durability and ruggedness

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Of course, if you have such a photo showing a P-38 flying while missing one of its booms, by all means post it.  "I have seen photos" just isn't sufficient enough evidence.

Good point.  The photograph in question does not actually show the damaged aircraft in flight, but rather after landing.  However, the caption in the book states that it suffered the damage in flight and managed to return to base.  Whether or not that is true, if you'll look at a cross section of the P-38's tail, you will find it was quite strong.  Nothing I've ever read has indicated that it was weak or prone to loss.

While I'm sure "Viking" is goose-stepping as fast as he can to come post about Ralph Virden's power-dive in a YP-38, let us take a look at what Bodie has to say about that.

"The Yippee that Virden was going to fly on November 4 had been fully instrumented, and a major change had been made in the elevator.  It had been equipped with spring (servo) tabs, one at each extremity of the control surface.  These large-area tabs were designed to come into operation only if the control yoke force exceeded 30 pounds.  Whnever the higher forces were encountered, as they would be in a high speed dive recovery, the spring tabs would provide proportionally increased leverage to assist the pilot in overcoming the loads.  Since high speeds and sharp maneuvers at low altitudes (where the air density was greater) would result in temendous leverage ... Virden was warned to restrict his low-altitude speed and maneuvering." (p. 70)

"Kelly Johnson concluded that the spring tab operating link broke before the tail came off, causing the elevator to go to full deflection." (p. 75)

Hilts once posted that Johnson felt that Virden's airplane exceeded twelve gees, but I didn't see that in my quick skim of the chapter in Bodie's book.  I'll contact Hilts and see what he got that.

[Viking]

As usual Benny is being dishonest or just stupid. Whichever the case may be, I've never posted anything about Ralph Virden's test dive. I have however posted about Benjamin Kelsey's test dive.

But thank you for posting another example of a P-38 losing its tail in a controlled dive experiment.

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Viking
As usual Benny is being dishonest or just stupid. Whichever the case may be, I've never posted anything about Ralph Virden's test dive.

Hmm, that's really strange.  I re-read my post and didn't catch the part where I said you did.

Twelve gees at full elevator deflection, "Viking," twelve gees at full elevator deflection ... Eat your heart out.  Your precious Me-109 couldn't do that in a century of futile improvements.  The 109 would have folded nicely at about eight.  History has consistently proven that the Me-109 broke up before American aircraft did, both in collisions and in pullouts.

[Viking]

It broke up in mid-air Benny. A straw of grass can take 12 G's for a fraction of a second before breaking.

The 109 was designed to take 8 G's without taking damage, and 12 G's before failing. The P-38 was rated at 6 G's and according to Widewing it would fail at 8 Gs.

Even the “Game Info” section of the Aces High web page reflects this basic truth:

“Max G Loading- +6/-3.5”

“Eat your heart out.”

Originally posted by Benny Moore
History has consistently proven that the Me-109 broke up before American aircraft did, both in collisions and in pullouts.

Only in your demented little mind Benny.

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Viking
according to Widewing it would fail at 8 Gs.

Quote, please.  There's no way I'll believe Widewing said that.  You must be taking something out of context.

[Viking]

Back in the days of AH1 I put forth this question:

Originally posted by GScholz
In the plane description of the P-38 on HTC's website the P-38 is listed as having "Max G Loading- +6/-3.5". Was the P-38 really so structurally weak? In AH I seem to pull lots more G without any damage.

To which Widewing replied:

Originally posted by Widewing
Typically, American fighers were rated about 2 G below failure loading. Except that is, Grumman aircraft which repeated demonstrated the ability to survive tremendous loads without failure. One F4F survived several high G pullouts with the last one exceeding 12.5 G. This Wildcat was under test and was fully instrumented. There was no damage to the airframe, although the engine A-frame displayed some distortion. So, Grumman swapped in a new power egg and delivered the airplane to the Navy. I have about 1,600 hours in Grumman aircraft and can attest to the sobriquet "Iron Works" as not being without solid basis.

My regards,

Widewing

And Ack-Ack replied:

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
McGuire was famous for bring back planes with wings bent from stress and IIRC, it was common to see P-38s return home in such conditions.

In AW I was never able to break the wings of a P-38J, no matter how hard I tried.  In AH I found out that you can snap the wings off of a P-38L if you are fully loaded with ordnance (1,000 pounders and 10 rockets) and pull around 8 Gs pulling out of a 525mph (IAS) dive.  I've never been able to do it while flying without ordnance though.

As a side note about McGuire's crash, there's a theory that he died when his P-38 entered into a spin when he throttled up one engine to full before throttling back on the other and advancing them together.  If you don't do it that way, you can cause the P-38 to enter into a vicious spin and at low altitudes (like Mcguire and his flight was at) it's almost usually fatal.  This coincides with the surviving members of the flight witness reports of hearing one of McGuire's P-38's engine throttling up before he crashed.  Coupled with the fact that McGuire was not flying his normal mount and he violated one of his dictas by not pickling the drop tanks when engaging in combat, it was the final link needed to cause his demise.

Maybe Widewing or Savage have a copy of the report that was done on the crash a few years ago, since I originally got it from one of them.


ack-ack

Franz Stigler (28 victories, 4 viermots) on the 109’s wings:

Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would loose them easily?

He has never heard of a 109 losing its wings from his experience or others. The wings could withstand 12 g's and since most pilots could only handle at most 9 g's there was never a problem. He was never worried about losing a wing in any form of combat.


Did pilots like the slats on the wings of the 109?

Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling.....this was also useful when you were drunk.

[Benny Moore]

Ah, I thought so.  Widewing didn't say that it'd fail at eight gees.

[Viking]

He said "Typically, American fighers were rated about 2 G below failure loading. Except that is, Grumman aircraft...", and the P-38 was rated at 6 G's. Doing the math is not that difficult ... Not even for you Benny.

[Benny Moore]

Yes, that means that he is guessing, and that eight gees is his best estimate based on the lack of data.  I respect Widewing's opinion greatly (unlike you, who only respect it when he says something negative about an American airplane), but I'll still go with Kelly Johnson on this one.  He designed the airplane, after all.

[TimRas]

Originally posted by Karnak
Mossie in reality had a reputation for being very durable.  The wooden skin did not tear away when hit by cannon rounds like aluminium did.,

In reality there were cases where it became unglued in midair, without being hit by enemy fire, especially in the Far East.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
Yes, that means that he is guessing, and that eight gees is his best estimate based on the lack of data.  I respect Widewing's opinion greatly (unlike you, who only respect it when he says something negative about an American airplane), but I'll still go with Kelly Johnson on this one.  He designed the airplane, after all.

When a great fan of the aircraft and … alleged historian speaks of its shortcomings it is of infinitely greater value than when a designer boasts about what he “felt” his own creation could do. I say again, the P-38 in question broke up in mid air.

I must say I find the notion somewhat amusing that Johnson would look at the P-38 confetti falling from the sky and say ‘look how strong it is!’  I think you made that part up Benny.

[BaldEagl]

durability and ruggedness; Benny Moore or Viking?

[Benny Moore]

He's not a Viking, he's a disgrace.

[Viking]

*Feigns a heart attack*

Ouch, that really hurt Benny.    Like always you turn to ad hominem arguments.

[Benny Moore]

A real Viking would probably use an honest axe, not clever simpering and underhanded word games.