Axis Flaps

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Crump, I've studied Major Thomas B. MacGuire's crash for over 20 YEARS.

You need to either learn the facts or keep your ignorance to yourself.

McGuire not only had tanks, but had full 310 gallon tanks, and made a conscious decision to keep them.

What caused McGuire's crash was a high speed stall at low altitude, most likely caused by ASYMETRICAL POWER APPLICATION .


According to the report filed by Weaver, McGuire's wingman, and subsequent comments and interviews, McGuire had probably throttled back his engines to tighten his turn, cutting the inside engine more than the outside engine. It was NOT McGuire's personal plane, and apparently, as it began to shudder, McGuire firewalled the throttles, and the inside engine did not respond. It snapped inverted and spun in, from well under 1500 feet AGL. It was absolutely and most certainly NOT an stall of the type anyone not using asymmetrical throttle application would experience in a P-38, UNLESS they had trouble with one engine.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Interesting, because the USAAF say's it was due to the P38's "rough" handling by Luftwaffe fighters.  The Luftwaffe did not have a high opinion of it.  

So far the P38 fans are long on crying big crocodile tears and short on producing flight tested documentation.  

So simply produce some flight tested documentation supporting your argument.

Crumpp

So far you are full of more Bravo Sierra than anyone but those Luftwaffe apologists who wrote the crap you're reading.


The 8th AF reports were written to cover the total incompetence and gross negligence of the 8th AF from 1942 to early 1944.

As far as the Luftwaffe roughing up the P-38 because of the performance of the P-38, perhaps you should ask any number of families of German pilots who died in front of the guns of Lowell, Olds, Ilfrey, Blumer,and at least a half dozen other P-38 aces. Try reading Steinhoff instead of Galland. You want ot read about Galland vs. a competant pilot in a P-38? Read "Top Gun" by CMH winner Joe Foss. You'll find an interesting story about Galland admitting to Lowell smacking his bellybutton all over the sky after Galland bounced Lowell with every advantage.

The ones crying crocodile tears are the ones who lost the the P-38 in Europe at a ratio of about 6 German planes destroyed in the air for every 1 P-38 lost in combat, including the records of the worst performing P-38 groups of the 8th AF.

[Crumpp]

I have to dig for it but Avaition History ran an article a few years back. I won't claim it as a fact just yet, but IIRC, the crash of McGuires P38 did not have the drop tanks on it. If that was the case the article speculated McGuire was using his engines to increase his turn and misjudged his speed.

How in the HELL do you get any inkling that I am not familiar with the popular circumstances of his death CVH from the above??
Next time I guess I will just explain the popular line first then say the new information.

You P38 fans are FAR worst than the 109 crowd when it comes to leaping on any percieved slight against your favourite plane.  

You need to either learn the facts or keep your ignorance to yourself.

You need to learn some reading comprehension.

As for the P38:



So far NOBODY has produced any flight tested facts.

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

So far you are full of more Bravo Sierra than anyone but those Luftwaffe apologists who wrote the crap you're reading.

Kind of General, Captain....

Let have some specifics from any of the claims I wrote in this thread and I will back it up with original documentation.  

THAT IS A LOT MORE THAN YOU CAN DO....


Crumpp

[Crumpp]

The ones crying crocodile tears are the ones who lost the the P-38 in Europe at a ratio of about 6 German planes destroyed in the air for every 1 P-38 lost in combat, including the records of the worst performing P-38 groups of the 8th AF.

You got those docs because I have never seen those kind of losses from the Luftwaffe records to the P38.  I have a copy of the USAAF claims as well.  They certainly don't match up.

Please produce the proof because otherwise that is a nice story.

I have the Luftwaffe claims for the entire war as well.  Post yours and we can match them up.

Crumpp

[Ack-Ack]

The only thing I see from those that fly the P-38 are the posting of known facts.  All I see from yours and Kweassa posts are as Savage so politely labeled as "Bravo Sierra".  


ack-ack

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

First of Crumpp, pour that cup for yourself.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the circumstances of McGuire's crash knows the plane he was flying (NOT his plane) had drop tanks, and he specifically ordered the other three pilots to hold their tanks as he did.

As far as any "new" information on McGuire's crash, the latest research was done by Captain David Mason, USAF ret., with some help from myself, a half dozen World War II veteran P-38 pilots, and Warren Bodie. Some excerpts from Mason's research were published over two years ago. Mason contacted me in late 1999, and asked me to work with the P-38 pilots I knew on the actual flying characteristics and combat flying to see if we could gain a better understanding of what lead up to the crash, and why it happened. What resulted was a six month email discussion with Stan Richardson, Art Heiden, Don Rheimer, Ken Lloyd, Bill Capron, Bill Safarik, and half a dozen other pilots each with at least one full tour of combat flying in the P-38 and with an average of at least 1000 hours of P-38 seat time. Warren Bodie was brought in because of his expertise as a Lockheed engineer, and his knowledge of the structural limits of the P-38.

By the way, ONLY the 8th AF withdrew the P-38 from frontline fighter service, and even then there were still units of the 8th AF flying the P-38 in multi role missions as late as June 1944. The p-38 outnumbered the P-51 in numbers deployed with the 8th AF until around April of 1944.

The 8th AF was the ONLY AF in the entire European theatre to have any real difficulties with the P-38 that were not solved quickly. The 8th AF was for all intents and purposes a bomber AF with fighters only as an afterthought for escort duty. The entire upper eschelon of 8th AF staff was comprised of heavy bomber officers. According to the USAAF records I've seen, the WORST P-38 group in the 8th AF had a kill to loss ratio of 1.2 German planes destroyed in the air for every 1 P-38 lost for ANY reason, including combat, navigation, mechanical failure, and accidents. Remove the accidents, navigation, and mechanical losses, and it becomes 2.5:1 in favor of the P-38, combat loss to combat loss.

At least one or two groups of the 9th AF kept their P-38's all the way to VE day, and they were not assigned nor restricted to attack or ground interdiction. The 9th AF P-38's had a ratio of about 6:1 in favor of the P-38.

You might do a little research on Larry Blumer. He managed to wax about 5 or 6 Luftwaffe pilots in less than 15 minutes (likely including Luftwaffe experten Rudy Dassau), and his squadron mauled that particular JG badly enough that they were withdrawn from service. I'd say it was the Luftwaffe that got roughed up by the P-38's there.

I believe it was Steinhoff, who later went on to be the NATO commander in Europe, who said in several interviews, and in one book, that he and his pilots felt the P-38 was possibly the most dangerous fighter they faced, because it was fast, and extremely maneuverable for a plane of its size. He said that in his experience, and that of his pilots,  the P-38 was the fighter they found was most likely to be able to get on your six without warning, and was difficult to evade.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

One of the Luftwaffe's top aces, when asked which American fighter he thought to be the most dangerous surprised many by not even mentioning the P-51 Mustang. Johannes Steinhoff's answer was, "At high altitudes, 8,000 meters or higher, the P-47 was the most dangerous foe. [cut] Below 4,000 meters, the Lightning was untouchable. You could not out-turn them, or out-run them. It was suicide to try to climb out of a fight because the Lightning could quickly overtake you. I did shoot down several P-38's. This was largely because the pilot was not aware of my presence. Had they seen my approach, I do not believe that I would have been able to achieve a suitable firing position before the American would have turned onto my tail. If I was detected, I would dive away to safety. The early models of the Lightning were dangerous to dive from altitude because they accelerated too quickly. I believe this problem was overcome in later models."

[Crumpp]

You might do a little research on Larry Blumer. He managed to wax about 5 or 6 Luftwaffe pilots in less than 15 minutes (likely including Luftwaffe experten Rudy Dassau), and his squadron mauled that particular JG badly enough that they were withdrawn from service. I'd say it was the Luftwaffe that got roughed up by the P-38's there.

You might want to some more research on "Ace in a Day" incidents before you start jumpin around over Blumer.  

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the circumstances of McGuire's crash knows the plane he was flying (NOT his plane) had drop tanks, and he specifically ordered the other three pilots to hold their tanks as he did.

Exactly.  Old Knowledge hotrod.  Again read what I wrote.  

Lets see what the Luftwaffe says about the P38:

 




Seems to me the AF did have good reason to withdraw it from fighter duties.  Being a big target and a "lack of manuverability" is probably a hinderance in a dogfight.

We can look at the P38's tactical trials later.

Enjoy!

Crumpp

[Ack-Ack]

You whine about us not comprehending but it's you that seems to lack this ability.

The USAAF never pulled the P-38 from front line service.  The 8th AF was the only air force unit to do so and one unit did not make up the entire air force.  The other air force units that Savage mentioned continued to fly the P-38 in Europe and the Med, were it was quite successful.  It was also the premiere USAAF fighter in the Pacific.

You can argue the opposite all you want, it still doesn't make you right.  All it shows is that you're just another typical Luftwhiner who's got his lederhosen in a bunch.


ack-ack

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

More drivel from Galland and Milch. The same Luftwaffe apologists over and over again. Gee whiz, those guys were so brilliant, they lost the air war over Germany, lets ask them about fighter planes.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Professor Klump wrote: I have to dig for it but Avaition History ran an article a few years back. I won't claim it as a fact just yet, but IIRC, the crash of McGuires P38 did not have the drop tanks on it. If that was the case the article speculated McGuire was using his engines to increase his turn and misjudged his speed. [/I]




Hilts replied: Anyone with a passing knowledge of the circumstances of McGuire's crash knows the plane he was flying (NOT his plane) had drop tanks, and he specifically ordered the other three pilots to hold their tanks as he did.


Professor Klump replied: Exactly. Old Knowledge hotrod. Again read what I wrote.[/I]



I DID read it. You'll notice you DID NOT remember correctly. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd have certainly remembered that he DID have his tanks, as it was a big part of the story. I read what you wrote, evidently you didn't. All you were doing is guessing.

Is it "old knowledge"? Not really. I read dozens of articles and reports for years. I do not remember seeing anyone in any article, before Mason's stuff was released, saying that asymmetrical power was the cause of the actual departure from controlled flight.

And eventually, Mason published Doug Thropp's (he was the most junior pilot, and flew the mission as Jack Rittmayer's wingman) theory that McGuire was actually shot down by the plane he was attacking.  That could not have been the case, and by his own admission Thropp was too far away to have seen it. The truth was that Weaver had evaded the attacking Japanese plane, and McGuire was behind the Japanese plane, inside Weaver's turn nearly abreast with him, and pulling around for a gun solution on the Japanese plane. That's how Weaver saw and heard what happened, and he reported it as such to the CO, Mac MacDonald.


The drop tanks, and the decision to keep them, is the biggest single contributing factor, and you specifically stated the plane didn't have drop tanks. Had McGuire released the tanks, he would not have reached the stall speed, because 500 gallons of avgas added about 3000 pounds to the plane, and the rest would not have mattered. In any case an error in judgement killed McGuire, and the nasty snap roll into an inverted spin was most likely caused by asymetrical power. It isn't really speculation, as Weaver (McGuire's wingman, and the pilot under attack as well) HEARD the change in engine sound before McGuire's plane departed.

The most likely cause of the engine problems on the plane McGuire was flying is the "tune up". While McGuire and his crewcheif were up all night getting the plane ready for the muission, there was no testing of the plane before the mission. It was checked over and fueled up. It is very doubtful the engines were in the same state of tune as the engines in McGuire's own plane, and likely the plane had never been tossed around anywhere near as hard as McGuire was accustomed to. McGuire was notoriously hard on his planes. The decision not to take Pudgy V up for that mission proved to be a fateful mistake, made because McGuire felt his luck was running out.

[bozon]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Why do people that know so little about the P-38 always insist on making comments on it?
 

ack-ack, I may know less about the P38 than you do, but it seems I read english better than you do. And it's not even my 1st language.

I said torque is not pronounced enough in AH. If planes had a more pronounced torque, the P38 will BENEFIT just BECAUSE it has none. T

Then you go explaining me about counter rotating props.

Bozon

[Crumpp]

Crumpp says:
withdraw it from fighter duties

is NOT the same as:

Ack-Ack says:
from front line service.

Check your local community college, they probably offer continuing education classes.



 

I DID read it. You'll notice you DID NOT remember correctly. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd have certainly remembered that he DID have his tanks, as it was a big part of the story. I read what you wrote, evidently you didn't. All you were doing is guessing.

The article examined the crash itself and as I CLAIM IN THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE YES I WAS GUESSING since I don't have the article at hand!  Not in the habit of making claims without the ability to back them up with documentation.  Be nice if the P38 crowd could do that…guess if it is written on the BBS it must be true.  Especially from a fan.  

You immediately jump to bait with NO NEW INFORMATION.  Do you understand that there was no challenge to story in the first place?  Or has your P38 fandom blinded you to the point that you know longer even try to comprehend.  The "P38 attack Lights" go off and it's leap to the defenses!!

Worse than any "Luftwhobble" the P38 click leaps to the attack even on guys like bozon who just happen to write a good scientific DEFENSE for the P38's benefiting from greater torque modeling!!  Unbelievable!

Why do people that know so little about the P-38 always insist on making comments on it?

Bozon.  I did not realize it either but you must be willing to take a written test and be of the correct mindset in order to comment on the P38.  Only those willing to bend the laws of physics and stretch the truth like rubber can apply.  You simply are not one of them.

Now I have laid out FLIGHT TESTED FACTS that speak to the P38J's performance.

1.  The claim of "great acceleration" is crap.  The scientific facts say with poor power loading and high drag make for poor acceleration.

2.  High drag and Poor Power loading make for a horrible zoom climb.

3.  High wing loading makes for poor turning ability.  The P38 had the highest wing loading of the USAAF fighters and it's power loading is not looking too good for making up for it.

The Science points to the Luftwaffe pilots being correct in their assesment.  The P38 did not have the maneuverability needed for a top notch fighter according to the science.

Crumpp

[Karnak]

Ack-Ack,

I still don't understand why you think getting rid of the autoretracting flaps would help the P-38.

I think that Spitfire drivers in AH would absolutely love it if HTC got rid of the autoretracting flaps as flaps in combat are a feature that can only be used by their oponents and anything that reduces their ability to use their flaps helps the Spitfire.

If HTC removed the autoretracting flaps most people would shortly stop using flaps in combat after having them fail and become damaged.