Author Topic: Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH  (Read 7938 times)

AKSeaWulfe

  • Guest
Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH
« Reply #120 on: January 24, 2001, 09:10:00 AM »
Whether you are right or not Widewing, your credibility in any field is quickly becoming less and less with your infantile remarks. I've seen kindergartners carry on civil discussions with less name calling. Maybe it's because they are too young to have the obviously superior vocabulary in the name calling category as you do.

I too saw your reference to your flight time, and honestly, I've flown a twin engined Cessna, a kit built EZflyer(the canard type with a pusher engine), and a Cessna 172. This makes me no more or less qualified to make comments on any of WWII's single engined aircraft's flight characteristics. Dejavu has a point, something you dance around with your name calling because you can't accept that the information you provided is extraneous and useless in regards to your flight time.

You may bore the other's in this thread with a reply to this and shifting my name around so you may feel like the bigger man, but I won't be replying to anything you post.

I've said my bit, and I've called you out for acting like an unintelligent, sniveling, whiney kindegartner. That's not name calling, it's the most perfect description of yourself I can give you.
-SW

Offline StSanta

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH
« Reply #121 on: January 24, 2001, 09:29:00 AM »
Can I get 121? I have 120, 120 post, can I get 121?

121 to the gentleman wearing the monocle and leather boots!

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH
« Reply #122 on: January 24, 2001, 12:02:00 PM »
Andy Bush wrote:

"One quick question for Widewing. In the USN, does a 'crew chief' perform the same duties as a 'flight engineer' does in the USAF? Insofar as you folks are discussing flight matters, the question might be relevant."

Hi Andy,

Back when I served, the Navy flying billet for Flight Engineer was an enlisted position.
This included aircraft such as the C-9, C-130, C-118 and C-131. Generally, this position was filled by someone with an AD or ADR rating, but not always. Flight Engineer duties extended beyond actual flight operations, to include supervising all servicing and repairs made away from home station. Flight Engineers will be turn-up and taxi qualified.

Crewchief's are another matter. The Navy likes to have someone on the aircraft who has been fully trained and has demonstrated a high level of knowledge on operating procedures and all of the aircraft's systems. A crewchief can diagnose a problem and offer solutions to operate around the problem, and sometimes, even make a repair.
Additionally, the crewchief is expected to sit right seat when only pilot is aboard to operate radios and navaid receivers. The great benefit of this is that the crewchief invariably gets many opportunities to fly the aircraft. Some Commands required that the crewchief become minimally qualified to land the aircraft in an emergency. This was also common in the Navy helo community as well. All crewchiefs will also be turn-up and taxi qualified at the minimum.

For someone like myself, who was taking flying lessons in my spare time, I suddenly found myself with many instructors who were very happy to teach. Before I had six hours in the Cessna 152, I had already accumulated more than a 100 hours of multi-engine instruction. I can thank men like Cdr. Vern Bloch, Lcdr. Sid White and Lt. Bo Ingram for taking the time to teach a young and very nervous kid as much as time permitted. In retrospect, I also learned some bad habits too. :-)  

Andy continues:

"I do have to say that I got the same initial impression that someone else mentioned...that you were a pilot. Not that there is anything wrong with other crew positions...but a pilot is a pilot, and everybody else isn't. For example, when I first started out as an airline pilot, I flew as a flight engineer on a B-727. When I upgraded to First Officer and then Captain, I did it on the DC-9/MD-80 aircraft. Today, after 12+ years and 8500 hours of airline time, I think I would be very careful before I started advising folks on how to fly the 727. Not without some serious qualifiers, that is...such as the fact that I never have actually 'flown' the 727, only flown in it. Managing engine performance and fuel expenditure is one thing...flying an engine out procedure is something entirely else."

Yes, I realized that the language I used was
ambiguous enough to be interpreted as you did. That is why I was very specific to list each and every crew position that I qualified for when I was asked for those specifics.

Andy, you might also note that I have not 'advised' anyone on how to fly the P-38. I certainly don't have the background that would allow for that. What I stated was that my experience, even limited as it is, does provide me with some insight into the flight characteristics of the P-38. In the same manner, someone who has experience driving a rear-drive Ford will have greater insight into the driving characteristics of a rear-drive Buick, than someone who has never driven an automobile. By 'insight', I employ the literal definition; having the ability of seeing into a situation and undertanding the situation.

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 Jimdandy

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH
« Reply #123 on: January 24, 2001, 12:41:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing:
Andy Bush wrote:
Andy, you might also note that I have not 'advised' anyone on how to fly the P-38. I certainly don't have the background that would allow for that. What I stated was that my experience, even limited as it is, does provide me with some insight into the flight characteristics of the P-38. In the same manner, someone who has experience driving a rear-drive Ford will have greater insight into the driving characteristics of a rear-drive Buick, than someone who has never driven an automobile. By 'insight', I employ the literal definition; having the ability of seeing into a situation and undertanding the situation.

My regards,

Widewing



I see what your saying. I agree. I have only flown about 3hrs total in single engine planes. I've never even taken off or landed I just flew around. I would have to say you have more to say on the subject of how a P-38 might fly based on that. I've ridden in a B-17. I think it puts me one up on someone with equal book knowledge to mine on the B-17. We have also had some very, very informative posts with actual flight data on the P-38. I see no reason why your information can't be thrown into the pool of information that will lead to the answer. I also think you can give all of the information your hart desires on how to fly a P-38 on AH. I think I can too. No one is going to die on AH because of bad information. If anyone goes and buys a real P-38 and starts taking advise off this bulletin board on how to fly it they would be the stupidest people I can think of. I've driven a car with 500hp at 160mph (a very nicely built 1974 TA god it was a blast). I feel I have more to say about driving a car that goes 200mph even though I haven't myself than someone that's driven a VW beetle their whole life. I think if someone was about to start driving formula one cars and were only using me as their reference they would be idiots. If people read more into what you said at first I think you've clarified that.

Man let me tell you if you've never driven a built big block in a car that will turn as well as go in a straight line your missing out. Ummmmmm torque.  


[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-24-2001).]

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH
« Reply #124 on: January 24, 2001, 01:33:00 PM »
In Oregon, they went to Ford Mustangs for State Highway Patrol interceptors in the mid 1980's.  These cars were very similar in weight and horsepower to the Chevrolet Camero, but beat them out in the 1/4 mile by a tenth of a second.

It took about two years to transition from the Ford Mustang to the Chevrolet Camero.  The transition occured because experienced police officers were having problems with losing rear-wheel traction in the Mustang.  These are all officers that have serious training an quite a bit of experience.  It was discovered that the Camero did not suffer from the same quirks. Officers with large amounts of both experience and training with simalar drive-trains were having diffuculting dealing with the Mustangs.

The only thing worse than a new Ford rear-wheel-drive owner trying to learn how to handle his first rear-wheel-drive car, is a Dodge rear-wheel-drive owner that assumes that they can't be that much different.

AKDejaVu

Offline bolillo_loco

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 127
Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH
« Reply #125 on: January 24, 2001, 01:53:00 PM »
wow!

Offline Vermillion

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4012
Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH
« Reply #126 on: January 24, 2001, 01:59:00 PM »
Good example DejaVu

<-- Ford 95 Mustang GT Owner

And its nothing like the Camaro's that my family has own(s)ed and I have driven.

And its completely different than my 69 Corvette.

Very similar in capabilities, but very different individual quirks in handling.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

Offline Andy Bush

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 153
      • http://www.simhq.com  (Contributing Editor - Air Combat Corner)
Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH
« Reply #127 on: January 24, 2001, 02:03:00 PM »
Widewing

Thanks for the info...that's pretty much how it is in the AF...both the flight engineer and crew chief positions are enlisted, sometimes fairly senior (E4-6). In my part of the AF, the 'crew chief' was a maintenance troop who worked on the flight line and was usually qualified on overall general maintenance matters. Technical areas such as avionics usually went to specialist who had to be called in.

Often times, the crew chief was responsible for a particular aircraft...this led to a tight bond between jet, crew chief, and pilot...the crew chief often thought that the pilot was just 'borrowing' his bird for a mission...and he better promise to bring it back in one piece!

Andy

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH
« Reply #128 on: January 24, 2001, 02:07:00 PM »
AKSeaWulfe interjected:

"I've seen kindergartners carry on civil discussions with less name calling."

Is it proper to discuss what your classmates do behind their backs?

Continuing:

"You may bore the other's in this thread with a reply to this and shifting my name around so you may feel like the bigger man, but I won't be replying to anything you post."

A hit-and-run artist, right? You must be the type that gives another driver the bird while you turn up the exit ramp.....

And, finally:

"I've said my bit, and I've called you out for acting like an unintelligent, sniveling, whiney kindegartner."

I'm assuming that the last comment was based upon recent personal experience, correct?
I haven't been called out since high school. That's quite a remarkable statement that you made. My question is this: Do you really believe that there will be room for both of us in your stroller?

My best wishes to you too.

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

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

Offline Jimdandy

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH
« Reply #129 on: January 24, 2001, 02:16:00 PM »
That's for sure a Mustang isn't a Camaro. There all a little different. Of the cars I've driven I would have to say that 1974 TA was my favorite. It wasn't stock so it didn't really represent a 1974 TA in pure form. It could sure take a corner and and still get it on in the 1/4 mile. I think the Camaros and Firebirds of the 70's were some of the most versatile cars out there. They could be modified to just about an type of performance you wanted and still use the stock frame and drive train as the base. The Mustangs the State patrol used to have here in WA were good runners. Of course some day I would love to own a GT40 MkII w/427cid.   Lee Holman makes a brand new one for a $250,000. I think I'll save up and buy two.  

Offline Jimdandy

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH
« Reply #130 on: January 24, 2001, 02:24:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Vermillion:
Good example DejaVu

<-- Ford 95 Mustang GT Owner

And its nothing like the Camaro's that my family has own(s)ed and I have driven.

And its completely different than my 69 Corvette.

Very similar in capabilities, but very different individual quirks in handling.


Got to love those V8 cars. Nothing like good old American front engine rear wheel drive and a V8. If it has a big block it's even better.   What does your Corvette have in it for an engine and transmission?

[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-24-2001).]

Offline Jigster

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
      • http://www.33rd.org
Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH
« Reply #131 on: January 24, 2001, 03:42:00 PM »
I think way too much was read into certain key words in this thread.

------------------
   
33rd FW www.33rd.org

Offline BUG_EAF322

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3153
      • http://bug322.startje.com
Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH
« Reply #132 on: January 24, 2001, 05:17:00 PM »
Jimdandy it depends how that vw beetle is prepared  


Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH
« Reply #133 on: January 24, 2001, 06:44:00 PM »
Originally posted by Dnil:
Woa!  Wings of Fame went under?  when is the last issue due out?  Just picked up the latest one around here that profiled the A-5....say it aint so!  

Is "World Airpower Journal" still gonna be around?


As far as I know, Aerospace Publishing is out of business. This is an excerpt of an e-mail I received from Author Warren Bodie.

"Aerospace Publishing went kaput in just one hour. The corporate structure kicked the WINGS OF FAME and the other co-publication in the ass, along with the entire staff, then closed out the top rung operation. Gone in a flash."

I have heard that another firm may take over the publishing of bopth magazines. If not, then they will be gone. It's a shame too.

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 Jimdandy

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH
« Reply #134 on: January 24, 2001, 09:07:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322:
Jimdandy it depends how that vw beetle is prepared  


LOL That's true there are some hot bugs out there. But you get my drift.