Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Citabria on January 17, 2001, 12:04:00 AM
-
was a crappy plane that always broke couldnt go fast and couldnt turn any. crappy climber in real life too. all other US planes were way better
-
yes
-
2nd the motion.....all in favor say aye!
-
Perhaps I've flown the thing once or twice in a year. Is it so different from 1.03?
-
Dear Citabria,
I beg to differ. The P38 was the best diving aircraft in the American arsenal - Find that fact in the Bible of American fighters, "America's Hundred Thousand." It could also turn very well at high and low speeds. Not to mention the inline cannons and mg through the nose.
Sincerely,
Your Nemesis
Fscott
ps. Who owns about 20% of your deaths.
-
Oh wait wait..! There's more! It has the best acceleration of all late war fighters listed in the Bible, and it also has the best climb rate of all late war fighters.
As a note, it was voted the worst cockpit of all late war fighters.
Comeon cit, let's not fool people into thinking you fly a bad aircraft.... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
fscott
-
was a crappy plane that always broke couldnt go fast and couldnt turn any. crappy climber in real life too. all other US planes were way better
I agree. Lufwaffe pilots interveiwed during war said they would fight against P-38 because it was the crappiest allied plane in ETO.
------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey I/SG 5
Sieg oder bolsevismus!
-
yeah easpecially the P-38L
the LW loved killing this one.
109s could run rings around it.
-
For one reason or another (inexperienced pilots?) the P-38 didn't do as well in Europe as it did in the pacific.
But cit, ya gotta admit it's more fun to fly the underdog undermodelled planes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
If you die, it's because you fly an inferior4 plane. If you kill, it's because you're a much superior pilot.
A win win situation (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.geocities.com/nirfurian/stSanta.jpg)
"I am the light at the end of your sorry little tunnel." - A. Eldricht
-
Oh Cit's just trying to get a rise out of the 38 lovers. LOL Keep those cold hard facts flowing Cit. You've got them all disputing the cold impersonal facts. All you needed to add to really set them off was that it was ugly too! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-17-2001).]
-
blah blah... blah blah blah (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
I still say, and can provide data that says, the VVS aircraft are the most undermodeled in the game. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
The Yak-9U is 20mph too slow at altitude, and even more at SL.
And I won't even go into the La5fn
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
ya got the point StSanta (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
If you die, it's because you fly an inferior plane. If you kill, it's because you're a much superior pilot.
Still in love with the Yak/Typhoon combo.
-
La5/Typhoon combo here.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Heh, P-38 now suffers from stalls that are simply laughable, torque effects (I think we have the FRENCH P-38 modeled.. POS with no counter-rotating engines LOL) and an almost total lack of flap effects which has the P-38, the most flap dependant plane, to behave like a pregnant cow when it should behave like a springy gazzelle.
So yes, it IS the french P-38. *grin*
-
Hey verm, care to post those data?
I do believe you when you say you got it; been around long enough to know you're not bs'ing.
Just would like to see it.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.geocities.com/nirfurian/stSanta.jpg)
"I am the light at the end of your sorry little tunnel." - A. Eldricht
-
I would prefer J over L in AH where engine reliability is not an issue..
Trades off some speed for maneuverability, although not with as good ailerons of course
At least in warbirds I liked J alot more over the L model
-
Cit,
Well I have seen your data for a 440mph P-38L with two 1750HP engines, however I can find no documentation to support it. In fact "America's Hundred Thousand" has it at about 414MPH at 25K and 340MPH on the deck. In fact the performance charts from the AHT match the AH charts exactly. However your 440MPH P-38 appears to be an P-38M which never reached production. Unless of course you have some document you can share with me to prove it. BTW the listing for HP in the P-38L should be 1,600HP per engine combat power, 1,425hp mil power. This is the rated HP from the P-38L-5 tested in the June 1944 Fighter conferance.
Here is a quick list of what is wrong with the AH P-38L as far as I can see.
1. Climb is low by about 200FPM through the entire climb spectrum compared to the charts. This could be attributed to weight in which the AH P-38L is modeled. Like I said to you before, prove what the beast weights and then compare that against the documents. If Pyro thinks a fully loaded P-38L weights 19,000lbs then you better prove that it doesn't first.
2. Stall is off by about 5mph to high clean, power off. The stall listed in the manual is for power off at 100mph. Stall power on in the P-38 is higher. The power on stall in the P-38 is 105MPH in AH and that is probably generous.
3. Flaps does not sufficiently lower stalling speed. This is in all A/C in AH that use flaps for landing or maneuvering. Note : the 38 flaps seem to be better then other flaps in AH.
4.Peculier stall. When you stall the 38 straight ahead it does not roll of on to one wing as some say. I believe this happens when combat trim is left on. Turn it off and the 38 will not depart to either side regardless of how much back stick is applied. After several seconds of hanging in the air until the nose falls through the horizon the A/C will then fall off to one wing.
Thinks that are right with the P-38L.
1. The speeds match the charts 100% throughout the altitude range with and without WEP.
2. With 30 degrees of flaps a very tight turn at 2.5G's at an impressive turn rate can be archived at about 160MPH. This turn cannot be matched by the F4U in AH at that G load. This is also generous.
3. The dive break makes diving from high alt extremely easy with no fear of compression. Also extremely effective for bleeding energy in a dogfight.
If there is any one thing that can be pointed too in the P-38L for realism is a extra couple hundred FPM in climb. This is based on the loaded weight of the P-38L as being 17,600lbs.
The End
-
For once and for all the p38 did crap in the ETO just like the Luftwabbles did over brittain(when there was no short off good trained experienced LW pilots) Those schnitz could bnz those spit wouldn't they?
in the BOB.
The fighters where tied to the bombers and couldn't sweep freely.
The P38 paved way to europe giving the americans the experience to make the stang succesfull.
The P38 is better and more allround than the german planes .
The IJN planes where certainly not worser as the german planes so was it with their spirit and experience.
Saying that ETO is the big difference with the pacific is big BS.
S! chaps
(sorry nath for not being gramatically correct)
-
no F4UDOA your wrong. 440mph is bogus as is 1725hp engines in fact 1600hp and 414 mph is bogus too.
the P-38 is overmodelled
its obvious
it climbs to well.
turns to good
dives to good
stalls are so docile its like you dont drop a wing at all.
its also to fast
real p-38s had bad engines so they sucked in combat.
should model p-38 with only 1300hp per engine.
this would be more realistic
personally I don't give a toejam what you do to it because I'm never flying AH again.
-
"However your 440MPH P-38 appears to be an P-38M which never reached production"
What? The P-38M did fly and even had some kills.
"Note : the 38 flaps seem to be better then other flaps in AH"
Fowler Flaps. In AH I think they dont even come close to giving the P38 the manouv. they are supposed to give.
I disagree with your COMBAT TRIM idea. The P-38 did that even before the combat trim was put into place. I fly the P-38 now without combat trim, with combat trim and alternating in mid flight in some occassions and it still does it. When in near-stall the 38 will roll VIOLENTLY like if it was under the effects of Torque. Heck, its worse than a 109 with WEP on. Ridiculous!
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_16.html (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_16.html)
Plus, a P-38 mounted with EIGHT .50 cal's and 4 more on the wings (I WANT ONE!!):
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/g1guns.jpg (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/g1guns.jpg)
[This message has been edited by Tac (edited 01-18-2001).]
-
Santa, its from the data tables in Vol.1 of Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War by Gordon and Khazanov.
The Soviets were the only nation that kept two entirely different sets of flight test data on their aircraft, which were collected for two entirely different purposes.
One was for aircraft testing typically called "prototype data", and the other for quality control called "production data". In reality, its a matter of semantics, since the manner in which Allied aircraft were flight tested more closely resembles the "prototype" data set of the Soviets (in my opinon).
Pyro has consistently used the data collected for manufacturing quality control ("production data") which is the lower performance of the two sets.
If you go to most reference books, its a 50/50 shot at which data set the books will quote. The book I referenced above, is one of the few that actually lists both sets of data side by side.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Verm dont take this wrong but wouldnt this "production data" more accuratly represent an actual combat planes performance? Certainly a pampered prototype would have different flight abilites than a standard plane.
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
I also have that book and I'm with Verm on this one. The Yak is way too slow. Can't wait to see if the La7 actually runs 380mph at sea level as its supposed to...
fscott
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
Cit,
F4UDOA Wrote:
"Well I have seen your data for a 440mph P-38L with two 1750HP engines, however I can find no documentation to support it."
You probably won't find any 'official' AAF data that supports it prior to 1945. This is due to the USAAF not approving the 3,200 rpm
WEP rating for the P-38L-5-LO until 6/45.
The higher WEP rating did not appear in the pilots manual or techpubs until 115-145 octane avgas was available in quantity. You may note that the 1,725 hp rating came at the
higher rpm, with MAP typically well above normal limits of 60 in/Hg. One could expect to see 64 inches at the higher output.
I have copies of General Ben Kelsey's notes from several of his test flights in late run
P-38Ls. At the higher WEP rating, he reports
440+ mph @ 26,200 ft, with 3,180 rpm on the tachs. Takeoff weight was around 17,500 lbs,
with full internal fuel and ballast in place of the ammunition.
"In fact "America's Hundred Thousand" has it at about 414MPH at 25K and 340MPH on the deck. In fact the performance charts from the AHT match the AH charts exactly."
Diz Dean is a fine engineer, and he spent many years putting together America's Hundred
Thousand. However, some of the data he used has long since been repudiated as politically
or personally motivated.
For example, the test report titled, Performance of Aircraft, generated by the Army Air Force School of Applied Tactics in
Orlando (issued 9/12/43), provides performance data for several aircraft, including the P-38. What generally goes unnoticed is the fact that the pilots flying the P-38 did not advance the MAP beyond 48 in/Hg, and never explained why in the report.
Yet, one of the Lockheed service tech reps on
hand for the test said that when he questioned this, he was told to shut up or
leave the base.....
So, we have a lot of suspect test data from
the AAF. We also have (I do) test data from
Lockheed that some might suspect as being a
bit ambitious. Somewhere in between is the
truth. Kelsey was reliable. I trust what he
said, primarily because he left most of his
papers behind, and his reputation was above
reproach.
"However your 440MPH P-38 appears to be an P-38M which never reached production. Unless of course you have some document you can share with me to prove it. BTW the listing for HP in the P-38L should be 1,600HP per engine combat power, 1,425hp mil power. This is the rated HP from the P-38L-5 tested in the June 1944 Fighter conferance."
The WEP limits were discussed earlier.
The P-38M was the night fighter. I believe
that you are thinking of the P-38K, with its
1,850+ hp F-15 engines and paddle blade props. The K was the best performing P-38. Moreover, its performance was limited by the P-38s rather low critical Mach limit of .68.
Now as to the Navy sponsored 'Fighter Conference': Most of the pilots who attended had never even sat in a P-38 prior to their first hop. Most of the pilots were single engine jocks. One exception was Corwin Meyer of Grumman. He had quite a lot of time in the P-38F. Corky is still with us today, unlike the vast majority of the others who also participated in this boondoggle. Meyer was pleased with the P-38L, liking its remarkable low speed handling and tight turning radius (yes boys and girls, the P-38
could out-turn anything in the Luftwaffe inventory, especially below 20K). Corky will
tell anyone with an ear to hear that it took
many hours to develop the skills required to extract maximum performance from the complex Lightning. That is why the average pilot did much better with the P-51.
"Here is a quick list of what is wrong with the AH P-38L as far as I can see.
[snip]
2. Stall is off by about 5mph to high clean, power off. The stall listed in the manual is for power off at 100mph. Stall power on in the P-38 is higher. The power on stall in the P-38 is 105MPH in AH and that is probably generous."
I'm not sure what you saying here, but as a rule, power-on stalls occur at lower speeds than power-off stalls. Especially in the P-38 with a significant portion of its wing blown with propwash, that generates considerable lift.
Another point: Climb rates cited for the
P-38 are generally below that of the aircraft's capabilities. Lockheed's data indicates that the P-38L could get to 20,000 ft in just over 5 minutes at normal combat weight (17,500 lbs give or take 200 lbs). This is in WEP, and the average rate is just over 3,800 fpm. Even at 'normal' power (2,600 rpm @ 44 in/Hg), the P-38L gets to 20k in 7 minutes flat. That's still averaging nearly 2,900 fpm.
An excellent article on the P-38 will appear in Air Power International (February issue).
This magazine is published down in Oz, but
can be found in the USA and Britain. If you cannot find a copy, visit: http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html (http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html)
This is essentially, the same piece. Their is some terrific material by the guys who actually flew the P-38 in the ETO.
My regards to all,
Just a visitor.
-
Widewing:
Have you scanned any of these documents so that they can be emailed? Are they posted on the web anywhere? I'd certainly like to get copies myself and I'm sure that any number of other readers of this BBS would also like to. What email address can you be reached at?
thanks,
Hooligan
-
Those P-38 pilots did pretty good in Europe considering most engagments were averaging about 1:3, which can be blamed on LW ground controllers often mistaking P-38 flights for bomber formations on radar and sending up everything available, causing the LW to mass even in the Medd. after the LW had all but been wiped out.
The P-38 was easy to spot, and easy to distingish between in a dizzying dogfight, the main reason LW liked fighting them. Much better then fighting P-51B/D's which were often mistaken for 109's and vice versa (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) http://bigdweeb.homestead.com/files/p38article.jpg (http://bigdweeb.homestead.com/files/p38article.jpg)
(Rest of the article will follow upon request (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) )
------------------
(http://bigdweeb.homestead.com/files/sig.jpg)
33rd FW www.33rd.org (http://www.33rd.org)
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 01-19-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Tac:
Heh, P-38 now suffers from stalls that are simply laughable, torque effects (I think we have the FRENCH P-38 modeled.. POS with no counter-rotating engines LOL) and an almost total lack of flap effects which has the P-38, the most flap dependant plane, to behave like a pregnant cow when it should behave like a springy gazzelle.
So yes, it IS the french P-38. *grin*
french p38 was not aware of such plane ? they were produced by loockeed (sp?) too ?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
<snip>Certainly a pampered prototype would have different flight abilites than a standard plane.
thanks GRUNHERZ
Sure but the planes have to be modeled on the same basis : prototype for all or production for all but not the way it is.
(I fact I don't have the data handy but I trust verm (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
-
Widewing,
Where did you come from? Please continue to contribute to these message boards, it sounds like you have something to contribute.
First let me give you some background into what you are reading. Some of what I wrote was tongue in cheek for the benefit of others who make outrageous claims of performance with nothing to back it up.
Second there are three points that you brought up that I can address quickly.
1. Yes as a rule power on stalls are lower than power off. Except in the P-38 they are not. My data comes from two places. The Fighter conference of 1944 where stalls were tested in all conditions. From an engineer (Wells) who frequently contributes on these boards who explained that very thing in another post.
2. The P-38L would have achieved higher performance with the 115/130 fuel that was in use in late 1944 and 1945. But as a rule the performance comparisons are kept to a standard of 100octane. For instance the F4U-4 could climb at 4770FPM and reach 20,000ft in under 5 min. at that octane. With 100 octane the performance was reduced to 4,000FPM. It helps keep everyone on the same playing field. It's not an unawareness of higher octane fuels and there performance benefits. http://214th.com/ww2/usa/f4f/bullet08.gif (http://214th.com/ww2/usa/f4f/bullet08.gif)
3. I happen to know Francis Dean and believe me when I tell you. He did not write that book with any secret agenda. He did put together one of the few real analytical looks at WW2 fighters. Did he have some incorrect data? Yes, of course, but nothing that can't be sorted out by a second year engineering student. He happens to be 75yrs old right now and in the process of writing another book on VSTOL A/C. He is quite the man.
4. If you have any data on the Fighter conference please either post it or e-mail to someone that can. This data is as rare as the A/C that flew. So if you have anything to contribute please do.
Thanks
F4UDOA
-
Grunherz, admittedly its a matter of perspective and also of translation thru another language, but let me explain.
First off, realize that the flight test data for the Allied aircraft typically also come from "pampered" aircraft that are finely tuned aircraft maintained by either factory engineers or the best maintenance people that the air forces had to offer. These were the planes that were usually being used for acceptance testing, and therefore the manufacturers had a reason for the aircraft to perform to the maximum possible. They were not "average" aircraft right off the production line (typically).
Also let me explain something that I have learned in my career as an engineer. Test Data (in this case flight test data) means nothing without knowing first off how it was collected (the test conditions), and secondly why it was collected. If you know "why" it was collected, it will explain what the people conducting the test were looking for, and give you insight into the process.
So let me explain how this applies to the Soviet data. "Prototype" data was collected to see what the aircraft could do, admittedly the aircraft was tuned to see its maximum performance. So if the aircraft was performing badly that day they fixed the problem, tuned the engine, or whatever was necessary to get the aircraft flying correctly. Basically just like the American/British aircraft testing (which is logical for both sides).
Soviet "Production" data (if you read the description of it) was collected to help the aircraft manufacturers find defects of "average" aircraft and how to improve manufacturing and quality control techniques. So if they pulled aircraft off the production line and it had minor defects or ran rough, it was not fixed or tuned in the least. Because they wanted to know what problems were occuring, how badly these problems effected the aircraft, and how best to fix the quality control problems.
So do you see the difference?
In my opinon, if you look at how the data was collected and why the data was collected, you will see that for VVS aircraft "prototype" style data matches most closely what is collected for Allied aircraft.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
"The P-38 was clearly a hot performer and the UK Air Ministry and French AF soon took an interest in the type, seeking a non-turbocharged variant with identical powerplants (and same sense prop rotation) to the Curtiss Tomahawks at that time ordered in significant numbers. Designated the Model 322B and F respectively, the RAF promptly sought a total of 667 of these aircraft, a far cry from the 60 or so which Lockheed expected the US government to purchase. Unfortunately, the buyers did not appreciate the limitations of the V-1710 without turbochargers and Lockheed negotiators accepted the order in spite of the known discrepancy and objections from engineering. This was to have unfortunate consequences at a later stage. The US government also moved to order the P-38, requesting in July, 1939, 66 aircraft."
from: http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html (http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html)
"The French order was taken over by the British after the fall of France. The RAF wanted 667 P-38s, but for various (now obscure) reasons, they requested over the objections of the design team that the superchargers be eliminated, and that the left-handed and right-handed engine arrangement be changed to twin engines rotating in the same direction.
They were not surprisingly dissatisfied with the P-38 -- or Model 322 Lightning I, as they called it -- and did not follow through on the order. Of the 143 built, two were delivered for test, and promptly given a thumbs-down in March 1942. They "redlined" at 480 KPH (300 MPH) and had nasty handling characteristics."
From http://vectorsite.tripod.com/avp38.html (http://vectorsite.tripod.com/avp38.html)
now THAT one sounds like the AH P-38 heeheheheh.
"By mid 1940 Lockheed had received orders from France, Britain and the USAAC. The French order was taken over by Britain as a result of the invasion of France, and since the British insisted that their Lightning I should have lower-powered, nonsupercharged engines and propellers rotating in the same direction, it proved unacceptable to the RAF"
from http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/WWII/p-38/p38_info/p38_info.htm (http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/WWII/p-38/p38_info/p38_info.htm)
will put up more links when I find them
Additionally, i found this sad fact:
"Salvage crews are searching the Mediterranean Sea for the lost plane of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry after a fisherman found his bracelet in the sea near Marseille. The beloved author of The Little Prince mysteriously vanished in his Lockheed P-38 while flying near the French coast on July 31, 1944 as the Allies were pushing Nazi troops through Provence. Repeated searches near Nice failed to find any evidence of the crash, which was blamed on everything from Nazi attack to suicide."
I didnt know the author of The Little Prince flew the P-38 in the war. Amazing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Ah here's the link on the castrated P-38:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_7.html (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_7.html)
Note: The Brits did not use the castrated version of the P-38. The French did use it with abysmall failures.
[This message has been edited by Tac (edited 01-19-2001).]
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
Widewing,
F4UDOA wrote:
>Where did you come from?
Having been the recipient of several e-mail messages that originated from discussions on this board, I decided to have a look for myself.
I have met Mr. Dean, and we have exchanged several e-mails over the past two years. We met at the Reading WWII meet in July of '99. I was present to have lunch with Dick and Lydia Rossi (Flying Tigers). The meeting was pure chance, but was certainly a pleasant surprise.
America's Hundred Thousand is a fine addition to aviation writing. Generally, Diz used commonly available test data recorded by the AAF at Orlando and Eglin Field. He also refers to several NACA reports, which rely on data recorded in report RAE TN No. Aero 1231 and several TAIC documents. However, both Lockheed, Republic and North American complained about the objectivity of many TAIC reports. Therefore, many look upon these reports with a certain measure of skepticism. So, I do not believe that Diz had any 'secret agenda' whatsoever. I do, however, believe that he was stuck with less than definitive sources in some instances. If you are expecting me to say something unflattering about Mr. Dean, you will be disappointed. I have nothing but praise to offer him for his work. I might have a few choice words for Schiffer about the chop job they did on many of Dean's photos. :-)
As to 115/145 octane fuel: The AAF did not authorize the use of 3,200 rpm due to the increased risk of detonation. Yet, the prop governors could be set for 3,200 rpm, and most were set for the higher rpm in the field. Why? Because pilots want every advantage they can get. Engines are expendable. Ask any pilot if he pushed his MAP beyond normal operating limits and every one of them, if they are honest, will say "hell yes!" The same goes for any pilot, flying virtually any fighter in any Air Force. When your bacon is in the fryer, you do whatever it takes to get away. Within that context, rest assured that the limits imposed by 100/130 avgas were meaningless in combat. Herein is found one of inescapable problems with flight sims, be it Aces High, EAW, CFS, Warbirds or AWIII. One cannot exceed the programed limits. Therefore, one cannot truly and accurately simulate actual combat. That does take away from the fun, especially when you are aware of it. I suppose that some of the more talented folks can rewrite the program to adjust for this. A duffer like me is stuck with the software as delivered.
The difference between the F4U-4 and the P-38L is in MAP. The F4U-4 gained its climb improvement by overboosting. The P-38L gained its improvement largely through increased rpm and a very modest increase in MAP. Understanding how the aircraft were actually used is of greater value than dry test data. Especially within the context of real world combat. Once in combat, no pilot (who expected to survive) spent any time watching his MAP and rpm. Everything went forward to the stops and stayed there until the danger had abated. Crew chiefs always assumed that the engine(s) were overboosted in combat, and generally, they were.
As to stalls: My experience comes from my years as a flight engineer and aircrewman in the Navy. Typically, the S-2/C-1 stalled power-on about 6 knots less than with power off. Again, this is due to the wing and flaps being blown. I have over 2,400 hrs in various aircraft and 332 traps.
Could you explain why the P-38 stalled power-on at higher a greater speed than with power off? Especially in ground effect.
Data: I have been fortunate to see a great deal of flight test data. Much of it belongs to my mentor and co-writer, Warren Bodie. I have some copies of individual pages that Warren forwarded to me, but no complete reports. Why? Because these reports are usually greater than 80 pages in length and
a pain in the neck to photocopy (Warren is 77 years old and not inclined to unnecessary work). He might allow me to share what Lockheed data I have on hand, but don't count on it. Warren is loath to give away what he worked his butt off to obtain. Some material was purchased.
By the way, I gave Warren a copy of AHT for Christmas this year. Of course, Warren is "the" expert on the P-38 and he had some problems with Dean's material.
We have 30 hours of interviews with Tony LeVier on audio tape. More than 20 hours with Ben Kelsey and Kelly Johnson. Warren also has several hours of audio tape with Jimmy Doolittle. Currently, we are working on several projects, including a LeVier Bio and a reprint of Warren's P-38 book. We have also been generating a lot of material for magazines, such as Flight Journal and Wings of Fame. Since Wings of Fame went belly-up, we just hope that we get our unpublished material back. Our Lockheed XP-90 story was scheduled for the April issue of Flight Journal, but was bumped back to August due to a basic format change voted in by the editorial board last week (they switched the main emphasis from aircraft to more material about aviation personalities and first person stories).
The tragic death of Jeff Ethell left Warren without a co-writer. I was fortunate to be selected to fill that gap. It's a big challenge for a relative novice. Folks will have the opportunity to judge the result this summer.
Currently, I work as a design engineer and also have a degree in United States History.
My regards,
Widewing
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com (http://www.worldwar2aviation.com)
-
Originally posted by Tac:
>Note: The Brits did not use the castrated version of the P-38. The French did use it with abysmall failures.
For the record, both the French and British ordered the Lightning as the Model 322F and
322B respectively. The French never received any aircraft because they were out of the war long before any aircraft were constructed against the contract. As with the Curtiss Tomahawk (P-40) French orders was assumed by Britain.
Therefore, the French never experienced any "abysmall failures" with the Lightning, because they received a single airplane.
My regards,
Widewing
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com (http://www.worldwar2aviation.com)
-
Typo clarification:
Therefore, the French never experienced any "abysmall failures" with the Lightning, because they **hadn't** received a single airplane.
Sorry for the oversight.
My regards,
Widewing
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com (http://www.worldwar2aviation.com)
-
Originally posted by Tac:
"Salvage crews are searching the Mediterranean Sea for the lost plane of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry after a fisherman found his bracelet in the sea near Marseille. The beloved author of The Little Prince mysteriously vanished in his Lockheed P-38 while flying near the French coast on July 31, 1944 as the Allies were pushing Nazi troops through Provence. Repeated searches near Nice failed to find any evidence of the crash, which was blamed on everything from Nazi attack to suicide."
I didnt know the author of The Little Prince flew the P-38 in the war. Amazing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
the story of the bracelet is perhaps a fake no one now exactly (franckly how can you find a bracelet without finding the huge plane a 38 is ?)
Yep and he wrote a book about the war called "pilot de guerre"/"War pilot" but as he was against the presence of gun in plane he as always been in recco plane (in 1939/1940 and 1944) he was also about 40+ (don't recall exactly) and it "seems" that he got shot down/commit suicide or got sick in a reccon flight over the Alpes.
I've to said that the reading of the book of Mermoz/Dauret/Sait Exupéry are the reason I'm in AH now (forgot Clostermann/Rudel/Galland ... for the war pilot)
The only pilot writer who is as good as StEx is (do my mind) richard Bach
-
Widewing,
Glad to have you aboard. You seem to have allot of information I would luv to get my hands on.
So let me say one thing about how some of the test data you mentioned is collected and distributed.
As a rule I generally take much of the data that comes from the manufacturer and consider the source. IE. Republic made some claims about the XP-47J having top speeds (500MPH at 30K +) in level flight very close (if not over) to the critical mach number of the A/C. When I see figures like this I wonder about how the data was collected and if it is accurate. Obviously these companies had allot at stake at the time in regards to the A/C performance. As well as the pilots that tested them having some emotional connection to there work. So when I hear the chief test pilot of any company giving performance figures well beyond the published figures it makes me wonder. Boone Guyton from Vought said that the F4U could do a full 360 degree roll in 1 second. This is also very optimistic. Corky Myer from Grumman (with the help of Barret Tillman) has somewhat overstated the performance of the F6F. So again I choose to take a hard look at manufactures data.
With that aside. Let me ask you this.
1. Do you have access to Jeffery Ethalls notes on his flights of various warbirds. I have seen them footnoted but do not know where to find them.
2. Does Corky Myer have any updated information on the performance of the F6F after the pitot tube problem was fixed. Corky said in flight magazine that the F6F was as fast as a F4U-1 at 20,000FT. I have my doubts about this based on the same available HP and higher drag in the F6F airframe.
3. What will the content of your book be? I am very disappointed with many current books that choose to reprint inaccurate data from a reprinted source. Will you do any airframe analysis? Will you do comparisons in speed, climb, alt etc. What will be the focus of your book?
Also I understand the benefits of increasing manifold pressure and it's affect on performance. Charles Lindberg was one of the proponents of over boosting A/C to get the best performance. Here is a flight test between a F4U-1(overboosted), F4U-1A(service condition) and P-51B courtesy Francis Dean collection.
http://members.home.net/markw4/index2.html (http://members.home.net/markw4/index2.html)
Notice the F4U-1 5lbs overboost increases performance by a large margin.
Thanks
F4UDOA
-
Widewing,
I will quote an answer from another thread as to why the P-38 stalls higher with power on than off.
That's a tough one since the engine nacelles increase the effective aspect ratio, preventing spanwise flow. It would be debatable if the effective aspect ratio wouldn't be greater than the geometric 8.25, even considering tip losses, of which the P-38 has very little with it's very high taper ratio and rounded tips.
The clean stall speed of a P-38J/L is around 115 mph (CAS) at 17500 lbs, which is the same as a P-47D. The P-38 had weak directional stability and high yaw inertia, which is
part of why it was less likely to spin, it just slipped if a wing dropped, without the tail following. The resultant slip, combined with dihedral effect would right the wing again, kindof like a dutch roll effect instead of an incipient spin. Unfortunately, it would seem that gunnery suffered as a result and guys like Bong, preferred to be close before shooting.
Another interesting note is that the power on stall speed was higher than the power off stall speed. This was probably due to the direction of the engine rotation. The angle of attack would be increased on the inner wing portions from propwash, causing them to stall sooner than they would in freestream air.
Apologies to Wells for reprinting your post.
Thanks
F4UDOA
-
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?
------------------
Dnil---Skyhawk until I get Dnil back :)
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer (http://www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer)
-
BUG, et al,
The P-38 was a good design at the beginning of the war when we really needed it. It had a significant record in the Pacific (it even got Yamamoto), but in the ETO it was another matter. Sure, it served with distinction. It also saw significant problems.
Every pilot that flew in the War was completely sold upon his aircraft. No other plane would do. Sadly, this cost a lot of pilots their lives. The P-38, by its very nature, is a widow maker. It has killed a significant number of its own (Jeff Ethell among them). Nearly the same thing can be said for all Warbirds, but the P-38 is what hard-core pilots call "a real potato when she's pissy." Get her low-and-slow, pull too hard, and she's gonna slap you down.
Just step back and take a look at the wing of a P-38. It's huge, true, but it is also something else. It is fat in the middle, and thin at the tips. Those tips cost lives. Think about that next time you are in a low-and-slow turn fight in a P-38.
But, don't take my word for it! I fly a Pony! 38's are just targets and big ones too! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Voss 13th T.A.S.
-
Sure Voss
-
Originally posted by Voss:
I snipped this badly inform exercise in wind breaking. However, let me clear up one thing that is usually ignored.
I had more time on the crapper today then Jeff Ethell had in P-38s. Jeff was killed because he was utterly unqualified to fly the P-38. His estate is being sued because he fibbed to the owner of the aircraft, telling him that he had a great deal more time in the type than he did. The P-38 is a complex twin engine aircraft, and it demands that the pilot be fully trained in single engine operational procedures, just like any other high performance multi-engine aircraft. Reading the crash investigation report will reveal that Jeff got his mind focused on a systems problem and failed to fly the aircraft. The P-38 is a forgiving aircraft if the pilot understands the procedures. Jeff did not, and it cost him.
Now, as to the P-38 and its flying ability, let's listen to what a P-38 pilot has to say:
"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.
Like, 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."
Do you still insist that the P-38 was a widow-maker?
My regards,
Widewing http://www.worldwar2aviation.com (http://www.worldwar2aviation.com)
-
Just wanted to say a few things about the -38.
My grandfather is among those who liked the -38 as well as the -51 (30 combat hours in the -38, over 50 in the -51). So are most of the men who flew in his FG. One of them made an interesting point. The reason they didn't rack up the same kills as other groups is simple. The LW would make an run on a bomber box and either if they were engaged or after their attack would do a Split-S. That was the standard LW tactic. When they did that, the Lightening couldn't follow them, it would compress. The -47, however, could. This is one of the reasons the early -47 FG's had such better scores. The -38 couldn't chase the diving LW and they LW couldn't get away from the -47.
And when the -38 showed up in the ETO, (just 2 FG's at first, the 20th and the 55th) it was the only escort that would make it all the way to Berlin. So they were thrown into the fire full force. There was no chance for its pilots to learn what the problems were, what worked and what didn't.
Too many people when they think of the -38 v. the LW only think of the ETO. You forget that the -38 had a very good record in the MTO. Groups like the 1st FG (http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/6940/1stfg.html), 14th FG and the 82nd FG (http://ovmech.myqth.com/82ndFG/82ndgrphistory.htm) more than held their own. The 1st FG (operational Nov 42) scored 440 kills and had 19 aces. The 14th FG (oper. Nov 42) had 17 aces. The 82nd FG (oper. Jan 43) scored 594 kills and had 24 aces in its ranks. In fact the 82nd FG held the ETO/MTO record for kills until early -45.
PS, One of the best -38 sites on the web i've seen is : http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html (http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html)
------------------
Col Dune
C.O. 352nd Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona
-
Found a good sig. line.
------------------
personally I don't give a toejam what you do to it because I'm never flying AH again.
-Citabria
-
Yes, and I don't care how much time you have on the crapper, the P-38 is still a widow maker. It also doesn't matter what you know about this-or-that! You make a mistake with a P-38 and it'll bite your ass! It's worse then the P-51 in that regard (and lots of other designs).
Honestly, your love for your plane is commendable, but sadly misdirected. The P-38 has a triple-taper wing. That spells "disaster waiting to happen" to any unwary pilot and lots of wary ones too! How many war pilots died after their first mistake? Thank your lucky stars you only fly these rigs from the safety of your computer desk!
If Jesus had been into aircraft design, his name would have been Bill Atwood. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Voss 13th T.A.S.
-
Voss, I too am a P-51 fan.
But I have never heard anyone refer to the -38 the way you do. Not in any of the pilot's stories about it, nor any other reports.
I've gone through the history of my grandfather's FG, the 364th, and not a single pilot talks about the "widow-maker" capabilities the way you do. I've read reports from pilots who flew that plane in every theater in the war. None of them feel the same way you do.
I'm not sure where you got this idea, but everything I've seen says it's not true.
------------------
Col Dune
C.O. 352nd Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona
-
Originally posted by Dune:
Voss, I too am a P-51 fan.
But I have never heard anyone refer to the -38 the way you do. Not in any of the pilot's stories about it, nor any other reports.
I've gone through the history of my grandfather's FG, the 364th, and not a single pilot talks about the "widow-maker" capabilities the way you do. I've read reports from pilots who flew that plane in every theater in the war. None of them feel the same way you do.
I'm not sure where you got this idea, but everything I've seen says it's not true.
Nor have I. Most pilots that were given time to learn the 38's systems had no harsh words for it. Lack of torque, tricycle gear, two engines, good stability, great low speed handling, docile stall characteristics, are usually not characteristics of a widowmaker.
Rest assured, screw up in any high performence plane and that will be the end of you.
I've read Earl Miller's accounts from his days in the 345th FS, who for the most part flew P-39's and later P-47's but also spent a good bit of time in the 38 and described it as nothing more then docile.
http://web.a-znet.com/rmwinks/vets/earlspage.html (http://web.a-znet.com/rmwinks/vets/earlspage.html)
------------------
(http://bigdweeb.homestead.com/files/sig.jpg)
33rd FW www.33rd.org (http://www.33rd.org)
-
The P-38 and its problems in the ETO can be directly traced to two things, pre 38Js and the 20FG. in the month preceeding the transition to 51s the 20th shot down about the same amount of german planes for 38s lost. so since the 38 is suppose to be so laim and the 51 so much better, the month after they went to the 51 they again had the same kill ratio as they did when they flew 38s.
I think it reflects the the men not the machine. and all this B/S about the germans split s-ing and diving away, werent the fighters at that time tied to the bombers? they werent suppose to be going off chasing germans that were on the run, but to stay and protect the bombers. thats something else that saw a change when 51s took over escorting. they changed escort tactics.
as was said over and over again. the 38 and all its problems can be traced to the ETO and the 20FG. I dont care what the 56th would have flown, they would have done good no matter what because they had the proper motivation, leadership, and training. almost like a marine unit.
There were guys in the MTO that flew against the germans Bf-109F and Gs with curtis P-40s yet they still chalked up a good record.
and if the P-47 was such a good diving plane with no negative problems, then how come it needed the exact same dive recovery flaps like the P-38 used?
-
Voss wrote:
"Yes, and I don't care how much time you have on the crapper, the P-38 is still a widow maker. It also doesn't matter what you know about this-or-that! You make a mistake with a P-38 and it'll bite your ass! It's worse then the P-51 in that regard (and lots of other designs)."
Young man, don't you care that you have managed to demonstrate to everyone here that you are a self-important know-nothing? Shame on you for not knowing when it's time admit your error.
Voss wrote:
"Honestly, your love for your plane is commendable, but sadly misdirected. The P-38 has a triple-taper wing."
Ah yes, the famous and deadly 'triple-taper wing'. Would you be so generous as to explain the aerodynamic principle that causes this to be so?
Voss wrote:
"That spells "disaster waiting to happen" to any unwary pilot and lots of wary ones too! How many war pilots died after their first mistake? Thank your lucky stars you only fly these rigs from the safety of your computer desk!"
Hmmm.... Gee, and I thought my 332 traps (a trap is a full-stop landing on an aircraft carrier, a real carrier) and 2,400 hours (in real military aircraft) would have provided me with some useful insight into the handling of the P-38. Silly me! Who could have known that Voss was such an expert?:-(
Voss wrote:
"If Jesus had been into aircraft design, his name would have been Bill Atwood. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)"
That's Lee Atwood, numbnuts.
The author of the piece that your last remark denigrates scored 6 kills with 6 probables. Single-handedly, he waded into a huge gaggle of IJN fighters over Ormoc Bay, shooting down 3 A6M5 Zeros, with three more believed to have not made it back to base (postwar investigation of Japanese records indicate that 5 Japanese pilots were lost in that area on that day). He was flying that "disaster waiting to happen", a P-38L-1-LO.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing:
What is your name and email address please? Are you C.C. Jordan? I would like to correspond with you concerning obtaining some of the flight test data you have.
thanks,
Hooligan (jayb@exmsft.com)
-
Voss u messing up with a nightfighter from northrop P?? twintailed fighter.
It had a nickname widowmaker and NOT THE P38!!
and all those american fighters where big
i don't think the p38 was that much bigger as a mustang or p47 .Compare them to a me109
-
Voss is ignorant
-
Don't "Young man" me. Your experience has nothing to do with P-38's. Further, you attitude and tone come off as pompous and hypocritical. Engaging in a personal attack, against me, for disputing your 'opinion' is contrary to the ethics taught any Naval Officer (pilot or not). Therefore, your words are unimportant (Roman meaning there).
Furthermore, to think that the US Navy is turning out pilots that are not aware of the flight principles that make the P-38 dangerous is, quite frankly, scarey. For someone, with 2400 hours, you didn't learn very much. Do you actually fly AH? or just troll the boards?
I don't think much of your opinion, either. You don't even know who Bill Atwood is! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Voss 13th T.A.S.
-
Widewing 5 Voss 0 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I cant help but feel you kinda put yer foot so far in Voss that it was in danger of appearing outa yer ass.
Take 10 deep breaths spend a year researching any point you wanna make and then think better of it cos i think this man will shoot you down everytime.
You only gotta look at the amount of posts from Widewing total 6, how can you accuse him of only trolling on the board ?
If anybodys posts appear as trolling i am afraid in this thread so far its your own.
I think the way you responded to his post in a confrontational manner invited the reply you recieved.
It would have been more helpful if you had posted what your experience was and any qualifications you have that enable you to be so authoritative about your opinion.
We will never get to the truth of any aircrafts performance abilities if everytime somebody who posts here who obviously has a wealth of knowledge on the subject is met with replies such as yours.
Follow F4UDOA's example he may not agree with some data posted but usually his replies are civil and well thought out, but I do think he was wrong when he did this "Some of what I wrote was tongue in cheek for the benefit of others who make outrageous claims of performance with nothing to back it up" I can see his point but lowering yourself to that same level is not correct.
I would hope he had a twinge of regret over that.
Hmm i guess the start of my post is confrontational but hell you deserve it.
[This message has been edited by 214thCavalier (edited 01-20-2001).]
-
Thanks, BUG.
Do you fly at all?
Voss 13th T.A.S.
-
Voss sputtered:
"Don't "Young man" me."
What's wrong with that description? You certainly aren't one of the wise old sages of aviation.
Voss whined:
"Your experience has nothing to do with P-38's. Further, you attitude and tone come off as pompous and hypocritical."
My experience has a great deal to do with the P-38. I spent most of my career in piston engine, prop driven twins in the 17,000 to 25,000 lb class having power to weight ratios equal to the P-38. Where does your expertise come from? I know, ya saw it on Tee Vee, right?
Voss exaggerated with:
"Engaging in a personal attack, against me, for disputing your 'opinion' is contrary to the ethics taught any Naval Officer (pilot or not). Therefore, your words are unimportant (Roman meaning there)."
My goodness, you call that a 'personal attack'? That was a well deserved scolding. What's the problem Junior, can't you take it?Let's face facts; you aren't disputing my 'opinion', you are pissing in the wind against established facts. Grab your dictionary and check the definition of the word 'fact'. A 'fact' is something known to be true. You have not presented anything that could even be twisted to resemble a 'fact'. If you spout nonsense, expect to be castigated. Have the good judgement to understand that an uniformed opinion is an outward sign of an unwillingness, or worse, an inability to learn.
Voss dances around a question:
"Furthermore, to think that the US Navy is turning out pilots that are not aware of the flight principles that make the P-38 dangerous is, quite frankly, scarey. For someone, with 2400 hours, you didn't learn very much."
Tell you what Eintein, why don't you educate this ignorant old man? Please define for me precisely what 'flight priciples' make the P-38 so 'dangerous'. I'm sure everyone here will benefit from your many years of aeronautical engineering.
Voss takes his last lame shot:
"Do you actually fly AH? or just troll the boards?"
I have never played Aces High. I say played, because it is a game. Just in case you had forgotten that fact, you don't die if you crash. You don't freeze your bellybutton off in -50 degree temperatures at 30,000 feet. You don't worry about what will happen to your family if you don't come home.
I have played EAW, CFS, WarBirds and Air Warrior. Of these, EAW is the best by an order of magnitude. Still, it's just a fun way to learn tactics, and get a tiny taste of the real thing. Nonetheless, I do enjoy the sims. It's fun, nothing more, nothing less.
Voss succumbs to teenage testosterone:
"I don't think much of your opinion, either. You don't even know who Bill Atwood is!"
Obviously, you are one of those people, having made up your mind, will not be deterred by the facts.
So tell me, who is Bill Atwood, and why I should care one hoot?
Do you know who Lee Atwood is? Hint: NA-73X project manager.
My regards,
-
Howdy F4UDOA
I don't have Mr. Meyer's address any longer. I probably threw it out in one of my office clean-ups. However, he and Warren are pals. Corky has little use for computers and does not have an e-mail address (at least he didn't a few months ago).
I will ask Warren for his mailing address and you can ask him your questions personally. BTW, Flight Journal will forward mail addressed to Corky C/O the magazine. As to whether he will write back is another issue. Corky has been caring for his long time female companion, who is battling cancer. I'm surprised he has the time to write his magazine articles. Did you catch his latest in FJ? It's an interesting piece on the F4F.
With regards to the XP-47J: It wasn't Republic that claimed a speed of 507 mph. This came from the AAF which issued a report titled Official Performance Summary of the XP-47J Aircraft. This report is signed off by Col. George Smith. Republic's Test Report No. 51 lists an maximum speed of 502 mph. The AAF report states that the projected maximum speed is based upon testing at Wright Field's ATSC. The folks at Wright only managed to get the J up to 484 mph. However, they realized that they had a leak in the exhaust manifold, limiting maximum boost. Based upon this, they believed that 507 mph was attainable. Mike Richie, Republic's test pilot for the program, reported seeing 504 mph over the Republic test course. Little was said about this until the AAF issued a press release. As far as Republic was concerned (according to C. Hart Miller)the company made no speed claim until after the AAF released the story to the press. Blame the AAF representatives at Republic for that.
You will also note that every offical Air Force publication lists 507 mph for the XP-47J, as does virtually every other publication. It must be noted that the considerably heavier P-47M was capable speeds in the 470-480 mph range. When we consider that every P-47M had its wastegate modified in the field to allow higher boost pressures, it should not surprise anyone that some pilots claimed to have pushed 500 mph in the M.
Barrett Tillman: I have his e-mail address. Write out your questions and I will forward them to Barrett along with your e-mail address. Send your questions for Barrett to editor@worldwar2aviation.com
Now, the P-38 book: Warren has elected to do a simple soft cover reprint of his orginal hard cover P-38 book. He may include some new material, but I doubt it. It boils down to timing. Motorbooks is his distributor (Warren owns the publishing company, Widewing Publications - ah, there's my user name) and they have asked for an expidited delivery. This means that the existing layout will be used, or the delivery date cannot be met. If you haven't seen Warren's P-38 book, it is the most detailed and accurate ever published. However, because it was based on a series of magazine articles written in the 1970s, it is somewhat disjointed and lacks an index. I prepared a thorough index, but the time constraints excluded it on this printing. The Tony LeVier Bio is about 50% completed. It must wait until I have cleared up some other commitments, including a children's book that
Col. Gail Halvorsen has been advising me on. You may recognize Halvorsen's name. He was the famous "Candy Bomber" of the Berlin Airlift. If there is a better man on earth than Halvorsen, I've never met him. Another fellow who has been of great help is Joe Werner, a wonderful guy who has offered his time without even being asked.
Jeff Ethells notes: I don't have anything that belongs to Jeff. Everything is the hands of his son and daughter. Trust me when I say that anything you get from these pirates will cost you hard currency. I can, however, suggest a very useful Ethell book. I believe that Diz Dean has this in his collection: Illustrated Classic Warbird Buyer's Guide. This book contains all of the test data from the CAF F6F, FG-1A, P-47D and P-51D flight test that Dean references in AHT (page 605). My copy is out on loan to a colleague, but I should have it back in a week or two. My local library has a copy, so check with your library, or if they're on the web, you can search their card catalog from your computer. I would imagine that any decent university library would have a copy, or could find one. The book is out of print, but is a must have for anyone interested in fighter performance.
My best,
Widewing
-
so whats the deal with Wings of Fame and World Airpower Journal? They both outa business?
------------------
Dnil---Skyhawk until I get Dnil back :)
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer (http://www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer)
-
I would not blame the 20th FG. This group, along with the 55th, were thrown to the dogs without so much as a "good luck". Both P-38 groups that deployed in the fall of 1943 were victimized by being the only long-range escort in the ETO. They had to fight off hoards of Luftwaffe fighters with little more than 50 aircraft (total, both groups combined). The 20th had some Sierra Hotel pilots, including Jack Ilfrey (the first AAF ace against Germany), Mark Hubbard, Ernest Fiebelkorn, Harold Rau and Art Heiden. Ilfrey and Heiden are friends of mine and I can say that without question that there was nothing wrong with the pilots and leadership of the 20th Fighter Group.
Their situation was one of being the first to arrive, poor usage by 8th AF brass and an airplane that suffered countless engine failures. Most of the Group's losses were not due to Luftwaffe fighters, but the result of Allison engines coming apart 400 miles from home. The P-38H and early J models that 20th and 55th flew had but one generator. If the related engine failed, all you had was the battery. However, the battery had just been cold-soaked for two or more hours at -56 Degrees F. It was as dead as that well known doornail. Without battery power, you can't operate the fuel boost pumps. Without boost pumps, you have to decend to below 10,000 ft, or the mechanical pump cannot provide adequate fuel pressure.
Another problem that comes with no electrical power is that you cannot control the propellers any longer. Moreover, without power, they might simply feather. You can imagine what happens next. Even though all these problems were resolved in the P-38L, the 20th and 55th did not get any L models until July of '44. As it was, Doolittle decided to standardize the escort fighters and both the 20th and 55th transitioned to the P-51D in August of '44.
You realize that I'm not listing several other serious problems facing the P-38 in 1943, high over Germany. We can get into these in another post. Just understand that while the P-38 had some tremendous capabilities, it also suffered from some serious problems.
Don't blame the Fighter Groups. I assure you that the 56th would have had just as difficult a time as the 20th when faced with the same overwhelming challenges. Circumstances made all the difference. For balance, read what Zemke had to say about the P-38. He was transferred from the 56th to command a P-38 Group. Zemke was a straight shooter, if nothing else.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I would not blame the 20th FG. This group, along with the 55th, were thrown to the dogs without so much as a "good luck". Both P-38 groups that deployed in the fall of 1943 were victimized by being the only long-range escort in the ETO. They had to fight off hoards of Luftwaffe fighters with little more than 50 aircraft (total, both groups combined). The 20th had some Sierra Hotel pilots, including Jack Ilfrey (the first AAF ace against Germany), Mark Hubbard, Ernest Fiebelkorn, Harold Rau and Art Heiden. Ilfrey and Heiden are friends of mine and I can say that without question that there was nothing wrong with the pilots and leadership of the 20th Fighter Group.
Their situation was one of being the first to arrive, poor usage by 8th AF brass and an airplane that suffered countless engine failures. Most of the Group's losses were not due to Luftwaffe fighters, but the result of Allison engines coming apart 400 miles from home. The P-38H and early J models that 20th and 55th flew had but one generator. If the related engine failed, all you had was the battery. However, the battery had just been cold-soaked for two or more hours at -56 Degrees F. It was as dead as that well known doornail. Without battery power, you can't operate the fuel boost pumps. Without boost pumps, you have to decend to below 10,000 ft, or the mechanical pump cannot provide adequate fuel pressure.
Another problem that comes with no electrical power is that you cannot control the propellers any longer. Moreover, without power, they might simply feather. You can imagine what happens next. Even though all these problems were resolved in the P-38L, the 20th and 55th did not get any L models until July of '44. As it was, Doolittle decided to standardize the escort fighters and both the 20th and 55th transitioned to the P-51D in August of '44.
You realize that I'm not listing several other serious problems facing the P-38 in 1943, high over Germany. We can get into these in another post. Just understand that while the P-38 had some tremendous capabilities, it also suffered from some serious problems.
Don't blame the Fighter Groups. I assure you that the 56th would have had just as difficult a time as the 20th when faced with the same overwhelming challenges. Circumstances made all the difference. For balance, read what Zemke had to say about the P-38. He was transferred from the 56th to command a P-38 Group. Zemke was a straight shooter, if nothing else.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hooligan asks:
"What is your name and email address please? Are you C.C. Jordan?"
Say, how am I to remain incognito if you start shoutin' my name all over the place?:-)
You can contact me at the following:
Jordan@worldwar2aviation.com
or
editor@worldwar2aviation.com
Everything sent to either address gets forwarded to me at home or the office.
My regards
Widewing
-
Gentlemen,
I am going to give you a rare opportunity to read the verbatim text of a letter written by 20th FG Commander Harold Rau. I was sent a photocopy of Rau's original by Arthur W. Heiden of the 79th FS, 20th FG. To our knowledge, this letter has never been reproduced anywhere before, so you guys are getting to see it before it is displayed on the Planes and Pilots of WWII web site. I will paste it in, but it may lose its original format.
This is the best example I can give you that describes the problems faced by units operating the P-38 in the ETO.
My regards,
Widewing
The letter follows:
20th Fighter Group Headquarters
APO 637 U.S. Army
(E-2)
3 June 1944
Subject: P-38 Airplane in Combat.
To: Commanding General, VIII Fighter Command, APO 637, U.S. Army.
1. The following observations are being put in writing by the
undersigned at the request of the Commanding General, VII FC. They
are intended purely as constructive criticism and are intended in any
way to "low rate" our present equipment.
2. After flying the P-38 for a little over one hundred hours on
combat missions it is my belief that the airplane, as it stands now, is too
complicated for the 'average' pilot. I want to put strong emphasis on the
word 'average, taking full consideration just how little combat training our
pilots have before going on as operational status.
3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that
we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five
hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod,
penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along
with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM.
He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve
the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy
load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or
may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced",
what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power
and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down
and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop
tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two
separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold
pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot
possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this
point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things
wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing
RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets
to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature
with subsequent engine failure.
4. In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost as least
four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive action. The
logical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit, trying to get
organized that they were shot down before they could get going.
5. The question that arises is, what are you going to do about it?
It is standard procedure for the group leader to call, five minutes before R/V
and tell all the pilots to "prepare for trouble". This is the signal for
everyone to get into auto rich, turn drop tank switches on, gun heaters on,
combat and sight switches on and to increase RPM and manifold pressure
to maximum cruise. This procedure, however, does not help the pilot who is
bounced on the way in and who is trying to conserve his gasoline and equipment
for the escort job ahead.
6. What is the answer to these difficulties? During the past several
weeks we have been visited at this station time and time again by Lockheed
representatives, Allison representatives and high ranking Army personnel
connected with these two companies. They all ask about our troubles and
then proceed to tell us about the marvelous mechanisms that they have devised
to overcome these troubles that the Air Force has turned down as "unnecessary".
Chief among these is a unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold
pressure regulator, which will control power, RPM and mixture by use of a single
lever. It is obvious that there is a crying need for a device like that in
combat.
7. It is easy to understand why test pilots, who have never been in
combat, cannot readily appreciate what each split second means when a
"bounce" occurs. Every last motion when you get bounced is just another
nail in your coffin. Any device which would eliminate any of the enumerated
above, are obviously very necessary to make the P-38 a really effective
combat airplane.
8. It is also felt that that much could done to simplify the gas switching
system in this airplane. The switches {valve selector handles} are
all in awkward positions and extremely hard to turn. The toggle switches for
outboard tanks are almost impossible to operate with gloves on.
9. My personal feeling about this airplane is that it is a fine piece of
equipment, and if properly handled, takes a back seat for nothing that the enemy
can produce. But it does need simplifying to bring it within the capabilities of the
'average' pilot. I believe that pilots like Colonel Ben Kelsey and Colonel
Cass Huff are among the finest pilots in the world today. But I also believe
that it is difficult for men like them to place their thinking and ability on
the level of a youngster with a bare 25 hours in the airplane, going into his
first combat. That is the sort of thinking that will have to be done, in my
opinion, to make the P-38 a first-class all around fighting airplane.
HAROLD J. RAU
Colonel, Air Corps,
Commanding.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion:
And I won't even go into the La5fn
Its a sweet ride but those ShVak 20mm cannon have THE WORST ballistics in the game bar none.
-
S! all
I would salute the P-38 devotees who put forward their case so strongly. Certainly the P-38 had a fine record. It was definitely not a bad plane. However despite the fact that my sympathies lie with them, I find myself having to act as the devil's advocate. History is history and the facts are that the P-38, (and the P-47) were superseded in the combat role in the USAAF by the P-51. After the second War, the P-38 and P-47 dropped from active service. The P-51 (and Corsair) however continued on right through into Korea.
The Flying Commanders of the USAAF made a conscious decision to switch. And I don't believe they were mistaken in their decisions. By that time, (after the war) all the leading commanders were seasoned professionals with lots of combat experience. When they reccommended use of the P-51 over the P-38 or P-47 it was on the basis of it being a better aircraft. Even in the closing months of the War with Japan, the P-38 was going the way of the Dodo.
The P-38 had a fine combat record in the Pacific, not so fine in the European theater. That's the way it goes some times. A particular plane strongpoints show very well against some opponents and not so well against others. The speed, durability, dive, rollrate at speed and climb of the P-38 allowed it to dominate its main Pacific opposition, the Zero. Against the FW190 and 109, it lost some of those advantages. It also had problems operating at the higher altitudes of the European Theater. (Not flight problems, but cockpit heating, etc.) Undoubtably a later model P-38 like the "L" would have been more successful, but that opportunity wasn't available. Weapons are seldom given a second chance if they are not successful, and the P-38 had to make way for the Mustang.
-
Buzzbait:
The reason for the P-38 being replaced by the P-51 late and after the war is not based on performance AT ALL.
The P-51 was MUCH cheaper to build and mantain, so was the corsair. They were relatively simple fighters wich were also very effective.
The P-38 was a very very complicated fighter regarding construction and manteinance.
Oh and he who said it was a Widow Maker; all planes were, but the P-38 was the LEAST one. Two engines instead of one was a feature always envied by pilots of the Pony. It was a docile fighter with no torque, tricicle gear, etc.
You say it was a widow maker because if caught slow and low, it was dead meat. But so were other fighters, at least the P-38 could out accelerate most other American planes at the time to get out of that sticky situation.
-
Bolillo posted:
I think it reflects the the men not the machine. and all this B/S about the germans split s-ing and diving away, werent the fighters at that time tied to the bombers?
Yes, in one respect you're correct. The escorts had not been freed at that time. However, 3 different 364th FG pilots all mentioned this as a reason why they didn't get more kills. And 2 of these 3 became aces. So we are not dealing with pilots who could not fly.
If you read some of the reports by P-47 pilots of the time, they all say to scare the LW, wait till they Split-S and then go after them.
It wasn't a matter of tactics on the USAAF part. From one plane the favorite LW tactic led to safety, from the other it usually got them in trouble (if not shot down). This is part of the reason the -38 groups had lower initial scores.
------------------
Col Dune
C.O. 352nd Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona
[This message has been edited by Dune (edited 01-21-2001).]
-
What makes the Internet (and our country) great is you don't have to listen to anyone. We are all entitled to our opinions. So, here's mine...
I don't have to have flying time to know the answer to this riddle (P-38 SHOULD SUCK)! I have been visiting airshows for at least 35 years. In that time I have seen a few crashes. One type stands out as the plane that killed every pilot that crashed it. I can't think of one that walked away! Sadly, of this one particular type, there were more then a handful. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) Please, look for yourself! Check back on WWII types for the past fifty years! And see how many of which did what! ...or live in ignorance. Sorry, I have no time to hunt up links for anyone. It is WW's book not mine.
WideWing, I don't know what your problem is. I didn't mean anything personal. Maybe, you expected a bunch of seventeen-year-olds, here? However, I don't care what experience you have chalked up for the Navy, or flying cattle cars, or what have you. You have to show me to gain my respect. I reserve my opinion for what I see. Perhaps then you would have a different opinion? I think so. Real life doesn't mean squat on the Internet. Show me what you can do here! I've flown those other sims. AH is where it’s at! That's Voss' opinion. It's also my opinion that every online sim jock, without at least two years of flying, should regularly kill himself in the P-38. But, none of these games are real to that extent, thank god (I hate empty arenas)!
Please, get an HTC AH account and come have fun! Guys that fly these sims have a lot to show real pilots (or unreal). (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I have seen a lot of real life jocks throw down that "PLAY" viewpoint before. Everyone is a dweeb at first! The fact is, it doesn't matter what you know, you will learn. Obviously, those other sims had nothing to offer you. That's because we're all here! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
If, you feel otherwise, come show me.
You have already posted enough information to figure out why the 38 is so bad (my opinion). I know of at least one fighter ACE that died DURING THE WAR in the 38 because he got momentarily stupid. Happens to a lot of really good guys. I'm not saying the 38 should see a lesser role, that it played less of one, or that it didn't do anything someone else said it did. I just said it is a widow maker, and I stand by that. It killed a lot of kids. Now I'm calling it "A REAL potato." You are welcome to call it something else! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Bill Atwood hails from model aircraft. His influence extends into modern aircraft and engine design. He was an aviator of old. Some of his model designs have only recently been built. Composite materials were required to attain miniature status. Full size versions would kick ass! He heavily influenced contributors for RC/Modeller Magazine before it was a F-A-C-T. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) Most, of "Great Planes" designs would not be in existence today, were it not for him. I built and flew his P-38 design (prints by Mako Sato and kit by MK - Mitsu Kato I think?). The kit was a real joy, everything came out real light, and the plane was a real potato! I sold the hell out of it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) For years to come, after that experience, I watched pilot after pilot (R/C this time) auger 'em big time. One of them, had WWII flying experience, but I don't recall his history. Atwood’s F4U was the best. Better then the P-51, anyway. “Models make great airplanes, but great airplanes don’t always make great models.” That is a truth that I have learned.
Another man of the same name is responsible for the design of .049 engines. Without that engine aviation would have died as a whole! How many kids, each year, learn the lessons of flight (along with pranging those fingers) with a Cox engine? He designed damn near every one of them.
So, I repeat myself. If Jesus were born an Aircraft Designer, his name would have been Bill Atwood.
Lee was great, but he was no Jesus!
Voss 13th T.A.S.
[This message has been edited by Voss (edited 01-21-2001).]
-
I've been working on Energy Maneuverability analysis for the real WWII fighters and I would like to comment on the point made regarding the stall speed of the P-38.
Propeller driven (puller/tractor) aircraft have a power on stall speed that is lower than their power off stall speed. The reason for that is due to the fact that the wings are in the slipstream of the propellers and the wash speeds up and energizes the air over them, thereby reducing the stall speed. Because of that, obvious safety concerns have resulted in power off stall speeds being more commonly quoted in the flight manuals of the prop' fighters, while in some sources both are quoted.
However it has been stated here that the power on stall speed of the P-38 is higher than the power off stall speed. The explanation proposed, uses the fact that the rotation of the slipstream causes a slight increase in the AoA on the inboard wings. However, that is equally true of single engined types, one wing receiving a slight upward flow the other downwards, and that doesn't change the fact that they still have a lower power on stall. That they still have a lower power on stall speed reflects the fact that even at relatively high angles of attack, the prop' wash is still being driven over the wing at a very low angle of attack because the prop is generally normal (90 degrees to the axis of the aircraft) to it. That will always have the effect of energizing the flow over the wing delaying separation and would be no less true for the P-38 than any other aircraft.
(http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~badboy/PDF/P-38propwash2.jpg)
I've only seen one source that has this the other way around for the P-38 (report of the joint fighter conference) and I'm very tempted to think that it is a typo, some one appears to have typed the values in the wrong column.
Two other factors that are often neglected for the P-38 serve to improve its turning performance, are due to its twin engine configuration, they are... Firstly, during low speed high AoA, the engine thrust has a component that contributes to the radial load factor, at high angle of attack this is almost double that for single engine fighters. Secondly, another benefit of this is that normally the center of lift and center of gravity are relatively close together, with positive stability that requires a downward force on the tail, however, the component of prop thrust, with its large lever arm provides a strong nose up pitching moment that reduces the downward tail force, thus enhancing the lift even further. Those factors along with the previously mentioned effect of the propwash speeding up and energizing the air over wings, thereby increasing the lift, means that the P-38 was indeed better in practice than the average flight sim' pilot (or for that matter your average aero graduate) would normally expect. Add to that, the fact that the unusually high aspect ratio wing gave the P-38 enhanced climbrate and sustained turning ability, all of which is often ignored in the literature.
Here is my Energy Maneuverability analysis of the real P-38, versus the P-38 as modeled in AH.
(http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~badboy/PDF/p38pw.jpg)
That shows a significant disparity in instantaneous and sustained turning ability at low speeds, but is really quite close around the middle of the envelope. As time allows, I've been comparing various flight sim' aircraft with their real world counterparts and the Aces High models are very impressive! The P-38 does seem to have suffered by the influence of what (I hardly dare suggest) looks very much like suspect data.
Leon "Badboy" Smith
[This message has been edited by Badboy (edited 01-21-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Badboy:
(http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~badboy/PDF/P-38propwash2.jpg)
I've seen your data presented on a documentary about WWII fighters years ago. They were saying the same thing. They suggested that the problems associated with the 38 were more of a lack of proper training in the aircraft. Very nice presentation of the basic physics behind your argument. I think the Germans were much more advanced in the boundary layer flow knowledge than the Allies. I think the later FW's and the 262 may have had vortex generators on the wings to enhance the effect.
[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-21-2001).]
-
Hmm Voss so you are basing your denial of facts about the "real world" P38's on the basis of your experience building and flying and watching others crash "model" P38's ????
I believe the fighter ace you mention died because of engaging while he still had his drop tanks attached, a momentary lapse of judgement or maybe as posted above he did not have time to drop em, somehow though i doubt the P38 was cleared for A2A combat whilst carrying drop tanks so to try to blame the plane for this is not correct.
-
god i love this thread/
wildwing is now my hero. please post more of this excellent information sir . i have enjoyed every word of it. my grand father ws in a p38 squadron in alaska that ws apperently the one to recieve the castrated 38 ment for the french.brits would you have any infor on the squadron number as i have no history of the unit and dont even know its name ( p.s. ) it was like 98% jewish adn the squad insignia was a seal with a walking stick leaning on a swasticka . shooting in the dark but you seem to have a encyclopedic knowledge of the 38 thanks .
and not like you need any help sir . but voss may you piss off and get a life . mayby in game design? hehe
-
Originally posted by -towd_:
god i love this thread/
wildwing is now my hero. please post more of this excellent information sir . i have enjoyed every word of it. my grand father ws in a p38 squadron in alaska that ws apperently the one to recieve the castrated 38 ment for the french.brits would you have any infor on the squadron number as i have no history of the unit and dont even know its name ( p.s. ) it was like 98% jewish adn the squad insignia was a seal with a walking stick leaning on a swasticka . shooting in the dark but you seem to have a encyclopedic knowledge of the 38 thanks .
and not like you need any help sir . but voss may you piss off and get a life . mayby in game design? hehe
YOU MUST READ "The Thousand Mile War." You will love every page! It's about the Alaskan front. Your Grandfather flew in the worst conditions imaginable. Just getting from point A to point B up there was a nightmare. Read that book it's great!
-
S! all
To the fellow who suggested the P-38 was removed from active service after the war and replaced by the P-51 and Corsair because it was too expensive to build... Sorry, that one doesn't hold up. Since the end of the second war the US military has never had a problem with spending whatever amount of money it felt nessesary to provide itself with the best equipment possible. If the P-38 had better performance, it would have been continued in production and in active service. The facts are, it was obsolescent in 1945. Any other statement to the contrary is dreaming.
But of course, that doesn't take away from its fine record during the war.
-
obsolete noway
-
Buzzbait, the P38 did cost almost twice as much than a P51 and it was very costly to maintain when compared with any other plane.
All nations involved in the war were doing their best just to stay in the fight. If a P51 has more range and great performance (and the p38 outperformed it in almost all aspects except for top speed), is half as expensive to build and cheap to maintain...well, you would certainly put your priorities on THAT plane rather than building the expensive one. It was a matter of economics, not of performance.
"Since the end of the second war the US military has never had a problem with spending whatever amount of money it felt nessesary to provide itself with the best equipment possible"
Correct. DURING the war they preffered the mustang for the reasons above stated. After the war they jumped to JETS...which made even the P51 quite obsolete.
"The facts are, it was obsolescent in 1945"
Bollocks.
-
The prop planes were only kept after WWII as a stop gap in the US inventory as jet fighters capable of performing the same roles were developed. If you are making the argument that the most modern fighter was kept in operational statues the longest after WWII then I would say the the A-26 Invader beets them all. But it really wasn't because just because they were more modern or more capable. It was a combination of several things.
1. Lockheed was hot and heavy on the P-80 program and thus wasn't real hot on a new variant of the P-38.
2. As I said the US didn't have jets to fill all the roles needed right after WWII (if the A-26 is any indication this was the case into Vietnam!). The Lockheed Neptune was first flown in prototype on 1945 and I think the navy still uses a turboprop version of it today! The jets of the immediate post war period just weren't capable of carrying the payloads needed for many of the missions.
3. Economics. The P-51 was cheaper to build and maintain than the P-38.
4. There were prop planes on the drawing boards at the end of WWII that could be used to full fill the roles of the P-47 and P-38. Example: AD-1 Skyraider, a signal engine plane that was larger and could carry more payload than the 38 or the 47.
5. The P-51H had been introduced before the end of WWII.
I could go on but I think you get my point. I wasn't because the P-38 wasn't a capable aircraft. It was a combination of economic and technological constants of the time. Most of the roles that couldn't be filled buy the jets of the day (and even in rare cases the current jets) were ground attack and endurance roles. If all you need is a stop gap until the replacement (that in a lot of cases was being developed before the end of WWII) is put in to production you pick the most economical plane that will fill the role.
[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-21-2001).]
-
My reading on the P38 led me to believe that the only real weaknesses it had as a Fighter would not show up in the game as they where cost complexity and reliability issues.
Is there any information in this thread that might modify the flight model of the Lightning in AH? It does seem like a difficult AC to develop a flight model for. It is just so different from the normal tail draggers. Thanks for he excellent info Widewing.
-
Badboy, I disagree. THe F-82 originally had the same rotation as the P-38. Being a taildragger, it wouldn't take off. When they reversed the direction of rotation, problem solved.
BTw, the clean stall of the real P-38 at 17000 lbs is 100 mph + 15 mph as per the correction table in the manual.
-
Originally posted by 214thCavalier:
Hmm Voss so you are basing your denial of facts about the "real world" P38's on the basis of your experience building and flying and watching others crash "model" P38's ????
I said airshows. I would refer to model competitions as such. Learn to read for comprehension sometime. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Don't be too quick to belittle R/C. Not only is it an outstanding sport, but a lot of guys in online simming (programming them too), fly R/C. Everyone can learn something from R/C. I'm looking forward to my first AH CON R/C combat. A lot of big names in simming will be there (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
If, the design of the cockpit leads to pilot demise, and there have been numerous losses of privately owned A/C since, then my statement holds. It is very possible that, in the heat of battle, P-38's that spun in were accounted as "lost in action" after someone reported something like "I never saw him again after the bounce."
I didn't deny the P-38's war record. But I do say it is responsible for the death of a lot of recruits and undeniably experts, too.
Heya, Badboy, cool data you submitted! I can't wait to see more. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Voss 13th T.A.S.
-
S! all
This is not a badmouth of the P-38. But if it was superior to the P-51, why was the USAAF converting to P-51's in the Spring of 1945 for its campaign against the Japanese Home islands? It wasn't a case of range, the P-38 had no problem there. This was when the war was still going full tilt and money was the least of concerns.
I'm sorry, but the facts are, the USAAF was converting to the P-51, not staying with the P-38. And it wasn't because of money, it was because the commanding generals felt their pilots would do better in the Single engined aircraft.
If money was a concern, then why didn't the USAAF convert all the P-38 Squadrons in the Pacific to P-47's or P51's in 43? The reason of course, was the P-38 was very competitive against the Zero, Oscar, Tony etc. The USAAF chose to continue with it because it was effective. Towards the end of the war, when it ran up against Franks, Georges, etc, it was replaced.
-
Same facts about the -38 in the ETO/MTO.
First only 10 FG's in the ETO/MTO ever flew P-38's. This is out of 47. The 20th, 55th, 364th and 479th FG's in the 8th AF, the 367th, 370th and 474th FG's in the 9th AF, and the 1st, 14th, and 82nd FG's in the 12/15th AF's. By the end of the war most of these FG's had switched:
8th AF
20th to -51D's in Jul 44
55th to -51D's in Jul 44
364th to -51D's in Jul 44
479th to -51D's in Spt 44
- Note: during the Summer of 44, the -51B was just showing how effective it was. It was saving bombers and the USAAF needed a reliable, long-range escort. Therefore the -38's were replaced. None of these groups flew the -38J-25 which was the first with hydralic-assist ailerones and dive flaps which reduced its compression problems.
9th AF
367th FG to -47D's on Feb 45
370th FG to -51D's in early 45
474th FG stayed in Lightnings
Notes: The 474th was the only -38 group in Northern Europe by the end of the war.
12/15th AF
1st FG stayed in Lightnings
14th FG stayed in Lightnings
82nd FG stayed in Lightnings.
So, only there were only 4 -38 FG's in Europe at the end of the war. Because of the cold-weather problems, P-38's didn't stay in the ETO. However they weren't taken from the MTO because they didn't suffer from the cold. This is also why most P-38's were sent to the PTO and -51s to the ETO.
------------------
Col Dune
C.O. 352nd Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona
-
Buzzbait, in the Pacific the B-29 escort over the Japanese homeland in 1945 was done by mostly the P-47 "N" aircraft as it could range as far as the P-51D and could out perform the P-51D at alt.
-Westy
-
"was done by mostly the P-47 "N" aircraft as it could range as far as the P-51D "
Not "as far"....further (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"
-
The quickest answer to why most P-38 FG's converted to P-51's and P-47's lies within the number game.
By the time the phase out was occuring, tours were ending and seasoned pilots were going home for instructor duty.
It takes a considerably longer amount of time to learn to operate a twin for combat operations (as opposed to a single), and with any training situations, planes WILL crashed, belly landed, and any other form of fubar'd that comes to mind.
This combinations was not good for the P-38...it's production price was triple of the P-51, hard to justify when you've got trainees busting them up constantly. Because the seasoned pilots were returning (one way or another) the quickest training period possible is desired for replacements. Single engine training could take as little as 4 weeks (and some went to Europe with only 2 weeks!) where as multi-engines could take twice as long because of the added complexity.
As it's often said, be able to produced big expensive planes, regardless of how capable, is useless unless capable pilots are flying them.
And if you can train replacements twice as fast in a plane that is just as combat capable, why bother with the other?
------------------
(http://bigdweeb.homestead.com/files/sig.jpg)
33rd FW www.33rd.org (http://www.33rd.org)
-
^
|
|
|
Jigster;
Excellent post. I wanted to say the same thing, but couldnt find the right words.
Damn booze!
-
Thanks Daff (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I'd thought so, but not being sure (nor being able to check) when I wrote that I figured I'd best be conservative (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-Westy
-
WTG Jigster !!
-
Heya's,
Quick note to how much the cost of these birds was to produce. I know I have that data somewhere, I just can't find it.
However the F4U I remember was almost as expensive to manufacture as the P-38. But the Navy took a more conservative approach toward transitioning to Jets. The Navy was afraid that Jet technology wouldn't be rugged enough for carrier duty. Indeed in Korea there were times when the F9F Panthers could not take off because of not enough wind across the deck or not enough serviceable A/C. Navy Corsairs flew 80% of total Naval sorties over Korea in the first year of the war, including Skyraiders which were just arriving in significant numbers.
BTW, the AD-1 was a Navy bird almost exclusively in Korea. I may be wrong but, the AF did not use them in significant numbers until Vietnam I believe. Another example of the AF stealing the Navy's idea's such as the F-4 Phantom (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The smart thing for the AF to do would have been to bring the P-47's out of mothballs for the occasion. It was better suited for the job than the P-38, P-51 or any jet the AF had in service at the time.
-
F4UDOA wrote:
"The smart thing for the AF to do would have been to bring the P-47's out of mothballs for the occasion. It was better suited for the job than the P-38, P-51 or any jet the AF had in service at the time."
Actually, there were quite a few being operated by ANG units in 1950. Why they were never transferred to active duty units is a mystery.
My regards,
Widewing
-
CC Widewing,
I have read that.
I have always believed that logistical support in the Armed forces ie. spare parts and replacement engines and planes had more to do with the selection of which was the predominant fighter in any one theater than any other factor unless it was clearly obsolete. In the case of the P-47 I cannot imagine why however. There was no shortage of P&W2800 and it was certainly capable of doing the job. My only reasoning could be Republic dedicating it's production to the F-84 Thunderchief.
Tommy Blackburn swore in his auto-biography that was the reason the F4U was not accepted into carrier service more than any other liability. Since the F4F and F6F shared many common parts it was much easier to put them on board carriers and have full logistic support available immediately. Fact is that F4U-2 began carrier duty in Jan.1944, a full year before the Navy "cleared" the F4U for carrier duty. And only then when it became apparent that it's higher performance was necessary to combat the Kamikaze threat.
-
I have to say that the community is full of some real WWII aviation nuts, myself included. Even though this thread is mostly a flame I actually learned quite a bit from it!
-
My experience has a great deal to do with the P-38. I spent most of my career in piston engine, prop driven twins in the 17,000 to 25,000 lb class having power to weight ratios equal to the P-38
Can't help but notice you have left out the plane you had experience with. What plane was it? I've seen alot of twin turboprop planes that probably weighed similar to a P-38.. I'd venture to say not many (any?) of them performed the same.
This is the only place where Voss actually has a point. How many of the more recent P-38 crashes were a result of pilots that felt having flight time in similar aircraft was sufficient?
Basically, if you are going to cite experience.. you'd better be prepared to get specific. What aircraft do you have experience in? You brought it up.. now back it up.
AKDejaVu
-
From an aboved mentioned web site:
He is also a veteran of Naval Aviation, having accumulated more than 2,300 flight hours in various naval aircraft in the role of Flight Engineer, crewchief and and loadmaster. Mr. Jordan has worked for the past 20 years in private sector research and development, earning numerous patents for various original designs and technological advancements in several disciplines.
Widewing, you FLEW these planes? Or you FLEW IN these planes?
AKDejaVu
-
Just to amend the above...
I agree with most of what you wrote Widewing. I don't agree with much of what Voss wrote. I get the feeling your research was more accurate than his.
My main problem is the use of flight hours in cargo planes to justify enhanced knowledge of P-38 handling characteristics. If you've done the research, there is no need to back it up with exageration.
AKDejaVu
-
You one-plane zealot guys are amusing. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Funked,
I prefer to think of myself as a monogamous Warbird enthusiast.
-
AKdejaVu offered up this challenge:
"Basically, if you are going to cite experience.. you'd better be prepared to get specific. What aircraft do you have experience in? You brought it up.. now back it up."
As a general rule, I ignore those who feel that the world must bow to their demands. Inasmuch as your three posts come across as thinly disguised demand, I seriously considered responding with "who the hell are
you to demand anything from me?" However, if we strip away your schoolyard posturing, you do have a legitimate question.
Therefore, in the interest of the discussion, I would be happy to elaborate on what aircraft I crewed.
1) US-2B: Essentially an S-2F stripped of all anti-sub electronics and used for training and utility purposes. Weighing in at
about 18,500 lbs, it was powered by two Wright R-1820 engines developing 1,525 hp each for takeoff. My position: Flying Crew Chief. Usually sits right seat unless non-crew passengers are aboard, operates radios and basic navigation. Frequently allowed to share flying duties. Best opportunity to learn multi-engine skills. Most Crew Chiefs are trained to land the aircraft in an emergency. Total time 149.3 hours.
2) C-1A: A development of the S-2 for the COD mission (Carrier Onboard Delivery). It is powered by the same engines as the US-2B, but can weight over 25,000 lbs fully loaded.
C-1A requires two pilots if passengers are aboard. If not, one pilot and Crew Chief are adequate. Same advantages and training as above. 330 traps logged in C-1A. This aircraft accelerates faster from a dead stop than the P-38L. Its roll rate is greater than the P-61, and can maneuver with an AD-1.
Being much cleaner than the S-2F, an empty C-1A can reach 282 mph at sea level. Nonetheless, with its huge, high-lift wing, and fixed slots, it was never going to be a fast aircraft. However, its low speed handling was not unlike the P-38, with the C-1A actually having much better roll response due to full span, pop-up spoilers linked to the ailerons. The S-2 was designed to execute extremely tight turns at low speeds and low altitudes. In this capacity, it is remarkably maneuverable. As I stated, the C-1A/US-2B has a power loading very close to the P-38J. Unlike the P-38, both engines turn in the same direction, so the P factor is present. That is why the aircraft has a vertical stabilizer and rudder the size of a barn door, with rudder boost should be be required. This controls torque quite nicely. These are very popular with the warbird crowd, because they are relatively inexpensive and a hoot to fly. Total time: 1,329.5 hours
HU-16D: We operated the Navy's last two amphibians. Crew Chief sometimes allowed to sit right seat and fly. However, the Albatross required two qualified pilots, and seat time was limited to cruise only. I crewed the last flight of the last amphibian in Naval service. Total time: 116.0 hours.
C-118B: Qualified as Flight Engineer, also qualified as Loadmaster. FE is third man in cockpit with specific duties and responsibilities. Total time: 457.8 hours.
C-131F: Qualified as Flight Engineer and Loadmaster. Total time: 321.6 hours.
TA-4J: Twin seat, advanced trainer and Light Attack. I logged just over 20 hours in the back seat. Of that time, perhaps 4-5 hours was spent actually flying the aircraft. I would trade flight time for excess crew seats on stateside bound flights. It took 18 months to get those 20 hours. I was also fortunate to get two hops in the RIO seat of the F-4J Phantom. Being ejection seat qualified made that possible. However, all you do in the F-4J is enjoy the ride. The carrier approach is a charge, because you can't see diddly from the rear seat while in nose-high short approach attitude. Logged two
traps in Phantom. Total TA-4J time: 20.1 hours.
Total yellow sheet time: 2,374.2 hours.
So, there it is. I hope this made your day.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Well I must have struck a nerve.
I have over 500 hours in various cargo planes. C-130, C-5 and C-141 with some C-21 and other smaller things thrown in there. I'm sitting here trying to wonder how the hell that would matter in regards to anything. I just can't see it.
If you want to sit and explain the loading characteristics of each aircaft or give adequate explanations of various hydraulic/neumatic/electronic components... I will bow to your training and experience.
If you want to tell me how to line a plane up for final aproach on a carrier or how much flap is required at take-off on any of those planes, I yield to your experience. I actually envy you that experience.
If you want to tell me any of this means anything when claiming features on the P-38, I'll have to call roadkill. Keep it in the records where it belongs. Your military experience does not make you any more/less of an expert on WW2 craft than anyone else that's done the same ammount of research.
I've seen several military pilots on this bbs. To a man, each of them will hop in instantly and describe blackout effects and various other flight characteristic knowledge in regards to fundamentals. I have yet to see one of them use that experience as proof that they are more knowledgeable on the p-38... or any other fighter.
AKDejaVu
-
AKDejaVu rambled:
"If you want to tell me any of this means anything when claiming features on the P-38, I'll have to call roadkill. Keep it in the records where it belongs. Your military experience does not make you any more/less of an expert on WW2 craft than anyone else that's done the same ammount of research."
First of all, where have I claimed that my experience makes me more of an expert of the P-38? The answer is nowhere. I wrote: "Gee, and I thought my 332 traps (a trap is a full-stop landing on an aircraft carrier, a real carrier) and 2,400 hours (in real military aircraft) would have provided me with some useful insight into the handling of the P-38."
Do you grasp the meaning of "useful insight"? Don't you think that several hundred hours of actual cockpit experience and flight training in twin-engine aircaft of comparible power and weight, provides some relevant insight into the handling of an aircraft with several significant similarities? Well, it is certainly the case. I have spent countless hours discussing the P-38 and its performance with pilots who have flown the aircraft in combat.
It is easy to relate to if you have a basis for understanding. Moreover, these pilots will tell you that it was always a major advantage if the prospective P-38 pilot had some time in some other big twins such as the A-20 or even B-25. Hell, the 20th FG used a B-25 for basic multi-engine training of single-engine pilots who were assigned to fly the P-38. Why, because they had some similar characteristics. Likewise, the Lockheed Hudson was used to train P-38 pilots. Aircraft such as these DO give one insight and understanding. Moreso than the ultra-simplistic environment of a flight sim. That was my original point, but you obviously missed it and twisted my remarks well beyond anything close to a reasonable intereptation.
I can appreciate your time in the C-130, C-141 and C-5A. That is all well and good. A close friend of mine is a C-130 Loadmaster with the 106th Air Rescue here on Long Island. However, I'll wager that the those times when you went to the flight deck were not related to actually flying the aircraft or operating its in-flight systems, right? Or, am I misunderstanding your role?
Can you relate to the use of rudder and differential throttle to overcome the inertia related lag in initial roll response in the P-38? I can, because we experimented with this in a US-2B. Can you relate to the need for positive back pressure on the yoke to get a P-38 to rotate and lift off. Most aircraft of the era would fly themselves off the runway if properly trimmed. However, like the P-38 and A-26, the US-2B and C-1A will not readily do so. These are samples of the insight gained from actual experience. That does not make one an expert, but it does provide a basis for understanding that cannot be gained by flying a PC. What about systems management? Fuel management? Operation of multiple engines? How about single engine procedures? All of these things were learned and provide the basis for better understanding of their counterparts relating to the P-38. How about the loss of an engine on takeoff? The procedures are nearly identical, and if you can handle this in a C-1A, you can handle it in the P-38. Is this sinking in yet?
Quite honestly, your argument is without substance and I'm becoming rather bored debating your lack of understanding.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I have only one thing to say about this entire thread.
Good grief.
Swoop
-
Originally posted by funked:
You one-plane zealot guys are amusing. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hell, Funky-one, you know I'm really a Mustang fan. It just bugs me to watch people grab something they misread once and preach it like gospel.
You oughta see me when people don't agree that H. Beam Piper was the best Sci-fi writer of all time (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Col Dune
C.O. 352nd Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona
-
Can you relate to the need for positive back pressure on the yoke to get a P-38 to rotate and lift off.
I would imagine this is the result of a negative angle of incidence of the wing when the nosewheel was in contact with the ground. No matter how fast you drive that P38, it would never unstick without assistance from the pilot.
Other WW2 fighters were taildraggers, and would therefore not need positive back pressure to fly off the runway.
------------------
=357th Pony Express=
Aces High Training Corps
-
I'm with Funked, its almost like a religion for some of you guys.
Next thing I expect to see is someone truck bombing... errr ummm mail bombing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) the BBS and screaming.
"Kurt Tank is Great... Kurt Tank is Great" in arabic.
And the someone else comes in and takes Pyro hostage screaming... "The Luftwobbles are all heritics!!! We all know that Vought was the true Messiah!!!".
Sheeesh (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
* Vision of 12 year old girls arguing the relative merits of N-Sync and the Backstreet Boys. *
-
I think widewing just made a point that a bigger twin engined crate can accelerate, roll and turn like hell. Because he flown in types SIMILAR (weight and power)to the P38 not just like the 38.
I never flown a plane just 15 minutes maybe in a piper bonzana so i can't tell.
But there some types here like saying they got the knowlegde. Wich rembers me to some types when i was in service with the army. Who would go home with a green (commando) baret on their head . Wich they wheren't offcourse, now that makes me sick.
I'm sure widewing ain't that type
<S> widewing good postings
-
This is just a post to thank Widewing very much for his participation.
<S> Sir! I've been enjoying the articles at your web site and your posts on usenet for some time. It is a real pleasure to "see" you here.
-Westy
-
AKDejaVu rambled:
Well.. at least you didn't call me son. Your condescension in duly noted.
First of all, where have I claimed that my experience makes me more of an expert of the P-38? The answer is nowhere.
Actually, the answer is here:
Voss wrote:
"Your experience has nothing to do with P-38's. Further, you attitude and tone come off as pompous and hypocritical."
You wrote: My experience has a great deal to do with the P-38. I spent most of my career in piston engine, prop driven twins in the 17,000 to 25,000 lb class having power to weight ratios equal to the P-38. Where does your expertise come from? I know, ya saw it on Tee Vee, right?
You site your experience as having a great deal to do with the P-38, then ask where HIS expertise came from. That directly implies your expertise came from experience?
Let me re-ask what voss was asking: "WHAT DOES YOUR FLIGHT EXPERIENCE HAVE TO DO WITH IDIOSYNCRISIS OF THE P-38'S HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS?"
Do you grasp the meaning of "useful insight"? Don't you think that several hundred hours of actual cockpit experience and flight training in twin-engine aircaft of comparible power and weight, provides some relevant insight into the handling of an aircraft with several significant similarities?
Er.. wait.. are you saying your experience does or doesn't make you more knowledgable on the P-38? You're going in circles now. It seems as if you really just want to say whatever makes you look better.
Do I think your flight time matters? Yes I do. Do I think your flight time gives you any insight into the stall characteristics of a p-38? No I don't. It is the differences that made planes quirky.. not the similarities. Its difficult to argue that the plane didn't have quirks because you flew a similar thrust/weight aircraft. Yet.. you do it... repeatedly.
I have spent countless hours discussing the P-38 and its performance with pilots who have flown the aircraft in combat.
Great! Like I said.. your research is commendable. Your initial response to Voss was comendable (though it was condescending too) because it was research and report based. How can you argue with people that have actually flown the plane? How can you argue with numbers generated by people that actually flew the plane? You can't. All you can do is present the numbers and let them speak for themselves.
How can you argue with someone that claims they have enough twin engine experience to feel they are in tune with P-38 handling? Well... that's pretty easy.
Present the facts, present the discussions, present the letters. All of these things lead me to believe Voss was in the wrong with his argument. Your mention of your flight time leads me to believe you are an egotistical condescending toejam that inevitably has to go to the flight time card to prove his worth.
The great information provided in this thread was not as a result of your flight time. The great information was provided to you from others.
AKDejaVu
-
I used to subscribe to "Warbirds Worldwide." In that great magazine I first read about the discovery of "The Lost Squadron" of P-38's and their recent recovery. Then I opened up a few past issues and read about the demise of three P-38's in a single year.
Then I thought back upon the crashes I had seen, personally.
No, I didn't quote any references. It doesn't make me wrong. Perhaps, I didn't state my 'opinion' in a different tone than Widewing (opinionated), but I think I have that right (again, my opinion). However, I have been villified for having an opinion? Is there a commonality here?
Now, I think back to statements I have heard over the years. No one of wisdom said, "Go out and fly a P-38 as your first twin." I don't have to wonder why. I heard plenty of disparaging comments on the P-38. You don't agree, so be it.
This guy is writing a book on the P-38. Well, you don't have to fly one to write about an airplane, or its experience in war. It's not experience in combat, either, that makes a writer a writer. The writing I have seen here has a most decidedly negative tone to it, and I think his voice will come across the same in his book. For that reason, I will avoid it. There won't be any new information in it, anyway.
I'll stick with my statement about the P-38. It is still killing people. There are about a dozen being restored, right now. Regrettably, I expect there are going to be another dozen deaths attributed to this plane. They belong in museums, not on the flight line.
It is also my opinion, that I have forgotten more about flight then he will ever know. You can flame me for this comment, and my opinion will still carry weight with a lot of guys flying this sim. "I think 50,000 hours of R/C carries more weight then 2,400 hours of real flight experience." In that time I have met more Spitfire, Hurricane, B-17, B-26, A-26, B-29, F4U, P-38, P-47, P-51, P-40, F4F, F6F, F8F, FW190, ME109, ME 262, Stuka, and real life FIGHTER PILOTS (not cargo jocks, but those too), then you will ever know (or interview). They are drawn to models like moths to a flame. I have bought many of them lunch, and shared bench time with them all. When you meet these guys you don't have to ask for credentials. They don't hang out on UBB's. I know what I know and won't be beaten down by negative attitude.
You can live on in ignorance. It makes no difference to me. I will still share my opinion and attempt to edify the poorly informed as I see fit.
Voss 13th T.A.S.
-
There is a bottom line for AH.
If NEW authoritative flight data (i.e. Air Force, Lockheed or similar quality documents) for the P-38 are presented to HTC that indicate that the 38 FM needs adjustment, then there is a very good chance that the FM will be changed. If this does not happen then there is no chance.
Either that data is revealed or it is not. Nothing else matters much.
Hooligan
-
Sigh.. way to go Voss.. I guess you just refuse to be out-done on any front.
The thing that irritates me about 50% of the people that do hard-core research into a subject is the proceding need to prove that you know more about it than anyone.
Now.. we have to resort to how many hours of R/C vs how many hours as a loadmaster lends more/less credence to someone's evaluation on departure characteristics of the P-38. You have got to be kidding.
AKDejaVu
-
Well, I didn't really mean that my R/C experience alone gave me clear insight into the problem. I do say that the guys I have spoken with know more than this guy ever will, and I have forgotten more then he's been taught! I've met his like before.
I am sorry you can't see the same page, Deja. However, I am in complete agreement with a lot of what you have written. Just not the anti-Voss stuff. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
One of the guys in my AMT class (aviation maintenance technician and an instructor actually) really put the fear-of-god into us about this sort of design. I believe his comment was something like, "Make sure as hell you don't ever pork a repair on something like this. God knows it'll crash someday and you're gonna take the blame for it, perfect or not!" Back in WWII he was working maintenance for the Army. Early on, and with every batch of fresh recruits, they would get frequent returns to base after a mission started. He took the bellybutton chewing for poor maintenance knowing all the while there was nothing wrong with his work. He didn't work on 38's, though. (like I said, forgotten more...) I have been around planes for a LONG time.
I don't think I know more then everyone. I do scoff at the notion that this guy can pull rank on the basis of 2400 hours in anything other then a P-38. I am sorry that stating F-A-C-T-S about discussions with REAL WWII PILOTS and crewmen gave you this impression. I have seen WAY too many Navy dweebs pop up at the field, wet-behind-the-ears and drooling at every plane he sees. "I'm a fighter pilot. I fly an F-18/A-7/etc. I bet I can fly that!" WRONG! heh
Yeah, and fix transmissions too, right?
I didn't realize that research could ever be hard-core, unless it was a reconnoiter of enemy territory. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Alas, I tire of this thread. I'm going fishing and then I'm going to visit Missouri. My benefactor has a Spitfire (a real one) up there that is looking at about 12,000 hours of repair and refit (gross estimate). I haven't even seen the thing, yet, but I am looking forward to it. I'm thinking every part and piece will have to be replaced. God, what a joy!
I'm a dot! <---- indicates I ain't returning to this thread. 100 messages just kills a 9600 modem (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Voss 13th T.A.S.
-
In response to AKDejaVu's disjointed reasoning, I offer the following questions and observations.
I believe that you may suffer from a reading comprehension disorder. Time and time again, you misunderstand simple statements, or worse, you deliberately mis-state and mis-characterize. Debating with you is fruitless, because you imagine issues not yet in evidence. You even take it upon yourself to re-invent specific comments by others in the thread.
What is it in your past that causes you to feel intimidated and belittled if someone should use their experience as a baseline for understanding specific issues? Could it be that your self-image is so low that you can only feel good about yourself if you can drag everyone down into your mire? Or, could it be that your position as a honey-bucket specialist aboard that C-141 has left you with a resentment towards those who had greater opportunities? Do we need an Affirmative Action program for Wannabes?
What we need in this discussion is rational thought, not the confused and poorly reasoned examples offered to date. I should remind you that it was you who puffed out your feathers and strutted about scratching the dirt, announcing that I owed you an explanation. Well, what I owed to you has been delivered in a timely fashion. Ironically, when I mirrored your tone and inflection, you resort to terms such as my being an "egotistical condescending toejam".
Your debate reminds me of that lawyer maxim that says, "If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither the law or the facts are on your side, holler." In your case, you just call names.
You see, it's not an ego thing at all. It's just a lowering threshold for foolishness.
Re-read my last posting, and this time actually pay attention rather than look for cracks in the armor.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Right widewing...
Just call names.. or come up with pithy "quoted by" statements and then feign ignorance when anyone points out your egotistical attitude.
I mean.. what could you possible have done other than over-hype your "flight experience" in order to prove your point?
My flight experience in cargo planes is limited to the passenger capacity. Amazing how much can be read into things when you just say "flight time" eh? Of course, I had more flight time than some of the pilots that served in WW2... but that's not really the point.. is it?
I've read your posts. They do go in circles. You cite bombers being used to train pilots as justification for noting similarities between a cargo plane and a p-38. I'm sure they did it only because they had similar handling characteristics. It couldn't have possibly been because it allowed an instructor to fly with a student in order to teach him twin engine management technics. You know.. that semi-critical thing that you cite as the cause of an author's death? I'm sure it couldn't have been to emulate any of the quirky fuel transfer methods mentioned in that letter you posted either. It MUST have been because they handled so similarly... it almost makes you wonder why they didn't just use that bomber in the first play... why even bother with the P-38.
The truth is, I don't know much about the P-38. I have to get it from what I read here and in the limited number of books I come across. The only problem is, whenever I see information or stories presented, it ends up boiling down to an argument between to data laden egomaniacs that will not stop until the world accepts they are the foremost authority on the topic at hand.
So now, I have to wade through someone spewing off about his 2400 hours as a crew-chief.. or his 50,000 hours of R/C time as if any of that really matters in regards to P-38's.
I really love you taking the opportunity to degrade Air Force loadmasters. I guess that ego needed just a tad bit more boosting.
It all comes down to this: Were you a navy pilot? Do you allow people to maintain that perception?
I'll answer that for you:
No you weren't a navy pilot
Yes you allow people to think that
I find it incredibly ironic that you are falling into the same trap that Voss is being constantly ridiculed for. After a while, you'll start to believe yourself too.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by Citabria:
was a crappy plane that always broke couldnt go fast and couldnt turn any. crappy climber in real life too. all other US planes were way better
Damn Cit I love it! I can see that the way to get some response to your post is to bad mouth a plane. Look at all the info. I love how it starts with this vague sloppy statement with no factual data and grows into a sounding board for the world. LOL! Not that I have a thing wrong with you posting your statement as a mater of opinion. But man you would think that what you posted was some damning FACTS about the P-38. LOL! I love how it ballooned.
-
my best troll yet for sure
-
AKDejaVu whined:
"I mean.. what could you possible have done other than over-hype your "flight experience" in order to prove your point?"
I must commend you on a remarkable ability to prove my argument for me. Indeed, you do have a reading comprehension disorder. How else could one explain the fact that YOU hyped my flight record beyond anything I could manage to present. YOU challenged me to state what aircraft I had crewed. YOU were the person who, after having the relevance explained in a detailed, yet simple manner, completely misunderstood what was being stated. How do manage to function in day to day life?
AKDejaSnooze continues:
"My flight experience in cargo planes is limited to the passenger capacity. Amazing how much can be read into things when you just say "flight time" eh?"
It did not take much thought to conclude that you were a member of the honey-bucket brigade. Your speech and manner were a dead giveaway. It was obvious that your visits to the cockpit were along the order of delivering coffee to the flight crew. No shame in that, mind you. Every loadmaster that I knew began with honey-bucket duty, myself included. It's part of the ritual.
Unfortunately, the Air Force is more into specialization, at least we cross trained....
AKDejaPooh drops trousers for a weenie measuring contest:
"Of course, I had more flight time than some of the pilots that served in WW2... but that's not really the point.. is it?"
This leads to the basic question: Did you learn anything?
AKDejaCrank rationalizes:
"I've read your posts. They do go in circles."
Is it my fault that you have an attention span shorter than a gnat's donut?
He continues:
"You cite bombers being used to train pilots as justification for noting similarities between a cargo plane and a p-38."
Hmm.... For your edification, the US-2B was converted from an anti-submarine bomber. The C-1A was a lighter, somewhat higher performing development of that same anti-sub aircraft.
AkKnucklehead blindly forges ahead:
"I'm sure they did it only because they had similar handling characteristics. It couldn't have possibly been because it allowed an instructor to fly with a student in order to teach him twin engine management technics."
Do you also suffer from dyslexia? You cannot seem to quote accurately. Here it is again, read slowly and sound out the syllables. "the 20th FG used a B-25 for basic multi-engine training of single-engine pilots who were assigned to fly the P-38. Why, because they had some similar characteristics."
I don't see the word 'handling' anywhere in there, do you? Why do you insist on distorting the facts to suit your argument? Perhaps, because you don't have an argument.
AKDejaFlake proceeds to demonstrate his brilliant reasoning skills:
"You know.. that semi-critical thing that you cite as the cause of an author's death? I'm sure it couldn't have been to emulate any of the quirky fuel transfer methods mentioned in that letter you posted either. It MUST have been because they handled so similarly... it almost makes you wonder why they didn't just use that bomber in the first play... why even bother with the P-38."
Perhaps, you should stick to what you know, although I'm at a loss as to what that might be.
Since you have difficulty comprehending what you read, this may be a futile exercise. Nonetheless, I'll educate you on the fuel system of the P-38 that Jeff crashed. It was not fitted with external drop tanks. Therefore, the selector valves were turned to main or reserve. This P-38 was no longer fitted with self-sealing fuel tanks, but with brand new aluminum units. There is nothing difficult about turning the selector handles, unless you have on heavy gloves for high altitude flight. There is nothing one could remotely describe as "quirky". Nor was there on the 1944 aircraft either. Selector valves are aways 'stiff'. Those on the P-38 had relatively short handles, providing little mechanical advantage.
As to your other nonsense; virtually all large, heavy twins have operating characteristics that are similar in several respects. Just as important is the need to learn how to manage a relatively complex cockpit and still manage to fly the aircraft with your head out of the cockpit. Do you understand what that means?
AKDejaDork finally gets something right:
"The truth is, I don't know much about the P-38."
Your kidding, right?
He goes on:
"I have to get it from what I read here and in the limited number of books I come across. The only problem is, whenever I see information or stories presented, it ends up boiling down to an argument between to data laden egomaniacs that will not stop until the world accepts they are the foremost authority on the topic at hand."
I see now. Everyone who has researched more, who has learned more and therefore knows more is an egomaniac. Is that your point? Well, if it is, I would suggest a hat.
AKBlahBlahBlah laments:
So now, I have to wade through someone spewing off about his 2400 hours as a crew-chief..
STOP HERE! Make note of the term CREWCHIEF, because it's relevant to Ak's final Big Lie
at the end of his diatribe.
AK presses on:
"I really love you taking the opportunity to degrade Air Force loadmasters. I guess that ego needed just a tad bit more boosting."
Nice try numbnuts. However, you may recall that I qualified as a Loadmaster in two aircraft. Moreover, I did mention that I have a close friend who is a C-130 Loadmaster. I was merely reminding you of your stature within the hierarchy of an aircrew.
AKDejaBullfeathers tries the Big Lie:
"It all comes down to this: Were you a navy pilot? Do you allow people to maintain that perception?"
Remember the term CREWCHIEF? It is obvious that I have explicitly defined my position within the flight crew. Poor old DejaPoop has been taking a flogging of his own creation. Now, because he can offer nothing of substance, he goes beyond mis-quotes, mis-characterizations, and fact twisting. Here he goes all out by attempting to smear with a bold faced fabrication. Bad form, very bad form. Listen, if you can't compete within the rules, kindly leave the playing field.
True to form, AKFabricator says:
"I'll answer that for you:"
I'd rather you didn't. I haven't much use for sub-standard immitations.
Rambling on:
"No you weren't a navy pilot"
Gee, after some 2,000 words written, you finally understood something I wrote!
AK's final attempt to save face (Too late, might add):
"Yes you allow people to think that"
Well, you sir, are a liar and a fool.
Tell me one thing. Do you believe that driving a rust-bucket '71 Blazer offers you added insight to the driving characteristics of an equally oxidized '74 Chevy pickup?
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Citabria:
my best troll yet for sure
Look at it Cit! It's brilliant! It has a life of it's own now. Your insignificant compared to your creation. As Dr. Frankenstein would say "It's alive!" Not only have you got people dredging up the specific gravity of the rivets on a P-38 you got two people about ready to kill each other. I'm in awe of it Cit. WOW! Congratulations. I tried to warn them all early on of the troll factors involved but no one heeded my warning. They all dove for the hook. They not only swallowed it but crapped it out the other side! What a great little experiment in human nature this turned out to be. As I said way back in the beginning I'm glad you didn't call it ugly too. God knows where you would be if you would have done that! LMAO! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-23-2001).]
-
Thankyou for that reply widewing. You said what an idiot you are far better than I ever could.
Dang.. Its nice to know so much and be so right isn't it.
Learning all those things about P-38's in the navy really pays off at times like this. You get to utilize that snappy P-38 wit that made you the living legend in your own mind you have become today.
Once again, you are only here to prove how right you are whenever it comes to p-38's. Everyone must bow to your knowledge... and when that doesn't work out.. people must bow to your flight experience... and when that doesn't work out.. people must bow to your witty play on their ID... and when that doesn't work out.. you just go back to your room and beat off to the thought that "you really showed him".
Simple.. no play on words... EGOMANIAC.
AKDejaVu
-
In a post by you Widewing...
Originally posted by Voss:
I snipped this badly inform exercise in wind breaking. However, let me clear up one thing that is usually ignored.
Insulting to say the least. I read and re-read Voss's post. I fail to see where he insulted you in it. I do see where he proffessed knowledge in an arena that is clearly your own. Wether he was wrong or right... well I fail to see how this was merrited.
Something Dune said after this:
Voss, I too am a P-51 fan.
But I have never heard anyone refer to the -38 the way you do. Not in any of the pilot's stories about it, nor any other reports.
I've gone through the history of my grandfather's FG, the 364th, and not a single pilot talks about the "widow-maker" capabilities the way you do. I've read reports from pilots who flew that plane in every theater in the war. None of them feel the same way you do.
I'm not sure where you got this idea, but everything I've seen says it's not true.
Wow.. disagreeing with Voss and not being insulting. IT CAN BE DONE!
Oooo.. and this is a good one to Voss again from you widewing:
Young man, don't you care that you have managed to demonstrate to everyone here that you are a self-important know-nothing?
And is this drastically worse than a self-important know-something? The only real difference in this case is that your oppinion seems to be more fact based than Voss's. I say oppinion, because neither of you have flown the P-38 and everything you do know about it is simply through osmosis. Sure, you claim closeness to the aircraft, but it is with a degree of separation. You seem to forget that.
And here's were it starts to get REAL good:
"That spells "disaster waiting to happen" to any unwary pilot and lots of wary ones too! How many war pilots died after their first mistake? Thank your lucky stars you only fly these rigs from the safety of your computer desk!"
Hmmm.... Gee, and I thought my 332 traps (a trap is a full-stop landing on an aircraft carrier, a real carrier) and 2,400 hours (in real military aircraft) would have provided me with some useful insight into the handling of the P-38. Silly me! Who could have known that Voss was such an expert?
Oh yes.. the HANDLING word... Not the TWIN ENGINE MANAGEMENT phrase. I'm sure you were more qualified to fly this plane than the person you "had more time on the crapper than" just based on this flight time alone. Oh wait.. that's right.. you were only citing HIS p-38 time. Somehow that was important for the people that flew it.. but not really for the people that sit back and criticize how they flew it.
After that, you simply go off on self-righteous bable. Afterall.. you've already proven how right you are.
Voss looked like a real toejam-heal for hopping into this without anything to really back up what he was saying. You look like a real toejam-heal for how you handled being right.
AKDejaVu
-
Whew!! This is quite a thread. I just got around to reading it, wondering what could possibly be so interesting as to justify 100+ responses. Now I know!
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.
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.
Andy
-
AKDejaVu sulks:
"Dang.. Its nice to know so much and be so right isn't it (sic)."
As I've said before, you obviously suffer from some sort of contorted 'noodle' envy towards those who make a concerted effort to study WWII aircraft and operational history. Why can't you simply benefit from the research of these people without offering up a school yard challenge?
AKSoreLoser offers his ongoing mantra:
"Learning all those things about P-38's in the navy really pays off at times like this. You get to utilize that snappy P-38 wit that made you the living legend in your own mind you have become today."
Since you have had less than nothing to add to the P-38 discussion, and because you have suffered the slings and arrows of your own need to drag everyone down to your level of ignorance, any further discussion with you is pointless.
AKDangerMouse spews forth:
Once again, you are only here to prove how right you are whenever it comes to p-38's. Everyone must bow to your knowledge... and when that doesn't work out.. people must bow to your flight experience... and when that doesn't work out.. people must bow to your witty play on their ID... and when that doesn't work out.. you just go back to your room and beat off to the thought that "you really showed him".
My knowledge of the P-38. or any other aircraft is not the issue here. Furthermore, I am always open to learning from those who have something to offer, which naturally excludes you.
As to witty plays on one's ID: It's not always easy to create a new description for the same individual, and I could not have accomplished it without your able assistance. Indeed, if nothing has worked out, why are you resorting to base name calling (without a shred of cleverness)?
In line with the rules of the road: "Slow traffic keep right".
AKDejaDweeb expounds further:
"Simple.. no play on words... EGOMANIAC."
Simple is good, wouldn't want to tax your limited vocabulary and language skills.
Get a grip on yourself.
Widewing
-
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
-
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"
(http://us.st5.yimg.com/store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1619_4916770)
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch
-
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
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-24-2001).]
-
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
-
wow!
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) Lee Holman makes a brand new one for a $250,000. I think I'll save up and buy two. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) What does your Corvette have in it for an engine and transmission?
[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-24-2001).]
-
I think way too much was read into certain key words in this thread.
------------------
(http://bigdweeb.homestead.com/files/sig.jpg)
33rd FW www.33rd.org (http://www.33rd.org)
-
Jimdandy it depends how that vw beetle is prepared (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
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
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322:
Jimdandy it depends how that vw beetle is prepared (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
LOL That's true there are some hot bugs out there. But you get my drift.
-
wow we talked about the P-38, then about each other, then about military MOS, then about cars, hum yes I once saw a 69 dodge dart with a 340 in it get beaten by a vw bug at maple grove race way in Pa. I think the bug ran an 11.19 and the dodge ran a 11.21. something like that. I laughed when I saw the bug cause you could hear it had a bug motor in it. (sounds like a big japanes bike with a kirker on it) the mopar left the bug at the line, but man that bug sure caught up after that and just passed it at the finish line. I had to go to the pit to make sure, and yep it had a bug motor, well 4 cyl aluminum air cooled motor. it wasnt running a small block is what I am saying.
-
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
...it wasnt running a small block is what I am saying.
Oh yah. I got some friends that were big into sand rails. They had some bad bug engines. They would get up and move. Getting a bug to run much over 120mph in the 1/4 is hard. The mid 11's is about as fast as most can go using an original engine as the basic build up. 11's and under is when your V8 cars start to shine.
-
I got Slim Whitman's autograph once.
No joke......saw him eating in a restuarant by himself, so for kicks, went up and asked him for it. Those annoying TV commercials of his were on at the time.
-
S! all
You guys who drive cars are all wussies... Heck, my ZX-9 is faster in the quarter mile than a lot of pro-stockers or modifieds and it is mostly stock. (Cept for jets and Pipes) Plus it'll leave them in the dust when it comes to top speed. (Close to 170) Get a Bike!
-
ok ok motorcycle but than comes the cornering
i love cornering (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Heck, my ZX-9 is faster in the quarter mile than a lot of pro-stockers or modifieds and it is mostly stock. [/B]
pahh who is interested in quarter mile races
check out this video (12mb but it´s worth it) http://www.sjrixon.clara.net/Videos/lap2.zip (http://www.sjrixon.clara.net/Videos/lap2.zip)
A Porsche on the hardest racing track ever built, Nurburgring Nordschleife Germany.
THIS is a racing car (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Yup.
Me and my R6 raced a ZX-9R along the M4 at 3pm one sunday afternoon......at 165mph(ish) we both topped out.......when we came off the m/way at Bristol I left him for dust. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) them 9Rs dont corner like an R6. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Swoop
-
Originally posted by niklas:
pahh who is interested in quarter mile races
check out this video (12mb but it´s worth it) http://www.sjrixon.clara.net/Videos/lap2.zip (http://www.sjrixon.clara.net/Videos/lap2.zip)
A Porsche on the hardest racing track ever built, Nurburgring Nordschleife Germany.
THIS is a racing car (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Oh man that's cool! Thanks for the post. It's on the old part of the track. The bad bellybutton track not the wimpy new track. The one AutoUnion's and Mercedes ran on in the old days when men were men. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) Cool!
-
Porshe vw beetle yummie yummie
Did u guys know that the beetle is actually the first porsche.
A ferdinand Porsche (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322:
Porshe vw beetle yummie yummie
Did u guys know that the beetle is actually the first Porsche.
A ferdinand Porsche (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
The peoples car! Yep, then came the Tiger. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) There's a neat old movie out there called King of the Mountain I think. It has Dennis Hopper in it. I can't remember the name of the main character. The main character drives a cool Speedster that's all tricked out.
-
<punt> for Naudet
-
This is Bigweek?
------------------
-
Close. Even in BigWeeks hay-day I'm not sure we talked about WWII aircombat, the pilots or the plane as much as in this forumn. But the topics do stray rather wildly as those do (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Thank cod for the O-club where the religious, political and educational topics ferment.
-Westy