Author Topic: Flying the P-38 by Elliot Dent  (Read 3023 times)

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Flying the P-38 by Elliot Dent
« on: April 30, 2005, 09:41:00 AM »
Elliot Dent flew with the 7th Fighter Squadron of the 49th Fighter Group. He was credited with 6 Japanese fighters destroyed in combat, flying both the P-40N and later, the P-38L-1-LO.

Before his death, Dent wrote a little piece about the P-38, which was later published by his son-in-law. I posted this to this board over 3 years ago. Perhaps it is time to post it again.

Understand this though, Dent flew the P-40 and P-38 in combat. He also flew the P-47 and P-51 stateside. His fighter of choice was the Lightning and he tells us why.

"Other than knowing how to handle an engine-out situation on take-off (the usual
VMC business), the Lockheed offered no trouble.  A complex airplane?  For its
day, yes.  A dangerous airplane?  Not at all.  

This P-38 debate is endless, but some things about the P-38 that made it such
a marvelous design haven't been brought up that probably should be:
To achieve high-speed capability, an airplane will have high wing-loading
(gross weight to wing area) and low power loading (gross weight to horsepower).
The P-38 had very high wing loading (which provides other benefits, such as
when penetrating weather, etc.), higher than anything other than one-off
record-breaking and racing planes when it was introduced. And it also had
unusually low power loading; in fact it had the lowest power loading of any US
design (maybe any design) of WWII.  Turbocharging ensured this power loading
would remain constant to very high altitudes.This meant the airplane would be fast.
But high wing loading would normally degrade turning, climb and ceiling. With such
high wing-loading, the P-38 should have been a dog in all but top speed. It wasn't
because of two other factors.

One is its aspect ratio (span to chord ratio; that is, the relationship of the
length of the wing to its width).  Another, related, factor is its span loading
(ratio of airplane weight to wingspan). In turns or climbs, a plane's drag tends
to increase and its speed to decrease. A way to counter this is to increase
the wingspan. For any given wing area, increasing the span decreases the
chord, providing a higher aspect ratio. For structural and other reasons, most
WWII-era fighters had aspect ratios of 6 or less. The P-38 had an amazing
aspect ratio of 8, meaning that it could gain the advantage of high wing loading
for speed and still not lose in maneuverability, climb or ceiling.

A large wingspan, however, generally degrades a plane's rate of roll because
the wing surface is so far out from the fuselage and center of gravity. Making
the wing tips narrower by tapering the plan form does a lot to counter this.
Normal fighter configurations had a taper ratio of about 2 (the wing tip being
only about half as wide as the wing root). The P-38 had a taper ratio of 3.
So, you had an airplane that was fast yet a good climber, a good turner and
good roller.

But wait--there's more:

Power has to be converted to thrust thru a propeller. Big powerful engines
need big propellers to handle that power, but the diameter of a prop is limited
by tip speed. So power has to be absorbed by adding blades or increasing their
width. But a prop working harder on a given volume of air has inherent
aerodynamic inefficiencies requiring performance compromises. Bottom line
being that propeller inefficiency limits the value of engine power.

But because the P-38's power was in two "sections" (engines), each with its own
propeller, it was able to use its power as efficiently as a much lower-powered
airplane operating at lower speeds. And the increased propeller disc area of
the two props ensured that the plane's power and thrust would be maximized
throughout the maneuver range. This thrust efficiency made for an airplane that
leaped into the sky on take-off and could accelerate in the air like a drag racer.

Pretty neat, huh?

But wait--there's more:

Ordinary fighters of the day had a tail length ratio (number of times the wing
chord goes into the distance from the center of gravity to the tail surfaces)
of between 2 and 2.5. This ratio might be compared to wheelbase on a car. A
shorter wheelbase makes for a choppier, less stable ride. The P-38's tail
length ratio was a whopping 4. This means it had excellent damping, or the
tendency to slow the rate of departure from a trimmed position. This made it a
great plane for flying long distances in, with one finger on the wheel, or for
instrument flying, or as a steady gun platform or for dropping bombs.
The large tail length ratio required a smaller than normal tail surface area
because of the increased arm at which the surface worked. This reduced drag
and made for a truly excellent flying airplane.

Not bad, huh?

But wait--there's more:

The width of the horizontal tail surface was determined by the spacing of the
booms.  The result was a very high aspect ratio for the tail plane. The
endplate effect of the two vertical fins and rudder surfaces on the end of the
booms produced an aerodynamic apparent aspect ratio that was even higher.
This had the effect of providing very rapid changes in force with small changes in
the aircraft's angle of attack. This great sensitivity, combined with superb
damping, meant that less trimming force was necessary for stability and that
there was a wide range of CG position or stability available without
degradation of flying characteristics.

Wow, man!

But wait--there's more:

The high aspect ratio of the horizontal tail also produced narrow chord
elevators, which in a turn meant light control forces for maneuver. Ditto for
the vertical tail surfaces and rudders. Net effect, the pilot could dance the
airplane all over the sky without breaking a sweat, while bellowing out the
latest tunes from "Oklahoma!" to drown out the curses in his headphones of any
other pilot in some lesser machine that he chose to sky-wrassle with.

Because the engines rotated in opposite directions, they produced a symmetrical
slip stream flow which eliminated the need the carry rudder displacement, thus
reducing a source of drag. And there was no change in trim with changes in
speed, which was a pure blessing in maneuver combat, er, dogfight.
Then there is the Fowler flap system which actually increases wing area,
tricycle landing gear, centerline fire guns, plenty of internal fuel, a roomy
cockpit....

The P-38 also had an amazing degree of detail refinement compared to other
planes.  All its external surfaces were smooth with no disturbances from rivets
or lap joints, for example.

One negative was necessarily small ailerons because of the wing taper, meaning
large aileron displacement would be necessary to initiate a roll. That meant
high aileron forces. That's why the control wheel was used, and why the later
models had aileron boost.  Savvy pilots would blip the inside throttle when
they wanted a smart roll ASAP. Less savvy pilots did lots of pushups. And
there was the cockpit heating and defrosting thing (by the way, it's just as
cold at 25,000 ft. in the tropics as in Europe), which did get solved about as
soon as it became apparent. Cooling was never as effectively solved.
But, all in all, a pretty damned good flying machine.

As pilots of the day said, if Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a
P-38."

Elliot Dent
« Last Edit: April 30, 2005, 09:45:26 AM by Widewing »
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Flying the P-38 by Elliot Dent
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2005, 10:06:23 AM »
Pretty interesting.

It is interesting though that windtunnel investigations on the P 38 are much more opitmistic than flight testing.

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1946/naca-tn-1044/index.cgi?page0038.gif

All the best,

Crumpp

Offline Murdr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5608
      • http://479th.jasminemaire.com
Flying the P-38 by Elliot Dent
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2005, 12:38:24 PM »
Classic newsgroup post :aok

Offline BUG_EAF322

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3153
      • http://bug322.startje.com
Flying the P-38 by Elliot Dent
« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2005, 04:12:21 PM »
I must jump this thread .

i must...

i must....

p38 suks

heil kurt

Offline Murdr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5608
      • http://479th.jasminemaire.com
Flying the P-38 by Elliot Dent
« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2005, 04:14:34 PM »
lol bug

Offline niklas

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Flying the P-38 by Elliot Dent
« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2005, 05:12:31 PM »
ok, P-38 was not so bad compared to P-40 or P-47, maybe superior. Agree 100%!!! P-51 hmm maybe a different matter.
Still doesn´t say much.

The wing design of high taper ratio has an unpleasant effect of lift distribution.
Actually it´s highly ridicolour how he inverts the logic of wing design. A high taper ratio produces lift in the outer section, what indicates that the high tapered aircraft has structural problems !! Russian aircrafts had high taper too btw... Furthermore the area lost due to the fuselage is highest for hight tapered wings...
Roll rate WAS poor after all, so does he want to say the P-38 could roll with a P-40, P-47 or P-51 ? Well maybe, but this says a lot about these aircrafts then rather than the P-38!
Take the engine cells away and recalculate aspect ratio btw. And wingarea. Oh yeah, high taper and where the wing chord was highest there are 2 engine cells and one cockpit fuselage. Wing area was already low and effective wing area pffff....

All he says about power is plain ridicolous. The P-38 was twice as heavy as a single engine fighter, so it had 2 engines period. No big deal, some realibillity  advantages, many common  disadvantages of twin designs.

About Tail ratio: made a quick check to some 3D drawings: Does he takes 0.7*wingspan/2? ok, high tapered wings means low chord at 0.7 so here again the comparsion is pretty weak. Take inboard chord and the ratio is normal or even lower than other ww2 fighter designs. But if you want to make something shine you´ll always find a way to do it.

About the cleanness: The naca was not so impressed by the coolant layout. Anyway: a larger fighter always LOOKS clean. The cockpit size, amount of antennas, gear size etc. is close together for a twin engine and single engine fighter. Logically such a huge fighter has more blank areas and looks cleaner. But hey: it HAS much much more area, and a wing is also a kind bulge and produces drag!

No single word about compressibillity btw? Very objective view then lol. So open trash, put into, close trash, case closed.

niklas

Offline agent 009

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Flying the P-38 by Elliot Dent
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2005, 12:44:09 AM »
This may be from same article. yarchive.net/mil/p38.html


During the late winter of 1944 ocurred the famous dual between a
Griffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG.  Col. Lowell few the
P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass.  Lowell was
able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the
Spitfire pilot did.  Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning
circle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall
characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride
the stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut
back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver.  After 20 minutes
of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree
angle, not vertically down).  Lowell stayed with the Spit through the
maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground.  After that the
Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home.  This contest was
witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground.

Offline agent 009

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Flying the P-38 by Elliot Dent
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2005, 12:55:27 AM »
It seems as though the 38 was an experts plane.


It would semAnother problem that was revealed by the Nov. actions was that 55FG pilots
were attempting to dogfight e/a.  Their airplane may have been up to the
job, but the pilots weren't (many had as little of 20 hours total time on
the P-38, and little or no air to air gunnery training, and were
especially lacking in deflection shooting skills.  Many after-action
contact reports tell of repeated bursts of fire at deflection angles with
no results.  Most kills were the result of dead-astern shots). An 8th AF
report examining the failures of the 55FG noted one main problem was that
the P-38 as an airplane was simply too complicated and too demanding for a
low-time service pilot to fly skillfully, let alone dogfight in. It noted
that many pilots were afraid of the P-38.  55FG lost 17 P-38s in combat in
Nov., while being credited with 23 e/a destroyed in the air.
Morale in 55FG plummeted, and numerous pilots aborted missions claiming
mechanical problems--giving the a/c type a bad rep for mechanical
unreliability, although u/s reports reveal that in most cases the ground
crew could find nothing wrong with the aircraft.  In many instances the
ground crews hinted that the pilots were merely cowards.  In one u/s
report, the pilot had aborted the mission because he claimed the piss tube
was too short and he could not use it.  The ground crew chief wrote in his
report:  "Piss tube to spec.  Problem is pilot's dick is too short."

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20386
Flying the P-38 by Elliot Dent
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2005, 12:55:56 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by agent 009
This may be from same article. yarchive.net/mil/p38.html


During the late winter of 1944 ocurred the famous dual between a
Griffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG.  Col. Lowell few the
P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass.  Lowell was
able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the
Spitfire pilot did.  Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning
circle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall
characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride
the stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut
back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver.  After 20 minutes
of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree
angle, not vertically down).  Lowell stayed with the Spit through the
maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground.  After that the
Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home.  This contest was
witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground.



Couple of problems with that.  First is that there was no Spitfire XV.  That was a Seafire mark and it was the Navy version of the Spit XII so it only had a 4 blade prop.  More then likely it was a Spitfire XIV.

Second problem with that is "late winter of 44" as Lowel and the 364th had been in 51s since the end of July 44.

Third problem is saying he was in an H model as the 364th only had J models from J-5s to J-25s.

SO!  The episode probably happened in the mid summer of 44, probably late July just prior to the 364th giving up it's 38s.  Lowell was flying a J-25 with all the bells and whistles, meaning power assisted controls, dive flaps etc.  And the RAF driver was flying a Spitfire XIV.

Being a Spit and 38 nut, my conclusion on this fight was that Lowell, at the top of his game, out flew a less then on top of his game senior Spit pilot who was trying to fly a Spitfire XIV like a Spit V and got whipped :)  

Dan/CorkyJr
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20386
Flying the P-38 by Elliot Dent
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2005, 12:57:56 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by agent 009
It seems as though the 38 was an experts plane.


It would semAnother problem that was revealed by the Nov. actions was that 55FG pilots
were attempting to dogfight e/a.  Their airplane may have been up to the
job, but the pilots weren't (many had as little of 20 hours total time on
the P-38, and little or no air to air gunnery training, and were
especially lacking in deflection shooting skills.  Many after-action
contact reports tell of repeated bursts of fire at deflection angles with
no results.  Most kills were the result of dead-astern shots). An 8th AF
report examining the failures of the 55FG noted one main problem was that
the P-38 as an airplane was simply too complicated and too demanding for a
low-time service pilot to fly skillfully, let alone dogfight in. It noted
that many pilots were afraid of the P-38.  55FG lost 17 P-38s in combat in
Nov., while being credited with 23 e/a destroyed in the air.
Morale in 55FG plummeted, and numerous pilots aborted missions claiming
mechanical problems--giving the a/c type a bad rep for mechanical
unreliability, although u/s reports reveal that in most cases the ground
crew could find nothing wrong with the aircraft.  In many instances the
ground crews hinted that the pilots were merely cowards.  In one u/s
report, the pilot had aborted the mission because he claimed the piss tube
was too short and he could not use it.  The ground crew chief wrote in his
report:  "Piss tube to spec.  Problem is pilot's dick is too short."


Read my earlier quotes from 370th FG pilots who transitioned from 47s to 38s in England just prior to D-Day and were flying them successfully in combat from then on.  THey learned on the fly.

Dan/CorkyJr
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline agent 009

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Flying the P-38 by Elliot Dent
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2005, 12:58:33 AM »
I noticed the xv mark too. We'll never know who flew the Spit, but still hanging with a 14 Spit is pretty impressive.

Offline agent 009

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Flying the P-38 by Elliot Dent
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2005, 01:03:40 AM »
So they learned on the fly, & had some technical bugs to work out, then with the arrival of the J model, things improved it would seem.


Problems that surfaced with the P-38 in northern European theatre included
its poor performance above 30,000 ft compared to the Me-109, caused by its
lack of high activity propellers able to make use of the power the engines
were delivering at that altitude.  The F models used also had insufficient
intercooler capacity.  Some indication that TEL anti-knock compound was
not being properly mixed into avgas as well (at this time TEL was still
blended by hand into fuel shortly before use rather than being blended
when produced.  This was because in those days the compound tended to
precipitate out if left standing too long.  This problem later corrected.
Others believed either too much (leading to plug fouling) or not enough
(detonation) TEL was being added, causing engine problems.

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20386
Flying the P-38 by Elliot Dent
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2005, 01:08:16 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by agent 009
So they learned on the fly, & had some technical bugs to work out, then with the arrival of the J model, things improved it would seem.


Problems that surfaced with the P-38 in northern European theatre included
its poor performance above 30,000 ft compared to the Me-109, caused by its
lack of high activity propellers able to make use of the power the engines
were delivering at that altitude.  The F models used also had insufficient
intercooler capacity.  Some indication that TEL anti-knock compound was
not being properly mixed into avgas as well (at this time TEL was still
blended by hand into fuel shortly before use rather than being blended
when produced.  This was because in those days the compound tended to
precipitate out if left standing too long.  This problem later corrected.
Others believed either too much (leading to plug fouling) or not enough
(detonation) TEL was being added, causing engine problems.



Something needs to get clarified on 38s in the ETO.  The 55th and 20th arrived with H models, but soon converted to Js.

There were no Fs and Gs.  Those went to North Africa earlier with the 1st, 14th and 82nd FGs that operated them quite successfully.

The majority of ETO 38 flying by the 8th was done in J models from the J-5 to J-25.

Dan/CorkyJr
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Flying the P-38 by Elliot Dent
« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2005, 01:16:31 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by niklas
All he says about power is plain ridicolous. The P-38 was twice as heavy as a single engine fighter, so it had 2 engines period. No big deal, some realibillity  advantages, many common  disadvantages of twin designs.

No single word about compressibillity btw? Very objective view then lol. So open trash, put into, close trash, case closed.

niklas


One big difference between you and Dent... Dent was flying the P-38L in combat and is classified as an Ace. All the book-based education in the world will not give you the insight one combat sortie will provide. I'm afraid Dent would deal with you the same way he did with your like on USENET... He'd ask you how many combat missions you flew......

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20386
Flying the P-38 by Elliot Dent
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2005, 01:19:43 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by agent 009
I noticed the xv mark too. We'll never know who flew the Spit, but still hanging with a 14 Spit is pretty impressive.



Lowell says the name of the RAF pilot was Wing Commander Donaldson.

The only Donaldson I could come up with was a guy who'd flown in the B of B but had been off Ops for quite some time.

This lead to my comment about Lowell being at his best and the RAF guy not on his game.

Donaldson would not have flown the XIV on Ops, and probably saw his last combat flights on Spit IIs or Vs.

Flying the XIV was a totally different ball game

Lowell's own account, says the fight took place right before transitioning to 51s.  He also claims it was a P38L although I'm guessing it was a J-25 which was essentially the same bird..

OK found where I'd typed out Lowell's account the last time we had this discussion :)

John Lowell, Quoted in the book "Top Guns" by Joe Foss and Matthew Brennan

"Our group received several P38Ls just before the P51s arrived. This latest Lightning had dive flaps under the wings, improved power and a gun camera located away from the nose. On a day we were stood down, General Eisenhower arranged for one of the top English Aces, Wing Commander Donaldson, to come to Honington and show us slides of English Spitfires that had been equipped with external tanks loke US Fighters. Those tanks allowed Spitfires to penetrate deep into Germany. Most of the US pilots didn’t know about the Spits long range, and some of the Spitfires had been fired upon before American pilots realized their insignia was the Royal Air Force and not a German Swastika. ME-109s, P-51s and Spitfires were not easily distinguishable from one another until close enough to make combat.

All the 364th Fighter Group Pilots attended Donaldson’s slide picture presentation in our briefing room. When he finished, he described the new Spitfire XV he had flown to our base. It had a five-bladed prop, a bigger engine, and improved firepower. Then he said, “If one of you bloody bastards has enough guts, I’ll fly mock combat above your field and show you how easily this Spit XV can whip your best pilot’s ass!”

The entire group started clapping and hollered “Big John! Big John!”

That was me, so I asked him, “What is your fuel load?”

He replied, “Half petrol.”

“What is your combat load?”

He said, “No ammo.”

We agreed to cross over the field at 5,000 feet, then anything goes. I took off in a new P38L after my crew chief had removed the ammo and put back the minimum counter balance, dropped the external tanks and sucked out half the internal fuel load. I climbed very high, so that as I dived down to cross over the field at 5,000 feet, I would be close to 600 mph. When Donaldson and I crossed, I zoomed straight up while watching him try and get on my tail. When he did a wingover from loss of speed, I was several thousand feet above him, so I quickly got on his tail. Naturally he turned into a full power right Lufbery as I closed in. I frustrated that with my clover-leaf, and if we’d had hot guns he would have been shot down. He came over the field with me on his tail and cut throttle, dropped flaps, and split-Sed from about 1000 feet. I followed him with the new flaps, banked only about 45 degrees, but still dropped below the treetops.

The men of the 364th were watching this fight and saw me go out of sight below the treetops. Several told me later that they though I would crash. But they were wrong!. All I had to do was move over behind his Spit XV again. He was apparently surprised. He had stated at our briefing that he would land after our fight to explain the superior capabilities of his Spit XV, but he ignored that promise and flew back to his base."


Take it for what it's worth :)

Dan/CorkyJr
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters