not enter the bloodstream, so is safe to use — if done properly.

    In the 1920s and 1930s, there was a lot of work on developing an anti-knock additive for fuel. Scientists found that many metal compounds, such as copper, iron, and lead, would increase the apparent octane of gasoline.

    The interesting part is that no one really knows how the metals work. The best answer I have heard is that they quench the pre-flame reaction which, in turn, reduces the temperature and pressure in the end gasses.

    But each of the metals had some very negative effects on engine life. Tetraethyl lead (TEL) was selected because scientists discovered that bromine and chlorine compounds would scavenge the lead through the burn process. The resulting compound could be expelled from the engine and the particles would fall to the ground.

    With the need for higher octane fuel in military aircraft, TEL was adopted for almost all aircraft fuels and was a big advantage for Allied fighter aircraft in World War II. After the war, automotive manufacturers found they could increase performance in their cars with higher compression engines, so an octane race among fuel suppliers began.

    A GA pilot takes a fuel sample from an under-wing drain using a GATS Jar fuel sampler. The blue dye indicates that this fuel is 100LL.

    The fuel refineries quickly found that adding TEL was the cheapest way to increase octane, so almost all mogas became leaded.

    But in the late 1960s, there was a push to remove lead from mogas based on the theory that lead can be bad, so just get rid of it.

    There were a lot of studies done to prove the health hazard of leaded gasoline, but none proved any thing conclusive. The one I remember was where blood samples from cab drivers in New York who worked in exhaust fumes all day was compared to blood samples from people living in areas of the world where there were no cars at all. There was no difference in lead levels between the two groups.

    Some people do not let facts get in the way, so they continued to demand unleaded fuel, saying if you produce it, we will buy it.

    In 1970, Shell introduced an unleaded grade of gasoline called Shell of the Future (SOF). It had an octane two to three numbers below regular leaded fuel, but cost a couple of cents more per gallon.

    The inside joke in the oil industry was: Knock Knock. Who’s there? Shell of the Future.

    As it turned out, all of the people who called for an unleaded fuel stayed away in droves. In many gas stations we had to pump the fuel out of the tanks because it was turning bad due to aging. After a year or two, SOF became GOP, gasoline of the past.

    It was not until 1975 or 1976 when cars came equipped with catalytic exhaust converters that were poisoned by the lead in the exhaust. That led the federal government to mandate unleaded fuel, eventually outlawing leaded mogas.

    In 2021, the only fuels with lead are avgas and racing fuels. In a recent report by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, researchers used all of the correct buzz phrases, such as avgas is the biggest polluter of lead, can be inhaled, etc. But they still have no data to back up their suppositions. They just know that it sounds bad.

    The media keeps saying we need to base decisions on science. But science is based on data, not what sounds good.

    So, what should we do based on the facts and data that we have?

    That answer is very simple: Nothing. Make no change at all.

    If the fuel industry introduces an unleaded avgas, it will not satisfy all of the aircraft in the fleet. Plus, there is the very real problem of exhaust valve recession. Lead byproducts of combustion coat the exhaust valve and seat interface. This prevents the valve from grinding into the valve seat and recessing into the head. Without the lead, exhaust valves recess into the head until valve burning occurs.

    Another issue: FBOs will need two grades of fuel if they are going to offer unleaded fuel, which will require two separate tanks. If they stay with just one fuel, they, in all probability, will stay with 100LL.

    So, unless the government mandates unleaded fuel, not much will change. If the government does mandate unleaded fuel in aviation, it will probably shut down a large percent of the fleet. Kind of a Catch 22 isn’t it?

    Ben Visser

    Ben Visser is an aviation fuels and lubricants expert who spent 33 years with Shell Oil. He has been a private pilot since 1985.


    Record Unit 330

    Collection Overview

    These records consist of the correspondence files of the Aeronautics Department, 1966-1986, arranged alphabetically. They document the day-to-day concerns with exhibitions, loans, and research through a period which included planning for the new museum, moving, installation of many major exhibition halls, and the emergence of NASM as the most popular museum in the world. Also included are internal memoranda, the Milestones of Flight First Day Cover series, files of correspondence with artists and modelers, and a few subject files.

    Historical Note

    In July 1966 President Lyndon Johnson signed into law a bill authorizing construction of a new building for the newly-renamed National Air and Space Museum (NASM). It had been twenty years since the National Air Museum was established, also by law, in 1946. During that period the growing collection had been exhibited partly in the Smithsonian's Arts and Industries Building and partly in a hangar, known since World War I as the Aircraft Building, in the south yard of the Smithsonian Castle. Additional aircraft and reference materials were in storage at Silver Hill, Maryland. S. Paul Johnston, who became Director of the Museum in 1964, initiated a Master Plan in 1965 which called for reorganization and improvement at Silver Hill, improvement of exhibitions on the Mall, and planning for the new building.

    There had been a Section of Aeronautics under the old administrative hierarchy since 1933. Paul E. Garber, who had joined the staff of the Institution in 1919, had risen to Assistant Curator of Aeronautics. By 1966, Garber's title was Assistant Director (Education and Information), and Aeronautics was divided into three parts: Flight Craft, Flight Materiel, and Flight Propulsion, headed by curators Louis S. Casey, Kenneth E. Newland, and Robert B. Meyer, respectively. Garber officially retired in 1969 but remained as Historian Emeritus and Ramsey Research Associate into the 1990s. With Garber's retirement, Casey became Acting Assistant Director, while Frank A. Taylor succeeded Johnston, becoming Acting Director in 1970.

    Meanwhile, the Apollo 11 voyage to the moon of 1969 helped fuel the desire for building the new Air and Space Museum. Ex-astronaut Michael Collins was named Director in 1971, a ground-breaking ceremony was held in November 1972, and the entire staff began detailed preparations for an expected opening during the 1976 Bicentennial.

    The plans for the new museum called for twenty-three exhibit halls, many of which were related to aeronautics, making aircraft restoration and exhibit preparation the major concerns of this period.

    In 1975 the staff moved into the new building and completed installation of the exhibits in time for the July 1, 1976 opening.

    The late 1970s and the early 1980s were a period of new emphasis on historical and scientific research. The Charles A. Lindbergh Chair of Aerospace History was established in 1977, and Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith, Keeper Emeritus of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, became the first occupant. An international fellowship was established, along with the Verville Fellowship. Various symposia on figures such as Lindbergh, the Wright Brothers, and Amelia Earhart were held, and the General Electric Lecture Series began. In 1980 the department held a seminar on Forty Years of Jet Aviation. The Aeronautics Department initiated a new aviation book series, Famous Aircraft of the National Air and Space Museum, and plans were made to issue a bibliography called a Guide to Aerospace History Sources. In 1986 NASM announced the establishment of the National Air and Space Archives, a national center for research in aerospace history.

    Donald S. Lopez was named Assistant Director (Aeronautics) in 1972. In 1980 his title was changed to Chairman, Aeronautics Department. Paul Garber had been named Historian Emeritus. By the late 1970s, the department included Curators Walter J. Boyne, Louis S. Casey, Robert B. Meyer, Jr., Robert C. Mikesh, Claudia M. Oakes, Edmund T. Wooldridge, and C. Glen Sweeting. In 1981 curators Tom D. Crouch and Von D. Hardesty joined the aeronautics staff, and Boyne became Assistant Director of the Museum, now led by Noel Hinners. In 1982 Boyne became Acting Director and then Director of the Museum in 1983, with Donald S. Lopez becoming Deputy Director, and Edmund T. Wooldridge, Jr., Chairman of the Aeronautics Department. Wooldridge served as Chairman of the Department, 1983-1986.

    Descriptive Entry

    These records document the history of the Department of Aeronautics from 1966-1986, a period marked by intensive planning for the new museum, its construction and opening in July 1976, and the emergence of the National Air and Space Museum as a large and important bureau of the Smithsonian and the most visited museum in the world.

    At the beginning of this period, departmental correspondence with any person or group outside the Institution was maintained in one file on a year-by-year basis. Later, it was separated into correspondence with persons, with other museums, with organizations and corporations, and with the military. In this collection, all correspondence dated 1966-1976 has been combined into one series. Correspondence dated 1977-1986 is separated into four series, divided as above, arranged alphabetically. Internal memoranda are arranged chronologically. Also included in the collection are files concerning the Milestones of Flight First Day Cover Series, 1972-1981 a file of correspondence with artists and modelers, 1966-1978 and a few miscellaneous subject files.

    Although a large portion of this correspondence consists of fairly routine requests for information from the public, there is also much concerning specimens and serious aviation research. The latter reflects the growing commitment of the Aeronautics staff to research. The records document some on-going controversies of aeronautical history, such as that regarding Amelia Earhart's last voyage and, more importantly, the claims that Gustav Whitehead flew before the Wright Brothers.

    The internal memoranda are a particularly rich source of information on the day-to-day operations of the Department. They concern everything from yearly goals and long-range projects to the small details of exhibits upkeep. The planning for the new building is evident even in 1966, and it remains a central focus, gathering momentum. The memoranda provide documentation of the task of planning so many galleries at the same time, coordinating the move, and achieving the opening - on schedule.

    For earliest records of the National Air Museum, researchers should consult Record Unit 162. Other records documenting the time covered in this collection include those of the Office of the Director, Record Units 306 and 338 the Department of Astronautics (later Space Science and Exploration, and Space History), Record Units 347, 348, and 398 and the Contractors' Files, Record Unit 358.

    Index Terms

    This collection is indexed under the following access terms. These are links to collections with related topics, persons or places.


    Jack 'Pap' Papesh on B-17 Engine - History


    If you thought that the saga of cold fusion was bizarre, labyrinthian, and astonishing with its mother-lode of unexpected findings— from nuclear-scale excess heat to the rebirth of alchemy in low-energy nuclear transmutation, discoveries alternately persecuted or ignored by the scientific establishment— the cold fusion adventure doesn't hold a nuclear candle to the story of Joseph Papp and his noble gas engine. The Papp engine saga seems to have had its roots in the 1950s, but it only came into public view in 1968. And, strangely enough, there may well be an underlying physics that links elements of the two stories and their profoundly heretical science. Pathological skeptics of cold fusion— and perhaps some cold fusion researchers— may laugh at or recoil from this synthesis, but they will be treading on thin ice.

    One of the best overviews of the Papp story appeared in California's San Jose Mercury News newspaper on August 27, 1989. We have reprinted David Ansley's exemplary account, which was triggered by the cold fusion announcement some four months earlier (p. 14). Read Ansley's piece to get the gist of what had happened up to mid-1989 with the Papp engine. We also reprint a well done story that ran much earlier in Private Pilot, in December 1968 (p. 49). But the Papp saga has progressed far beyond those days, hence we are devoting a substantial portion of this issue of Infinite Energy just to begin to recount the tale of the Papp engine as it has never been done before. There is very likely to be more to come. . .so stay tuned. (We are looking into the possibility of preparing a DVD made from video tapes of Papp's demonstrations already in our possession and from present day experiments, if permissions can be obtained.) This editor has been aware of claims about the Papp engine since about 1992, but it has only been within the past three years that sufficient information has emerged to change my view from curious onlooker to acceptance of the engine's validity.

    The basic "problem" with cold fusion is, of course, that water in contact with metals with a bit of low voltage electrical excitation is not supposed to make nuclear reactions and release huge thermal excess energy per atom of presumed reactant. The problem with Papp's noble gas engine is that the noble gases employed— argon, helium, krypton, neon, and xenon— are essentially non-reactive chemical elements (except in certain exotic combinations known to modern chemists) that's why they are called noble. How can such gases, "pre-treated" or otherwise, explode with unusual violence and drive a reciprocating single-cycle engine— a retrofit device from an ordinary gasoline engine (lubricated with oil to be sure), but one with no cooling system, no fuel system, and no exhaust? On its face, Papp's engine appears inconceivable— until the evidence is weighed very carefully. Once the battery-driven electric starter revved up the Papp engine (according to dozens of initially skeptical witnesses), the engine— equipped with an alternator— ran with no outside electrical input. And, even if such "miracle" reactions of noble gases should produce interminable explosions from a tiny volume of gas, pushing pistons and driving a large flywheel, why didn't such an engine run very hot? It didn't. What about the supposed need for a much lower temperature reservoir to make this "heat" engine work at all? If the engine is a monumental "fraud," it is a very, very challenging one to try to pull off.

    In the Beginning
    How to begin? Let's try this synopsis: A technically schooled draftsman and ex-pilot, Josef Papp (pronounced "Pop" in proper Hungarian), emigrated from Hungary to Canada in 1957 after the ill-fated anti-Communist revolt and Soviet invasion of his country. Perhaps he may have made paper or microfiche copies of documents relating to some sensitive R&D projects in Hungary and he took them with him to the New World? That's only educated speculation. Otherwise, if his independently developed ideas really worked, as they seem to have, he was either extremely lucky in finding a hidden secret of Nature, or he was an unfathomable genius. He did not seem like the latter. From all accounts, he was an extremely paranoid, very unstable, selfish, and unpredictable man, who was probably one of his own worst enemies. There is little evidence that he understood the physics of what he had, but however the process was developed— it seemed to have worked in a way that seems "too good to be true"— it was an almost fully formed new energy technology that came very close to coming under the wings of some of the world's largest technology corporations.

    The story entered its second phase with what seems like a preposterous diversion: In Canada in the early 1960s, Papp worked secretively to develop a mysterious, sleek "submarine" that looks like something out of a "Star Wars" movie. He claimed that he would cross the Atlantic with it in much less than a day— that's what he told Canadian television. (It was a big media story in Canada in the summer of 1966, but most of you probably missed it, though Papp wrote a now hard-to find book about the episode, entitled The Fastest Submarine.) Then he disappeared. Within days, Papp was found by authorities bloodied and floating on a rubber raft off the coast of France. Papp claims to have made the ocean crossing in only thirteen hours after he left North America. Where was the wondrous submarine? "Lost at sea," of course, according to Papp. The fantastic claim was soon debunked in a very embarrassing way— but, in truth, no one has ever found the submarine either in Canada or in the Atlantic. Why Papp thought he could get away with this stunt and how this episode seems to clash with what comes next— the scientifically interesting part of the Papp saga— is a mystery and may forever be. Papp is dead— cancer took him on April 13, 1989, three weeks after Fleischmann and Pons announced cold fusion.

    But apart from this embarrassing, bizarre episode with the submarine, Papp left behind one of the most tantalizing legacies in the history of free energy: There exists nearly rock-solid evidence now that Papp really had managed to build a robust engine of over 100 horsepower (75 kilowatts) that was "fueled" by a mixture of, we believe, "pre-treated" noble gases (probably mixed with some air). Though it had no exhaust and no cooling system, it had huge torque even at low RPM (776 foot-pounds at only 726 RPM, the result of one certified test— see Exhibit A.) [Exhibits from this Introduction to the Issue 51 cover story are not available on the website.] Dozens of astonished engineers, scientists, and investors— even a Federal judge with an engineering background was blown away by it— have seen the engine working in closed rooms for hours, which would have killed its occupants with toxic gases had it been a hydrocarbon-fuel engine. There was absolutely no exhaust, no visible provision for any exhaust! The engine ran cool— only about 60°C (140°F) on its surface, it has been reported by several reliable observers. All these people, who had years to try to debunk it, became convinced of the engine's reality. They all failed to discover a hoax. But here is the ultimate triumph of the Papp engine: Today, ongoing research in the United States— totally independent of Papp and his former financial interests— has proved conclusively that noble gases, electrically triggered in various ways, can indeed explode with fantastic violence and energy release— melting metal parts and pushing pistons with large pressure pulses. Some of the people performing this work, or who have evaluated it, are from the cold fusion field, others are experienced plasma physicists. Some will allow their names to be revealed, while others in senior positions at major research institutions must remain anonymous for now. I am confident, however, that these scientists will eventually "go public." They should, when circumstances permit.

    Two Explosions, One Death
    Apart from the intense contemporary work to resurrect the Papp engine in its full cycling functionality and the independent certification test in 1983 (see p. 9), what other proof is there that Papp's engine was for real? Sad to say, this evidence is the death of one person and the severe injury of three others at a public demonstration of the engine on November 18, 1968 in Gardena, California. At that event, the engine exploded with an evident energy release that no internal combustion engine could touch. Read the eyewitness testimony of engineer Cecil Baumgartner (p. 31) in my interview with him this year. He was representing the top management of the TRW aerospace corporation that day. The previous month (on October 27, 1968) Baumgartner and others had observed one of the detonation cylinders of the engine test fired in the California desert. In full public view, just a few cubic centimeters of noble gas had been admitted with a hypodermic needle to the sparking chamber, and this made the thick steel-walled chamber peel back like a banana when the device was electrically triggered. The collaborating observers from the Naval Underseas Warfare Laboratory (as the Pasadena, California lab was then called), who attended the desert test, had earlier sealed the chamber so that Papp or others could not insert illicit explosives as part of a hoax. Their names, according to Baumgartner, were: William White, Edmund Karig, and James Green.

    Feynman's Mistakes and the Recovery
    But at the public meeting the next month at which the fatality occurred (see the local newspaper account of the fatality and injuries-p. 30) was Caltech physicist Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988), who had worked on the Manhattan atomic bomb project in World War II. Before even arriving at the demonstration, Feynman assumed that the Papp engine, whose operation he was about to witness, had to be part of an elaborate hoax. We know this because he recounted his reactions during the episode in his widely circulated internet account touted by the "skeptic" community (see "Mr. Papf's (sic) Perpetual Motion Machine," p. 29).

    But here is the central problem with Feynman's analysis (which has many other errors of fact and logic embedded in it): There was a court action against Feynman by Papp and his backer, Don Roser of Environetics, Inc., as a result of Feynman's inept attempt to disprove the Papp engine with his unauthorized pulling of an electric control-circuit wire that Feynman egregiously imagined had to be powering the engine. It was unfortunate for Feynman that the wire's gauge was far too thin even had there been a secret electric motor within the retrofit Volvo engine. Furthermore, as you will read, the engine kept running even after the flimsy wire was removed. Feynman asserted that Papp most likely had deliberately planned to blow up his own engine to avoid subsequent discovery of the "fraud"! And, Feynman acknowledges that there was an out-of-court settlement with Caltech. Surely, had there ever been the slightest piece of evidence that conventional explosives blew up the Papp engine that day, Caltech would most certainly not have had to settle. Papp would soon have been charged with manslaughter, no doubt, and Feynman would surely have cited this evidence publicly. He was not one to shrink from dramatic gestures. Caltech also had the motive and the means to skewer Papp with the kind of evidence that is routinely gathered by police departments and crime labs following explosion accidents.

    However, all records of the investigation into the accident appear to have vanished down some kind of a memory hole. I believe they exist somewhere, but we have not been able— yet— to obtain them. On June 29, 1998, Caltech's very helpful Associate Archivist, Shelley Erwin, faxed me: "Well, the mysterious affair with Mr. Papp/Papf continues to remain mysterious. I have found nothing in the Feynman papers that refers to it. Nor is there any obvious reference to Mr. Papp or the lawsuit in administrative or publicity papers from the time. We do not have a clippings file for the 1960s, so that is one type of resource I did not investigate. . .I think I have done all I can here, without any useful result. We would be interested to know how your search comes out— if indeed this is a true account. I wish I knew."

    I made more recent contact with various Caltech offices, which could not provide me with any records— not even its public information office had newsclips, and efforts to locate official accident reports in California have come up dry. Some of these may have been destroyed, according to some police departments contacted. After all, this is an accident that happened thirty-five years ago. But the point is that nowhere, so far, do we have any evidence that the explosion was a result of illicit explosives. Failing such direct evidence of hoax, the proved violence of the explosions— the November 1968 and the October 1968 ones— strongly point to the reality of the Papp process. But we also have the contemporary laboratory work that establishes convincing evidence— visual and by instrumentation— that noble gases can be made to explode and achieve over-unity. Heroic work on a shoestring budget over the past few years is recounted in broad scope by researchers Mark Hugo and Blair Jenness in Minnesota (p. 51). We hope to feature their work in greater depth in future issues. Heinz Klostermann of California, whom I met two years ago, has been of great assistance in assembling some of the information that went into this issue of Infinite Energy. On p. 55, he discusses his broad knowledge of many of the groups working in the U.S. in the past and today in the effort to recover the Papp engine technology. He has begun his own independent initiative.

    Two anonymous Ph.D. investigators circa 2000, with prominent positions in the cold fusion field, certainly estimated over-unity factors beyond 10 and perhaps even 100— for what may well be a suboptimal version of the Papp noble gas process. To run a cyclic 100 HP engine as Papp did would require detonation energies possibly far beyond these preliminary factors, but remember: no one who is attempting to recover the technology knows the exact pre-treatment process and gas mixture that Papp employed. The patents, so far, have not been adequate to learn exactly what was done. Finally, the eyewitness accounts, as well as the dynamometer test of 1983, give further support for the validity of the Papp technology.

    Feynman is widely known today for his aid in helping to resolve the space shuttle Challenger accident of 1986. The brilliant, entertaining, passionate, and often self-effacing physicist with the Far Rockaway, New York accent won the Nobel Prize for physics with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomanaga in 1965, three years before the explosion of the Papp engine in Gardena. He is rightly considered to be a very great scientist, whose quest to expand the frontiers of physics and to convey the excitement of science to the public was legendary and noble. In fact, I had often thought that if Feynman had lived into the cold fusion era, he might have set some of the anti-cold fusion bigots straight. Several years before Feynman's Nobel Prize award, in April 1963 in several wonderful lectures that have been reprinted in a book, The Meaning of It All (Addison-Wesley, 1998), Feynman made these wise observations

    "The exception tests the rule." Or, put it another way. "The exception proves that the rule is wrong." That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong. (p. 16)

    The rate of the development of science is not the rate at which you make observations alone, but more important, the rate at which you create new things to test. (p. 27)

    There is no authority who decides what is a good idea. We have lost the need to go to an authority to find out whether an idea is true or not. We can read an authority and let him suggest something we can try it out and find out if it is true or not. If it is not true, so much the worse— so the "authorities" lose some of their "authority." (p. 21)

    Indeed, the "authorities" of modern physics seem to have lost their authority completely. If one of its most dynamic and iconoclastic members, Feynman— a hero to physicists as well as to the general populace— can have made such a horrible error in judgment in the matter of his observation and actions at the Papp engine demonstration in 1968, then there is real trouble, and this is now proved. Feynman's tragic mistake would be just that, by the way— a mistake whether or not the Papp engine is real. If it is real, so much the worse for Feynman's legacy, for science, and for civilization. The inadequate methods by which Feynman rendered a snap judgment on the Papp engine that day reflected poorly on him his methods were incapable of discovering the truth about this device. And then there are the questions about what did Feynman know and when did he know it, concerning any accident reports that may have been available to him.

    In retrospect, this 1968 event seems like a foreshadowing of many other horrors that were to come in the 1980s, through the 1990s and beyond— vicious persecution of the cold fusion/low-energy nuclear reaction field by "authorities" and their followers. The so-called "skeptics" of CSICOP and elsewhere, who chose to use Feynman's reflections on the Papp demonstration as an example of how science should be done, should hide their heads in shame, but they won't. They will be outraged that one of their icons and their belief in the impossibility of new energy sources are found wanting. They will not admit this, of course.

    The Patents
    Joseph Papp was issued three United States patents for his process and engines, one of which is reprinted in full and the others are briefly discussed and the introductory parts reprinted (p. 21):

      "Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces," applied for on November 1, 1968, granted as U.S. #3,680,431, August 1, 1972, assigned to Environetics, Inc. of Gardena, California Papp declares the general nature of the noble gas mixture necessary to produce explosive release of energy. He also suggests several of the triggering sources that may be involved. There is little doubt that Papp is not offering full disclosure here, but there is no doubt that others who have examined this patent and followed its outline have already been able to obtain explosive detonations in noble gases. Caution: Anyone who undertakes to try to duplicate this process must be very careful about safety issues.

    One of the high points of subsequent activity by Papp and his colleagues was the independent certification testing in 1983. Thanks to the late Dr. Paul Brown and to Jack Kneifl, I have had in my files for several years photocopies of the actual documentation of the certification test, which was done in Oklahoma. It has been circulating among those who have been interested in reviving the Papp technology, and includes Chemistry Professor Nolan's impressive C.V. The affidavit is reprinted in Appendix A.

    In Search of an Explanation
    Assuming that the Papp engine phenomena that have been observed are valid, no one can claim to have a satisfactory and comprehensive explanation for what is going on. In my view, the physics associated with the detonation, light emission, and other phenomena in these noble gas explosions is quite beyond contemporary understanding. It is of interest that Dr. Randell Mills and his colleagues at BlackLight Power Corporation have observed excess heat phenomena associated with microwave stimulation of helium and hydrogen mixtures, but not krypton and argon mixtures. I'm not sure that this has any direct bearing on the Papp conditions, but I mention it for completeness.

    Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa of Canada were kind enough to abstract for inclusion in this issue of Infinite Energy (p. 61) a report that they prepared in the mid-1990s concerning the Papp technology— or at least a crude copy of it. This was based on a limited view they were given only a video tape, the performance claims, and the patents. They discuss the differences between the plasma and energy phenomena they have pioneered in their PAGDTM excess energy technology, and what they could gather from the Papp technology experimenters' claims.

    It is my view that to explain the Papp engine, a very radical departure from conventional understanding of nuclear physics, atomic structure, electricity, and the vacuum state will be required. The general class of models will be those that explain subatomic "particles" and how they interact as manifestations of an aether physics.

    The Scandal of Official Inaction
    There can be no greater indictment of our energy and science advisory bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. than in the host of letters that made urgent pleas that something be done about the Papp engine. On the positive side, there were letters asking for information about it, such as the one from the U.S. Army shown in Exhibit B, but the other responses evidence the kind of grave science and technology policy problems in government that would emerge in the cold fusion era. Some letters show that the same people in DOE who obstructed cold fusion acted earlier to obstruct a resolution of Papp's claims! Exhibits A-I are our collection of the text of annotated letters copies of the originals are in our possession. We thank those who divulged these letters on behalf of the search for truth.

    The letter in Exhibit C was evidently written by one of the associates of Navy people who supervised the sealing of the Papp "cannon" so that no illicit explosives could have been inserted in the Papp device that was fired in the California desert.

    The letter in Exhibit D shows the sincere interest of another aerospace corporation, other than TRW, which had dropped the Papp engine after the explosion in November 1968. It also proves that the litigation with Caltech was still ongoing in the fall of 1970.

    A do-nothing letter from DOE's legal staff, in response to one of several letters that were sent to President Jimmy Carter is shown in Exhibit E.

    John Deutch, an MIT Professor who was serving in DOE during the Carter Administration, dismisses the Papp engine in his thinly disguised negative letter to Senator Hatch of Utah (Exhibit F). Ironically, Deutch would later play a two-faced role in the cold fusion saga as it unfolded at MIT when he was Provost there in 1989 (see IE #24). He later became Director of the CIA, but was caught in an egregious computer security lapse, which could have landed him in jail.

    In the letter in Exhibit G, a sincere U.S. Navy Rear Admiral writes to President Carter in an effort to focus his attention on the Papp engine. It appears that Papp may have misguided McMillian about his credentials (Papp had no doctorate) and the date of his arrival in the U.S.
    An insulting letter from the DOE (just months before cold fusion was announced) to one of the witnesses to the Papp engine testing is shown in Exhibit H. George Lewnes, who had an engineering background, had seen the engine run in Florida. Here DOE touts its hot fusion program as the only possible route to fusion! Always the same excuse for not investigating new processes.

    A very late letter— 1992— from Jack Kneifl in Nebraska, who was part of a team that was attempting to recover the Papp technology, is shown in Exhibit I. Admiral Elmo Zumwalt was a well respected and famous Naval officer. This letter shows that anti-cold fusion DOE people— Drs. Polansky and Ianniello— were also obstructing the Papp engine recovery.

    Summary and Looking Forward
    There is now a staggering amount of good information available, which at a bare minimum would justify a thorough review of the Papp engine matter by official agencies such as the U.S. Department of Energy and military research organizations such as DARPA. There is significant evidence for the release of heretofore unknown explosive energy from noble gas mixtures. The energetic level of these reactions on their face, if confirmed by independent review, may have serious national security and global security consequences (especially in this age of terrorist threat— use your imagination). But the cat is out of the bag, and it cannot be put back. One hopes that the civilian uses of this potential technology will far outweigh the military hazards.

    Joseph Papp was a "hero" to have brought this technology to the New World, but his outrageous behavior at many turns helped prevent scientific truth from emerging. Yet at long last, the truth is coming out. There needs to be a wide and deep review of the evidence. Unfortunately, the experience of the cold fusion/low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) field over the past fourteen years, in trying to get an impartial DOE review of now proved and replicated LENR experiments, does not inspire much confidence that DOE or other official groups will do anything about this— even if the evidence is shoved in their faces. The John Huizengas, William Happers, Richard Garwins, and Steve Koonins (Caltech) of this world wield enormous influence within government. They know a priori that cold fusion, and now the Papp engine, are nonsense. Therefore, it will fall to the private sector and to individual scientific researchers to deal with or not deal with the Papp engine enigma. We hope that this beginning of Infinite Energy's coverage of the Papp engine, and the science that may underlie it, will contribute to the search for scientific truth. Perhaps the Papp saga, and particularly Richard Feynman's negative role in it, will yet help to catalyze a long overdue review by mainstream science of what it thinks it knows and what it thinks it knows cannot be.


    Позвольте нам искать Вашу родословную за Вас. Мы будем присылать Вам совпадения, открывающие новые родственные связи, фотографии Ваших родственников и исторические факты о Вашем происхождении.

    Посредством MyHeritage можно искать метрические записи, некрологи, свидетельства о браке, данные переписи населения и прочие документальные источники, полезные для генеалогических исследований. Наш эксклюзивный материал и точные результаты поиска помогут Вам открыть больше информации о Вашей семье, чем Вы могли себе представить.


    Abstract

    Technical lignins are widely available as side streams from pulping and biorefining processes. The aromatic structure of such lignins could be exploited in coating formulations to provide antioxidant or UV-blocking functionalities to packaging films. In this study, six technical lignins sourced from different plant species by given isolation/modification methods were compared for their composition, molar mass, and functional groups. The lignins were then used to prepare thin spin-coated films from aqueous ammonia media. All the lignins formed ultrathin (<12 nm), smooth (roughness < 2 nm), and continuous films that fully covered the solid support. Most of the films contained nanometer-sized particles, while those from water-insoluble lignins also presented larger particulate features, which likely originated from macromolecular association during solvent evaporation. These latter films had water contact angles (WCAs) between 40 and 60°, corresponding to a surface energy of 42–48 mJ/m 2 (determined by Zisman plots). For comparison, the water wettability measured on lignin pellets obtained by mechanical compression tracked closely with the WCA obtained from the respective thin films. Considering the widely diverse chemical, molecular, and structural properties of the tested lignins, comprehensively documented here by using a battery of techniques, the solubility in water was found to be the most important and generic parameter to characterize the thin films. This points to the possibility of developing lignin coatings with predictable wetting behavior.


    Critique planned I-35 improvements between Round Rock and Georgetown

    The Texas Department of Transportation will upgrade 4.4 miles of Interstate 35 in Williamson County from Georgetown&rsquos Southeast Inner Loop to Ranch to Market Road 1431.

    The project will construct a new Westinghouse Road bridge over the interstate. Interstate 35 intersections at Westinghouse Road and SE Inner Loop will also be revised and enhanced, as will area service roads and ramps.

    &ldquoImprovements to this area are needed to address traffic backups that occur on the main lanes, frontage roads and cross-street intersections, and to enhance safety throughout the corridor,&rdquo TxDOT documents state.

    Residents interested in commenting on the changes can do so during an ongoing virtual open house that launched Friday and will stay active through June 26.

    The virtual event includes a prerecorded presentation and allows access to maps and project information. Comments can be left online at seinnerloop.mobility35openhouse.com.

    The project is still in its environmental study and design phases. Construction could begin in 2024, with an estimated cost of $107 million, TxDOT said.

    Georgetown residents pack into Blue Hole Park to swim while enjoying the sunshine and hot temperature Wednesday, June 26. Photo by Nicholas Cicale


    History Friday: Deconstructing the P-51 Mustang Historical Narrative

    One of the things that pops up again and again in researching World War 2 (WW2) is how certain “narratives” get established in the historical record. Narratives that often are no where near the ground truth found in primary source documents of the time, but serves the bureaucratic “powers that be” in post-war budget battles. These narrative are repeated over and over again by historians without validating these narrative against either that theater’s original wartime documents or those of other military theaters. That is why I said the following:

    “Reality lives in the details. You have to know enough of the details to know what is vital and to be able to use good judgement as to which histories are worthwhile and which are regurgitated pap.

    Today’s column will take that “Reality lives in the details” methodology, modify it slightly, as I did in my 12 July 2013 column “History Friday — MacArthur’s Fighter Drop Tanks,” and use it for “Deconstructing the P-51 Mustang Historical Narrative” that emerged from the American strategic bombing campaign in World War 2.

    The narrative of the P-51 is how it won the air war over Europe through the accidental combination of private venture American airframe technology and the Merlin engine of the British Spitfire, which was championed by a Anglo-American guerrilla clique of fighter pilots, government bureaucrats and politicians over the anti-British, not invented here, USAAF procurement bureaucracy. Figure one below is the official historical narrative for the P-51 Mustang in a range/performance map.

    (NOTE: Left clicking on each figure three times will cause the original image of each figure to appear on your monitor.)

    Figure 1: FIGHTER RANGE MAP — from Paul Kennedy’s “Engineers of Victory”

    This P-51 versus other fighter range/performance graph comes from page 128 of a chapter titled “How to Win Command The Air” in Paul Kennedy’s recent book “Engineers of Victory.” It from the official victory narrative of the US Army Air Force Heavy Bomber Clique, the so-called “Bomber Mafia.” which was the leadership faction of bomber pilots that controlled the USAAF, lead the fight over Europe and the founded the US Air Force as a separate military service.

    You see versions of that chart through out post war institutional histories like Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate’s, six volume “The Army Air Force in World War II,” and more recent works like the 1992 Richard G. Davis biography, “Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe” (See figure 2 below the fold).

    It also happens that, when you drill down to the wartime source documents, the “P-51 narrative” that map represents is a very good example of selectively telling the truth to create a complete fabrication. A fabrication meant to hide those same bomber pilot generals from political accountability for their leadership failures. Roughly 2/3 of all battle deaths the USAAF suffered in WW2 were in Europe during the strategic bombing campaign. It was a statistically true statement to say a U.S. Army combat infantryman in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, from late 1942-to-winter 1944 had a greater chance of surviving combat than a B-17 crewman of the 8th Air Force.

    Most of those deaths were demonstrably unnecessary.

    The Battle of Britain in 1940 made clear that killing enemy fighter pilots faster than well trained replacements can arrive is how one achieves air superiority. The key innovation that created air superiority over Europe wasn’t the technical and organization triumph that Kennedy describes with the introduction of the P-51 into combat. It was a _doctrinal change_ that allowed the use of existing fighters with droppable auxiliary fuel tanks. Fighters with drop tanks were used in three shifts to cover the bomber formations during a. Penetration of enemy air space, b. At the target area and c. During withdrawal, too which the long range P-51 was added. The three shift fighter escort doctrine allowed USAAF fighters to drop fuel tanks and dog fight for 30 minutes with full engine power with German fighters, while still protecting the bombers. Enemy fighters that attacked American fighters were not attacking US bombers, and enemy pilots dying in such fights did not come back to kill anything.

    Recognition of the need for this doctrinal change was only possible after the Bomber Mafia’s Air Corps Tactical School (ACTS) approved self-escorting heavy bomber doctrine failed the test of combat during the 14 Oct 1943 Schweinfurt–Regensburg mission over Southern Germany.

    Figure 2: FIGHTER RANGE Map 10 — Source “Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe

    Historical and Institutional Background
    The interwar Bomber Mafia was a very effective bureaucratic clique in the US Army. It was ruthless in defeating bureaucratic opponents, competent within its technical field, willing to lie for a “higher purpose” and unified in it’s drive for that higher purpose, creating an independent air force based upon the heavy bomber. It did have a glaring organizational weakness in that it did not acknowledge that air-power was as much a combined-arms form of combat as ground or naval warfare and this blinded them to the threat from Axis fighters to their heavy bombers.

    General Elwood “Pete” Quesada, an American fighter pilot who ultimately became the commander of the Ninth Fighter Command said the following about USAAF — and by extension the Bomber Mafia’s — WW2 bombing doctrine:

    “There was almost an ignorant disregard of the requirement of air superiority. It was generally felt, without a hell of a lot of thought being given to it, that if there should occur an air combat …it would occur at the target.”

    (By the way, this institutional weakness regards a combined-arms approach to air-power is duplicated by the current USAF fighter pilot general successors to the “Bomber Mafia” in dealing with things like surface to air missiles, close air support of ground forces, long range infrared seeking missiles as a threat to stealth fighters and the need for electronic warfare in general.)

    During the interwar period the “Bomber Mafia” was consolidating control inside the Army Air Service, pouring most of the limited development funds into bombers and the B-17 in particular. This lead to a number of decisions by USAAF Chief of Staff H. H. “Hap” Arnold to suppress the capability of “Pursuit” (AKA fighter aircraft) to reduce budget competition with bombers. In February 1939 Arnold forbid the development of a 52 gallon drop tank for the P-36 fighter because of “safety reasons”…and because a fuel tank rack that had a 52 gallon fuel tank could carry a 300lb bomb. (See Boylan and Eslinger excerpts in Notes & Source section)

    “Reality lives in the detail” Methodology Applied
    While early versions of the P-38, P-39, P-40, and P-47 — like the P-36 — were all proscribed from having auxiliary fuel drop tanks “because they might be used inappropriately”. These drop tanks were still offered to other customers by American aircraft manufacturers. According to Benjamin Kelsey (eventually a USAF general and a major player in WW2 USAAF Fighter development) in his book “THE DRAGON’S TEETH? — The Creation of United States Airpower in World War II,” the US Navy insisted their aircraft all have that capability. Point in fact the 165 gallon standard P-38 drop tank pictured in Figure 3 below was developed for the Lockheed PV-1, called the Hudson by the British, which was the US Navy version of the Lockheed Ventura twin engine commercial transport. On February 20, 1942 General Arnold reversed himself and ordered the development and use of drop tanks on fighters, according to Kelsey, for the purpose of ferrying them to the U.K. This is why successful drop tank designs were available when the USAAF Bomber Clique Generals finally discovered how desperately they were needed after the Schweinfurt–Regensburg mission.


    Figure 3: A 165 Gallon Lockheed Drop Tank in front of a P-38 Lightning Fighter

    In looking in detail at the fighter range maps from Kennedy, Davis, Craven and Crates for the fighter range extension from the Lockheed 165 gal. tank, which was used in 1943 on both the Battle of the Bismark Sea and on the Yamamoto Assassination Raid in the Pacific, you just don’t see them in Europe.

    When you trace back to the original source document “EIGHTH AIR FORCE TACTICAL DEVELOPMENT AUGUST 1942-MAY 1945” on page 97, you see figure 4 below:

    Figure 4: 8TH AIR FORCE ESCORT FIGHTER RANGE CHART — Source “EIGHTH AIR FORCE TACTICAL DEVELOPMENT AUGUST 1942-MAY 1945, page 97”

    The text and the charts on page 97 talk about 75 gallon, 108 gallon (both paper and metal) and 150 gallon drop tanks. Nowhere do you see the 165 gallon Lockheed drop tank on the wing stations of either the P-38 or the P-47. Nowhere do you see the 200 gallon US and 210 Gallon UK belly tanks used in combat by the P-47. You also don’t see any wing tank plus belly tank combinations for the P-47. Nor do you see the 310 gallon ferry tank used by the 13th Air Force P-38’s in _April 1943_ to shoot down Admiral Yamamoto. (See Rex T. Barber link in notes).

    That the Bomber Mafia was hiding the full range capabilities of both the P-38 and P-47, compared to the post-war P-51 narrative, is easily demonstrated in terms of wartime photographic evidence.

    Figure 5: The P-47 200 gallon, belly mounted, ferry tank like those used used in the first August 1944 Schweinfurt mission. They were only filled with 100 gallons of fuel operationally. — Source page 15 “P-47 Thunderbolt in Action” Aircraft Number 67, Squadron/signal Publications Figure 6: Three 345th FS, 350th FG, P-47D-27 Thunderbolts with two wing mounted 110 gallon and one belly mounted 75 gallon drop tanks — Source “THUNDERBOLT: a documentary history of the Republic P-47” Figure 7: UK 210 gallon flat belly tank mounted on the wing pylons of a 50th FG P-47 — Source “THUNDERBOLT: a documentary history of the Republic P-47” Figure 8: A 1943 ferry flight of a P-47D in Iceland with the early 150-Gallon version of the Lockheed drop tank, later uprated to 165 Gallons. — Page 16 “P-47 Thunderbolt in Action” Aircraft Number 67, Squadron/signal Publications”

    And with post-WW2 P-47 aviation modeling hobbyist books that detail some of the profiles of drop tanks used by the P-47’s in Europe:

    Figure 9: Side profiles of five belly and wing drop tanks for the P-47 Thunderbolt — Source “P-47 Thunderbolt in Action” Aircraft Number 67, Squadron/Signal Publications

    Next, lets make an “apples to apples” comparison of European Strategic Bombing campaign fighter operations to the much smaller Far Eastern Air Forces (FEAF) Fall 1944 strategic bombing campaign against the Balikpapan oil refinery in Borneo. The P-38’s and P-47’s in MacArthur’s Southwest Pacific Area (SWPA) were using the “Yamamoto raid” P-38 wing tank combination and the P-47 used a both wing plus belly tank combination in long range strategic bombing operations out to 720 miles radius of action. The following is from Major John G. Bunnell’s “Knockout Blow? The Army Air Force’s Operations Against Ploesti and Balikpapan,” on fighter drop tank modifications for the FEAF’s 10 October 1944 Balikpapan oil refinery mission

    This, however, was still not enough the straight-line distance from the allied closest forward strip, Morotai, was 720 nautical miles.297 The answer came from Far East Service Command. Directed to extend the range of fighters even farther, they proposed equipping the P-38s with a novel drop tank configuration. Rather than fly with the standard load of two 165-gallon tanks, the P-38’s carried one 165-gallon tank and one 310-gallon ferry tank. while two 310-gallon tanks would have unacceptably overloaded the aircraft, the asymmetrical tank configuration provided acceptable flight characteristics and the necessary range. The P-38 pilots drained the 310-gallon tank first, then dropped it to increase speed and fuel efficiency. The P-38s could retain the small 165-gallon tank during combat operations or could drop it if they needed to maneuver aggressively.298
    .
    FEAF applied similar concepts to its P-47s. Luckily, the AAF had recently equipped the 35thH Fighter Group with new P-47D-28 aircraft. The design of these bubble-canopy P-47s increased internal fuel capacity from 305 TO 370 gallons.299 to this internal fuel, the 35th added one 165-gallon external drop tank to each wing and a 75-gallon tank to the belly. Even though he was not qualified in the P-47, Lindbergh visited the 35th Fighter Group at Nadzab, New Guinea, giving the pilots a “highly technical” talk on how to extend their range.300 Although the P-47 did not offer the same loiter time as the P-38, the Thunderbolts could still fly to Balikpapan, spend twenty-five minutes over the target, and return. This flight profile enabled the 35th Fighter Group to accomplish pre-strike fighter sweeps over Borneo.301

    Finally, if you dig deeply into the Appendix B “MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO AIRCRAFT AND EQUIPMENT” of “EIGHTH AIR FORCE TACTICAL DEVELOPMENT AUGUST 1942-MAY 1945” you will see Figure 5 below:

    Figure 5: 8TH AIR FORCE FIGHTER MODIFICATIONS — source APPENDIX B “MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO AIRCRAFT AND EQUIPMENT” of “EIGHTH AIR FORCE TACTICAL DEVELOPMENT AUGUST 1942-MAY 1945” page 10B

    Which has the following passage from page 10-B:

    The standard Lockheed 165 gallon belly tank was the equipment for P-38s in operations in this theater.

    The fact that the text on page 97 mentioned, and shows only P-38 range with 108 gallon wing drop tanks, while the appendix on fighter modifications states that the P-38 used nothing but the Lockheed 150/165 gallon drop tanks can only be called malicious deceit. A deceit meant to cover up wartime mistakes of Bomber Mafia generals from post-war public accountability.

    Defining Deceit & Post War Motivations
    To understand how maliciously deceitful the Bomber Mafia was in writing that passage requires a copy of a 31 Oct 1944 US Army Air Force document titled “A HISTORY OF THE VIII U.S.A.A.F. FIGHTER COMMAND,” which was written by the “A-2” or intelligence officer of the 66th Fighter Wing. “Chapter VIII Belly Tanks” of the report on pages 210 thru 239 is a blow by blow development history of fighter drop tanks in Britain drawn from 8th Air Force weekly reports and commander conference minutes that names the senior Bomber Mafia Generals and their wartime thinking and priorities. It also provides line and bar graph plates detailing fighter performance under two mission profiles, escort during penetration/withdrawal and escort at the target. Plate No. XII from “History of the 8th Fighter Command, 31 Oct 1944” (See Fig. 10 below) is highly instructive on wartime drop tank use in the 8th Air Force:

    Figure 10: Plate No. XII Fighter Escort Mission Profiles– Source “History of the 8th Fighter Command” 31 Oct 1944

    This line-range figure shows that

    1. A P-38J with a pair of 150 gallon fuel tanks out ranged the P-51B with two 75 gallon fuel tanks
    2. That the 150 gallon fuel tank was the only drop tank for P-38H or P-38J, and
    3. That the P-47 used a pair of them very often.

    Even worse, as far as Bomber Mafia deceit is concerned, are two Bomber General names that stand out on pages 222 – 224 drawn from a 14 June 1943 commander’s conference minutes.

    First, a General Newton Longfellow is paraphrased as saying the following regards the need for long range fighter escort:

    “…bombers could get to the target without protection but would need long range escorts for the withdrawal!”

    Longfellow may well have been the poster boy for General Quesada’s “…almost an ignorant disregard of the requirement of air superiority.” comment. The author of “History of the 8th Fighter Command” was even more acid about Longfellow’s comment with bomber loss and target abort numbers to back it up.

    Second, the commanding general of 8th Air Force, General Ira Clarence Eaker, stated the command priorities of were to be as follows:

    1. Bomber Objectives (regardless of cost),
    2. Employment of Tactical Air Force,
    3. Support of build up of aircraft, replacement and maintenance, and
    4. Auxiliary fuel tanks for P-47

    Third, on page 225, a Washington DC USAAF Headquarters message suggests to General Eaker that using B-26 Marauder Medium Bombers as long range fighter escorts for 8th Air Force heavy bombers was a good option.

    So, in the summer of 1943 long range fighter escorts _were not_ a top priority for the USAAF Bomber Mafia. They thought that the bombers would get through with few losses to German fighters and that long range escort fighter coverage was only needed to cover cripples from anti-aircraft gunfire — “Flak” — on the way home from the target. And that someone in General H. H. “Hap” Arnold’s headquarters, perhaps even Arnold himself, was seriously unclear on the concept of long range FIGHTER escort.

    As I have clearly demonstrated above, the Bomber Mafia had a lot good “anatomy covering” reasons to push the “P-51 Narrative” at the expense of the reputation of both the P-38 and the P-47. I highly recommend Dr Carlo Kopp’s “Der Gabelschwanz Teufel – Assessing the Lockheed P-38 Lightning,” Technical Report APA-TR-2010-1201 for further issues with the “Bomber Mafia’s” leadership decisions and doctrinal problems. The impact of the Bomber General’s insistence on repeating Goering’s mistaken 1940 “stick with the bombers” close escort tactics with the P-38 is detailed by Dr. Kopp in the sources and notes excerpt below.

    There were also two additional budget related high command issues in the “P-51 Narrative” that are often overlooked by modern historians.

    First, the P-51 cost a lot less than either the P-38 or P-47. It was cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate, cheaper to maintain, and being easy to fly, it was cheaper to train pilots on. A rough order of magnitude cost comparison was for every three P-38s or P-47s, you could buy five P-51 Mustangs for the same price with a much deeper stock of spare parts per plane, with an easier to maintain aircraft.

    Second, the Ultra code breaking that announced arrival of German fighter jets to squadron service in late 1943 meant that every propeller aircraft in the world was obsolete, including the P-51. Propeller planes would be replaced by jets after the war. If propeller planes were going to be 2nd line aviation post-war, the cheaper to operate, the better. That made the “P-51 narrative” budget friendly, as well as career friendly, for a heavy (jet) bomber dominated independent air force after the war.

    So now you know why “Reality lives in the details.” You have to know enough of the details to know which are vital, so you can use your good judgement to determine which histories are worthwhile.

    Sources and Notes:
    1) American missions against Balikpapan and Balikpapan Harbor
    February 3, 1942 – July 11, 1945
    http://www.pacificwrecks.com/airfields/indonesia/manggar/missions-balikpapan.html Accessed 9/21/2013

    2) APPENDIX B “MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO AIRCRAFT AND EQUIPMENT” of “EIGHTH AIR FORCE TACTICAL DEVELOPMENT AUGUST 1942-MAY 1945” Prepared by Eighth Air Force and Army Air Forces Evaluation Board (European Theater of Operations) page 10 B

    3) Rex T. Barber, Hero of the Yamamoto Mission, 18th Fighter Wing Association
    http://web.archive.org/web/20100113104542/http://www.18thfwa.org/statusReports/srpt25/page3.html Accessed 12 July 2013

    4) Bernard Lawrence Boylan, “The Development of the American Long Range Escort Fighter” (Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri, 1955) later published as USAF Historical Study No. 136. USAF Historical Division, Research Studies Institute, Air University, September 1955
    http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090529-044.pdf
    Page 46

    In February, 1939, Curtiss-Wright suggested to the Air Corps that it might be interested in testing a 52-gallon tank which could be mounted on the bomb rack of a P-36C. The company offered to build such a tank for experimental purposes and to provide the connection with the main tank. The Materiel Command accepted the offer in March, but in April OCAC (Note – Officer Commanding, Air Corps) questioned use of an external tank because of the fire hazard. The plea of Materiel command that the tank was only experimental was not overruled at first, but in May the Chief of the Air Corps directed that no tactical plane be equipped with a droppable fuel tank.

    5) MAJOR JOHN G. BUNNELL “Knockout Blow? The Army Air Force’s Operations Against Ploesti and Balikpapan,” June 2005 Air University,School of Advanced Air and Space Studies,325 Chennault Circle,Maxwell AFB,AL,36112, Approved for public release distribution unlimited www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA477018

    6) Richard G. Davis, “Carl A. Spaatz and the air war in Europe” C 1992 ISBN 0-912799-75-7 (casebound).–ISBN 0-912799-77-3 (perfect bound) Superintendent of Documents, US. Government Printing Office, Washington. D.C. 20402, Chart 10 www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-101012-035.pdf‎

    7) “EIGHTH AIR FORCE TACTICAL DEVELOPMENT AUGUST 1942-MAY 1945” Prepared by Eighth Air Force and Army Air Forces Evaluation Board (European Theater of Operations) http://archive.org/details/EighthAirForce00 page 97

    8) Robert A. Eslinger , “THE NEGLECT OF LONG–RANGE ESCORT DEVELOPMENT DURING THE INTERWAR YEARS (1918–1943)”, 1997 (E-book) and 2012 (Paper) ISBN-13: 978-1249415558, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a393237.pdf

    Drop Tanks
    Adding external fuel tanks to existing pursuit aircraft seemed like a logical solution to extending pursuit range. Making the tanks dropable in flight preserved maneuverability and performance when required for combat. Experiments with dropable fuel tanks had been conducted throughout the 1920’s and 1930’s. The greatest concern about drop tanks was the hazard of fire. In February 1939, Curtiss–Wright wanted to test a 52–gallon tank mounted on the bomb rack of a P–36C, but the “Chief of the Air Corps directed that no tactical plane be equipped with a dropable fuel tank” because of the potential for fires.18″

    9) Roger Freeman, “THUNDERBOLT: a documentary history of the Republic P-47,” C 1978, Charles Scribner’s Sons ISBN: 0-648-16331-4

    10) Thomas E. Griffith, “MacArthur’s Airman: General George C. Kenney and the Air War in the Southwest Pacific Theater in World War II,” November 1998, Univ Press of Kansas, ISBN-13: 978-0700609093, page 280 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA311551

    When the P-47s finally arrived in Australia they did not have droppable external fuel tanks to extend their range. Without those they could not fly far enough to accomplish any missions in the theater. According to Kenney, “this airplane must have extra gas to go anywhere.16 Although a drop tank had been developed in the United States, Kenney thought it “junk” and ordered a prototype 200 gallon tank constructed locally and then contracted with Ford of Australia for mass production. 17 Kenney also suggested that the radio equipment be moved from behind the pilot and the compartment then converted into a forty-gallon fuel tank. 18

    11) LT. COL. WALDO H. HEINRICHS, A.C., A.U.S. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (A-2) 66TH FIGHTER WING “A HISTORY OF THE VIII U.S.A.A.F. FIGHTER COMMAND,” WITH A FOREWORD BY MAJOR-GENERAL WILLIAM E. KEPNER, COMMANDING GENERAL, dtd 31 OCT 1944, link: http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p4013coll8/id/317/rec/116 Accessed 9/21/2013

    12) Benjamin S. Kelsey, “THE DRAGON’S TEETH? — The Creation of United States Airpower in World War II,” C 1980 Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D.C. ISBN 0-87474-574-8

    13) Paul Kennedy, “Engineers of Victory — The Problem Solvers Who turned The Tide in The Second World War,” C 2013, Random House, New York, ISBN 978-1-4000-6761-9. page 128

    14) George C. Kenney, “General Kenney Reports: A Personal History of the Pacific War (USAF Warrior Studies),” C January 1, 1987 2nd edition, ISBN-13: 978-0912799445
    www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100526-032.pdf‎

    page 66
    August-September 1942

    I know what he meant. He was right. We were not going to make hits until we could keep those bullets out of the bombardier’s cockpit. That new vitamin he wanted was fighter cover. We didn’t guess very well when we designed our fighters with insufficient range to do the job in the Pacific where distance was the main commodity. As soon as I could get those P-38s with their extra range and maybe add some more with droppable tanks hung under the wings, that kid and the rest of them would get their new vitamins.

    Page 73
    August-September 1942

    Twenty-five P-38s, the first of the fifty promised me by General Arnold, arrived by boat at Brisbane. I sent word to Connell to come north from Melbourne, take charge of setting them up, and work twenty-four hours a day on the job. Also to give the Australian sheet-metal industry a contract to make about 10,000 150-gallon droppable gas tanks to hang under the wings so that we could extend the range.

    I then went out to Eagle Farms, where the erection was to be done, and found that no droppable fuel tanks had come with the P-47s. Without the extra gas carried in these tanks, the P-47 did not have enough range to get into the war. I wired Arnold to send me some right away, by air if possible. About a week later we received two samples. Neither held enough fuel, they both required too many alterations to install, and they both were difficult to release in an emergency. We designed and built one of our own in two days. It tested satisfactorily from every angle and could be installed in a matter of minutes without making any changes in the airplane. I put the Ford Company of Australia to work making them. We had solved that problem but it would be another month before we could use the P-47s in combat.

    15) Dr Carlo Kopp, AFAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng, “Der Gabelschwanz Teufel – Assessing the Lockheed P-38 Lightning,” Technical Report APA-TR-2010-1201. December, 2010, Updated April, 2012 http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html Accessed 12 May 2013

    This passage is from the Kopp link above —

    Capt. Heiden makes some further interesting observations.
    .
    “The P-51 was a new airplane and we were eager to fly it and were happy with it. It was so easy and comfortable to fly. The P-38 had kept us on our toes and constantly busy–far more critical to fly. You never could relax with it. We were disappointed with the 51′s rate of climb and concerned with the reverse stick, especially if fuel was in the fuselage tank, the rash of rough engines from fouled plugs, and cracked heads which dumped the coolant. With the 38 you could be at altitude before landfall over the continent, but with the 51 you still had a lot of climbing yet to do. The 38 was an interceptor and if both engines (were healthy), you could outclimb any other airplane, and that’s what wins dog fights. When you are in a dog fight below tree tops, it is way more comfortable in a 38 with its power and stall characteristics and, for that matter at any altitude.”
    .
    To summarize the performance of the P-38 in the 8th AF, Capt Heiden notes:
    .
    “Aug 43, 8thAF has retrieved some Bomber Gps and has several original Spitfire/P-47 FGs. Two P-38 FGs, 1-P-51 FG that will not be operational till late Oct and have to workout tactics and maintenance problems, which all are severe. Highly inadequate supply of A/C.”
    .
    “Nov. 43, P-38Hs and P-51Bs beginning ops, find themselves in a climate environment none had experienced before and a superior opponent with 10 times the numbers. Forced to take the bombers to, over and withdraw them. Lucky to get half of what they had to the target after aborts/early returns. Sometimes as few as four fighters made it to target under attack continuously going and coming. Five minutes of METO power was planned into the profile. Meaning that if you fought over five minutes you wouldn’t make it home. Remember, you were being bounced continuously.”
    .
    “Feb 11, 44, 357thFG goes on Ops (P-51). 4thFG converts to P-51s. 2-weeks later and other groups are converting by end of Feb. Now fighter groups don’t have to go the whole to, over, and from target. The escort is now Penetration, Target, and Withdrawal, each leg is assigned to only one FG. and many operational problems are being resolved. Internal fuel on P-38s has been greatly increased with Wing and Leading edge tanks. P-47s are starting to get external fuel tanks.”
    .
    “The last half of 43 brought horrendous losses, had forced German manufacturing underground and had forced Germany to go to synthetic oil. This had increased the cost of war exponentially to the Germans.”
    .
    “Feb 44 we went back to Schwienfurt with acceptable loses. March 3rd the 20th & 55thFGs went to Berlin–Bombers were recalled. March, April, and May brought vicious battles, often with heavy loses. However, Germany were throwing their valuable flight instructors and 100hr students in to the battle. The Luftwaffe was at last starting to die.”
    .
    “The 8th was, at last, being flooded with Mustangs and well trained pilots. The Mustang was a delight to fly, easier to maintain cheaper to build and train pilots for, and had long legs. In those respects you can rightfully call it better, but it could not do anything better than a P-38J-25 or L. Just remember who took the war to the enemy and held on under inconceivable odds. Enough of the crap.”

    16) Stephen Peter Rosen, “Winning the Next War: Innovation and the Modern Military,” C 1991 by Cornell University, ISBN 0-8014-2556-5
    page 170:

    The crucial innovation for the development of the long-range escort fighter, the introduction of the drop fuel tank, was initially blocked by the reasonable expectation that simple countermeasures could render the drop tanks useless.

    17) Trent J. Telenko, “History Friday — MacArthur’s Fighter Drop Tanks,” 12 July 2013, https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/37362.html

    29 thoughts on &ldquoHistory Friday: Deconstructing the P-51 Mustang Historical Narrative&rdquo

    Trent, thanks for continuing this series of great posts.

    I’m looking forward to this book almost more than America 3.0.

    Trent, the theme that comes through in all of these is the shameless falsification of the historical record by the military services to serve the bureaucratic ends of who ever was dominating the service at the time. The idea of an objective treatment of the war for the purpose of saving lives or achieving victory in the future was not an issue. The brutality of the American military in the services of bureaucratic goals, with no regard to human lives lost, is one of the most troubling aspects of all this. And the more you dig the more of it you find.

    The only real war for US flag ranks is the budget wars between shooting wars. It is what they are best adapted too because it occupies most of their careers.

    The defense budget war after WW2 was the most vicious in the history of the Republic due to the emergence of the a-bomb equipped US Air Force, it’s eclipse of the US Navy, and the move by the Truman Administration to abolish the USMC and fold it into the US Army.

    This is why the “narrative falsification” of the period was so extensive.

    Expect to similar things with the history of drones in the war on terror over the next few years.

    The P 38 had serious problems with flutter in the tail but once that was solved, the J model was at least the equal of the P 51. The twin engine configuration was better on long missions, like the Pacific. My cousin, who was a B 17 bombardier in North Africa, told me their escorts were “ME 109s and P 38s”.

    This is absolutely fascinating. Keep up the good work.

    There are two long reader discussions on Amazon about the Allison and Merlin engines which are very pertinent here:

    I also recommend the reader book review, about the Allison official history book _Vees for Victory_, which gave rise to the reader discussion:

    The book review and the discussions were very good and I plan to book mark them. Arthur Miller wrote a play called “All my sons,” which was about an industrialist who made a lot of money building poor plane engines. It’s been years since I saw it performed but I wonder if he had the Allison engine in mind when he wrote it.

    That was always a source of curiosity to me – the Spitfire – with a similar Merlin engine, had a combat radius of about 300 miles. I know the Mustang had a tank behind the pilot that cause a lot of CG problems until the fuel was burned.

    That plane was a flying gas tank until over Germany…

    This is General Eaker’s priority list:

    1. Bomber Objectives (regardless of cost),
    2. Employment of Tactical Air Force,
    3. Support of build up of aircraft, replacement and maintenance, and
    4. Auxiliary fuel tanks for P-47

    To play Devil’s advocate here, and because it’s possible you attribute a sort of willful ignorance on his part to this list, is it possible you don’t understand Eaker’s or Han Arnold’s outlook?

    From Eaker’s (and Arnold’s) point of view, every fuel dump we hit, or railroad junction we destroyed, or every factory we bombed, was that much less food or ammunition or fuel or materiel getting distributed to Axis troops and sustaining the Reich, not to mention killing American and Allied soldiers. He was, in essence, sacrificing those bombers and crews, no doubt. I surmise that in his mind he was trading those men and planes for the effects they achieved.

    I agree he was probably wrong, in that long range escorts allowed those bombers and crews to fight another day. But possibly he felt the escorts wouldn’t make a lot of difference in losses, and that keeping those bombers in spare parts and replaced was the most effective thing he could do to bring down Germany.

    Just trying to look at this from a different angle here.

    Just before WW2, Stalin shot all his Generals. He may have been right.

    “But possibly he felt the escorts wouldn’t make a lot of difference in losses,”

    But he was wrong and there was evidence by 1943 that he was wrong. The “bomber generals” fought the transportation plan before Normandy.

    The submarine service and the USAAC had the highest numbers of killed, per thousand, and both were handicapped well into the war by near criminal mistakes by their services. The torpedo problem wasn’t solved until almost 1944. Ditto for the fighter escort matter.

    VXXC may have a point although LeMay solved the bombing problem in the Pacific by going low and using incendiaries. Of course, the Navy had shot the Japanese pilots out of the air. Japan’s pilot training system contributed. All that was left were Kamikazes. They took a toll on ships but had no effect on B 29s.

    The number of fighter aircraft and anti-aircraft guns assigned to defensive duties in the home islands was inadequate, and most of these aircraft and guns had difficulty reaching the high altitudes B-29s often operated at. Fuel shortages, inadequate pilot training and a lack of coordination between units also constrained the effectiveness of the fighter force.

    Even when the bombers came in low, they were almost immune from fighters.

    Your posts are just fantastic and I want you to know that your research is greatly appreciated. I always think I know a reasonable amount about a subject such as drop tanks and then it turns out I only know the conventional narrative which is often not 100% (or even close to that) correct.

    Thank-you,Trent. You always have something interesting to say.

    I wrote the following in my post:

    Third, on page 225, a Washington DC USAAF Headquarters message suggests to General Eaker that using B-26 Marauder Medium Bombers as long range fighter escorts for 8th Air Force heavy bombers was a good option.

    The seriousness with which that insane proposal was considered in June 1943,compared to P-47 drop tanks, can only be understood in context of the YB-40 — a B-17 “escort gunship” — being flown and failing in its assigned mission of protecting B-17s from German fighters from 29 May through 29 July 1943.

    There was no way that a YB-40 could possibly keep up with a unlaiden B-17 short of dropping its extra gun armament the same time that the bomber stream dropped its bombs.

    Even a cursory engineering analysis of bomber mission profiles would have show that before pencil was put to paper for the YB-40 modification drawings.

    Yet Eaker and the rest of the “Bomber Mafia” spent several precious months getting the YB-40 program going and deployed.

    Compare that act of “doctrinal desperation,” to get the self-escorting heavy bomber to work, compared to the official reason drop tanks were not used on escort fighters in combat from the start…that the Germans would hassle the fighter escorts with their own fighters and leave our bombers unescorted. (See Rosen excerpt in Sources and Notes above)

    This is another example of Queada’s comment about the Bomber Mafia’s thoughtless and ignorant disregard of air superiority. Fighter hassling fighters is called combat. And fighter combat means the fighters involved are not killing American bombers.

    I just went back and activated all the links in my Sources and Notes section so you all can read the source documents for yourself.

    Trivial (not to be a grammar nazi) :
    Historical and Institutional Background
    The interwar Bomber Mafia was a very effective bureaucratic clique in the US Army. It was ruthless in defeating bureaucratic opponents, competent within it’s technical field.

    IGotBupkis, “‘Faeces Evenio’, Mr. Holder?” Says:

    I went and read through those threads and they are pretty good ones in understanding WW2 fighter combat in support of the Strategic bombing campaign, if you exclude

    1. Logistics,
    2. Training,
    3. Doctrine, and
    4. Rules of engagement.

    In rough order, first, there was little on drop tanks and none of drop tank development issues. There was some mention of parts as related to superchargers versus turbochargers.

    Second, there was no mention of the fact that the P-38 was a multi-engine aircraft whose 8th Air Force pilots were thrown directly into combat on it without a multi-engine, tricycle landing gear, transition trainer.

    This also happened to the Martin B-26 pilots, after the first two groups were deployed, because multi-engine trainers were reserved strictly for 4-engine bombers from 1941 through late 1943. This was the big reason the B-26 was considered a “Widow-maker” as single engine “tail-dragger” trainers like the AT-6 Texan just were not adequate transition for a multi-engine tricycle gear plane.

    The P-38 had the ability to differentiate thrust between engines to get a much tighter turn, but you had to have multi-engine experience and time to practice the tactic before combat. The 8th Air Force P-38 groups never got that. The P-38 groups in the SWPA did.

    A P-38 using thrust differentiation in a climbing or diving right hand turn could not be followed by any single engine fighter in WW2. The single engine fighter planes had a gyroscopic effect from their turning propeller. The more power they used, the larger the force. The P-38 had counter rotating props so the more power it used, the more discretionary power it had in a right turn. It lost some of that discretionary power playing engine thrust games, but it was a much smaller percentage of its total energy budget.

    Third, the P-38 and P-47 suffered from the Eaker-Goering “close escort all the way to target and back” doctrine prior to Operation Pointblank. The P-38H only had 5-minutes of Military Emergency Power for the entire “Goering” mission profile. The change to a three shift escort doctrine allowed 25-minutes of military emergency power plus five minutes of War Emergency Power with water injection. When the P-38 was flying the target area support profile — as opposed to a penetration/withdrawal bomber support profile — it could fly lower to the target area then climb up to meet the bombers. This was true of all the fighters used in the ETO, but the P-38 benefited more from it with its touchy Allison/Turbocharger engines.

    Last, the rules of engagement change from being with the bombers to “kill German fighters where ever they are found” meant that there was no longer any sanctuary where German fighters, particularly the twin-engine rocket carrying Me-110, could build up large formations to overwhelm a bomber stream combat box through fighter escorts. American fighter could use the UK “Y-Service” radio intercept system to throw squadrons of fighters at German assembly areas. It also meant there was no safe training areas for German novice pilots starting in the late Spring of 1944 just as the American oil campaign was getting into full swing.

    That combination of no sanctuary, no fuel to train, and the onslaught of 250-to-300 hour training program Mustang pilots is what cause the “Lancaster Square collapse” of Luftwaffe fighter defenses by April-May 1944.

    You missed several things. North American Aviation and Rolls-Royce had PASSION about their products. Allison was dominated by GM’s bean-counter mentality and Lockheed’s corporate culture was adequate but not passionate. People meant far more here than you think. To some extent the USAAF favored companies with superior institutional cultures.

    The official numbers of P-38’s serving as long-range escorts in the 8th Air Force was very inaccurate due to the mechanical and operational issues Captain Heiden noted. It appears less than 10% of the P-38’s actually assigned to LR escort actually made it to the target area through March of 1944. I.e., P-51’s may have been launched in smaller numbers than P-38’s but composed the great majority of LR escorts in the target areas.

    This vast mechanical failure disparity between the number of LR escort sorties flown by P-38’s, and and the number which actually covered bombers over target areas, also means that facile comparisons of the number of sorties flown by LR escorts is a very misleading comparison of fighter type effectiveness.

    GM’s political veto of second-sourcing the P-38 so it could use Packard-built Merlins in the European theater was far more important in the P-38’s war record than most suspect.

    When I was a kid, there was a war movie called “Fighter Squadron” starring Edmund O’Brien and Robert Stack that was about the drop tank story with P 47s. I think it was the only movie my father went to that I can remember.

    The most important figure in the production of aircraft in the US during WW2 was in fact a long time General Motors senior executive.

    William Knudsen was the only man in US history to be appointed a lieutenant general in the US Army without ever having served previously in the military. He was a long time executive of General Motors, for which Allison was a division of and Packard was a direct competitor and Knudsen played a role in vetoing the change of the P-38 from an Allison engine to Packard-Merlins.

    Knudsen was President of Chevrolet from 1923 to 1937 and President of General Motors from 1937 to 1940. He joined the Roosevelt Administration in January 1941 as the Director General of the Office of Production Management. He was commissioned a lieutenant general in January 1942 and became the Director of the War Department’s Office of Production. He continued in the Office of Production Management, serving on its policy board, which went through a few iterations before it became the War Production Board.

    Knudsen’s first task as the Director General of OPM was to find locations to build Roosevelt’s planned 10,000-plane air force. He naturally looked to the assembly lines of the auto manufacturers.

    In 1944, in addition to being the Director of the War Department’s Office of Production and still serving on the War Production Board (as the Lieutenant General in charge of War Department Production), he assumed command of the Air Material Command in the Army Air Forces.

    The 1944 retention of the Allison powered P-39/P-63 production line, and keeping P-38 Allison powered, as the P-40 was finally phased out of production in favor of the non-Alllison powered P-51 and P-47, makes much more sense from the politics of the WPB interests than anything else I have been able to piece together.

    Check out what happened to Allison in April 1945 when the V-E Day cancellations arrived.

    >>This vast mechanical failure disparity between the number of LR escort sorties
    >>flown by P-38′s, and the number which actually covered bombers over target areas,
    >>also means that facile comparisons of the number of sorties flown by LR escorts is
    >>a very misleading comparison of fighter type effectiveness.

    Training played a bigger role in those P-38 aborts and engine failures than equipment issues.

    The following is from Koop’s “Der Gabelschwanz Teufel – Assessing the Lockheed P-38 Lightning,” Technical Report APA-TR-2010-1201. —

    In summary a valuable pool of tactical experience and engine handling experience for the Merlin equipped P-51B existed in the 4th FG, and this experience could be directly applied to the P-51B. No such experience existed for the turbocharged Allison powered twin engined P-38 in theatre. The valuable tactical and handling experience of the SWPA FGs was a theatre away. Only a limited number of MTO pilots were made available for the 20th and 55th, and both units had taken heavy losses during the early escort missions, impacting both morale and the rate at which experience could be accumulated in these FGs. Many of the P-38 handling techniques developed in the SWPA to counter the highly manoeuvrable and skilled Japanese opposition, such as differential throttle and rudder assisted roll entries, were never practiced widely in the ETO.

    Perhaps the best critique of the ETO record of the P-38 is that by former 20th FG Capt. Arthur Heiden, who flew the P-38 during the Spring of 1944, in the company of better known pilots such as Jack Ilfrey, and Ernest Fiebelkorn, later instructed on the P-38 and P-51, and after the war went on to log in excess of 25,000 hrs of flying time:

    “The quality of multi-engine training during World War II bordered on the ridiculous. I am convinced that with training methods now in use we could take most of civilian private pilots who might be about to fly the Aztec or Cessna 310, and in ten hours, have a more confident pilot than the ones who flew off to war in the P-38. A P-38 pilot usually got his training in two ways. The first way, of course, was twin-engine advanced training in Curtiss AT-9s, which had the unhappy feature of having propellers you couldn’t feather. After sixty hours of this, the student received ten hours of AT-6 gunnery, although he might get his gunnery training in the AT-9, since AT-6s were in short supply.”

    “At this point he had his chance to fly the RP-322 for another twenty hours. The 322, as you know, was the British version of the airplane, and they came with assorted equipment and things on them that nobody could predict. Upon graduation from the RP-322 he was assigned to a P-38 Replacement Training Unit (RTU) or an Operational Training Unit (OTU) for 100 hours or more of fighter training. A second way to get into the P-38 was to transition from single engine fighters. In this event, someone probably took him up in a multi-engine transport or bomber and demonstrated engine shutdown a couple of times after skimming the tech order, a blindfold check, and then Ignoring the check list (not for real fighter pilots!), he blasted off. More than one neophyte has described his first “launch” in a P-38 as being hit in the ass with a snow shovel.”

    “Either method of training, probably, made little difference as neither guy knew that much about multi-engine operations and procedures. True, he had been warned about the magic number of 120 miles per hour his Vme (editor:Vmca) or single-engine control speed. He had swam in glue during a couple of prop featherings while in formation with his instructor. He was, also, warned never to turn into a dead engine, never put down the gear until he had made the field, and never to go around with one caged. That was about it until shortly thereafter the old Allison time bomb blew up, and he was in business the hard way. Right on takeoff. “Some people lucked out if the runway was long enough. Some overshot or undershot and they bent the whole thing. Some tried a single-engine go-around anyway, usually with horrible results. Such happenings would make a son of a bitch out of any saint.”

    “Tony Levier’s spectacular demonstrations were an attempt to rectify all these problems, but the damage had been done. The Air Corps, as far as I knew, never did change its pilot training.”

    “For perspective, it must also be remembered that two other significant events had taken place in training (in England). Theater indoctrination at Goxhill in England had received the same overhaul that had occurred in the States. The most important of all may have been the training units set up by the combat organizations themselves. Here it was possible to up-date training to the latest information and for individual commanders to put their special stamp on things and develop new tactics. “But and this is giant towering BUT this was all for the P-51 pilots.”

    “What would have happened if the P-38 pilots and their units could have been blessed with the same wonderful opportunity?”

    If the “Bomber Mafia” had a training scandal with twin engine transition trainers directly attributed to many deaths in P-38 and B-26, blaming those planes for your own screw up is the easy way out.

    Especially is you can weight the scales with your training regime.

    Trent, ease of training with a particular aircraft has a lot to do with its combat effectiveness. The Spitfire was a very easy plane to learn to fly, and to fly reasonably well, but was not really suitable to boom & zoom energy-based tactics. The Me-109 was not easy to learn but was very well suited to boom & zoom, and was deadly once a pilot learned how to use its best characteristics.

    The P-38 was a difficult plane to learn to fly, and to learn to fly well. The P-51 was easy to learn, easy to master and well suited to boom & zoom. Plus the P-38 was expensive to build, and expensive and difficult to maintain, while the P-51 was cheap to build and maintain, and easy to maintain.

    Training P-51 pilots to fight well was easier, faster and less expensive than teaching P-38 pilots to fight well. This goes with the P-51 being a more recent design than the P-51.

    You are going P-51 fanboy on me.

    You are blaming pilots and aircraft designs for a Bomber Mafia doctrinal myopia and a piss poor USAAF fighter training regime — a training regime that did not prepare USAAF fighter pilots for 20,000 feet (+) hours long escort missions, nor design fighters for same.

    The USAAF brass took steps to make the P-51 work in the 8th Air force that they did not for the P-38. and it hid the ranges of fully modified P-38s and P-47 from the historical record afterwards.

    This is called weighting the scales. It was and remains today a standard USAF bureaucratic power play.

    As for the rest, the American production of the P-51B was started in early 1943. There was a second new P-51C plant that was added in Dallas, Texas by the summer 1943.

    The second P-38 production plant was added in the _summer_of _1945_.

    The Schweinfurt–Regensburg mission over Southern Germany was 14 Oct 1943.

    The decision to start escorting heavy bombers all the way to target happened in November 1943.

    It wasn’t a Lockheed corporate culture issue that made it less responsive with the P-38. It was an industrial infrastructure issue. The decision for the second P-51 plant in late 1942-early 1943 was determinative as far as the ability of North American to be more responsive to the 8th Air Force vice Lockheed.

    Lockheed was forbidden to make changes to the P-38 that would slow production at the sole P-38 plant.
    North American had a brand new production plant that was just spooling up as the demand for quick modifications of the P-51 came in from Dec. 1943 through early spring 1944. NAA could phase in new changes faster than Lockheed for the simple reason that NAA could use up older design parts in one plant while phasing in newer aircraft design modifications in the other.

    Lockheed had to completely use up old parts designs before phasing in new ones at its sole production plant. The best it could do was send range extension kits to the UK by air…which were on a C-54 transport shot down by RAF Fighter Command!

    The P-51 also benefitted from the British Merlin production plants and aircraft test facilities in the UK, as the British could turn around aircraft/engine test fixes far faster for the NAA folks in the UK than Lockheed/Allison reps had to do going to Ohio (Wright-Patterson field) and California.

    This second Dallas Texas P-51 plant was also the major reason for the lower cost of the P-51 vice the P-38.

    I have the following drop tank maximum range/mission profiles for P-38, P-47 & P-51 fighters from several official USAAF test reports. The first is a Oct 1944 report for a P-38L (or late model P-38J) in the “escort a B-17 or B-24 formation to Germany” flight regime.

    The March & June 1945 reports are for the “Escort a B-29 formation within 300-miles of Japan flight” flight regime. This was the 20th Air Force equivalent of the 8th Air Force “Target support profile.” This regime escorted B-29 1/2 hour both to the target and leaving, w/20-min full military power in this “magic hour”.

    The B-29 flight regime incorporates 400 or more miles at optimum fuel conserving power setting below 20,000 ft, AKA the “Fuel lean, low engine RPM, low Prop RPM” settings Charles Lindberg pioneered for the 5th Air Force P-38’s in early 1944. This “long of lean” flight regime benefits the P-38 the most, and P-47 to a lesser degree.

    It also shortens the service life of engines using the “Lindberg settings”.

    The 1946 report for the P-51H shows further how the USAAF was “bending the narrative” in its post war reports.

    Please note the ranges of the P-38J-25, P-38L and P-47D-25, the last of which was used by the FEAF during the 10 October 1944 Balikpapan raid and was available to the 8th Air Force in the winter of 1943-1944.

    The Report of the Army Air Forces Board,
    SUBJECT: “TEST OF OPERATIONAL SUITABILITY OF P-38L TYPE AIRCRAFT WITH AILERON BOOST CONTROLS AND DIVE RECOVERY FLAPS,”

    PROJECT No. 3703C452.1
    Date: 4 October 1944,
    DTIC Accession Number: AD-B190368

    P-38J-25 & P-38L
    825 mile combat radius at 25,000 feet
    1635 total air miles
    1650 ground miles
    425 Gal internal fuel
    330 Gal External fuel (2𴡽 Gal tank)
    Fuel Consumed 705 Gal
    fuel Reserve 50 Gal (45 Min)

    “(1) Boost Aileron.–All test pilots agreed that the boost
    control is a great improvement over the standard
    ailerons. On initial flights, there is a marked
    tendency to over-control, but with familiarization
    this difficulty disappears. Formation flying is very
    easy and is not as tiring as with the standard ailerons.
    In roll comparison flights, the P-38L was superior to
    the P-38J, and equal to the P-51D and the P-47D-25.
    all comparison flights were made at 10,000 and 20,000
    feet at air speeds from 370 to 410 mph. At higher
    speeds, the superiority of the P-38L is pronounced.
    With rudder trim and aileron boost, the plane handles
    well on single engine operation. It is not tiring to
    hold the plane level using boost. When the ailerons
    are in a neutral position, a small noticeable dead
    spot is present with the boost “off.” This feature
    was not too objectionable.

    (2) Dive Recovery Flaps.–Dive recovery flaps were satisfactory
    and adequate in all flights up to 35,000 feet.
    With dive recovery flaps, the P-38L was equal to the
    P-47D-25 and the P-51D in pull-outs. The P-38L, recovered
    much faster than the P-38J, but was inferior in zoom.
    The P-38J regained more altitude than the P-38L with dive
    flaps in the down position but when flaps were retracted
    on pull-out, the zooms were approximtely the same.
    In pull-outs from high-speed dives, use of recovery
    flaps will black-out the pilot unless considerable
    forward pressure is maintained on the stick. Attempts
    to use the dive recovery flps as dive brakes resulted
    in about 40 mph reduced air speed at pull-out. Similar
    altitude power settings and dive angles were used.

    S/N 4-44-34
    No. of pgs 6
    page no. 3

    The Report of the Army Air Forces Board,
    SUBJECT: “FIGHTER COVER FOR VLR OPERATIONS”
    PROJECT No. 3786C373.13
    Date: 12 Mar 1945
    DTIC Accession Number: AD9427118

    800-mile radius of action
    Full internal fuel
    150 Gal External fuel (2呇 gal drop tanks)

    Attempted maneuvers at 30,000 feet with a full fuselage
    tank proved that the P-51D aircraft is unstable
    with more than twenty-eight (28) gallons in that
    tank. During maneuvers, with more than twenty-eight
    (28) gallons in the fuselage tack, the pilot may
    encounter stick reversal resulting in possible structural
    damage to the aircraft.

    800-mile radius of action
    Full internal full
    330 Gal external fuel (2𴡽 gal drop tanks)

    XP-47N
    1100-mile radius of action
    Full internal fuel
    630 Gal external fuel (2𴤎 gal drop tanks overloaded by 5-gal ea.)

    840-mile radius of action
    Full Internal Fuel
    330 Gal External fuel (2𴡽 gal tank)

    950-mile radius of action (w/165 gal tank retained over target)
    Full Internal Fuel
    465 Gal External Fuel (one 165 gal and one 310 gal external tank w/10
    gal low on 310 gal tank)
    Mission time 7:55 hours

    The Report of the Army Air Forces Board,
    SUBJECT: “TEST OF COMBAT RADII OF A P-47N AIRPLANE EQUIPPED WITH 165 AND 110 GALLON JETTISONABLE TANKS”
    PROJECT No. 4302C452.1
    Date: 5 June 1945
    DTIC Accession Number: ADB220502

    P-47N
    900-mile radius of action
    Full Internal Fuel
    330 Gal External fuel (2𴡽 gal external tank)

    1050-mile radius of action
    Full Internal Fuel
    440 Gal External fuel (2𴡽 gal and one 110 Gal external tank)

    The Report of the Air Proving Ground Command, Eglin field, Florida
    Subject: Service Test of the P-51H Airplane
    Project No. E4699 6-45-2-4
    Date: 4 October 1946
    DTIC Accession Number: ADB217347

    945-mile radius of action (B-29 escort profile)
    Full internal fuel (255 Gal)
    220 Gal External fuel (2𴡆 gal drop tanks)
    Full .50 Cal load
    Reserve 40 Gal (1 hr)

    925-mile radius of action (10k feet altitude strike profile)
    Full internal fuel (255 Gal)
    220 Gal External fuel (2𴡆 gal drop tanks)
    Full .50 Cal load, 6࡫.0″ HVAR rockets on rails
    Reserve 40 Gal (1 hr)

    365-mile radius of action (10k feet altitude Fighter-Bomber profile)
    Full internal fuel (255 Gal)
    Full .50 Cal load, 6࡫.0″ HVAR rockets on rails, 2x500lb bombs
    Reserve 40 Gal (1 hr)

    Max P-51H load out Full .50 Cal load, 6࡫.0″ HVAR rockets on rails, 2x1000lb bombs

    Note 1 — P-51D was limited to 500lb bomb on either wing.

    Note 2 — P-51D Only used the 110 gal metal drop tanks for ferry missons. The 100 gallon tank was a 750 lb class load (110 X 6.5 lbs a gallon = 710 lbs plus metal tank).

    Note 3 — P-51D is 6 mpg faster than a P-51H below 8,000 feet when both are held to 67″ Hg manifold pressure and 3,000rpm

    Note 4 — P-51H is one min faster to 30,000 ft than a P-51D when both are held to 67″ Hg manifold pressure and 3,000rpm

    Note 5 — P-51H is general a better performer than a P-51D over 21,000ft when both are held to 67″ Hg and 3,000rpm

    Note 5 — P-51H is a better performer than a P-51D at all altitudes when at 80″ Hg or 90″ manifold pressure with water injection and 3,000rpm

    Note 6 — P-51H is a better gun platform and dive bomber than a P-51D and was directionally stable with full internal fuel.

    Note 7 — Note the P-51H tested with a V-1650-9 Packard Merlin engine had major, as in engine
    destroying, reliability issues over 67″ Hg manifold pressure with Water methanol injection.

    Note: 8: A 165 gallon wing tank was a 1000lb load, so the P-51H could fly a combat as opposed to a ferry flight with them. The P-51D was incapable of combat with a 165 gallon drop tank as it’s wing hard points were stressed only for a 500lb load. The USAAF in this 1946 report was engaged in “narrative adjustment” here to justify keeping the P-51D in lieu of the P-51H due to the latter’s reliability issues and the arrival of the P-80 Shooting star.

    Trent, I resent your name calling.

    The P-38 cost more than the P-51 to build and maintain (way more to maintain actually). The P-51 being easier to learn to fly at all, easier to learn to fly well, and less tiring to fly than the P-38 meant it cost the Air Force significantly less to train P-51 pilots than to train P-38 pilots given comparable proficiency.

    As a wild-assed guess, the Air Force could equip, train and maintain (in the European theater) three P-51 fighter groups for every two P-38 groups. The P-38’s greater over-water twin-engine surviveability made it superior as a fighter to the P-51 for the Pacific theater.


    Watch the video: HobbyKing B-17 1875 mm Memphis Belle Maiden Flight