Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH

[Tac]

"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  

"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

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

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  


Ah here's the link on the castrated P-38:
 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).]

[Widewing]

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

[Widewing]

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

[Widewing]

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

[straffo]

 

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    

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

[F4UDOA]

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

Notice the F4U-1 5lbs overboost increases performance by a large margin.

Thanks
F4UDOA

 

[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

[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?

------------------
Dnil---Skyhawk until I get Dnil back
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer

[Voss]

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!  

Voss 13th T.A.S.

[BUG_EAF322]

Sure Voss

[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.

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

[Dune]

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, 14th FG and the 82nd FG 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



------------------
Col Dune
C.O. 352nd Fighter Group
"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

[von Werrer]

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

[Voss]

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.  

Voss 13th T.A.S.

[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.


------------------
Col Dune
C.O. 352nd Fighter Group
"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