Luftwaffe accounts of "The Forked Tailed Devil

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by gripen
Hilts,
We have gone through this several times; the dive recovery did not change the speed where the buffeting or tuck under started. The dive recovery flaps just added positive pitch up moment making the recovery possible at higher speeds and added drag to keep the plane out of trouble.

gripen

The dive flaps changed the airflow over the leading edge of the wing...



ack-ack

[Bruno]

See Kweassa, he trumps allwith the Gospel according to... and the Book of....

After all these guys personally told the Cap'n Gripen is wrong, the RAAF tests are wrong, science is wrong, especially when its in conflict with the 'word of -38'.

Notice how all the Cap'n offers is his fundamentalist interpretation of what someone told him... He drank the cool-aid long ago and he now plays the victim. Comparing his faith in -38 to a cult is apparently a personal attack. Ami = personal attack, pointing out his exaggerations = personal attack, hell he was even offended that some one didn't like his favorite TV show.

What a cross he bears...

[Bronk]

Hmm
 Just like the -Insert fav LW ace-  said" We would lower flaps at much highers speeds than the field manual states.".

Not trying to start anything Bruno but whats good for the goose and all.

I am not saying you said anything like this but other LW fanbois have.



Bronk

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Hey Wotan, who said science was wrong?

I merely pointed out what the chief test pilot who helped develop the plane said, and backed up with proof. While you're at it, ignore Kelsey too, he was the USAAC officer in charge of the program.

Of course, I'm sure you and Kweassa will ignore both of them.

Thank you for proving my point as well. Continue to offer your little snide remarks, that's all you have, so stick with it.

[Angus]

Stumbled here:
"And the dive flaps DID make a BIG difference in the buffeting, both when it occured and how bad it was."

Weren't they for recovery? In a dive that's crucial, but how would that affect buffeting in the zone of high alt and top speed?

[Widewing]

From the Pilot's Manual:



Should end most debate.

Gripen is correct, the NACA designed dive recovery flaps induced pitch up and increased drag.

These flaps did not change airflow over the leading edge of the wing as they were located mid-chord under the outer wing panels.

Corky Meyer has written about his first experience flying the P-38L with the dive recovery flaps at the Joint Fighter Conference. He deployed the dive recovery flaps and entered a dive. As the aircraft began to buffet, the nose gradually pulled up and the plane executed a 3g, hands off pullout. To prevent the pullout, Meyer stated that forward pressure on the yoke was needed with increased nose-down trim.

Meyer also flew a P-47D-30 with dive recovery flaps retro-fitted. Upon their return to Grumman, Bob Hall, based upon Meyer's experiences at the conference, decided to install dive recovery flaps on the XF8F-1 prototype. All production F8Fs were so equipped.

My regards,

Widewing

[Angus]

Well, as usual Widewing pops in with something soli

[Bruno]

Hey Wotan, who said science was wrong?

I merely pointed out what the chief test pilot who helped develop the plane said, and backed up with proof. While you're at it, ignore Kelsey too, he was the USAAC officer in charge of the program.

Of course, I'm sure you and Kweassa will ignore both of them.

Thank you for proving my point as well. Continue to offer your little snide remarks, that's all you have, so stick with it.

Gripen gave you the reference and facts, there's your science.

Is Widewing lying now?

It's not that I don't believe Levier or Kelsey, AFAIk they haven't made one post in this thread. It's that your interpretation of what they said is filtered through your theology and will be contorted to and reshaped so that it is compatible with your faith.

I know you want to make a post and tell us why Widewing must be wrong. Let's see what you come up with.

BTW did you read what Crumpp attached in the thread I linked from AGW? You must not have or else you would have posted a a few lines about how wrong that is...

Damn Angus I was really hoping for one of your 'I heards...'

[Debonair]

i h8 2 pile on, but...

OMFG its teh forum 17 spin room!!!!


lol aircraft forum spin recovery lolof

[Angus]

Bruno, I'll bring you one
"I heard from a pilot who flew in the med, that the first P38 crews, and generally U.S. aircrew that arrived in the med, were really green."
I don't know what squadrons exactly, but that can easily be dug up.
I'll type up one or two examples today if you like.
Point being that a LW pilot might bear less respect for a new aircraft in the fight if it's most likely being flown by a greenhorn

[Bruno]

Point being that a LW pilot might bear less respect for a new aircraft in the fight if it's most likely being flown by a greenhorn

Don't tell the cultists that. They seem to infer that the P-38 was so above average that it could help make up for the lack of good piloting.

However, there are still LW pilots who had less then flattering things to say about the P-38 much later in the WETO. However, as I said previously, and in other threads, pilot anecdotes and stories are far from objective and usually only represent one side in a specific context. Taking any grand and wide sweeping meaning from those accounts, especially as it relates to modeling a game, is problematic.

There were certainly above average pilots flying the P-38 and their records in the P-38 stand-up against the best pilots of the war on all sides. Translating that into a cult of -38 is just over the top. It would be like saying that since Hartmann flew 109s and had the most kills that the 109 was teh bestest plane evah!!!.

[Angus]

"It would be like saying that since Hartmann flew 109s and had the most kills that the 109 was teh bestest plane evah!!!."
Heard that one many times

[Knegel]

Originally posted by gripen
There is no practical aerodynamic difference between the P-38 II (basicly a P-38F) and later models. Actually due to increased weight of the late models, the buffeting boundary was even closer than with earlier models.

gripen

Hi,

they talk about bad fitted wingroots in the tested plane as cause for the buffering, they did try to fit it better, but who knows if it realy fit.

They say that the P38 wasnt able to turn above 36000ft, if it realy was so in all P38´s, why they gave later models a even better high alt performence?

I realy dont think the P38 was a that good plane at all, but would the USAF have ordered and keeped the P38 in frontline with such limitations??

Btw, i doubt that the buffering was a high speed stall, it must have to do with the pre supersonic problems. Or is there a theory why a plane, good above its stall speed, should start to stall without stickinput(strait flight), cause its getting faster??

btw, the test say that the temperature indicate circumstances like in 40000ft "norm atmosphere". Thats maybe the reason why the pilots in the pacific, in the USA, south europe and summer in general didnt encounter this problems so early.

Dont get me wrong, the P38´s divelimit was a real bad handycap, but to believe the USA(A)F did use a plane, made for high alt, that was absolut not manouverable anymore above 36000ft seems to be strange to me.

Greetings,

[gripen]

Originally posted by Knegel

they talk about bad fitted wingroots in the tested plane as cause for the buffering, they did try to fit it better, but who knows if it realy fit.

BAC tested two planes and the results were similar as tested by Lockheed. The fillets might have caused a minor difference in buffeting but the phenomena itself is caused by entire area between the engines.

Originally posted by Knegel

They say that the P38 wasnt able to turn above 36000ft, if it realy was so in all P38´s, why they gave later models a even better high alt performence?

The increased ratings gave speed and climb which were usefull.

Originally posted by Knegel
I realy dont think the P38 was a that good plane at all, but would the USAF have ordered and keeped the P38 in frontline with such limitations??

Generally the P-38 did fine below 20k and had a capability to carry large amount of stuff. In addition it was in large scale production so there was no reason to replace it except in the areas where the high altitude performance was really needed (namely ETO).

The number of P-38s in the USAAF front line units tended to decrease towards the end of the war despite the production reached it's peak 1945. In Europe there were 3 groups in the end and also in the pacific some P-38 units transitioned to other types, SWPA being the only active front where the P-38 maintained it's status. There were plenty of P-38 in the places like Alaska and Panama but not too much action there.

Originally posted by Knegel

Btw, i doubt that the buffering was a high speed stall, it must have to do with the pre supersonic problems. Or is there a theory why a plane, good above its stall speed, should start to stall without stickinput(strait flight), cause its getting faster??

This has been discused here several times, use the search. Basicly the Clmax drops very fast when the Mach number increases in the case of the P-38.

gripen

[MiloMorai]

Knegel,

in a LW pilot intervue I once read, the guy said flying a 109 above 30,000ft was like walking a tightrope. This not a knock of the 109 for most a/c had to be flown carefully above 30,000ft.