Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Widewing 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
-
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
-
Classic newsgroup post :aok
-
I must jump this thread .
i must...
i must....
p38 suks
heil kurt
-
lol bug
-
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
-
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.
-
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."
-
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
-
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
-
I noticed the xv mark too. We'll never know who flew the Spit, but still hanging with a 14 Spit is pretty impressive.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
OF course Lowell's tactics would get cries of "foul" in the DA :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hmmm.
I think I would still have put Jeff Quill into the air as the Spitfire pilot;)
-
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.
-
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.
(http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avp38_6.gif)
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/xf82-4.jpg)
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/fta/xf11-2.jpg)
(http://www.popularaviation.com/PhotoGallery/2898.jpg)
(http://ails.arc.nasa.gov/Images/Aeronautics/jpegs/A-6270_a.jpeg)
Just a few....
My regards,
Widewing
-
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 ??
-
Only photo I could find of Elliot Dent. He's on the right. He's standing with his ground crew and his 7thFS, 49th FG P40N prior to their conversion to P38s.
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1115152363_dent.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Only photo I could find of Elliot Dent. He's on the right. He's standing with his ground crew and his 7thFS, 49th FG P40N prior to their conversion to P38s.
Dan/CorkyJr
I have that same photo in Bill Pascalis' Protect and Avenge: The 49th FG in WWII.
You may know that Bill died a few years ago from cancer. He was an exceptionally nice guy, who gave freely of his time to help researchers. Even when he was very sick, he loved to gets calls just to talk shop. Great guy, and I miss him.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I have that same photo in Bill Pascalis' Protect and Avenge: The 49th FG in WWII.
You may know that Bill died a few years ago from cancer. He was an exceptionally nice guy, who gave freely of his time to help researchers. Even when he was very sick, he loved to gets calls just to talk shop. Great guy, and I miss him.
My regards,
Widewing
That's where I found the photo. Sorry to hear about Mr. Pascalis :( I was not aware of that..
Only one complaint about the book. If they used the phrase "old stager" one more time I think I'd have gone off the bridge :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
going back a bit...late winter in 1944 would have been before july
I like twin booms so:
dont forget the 109z (prototype only, destroyed on the ground, dont know if it flew)
FW-189 (not a fighter)
(http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW/FW189-1.jpg)
worth a thousand words at least, great photo
...there was at least one twin boom of the 1st world war also (not a scout also)...
(http://204.83.160.230/archive/a/images/AGO_BENZ150.jpg)
(http://204.83.160.230/archive/images8/AGOc1_sanke.jpg)
SM 91 prototype twin boom fighter
(http://ww2photo.mimerswell.com/air/italy/savoia/04319.jpg)
, but the italians did better with the P-38
-
If #'s worked then they wouldnt need test pilots.....obviously they dont.
-
There was also a twin boom Spit; ala 109Z.
I think it was Funked that posted pics.
-
Lets not forget the P-38 reached compressible speed very quickly at high altitudes.
-
(http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Others/burnelli.jpg)
USAAF lifting body twin boom, used by General DeGaulle...long booms great for transporting baguetts
-
Got this from Stan, who flew 38 in ETO.
A cloverleaf was simple maneuver to improve the turning radius of a fighter. Pull the nose up to bleed of speed which allows a tighter turning radius. Drip the nose to pick up speed, and hopefully, the tighter turning radius has improved your position behind your opponent. Continue this maneuver, as needed, until you've shot the bastard from the sky. If you were able to trail smoke, the maneuver would appear as a cloverleaf in the sky. This was a common tactic used by P-38 drivers, and it was quite effective.
stan r
-
The shape of the circle will then be oval?
And there is quite some verical movement.
Spit drivers would use another variant, - they were climbing all the time, so it was an upwards corkscrew.
Johnny Johnsson once fought a bunch of 109's that way, - he corkscrewed thousands of feet upwards with the 109's stalling out behind him. When at 19000 feet his second stage supercharger jumped in, so he left the party there.
-
Don't tell 38 drivers their beloved super secret 'clover leaf' was just a hi yo-yo before someone called it a 'yo-yo'.
-
Originally posted by Virage
Don't tell 38 drivers their beloved super secret 'clover leaf' was just a hi yo-yo before someone called it a 'yo-yo'.
It's not a high yo-yo...Watch this film, near the end you will see the "clover leaf" and why it works.
P-38G vs Spitfire MK.V (http://home.att.net/~islandphoto/SpitV_vs_P-38G.zip)
My regards,
Widewing
-
190 pilots also used the spiral climb.
-
Originally posted by Virage
Don't tell 38 drivers their beloved super secret 'clover leaf' was just a hi yo-yo before someone called it a 'yo-yo'.
Nope, the Yo-Yo was already created before the start of WW2. It was created by a Chinese pilot of the Nationalist Chinese Air Force in the early '30s. He came up with the Yo-Yo to counter the superior Japanese planes he was fighting at the time.
ack-ack
-
Why do pilots black out at 6Gs in Aces High when pilots today can withstand 9Gs without G-suits on?
-
Actually, the limit for a F-15 is +9Gs and -3Gs for a pilot with a G suit on.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Why do pilots black out at 6Gs in Aces High when pilots today can withstand 9Gs without G-suits on?
they had to decrease the G limit because there is no good virtual way to simulate crapping your pants
-
Originally posted by Widewing
It's not a high yo-yo...Watch this film, near the end you will see the "clover leaf" and why it works.
I saw some flap button mashing, a spit pilot that reverses 'just because' and a stall auger... and anybody can do that.
Using a game to 'prove' a maneuver is a bit of a stretch don't you think?
Use some more clover in your pipe before you blow smoke up my 6 again please :)
-
Originally posted by Virage
Using a game to 'prove' a maneuver is a bit of a stretch don't you think?
Tell ya what, lets see if we can get someone to loan us a P-38 and a Spitfire to "prove" the maneuver. Ice cubes in hell have better odds.
Until that happens, this is what we have. Besides, Aces High is more than a game, it's a game within a flight sim, a very good flight sim. Furthermore, I have had one 83 year-old P-38 pilot fly the AH2 P-38 and he stated that he thought it was modeled with remarkably accuracy.
Within that context, using the method demonstrated (pull hard till she mushes, ease off, regain some speed and pull hard again) will gain you angles while maneuvering the P-38 against a Spitfire.
It works, and it's not a yo-yo by any means. It is simply taking advantage of the gentle stall and torque-free characteristics of the airplane. This maneuver is well documented and can be duplicated in Aces High.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Ok so I was board but I think this thread deserves the official stamp of approval :)
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1115361375_badge2.jpg)
-
Actually, the limit for a F-15 is +9Gs and -3Gs for a pilot with a G suit on.
The Thunderbirds and Blue Angels do not wear g-suits.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Why do pilots black out at 6Gs in Aces High when pilots today can withstand 9Gs without G-suits on?
Because HTC is modeling WWII.
Olympic times have also fallen since then; due to better understanding of the physical needs; better technique and better training.
Likewise G-loc is better understood; the pilots in beter shape; the physical technique better developed and the seating more suitable.
But while thinking of this; what at what G limit do you think a heavies gunners become ineffective; either sat in the ball turret (which I guess would actually be a very good "G- position"; or standing free in the side window bays?
That sems to be a more glaring anomoly that wondering if the average limit for the average guy should be 6.8 or 7.2 G's......
-
5-6 G's for 6 seconds was the norm for a healthy young man....
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
The Thunderbirds and Blue Angels do not wear g-suits.
Partially wrong. The Blue Angels don't wear G-suits but the Thunderbirds to.
Why don't the pilots wear G-suits?
G-suits are designed with air bladders (pockets) that inflate and deflate to keep a pilot’s blood from pooling in the pilots’ legs while executing sharp, unpredicted combat maneuvers. Unlike combat flying, the Blue Angels demonstration pilots know the maneuvers they will fly prior to execution, each pilot knows when one will be pulling gravitational forces. Knowing and anticipating the changes in gravitational forces allows the Blue Angels demonstration pilots to combat the G-forces with muscle contractions. In addition, the Boeing F/A-18’s control stick is mounted between the pilot’s legs. The Blue Angels have a spring tensioned with 35 pounds of pressure installed on the control stick that gives the pilot a “false feel.” This allows the pilot minimal room for uncommanded movement. The pilots rest their right arms on their thighs for support and stability while flying. Therefore, inflating and deflating air bladders in a G-suits would interrupt this support and stability, causing uncommanded aircraft movement. In this case, Gsuits would detrimentally impact flight safety.
Blue Angles FAQ (http://www.blueangels.navy.mil/geninfo/faq.html#gsuits)
Practicing for perfection: A day in the life of a Thunderbird pilot[/b]
He marches to the aircraft, salutes smartly to his crew chief, gets into his G-suit, climbs into the cockpit, shakes hands with his crew chief and gets ready to launch. Near his knee, taped inside his cockpit, is a picture of his wife. Even though she's the love of his life, thoughts of her get pushed aside when he puts his game face on like a helmet. Once he releases the jet's brakes, he said he's "in a bubble."
Full Article (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBP/is_4_47/ai_100462778)
So as you can see the two reasons why the Blue Angels don't wear them is 1) Placement of the stick 2) They know what maneuvers they are going to do before hand, unlike a combat pilot.
ack-ack