Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MachFly on January 03, 2012, 01:48:37 PM
-
I was thinking why does the P-38 have a yoke? The yoke was originally designed for heavy aircraft that did not have hydraulic controls or fly-by-wire, also it was used on heavy aircraft that had hydraulic controls as a back up. Now the P-38 is significantly smaller and lighter than all those bombers and airliners that required to yoke to operate, so why does it need a yoke?
The stick is so much better for maneuverability.
-
I have read that the Mosquitos with the yoke, i.e. the bombers, were actually easier to maneuver than the ones with the fighter stick, i.e. the fighters, required by Fighter Command.
Lockheed may have concluded that the yoke was superior to the stick.
-
keep in mind, the 38 isn't all that light. It weights 3x more than most fighters, not including external stores.
-
keep in mind, the 38 isn't all that light. It weights 3x more than most fighters, not including external stores.
I wouldn't call it 3 times as heavy. Take a look the P-38's empty weight compared to the empty weight of some of the aircraft with a stick.
P-38: 12,800 lb
P-51: 7,635 lb
Typhoon: 8,840 lb
Tempest: 9,250 lb
P-47: 10,000 lb
F6F: 9,238 lb
Do 335: 11,484 lb
TBF: 10,545 lb
Mosquito: 14,300 lb
Bf 110: 9,921 lb
-
I wouldn't call it 3 times as heavy. Take a look the P-38's empty weight compared to the empty weight of some of the aircraft with a stick.
P-38: 12,800 lb
P-51: 7,635 lb
Typhoon: 8,840 lb
Tempest: 9,250 lb
P-47: 10,000 lb
F6F: 9,238 lb
Do 335: 11,484 lb
TBF: 10,545 lb
Mosquito: 14,300 lb
Bf 110: 9,921 lb
Could the extra fuel in the 38 put it at the three times the weight?
-
I have read that the Mosquitos with the yoke, i.e. the bombers, were actually easier to maneuver than the ones with the fighter stick, i.e. the fighters, required by Fighter Command.
Lockheed may have concluded that the yoke was superior to the stick.
John "Cat's Eyes" Cunningham certainly preferred the yoke, which he encountered in the Mosquito NF.XV, a rare-bird high-altitude version.
-
John "Cat's Eyes" Cunningham certainly preferred the yoke, which he encountered in the Mosquito NF.XV, a rare-bird high-altitude version.
Why is that?
-
Many years ago I experimented with using a yoke flying the P-38 and personally found it easier to use than a stick. The only problem with it was trying to use my Pro Throttle along with it as the throttle on the yoke was in a rather inconvenient spot and it made it rather cumbersome. Control wise though, I thought it was better than a regular stick.
ack-ack
-
Why is that?
IIRC, it gave more leverage than the stick did.
-
IIRC, it gave more leverage than the stick did.
I think that would be very specific to the way the stick is made. You can have a short stick with not much leverage and you can have a long stick with more leverage. The stick is normally connected to the floor, the distance between your hand and the point at which it's connected to the floor is longer than the side of the yoke to the center of the yoke. So regarding the ailerons the stick should have more leverage.
-
Many years ago I experimented with using a yoke flying the P-38 and personally found it easier to use than a stick. The only problem with it was trying to use my Pro Throttle along with it as the throttle on the yoke was in a rather inconvenient spot and it made it rather cumbersome. Control wise though, I thought it was better than a regular stick.
ack-ack
Would you happen to remember what kind of yoke you used?
I think because there are a lot of different kinds of sticks and yokes you can connect to your computer the comfort would depend more on how much you paid for the specific control unit rather than it's type. For example a $200 yoke can feel a lot more comfortable than a $20 stick.
-
Could the extra fuel in the 38 put it at the three times the weight?
Ding ding! Load up a 38 and, IIRC, you can break the 21k mark. Not 3x than most (my bad), but beefy none the less.
-
Ding ding! Load up a 38 and, IIRC, you can break the 21k mark
What about the other aircraft that can carry a lot of fuel? The aircraft I mentioned above (Besides the Typhoon & Tempest) can also carry a large amount of fuel. I don't have the exact numbers for them (yet) but I really can't imagine them having a more than 30% difference.
-
I wouldn't call it 3 times as heavy. Take a look the P-38's empty weight compared to the empty weight of some of the aircraft with a stick.
P-38: 12,800 lb
P-51: 7,635 lb
Typhoon: 8,840 lb
Tempest: 9,250 lb
P-47: 10,000 lb
F6F: 9,238 lb
Do 335: 11,484 lb
TBF: 10,545 lb
Mosquito: 14,300 lb
Bf 110: 9,921 lb
Empty weight in the late P-38Js production blocks and the Ls was actually 14,100-14400 lb, not the commonly quoted 12,800 lb.
If you look at when the P-38 was designed and introduced, it was significantly heavier than other US fighters of the period.
Empty weights
P-38D: 11900 lb
P-36A: 4570 lb
P-39C: 5070 lb
P-39D: 5460 lb
P-40: 5380 lb
P-40B: 5590 lb
P-43: 5655 lb
-
What about the other aircraft that can carry a lot of fuel? The aircraft I mentioned above (Besides the Typhoon & Tempest) can also carry a large amount of fuel. I don't have the exact numbers for them (yet) but I really can't imagine them having a more than 30% difference.
Still though the 38's wing tanks must be absolutely massive.
Ding ding! Load up a 38 and, IIRC, you can break the 21k mark. Not 3x than most (my bad), but beefy none the less.
Yay! :D
-
What about the other aircraft that can carry a lot of fuel? The aircraft I mentioned above (Besides the Typhoon & Tempest) can also carry a large amount of fuel. I don't have the exact numbers for them (yet) but I really can't imagine them having a more than 30% difference.
12,800 empty versus 17,800. Nearly 40%. Max weight is 21,600. Almost 3x the 109 more than double the 190 and almost 2x the 51.
-
12,800 empty versus 17,800. Nearly 40%. Max weight is 21,600. Almost 3x the 109 more than double the 190 and almost 2x the 51.
109 is very small, that's like comparing to a Piper Cub. Let's compare it to something with about the same mass that had a stick, say a P-47?
I'll just take the numbers from wikipedia for this because I don't know where else to get them without doing a lot of research. If anyone knows a good source from the top of their head please confirm this.
P-38 max takeoff weight: 21,600lb
P-47 max takeoff weight: 17,500lb
So that's a 4,100lb difference. I admit that is significant but it's not enough to give it a yoke instead of a stick.
Also keep in mind that you wont be normally taking off with everything you can carry on board and if you will you wont be planning on maneuvering right after take off.
-
Would you happen to remember what kind of yoke you used?
I think because there are a lot of different kinds of sticks and yokes you can connect to your computer the comfort would depend more on how much you paid for the specific control unit rather than it's type. For example a $200 yoke can feel a lot more comfortable than a $20 stick.
CH Virtual Pilot Pro was the yoke I was using and my stick at the time was a CH Jane's F-16 Combat Stick.
ack-ack
-
Why is that?
IIRC he felt it was less physically demanding and more responsive.
-
109 is very small, that's like comparing to a Piper Cub. Let's compare it to something with about the same mass that had a stick, say a P-47?
I'll just take the numbers from wikipedia for this because I don't know where else to get them without doing a lot of research. If anyone knows a good source from the top of their head please confirm this.
P-38 max takeoff weight: 21,600lb
P-47 max takeoff weight: 17,500lb
So that's a 4,100lb difference. I admit that is significant but it's not enough to give it a yoke instead of a stick.
Also keep in mind that you wont be normally taking off with everything you can carry on board and if you will you wont be planning on maneuvering right after take off.
The vast bulk of the P-38's weight was outside the width of the fuselage. You had 52 feet of wing with those heavy Allisons hanging out there. Lockheed determined that joy stick forces would be excessively high and decided to provide a yoke with pulleys and cables to gain a large mechanical advantage. Control forces were reduced by more than 50% over a conventional stick. The P-38J-25 and P-38L models had boosted ailerons, which reduced control force by as much as 85%.
-
The vast bulk of the P-38's weight was outside the width of the fuselage. You had 52 feet of wing with those heavy Allisons hanging out there. Lockheed determined that joy stick forces would be excessively high and decided to provide a yoke with pulleys and cables to gain a large mechanical advantage. Control forces were reduced by more than 50% over a conventional stick. The P-38J-25 and P-38L models had boosted ailerons, which reduced control force by as much as 85%.
50% just by adding extra pulleys? WOW
I'd be really interested to see the diagram of how it was all connected.
Any idea why after the hydraulics for the ailerons were installed they didn't change it back to the stick?
-
IIRC he felt it was less physically demanding and more responsive.
In that case it probably depended a lot more on airplane and not the controls.
I've flown 5 different aircraft with a yoke and 6 different aircraft with a stick. I found the stick to be a lot more precise and a lot easier to use when maneuvering.
-
CH Virtual Pilot Pro was the yoke I was using and my stick at the time was a CH Jane's F-16 Combat Stick.
ack-ack
I think in that case it more depended on the specific product rather than the type of controls.
Just out of curiosity what didn't you like about the CH stick?
-
I think in that case it more depended on the specific product rather than the type of controls.
Just out of curiosity what didn't you like about the CH stick?
It wasn't that I didn't like the stick, it was a great stick that I had custom made when I was still at CH. I wanted to see how well a yoke would work and it worked far better than I thought it would have. Like I mentioned, the only issues were using the Pro Throttle along with the yoke, didn't make for a good ergonomic fit.
ack-ack
-
It wasn't that I didn't like the stick, it was a great stick that I had custom made when I was still at CH. I wanted to see how well a yoke would work and it worked far better than I thought it would have. Like I mentioned, the only issues were using the Pro Throttle along with the yoke, didn't make for a good ergonomic fit.
ack-ack
Ah Roger
-
50% just by adding extra pulleys? WOW
I'd be really interested to see the diagram of how it was all connected.
Any idea why after the hydraulics for the ailerons were installed they didn't change it back to the stick?
Sure... The system could fail, and then you would be back to the old P-38 configuration, but with excessive stick forces. A second reason is that if you suffered an engine failure, the single engine landing procedure was to shut off the aileron boost to maintain enough hydraulic pressure to lower the landing gear. If it were fitted with a stick, you would have a dangerous situation with high stick forces and having to battle a critical engine condition.
-
Sure... The system could fail, and then you would be back to the old P-38 configuration, but with excessive stick forces. A second reason is that if you suffered an engine failure, the single engine landing procedure was to shut off the aileron boost to maintain enough hydraulic pressure to lower the landing gear. If it were fitted with a stick, you would have a dangerous situation with high stick forces and having to battle a critical engine condition.
I guess I can understand that the stick forces can be uncomfortable but I have thought time believing that it be actually hard to fly. Now I'm not familiar with it's hydraulics system but the gear does not take that long to drop, perhaps after the gear drops you can turn the aileron boost back on.
Also you can drop the gear using the emergency procedures by pumping the hydraulic fluid yourself or opening the gear mechanically without hydraulics at all. This process takes about 5 minutes but you don't loose the hydraulic pressure in the ailerons.
-
I guess I can understand that the stick forces can be uncomfortable but I have thought time believing that it be actually hard to fly. Now I'm not familiar with it's hydraulics system but the gear does not take that long to drop, perhaps after the gear drops you can turn the aileron boost back on.
Also you can drop the gear using the emergency procedures by pumping the hydraulic fluid yourself or opening the gear mechanically without hydraulics at all. This process takes about 5 minutes but you don't loose the hydraulic pressure in the ailerons.
I have watched the Lockheed training videos on how to handle a single engine emergency landing and I'd have to say that they have enough going on their hands without having to worry about pumping for 5 mins. Just seems easier to shut off a system that isn't necessary and carry on then to add, as you say, five minutes of work to an already busy pilot.
-
All the Control Yokes I've seen look like a Cessna Yoke.. I think a realistic WW2 combat yoke for P38 or A20 would be a hot ticket! I'd buy one for sure!
-
I like Saitek's Cessna logo setup they have. Now, if they'd just do something similar for Beechcraft controls... :ahand
-
I have watched the Lockheed training videos on how to handle a single engine emergency landing and I'd have to say that they have enough going on their hands without having to worry about pumping for 5 mins. Just seems easier to shut off a system that isn't necessary and carry on then to add, as you say, five minutes of work to an already busy pilot.
Most of the time you can just circle around the airport and work on your gear. Thankfully trouble with the gear does not call for an emergency landing.
-
its like a car steering wheel I guess - two hands gives you more precise control and greater force, and the design uses less cockpit space.
Ive always wondered why the mossie used a stick rather than a spade grip like all the other RAF fighters, and why the bomber version used a yoke. and for that matter why the spade grip was abandoned. or why no one else used it. :headscratch:
-
Most of the time you can just circle around the airport and work on your gear. Thankfully trouble with the gear does not call for an emergency landing.
Well for war time use though Id imagine when he rtb's hes low fuel and maybe damaged.
-
its like a car steering wheel I guess - two hands gives you more precise control and greater force, and the design uses less cockpit space.
That's not exactly accurate. When your flying in straight lines you want to hold the yoke with your finger tips in order to be smooth, it is next to impossible to fly smooth when squeezing the controls. When your maneuvering your other hand is on the throttle so you still have only one hand to control the aircraft. So a yoke is almost always useless.
The only time when you would really need a yoke is when flying some heavy bomber with a hydraulics failure.
When you have a complex aircraft with a small cockpit (not a bomber or an airliner) all your gauges and buttons are cramped together, quite often a yoke gets in the way and unfortunately you can't just turn it 90° to get to something else.
Even in an airplane as basic as a C-172 the yoke gets in the way. When a circuit breaker pops or you want to reset it you typically want to see the circuit breaker in order to identify which system is belongs to before doing anything to it, but you just can't see them because of the yoke. I never had such problem with any aircraft that has a stick.
-
Well for war time use though Id imagine when he rtb's hes low fuel and maybe damaged.
That is a very specific scenario that does not happen very often. Putting a totally different set of controls just a very specific scenario is a bad idea. If the 38 could not climb on a single engine I'd understand it, but given that it's single engine produces more than 1000hp I think it will most likely be able to wait a few extra minutes before landing.
You see landing at your base with about 2 minutes of fuel is extremely rare, you would normally have more fuel or would run out of fuel before that, loosing an engine is also something that does not happen everyday. Then you can start extending the gear when your approaching the airport you so you would already be in a landing condition. So having all those things happen in one flight is not very likely.
-
I'm going to guess that since our top scoring ace of the war flew with a yoke, a yoke just isn't that big of a hinderance.
:t
-
how wide is the 38 cockpit - spit or jug?
-
I'm going to guess that since our top scoring ace of the war flew with a yoke, a yoke just isn't that big of a hinderance.
:t
He only had 40 kills, Hartmann flew with a stick and had 352. :D
-
how wide is the 38 cockpit - spit or jug?
In the Showdown Air Combat Maj. Moga said that the 38 cockpit is very roomy, even for a big guy. I was unable to find anything more specific than that.
-
He only had 40 kills, Hartmann flew with a stick and had 352. :D
Bong flew combat less than a year, Hartmann was at war what 5 or 6 years. :D
-
Bong flew combat less than a year, Hartmann was at war what 5 or 6 years. :D
Weren't most of Hartmann's victories against poorly trained Russian pilots? Also, I believe he started in 1942. So, he only had about 3 years... More or less...
EDIT: Looked it up. Hartmann was first deployed in October of 1942 and only scored two victories in '42. Also, in August of 1943, he scored 48 victories. So, he scored more in that one month then Bong's entire tally. So, he was a stud after all!
-
Weren't most of Hartmann's victories against poorly trained Russian pilots? Also, I believe he started in 1942. So, he only had about 3 years... More or less...
EDIT: Looked it up. Hartmann was first deployed in October of 1942 and only scored two victories in '42. Also, in August of 1943, he scored 48 victories. So, he scored more in that one month then Bong's entire tally. So, he was a stud after all!
If you believe his claims.
- oldman
-
Bong flew combat less than a year, Hartmann was at war what 5 or 6 years. :D
352/6=58.66 that is still more kills per year than 40.
But let's chance the topic. Your making me defend Hartmann and I don't want to be pro Germany. Just pro stick. :)
-
Bong had many more kills that could never be confirmed because they were downed somewhere in the dense jungle or out in the middle of the ocean.
-
Bong had many more kills that could never be confirmed because they were downed somewhere in the dense jungle or out in the middle of the ocean.
Didn't they have gun cameras on board that would confirm their kills?
-
Didn't they have gun cameras on board that would confirm their kills?
Most countries had gun cameras. The early 38s had them in the nose where the vibration made them fairly useless. later they were moved to the wing pylon.
-
Most countries had gun cameras. The early 38s had them in the nose where the vibration made them fairly useless. later they were moved to the wing pylon.
Right, so all of his kills should have been confirmed.
Bong had many more kills that could never be confirmed because they were downed somewhere in the dense jungle or out in the middle of the ocean.
-
Even in an airplane as basic as a C-172 the yoke gets in the way. When a circuit breaker pops or you want to reset it you typically want to see the circuit breaker in order to identify which system is belongs to before doing anything to it, but you just can't see them because of the yoke. I never had such problem with any aircraft that has a stick.
My skyhawk has the early yokes that are even worse than the later ones (I think that they started the "new" ones on the 1969 172K). I cant see any of my circuit breakers or lighting buttons unless I am at an odd angle because the yoke gets in the way. I also prefer a stick.
-
My skyhawk has the early yokes that are even worse than the later ones (I think that they started the "new" ones on the 1969 172K). I cant see any of my circuit breakers or lighting buttons unless I am at an odd angle because the yoke gets in the way. I also prefer a stick.
Thank You!
Even the guy who owns an airplane with a yoke agrees.
-
Never seen an issue with the placement of Beechcraft yokes in the Musketeer airframe birds. The only time It is a minor pain is when looking at oil temp :old:
Mach - even with guncams, not all kills could be confirmed. IIRC the book 'Aces High' by Bill Yenne mentions this.
-
Never seen an issue with the placement of Beechcraft yokes in the Musketeer airframe birds. The only time It is a minor pain is when looking at oil temp :old:
I think oil temp is pretty important ;)
I'm not saying that airplanes with yokes suck, I'm just saying that a small airplane does not need a yoke and a stick is usually better.
Mach - even with guncams, not all kills could be confirmed. IIRC the book 'Aces High' by Bill Yenne mentions this.
Are you referring to the fact that the guncamera only shows the airplane get shot and does not show it crash?
-
Right, so all of his kills should have been confirmed.
It took a lot of documentation to have a kill confirmed. A lot more than just some gun camera footage in most instances.
-
You see landing at your base with about 2 minutes of fuel is extremely rare, you would normally have more fuel or would run out of fuel before that, loosing an engine is also something that does not happen everyday.
That's where you are wrong, very wrong. In the groups that flew combat in Europe, especially early on, it was not at all uncommon to return from a mission, even with no damage, with barely enough fuel to "ride the pattern" for very long. For the facts on that, I'd suggest you read some of what Warren Bodie wrote, as well as stuff from Capt. Stan Richardson, Capt. Art Heiden, reports from Tony Levier's visits to bases in England, etc. If you don't know where to find that, ask Widewing, he does.
-
That's where you are wrong, very wrong. In the groups that flew combat in Europe, especially early on, it was not at all uncommon to return from a mission, even with no damage, with barely enough fuel to "ride the pattern" for very long. For the facts on that, I'd suggest you read some of what Warren Bodie wrote, as well as stuff from Capt. Stan Richardson, Capt. Art Heiden, reports from Tony Levier's visits to bases in England, etc. If you don't know where to find that, ask Widewing, he does.
Instead of me looking for it and reading the whole thing can you just tell me what it says?
You said that you often come back with no damage and low on fuel, in my example I said low on fuel and on one engine. That's with damage.
Also "barely enough" and "very long" is a point of view, 5 minutes to drop the gear is a specific time. The odds of touching down at your base and loosing the engines due to fuel starvation are extremely low. I don't know about you but I heard a lot more stories of people running out of fuel before they landed and not running of fuel at all than running out of fuel at touch down.
-
Right, so all of his kills should have been confirmed.
You are trying too hard here Machfly
The vibration often caused the film to be unusable. Guys who hung around behind what they thought was a downed bird just for filming purposes usually got killed.
As for losing an engine. Apparently it happened about every 10th day. The 428th FS history has mission records in the back and in 425 missions I counted 43 of them with someone coming home single engine. As for mechanical stuff, there was a reason squadrons always took off with at least a couple of 'spares' to fill in for planes that had to abort for any number of reasons.
Fuel was always an issue. Ask all those 109 pilots from B of B who ended up in the Channel or on a French beach because they ran out. Same goes for the Allied drivers coming back to England. All kinds of stories of guys landing and having the engine die on the runway and needing to be towed in.
-
Instead of me looking for it and reading the whole thing can you just tell me what it says?
No. You need to read the stuff for yourself. If you really want to know about the P-38, you need to read the right references for yourself, that's the only way to really learn.
-
You are trying too hard here Machfly
The vibration often caused the film to be unusable. Guys who hung around behind what they thought was a downed bird just for filming purposes usually got killed.
Everyone would have had that problem, it does not chance anything. The guy that flew with the stick still had 352 kills and the guy who flew with the yoke had 40.
-
No. You need to read the stuff for yourself. If you really want to know about the P-38, you need to read the right references for yourself, that's the only way to really learn.
So what exactly am I going to find out by reading it? Will it have the answer to my question about the P-38 using a yoke or are those just stories written by pilot and what they done? All I want to "learn" about it is why did it have a yoke? Widewing explained one reason but that's only for the early models. If you will tell me that that text explains why the L models had yokes I'll go and read all that stuff. But if you really read it I don't see why you can't just explain it.
-
Everyone would have had that problem, it does not chance anything. The guy that flew with the stick still had 352 kills and the guy who flew with the yoke had 40.
What does having a yoke have to do with anything? Lets face it the guy with the yoke, spade grip and sticks on the Allies ran out of targets while taking it to the Axis over their own turf.
And if we are going to use that kind of argument, then all I have to point out was the guy with the yoke was on the winning side
-
What does having a yoke have to do with anything? Lets face it the guy with the yoke, spade grip and sticks on the Allies ran out of targets while taking it to the Axis over their own turf.
And if we are going to use that kind of argument, then all I have to point out was the guy with the yoke was on the winning side
Honestly, nothing. Colmbo brought it up as a joke and I responded in the same way. Then everyone here made it a serious discussion but in reality it does not mean much.
What does matter however is that most fighter aircraft (all with the exception of the 38) and all aerobatic aircraft have a stick, there is a reason why. Even the C-17 has a stick and that thing is huge.
A stick is just a better type of control than a yoke. Sometimes you can't put a stick so you are forced to use a yoke, and unless your forces to use a yoke the aircraft should have a stick. Late model 38s do not require a yoke so a stick would be a much better.
-
. :uhoh
Machfly, after all this, i no longer care you read your thoughts or views on these subjects.
I say good day! :rofl
-
Badka,
I don't know who you are so this does not make any difference to me. You are entitled to your opinion and therefore feel free to disagree with anything that I say.
-
So what exactly am I going to find out by reading it? Will it have the answer to my question about the P-38 using a yoke or are those just stories written by pilot and what they done? All I want to "learn" about it is why did it have a yoke? Widewing explained one reason but that's only for the early models. If you will tell me that that text explains why the L models had yokes I'll go and read all that stuff. But if you really read it I don't see why you can't just explain it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly why I said read it yourself. Either you want to find and read the truth, or you don't. If you merely want someone to "tell you", as it appears, then you'll simply decide, as you already have, that it does not fit what you want to believe.
It's simple. Warren Bodie was a Lockheed engineer, and wrote the definitive work on the P-38, plain and simple. Tony Levier was one of the premier Lockheed test pilots. Those are two of the "go to guys" on the P-38. You can either read what they wrote, and accept it as fact, or you can continue to believe what you want to believe.
What Widewing explained to you about the pre J-25-Lo models explains it for all models. You assume the hydraulic boost systems do not work. In a combat aircraft especially, you design it to fly with as many systems in "failure mode" as is possible, so that those systems being damaged in combat do not lead to aircraft loss. So, despite the J-25-Lo and later models having hydraulic boost assist, the plane must be easily flyable without hydraulic assist, so the yoke remains, in order to assure that is indeed the case.
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly why I said read it yourself. Either you want to find and read the truth, or you don't. If you merely want someone to "tell you", as it appears, then you'll simply decide, as you already have, that it does not fit what you want to believe.
It's simple. Warren Bodie was a Lockheed engineer, and wrote the definitive work on the P-38, plain and simple. Tony Levier was one of the premier Lockheed test pilots. Those are two of the "go to guys" on the P-38. You can either read what they wrote, and accept it as fact, or you can continue to believe what you want to believe.
What Widewing explained to you about the pre J-25-Lo models explains it for all models. You assume the hydraulic boost systems do not work. In a combat aircraft especially, you design it to fly with as many systems in "failure mode" as is possible, so that those systems being damaged in combat do not lead to aircraft loss. So, despite the J-25-Lo and later models having hydraulic boost assist, the plane must be easily flyable without hydraulic assist, so the yoke remains, in order to assure that is indeed the case.
Thank You, I'll go read it.
I don't like looking for something to read that I know almost nothing about. Now that you explained what's in it I will happily read it.
-
Instead of me looking for it and reading the whole thing can you just tell me what it says?
You said that you often come back with no damage and low on fuel, in my example I said low on fuel and on one engine. That's with damage.
Also "barely enough" and "very long" is a point of view, 5 minutes to drop the gear is a specific time. The odds of touching down at your base and loosing the engines due to fuel starvation are extremely low. I don't know about you but I heard a lot more stories of people running out of fuel before they landed and not running of fuel at all than running out of fuel at touch down.
I came across mention in a book last night of a 15th AF creation called the "Three Minute Egg Club". Members were limited to those that landed with less then three minutes fuel. That there were enough for them to have a club speaks volumes. I remembered this post so figured I'd throw it in. :)
-
What does matter however is that most fighter aircraft (all with the exception of the 38) and all aerobatic aircraft have a stick, there is a reason why. Even the C-17 has a stick and that thing is huge.
A stick is just a better type of control than a yoke. Sometimes you can't put a stick so you are forced to use a yoke, and unless your forces to use a yoke the aircraft should have a stick. Late model 38s do not require a yoke so a stick would be a much better.
The main problem with the yoke is that it always needs two hands for precise control so the reasons why it was used in the P-38 are pretty much certainly related to control forces.
-
I came across mention in a book last night of a 15th AF creation called the "Three Minute Egg Club". Members were limited to those that landed with less then three minutes fuel. That there were enough for them to have a club speaks volumes. I remembered this post so figured I'd throw it in. :)
I don't doubt that. What I was saying is that if your coming home with lots of damage (ex: without an engine) you would either make it with plenty of fuel or wont make it at all. The odds of you making it home on one engine and running out of fuel on the runway are next to 0.
-
The main problem with the yoke is that it always needs two hands for precise control so the reasons why it was used in the P-38 are pretty much certainly related to control forces.
Most of the time when you need precise control one of your hands is on the throttle so you still have only one had for the yoke. When you don't need a hand on the throttle you're most likely just cruising so either way you never use two hands to control the aircraft. An exception would be is when you have a very large aircraft (~B-24+ size) that is severely damaged with no hydraulics that really wants to roll to the side.
-
I don't doubt that. What I was saying is that if your coming home with lots of damage (ex: without an engine) you would either make it with plenty of fuel or wont make it at all. The odds of you making it home on one engine and running out of fuel on the runway are next to 0.
LOL not so. Corky Smith bringing "Corky Jr" in single engine, low fuel after getting his fifth kill. Its why I chose CorkyJr as my AH ID. I bring em in single engine low fuel all the time!
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/CorkyJr.jpg)
-
LOL not so. Corky Smith bringing "Corky Jr" in single engine, low fuel after getting his fifth kill. Its why I chose CorkyJr as my AH ID. I bring em in single engine low fuel all the time!
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/CorkyJr.jpg)
Oh, interesting. How often did that happen, was it a one time thing or were they bringing in the 38s like that often?
-
Oh, interesting. How often did that happen, was it a one time thing or were they bringing in the 38s like that often?
Or are you make this thread go on just to make your post count rise. people already told you why and yet you refuse to stop posting about the "what if's" and "how many times did that happen?" and "i dont want to read! YOU DO IT FOR ME EVEN THO I MADE THE QUESTION!" And you will reply and say somthing like "thats a lie. STONE HIM!'
-
Or are you make this thread go on just to make your post count rise. people already told you why and yet you refuse to stop posting about the "what if's" and "how many times did that happen?" and "i dont want to read! YOU DO IT FOR ME EVEN THO I MADE THE QUESTION!" And you will reply and say somthing like "thats a lie. STONE HIM!'
First if you look at the thread it was not me who bumped it up to the top after a week. Second the question was not answered, one reason was explained but it was a minor reason that did not justify installing a yoke and that reason was gone after installation of hydraulically boosted controls. And third if you got a problem you don't have to post here, seems like you're trying to find an excuse for extra posts and increase your post count.
-
Oh, interesting. How often did that happen, was it a one time thing or were they bringing in the 38s like that often?
Like AH, if you were low fuel, you shut down an engine to stretch it and hoped. The advantage of two engines in a 38. I guess I'll have to start typing specific stories of guys having to be towed in after running out of fuel on the runway too :)
-
First if you look at the thread it was not me who bumped it up to the top after a week. Second the question was not answered, one reason was explained but it was a minor reason that did not justify installing a yoke and that reason was gone after installation of hydraulically boosted controls. And third if you got a problem you don't have to post here, seems like you're trying to find an excuse for extra posts and increase your post count.
If they had changed from a yoke to a stick there would have been some re-engineering needed, tooling on the assembly line would have changed, etc. These are all things that would slow the production of aircraft. It would not have been allowed to happen. It was felt that getting the a/c out as is was more important than making small changes.
Simply not enough benefit from the change to warrant the delay.
-
Like AH, if you were low fuel, you shut down an engine to stretch it and hoped. The advantage of two engines in a 38. I guess I'll have to start typing specific stories of guys having to be towed in after running out of fuel on the runway too :)
That's not very efficient. When you shut down one engine you have to use a lot of rudder and aileron to keep the plane going straight, all of those control deflections create a lot of drag. For maximum fuel efficiency and speed you want to keep all engines on and throttle down to the appropriate cruise settings.
-
Like AH, if you were low fuel, you shut down an engine to stretch it and hoped. The advantage of two engines in a 38. I guess I'll have to start typing specific stories of guys having to be towed in after running out of fuel on the runway too :)
I've done that in the Mossie in AH. I am still not sure if it saves fuel overall or not.
-
If they had changed from a yoke to a stick there would have been some re-engineering needed, tooling on the assembly line would have changed, etc. These are all things that would slow the production of aircraft. It would not have been allowed to happen. It was felt that getting the a/c out as is was more important than making small changes.
Simply not enough benefit from the change to warrant the delay.
Considering how good the P-38K was, and they wouldn't let Lockheed stop production for two weeks for it, that's as good an answer on the yoke as any. Pilots who liked the P-38 liked the yoke, too.
-
If they had changed from a yoke to a stick there would have been some re-engineering needed, tooling on the assembly line would have changed, etc. These are all things that would slow the production of aircraft. It would not have been allowed to happen. It was felt that getting the a/c out as is was more important than making small changes.
Simply not enough benefit from the change to warrant the delay.
That's actually a good reason.
You flown aircraft of those times, do you think originally installing a yoke was a good reason? I flown only light aircraft with direct controls and heavy with fly-by-wire so I think you have a "bit" more experience to properly answer that question.
-
That's not very efficient. When you shut down one engine you have to use a lot of rudder and aileron to keep the plane going straight, all of those control deflections create a lot of drag. For maximum fuel efficiency and speed you want to keep all engines on and throttle down to the appropriate cruise settings.
You think. Have you actually talked to a P-38 pilot, or a P-38 engineer, or a P-38 test pilot?
Because what you think, and what may apply to one plane, does not necessarily apply to all planes.
The P-38 was excellent on one engine, it still had plenty of power to cruise, even to climb, at a reduced rate.
I suggest you search and read what Captain Stan Richardson Jr. wrote about the P-38 on one engine, as he was assigned to train pilots, and single engine training was part of it.
-
You think. Have you actually talked to a P-38 pilot, or a P-38 engineer, or a P-38 test pilot?
Because what you think, and what may apply to one plane, does not necessarily apply to all planes.
The P-38 was excellent on one engine, it still had plenty of power to cruise, even to climb, at a reduced rate.
I suggest you search and read what Captain Stan Richardson Jr. wrote about the P-38 on one engine, as he was assigned to train pilots, and single engine training was part of it.
Just like every twin the P-38 will have asymmetric thrust when operating on one engine, that will require control deflection to fly straight. That control deflection will create drag that will slow down the plane. This is not specific to one plane, this is specific for the laws of physics.
Now I'm sure the P-38 did fly well on one engine because it had almost 2000hp, but flying with two engines is still a lot more efficient than one (on a twin).
Considering how good the P-38K was, and they wouldn't let Lockheed stop production for two weeks for it, that's as good an answer on the yoke as any. Pilots who liked the P-38 liked the yoke, too.
You mean P-38L, right? Think there were just one or two Ks build.
-
You mean P-38L, right? Think there were just one or two Ks build.
He means the P-38K. Lockheed proposed the P-38K to the War Production Board, who elected to continue with the J model as the K would have required retooling a portion of the line, and a work stoppage of about two to three weeks.
-
He means the P-38K. Lockheed proposed the P-38K to the War Production Board, who elected to continue with the J model as the K would have required retooling a portion of the line, and a work stoppage of about two to three weeks.
Roger, misread his post.
-
but flying with two engines is still a lot more efficient than one (on a twin).
I'm going to go with one engine being the best bet in the scenario where you can afford to slow way down and sip fuel....situation where you want maximum endurance. While you do pay a penalty in drag when shutting down an engine you also cut fuel consumption in half.
-
You flown aircraft of those times, do you think originally installing a yoke was a good reason?
I can't argue with success. I've never read anything that indicated P-38 pilots didn't like the yoke so I'm thinking it just wasn't a big deal. I personally prefer a stick, for me it's easier to get maximum throw with a stick vs with a yoke -- especially full aileron with lots of back yoke -- but that being said rolling an airplane with a yoke isn't a big deal.
And a yoke works a lot better when it comes to approach plates or cup- holders.
-
I'm going to go with one engine being the best bet in the scenario where you can afford to slow way down and sip fuel....situation where you want maximum endurance. While you do pay a penalty in drag when shutting down an engine you also cut fuel consumption in half.
That would only work if your holding, most of the time your trying to get somewhere, especially in combat. Also because flying on one engine is more dangerous (easier to spin) and is generally harder (can't relax as you need a lot of rudder pressure) I would still keep that second engine on.
-
I can't argue with success. I've never read anything that indicated P-38 pilots didn't like the yoke so I'm thinking it just wasn't a big deal. I personally prefer a stick, for me it's easier to get maximum throw with a stick vs with a yoke -- especially full aileron with lots of back yoke -- but that being said rolling an airplane with a yoke isn't a big deal.
And a yoke works a lot better when it comes to approach plates or cup- holders.
I see. And I defiantly agree about approach plates.
-
Also because flying on one engine is more dangerous and is generally harder I would still keep that second engine on.
I'll let the SAR folks know where you ditched.
-
I'll let the SAR folks know where you ditched.
:lol
If you got to turn the 2nd engine off due to fuel economy while holding something is really wrong.
-
That would only work if your holding, most of the time your trying to get somewhere, especially in combat. Also because flying on one engine is more dangerous (easier to spin) and is generally harder (can't relax as you need a lot of rudder pressure) I would still keep that second engine on.
Being single-engine in cruise isn't a big deal. Hell, even in the B-24 with 1 and 2 shut down it's doable.
You can't state which is better until you run the numbers. If the guys who's lives depended on their decision were shutting an engine down I'm going to guess they had probably worked the problem.
-
:lol
If you got to turn the 2nd engine off due to fuel economy while holding something is really wrong.
I'm not talking about holding...we're discussing getting a low fuel P-38 back to base during a combat mission.
-
First off, the P-38 apparently didn't suffer nearly so much with asymmetric thrust as you might think. Considering how well Stan told me it flew on one engine, I seriously doubt he was standing on one rudder pedal and cranking the yoke around just to maintain normal level flight.
Second, this is not a regular GA engine we're talking about, this is a 1710 cubic inch 1750HP engine, it uses a lot of fuel, so running one leaves you enough power to not only still climb, but also to cruise at well over 200MPH, while reducing fuel consumption dramatically.
By the way, the yoke was actually on a control column, so the elevators were controlled just like if a stick were used, except you have two hands holding the yoke and exerting that force. The yoke itself allowed you two hands to control the "broad chord" ailerons which were way out toward the ends of a rather large wingspan. Again, this is not a GA type light aircraft, it is a large, relatively heavy, high performance aircraft. You needed a lot of muscle to control it. Every pilot who flew it that I talked to liked the yoke, feeling that it reduced the effort required to fly the plane hard, and allowed them to perform at their best with strength in reserve for a longer period of time.
-
I'm not talking about holding...we're discussing getting a low fuel P-38 back to base during a combat mission.
Right. Turning the engine off would increase endurance, if you want to increase your range (which is what you want in combat) you want to keep both engines on. So if your going to/from combat you want to increase your range and shorten the time it would take you to get there, for that scenario it's best to keep both engines on. The only time when you would want to increase your endurance is if your holding.
-
Right. Turning the engine off would increase endurance, if you want to increase your range (which is what you want in combat) you want to keep both engines off. So if your going to/from combat you want to increase your range and shorten the time it would take you to get there, for that scenario it's best to keep both engines on. The only time when you would want to increase your endurance is if your holding.
FYI keeping both engines off will greatly reduce your range. Dramatically so.
-
FYI keeping both engines off will greatly reduce your range. Dramatically so.
Typo, fixed now. But you knew what I meant.
-
First off, the P-38 apparently didn't suffer nearly so much with asymmetric thrust as you might think. Considering how well Stan told me it flew on one engine, I seriously doubt he was standing on one rudder pedal and cranking the yoke around just to maintain normal level flight.
Second, this is not a regular GA engine we're talking about, this is a 1710 cubic inch 1750HP engine, it uses a lot of fuel, so running one leaves you enough power to not only still climb, but also to cruise at well over 200MPH, while reducing fuel consumption dramatically.
By the way, the yoke was actually on a control column, so the elevators were controlled just like if a stick were used, except you have two hands holding the yoke and exerting that force. The yoke itself allowed you two hands to control the "broad chord" ailerons which were way out toward the ends of a rather large wingspan. Again, this is not a GA type light aircraft, it is a large, relatively heavy, high performance aircraft. You needed a lot of muscle to control it. Every pilot who flew it that I talked to liked the yoke, feeling that it reduced the effort required to fly the plane hard, and allowed them to perform at their best with strength in reserve for a longer period of time.
A pilot who really likes their airplane will not tell you anything bad about it. That 1750HP engine produces a lot of thrust and torque that you have to count, the blades are also pretty big so the P-factor would be noticeable.
Now your saying that it's not a regular GA aircraft, well just for the record my GA aircraft can fly higher and faster on a single engine than 90% GA aircraft with everything working. So don't think that I'm used to the airplane not being able to do anything on a single engine.
The elevator motion of a normal yoke don't really bother me, the problem with the yoke are the aileron motions and the fact that it's big and gets in the way.
-
A pilot who really likes their airplane will not tell you anything bad about it. That 1750HP engine produces a lot of thrust and torque that you have to count, the blades are also pretty big so the P-factor would be noticeable.
Now your saying that it's not a regular GA aircraft, well just for the record my GA aircraft can fly higher and faster on a single engine than 90% GA aircraft with everything working. So don't think that I'm used to the airplane not being able to do anything on a single engine.
The elevator motion of a normal yoke don't really bother me, the problem with the yoke are the aileron motions and the fact that it's big and gets in the way.
Nothing personal Machfly, but if I have to choose between Kelly Johnson's designs and yours, I'm going with Kelly Johnson. :)
For whatever reason he felt the wheel worked better. Maybe he didn't like the idea of a stick banging the knees of his pilots, or maybe he felt like they could get more muscle into it with grips for two hands.
As for the guys shutting down an engine due to fuel, all I can do is pass on what they did. Corky Smith feathered his engine due to low fuel. Apparently he had his reasons.
When you start challenging the guys who really flew the thing in combat and making excuses for why they wouldn't tell the truth about their plane , the conversation starts to be pointless pointless. We're not arguing about whether the 38 is better then the 51 etc. We're talking about using the controls and a yoke. Hardly a reason to make things up as all these guys would have flown birds with a conventional stick as well.
-
When you start challenging the guys who really flew the thing in combat and making excuses for why they wouldn't tell the truth about their plane , the conversation starts to be pointless pointless.
+1
I did this some time ago.
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
-
Right. Turning the engine off would increase endurance, if you want to increase your range (which is what you want in combat) you want to keep both engines on. So if your going to/from combat you want to increase your range and shorten the time it would take you to get there, for that scenario it's best to keep both engines on. The only time when you would want to increase your endurance is if your holding.
Here's what I did in the TA with the P-38. Set up at 7000 MSL, cruise power setting of 35"/2800RPM. With both engines running fuel flow ends up at 155GPH with a TAS of 285. With one engine shut down and the same power setting fuel flow drops to 78GPH with a TAS of 220.
With 78 gallons of fuel and both engines running you'll ditch after 143 miles while I'll be able to fly 220 miles back to base by using one engine.
Using those power settings/fuel flows/TAS it's a 50% reduction in fuel consumption but only a 23% reduction in TAS.
-
Nothing personal Machfly, but if I have to choose between Kelly Johnson's designs and yours, I'm going with Kelly Johnson. :)
So what are you going to do when you want to take a friend up? :D
For whatever reason he felt the wheel worked better. Maybe he didn't like the idea of a stick banging the knees of his pilots, or maybe he felt like they could get more muscle into it with grips for two hands.
So did the guys who did not give the F-4 a gun.
When you start challenging the guys who really flew the thing in combat and making excuses for why they wouldn't tell the truth about their plane , the conversation starts to be pointless pointless. We're not arguing about whether the 38 is better then the 51 etc. We're talking about using the controls and a yoke. Hardly a reason to make things up as all these guys would have flown birds with a conventional stick as well.
I did not mean they were not telling the truth about it. I meant that when you like a certain plane a minor disadvantage will be invisible to you, it's quite possible that thought they liked the yoke because the liked the whole plane.
-
Here's what I did in the TA with the P-38. Set up at 7000 MSL, cruise power setting of 35"/2800RPM. With both engines running fuel flow ends up at 155GPH with a TAS of 285. With one engine shut down and the same power setting fuel flow drops to 78GPH with a TAS of 220.
With 78 gallons of fuel and both engines running you'll ditch after 143 miles while I'll be able to fly 220 miles back to base by using one engine.
Using those power settings/fuel flows/TAS it's a 50% reduction in fuel consumption but only a 23% reduction in TAS.
According to AH's E6B the max cruise for the P-38L is 35MP & 2300RPM. I think at that setting the results might be different.
I'll go check.
-
Here's what I did in the TA with the P-38. Set up at 7000 MSL, cruise power setting of 35"/2800RPM. With both engines running fuel flow ends up at 155GPH with a TAS of 285. With one engine shut down and the same power setting fuel flow drops to 78GPH with a TAS of 220.
With 78 gallons of fuel and both engines running you'll ditch after 143 miles while I'll be able to fly 220 miles back to base by using one engine.
Using those power settings/fuel flows/TAS it's a 50% reduction in fuel consumption but only a 23% reduction in TAS.
According to AH's E6B the max cruise for the P-38L is 35MP & 2300RPM. I think at that setting the results might be different.
I'll go check.
Okay I made the test and basically I got the same results as you. If you want I can post the numbers but they show exactly the same thing.
However, I did the test on autopilot and it was not compensating for asymmetric thrust. The airplane was in a constant turn and the ball was not centered. When you did your test did you keep the autopilot on?
I'll do the same test again manually to get more accurate results. With greater control deflection and the same power setting (and fuel burn) I expect the TAS to drop. Will post the numbers in a few hours. (don't have time for another test right now)
-
According to AH's E6B the max cruise for the P-38L is 35MP & 2300RPM. I think at that setting the results might be different.
I'll go check.
Typo..I used 2300 RPM
-
Typo..I used 2300 RPM
Roger
BTW was it a P-38L that you tested?
-
L or J, don't remember.
Used auto level and bumped in a bit of rudder trim...about 1/2 ball out.
-
So what are you going to do when you want to take a friend up? :D
I watched Steve Hinton take a 78 year old man up in "Glacier Girl". Looked to me like the passenger really enjoyed the ride, it lasted 1/2 an hour.
And I'll take what Captain Art Heiden and Captain Stan Richardson told me about the P-38 on one engine as well as fuel consumption and how well the yoke worked as gospel.
-
FYI keeping both engines off will greatly reduce your range. Dramatically so.
Why would the pilots keep both engines running in transit then if it apparently has decent one engine performance? That doesnt make sense to me. :headscratch:
wouldnt the drag more than make up for the difference in fuel consumption?
The reason I ask is if it was true...why wasn't that used in "safe" transit ares to a combat site?
-
Why would the pilots keep both engines running in transit then if it apparently has decent one engine performance? That doesnt make sense to me. :headscratch:
wouldnt the drag more than make up for the difference in fuel consumption?
The reason I ask is if it was true...why wasn't that used in "safe" transit ares to a combat site?
you're toolin around on one engine and spot a schwarm. What do you do? Pray it fires up after being in the freezing, high altitude air. Then, you let it warm up to operating temperature. In the mean time, 190 drops on your 6 and *POOF*!! Your plane looks like Dan was at the controls.
-
Why would the pilots keep both engines running in transit then if it apparently has decent one engine performance? That doesnt make sense to me. :headscratch:
wouldnt the drag more than make up for the difference in fuel consumption?
The reason I ask is if it was true...why wasn't that used in "safe" transit ares to a combat site?
Most pilots were shot down on the "bounce".
It is not "easy" or "sure" to get a restart.
The P-38 had complex control systems, that the War Production Board would not approve of replacement during production.
Here's why you don't fly on one engine unless you have to in order to survive:
For context, we present a previously unpublished letter from the Commanding Officer of the 20th Fighter Group, to the 8th Air Force Headquarters. The letter spells out the problems faced by the P-38 Groups in clear, unambiguous terms.
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.
The above was taken from an outstanding article once found on Widewing's fabulous website, and written by Dr. Carlo Kopp, with help from Widewing, Captain Art Heiden, Captain Stan Richardson, and others. I actually spent a great deal of time with both Art and Stan via email, they are incredible guys, two of my friends who are also two of my heroes.
For those who wonder about the truth regarding the P-38 on one engine, here is what Stan said, in the same article:
Captain Stan Richardson of the 55th Fighter Group recalls some of his experiences as an instructor (before his tour with the 55th) at a stateside RTU.
The airplane was a "dream" on single-engine. While I was instructing in P-38's at Muroc AAF, on occasion the instructor and three students (four ship flight) would each feather the right propeller (remember, only a single generator, and that on the left engine) for a "tail chase" which included loops, slow and barrel rolls, and just generally having a good time. The exercise was to instill confidence in the pilots ability to control the aircraft on one engine. My area of "expertise" while instructing at Muroc was single-engine demo's in a piggyback P-38. Take-off on two engines, feather the right engine shortly after take-off. Climb to 10,000'. Demonstrate various emergency procedures (landing gear and flap extension), propeller operation in fixed pitch (simulating electrical failure), high speed stalls, a loop, a roll or two, then return to the airfield for landing on one engine. Make a typical fighter approach on the deck, pitch out, drop the landing gear, then some flaps, finally full flaps and plunk it onto the runway.
For a short period in my life flying P-38's I had as much time on one engine as I did on two. Keep in mind that most of my P-38 flying occurred just after my 20th birthday. Some of my P-38 combat time was while I was a 20 year old snot-nosed kid. No brains, lotsa luck. Gad! I love that bird.....
It was a dandy flying machine in instrument conditions associated with poor weather. I had to return once from Berlin on one engine. No problem."
The entire article can be found here now: http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html#mozTocId251906 (http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html#mozTocId251906) It is required reading for anyone desiring to know the absolute gospel on what the P-38 really did, and how good it really was, it is an excellent aircraft, and did an incredible job.
The loss of Widewing's website was a really big loss, indeed.
His article on the incredible P-38K is found here: http://www.456fis.org/P-38K.htm (http://www.456fis.org/P-38K.htm)
The interesting thing about that is, the P-38K would have entered combat at about the time the P-38J did. Not only that, the next step would have been four blade propellers, and after that, they could have easily used the G series V1710 Allison, which made nearly as much power as the F series, without the turbocharger, I can tell you that adding a turbocharger to the G series creates an unholy monster (we swapped two G series engines in place of two F series engines, leaving the turbochargers in place, on a pulling tractor once). A P-38 with four blade Hamilton Standard High Activity Paddle props and an easy 2000HP per engine would only have been limited by "critical mach" at altitudes, limiting dive and top speeds, but the climb rate and the ability to sustain speed and energy, even in a tight turn, as well as accelerate if caught slow, would be amazing indeed.