Flying the P-38 by Elliot Dent

[Guppy35]

OF course Lowell's tactics would get cries of "foul" in the DA  

Dan/CorkyJr

[niklas]

So he cheated by picking altitude and diving down to merge level. Lol that trick works always...

@widewing: which fighter aircraft was designed by people flying combat missions so far, and which are designed by people studieng design? Let those pilots fly the machines, but don´t expect from them useful judgement about technics. And when someone simply avoids to mention a serious design flaw, then he disclassify himself as an objective writer. Did he get money from Lockhead or any other party for this laudatio?

niklas

[Guppy35]

Niklas.  At what point does a combat pilot have any credibilty?  Too many folks seem locked up in the numbers.

You ask how many fighter aircraft were designed by combat pilots?

The answer is all of them.   Any design is a response to the demands of the combat pilot.  If it doesn't fulfill their needs, it doesn't get the contract or the job done.

The P38, like any other fighter of the time was constantly adapted to the demands placed on it by the pilot's flying it.  It's up to the engineer to respond to the pilot's demands and give him the tools to do the job.

Dan/CorkyJr

[Kurfürst]

Combat pilots of WW2 had MARGINAL knowladge on the technology they were using. Hell, most pilots couldn`t tell subvariants away from the other, they were THAT much interested, or had knowladge on the technical issues...

It`s like saying a cargo truck driver knows diesel engines better than a qualified engineer, just because he drove a zillion kilometers... BS, at best he could tell which truck he liked better, and you can BET there will be always another truck driver who says the exact opposite. It`s not very useful if you want to know how it really was, but adds a nice narrative.


Now IF you are want to learn about planes, it`s best to rely on the guys who know both the theory, and the practice... that is, factory test pilots and such, like Heinrich Beuvais or Lukas Schmidt, Kurt Tank etc.

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Combat pilots of WW2 had MARGINAL knowladge on the technology they were using.

Now IF you are want to learn about planes, it`s best to rely on the guys who know both the theory, and the practice... that is, factory test pilots and such, like Heinrich Beuvais or Lukas Schmidt, Kurt Tank etc.

Conveniently, the thread starter already has a reply to this line in another thread.

Originally posted by Widewing
I do agree with much of what you said. Nonetheless, test pilots generally lacked even an inkling of an idea what combat flying was really about.

Remember Tony LeVier, Lockheed's Chief Test Pilot? Tony was a successful racer in the pre-war years, having won the Greve Trophy race and finishing second in the Thompson Trophy race twice (2nd time in 1946 flying a P-38L, behind a very fast P-39Q, but well ahead of a horde of P-51s and an F2G Corsair). LeVier was one of the most technically savvy test pilots alive during WWII. He could do amazing things in the P-38, and he toured England in 1944, demonstrating the P-38 to Fighter Groups assigned to fly them. Despite his tremendous piloting skill and his countless hours flying the Lightning, Tony discovered he was overmatched against the combat pilots. In mock dogfights with veteran pilots of the 364th FG, Tony had his backside kicked all over the whole of southern Britain by guys with less than 300 hours in the P-38. He was devastated at how roughly he was handled. What he didn't understand was that his opponents had been trained in aerial combat tactics and that their skills had been honed against the Luftwaffe. LeVier could fly the P-38 inverted with an engine feathered just 15 feet above the ground. Impressive stunt to be sure, but it won't help you in combat.

LeVier quickly found out that while he would occasionally push P-38s beyond their normal limits as part of the test flight card requirements, the guys flying the P-38 were pushing the plane beyond its normal limits almost every day! These guys were doing things that would leave the engineers stammering in horror. LeVier returned to Los Angeles with tales of P-38s returning from missions with wrinkled skin and bent main spars. First hand accounts of engines burned-out with just 6 hours on them left both Lockheed and Allison engineers shaking their heads in disbelief.

Test pilots of the era knew how to push their aircraft beyond design limits under controlled conditions. However, they would never subject an aircraft to the abuse that combat pilots did, and did so almost on a mission basis. I'm convinced that flight testing as we know it today was more the result of combat pilots transitioning to test pilots in the later stages of the war, through the late 1940s. Guys like Welch, Yeager and Brown had far greater insight into what a combat plane needs to be capable of than any test pilot whose experience was limited to non-combat flying.

[Angus]

Hmmm.
I think I would still have put Jeff Quill into the air as the Spitfire pilot;)

[Kweassa]

Okay. Honest question;

 If it was such a miracle plane, why didn't all of its prop-driven successors follow its design example? A design philosophy, especially a good one, has a tendency of being retained at least for a certain time. A fantastic one, has a tendency of influencing other aircraft production companies as well.

 Surely, just looking from Widewing's perspective of things, the P-38 has it all. High alt performance, immense ordnance capabilities, long-range capability, and a maneuverability edge over every single engined fighter that doesn't turn like a Zero.

 So why'd the USAAF even bother with P-47s or P-51s in the first place, and why were there such stout and unrepentant P-38 haters amongst their ranks?

 Just a joke, but it seems the great flamewars between the P-38 haters and lovers, seems to have a very long history of it, since the days of the WWII.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Okay. Honest question;

 If it was such a miracle plane, why didn't all of its prop-driven successors follow its design example? A design philosophy, especially a good one, has a tendency of being retained at least for a certain time. A fantastic one, has a tendency of influencing other aircraft production companies as well.

 Surely, just looking from Widewing's perspective of things, the P-38 has it all. High alt performance, immense ordnance capabilities, long-range capability, and a maneuverability edge over every single engined fighter that doesn't turn like a Zero.

 So why'd the USAAF even bother with P-47s or P-51s in the first place, and why were there such stout and unrepentant P-38 haters amongst their ranks?

 Just a joke, but it seems the great flamewars between the P-38 haters and lovers, seems to have a very long history of it, since the days of the WWII.

No one is claiming it's a wonder plane.  It just happens that it was a jack of all trades and it did them very well.  

There were plans on updating the P-38 but were scrapped for various reasons.



Also, it was expensive to build the P-38 compared to the P-47 and P-51, especially the P-51.  Like the P-51 after the war, the P-38 saw a long active service life.  Some countries flew it all the way into the '70s.

ack-ack

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Angus
Hmmm.
I think I would still have put Jeff Quill into the air as the Spitfire pilot;)

Remember Jeff Quill had his run of Ops time during the B of B.  He came back to Supermarine with a list of things the pilots were asking about as well as his own ideas based on actual combat.

Dan/CorkyJr

[Angus]

Yup, he flew in the BoB.
But so did many of the later test pilots, like Tony Bartley, who had like 2 ToD's, etc.
BTW, the only time Bartley met an aircraft he could not bite onto in a dogfight, it was a C.202.
And another cookie, Quill was famous for his landings where he rolled on treetop level, plonked the UC out while inverted, and finished the roll at stall, straight into a three pointer.
Didn't Bong do something of the sort in  a P38?

[F4UDOA]

In the interest of "Keeping it real"

The wing of the P-38 did give it some advatage because of it's high aspect ratio and despite of the engine nacelles placement in the wing. But the question is did it give it better lift than a single engine fighter or a better (lower stall) than a comparable single engine A/C?

P-38L at 15,000lbs from the flight manual stalls clean condition, power off at 94MPH IAS but 109MPH CAS.

That gives it a Clmax of

15,000lbs * 391 / 109MPH^2 * 327sqft
5865000 / 3885087
Clmax= 1.51
Stall speed = 109MPH

So it has a SLIGHTLY higher than average Clmax but a higher than average stall speed as well at a moderate weight.

By comparison

P-51D Clean power off
9,000LBS
Stall speed 101MPH IAS and a CAS Speed of 106mph

9,000 * 391 / 106^2 * 233sqft
3519000 / 2617988
Clmax = 1.34

Low Clmax relative to the P-38. Possibly because of laminar wing?

F4U-1D
11,300LBS
Stall speed IAS 87knots but with a CAS of 85Knots or 98MPH

11,300lbs * 391 / 98^2 * 314
4418300 / 3015656
Clmax = 1.46

That clmax is in line with most WW2 fighters despite the spoiler on the starboard wing.

So despite the variance in Clamx or wing design the fighter with the lowest wingloading still has the lowest stall speed.

How about with full flaps? Does that change anything? Well the equation doesn't work anymore because wing are changes with flaps so I will just list the speeds.

No power

P-38L
15,000LBS
Full flaps Stall
IAS= 69MPH
CAS= +11MPH = 80MPH

P-51D
9,000LBS
Full Flaps Stall
IAS= 94MPH
CAS= +3MPH = 97MPH

F4U-1D
11,300MPH
Full Flaps Stall
IAS = 86MPH
CAS = -2knots = 84MPH

So the P-38 gained all of it advantage through use of it's flaps.

But before anyone draws any conclusions keep in mind that these are the loaded weights of these A/C and I took the weights closest to comparison in the various POH.

P-38L = 17,500lbs -2500lbs to reach 15,000lbs

P-51D = 10,100lbs -1,100lbs to reach 9,000lbs

F4U-1D = 12,175LBS -900lbs to reach 11,300LBS

So draw your conclusions accordingly.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Okay. Honest question;

 If it was such a miracle plane, why didn't all of its prop-driven successors follow its design example? A design philosophy, especially a good one, has a tendency of being retained at least for a certain time. A fantastic one, has a tendency of influencing other aircraft production companies as well.

 Surely, just looking from Widewing's perspective of things, the P-38 has it all. High alt performance, immense ordnance capabilities, long-range capability, and a maneuverability edge over every single engined fighter that doesn't turn like a Zero.

 So why'd the USAAF even bother with P-47s or P-51s in the first place, and why were there such stout and unrepentant P-38 haters amongst their ranks?

 Just a joke, but it seems the great flamewars between the P-38 haters and lovers, seems to have a very long history of it, since the days of the WWII.

Not sure who the stout and unrepentent P38 haters were in the USAAF outside of some bomber doctrine guys who didn't want escort fighters initially from England.

As for the other part of your question.

There are always conflicts between design philosophies.  Why'd they build the  F84 when they had the F86.  Why the F100, F104, 105 when the F4 was available.

Most recently I suppose, why the F16 when they had the F15.

Imagine the F15 = the 38.  Big, poweful, capable and expensive.

Then imagine the F16-the 51.  Not as big, but powerful and capable and less expensive.

The USAAF/USAF has always battled itself over this stuff.   Some elements want the fanciest, more complex aircraft and others want less expensive and more of aircraft that are comparable.

Throw in that the 51 wasn't in production when things got started and that the 38 was ahead of the game when introduced and it's no wonder both were still in production later on.

Dan/CorkyJr

[Wolf14]

I have a buddy who crews on one the few surviving Connies still flying who told me that a P-38's wing design was supposedly mathematical expanded and used on the Constellations, but I still havent gotten down to looking it up. Hell with my luck it would be listed anywhere I could find it.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Okay. Honest question;

 If it was such a miracle plane, why didn't all of its prop-driven successors follow its design example? A design philosophy, especially a good one, has a tendency of being retained at least for a certain time. A fantastic one, has a tendency of influencing other aircraft production companies as well.

Just a few....

My regards,

Widewing

[BUG_EAF322]

Drool!! nice dutch fokkers.

o and not to mention the me 262
the meteor and the more modern jet planes.

2 engines it must suk huh ??