# P-38 vs P-51



## jtg (Dec 16, 2018)

It took some time and consideration to fall in love with the P-51 ... but with the P-38, it was love at first sight!! My heart skips a beat whenever I get a glimpse of a 38!! jtg

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Dec 16, 2018)

Try reading Warren Body's
*The Lockheed P-38 Lightning*

Warren Body was a contributor to Wings/Airpower magazine, and the book was published with much of the material in a 14 odd part article he wrote in the 70's

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2018)

Many comparisons have been made between these two great aircraft. Although the thread may be repetitious, maybe we could emphasize on both aircraft without going too far off subject.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 16, 2018)

Regardless of anything else, the P-38 was more expensive and required more maintenance for little, if any, performance benefit.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Regardless of anything else, the P-38 was more expensive and required more maintenance for little, if any, performance benefit.



True and agree, but that argument is mute when the Mustang has a catastrophic engine failure after taking flack, double the point if over a vast body of water.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2018)

Another advantage of the P-38's, is the concentrated, non-converging firepower at it's nose.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2018)

Plenty of strong points on both machines, but also some important 'negatives', especially for P-38. Also, plenty of missed opportunities.

P-51: quick development cycle, good performance even on modest power, excellent performance on good power, almost no 'issues', apart from faulty HMG installantion and, sometimes, not having a positive lock of U/C cover (remedied in winter of 1943/44), long/very long range. Lack of hi-alt performance until Merlin was installed; no drop tank facility early on. Reasonable firepower, if light per UK/Germans standards sometimes.

P-38: long/very long range, good firepower, good performance at all altitudes, ability to carry heavy payload. Problems include protracted development process, lack of second source (granted, not a culprit of a type, but, that coupled with the long development and P-38 being a twin meant that there was a shortcoming of P-38s in 1942-43), big size for a fighter, blind zones for pilot due to booms and nacelles. Problems that were serious, but were rectified by 1944 were low rate of roll, awful heating of cockpit, just one generator, low permissibel dive speed (even with P-38, the P-51 was far better in this regard). Twin engined means twice the engine maintenance and almost twice the fuel needed - not such a factor for CONUS units, but was a thing for units deployed thousands of miles abroad. Twin engine A/C = additional training vs. 1-engine type, not facilitated with complicated layout of handles and switches.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2018)

The P-38 had a "window" (small) where it was the only game in town for_ best_ US fighter. This was from Dec 1941 to the Spring of 1943 when it had to compete with the P-47, which was neither small or cheap/inexpensive. By the fall/winter of 1943 and the coming of the P-51 (and modified P-47s) it was headed for 3rd place and the later tweaks, while quite useful, weren't enough (the other planes were also getting tweaked) to allow it to gain any ground in the race. 

It still had some aspects of performance that were 1st rate (and once it got the extra generator the critical engine problem went away) but for return on investment it had been eclipsed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Plenty of strong points on both machines, but also some important 'negatives', especially for P-38. Also, plenty of missed opportunities.
> 
> P-51: quick development cycle, good performance even on modest power, excellent performance on good power, almost no 'issues', apart from faulty HMG installantion and, sometimes, not having a positive lock of U/C cover (remedied in winter of 1943/44), long/very long range. Lack of hi-alt performance until Merlin was installed; no drop tank facility early on. Reasonable firepower, if light per UK/Germans standards sometimes.
> 
> P-38: long/very long range, good firepower, good performance at all altitudes, ability to carry heavy payload. Problems include protracted development process, lack of second source (granted, not a culprit of a type, but, that coupled with the long development and P-38 being a twin meant that there was a shortcoming of P-38s in 1942-43), big size for a fighter, blind zones for pilot due to booms and nacelles. Problems that were serious, but were rectified by 1944 were low rate of roll, awful heating of cockpit, just one generator, low permissibel dive speed (even with P-38, the P-51 was far better in this regard). Twin engined means twice the engine maintenance and almost twice the fuel needed - not such a factor for CONUS units, but was a thing for units deployed thousands of miles abroad. Twin engine A/C = additional training vs. 1-engine type, not facilitated with complicated layout of handles and switches.



Agree with many points - the argument about the placement of handles and switches and complicated layout IMO was probably one of the biggest excuses made for disliking an aircraft. Compare the cockpit of a P-38 to an A-20, B-25, Mosquito and even a Pe-2.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2018)

The Whirlwind had alot going on, too.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2018)

Of course ignore the portable GPS on the P-38's panel! LOL!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2018)

One of the mistakes I see, when people are saying that the P-51, Spitfire and others are far simpler than the P-38, is that the P-38 is a twin.

So yes, the P-38, Whirlind and others will be more "complex": dual throttles, dual pitch controls, associated gauges and so on!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2018)

Beaufighter

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2018)

Kawasaki KI-45

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 16, 2018)

One of the advantages of the p38 that I think gets overlooked is that it was very hard to stall. Particularly pertinent in camparison to the p51 which from what ive read anyway had rather nasty stall characteristics.
Looking at it from a what would I want to be flying point of view I would be worried first and foremost about not being a danger to myself more than the enemy and having an aircraft that I can do just about anything in without fear of stalling would be worth quite a bit.
Of course the caviaght here is if one was flying one of the earlier modles of the p38( pre dive flap) one would have to be careful not to exceed the dive speed limits from dives started over 20,000 feet.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 16, 2018)

Yes yes, but most importantly, which is sexier?




Mustang 




DSC_0559


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 16, 2018)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes yes, but most importantly, which is sexier?
> 
> View attachment 522241
> Mustang
> ...


That's a tuff call. They are both beautiful aircraft. I suspect that is one of the things that has contributed to the popularity of both.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Dec 16, 2018)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes yes, but most importantly, which is sexier?
> 
> View attachment 522241
> Mustang
> ...


One of them is all old and wrinkly!


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 17, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> One of the mistakes I see, when people are saying that the P-51, Spitfire and others are far simpler than the P-38, is that the P-38 is a twin.



Sorry, but, as anyone who has worked on them will tell you, the P-38 is excessively complicated and it has nothing to do with having a second engine. It is so bad anyone would think it was British. Actually strike that - it makes British aircraft look quite simple.

This is a main landing gear door hinge - one of five per door so there are 20 per aircraft. What is not shown are the spring and the other casting. etc. Over 40 parts per hinge. The same basic design on the nose gear and gun bay doors. 



Showing spring and some other details like the spools



Some detail off the technical drawing ("blueprint")



The main gear and door mechanism is also super-complicated with multiple cylinders (retract, uplock, downlock, door) pulleys, bell-cranks and cables. Lots of high maintenance items - especially when compared to the B-25 where one cylinder opens the main door, retracts the gear and closes both doors *and *once set up the mechanism is trouble free.
Gear


Doors

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 17, 2018)

The general consensus (and following conversation) is of the Cockpit arrangement.

It's agreed that the P-38 was complex to maintain, but it was state of the art for it's time and one of the few successful twin fighters of the war.

In regards to the B-25, how did it compare to the A-20, PV-1 or the B-26 - each manufacturer had their own construction criteria and some manufacturers had to work around patents or else pay royalties

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 17, 2018)

> One of them is all old and wrinkly!



That's the bit that constitutes the 'original' tag in the restoration!


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 17, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Beaufighter
> 
> View attachment 522239



A REAL Beaufighter (like the vast majority of Brit aircraft) has the basic six as a separate panel among other things, and being British it is an ergonomic nightmare.
Unlike the Spitfire, Hurricane and many other British aircraft, the P-38 and P-51 (and Ki-45) did not require you to swap hands during takeoff (or landing) by putting the throttle/mixture/prop on one side and the flaps and/or landing gear controls on the other side. The Beau was like American aircraft in that the flap and landing gear were on the left. Most unBritish. The position of the trim controls was however very British - on the right so you had to swap hands to use them.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 17, 2018)

WHile I appreciate people posting the pics of different cockpits of 2-engined aircraft, IMO that kinda misses the point. P-38 when compared with a P-51 had/has disadvantage in area of 'human interface'. In the 'America's hundred thousnad' it is remarked as with every new version, the cockpit controls and switches get more tedious to operate. Pilot of P-38J/L was to switch between up to 8 fuel tanks, vs. 6 for P-51D and up to 5 (usualy just 4 used) on P-47D; coupled with twice the number of engine controls that was supposed to make it harder to master, and easier for new pilots to make mistake when under pressure of imminent combat.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> WHile I appreciate people posting the pics of different cockpits of 2-engined aircraft, IMO that kinda misses the point. P-38 when compared with a P-51 had/has disadvantage in area of 'human interface'. In the 'America's hundred thousnad' it is remarked as with every new version, the cockpit controls and switches get more tedious to operate. Pilot of P-38J/L was to switch between up to 8 fuel tanks, vs. 6 for P-51D and up to 5 (usualy just 4 used) on P-47D; coupled with twice the number of engine controls that was supposed to make it harder to master, and easier for new pilots to make mistake when under pressure of imminent combat.


And this human interface is overcome with TRAINING. 8 switches vs 6??? Sorry Tomo, this is a non-issue. If it's that mentally challenging for a pilot to activate a few extra switches, they shouldn't be flying airplanes!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2018)

MiTasol said:


> Sorry, but, as anyone who has worked on them will tell you, the P-38 is excessively complicated and it has nothing to do with having a second engine. It is so bad anyone would think it was British. Actually strike that - it makes British aircraft look quite simple.
> 
> This is a main landing gear door hinge - one of five per door so there are 20 per aircraft. What is not shown are the spring and the other casting. etc. Over 40 parts per hinge. The same basic design on the nose gear and gun bay doors.
> View attachment 522250
> ...


How may times in the field were these adjusted????

The P-38 was designed to fulfill a design spec and it was never envisioned that more than a handful would ever be built. Considering that almost 10,000 were eventually built and for a twin that had a pretty good MC rate (in the theaters whos' operators understood how to maintain and fly them) I think it's complexities were clearly overcome.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> One of them is all old and wrinkly!



Actually The P-38 is original. I believe that P-51 was rebuilt from a data plate


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 17, 2018)

P-47s often operated with 3 tanks, Two fuselage and one belly but your point is taken.

The P-38 had two switches/selectors, basicly one for each side/engine although it was possible to cross feed. each selector switch (rotary) had a position for each tank plus cross feed for 5 positions. Granted that is a lot of combinations and you have two switches instead of one but they are right on top of each other and _should _ be in the same position at the same time unless there are extraordinary circumstances. In combat the ideal position would be the main tanks and the selectors both set to upper left. Drop tanks (bottom) are gone and the reserve setting should not be being used unless bounced close to home field and all other tanks exhausted. Talking combat, obviously on a long fight it would be common to switch to reserve before landing.


----------



## soulezoo (Dec 17, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The Whirlwind had alot going on, too.
> 
> View attachment 522236


How wonky are those rudder pedals?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2018)

Switching hands? So what!! I fly a GA single engine aircraft with a simple 160 hp engine and I switch hands all the time, continually trimming the aircraft, working the radios, GPS and looking at charts. Again, placement of switches and equipment in a cockpit is something you come proficient in during training while you're gaining familiarization with the aircraft.

IMO the complex P-38 cockpit argument is a myth created by Col. Rau who did not like the twin engine P-38, had many pilots ill-trained to fly them and were not operating them IAW the manufacturer's guidelines. If you think ETO P-38 drivers had it so bad, what about the 18 and 19 year old Bomber Command pilots flying Lancasters without co-pilots! I bet they were keeping busy if they had an engine out, especially during takeoff!!!!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 17, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Switching hands? So what!! I fly a GA single engine aircraft with a simple 160 hp engine and I switch hands all the time, continually trimming the aircraft, working the radios, GPS and looking at charts. Again, placement of switches and equipment in a cockpit is something you come proficient in during training while you're gaining familiarization with the aircraft.
> 
> IMO the complex P-38 cockpit argument is a myth created by Col. Rau who did not like the twin engine P-38, had many pilots ill-trained to fly them and were not operating them IAW the manufacturer's guidelines. If you think ETO P-38 drivers had it so bad, what about the 18 and 19 year old Bomber Command pilots flying Lancasters without co-pilots! I bet they were keeping busy if they had an engine out, especially during takeoff!!!!



The need to switch hands is a failure in what is now called ergonomics at the design stage. No thought about the pilots work load at the most critical stages of flight which is take off and landing and where most accidents STILL take place, and probably always will.

Col Rau was not the only one having problems with not operating aircraft and engines IAW the manufacturer's guidelines. For a long while the whole USAAC/F refused to operate Allison engines IAW Allison's recommendations. As you say poor training was a significant failure.

Unlike the Spit and Hurricane the Lanc cockpit was quite well laid out but the pilot did have his hands full during ground ops because of the length of time between applying brakes and the air traveling at low pressure through small air lines from the control column to the air bags in the wheels and then inflating them. Nothing instantaneous like aircraft with hydraulic brakes.

Your comment comparing P-38 and the Lanc pilots work load is most appropriate - especially given the Lanc is a tail dragger and therefore prone to ground loop, especially if an outer fails before lift off.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 17, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Plenty of strong points on both machines, but also some important 'negatives', especially for P-38. Also, plenty of missed opportunities.
> 
> P-51: quick development cycle, good performance even on modest power, excellent performance on good power, almost no 'issues', apart from faulty HMG installantion and, sometimes, not having a positive lock of U/C cover (remedied in winter of 1943/44), long/very long range. Lack of hi-alt performance until Merlin was installed; no drop tank facility early on. Reasonable firepower, if light per UK/Germans standards sometimes.
> 
> P-38: long/very long range, good firepower, good performance at all altitudes, ability to carry heavy payload. Problems include protracted development process, lack of second source (granted, not a culprit of a type, but, that coupled with the long development and P-38 being a twin meant that there was a shortcoming of P-38s in 1942-43), big size for a fighter, blind zones for pilot due to booms and nacelles. Problems that were serious, but were rectified by 1944 were low rate of roll, awful heating of cockpit, just one generator, low permissibel dive speed (even with P-38, the P-51 was far better in this regard). Twin engined means twice the engine maintenance and almost twice the fuel needed - not such a factor for CONUS units, but was a thing for units deployed thousands of miles abroad. Twin engine A/C = additional training vs. 1-engine type, not facilitated with complicated layout of handles and switches.



Hello Tomo Pauk,
One performance advantage of the P-38 that wasn't mentioned is its higher acceleration when compared to P-51 and P-47.
Some of those problems that you mentioned that were rectified really were not.
The Rate of Roll was improved with hydraulically boosted ailerons, but there was still a very bad lag until the beast reacted.
The permissible dive speed really did not improve at all. It was the ability to recover from a dive that was improved.
Nose tuck and loss of control still happened at the same speeds, but with the dive recovery flaps, there was at least a means of slowing down and pitching the aircraft up instead of just going for the ride.
The onset of Compressibility was at Mach 0.675 or about 450 MPH TAS at 30,000 feet.
Consider that this is only about 30 MPH above the maximum level speed at that altitude, so there really wasn't much margin.

Other odd things are that the fuel selectors in early and late models of the P-38 changed by quite a bit to the point where if you know how one works, it won't help you figure out the other one for cross feed.
The complexity of the P-38 cockpit was also a disadvantage according to pilot reports because it took a bit longer to go from cruise configuration to combat if bounced.

Personally, I believe the P-38 wins the beauty contest but of course that is subjective.

- Ivan.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> The complexity of the P-38 cockpit was also a disadvantage according to pilot reports because it took a bit longer to go from cruise configuration to combat if bounced.


The only thing complicated is you had to do the same process as you would do on a single engine fighter twice.


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 18, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> One performance advantage of the P-38 that wasn't mentioned is its higher acceleration when compared to P-51 and P-47.
> Some of those problems that you mentioned that were rectified really were not.
> The Rate of Roll was improved with hydraulically boosted ailerons, but there was still a very bad lag until the beast reacted.
> ...


Ive read quotes from 3 or 4 p38 pilots that deploying the dive flaps before entering the dive to keep the plane under the speed of compresability in the first place was common practice. If this was the case and I would tend to believe the pilots that it was, the p38 from J25 on( wich is most of them) did indeed solve the compresability problem. Of course it was replaced with a slower dive problem but having your dive limited to say 470 mph at 25,000 feet isnt all that shaby. Alot of planes were starting to run into trouble not to far in excess of this anyway.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 18, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Ive read quotes from 3 or 4 p38 pilots that deploying the dive flaps before entering the dive to keep the plane under the speed of compresability in the first place was common practice. If this was the case and I would tend to believe the pilots that it was, the p38 from J25 on( wich is most of them) did indeed solve the compresability problem. Of course it was replaced with a slower dive problem but having your dive limited to say 470 mph at 25,000 feet isnt all that shaby. Alot of planes were starting to run into trouble not to far in excess of this anyway.



Hello Michael Rauls,
The placarded limits were 440 MPH @ 30,000 feet and 460 MPH @ 20,000 feet which corresponds to Mach 0.65 (from AHT).
Beyond that, there is gradual loss of control which sounds like a serious tactical limitation. 
Is it a useful thing to be able to beat someone in a race to the ground and not have enough control to bring guns to bear?
I suppose it is useful if one is trying to escape.
My original point was really that the dive speed limitation really didn't get fixed at all. The dive speed limitation was there before and remained in place. With the dive recovery flaps, there was just a means of avoiding becoming a lawn dart.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 18, 2018)

Manual says that the placard speeds could be exceeded by 20mph with the dive flaps deployed vs undeployed.
Not a great improvement. At low level it didn't really matter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 18, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The only thing complicated is you had to do the same process as you would do on a single engine fighter twice.



Hello FlyboyJ,
Here is an excerpt from a letter from 20th FG commander to 8th AF commander. Most of the contents sounds like just two of everything but some of it also seems to be a lack of ergonomics in the cockpit.

_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._



Shortround6 said:


> Manual says that the placard speeds could be exceeded by 20mph with the dive flaps deployed vs undeployed.
> Not a great improvement. At low level it didn't really matter.



Hello Shortround6,
The first compressibility issue appears to be nose tuck and the nose up pitching moment of the dive flaps sounds like it is counteracting this. I wonder if this had any effect on buffeting that followed?

- Ivan.


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 18, 2018)

KiwiBiggles, check the mirror when you are 75 and let me know
what you think about wrinkles then.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 18, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> _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._



This excerpt has been posted so many times I'm surprised no one is collecting royalties. This was from the Rau memo and paints an EXTREMELY exaggerated worse case scenario. So what made this soooo different from the same P-38 driver in the PTO??? Maybe the tropical weather made them think and react faster?!?!?

This is a myth - yea, if one got bounced in a P-38 it took longer to deal with the situation as you had 2 of everything, aside from that there was little differences in the process. Kind of funny though - if you look at a P-51 cockpit at the center pedestal there is a fuel selector valve. Look at a P-38 right side below the throttle - *same valves*, except there's TWO!!!

Then auto lean at 31" hg at 2100 RPM?!?!?

Here's a great story about the whole ETO fiasco - an expert from the article.

_"Major General William Kepner, the fiery commanding general of VIII Fighter Command, wondered, as so many others did, why the P-38 wasn’t producing the results everyone wanted, and what to do about it. Asked to provide a written report, 20th Fighter Group commander Colonel Harold J. Rau did so reluctantly and only because he was ordered to.


“*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,” wrote Rau. *“I want to put strong emphasis on the word ‘average,’ taking full consideration just how little combat training our pilots have before going on operational status.”_

_http://www.historynet.com/p-38-flunked-europe.htm_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 18, 2018)

The whole idea is to keep your eyes peeled so you (and your flight) don't get hard bounced.

And rookie pilots effed up in any ride, the P-38 didn't have a monopoly on that...

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Manual says that the placard speeds could be exceeded by 20mph with the dive flaps deployed vs undeployed.
> Not a great improvement. At low level it didn't really matter.



Wasn't the P-38's dive angle restricted because of the low Mcr and it accelerated well in a dive?

The dive flaps enabled steeper dives, but still not as steep as some of the single engine fighters.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 18, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> This excerpt has been posted so many times I'm surprised no one is collecting royalties. This was from the Rau memo and paints an EXTREMELY exaggerated worse case scenario. So what made this soooo different from the same P-38 driver in the PTO??? Maybe the tropical weather made them think and react faster?!?!?



Hello FlyboyJ,
Perhaps the different cruise altitudes in the PTO made for a less critical response. One thing that probably would not happen at lower altitudes is fuel falling out of suspension in the induction system.
The opposition also operated at much lower altitudes and with fewer land bases, being bounced was probably much less likely.
Tropical weather probably IS better for the pilots' reaction times than the cold encountered on a bomber escort mission in the ETO.



wuzak said:


> Wasn't the P-38's dive angle restricted because of the low Mcr and it accelerated well in a dive?
> 
> The dive flaps enabled steeper dives, but still not as steep as some of the single engine fighters.



Hello Wuzak,
In AHT, there is a mention of the dive angle without the dive flaps being restricted to about 15 degrees and to about 45 degrees with the dive flaps.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 18, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello FlyboyJ,Hello Wuzak,
> In AHT, there is a mention of the dive angle without the dive flaps being restricted to about 15 degrees and to about 45 degrees with the dive flaps.
> 
> - Ivan.



Thanks Ivan.

I have AHT, but it just isn't available to me here at work....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 18, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello FlyboyJ,
> Perhaps the different cruise altitudes in the PTO made for a less critical response. One thing that probably would not happen at lower altitudes is fuel falling out of suspension in the induction system.


 No Ivan - the process is the same and you're guessing about fuel in the induction system. The issues addressed in the Rau report involved the pilot's ability to configure their aircraft to address a combat situation


Ivan1GFP said:


> The opposition also operated at much lower altitudes and with fewer land bases, being bounced was probably much less likely.
> Tropical weather probably IS better for the pilots' reaction times than the cold encountered on a bomber escort mission in the ETO.


Again you're guessing. If anything flying at a lower altitude gives you less options for evasive action. A frigid cockpit with layers of clothing vs. a sweltering cockpit with pilots sometimes flying in shorts, I'll give you that. Bottom line, by Rau's own admission, there were inadequately trained pilots flying the P-38 in the ETO at the time his report was written.


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 18, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Michael Rauls,
> The placarded limits were 440 MPH @ 30,000 feet and 460 MPH @ 20,000 feet which corresponds to Mach 0.65 (from AHT).
> Beyond that, there is gradual loss of control which sounds like a serious tactical limitation.
> Is it a useful thing to be able to beat someone in a race to the ground and not have enough control to bring guns to bear?
> ...


The point I was trying to make and perhaps I didn't articulate it clearly was that once the threat of " lawn dart" was removed with advent of dive brakes one was in effect simply left with a plane that could do 470 mph( mach .68) in a dive at 25,000 feet. Certainly not as fast as many but
really not that shabby.
I guess it depends on what one means by" solved" when referring to compresability.
Did it still put a cap on the p38s dive speed? Yes but alot of ww2 planes if not most were starting to run into various troubles in the high 400s/ low 500s.
In other words compresability being a problem on dive flap equipped p38s( most of them) simply meant it had a mediocre dive speed. Nothing more.
Of course it had alot of strengths like great climb to make up for it. No plane is great at everything.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 19, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No Ivan - the process is the same and you're guessing about fuel in the induction system. The issues addressed in the Rau report involved the pilot's ability to configure their aircraft to address a combat situation
> 
> Again you're guessing. If anything flying at a lower altitude gives you less options for evasive action. A frigid cockpit with layers of clothing vs. a sweltering cockpit with pilots sometimes flying in shorts, I'll give you that. Bottom line, by Rau's own admission, there were inadequately trained pilots flying the P-38 in the ETO at the time his report was written.



Hello FlyboyJ,
The issue with fuel falling out of suspension with low manifold pressure and cold temperature is not a guess. I believe I still have the Airpower magazine it came from though I can't lay hands on it right now so I can't quote directly from it. That particular issue dates to the late 1970's.
As for the rest of the issue being mostly one of lack of training, there is no argument that that is what Rau's memo states.

- Ivan.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello FlyboyJ,
> The issue with fuel falling out of suspension with low manifold pressure and cold temperature is not a guess. I believe I still have the Airpower magazine it came from though I can't lay hands on it right now so I can't quote directly from it. That particular issue dates to the late 1970's.



But did it have anything to do with Rau's report? Can you quantify this to the poor performance of the P-38 during the period the Rau report was written? 

I think there's overwhelming historical evidence that the P-38's poor ETO performance was mainly due to poor pilot training. Sure there were other issues, but this seems to be the cornerstone of the problem, again by Rau's own admittance. The article I posted shows the full context of Rau's report but it seems that many P-38 detractors mainly point to his criticism of the P-38 cockpit configuration.

Which brings up another point - more than likely the AAC actually dictated the cockpit configuration of the P-38 or accepted it's configuration during design acceptance. It seems that Rau (or his boss) missed this point.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 19, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> But did it have anything to do with Rau's report? Can you quantify this to the poor performance of the P-38 during the period the Rau report was written?



Hello FlyboyJ,
The contrast of ETO versus PTO performance and Tropical climates was not something *I* brought up. Since you brought it up to suggest that there was no difference in operating environment, I thought I would point out that there actually WERE some important differences such a Altitude / Temperature and Fuel supplies.



FLYBOYJ said:


> I think there's overwhelming historical evidence that the P-38's poor ETO performance was mainly due to poor pilot training. Sure there were other issues, but this seems to be the cornerstone of the problem, again by Rau's own admittance. The article I posted shows the full context of Rau's report but it seems that many P-38 detractors mainly point to his criticism of the P-38 cockpit configuration.
> 
> Which brings up another point - more than likely the AAC actually dictated the cockpit configuration of the P-38 or accepted it's configuration during design acceptance. It seems that Rau (or his boss) missed this point.



I actually don't count myself as a P-38 detractor. Every aircraft has its good points and its weaknesses. The P-38 is no exception.
Its role as a high altitude bomber escort was not the original mission it was designed for and it showed.
The P-38 like many of its contemporaries (such as the A6M as a notable example) had the engine performance to reach a fairly high operational ceiling. The problem was that although they could get up there, they were not intended to operate there for any length of time. On an intercept mission the power settings are fairly high and there isn't the issue of fuel falling out of suspension in a very long and cold intake system or TEL separating from the fuel in the intake manifold or not being able to maintain proper oil temperatures.
Keeping the pilot warm for hours on a long escort mission also wasn't considered.

I won't argue that the biggest issue was pilot training because even in Rau's memo, he qualifies his "average" pilot as only having about 25 hours experience.

- Ivan.


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 19, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And this human interface is overcome with TRAINING. 8 switches vs 6??? Sorry Tomo, this is a non-issue. If it's that mentally challenging for a pilot to activate a few extra switches, they shouldn't be flying airplanes!


 
in the heat of the moment when the opportunity to bounce an EA suddenly happens, brainfarts abound. at some point or another most of the pilots I talked to had that "Oh $#!T" moment when they dropped their tanks only to have their engines crap out because they forgot to switch tanks. Robin Olds jokingly claims he is the only known pilot to shot down an EA while gliding....cos it happened to him. other pilots have forgot to turn on guns/gun heaters, drop their tanks and other things.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello FlyboyJ,
> The issue with fuel falling out of suspension with low manifold pressure and cold temperature is not a guess. I believe I still have the Airpower magazine it came from though I can't lay hands on it right now so I can't quote directly from it. That particular issue dates to the late 1970's.
> As for the rest of the issue being mostly one of lack of training, there is no argument that that is what Rau's memo states.
> 
> - Ivan.


 The issue was known before the fuel in question and engines made it into operational service. The trouble was compounded by a change in the formulation of 100/130 fuel that allowed a higher percentage of "heavy aromatic " compounds to be used to blend the fuel this allowed for higher production from the same tonnage of base stocks (crude or simple refined fuel) ) 
please note that not all refineries used the same amounts of these compounds and the actual amounts might vary from production to production batch at the same refinery. It was a juggling act to balance the amount/cost of the additives against the cost/supply of the suitable base stocks (first run refining?) 

The short passageways of the airflow from the supercharger to the cylinders in the air cooled engines were much less of a problem. Allison designed a new intake manifold to help re-atomize the fuel called the madam queen manifold. By Dec of 1944 this manifold was being fitted to ALL new Allison engines regardless of supercharger type or intended airframe. Hundreds if not thousands were supplied ro retrofit. 

going back to poor training, Allison and Lockheed both recommended cruising at low rpm and high boost even before this fuel blend problem came along but what did they know compared to the USAAF officers  

The TEL separating out of the fuel may be a myth. The heavy aromatics had a higher anti knock rating than any straight run gas which is why they were used. They were also used because there was limit on how much TEL per gallon could be used. 4.6 CCs per US gallon. They were using a whole lot more heavy aromatics per gallon. 
SO yes, you did have anti-knock compounds seperating out, wither it was TEL or how much TEL was separating out are different questions. Unfortunately some writers don't seem to know about any other anti-knock compounds than TEL.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 19, 2018)

Hello Shortround6,
Thanks for the additional information.

It seems like the early P-38 would have had the worst situation because of very long routing for the "intercooler" in the leading edge of the wing. With no real heat exchanger, the volume would have to be pretty large.

The description I was reading about additives separating in the intake manifold mentioned that separated TEL was causing some plugs to foul but other plugs were not fouling. This doesn't sound like something that would be happening with separation of aromatics.

- Ivan.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello FlyboyJ,
> The contrast of ETO versus PTO performance and Tropical climates was not something *I* brought up. Since you brought it up to suggest that there was no difference in operating environment, I thought I would point out that there actually WERE some important differences such a Altitude / Temperature and Fuel supplies.


Differences in operating environment, absolutely, no difference in "operating." Sorry If I didn't make myself clear.



Ivan1GFP said:


> I actually don't count myself as a P-38 detractor. Every aircraft has its good points and its weaknesses. The P-38 is no exception.
> Its role as a high altitude bomber escort was not the original mission it was designed for and it showed.
> The P-38 like many of its contemporaries (such as the A6M as a notable example) had the engine performance to reach a fairly high operational ceiling. The problem was that although they could get up there, they were not intended to operate there for any length of time. On an intercept mission the power settings are fairly high and there isn't the issue of fuel falling out of suspension in a very long and cold intake system or TEL separating from the fuel in the intake manifold or not being able to maintain proper oil temperatures.
> Keeping the pilot warm for hours on a long escort mission also wasn't considered.
> ...



I think we're in general agreement


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2018)

bobbysocks said:


> in the heat of the moment when the opportunity to bounce an EA suddenly happens, brainfarts abound. at some point or another most of the pilots I talked to had that "Oh $#!T" moment when they dropped their tanks only to have their engines crap out because they forgot to switch tanks. Robin Olds jokingly claims he is the only known pilot to shot down an EA while gliding....cos it happened to him. other pilots have forgot to turn on guns/gun heaters, drop their tanks and other things.



I think that happened (or could happen) in any aircraft/ any era. The only way to mitigate is through training

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 20, 2018)

The P-38 couldn't dive and the P-47 couldn't climb. Neither turned well. Both were enormously expensive. In hindsight, both should have had a shorter production run, if any. Just my opinion. Doesn't make me a commie or anti-P-38 or P-47.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
2 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 20, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> The P-38 couldn't dive and the P-47 couldn't climb. Neither turned well. Both were enormously expensive. In hindsight, both should have had a shorter production run, if any. Just my opinion. Doesn't make me a commie or anti-P-38 or P-47.



It was unfortunate that all of the three best US Army fighters have had a rocky start - XP-38 crash and YP-38 running late, the XP-47B mirroring Hawker Typhoon problems very much, and Army's disinterest with (X)P-51 that almost saw no P-51s for the AAF. 
US goverment was very much willing to pay the bill if the piece of gear works, and P-38 and P-47 worked. There was a cure for P-38 compressibility problems (suggested by NACA), installing combat-worth drop tanks on P-47 was specified by AAF almost too late, and AAF being a bit more warmed up for XP-51 would've seen AAF P-51s already for North Africa. Rectifying just two of the above woud've spelled doom for LW already in 1943.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 20, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> The P-38 couldn't dive and the P-47 couldn't climb. Neither turned well. Both were enormously expensive. In hindsight, both should have had a shorter production run, if any. Just my opinion. Doesn't make me a commie or anti-P-38 or P-47.



Somebody might want to tell that to some test pilots. With the big prop and water injection a P-47 could outclimb a FW 190 at low altitude (lets not even mention high) 
the dividing line for turning seemed to be 250mph, below that the FW 190 could out turn the P-47, above that it couldn't .

Of course neither the P-39 or P-40 could do what the P-38 and P-47 could do even if they weren't quite as good as the P-51.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 20, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Shortround6,
> Thanks for the additional information.
> 
> It seems like the early P-38 would have had the worst situation because of very long routing for the "intercooler" in the leading edge of the wing. With no real heat exchanger, the volume would have to be pretty large.
> ...



I believe that the fuel falling out of suspension happened on P-38 versions with the core type intercooler. ie the P-38J and P-38L.

The leading edge intercoolers on earlier versions restricted the power available because they didn't cool the air sufficiently,so it is unlikely that these were the versions that had the fuel falling out of suspension.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 20, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Its role as a high altitude bomber escort was not the original mission it was designed for and it showed.



Was there any WW2 fighter designed as a high altitude long range bomber escort that saw extensive production?


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Dec 20, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Plenty of strong points on both machines, but also some important 'negatives', especially for P-38. Also, plenty of missed opportunities.
> 
> P-51: quick development cycle, good performance even on modest power, excellent performance on good power, almost no 'issues', apart from faulty HMG installantion and, sometimes, not having a positive lock of U/C cover (remedied in winter of 1943/44), long/very long range. Lack of hi-alt performance until Merlin was installed; no drop tank facility early on. Reasonable firepower, if light per UK/Germans standards sometimes.



You forgot a few very important and deadly issues with the P-51.

1. On early models (B/Cs), ammunition doors & landing gear doors sometimes opened under high-gee conditions (frequently during high-speed dives) - this often then overstressed the wings, with several aircraft losing a wing and crashing (witnessed by other pilots). This was eventually resolved. _You mentioned this in passing without mentioning its deadly effect. There was at least one P-51B lost to this in April 1944***, so not completely solved as per your date._

2. Starting with late-production P-51Bs, a 322-liter (85 US gallon) tank that fit between the pilot's seat and the radio. The new tank gave the Mustang the necessary range, solving one problem, if at the expense of creating another. The new fuel tank was added without concern for its effect on the Mustang's center of gravity. With a full fuel load, getting the fighter off the runway was downright dangerous (a number of pilots lost control on takeoff, crashing on the runway or shortly after, when they tried to climb too steeply and the aircraft's tail dropped too low and it stalled at low altitude), and the aircraft was only marginally controllable for the first hour or so that it took to drain the tank. Ultimately, the USAAF was forced to limit the amount of fuel pumped into the fuselage tank to 246 liters (65 US gallons).

3. The P-51 (especially -Ds) were touchy - it had high stick forces under combat maneuvers. Worst of all, under such maneuvers it gave no warning of stall and could fly abruptly and wildly out of control (even after fitting the "fillet" at the front of the vertical stabilizer to lessen its yaw instability). However, it seems that regaining control wasn't hard - if you weren't being shot at at the time.

4. One that was less-deadly was the frequent jamming of the wing .50mgs in the -A/B models when fired during high-turns - the guns were canted over on their sides, and the ammunition belts would jam. This was not fully fixed until the guns were re-aligned in the -D (with a power belt feed added in later -D production) - the guns were set vertically, which not only straightened the feed path, but also allowed 3 guns per wing instead of 2. _You did mention this, but again without noting how serious it could be to be without working guns in the middle of a fight._


*** Tommy Hitchcock, who had done much to promote the Merlin Mustang, was killed over England in a P-51B in this way in April 1944.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 21, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Kind of funny though - if you look at a P-51 cockpit at the center pedestal there is a fuel selector valve. Look at a P-38 right side below the throttle - *same valves*, except there's TWO!!!



Somewhat over simplified to say the least.

My only memory of working in the cockpit of a P-38 (F-5B) was a rh windscreen change in 1972 and it is not a happy memory. I found the cockpit very cramped (I weighed around 150lb at the time) and the large control spectacle and its mast got in the way all the [email protected]#$% time. 

I could not remember where the fuel selectors were in the cockpit so had to check the -1 manual.

The location on the floor below the window winder, radio controls, cockpit lights and in the narrow slot beside and below the seat it does not look at all user friendly to me. I do remember the selectors were connected to the valves by cables and pulleys and that arrangement usually makes the valve a lot stiffer to operate. So my guess is that the P-38 fuel controls were not that user friendly given the tight cockpit, especially if you had to contort your body to reach them. 

Seeing that the later P-38 aircraft starting at J-15 had a totally different (much taller) handle that was easier to grab and provided more leverage I would say that my guess is right on the mark.






Having a multiple of fuel configurations to remember if not flying the same aircraft all the time was conducive to errors as well. 

Having to reduce power when changing off drop tanks while you are being shot at is also not what I would call "user friendly".

The P-51 fuel selector on the other hand is in an easy to access position and the valve is directly connected to the handle by a shaft so there is nothing in the system to increase the torque the pilot must apply to turn the valve from detent to detent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 21, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The only way to mitigate is through training



And the application of what is now called ergonimics to make fuel selectors easy to operate etc and by putting all the controls used during take-off and landing in close proximity - unlike the Brits and the P-38 (where that !#$ obtrusive handle that was such a pain when changing the RH windscreen was the flap lever).


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Somebody might want to tell that to some test pilots. With the big prop and water injection a P-47 could outclimb a FW 190 at low altitude (lets not even mention high)
> the dividing line for turning seemed to be 250mph, below that the FW 190 could out turn the P-47, above that it couldn't .
> 
> Of course neither the P-39 or P-40 could do what the P-38 and P-47 could do even if they weren't quite as good as the P-51.


The P-39N outclimbed any standard production P-38F/G or P-47B/C/D up to


Shortround6 said:


> Somebody might want to tell that to some test pilots. With the big prop and water injection a P-47 could outclimb a FW 190 at low altitude (lets not even mention high)
> the dividing line for turning seemed to be 250mph, below that the FW 190 could out turn the P-47, above that it couldn't .
> 
> Of course neither the P-39 or P-40 could do what the P-38 and P-47 could do even if they weren't quite as good as the P-51.


P-39N substantially outclimbed any production P-38F/G or P-47B/C/D up to 26000', above which combat was unlikely. Wouldn't outclimb the P-51B/C.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 21, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> P-39N substantially outclimbed any production P-38F/G or P-47B/C/D up to 26000', above which combat was unlikely. Wouldn't outclimb the P-51B/C.



After which your fast climbing P-39 has about 55 gallons of fuel left. And this is from take-off. Operational radius is ?????
Fastest climbing plane in the world isn't any good if it can't reach enemy airspace and return.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2018)

MiTasol said:


> Somewhat over simplified to say the least.



They are the same valves, configured slightly different. They are also a standard part and was probably dictated within the AAF design spec.



MiTasol said:


> My only memory of working in the cockpit of a P-38 (F-5B) was a rh windscreen change in 1972 and it is not a happy memory. I found the cockpit very cramped (I weighed around 150lb at the time) and the large control spectacle and its mast got in the way all the [email protected]#$% time.


I never worked on a P-38 but been in the cockpit and never found it cramped - and I'm 180 Lbs. Then again I didn't have to crawl under the instrument panel.


MiTasol said:


> I could not remember where the fuel selectors were in the cockpit so had to check the -1 manual.
> 
> The location on the floor below the window winder, radio controls, cockpit lights and in the narrow slot beside and below the seat it does not look at all user friendly to me.


Compare that to other aircraft of the day, this was a norm and again possibly dictated and/ or accepted by the AAF during the design phase


MiTasol said:


> I do remember the selectors were connected to the valves by cables and pulleys and that arrangement usually makes the valve a lot stiffer to operate. So my guess is that the P-38 fuel controls were not that user friendly given the tight cockpit, especially if you had to contort your body to reach them.


Again, that's your opinion. I've discussed this with several P-38 vets and they never had issues, but then again they had plenty of multi engine time before they were assigned to P-38s


MiTasol said:


> Seeing that the later P-38 aircraft starting at J-15 had a totally different (much taller) handle that was easier to grab and provided more leverage I would say that my guess is right on the mark.


 And I'll agree with that.
View attachment 522572




MiTasol said:


> Having a multiple of fuel configurations to remember if not flying the same aircraft all the time was conducive to errors as well.


I think you'll find that assigned pilots, especially fighter pilots WERE NOT flying different aircraft in combat on a regular basis. Combat training was emphasized on the assigned aircraft. Sometimes P-38 drivers would fly B-25s for proficiency.


MiTasol said:


> Having to reduce power when changing off drop tanks while you are being shot at is also not what I would call "user friendly".


I could agree there but if you read the Rau report one of the way to mitigate this was to attempt to configure before reaching the combat zone - not the ideal situation.



MiTasol said:


> The P-51 fuel selector on the other hand is in an easy to access position and the valve is directly connected to the handle by a shaft so there is nothing in the system to increase the torque the pilot must apply to turn the valve from detent to detent.


 And the P-51 was designed and built 3 years later.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2018)

MiTasol said:


> And the application of what is now called ergonimics to make fuel selectors easy to operate etc and by putting all the controls used during take-off and landing in close proximity - unlike the Brits and the P-38 (where that !#$ obtrusive handle that was such a pain when changing the RH windscreen was the flap lever).


 Ergonomics (in referring to aircraft cockpits) wasn't even in dictionary in 1937, Again, I think many miss the point that the P-38 (like many aircraft of the day) was designed for function with little consideration to the pilot or "ergonomics." Additionally it was very likely that the cockpit configuration was dictated and/ or accepted by the customer at design acceptance. These decisions were many times made by people not qualified to do so....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 21, 2018)

P-39N substantially outclimbed any production P-38F/G or P-47B/C/D up to 26000', above which combat was unlikely. *Wouldn't outclimb the P-51B/C.[/*QUOTE]

*In 1943 and early 1944 when these Mustangs were being produced with the Packard*
_*V-1650-3 limited to 67"Hg boosting, the P-39N/Qs could outclimb them up to about*_
*12,000 ft. Very limited territory, but perfect for the Russians.*


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> After which your fast climbing P-39 has about 55 gallons of fuel left. And this is from take-off. Operational radius is ?????
> Fastest climbing plane in the world isn't any good if it can't reach enemy airspace and return.



*Sounds like an interceptor to me. I believe it would have had a little more than 55 gallons
of fuel left by the time it reached 15,000 ft., but I could easily be wrong.*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> P-39N substantially outclimbed any production P-38F/G or P-47B/C/D up to 26000', above which combat was unlikely. Wouldn't outclimb the P-51B/C.



In reviewing Wright-Pat flight tests between 43 and 44 this is true but look at the P-39Ns Vx, climb speed.


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Somebody might want to tell that to some test pilots. With the big prop and water injection a P-47 could outclimb a FW 190 at low altitude (lets not even mention high)
> *the dividing line for turning seemed to be 250mph, below that the FW 190 could out turn the P-47, above that it couldn't .*
> 
> *Shortround, great stuff. What is your source for this information sir? Does it give altitude(s)?*
> ...



*I would not make this statement too closely to Hub Zemke or Dick Bong if I were you.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> After which your fast climbing P-39 has about 55 gallons of fuel left. And this is from take-off. Operational radius is ?????
> Fastest climbing plane in the world isn't any good if it can't reach enemy airspace and return.


With 120gal internal the radius was about like a Thunderbolt, 250-300mile radius. If each have a 110gal drop tank, the P-47 radius is about 375mi, the P-39 is about 475mi. These are before any reserves for combat or landing, but comparable.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 21, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> *I would not make this statement too closely to Hub Zemke or Dick Bong if I were you.*


The pilots who received the first Thunderbolts in England were dismayed at the lack of climb as compared to the SpitIX they had been flying. More than 1000fpm less than the Spit.

Again, I'm no Lightning or Thunderbolt hater, but facts are facts. In hindsight I think most would agree that the AAF would have been miles ahead to develop the P-51 instead of the P-47 or P-38.


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 21, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> The pilots who received the first Thunderbolts in England were dismayed at the lack of climb as compared to the SpitIX they had been flying. More than 1000fpm less than the Spit.
> 
> *Well, in climb, you are probably right. Ruggedness, firepower and initial dive acceleration goes to the
> early P-47s. Range on internal fuel 434 mi. vs. 640 mi. I don't really have to explain which one is the
> ...



*For long flights over the Pacific, P-38 hands down. I would gladly go through the extra training to
have that extra engine over water.
For ground attack missions in Korea, well, just think about it.*


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 21, 2018)

I just had an after thought. Robert Johnson said that after the P-47D
received the new propeller (that he believed was worth 1,000 hp.), he was
never again outclimbed by a Spitfire. One must think in terms of angle of
ascent. He was referring to a more shallow climb than the Spitfire was
capable of. However, I have read that he claimed his maintenance crew
was able to give him a maximum speed of around 470 out of his P-47D.
Place that in the P-47M category and you get an initial climb of over
3900 fpm.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 21, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> With 120gal internal the radius was about like a Thunderbolt, 250-300mile radius. If each have a 110gal drop tank, the P-47 radius is about 375mi, the P-39 is about 475mi. These are before any reserves for combat or landing, but comparable.


Ah yes, the morphing P-39 that can change to suit the need. Quote the climb with 87 gallons of fuel and then when challanged on range quote range with full internal fuel and at a redicously low air speed or altitude. P-39 will burn 75+ gallons per hour at a cruise speed comparable to a P-47 to a P-47 burning 135 gallons an hour (both planes clean). P-47 holds more than twice the fuel, so no, the radius or range is not the same.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 21, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> I just had an after thought. Robert Johnson said that after the P-47D
> received the new propeller (that he believed was worth 1,000 hp.), he was
> never again outclimbed by a Spitfire. One must think in terms of angle of
> assent. He was referring to a more shallow climb than the Spitfire was
> ...



Hello Corsning,
I have always had trouble reconciling Robert Johnson's claims against performance figures.
While I can see that any of the three "Paddle Blade" propellers would have seriously improved the Thunderbolt's climb performance, I don't see how ANY model of the Thunderbolt short of P-47M would be even coming close to the climb rate of a Spitfire Mk.IX much less a Spitfire XIV. His sparring match with a Spitfire IX in which he was able to roll faster is also interesting because it would have had to be a very poor example of the Spitfire without metal ailerons in order for him to win at anything but very high speeds.
The Thunderbolt's roll rate didn't degrade quickly but it wasn't fast to start with.

- Ivan.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Ah yes, the morphing P-39 that can change to suit the need. Quote the climb with 87 gallons of fuel and then when challanged on range quote range with full internal fuel and at a redicously low air speed or altitude. P-39 will burn 75+ gallons per hour at a cruise speed comparable to a P-47 to a P-47 burning 135 gallons an hour (both planes clean). P-47 holds more than twice the fuel, so no, the radius or range is not the same.


Technically the P-39N in the test would have held only 57gals since the tested weight was 376# lighter than the listed weight of 7650#. The weight was an allowance of fuel burned in flight giving an average weight for that flight. The British used a "corrected" figure of 95% of the A/C weight for the same purpose. 

Technically the P-39N burns 62gph at normal power/escort height of 25000'. And the P-47 burns 150gph at 25000' and that is from column II, most of not all cruising over Europe in '43 would be at normal power at 190gph. These numbers pretty well match the chart in post #69.


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 21, 2018)

Hi Ivan,
I do not believe Robert was talking about fpm in altitude. I am pretty
sure he was talking about distance gained in ascending. If his P-47D
was capable of 440 mph. and loses 60 mph. in a 20 degree rise, and
the Spit9 is capable of 410 mph. and loses 50 mph. in a 20 degree rise,
which will gain height and distance the quickest?
All figures quoted for loss of speed are totally fictitious and are null and
void in a court of law. This is just a hypothetical example.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 21, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> ...
> Technically the P-39N burns 62gph at normal power/escort height of 25000'. And the P-47 burns 150gph at 25000' and that is from column II, most of not all cruising over Europe in '43 would be at normal power at 190gph. These numbers pretty well match the chart in post #69.



These fuel consumption values - what is the source?


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 21, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Ergonomics (in referring to aircraft cockpits) wasn't even in dictionary in 1937, Again, I think many miss the point that the P-38 (like many aircraft of the day) was designed for function with little consideration to the pilot or "ergonomics." Additionally it was very likely that the cockpit configuration was dictated and/ or accepted by the customer at design acceptance. *These decisions were many times made by people not qualified to do so...*.



How true in every country


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 21, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> With *120gal internal* the (P-39N)



Which is more than the Spitfire with 85UKG/106USG.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 21, 2018)

Standard cruise for US escort fighters was figured at about 205 or 215 IAS not the max cruise that you claim.
Reason the P-39 fuel burn at 25,000ft looks so good is that the engine didn't have much more power to give. It was running at max continuous (2600 rpm and full throttle) to do 330mph true for a Q.
How about we slow the P-47 down to 330mph and figure the Fuel burn? 
I believe we have explained before the different allowances used to figure the operational radius of the escort fighters. How about using one method so the playing field is fair?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> The pilots who received the first Thunderbolts in England were dismayed at the lack of climb as compared to the SpitIX they had been flying. More than 1000fpm less than the Spit.


 And they would have been more dismayed if given P-39s!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 21, 2018)

"How about using one method so the playing field is fair? " 

You coud not be serious with that proposal.
My, deadly serious proposal, is to use one volume of fuel for climb tests, and another, bigger volume of internal fuel + fuel in drop tanks that was not used historically for a fighter one favors. Say, P-39N. For fighters we should not be favoring at all, especially since it was very useful for hi-alt escort, we will use the least possible fuel volume to prove they were actually lousy despite what their users said, while not allowing for ADI, better prop and better fuel when talking about climb.
If this is not 100% fair, I don't know what is.
I've almost forgot it - we will also draw horsepower and consumption figures from a hat.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 21, 2018)

Are we seriously trying to compare a P-39 with a P-47?

...even if it is in an off way?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 21, 2018)

GreenKnight121 said:


> 2. Starting with late-production P-51Bs, a 322-liter (85 US gallon) tank that fit between the pilot's seat and the radio. The new tank gave the Mustang the necessary range, solving one problem, if at the expense of creating another. The new fuel tank was added without concern for its effect on the Mustang's center of gravity. With a full fuel load, getting the fighter off the runway was downright dangerous (a number of pilots lost control on takeoff, crashing on the runway or shortly after, when they tried to climb too steeply and the aircraft's tail dropped too low and it stalled at low altitude), and the aircraft was only marginally controllable for the first hour or so that it took to drain the tank. Ultimately, the USAAF was forced to limit the amount of fuel pumped into the fuselage tank to 246 liters (65 US gallons).



Hello GreenKnight12,
A simple description of this type is while true is not really the full story of how the 85 gallon fuselage fuel tank was used.
IF a pilot were to try to fly aerobatics of any kind with more than a minimal amount of fuel in the fuselage tank, the center of gravity would be too far aft and the tail plane would stall before the wing and the wing would collapse because of the sudden increase in angle of attack.
There was a member here whose father had seen it happen.
The solution was simply not to have such a situation during any part of the flight in which aerial combat might be expected.
The fuselage fuel tank was balanced by the drop tanks under the wings.
The fuel in the fuselage tank was burned FIRST (even before the drop tanks) so that over enemy territory, there never would be a situation where there was a significant amount of fuel in the fuselage tank.
In other words, if properly used, there wasn't a problem.



CORSNING said:


> Hi Ivan,
> I do not believe Robert was talking about fpm in altitude. I am pretty
> sure he was talking about distance gained in ascending. If his P-47D
> was capable of 440 mph. and loses 60 mph. in a 20 degree rise, and
> ...



Hello Corsning,
I see you are also having trouble reconciling Johnson's claims with what you know about the aircraft involved.
The Court of Laws of Physics doesn't accept any fancy lawyers' arguments as we all know!
The problem here is that I also am hesitant to discount Johnson's accounts of testing against the Spitfires because he could fly the Thunderbolt so well.



wuzak said:


> I believe that the fuel falling out of suspension happened on P-38 versions with the core type intercooler. ie the P-38J and P-38L.
> 
> The leading edge intercoolers on earlier versions restricted the power available because they didn't cool the air sufficiently,so it is unlikely that these were the versions that had the fuel falling out of suspension.



Hello Wuzak,
I believe the issue was mostly with the early version of the intercoolers.
The problem is that without a core / heat exchanger, there wasn't a lot of efficiency but to make up for that lack of efficiency so there was a rather long run of ducting to the wing tips and back. The problem is that with low temperatures during cruise operation, the mixture isn't moving fast enough to keep the fuel in suspension.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 21, 2018)

For those who have forgotten ( or misplaced the information/threads) the US figured the radius of action at 25,000ft as follows.

a, warm up and take-off equivalent to 5 minutes at normal rated power.
b, climb to 25,000ft at normal rated power (distance covered in climb not included in radius)
c, cruise out at* 25,000ft *and* 210 I.A.S *
d. drop external tanks/bombs before entering combat
e. combat 5 minutes at War Emergency power and 15 minutes at military power.
f, cruise back at *25,000ft *and* 210 I.A.S*
g, no account is taken of reduced fuel consumption during decent
h. allowance is made for 30 minutes reserve at minimum cruise power
i. no allowance is made for formation flight or evasive action other than the 20 minutes combat.


210 IAS at 25,000ft is 315 mph true. (may vary just a bit depending on calculator)

Now the P-39 has a bit of problem as while it is pretty zippy without a drop tank, when the drop tank is fitted a lot of the zip goes away.

Manual for a P-39Q (still with 87 gallons of internal fuel) says the plane can do 330mph at 25,000ft clean at 2600rpm and F.T. (yes it will go faster but 2600rpm is max continuous.
However with the 75 gallon drop tank the speed drops to 267mph true. Both conditions call for 63 gallons an hour.

Perhaps people will claim the P-39Q had those high drag gun pods. But lets face it, the P-39with drop tank isn't fast enough to do the escort mission.
Why is the P-39 buring 62 gallons an hour? because instead of making it's rated 1000hp at 25,000 it is making far less. Perhaps under 600hp
And to go this fast the engine is running in rich condition.
there is no WEP available at this altitude and military power (around 750hp?) might take 1.5 gallons a minute at that altitude rather than the 138 gallons an hour (2.3 gpm) at lower altitudes

Now our P-39 is in a rather perilous position. If it loses any altitude it's fuel consumption increase rather drastically. dropping from 25,000ft to 20,000ft at 2600rom and wide open throttle can increase fuel consumption by almost 33% for example. Military power (3000rpm) would show a similar increase.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 21, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Hi Ivan,
> I do not believe Robert was talking about fpm in altitude. I am pretty
> sure he was talking about distance gained in ascending. If his P-47D
> was capable of 440 mph. and loses 60 mph. in a 20 degree rise, and
> ...



The Spitfire gains altitude faster.

A Spitfire LF.IX gets to 20,000ft faster than a D does to 15,000ft.

The P-47 probably gains more distance, though a IX could flatten out its climb to match the climb of the P-47 and gain more distance itself.


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 22, 2018)

The P-47 probably gains more distance, *though a IX could flatten out its climb to match the climb of the P-47 and gain more distance itself.[/QUOTE]

Robert Samuel Johnson did not believe it could once the P-47 got its new prop.*


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 22, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The Spitfire gains altitude faster.
> 
> A Spitfire LF.IX gets to 20,000ft faster than a D does to 15,000ft.
> 
> The P-47 probably gains more distance, though a IX could flatten out its climb to match the climb of the P-47 and gain more distance itself.



Hello Wuzak,
I believe that if we are discussing sustained climbs or steady state climbs at War Emergency Power, the Spitfire IX in ANY version will climb faster. (It is pretty hard to match a climb rate over 4,000 feet per minute.)
The situation that Corsning was attributing to Johnson was a zoom climb from maximum level speed.
With a higher maximum level speed, there will be places at the high end of the speed range where the Thunderbolt will have excess power and the Spitfire won't.
Keep in mind that the late D model Thunderbolt (from D-25 onwards) was quite a different beast than the earlier models.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Dec 23, 2018)

Back to P-38 

Whenever its performance in different theatres is compared this famous "temperature" argument is used. "Cold" Europe vs "warm" tropics. Unheated cockpit, impact on engine, etc.. But I wonder what is *actual* difference of air temperatures at (for example) 5000 m over France and over Southwest Pacific waters?
Attached graph is not precise, probably there are some tables to look at? Temperature - Altitude - Latitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 23, 2018)

I thank you for your attempt to bring some facts to the discussion. 

However most major countries had temperature tables for altitudes.
Like standard day and hot day. Sometimes more than one hot day to cover the variations in latitudes shown by the chart you posted. 
Air temp at 20,000ft on a 100 degree day in Michigan (rare) might be somewhat cooler than a 100 degree day in the tropics were it is 100 degrees on the ground for weeks on end. 
For some reason several of winters during WW II were noted as being much colder than normal for the time.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 23, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> "How about using one method so the playing field is fair? "
> 
> You coud not be serious with that proposal.
> My, deadly serious proposal, is to use one volume of fuel for climb tests, and another, bigger volume of internal fuel + fuel in drop tanks that was not used historically for a fighter one favors. Say, P-39N. For fighters we should not be favoring at all, especially since it was very useful for hi-alt escort, we will use the least possible fuel volume to prove they were actually lousy despite what their users said, while not allowing for ADI, better prop and better fuel when talking about climb.
> ...


This was established in 1888 before powered flight. youtube where di you get that hat - Bing video


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 23, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> Back to P-38
> 
> Whenever its performance in different theatres is compared this famous "temperature" argument is used. "Cold" Europe vs "warm" tropics. Unheated cockpit, impact on engine, etc.. But I wonder what is *actual* difference of air temperatures at (for example) 5000 m over France and over Southwest Pacific waters?
> Attached graph is not precise, probably there are some tables too look at? Temperature - Altitude - Latitude.


Also temperature extremes from I believe it was 30 to 70 degrees( been awhile since i looked it up but I believe thats verry close if not exact) result in about a 20 mph difference in the speed of sound at 25,000 feet. This would of course have a disproportionate impact on the p38 with a lower speed for the onset of compresability. Perhaps this is at least part of the reason compressabilty didn't seem to be much of an issue in warmer climbs even when oparating at higher altitudes but was so in those particulary cold European years. At least for the pre dive flap equipped earlier modles.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 23, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Twin engine A/C = additional training vs. 1-engine type, not facilitated with complicated layout of handles and switches.





MiTasol said:


> Sorry, but, as anyone who has worked on them will tell you, the P-38 is excessively complicated and it has nothing to do with having a second engine. It is so bad anyone would think it was British.





FLYBOYJ said:


> Switching hands? So what!! I fly a GA single engine aircraft with a simple 160 hp engine and I switch hands all the time, continually trimming the aircraft, working the radios, GPS and looking at charts.


Have to disagree with you here, Flyboy. How much experience do you have flying single pilot in high performance multi engine planes? When system complexity increases linearly, "brainload" rises exponentially. Increase aircraft speed, and brainload goes exponential again. With complex multis, there are many additional limitations, performance parameters, and system "gotchas" that have to be planned for and processed faster than single engine pilots are used to.
You're right, training is the answer, but let's take a look at that. Here's Dilbert, who's got 120 hours, and has managed to beat a T6 into submission enough to pass a checkride and he's all bright eyed and bushy tailed to fly the hot new Lightning. Now this bird is a new intrusion into the single engine pursuit community, and comes with a bunch of newfangled gewgaws and operational recommendations that look like heresy to the old hands in Training Command. Extended cruising with the engines in oversquare condition? "Good way to burn 'em out quick! Bunch o' ground pounder slipstick artists, never flown a plane in their life"! Keep it on the ground to 140 MPH? "They ain't no runway long enough, and hey, you'll burn out the tires!" VMC? "What's this crap? More slipstick stuff? Bullpucky"! On top of all this, you've got a plane with no two seat trainer version, no instructors with frontline experience in the type, and a budget to meet in both time and money.
Now, a couple months later, Dilbert has managed to wrassle the bird into submission in the allotted 25 hours and he's off to kick some Axis ass in this bird he's established a tentative truce with.
Now, yet another month and a half later, he's joined the mighty Eighth only to discover that they're actually USING the flight manual procedures his instructors labeled bogus and trained out of him. What's more, they're using three different block numbers of aircraft, none of which were what he trained on.
And finally, frozen to the core, with all the various switch twiddling, systems monitoring, and fuel management, how much brainpower does he have available for situational awareness, formation flying, and staying with his leader when the inevitable bounce occurs?
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 24, 2018)

We should perhaps keep in mind that the P-38 wasn't the only single-seat twin (single-seat meaning pilot only) fighter (or heavy/night fighter) in the war...there was the Whirlwind, KI-45, Bf110, Beaufighter, J1N, P-61, Me410, Mosquito, He219, KI-102, etc. and they all managed.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 24, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> We should perhaps keep in mind that the P-38 wasn't the only single-seat twin (single-seat meaning pilot only) fighter (or heavy/night fighter) in the war...there was the Whirlwind, KI-45, Bf110, Beaufighter, J1N, P-61, Me410, Mosquito, He219, KI-102, etc. and they all managed.


True enough, but were any of the experiences of those aircraft pertinent to early days of P38 training in the US? I doubt it.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Dimlee (Dec 24, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> Back to P-38
> 
> Whenever its performance in different theatres is compared this famous "temperature" argument is used. "Cold" Europe vs "warm" tropics. Unheated cockpit, impact on engine, etc.. But I wonder what is *actual* difference of air temperatures at (for example) 5000 m over France and over Southwest Pacific waters?
> Attached graph is not precise, probably there are some tables to look at? Temperature - Altitude - Latitude.



I found such tables for Northern Hemisphere.
Atmospheric Temperature Profiles of the Northern Hemisphere

Just two examples.
(altitude vs temperature in Celsius, rounded)
Latitude 10 degrees winter:
2500 m +13C
5000 m -1C
7500 m -18C
Latitude 50 degrees winter:
2500 m -11C
5000 m -29C
7500 m -45C

Of course, standard tables do not take the weather and specific locations (ground/ocean) into account, but the difference is significant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 24, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> These fuel consumption values - what is the source?


P-39Q Pilots Manual.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 24, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Standard cruise for US escort fighters was figured at about 205 or 215 IAS not the max cruise that you claim.
> Reason the P-39 fuel burn at 25,000ft looks so good is that the engine didn't have much more power to give. It was running at max continuous (2600 rpm and full throttle) to do 330mph true for a Q.
> How about we slow the P-47 down to 330mph and figure the Fuel burn?
> I believe we have explained before the different allowances used to figure the operational radius of the escort fighters. How about using one method so the playing field is fair?


The fuel burn at 25000' at normal power was good, and increasing the throttle to military power 3000rpm would climb a clean P-39N at almost 2000fpm at that altitude which was still better than a contemporary P-47B/C or P-38F/G. Plenty of power at 25000', the engine HP chart says 660HP at 2600rpm and 770HP at 3000rpm. Sounds rediculously low, I know. 

I'm trying to use the same rules for everybody, just the information in the flight manuals and the tests in wwiiaircraft.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 24, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> For those who have forgotten ( or misplaced the information/threads) the US figured the radius of action at 25,000ft as follows.
> 
> a, warm up and take-off equivalent to 5 minutes at normal rated power.
> b, climb to 25,000ft at normal rated power (distance covered in climb not included in radius)
> ...


Let's do the math on the combat radius.

P-39N P-47
a. 9 gal. 17 gal
b. 42 135
d. 24 92
h. 20 30
Total 95 274 This is what each plane used just getting up and down with reserves.
Cruise 25 31 This is available for cruise
GPH 62 150 P-39 at normal power, P-47 at column II power
Hours .4 .2 Time available for cruising
MPH 280 315 TAS
Miles 112 63 Cruising miles flown on internal gas
Radius 56 32 Half the cruising miles
Each plane has a 110gal external tank:
Cruise 135 141 Gas available for cruise plus 110gal
GPH 62 150
Hours 2.2 .9 
MPH 280 315 TAS
Miles 616 296 Cruising miles with 110gal external tank
Radius 308 148 Radius is half the cruising miles. Does not allow for dropping the external tank. Appears that the P-39N has about twice the combat radius as a P-47.

That's a half hour I won't ever get back. 

Add about 14mph to the Q if you are comparing it to the N.

Climbing was not a perilous position for a P-39N, it was it's absolute strong suit. At 25000' it could easily climb higher and burn even less fuel.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 24, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> True enough, but were any of the experiences of those aircraft pertinent to early days of P38 training in the US? I doubt it.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Not likely, but their pilots had to start out somewhere and I imgine they had the same (or similar) challenges that the P-38 pilots experienced.
In the case of the Hs129 (not a fighter, but a small twin airframe), they pilot not only had to deal with an overly cramped cockpit, but the majority of his gauges were placed outside, on either nacell just aft of the engine cowling.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Have to disagree with you here, Flyboy. How much experience do you have flying single pilot in high performance multi engine planes? When system complexity increases linearly, "brainload" rises exponentially. Increase aircraft speed, and brainload goes exponential again. With complex multis, there are many additional limitations, performance parameters, and system "gotchas" that have to be planned for and processed faster than single engine pilots are used to.
> You're right, training is the answer, but let's take a look at that. Here's Dilbert, who's got 120 hours, and has managed to beat a T6 into submission enough to pass a checkride and he's all bright eyed and bushy tailed to fly the hot new Lightning. Now this bird is a new intrusion into the single engine pursuit community, and comes with a bunch of newfangled gewgaws and operational recommendations that look like heresy to the old hands in Training Command. Extended cruising with the engines in oversquare condition? "Good way to burn 'em out quick! Bunch o' ground pounder slipstick artists, never flown a plane in their life"! Keep it on the ground to 140 MPH? "They ain't no runway long enough, and hey, you'll burn out the tires!" VMC? "What's this crap? More slipstick stuff? Bullpucky"! On top of all this, you've got a plane with no two seat trainer version, no instructors with frontline experience in the type, and a budget to meet in both time and money.
> Now, a couple months later, Dilbert has managed to wrassle the bird into submission in the allotted 25 hours and he's off to kick some Axis ass in this bird he's established a tentative truce with.
> Now, yet another month and a half later, he's joined the mighty Eighth only to discover that they're actually USING the flight manual procedures his instructors labeled bogus and trained out of him. What's more, they're using three different block numbers of aircraft, none of which were what he trained on.
> ...



Sorry Wes - I disagree (but agree) to a point. Yes, a lot more brainload in flying a twin but the arguments shown by the leaders in the ETO was an excuse for not recognizing that there was a *severe* lack of training with regards to the P-38 and you clearly document my point in later narrative. This combined with not opening the aircraft per the manufacturer's instructions spelled disaster for many low time pilots who never had adequate multi engine training.

Again - look at the PTO experience. Did the tropics give those pilots "more brainpower"?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Let's do the math on the combat radius.
> 
> P-39N P-47
> a. 9 gal. 17 gal
> b. 42 135



a few bad assumptions on the P-47 already.

the chart for take-off and climb _includes_ the warm up and take off so that frees up 17 gallons right from the start.
Then you use the wrong numbers for the climb to 25,000ft. You use the fuel burn for 2350rpm and 35in which is going to take much longer and burn more fuel than using the specified 2550rpm and 42 in power setting. The combat climb used 2700rpm and 54 in for the first 5 minutes and then the 2550rpm/42in setting for the remaining 12 minutes. Fuel burn was 110 gallons. Using the lower power setting for the first 5 minutes might burn more fuel. But nowhere near 135 gallons. Call it another 15 gallons saved?

I am on a tablet right now and it is too hard to switch back and forth between documents and websites.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 24, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Again - look at the PTO experience. Did the tropics give those pilots "more brainpower"?


Yes, oddly enough, it did.
A) They were much less numbed by the cold, as they weren't forced to fly as high as long in as cold an atmosphere, thus suffering fewer hardware and "software" malfunctions.
B) They didn't spend anywhere near as much time over agressively defended enemy territory.
C) They joined squadrons that had a core of experienced pilots who had transitioned in theater to the P38, and had seen combat against the Japanese from both an inferior and a superior perspective, and who were willing to actively mentor newcomers.
D) The caliber of the opposition was deteriorating more rapidly than in ETO, and the Lightning had longer to "rule the roost" before the newer Army single engine types took over, hence generating more impressive statistics.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 24, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> We should perhaps keep in mind that the P-38 wasn't the only single-seat twin (single-seat meaning pilot only) fighter (or heavy/night fighter) in the war...there was the Whirlwind, KI-45, Bf110, Beaufighter, J1N, P-61, Me410, Mosquito, He219, KI-102, etc. and they all managed.



Hello GrauGeist,
With the exception of the Whirlwind, the pilots of the other aircraft were not really responsible for attacking the enemy if they were bounced. For the most part, all they had to do was keep flying and let the gunners do their work. This may not be the case for some such as Mosquito and He 219, but it wasn't as if they were expected to engage in a dogfight either.
That means that a lot of activity that is required of a single seat fighter pilot simply isn't required.

- Ivan.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 24, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello GrauGeist,
> With the exception of the Whirlwind, the pilots of the other aircraft were not really responsible for attacking the enemy if they were bounced. For the most part, all they had to do was keep flying and let the gunners do their work. This may not be the case for some such as Mosquito and He 219, but it wasn't as if they were expected to engage in a dogfight either.
> That means that a lot of activity that is required of a single seat fighter pilot simply isn't required.
> 
> - Ivan.


These types did not "just fly along" hoping the rear gunner could take care of the problem (which in most cases, they could not), they would work hard at evading their attacker(s) and often times try and turn the tables (which was far better than just "flying along") and not being as nimble as a single-engine fighter, the pilot had his hands full.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 24, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> These types did not "just fly along" hoping the rear gunner could take care of the problem (which in most cases, they could not), they would work hard at evading their attacker(s) and often times try and turn the tables (which was far better than just "flying along") and not being as nimble as a single-engine fighter, the pilot had his hands full.



Hello GrauGeist,
Do you suppose these pilots had to switch to internal tanks and drop external tanks, arm their guns and switch on gunsights before evading or trying to "turn the tables" on the attacker?

- Ivan.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 24, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello GrauGeist,
> Do you suppose these pilots had to switch to internal tanks and drop external tanks, arm their guns and switch on gunsights before evading or trying to "turn the tables" on the attacker?
> 
> - Ivan.


You know, I was making a point that the P-38 wasn't the only complex single-seat twin, but if you wish to nit-pik, then sure, I'll play along.

When any one of these twins got bounced, I am sure they had to think fast and go through a mental checklist of what to do in such a situation: What's the props' pitch set at? What's the fuel mixture? How many attackers behind me? Did they have drop tanks? Did they have ordnance? And on and on and on and on...

Your turn.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Yes, oddly enough, it did.
> A) They were much less numbed by the cold, as they weren't forced to fly as high as long in as cold an atmosphere, thus suffering fewer hardware and "software" malfunctions.
> B) They didn't spend anywhere near as much time over agressively defended enemy territory.
> C) They joined squadrons that had a core of experienced pilots who had transitioned in theater to the P38, and had seen combat against the Japanese from both an inferior and a superior perspective, and who were willing to actively mentor newcomers.
> ...



A) Wes I agree for the most part, I'd prefer to be hot and fly in shorts and a cut off shirt then to fly with a bulky B3 limiting my movement. As far as mission length, I think the PTO had their share of longe distance missions, but...

B) While I could agree with that, PTO P-38 drivers had the situation of the Pacific Ocean - long expanses of blue waters and horizons seemingly leading to nowhere that could easily swallow up a young pilot who just made the slightest error in navigation. I'd take the aggressively defended territory, especially if the most advanced piece of nav equipment might be a DF.

C) I see training, training and more training, as been pointed out.

D) I could agree but then again the 5th AF brass loved the P-38 in the reciprocal of it's dislike by the 8th AF which gave the P-38 the ability to not only perform a mission that no other aircraft in theater could, but to remain, as you say, "to rule the roost" longer. Even as newer singes were coming on scene in the PTO, the P-38 was still a major player mainly because of it's range and that second engine that came in handy over those long expanses of blue waters!


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 24, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As far as mission length, I think the PTO had their share of lone distances, but...


Of course they did; this is where the P38 shined


FLYBOYJ said:


> long expanses of blue waters and horizons seemingly leading to nowhere that could easily swallow up a young pilot who just made the slightest error in navigation. I'd take the aggressively defended territory, especially if the most advanced piece of nav equipment might be a DF.


True enough, but this is why rookies didn't lead missions, or even flights or sections. By the time they had the responsibility for navigation, they also had experience. I've had enough over water flying experience so I'd take a 550 mile bomber escort to Truk with combat probability only in the target area over the same mission to Berlin @ -40C with 400 miles each way over defended territory ANY DAY.




FLYBOYJ said:


> I could agree but then again the 5th AF brass loved the P-38 in the reciprocal of it's dislike by the 8th AF


Naturally, the Lightning was the answer to Gen Kenny's dreams because it fit the situation, even with its teething problems, while it performed like a cantankerous prima donna in the early days over frozen Europe.



FLYBOYJ said:


> I see training, training and more training, as been pointed out.


Ditto, ditto, and ditto again!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 24, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> You know, I was making a point that the P-38 wasn't the only complex single-seat twin, but if you wish to nit-pik, then sure, I'll play along.
> 
> When any one of these twins got bounced, I am sure they had to think fast and go through a mental checklist of what to do in such a situation: What's the props' pitch set at? What's the fuel mixture? How many attackers behind me? Did they have drop tanks? Did they have ordnance? And on and on and on and on...
> 
> Your turn.



Hello GrauGeist,
Just to make it clear for this response, we are contrasting single pilot twins versus a single seat twin.
WHICH of these activities did the single seat fighter pilot NOT need to do in a similar situation?
The point I was getting at was that there were more things to be done in response to being bounced when flying the single seater.
Are you arguing that the workload was lighter in the same situation?



XBe02Drvr said:


> True enough, but this is why rookies didn't lead missions, or even flights or sections. By the time they had the responsibility for navigation, they also had experience. I've had enough over water flying experience so I'd take a 550 mile bomber escort to Truk with combat probability only in the target area over the same mission to Berlin @ -40C with 400 miles each way over defended territory ANY DAY.



Hello XBe02Drvr,
The other thing worth noting is that not only is there less of a chance of encountering the enemy in mid ocean, if there is such an encounter, the typical Japanese aircraft cruised at low altitudes so they would not be likely to have any significant altitude advantage.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 24, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello GrauGeist,
> Just to make it clear for this response, we are contrasting single pilot twins versus a single seat twin.
> WHICH of these activities did the single seat fighter pilot NOT need to do in a similar situation?
> The point I was getting at was that there were more things to be done in response to being bounced when flying the single seater.
> Are you arguing that the workload was lighter in the same situation?


No...the conversation was about the P-38 versus the other listed twins.
Unless we've changed the nature of the discussion all of a sudden.

And as I had said, these heavy fighters all had comparable equipment at the P-38.
All the ones I listed earlier all had dual engine controls, pitch adjustments, fuel mixture adjustments, fuel tank selector switches and (as I should have mentioned earlier) gunsights and weapon arming switches.

They had to react accordingly...even the P-38 carried external ordnance and external tanks and like the P-38, these other pilots had to make a split-second decision to drop any external stores, drop any external tanks (and hopefully remembering to switch to internal fuel supplies), they had to adjust the fuel mixture and pitch, go to wartime power, they had to arm their weapons, turn on the gunsight AND determine what/who is bouncing them and what course of action to take.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 25, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> the typical Japanese aircraft cruised at low altitudes so they would not be likely to have an altitude advantage.


Good point!


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 25, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> a few bad assumptions on the P-47 already.
> 
> the chart for take-off and climb _includes_ the warm up and take off so that frees up 17 gallons right from the start. *Fine, it frees up 9gal for the P-39 too.*
> Then you use the wrong numbers for the climb to 25,000ft. You use the fuel burn for 2350rpm and 35in which is going to take much longer and burn more fuel than using the specified 2550rpm and 42 in power setting. The combat climb used 2700rpm and 54 in for the first 5 minutes and then the 2550rpm/42in setting for the remaining 12 minutes. Fuel burn was 110 gallons. Using the lower power setting for the first 5 minutes might burn more fuel. But nowhere near 135 gallons. Call it another 15 gallons saved? *Figures used were for a P-47 with drop tank at "ferry" climb. Doubt escort missions used "combat" climb figures. All figures comparable for both planes.*
> ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 25, 2018)

"*Figures used were for a P-47 with drop tank at "ferry" climb. Doubt escort missions used "combat" climb figures. All figures comparable for both planes.* "



Shortround6 said:


> climb to 25,000ft at *normal rated power* (distance covered in climb not included in radius)



But it is not how the figures were computed is it? 

I would note also that the figures for the P-47 from that manual were preliminary, the manual even in updated form is from one month after the first P-47s arrive in England and the 200 gallon ferry tank cannot be used as described. It doesn't feed fuel properly at altitudes much above 12,000ft.

It is also a little suspect in that there are only two flight operation charts. One with the 200 gallon tank full and one that says it is for BOTH a clean aircraft or one with an empty 200 gallon tank attached. 

I don't know about you but I think that cruise settings/speeds would be a bit different with and without the 200 gallon ferry tank even if it is empty.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 25, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> No...the conversation was about the P-38 versus the other listed twins.


I think the point Ivan was making, and I concur, was that most of the other listed twins were crew served aircraft, not single seaters, a questionable comparison, and none of the others (except maybe the Whirlwind) were out-and-out air superiority fighters with the mission of defeating the enemy's single engine fighters. Yes, you can quibble about the BF110 and 410, but they were conceived as, and successfully used only as bomber destroyers, day and night.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 25, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I think the point Ivan was making, and I concur, was that most of the other listed twins were crew served aircraft, not single seaters, a questionable comparison, and none of the others (except maybe the Whirlwind) were out-and-out air superiority fighters with the mission of defeating the enemy's single engine fighters. Yes, you can quibble about the BF110 and 410, but they were conceived as, and successfully used only as bomber destroyers, day and night.
> Cheers,
> Wes


The "quibbling" came about, when it was suggested that the P-38 was more complex for a pilot than most.
And this is not the case. "Crew served" twin heavy fighters are no different that single-seat twin types in their operational complexity, as the RO/gunner bears no influence on the pilot's operation of the aircraft and I'd like to reinforce the "heavy fighter" aplication to the types I mentioned, as their genisis was based on that particular concept from the 1930's.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 25, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I think the point Ivan was making, and I concur, was that most of the other listed twins were crew served aircraft, not single seaters, a questionable comparison, and none of the others (except maybe the Whirlwind) were out-and-out air superiority fighters with the mission of defeating the enemy's single engine fighters. Yes, you can quibble about the BF110 and 410, but they were conceived as, and successfully used only as bomber destroyers, day and night.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Thank you, XBe02Drvr.



GrauGeist said:


> The "quibbling" came about, when it was suggested that the P-38 was more complex for a pilot than most.
> And this is not the case. "Crew served" twin heavy fighters are no different that single-seat twin types in their operational complexity, as the RO/gunner bears no influence on the pilot's operation of the aircraft and I'd like to reinforce the "heavy fighter" aplication to the types I mentioned, as their genisis was based on that particular concept from the 1930's.



Hello GrauGeist,
My argument was not about complexity of the aircraft or the flight controls.
It was about the splitting of responsibility and expectations in combat among the crew.
Except for the Whirlwind, none of the other twins you listed had any great ability to dogfight with the enemy, so it was a matter of outrunning or evading or hoping the gunners do their job.

If the pilot's is the only pair of eyes in the aircraft that can look for the enemy and the only person who controls ALL the weapons of the aircraft and is expected to maneuver the aircraft to bring those weapons to bear on the enemy, that greatly adds to the workload of flying the aircraft.

- Ivan.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 25, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> If the pilot's is the only pair of eyes in the aircraft that can look for the enemy and the only person who controls ALL the weapons of the aircraft and is expected to maneuver the aircraft to bring those weapons to bear on the enemy, that greatly adds to the workload of flying the aircraft


Ivan, you sound like a "hands on", rather than an "armchair" aviator.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 25, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The "quibbling" came about, when it was suggested that the P-38 was more complex for a pilot than most.


The original point was that the P38 was more complex for a pilot than most ARMY FIGHTERS THAT A NEW PILOT COULD BE ASSIGNED TO IN 1942. NOT relative to the entire spectrum of single pilot multi engine aircraft, before and after.
Ivan's point about a single pilot twin engine air superiority fighter having higher pilot workload than crew served types is well taken. I've been involved in training fighter crews in radar interception and ACM, and I can attest to the workload issue. I've flown the F4 radar intercept trainer, and also the F102 full flight and weapons system trainer, which used a radar similar to, but less powerful than, the F4. The 102 was incredibly busy, with a quirky handling airframe, a fussy, attention absorbing radar, and poor visibility from its A-frame canopy. Another pair of eyes in an ACM situation would be worth their weight in fuel and drag. An octopus with eyes in the back of its head is what it would take to do that right. No wonder George Dubya never got fully qualified in the Deuce.
Cheers
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 26, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Ivan, you sound like a "hands on", rather than an "armchair" aviator.
> Cheers,
> Wes


This conversation has gone well enough without a smartass comment...I would hope it continues that way.

My great Uncle flew the P-38 in the PTO and I was taught to fly (yes, fly) by family friends who were: USAAF, USMC, Luftwaffe and USN combat pilots.

So allow me to rise out of my armchair and suggest you and Ivan go back to the first several posts of this thread and get up to speed about the conversation.

And while we're on the subject of "crew-served" twins. Please explain in detail how the RO/Gunner assisted the pilot in his operations, again?
Did the RO reach over and switch the fuel selectors? Did the RO lean down and adjust the fuel-mixture?
And how did the "crew-served" Defiant fare...did the gunner climb out of the turret and help the pilot at some point?
Being an extra pair of eyes to the rear was one thing, but that's not alot of help up in the office when things are getting hairy.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 26, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> "*Figures used were for a P-47 with drop tank at "ferry" climb. Doubt escort missions used "combat" climb figures. All figures comparable for both planes.* "
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't believe that 200gal ferry tank was used in combat. In fact, the Thunderbolt was flying combat missions out of England with the 8th AF without drop tanks between April 30 and July 30 in 1943. No attachment points or any provision at all for external fuel on the new main escort fighter of the 8th AF bombing Germany from England. Then in August they got one 75 gallon belly tank and after that 108 gallon belly tanks became available.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2018)

The 200 gallon tank was not used in "combat" but it was used operationally on some missions. They were partially filled and used for some of initial climb and forming up. The feed system due to tanks not being pressurized would not work at high altitudes. In a few cases squadrons fitted auxiliary fuel pumps that would work at higher altitudes but I don't believe the tanks were ever completely filled or carried to point were German aircraft were spotted.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 26, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> This conversation has gone well enough without a smartass comment...I would hope it continues that way.


It was a simple observation, not intended as a "smartass comment", and my apologies if it was seen as offensive.
Your perspective and mine here kind of echo the controversy that has thrived in the fighter community ever since the days of Bristol F2Bs and Fokker D7s: which is more valuable, an extra crewman, or an extra bag of fuel? My take on it is that properly trained as an integrated crew, the second crewman can backstop the pilot on situational awareness with regard to aft hemisphere traffic, checklists, altitude and airspeed callouts when the pilot is "eyes out", as in a bombing run or an ACM maneuver, etc. Back in my day, the Navy was losing single seaters to target fixation at twice the rate of the F4 and the A6 .
In any case, this whole 1 vs 2 crew digression is just a sideshow to the main topic, which IIRC, was the P38 training issues in its early days. I suggest that what happened was typical of what can happen when you introduce a twin into a hardcore single engine community. "It's just a bigger pursuit ship with two of everything. Otherwise, just another pursuit". NOT! For most FTU instructors it was their first twin, their first trigear, and their first turbo, and they couldn't even climb in the back seat and show Dilbert how it's done. I remember watching A7 initial training up at NAS Cecil, where all flights were solo, and instructors flew chase on their students in another A7 while coaching them around the bounce pattern. Close calls were the order of the day. The service life of the A7 was half over before the two seat trainer showed up.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 26, 2018)

Wes,
I am 76.5" tall and have just one question for you.
How the hell did you fit into the F-102 even semi-comfortably with gear on????


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 26, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Wes,
> I am 76.5" tall and have just one question for you.
> How the hell did you fit into the F-102????


I am 77" tall, and the answer is: scrunched up into a near fetal position. It was only a primitive analog flight simulator, no flight gear except a "poopie suit" over my street clothes, and I didn't have to strap into a G-tolerant, ejection-capable position, but getting my feet on the rudders, my legs under the panel, and around the scope was an exercise in contortion.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 26, 2018)

No $h!+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You had mentioned your height once before.
I was just curious of the magic that you used to accomplish that feat.
I salute your magnificent efforts.

I am not a fighter pilot. Good thing because I couldn't stand the
crampness of most cockpits. Although I liked the looks of the P-47's.
In there you always had a choice if being shot at I remember reading.
1. Hunch down and let the tank like armor of the seat take the punishment.
2. Get up and run around the cabin dodging bullets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 26, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Are we seriously trying to compare a P-39 with a P-47?
> 
> ...even if it is in an off way?


Just making an example of the Thunderbolt's short range. 

So the P-39 models contemporary to the P-47 weren't comparable?


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 26, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Just making an example of the Thunderbolt's short range.
> 
> So the P-39 models contemporary to the P-47 weren't comparable?



*Not as a bomber escort at 20,000 ft. *


*Please give me a little time now and I will put a side-by-side performance comparison together.*


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> So the P-39 models contemporary to the P-47 weren't comparable?



Only if you believe the P-39 could get 3 1/2 times the gas mileage of a P-47.

It will get a lot more miles per gallon but not 3 1/3 times (87 gallons vs 305) so the P-47, short legged as it is, still beats the P-39.

Then you add drop tanks, 75 gallons for the P-39 but the added drag is high and performance takes a real hit. 

Adding 75 gallons to a P-47 doesn't change the total fuel all that much but since the P-47 is so much bigger the addition of a single drop tank (unless really poor design) doesn't change the total drag by as big a percentage as adding a drop tank to the P-39. P-39 is catching up but doesn't make it. 

The P-47 can cruise at the desired altitude and speed with one or more drop tanks attached.
The P-39 cannot.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> This conversation has gone well enough without a smartass comment...I would hope it continues that way.
> 
> My great Uncle flew the P-38 in the PTO and I was taught to fly (yes, fly) by family friends who were: USAAF, USMC, Luftwaffe and USN combat pilots.
> 
> ...



In multiple crew (“crew served”) aircraft any extra set of eyes, or ability to assist in non flying duties is extremely helpful.

1. The eyes to the rear, are not glued to the rear. I assure you (from experience) that all heads on board, are on a swivel, and scanning, especially when the shit hits the fan.

Direct communication from these non flying crew members can directly influence and impact decisions made by the pilot on the controls.

2. Being able to assist in non flying tasks such as radio calls, navigation, fuel checks, checklists, etc., all relieves the pilot on the controls of those tasks, freeing up his attention, and reducing stress levels.

Don’t underestimate the “non rated” or “non flying” crew members, and their ability to influence, and assist in the operation of an aircraft. It is an essential part of what we call CRM today. One of the most important aspects of it is 1+1>2, and that despite the PIC having all final say over everything, crew members communicate and act as a team.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 26, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Only if you believe the P-39 could get 3 1/2 times the gas mileage of a P-47.
> 
> It will get a lot more miles per gallon but not 3 1/3 times (87 gallons vs 305) so the P-47, short legged as it is, still beats the P-39.
> 
> ...


We computed the escort range out of the pilot's manual for both. We figured the combat radius with your formula for both. The P-47 even at a lower cruise power setting than normal HP has extremely short range even with a 110gal drop tank. 

The P-39 would cruise with a drop tank at 25000' and would outclimb the P-47 even at that altitude. Why couldn't it escort bombers?

And please stop with the 87 gallons. It held 120gal internal and would hold more internal if the peashooter wing guns were removed.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 26, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> We computed the escort range out of the pilot's manual for both. We figured the combat radius with your formula for both. The P-47 even at a lower cruise power setting than normal HP has extremely short range even with a 110gal drop tank.
> 
> The P-39 would cruise with a drop tank at 25000' and would outclimb the P-47 even at that altitude. Why couldn't it escort bombers?
> ...



Because it didn't have the combination of range (as required by geography and abilities of the A/C) and escort speed (as required by end user, that was based on realities of ETO as predominant war theater for that user). End user specified 210 mpg IAS at 25000 ft (~ 310 mph TAS) cruise - the P-39Q (I don't have data for P-39N) with 75 gal tank cruised at 25000 ft at 267 mph TAS using 62 gph (@2600 rpm) = disqualified by end user due to not fulfilling a requirement.

The 'extremely short range' of P-47 didn't prevented it's use as escort, even if it was some 375 miles of radius. This is before we start talking about the bubble-top P-47s with 370+300 gals of fuel = 600 mile radius per USAF, 800 miles per RAF: link.

edited for typos

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 26, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> And while we're on the subject of "crew-served" twins. Please explain in detail how the RO/Gunner assisted the pilot in his operations, again?
> Did the RO reach over and switch the fuel selectors? Did the RO lean down and adjust the fuel-mixture?
> And how did the "crew-served" Defiant fare...did the gunner climb out of the turret and help the pilot at some point?
> Being an extra pair of eyes to the rear was one thing, but that's not alot of help up in the office when things are getting hairy.



Hello GrauGeist,
I believe we have explained how additional crew members assist in the operation of the aircraft as a weapons system but for some reason you keep getting hung up on just flying the aeroplane.
As XBe02Drvr mentioned, having a rear gunner or WSO to keep an enemy in the rear hemisphere in sight even if they are not an immediate threat offload the pilot and increases situational awareness. The pilot can engage one threat while the WSO watches for others.

Your example of the Boulton-Paul Defiant is a great illustration of how splitting the workload can be beneficial.
In a defensive situation, especially at low altitude, the probably should know approximately where an attacker is, but doesn't need to keep the enemy in sight. The pilot can fly closer to the ground or other obstacles to try to shake the pursuer. The gunner doesn't' need to keep an eye out to avoid collision with terrain and concentrate completely on putting bullets into the enemy.

- Ivan.


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 26, 2018)

P-39N first entered service with free French in North Africa in April 1943.
P-47C first became operational with the 8th A.F. on 8 April 1943.
I do not have a complete test report on the "C" so for the following
performance comparisons I am using the earliest full test of an Operational
P-47 that I have been able to acquire thanks to www.wwiiaircraftperformanc.org


Quick reference using figures for P-47D-10 42-75035 and (P-39N 42-4400).
Altitude / Speed / Climb
Meters / MPH / FPM
SL.......333/2870 (344/3980)
1000..347/2850 (362/4145)
2000..357/2770 (381/4220)
3000..372/2690 (398/3940)
4000..383/2550 (394/3460)
5000..394/2400 (388/3060)
6000..404/2200 (382/2685)
7000..414/2000 (376/2230)
8000..423/1770 (367/1745)
9000..430/1420 (356/1310)

Range:
Internal fuel: 640 ml. (360 ml./87 gal. - 525 ml./120 gal.)
Max. External: 925-1250 ml. (1075 ml. with 120 gal. internal +175 gal. external)
Note: The P-39N and P-30Q-1 were constructed with the 87 gallon internal tank at
the factory. However there was a kit available to bring the capacity to 120 gallons
if desired. It should also be noted that the above performance of the P-39N would
suffer some with the added fuel.

Take-off weight: 13,234 (7,301) lb.

Minimum turn time: 22.6-26 (19.0) seconds to complete a 360 degree turn.

Maximum roll rate: 85 degrees/sec./250 mph. (75 degrees/sec./235 mph.)
Note: The numbers for roll rate are for P-47D-30 (P-39D-1)

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> We computed the escort range out of the pilot's manual for both. We figured the combat radius with your formula for both. The P-47 even at a lower cruise power setting than normal HP has extremely short range even with a 110gal drop tank.



You were using the wrong numbers. A few of the instructions do not apply, The P-39 had no WEP rating for 5 minutes at high altitude, the supercharger couldn't supply the boost needed to hit or even exceed military power at these altitudes. The P-47 wouldn't get WEP rating until it got water injection. 



> The P-39 would cruise with a drop tank at 25000' and would outclimb the P-47 even at that altitude. Why couldn't it escort bombers?



As Tomo has explained, it won't go fast enough with the drop tank attached. One reason for the 210IAS requirement was so that the fighters were running closer to high speed if they had to respond to a group of incoming fighters. If you are running too slow in order to get good gas mileage you might as well not be there. It takes a bit of time to drop the tanks an accelerate from 310-315mph true to somewhere near 400mph even if the T-Bolt never got to top speed. If you are starting from 267-270mph when you drop the tank it takes that many seconds longer just to get up to the 310-315 the T-Bolts started with and then get to what speed the P-39 can manage. please note the P-47 has a much better power to weight ratio at 25,000 ft than the P-39 does. 



> And please stop with the 87 gallons. It held 120gal internal and would hold more internal if the peashooter wing guns were removed.



If you want the climb rate of the 87 gallon planes you have to take the range problems of the 87 gallon planes. You can't have it both ways. 

you want to play games with guns and ammo? I wonder How a P-47 does with only six guns and 200 round per gun?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 26, 2018)

Shall we do a thread P-39 vs P-47?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 26, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> I am not a fighter pilot. Good thing because I couldn't stand the crampness of most cockpits.


There's nothing wrong with a tight fitting cockpit as long as all the variables such as seat, armrests, headrest, rudder pedals, etc, have the necessary range of adjustment to fit your proportions, and the canopy rails don't chafe your shoulders.
In fact if you plan to chase the shouting wind along and hurl your eager craft through footless halls of air, you want to wear that eager craft like a parachute harness cinched up tight. Relative motion between you and your mount is a bad idea. You're not sitting in it and driving it; is an extension of your body and your nervous system. You are its brain and it is your body as you dance the sunsplit sky on laughter silvered wings.
A compact ergonomically laid out cockpit allows you to reach everything without unlocking your inertia reel, and feels comfortable like an old, but warm pair of long johns.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 27, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Don’t underestimate the “non rated” or “non flying” crew members, and their ability to influence, and assist in the operation of an aircraft. It is an essential part of what we call CRM today. One of the most important aspects of it is 1+1>2, and that despite the PIC having all final say over everything, but crew members communicate and act as a team.


Chris, sometimes you run into a pilot with a hardcore "single engine, single seat" mentality who just isn't convincible, and you have to agree to disagree. I met a few of them in the Nav. They didn't last long in the F4 community. Fortunately there were still a few F8 squadrons around.
Each time I went up in the jet, I was expected to participate in running the checklists, even though I didn't know where half the back seat circuit breakers were. They take the teamwork thing seriously.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## wuzak (Dec 27, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Shall we do a thread P-39 vs P-47?



Yes, I think that will be a good thread. Right up thee with the P-40F vs Typhoon thread.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 27, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Shall we do a thread P-39 vs P-47?


Do you think minds will be changed or new truths revealed? Feels like deja vu.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 27, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Shall we do a thread P-39 vs P-47?



No need FLYBOY, we just had one.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 27, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> You were using the wrong numbers. A few of the instructions do not apply, The P-39 had no WEP rating for 5 minutes at high altitude, the supercharger couldn't supply the boost needed to hit or even exceed military power at these altitudes. The P-47 wouldn't get WEP rating until it got water injection. *So I used 20min at military power instead of 15min military and 5min WEP. The numbers are absolutely comparable.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 27, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> P-39N first entered service with free French in North Africa in April 1943.
> P-47C first became operational with the 8th A.F. on 8 April 1943.
> I do not have a complete test report on the "C" so for the following
> performance comparisons I am using the earliest full test of an Operational
> ...


Excellent work. Did you notice the climb numbers were substantially higher for the P-39N at all altitudes up to 8000meters (26400')?


----------



## Dan Fahey (Dec 27, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> True and agree, but that argument is mute when the Mustang has a catastrophic engine failure after taking flack, double the point if over a vast body of water.



This is a myth.
P38's loss of an engine would not survive any better.
The asymmetry of the remaining engine would flip over the aircraft.
A pilot would have to be lucky and have enough altitude to correct for this.

Another P38 Achilles Heal was combat damage to the rear Elevator.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 27, 2018)

you want to play games with guns and ammo? I wonder How a P-47 does with only six guns and 200 round per gun?[/QUOTE]

*My Bad guys. The figures I used for the P-47-10 came from a report dated 11 Oct. '43.
In the A. Purpose section it states:
"1. To report results of flight tests on P-47D-10 airplane, AAF No. 43-75035 run at the
manufacturer's plant. Airplane equipped with Pratt & Whitney R-2800-63 engine with 
water injection; standard Curtiss 714-1C2-12 propeller; type A-17 turbo regulator. Airplane
ballasted to simulate the following conditions: Six .50 caliber guns; 300 rounds per gun;
305 gallons gasoline; 15 gallons water; 14 pounds pyrotechnics. In this condition the gross
weight was 13,234 pounds with a C.G. wheels up, of 29.63 percent M.A.C. Mixture auto-
rich; throttle wide open on all tests. Horsepower data obtained with torquemeter." *

*I was actually shooting for an earlier version without the water injection and 8 guns.*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> This is a myth.
> P38's loss of an engine would not survive any better.
> The asymmetry of the remaining engine would flip over the aircraft.
> A pilot would have to be lucky and have enough altitude to correct for this.
> ...



Well this is going to get interesting...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 27, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> This is a myth.
> P38's loss of an engine would not survive any better.
> The asymmetry of the remaining engine would flip over the aircraft.
> A pilot would have to be lucky and have enough altitude to correct for this.



MIght be interesting trying to explain to some pilots in the CBI theater who made it back up to 600 miles on one engine why the couldn't have done it. 
Maybe they were hit at high altitude?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 27, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> you want to play games with guns and ammo? I wonder How a P-47 does with only six guns and 200 round per gun?



*My Bad guys. The figures I used for the P-47-10 came from a report dated 11 Oct. '43.
In the A. Purpose section it states:
"1. To report results of flight tests on P-47D-10 airplane, AAF No. 43-75035 run at the
manufacturer's plant. Airplane equipped with Pratt & Whitney R-2800-63 engine with 
water injection; standard Curtiss 714-1C2-12 propeller; type A-17 turbo regulator. Airplane
ballasted to simulate the following conditions: Six .50 caliber guns; 300 rounds per gun;
305 gallons gasoline; 15 gallons water; 14 pounds pyrotechnics. In this condition the gross
weight was 13,234 pounds with a C.G. wheels up, of 29.63 percent M.A.C. Mixture auto-
rich; throttle wide open on all tests. Horsepower data obtained with torquemeter." *

*I was actually shooting for an earlier version without the water injection and 8 guns.*[/QUOTE]


Good middle of war P-47 information seems hard to find, it is either from the B-47B & C when they were going into service and a lot of things were either marked "provisional" or estimates or just plain weird (same fuel burn with and without the 200 gallon ferry tank????) or it is for the P-47M &N with different engines and different turbos and different fuel tanks on the N. 
Thanks for trying.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 27, 2018)

Dammit guys, I need to change the information in my post #134. I need
to substitute the water-injected P-47D-10's performance with the P-47D-6's.
That would make an even greate...........Ah crap, forget it. Someday I will
post it all somewhere. 'Till then have at it.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 27, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> This is a myth.
> P38's loss of an engine would not survive any better.
> The asymmetry of the remaining engine would flip over the aircraft.
> A pilot would have to be lucky and have enough altitude to correct for this.
> ...



Hello Dan Fahey,
The situation you describe would only be true at very low airspeeds and high power settings along with an instant loss of power: Below minimum control speed for single engine operation.
Above that speed, generally things are not so bad.

Combat damage to the "rear Elevator" for just about ANY aircraft would bring it down.

Hello Corsning,
Which are the faulty figures?
From AHT, the gross weight of an early P47D was 12,740 pounds and for a P-47D-23 would be 13,582 pounds.
From what I can find, the default ammunition load tended to vary a bit, but for the gross weights I just listed was 8 guns with 275 rounds per gun. Later models went down as low as 200 rounds per gun.

- Ivan.


----------



## soulezoo (Dec 27, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> This is a myth.
> P38's loss of an engine would not survive any better.
> The asymmetry of the remaining engine would flip over the aircraft.
> A pilot would have to be lucky and have enough altitude to correct for this.
> ...



This was back in the mid 80's and I saw Lefty Gardner shut down an engine at Reno and land safely in his P-38. I have no info on why he had to shut down the engine, but I witnessed this and he definitely did not flip over.


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 27, 2018)

Ivan,
I apologize sir. I have run out of time tonight. This is family time now
and I have to be up at 3:50 a.m.
I was going to post (and should have to begin with) the P-47D-6-RE
No. 42-74616 report dated 28 September 1943.
It can be seen at www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org that was put together
by Mike Williams and Neil Stirling.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2018)

soulezoo said:


> This was back in the mid 80's and I saw Lefty Gardner shut down an engine at Reno and land safely in his P-38. I have no info on why he had to shut down the engine, but I witnessed this and he definitely did not flip over.



Any dual engined aircraft can fly on a single engine. 

Engine Failure After TakeOff - Light Twin Engine Aircraft - SKYbrary Aviation Safety

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 27, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Any dual engined aircraft can fly on a single engine.
> 
> Engine Failure After TakeOff - Light Twin Engine Aircraft - SKYbrary Aviation Safety


I don't know about the P-38 but not all WW2 twins had complete redundancy on engines, so only had generators/compressors on one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I don't know about the P-38 but not all WW2 twins had complete redundancy on engines, so only had generators/compressors on one.



You still could fly it on a single engine...


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 27, 2018)

Early P-38s only had one set of accessories (pumps, generator, etc) later ones got two generators but I am not sure about a full duplicate set of pumps. I believe P-38s used electric propellers, having the battery go dead means some pretty tricky work to adjust the pitch on props and you better get it right the first time.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 27, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You still could fly it on a single engine...


As per S/Rs post, they could fly on one engine but not both engines could be that one engine.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 27, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> This is a myth.
> P38's loss of an engine would not survive any better.
> The asymmetry of the remaining engine would flip over the aircraft.
> A pilot would have to be lucky and have enough altitude to correct for this.
> ...



Dan - do you know that a *CRITICAL ENGINE* is? Do you know what *ENGINE OUT PROCEDURES* are? Go do some homework and come back because once again and as always you speak from deep bovine fecal cavities.

Oh - and do show us statistics about aircraft losses due to rear elevator damage during combat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 27, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Early P-38s only had one set of accessories (pumps, generator, etc) later ones got two generators but I am not sure about a full duplicate set of pumps. I believe P-38s used electric propellers, having the battery go dead means some pretty tricky work to adjust the pitch on props and you better get it right the first time.





pbehn said:


> As per S/Rs post, they could fly on one engine but not both engines could be that one engine.



The P-38 could easily fly on one engine (to include the early ones) and it did fly well. The P-38 did not have a CRITICAL engine so ENGINE OUT procedures were the same whether the left or right engine failed. Yes - early P-38s had the issue with one generator but in the end each engine had 2 magnetos which meant the aircraft kept flying. *(DAN ARE YOU READING THIS)*

The P-38 is one of the only twins I know of where you had to REDUCE power on the good engine if you had an engine failure during take off. (Wes, if you read this chime in on other GA or Corp twins with the same characteristics.)

_"Another issue with the P-38 arose from its unique design feature of outwardly rotating counter-rotating propellers. Losing one of two engines in any twin engine non-centerline thrust aircraft on takeoff creates sudden drag, yawing the nose toward the dead engine and rolling the wingtip down on the side of the dead engine. Normal training in flying twin-engine aircraft when losing an engine on takeoff would be to push the remaining engine to full throttle; if a pilot did that in the P-38, regardless of which engine had failed, the resulting engine torque and p-factor force produced a sudden uncontrollable yawing roll and the aircraft would flip over and slam into the ground. Eventually, procedures were taught to allow a pilot to deal with the situation by reducing power on the running engine, feathering the prop on the dead engine, and then increasing power gradually until the aircraft was in stable flight. *Single-engine takeoffs were possible, though not with a maximum combat load."*_

Lockheed P-38 Lightning Airplane Videos and Airplane Pictures

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 27, 2018)

Go to 30:01 in this clip. Actually the whole thing is quite entertaining!


----------



## pbehn (Dec 27, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Dan - do you know that a *CRITICAL ENGINE* is? Do you know what *ENGINE OUT PROCEDURES* are? Go do some homework and come back because once again and as always you speak from deep bovine fecal cavities.


The fact that there is a critical engine undermines the case of twin aircraft being safer than single ones, in combat they have twice as many engines to hit, easier to see, easier to hit and twice as much fuel to hit. This is a forum where the mods are more abusive than the participants and worse in their ignorance and partisan views. I will join Drgondog in exile, and we all know how that happened, don't we?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 27, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The fact that there is a critical engine undermines the case of twin aircraft being safer than single ones, in combat they have twice as many engines to hit, easier to see, easier to hit and twice as much fuel to hit. This is a forum where the mods are more abusive than the participants and worse in their ignorance and partisan views. I will join Drgondog in exile, and we all know how that happened, don't we?



Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out!!!!

And yes, we all know how that happened!!!!

Oh - and you need to learn what a critical engine is as well!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The fact that there is a critical engine undermines the case of twin aircraft being safer than single ones, in combat they have twice as many engines to hit, easier to see, easier to hit and twice as much fuel to hit. This is a forum where the mods are more abusive than the participants and worse in their ignorance and partisan views. I will join Drgondog in exile, and we all know how that happened, don't we?



Woah? What the heck did I do to you?

I did not attack you, and never have. I have nothing but respect for you, and shown you nothing but respect.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Early P-38s only had one set of accessories (pumps, generator, etc) later ones got two generators but I am not sure about a full duplicate set of pumps. I believe P-38s used electric propellers, having the battery go dead means some pretty tricky work to adjust the pitch on props and you better get it right the first time.



I did not get what you were referring to. My apologies.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2018)

Never had a problem with pbehn. I don’t know what or why this happened.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 27, 2018)

Well, where were we.....


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 27, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The P-38 could easily fly on one engine (to include the early ones) and it did fly well. The P-38 did not have a CRITICAL engine so ENGINE OUT procedures were the same whether the left or right engine failed. Yes - early P-38s had the issue with one generator but in the end each engine had 2 magnetos which meant the aircraft kept flying. *(DAN ARE YOU READING THIS)*
> 
> The P-38 is one of the only twins I know of where you had to REDUCE power on the good engine if you had an engine failure during take off. (Wes, if you read this chime in on other GA or Corp twins with the same characteristics.)
> 
> ...



FBJ,

I’m pretty sure that the P38 had two critical engines, which meant the engine out procedures were the same.

IIRC from Tony Leviers book that the P38 brought about some performance innovations, IE a V1 or SETOS (single engine take off speed). I think the initial performance calculations came from a SWP 38 Squadron.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2018)

And for the record, Bill’s self imposed exile has nothing to do with anything that happened on this forum. It was because of a private political spat he and I had on Facebook. I have apologized for offending him, as it was not my intent. That is why I do not care for political discussion on this forum. It tears relationships and friendships apart. Bill was a great loss to this forum, is a good person, and he is missed here. I hope one day he is will to set this aside and return.

I don’t know what happened with pbehn here, nor why he brought up the Bill fiasco. I have always considered him a good and valued contributor. If he would want to return, I would have no problem with that. I however do support Joe in his decision to remove him.

Now hopefully we can get back on topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 27, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> FBJ,
> 
> I’m pretty sure that the P38 had two critical engines, which meant the engine out procedures were the same.



Or no critical engine! LOL - I Interviewed Tony about 30 years ago and we laughed about the same thing. His feelings were that the older P-38s with the generator on one side WAS the critical engine, but when the later models came out with everything paired it was more semantics. 


BiffF15 said:


> IIRC from Tony Leviers book that the P38 brought about some performance innovations, IE a V1 or SETOS (single engine take off speed). I think the initial performance calculations came from a SWP 38 Squadron.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



Yes - and He used to do a single engine aerobatic demo on one engine and with the landing gear down. I was trying to find that one on YouTube

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 27, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Never had a problem with pbehn. I don’t know what or why this happened.


I think he was feeling unsupported by the rest of the forum after his little set-to with Schweik, and you gotta admit you guys did get on Dan's case kinda hard. Some of us have thinner skins than others, and I think Pb may have been feeling a little self-conscious about being under-informed about the fine points of engine out procedures in high powered twins.
You know the old saw about: "If ya ain't a pilot, ya ain't sh$t!". I think we "high and mighty" aviators sometimes get a little too full of ourselves for the comfort of our less fortunate shipmates. Mea maxima culpa. Et tu, Brute`?
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 27, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I think he was feeling unsupported by the rest of the forum after his little set-to with Schweik, and you gotta admit you did get on Dan's case kinda hard. Some of us have thinner skins than others, and I think Pb may have been feeling a little self-conscious about being under-informed about the fine points of engine out procedures in high powered twins.
> You know the old saw about: "If ya ain't a pilot, ya ain't sh$t!". I think we "high and mighty" aviators sometimes get a little too full of ourselves for the comfort of our less fortunate shipmates. Mea maxima culpa. Et tu, Brute`?
> Cheers,
> Wes



Agree Wes - but then again it's hard to fill brain cavity when the outflow valve is stuck! But then again we're old sailors so this rolls off some of us


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 27, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> but then again it's hard to fill brain cavity when the outflow valve is stuck!


If you service the wiffie by dumping it through the outflow valve, well, what do you expect? S - - t happens when you put a new guy out on the floor before he's fully trained! No wonder it's stuck!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 27, 2018)

I am not a pilot and may be reading too much into somethings (sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing) but I think it is hard to apply generalizations to some planes. 

Like the old saying that a twin just gives your choice of where to crash. 
This might very well be true with old low powered private or commercial aircraft, especially those without constant speed, full feathering propellers in the 30s and 40s. 
Some twins would not hold altitude with full power on the remaining engine ( this was true for a number of WW II military aircraft) because of the lack of a feathering propeller. 
On private planes in the 50s two 160-200hp engines really weren't a good replacement for a single 240-300hp engine.

However single seat fighters and fast bombers are another catagory. The difficulty in landing may go up but with enough power (and fuel) hundreds of miles could be covered and a proper (but high speed) approach made to the runway. 

I just googled it and one reason small twins gpt a bad rap was the FAA and training requirements. 

What's wrong with piston twin pilots? | Air Facts Journal

Maybe he is wrong but if 1/3 of your total accidents were while training in one aspect of flying a twin out of all the hours flown, training and non training something is wrong. 
That is like killing firefighters on the training ground because you are trying to make it "realistic. 

A P-38 had power to weight ratio of around 15-16lbs per hp when flying on one engine at max continuous (not military of full power) and that should be plenty of power to keep the plane in the air as long as the fuel lasts and do any needed maneuvers. 

Apparently the USAAF didn't get the memo about the P-38 crashing with one engine because they prepared flight operation instruction charts in the manuals for most models (at least P-38 D &E , F, G telling pilots recommended speeds/altitudes for different ranges depending on fuel while flying on one engine. 
maybe they were just trying to keep up morale

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I think he was feeling unsupported by the rest of the forum after his little set-to with Schweik, and you gotta admit you did get on Dan's case kinda hard. Some of us have thinner skins than others, and I think Pb may have been feeling a little self-conscious about being under-informed about the fine points of engine out procedures in high powered twins.
> You know the old saw about: "If ya ain't a pilot, ya ain't sh$t!". I think we "high and mighty" aviators sometimes get a little too full of ourselves for the comfort of our less fortunate shipmates. Mea maxima culpa. Et tu, Brute`?
> Cheers,
> Wes



He shouldn’t have. I made it clear I was not taking sides, and that both should tone it down. It wasn’t even him who got the thread temporarily closed.


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 27, 2018)

*Regarding the P-38*

Advantages

Performance
The earlier P-38's (E/F) had a superior rate of climb to the unlettered P-51's; against the P-51A it was superior from 0-5000 and from around 20,000 feet up
The earlier P-38's (F/G) seemed to be able to out accelerate earlier P-51 models (P-51/P-51A) in level flight from 0-250 mph and probably a bit above that
I would not be surprised if it would out-accelerate the P-51 in a dive initially due to it's greater mass -- I wouldn't do it long though (mach tuck is a bitch).
The P-38's seemed to have better zoom climb performance all the way up to the P-51B at least, while close -- it'd hang on a bit longer.
The P-38J's long-range wing-tanks didn't upset the CG as much as the Mustang's did, so it didn't require as much burning of internal fuel before switching to drop-tanks.

Armament
The armament centered in the nose provides a greater range of, well, ranges where it can accurately hit other aircraft
The 20mm cannon also provides substantial hitting power over the P-51's all 0.50 armament
It was able to carry substantial bomb-loads, around 3200 lbs if I recall versus the Merlin powered P-51's 2000 lb loads

Other
The nose-gear made for easier landings, better initial acceleration on takeoff, and better visibility when taxiing
Visibility in the 6 o'clock position would likely be superior to the P-51 through P-51C.
It might have had more docile stall-characteristics, and might have been easier to land on short-fields
The extra engine might have made for greater survivability when flying over oceans and possibly even in air-to-ground configurations (that said, the P-47 is king in air-to-ground).

Disadvantages

Performance
The P-51 had a faster rate of roll than the P-38's until the P-38J/N came around
The P-51 had a much faster critical mach number and placard limits in dives than any aircraft in the USAAF inventory, as far as I know.
The P-51A had a superior rate of climb from about 5000-15000 feet, which is a very useful altitude block
The P-51B had a superior rate of climb from below 10,000 - 15,000 feet or so, and above 25,000 feet.

Armament: I'm not sure if the P-51 had any advantage except that it had more guns
Other
The cockpit was said to be better designed from a human-factors standpoint than the P-38
Visibility to the front and sides was superior to the P-38 on all variants, with visibility to the rear superior on the P-51D
The cockpit seemed to have less issues with extreme cold and frosting in the cockpit over the P-38

I could be wrong on this, but that's basically what I seem to have grasped so far. I am curious how fast the P-38 could go with the dive recovery flaps in terms of mach number.




GreenKnight121 said:


> On early models (B/Cs), ammunition doors & landing gear doors sometimes opened under high-gee conditions (frequently during high-speed dives) - this often then overstressed the wings, with several aircraft losing a wing and crashing (witnessed by other pilots). This was eventually resolved. _You mentioned this in passing without mentioning its deadly effect. There was at least one P-51B lost to this in April 1944***, so not completely solved as per your date._


That's an interesting piece of data that I didn't know prior to this point



Dimlee said:


> I found such tables for Northern Hemisphere.
> Atmospheric Temperature Profiles of the Northern Hemisphere


Very valuable data



Shortround6 said:


>


That looks more like a bowling ball than a baby...

Any more mass quoting and Fubar57's going to be apoplectic

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 27, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> *Regarding the P-38*
> 
> Advantages
> 
> ...


In dont think the dive recovery flaps changed the maximum speed of the p38 in a dive. It would still be mach .68 which I think is around 470 at 25,000 feet.( the speed of sound can vary somewhat with temperature and humidity). What they would do is take away the threat of uncontrolled flight into terrain if this speed were exceeded. 
Also I believe the p38 out climbs the Mustang at any altitude. As I understand it the p51 was better at most things but acceleration and climb is where the p38 shines. Have read quite a few times the p38 was the fastest climbing US fighter by quite some margin.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 28, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Wes, if you read this chime in on other GA or Corp twins with the same characteristics.


As far as I know, the P38 (and perhaps the Mosquito) was unique in this regard due to its extremely high power to weight ratio and the rotation direction of its counter-rotating propellers giving both engines "critical" behavior regardless of which one fails. Most twins are a little underpowered for single engine flight, which means that the maximum thrust asymmetry they can develop is relatively low compared to a powerhouse like the Lightning. This means that they can maintain directional control with rudder down to a relatively low speed (VMCa), which is usually somewhere close to the speed where the airframe wants to lift off.
Because of the huge loss of performance with an engine failure, most twins require very precise handling and all the thrust the running engine can muster to eke out a meager rate of climb. The resulting flat climb gradient can present real problems in climbing out of a "hole in the hills" airport on one engine. (Which is why you don't try it! Go back and land.)
High powered machines like the Lightning and Mosquito are capable of generating humungoid thrust asymmetries, and because of their high speeds, are generally not endowed with huge rudders, thus sentencing them to an absurdly high VMCa. So the "golden rule" of keeping it pinned to the ground 'til past VMC just isn't practical in this case. But here the saving grace is that there's so much power in the remaining engine, that it will climb at less than full throttle, reducing asymmetry (and VMC) and saving your bacon.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 28, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> *Regarding the P-38*
> 
> Advantages
> 
> ...



See text above.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 28, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> you want to play games with guns and ammo? I wonder How a P-47 does with only six guns and 200 round per gun?



*My Bad guys. The figures I used for the P-47-10 came from a report dated 11 Oct. '43.
In the A. Purpose section it states:
"1. To report results of flight tests on P-47D-10 airplane, AAF No. 43-75035 run at the
manufacturer's plant. Airplane equipped with Pratt & Whitney R-2800-63 engine with 
water injection; standard Curtiss 714-1C2-12 propeller; type A-17 turbo regulator. Airplane
ballasted to simulate the following conditions: Six .50 caliber guns; 300 rounds per gun;
305 gallons gasoline; 15 gallons water; 14 pounds pyrotechnics. In this condition the gross
weight was 13,234 pounds with a C.G. wheels up, of 29.63 percent M.A.C. Mixture auto-
rich; throttle wide open on all tests. Horsepower data obtained with torquemeter." *

*I was actually shooting for an earlier version without the water injection and 8 guns.*[/QUOTE]
Don't bother, not enough difference to worry about. The earlier version was slower by 6mph at 27000' and 300fpm at 20000'. Enjoy the time with your family.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 28, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It wasn’t even him who got the thread temporarily closed


But he clearly felt chastised all the same.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> But he clearly felt chastised all the same.



Well I sent him a PM. He can return if he chooses.


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 28, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> *Regarding the P-38*
> 
> Advantages
> 
> ...



Zipper,

Having sat in a P38 and a Mustang, it is my opine that all versions of the P51 have better visibility. The P38 might have a touch better at 6, but everywhere else it lagged. Don’t get me wrong, the 38 is an awesome plane, however the two engines, in your 10 & 2 o’clock along with the booms and all the girders in the canopy were less than optimum.

Also the boosted ailerons might allow a higher roll rate eventually, I would doubt it would be greater through the first 180 degrees due to the mass that would need to be moved.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 28, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> Also the boosted ailerons might allow a higher roll rate eventually, I would doubt it would be greater through the first 180 degrees due to the mass that would need to be moved.


Also I remember reading the boosted ailerons had no "proportional" response capability; they were "all or nothing" like an old escapement type radio control model.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 28, 2018)

Overall, the P-38 was an effective combat aircraft, especially after some basic defects were worked out, that is the engine installation issues, cockpit heating, poor roll rate, and the pilot training was upgraded so that engine out conditions didn't end up with crashes. Obviously, the high Mach number problems weren't really fixed -- the compressibility flaps were a crutch -- but those were less problematic outside of USAAF bomber escort over Germany. What wasn't fixable was that the P-38 was much more expensive to produce (twice the propellers, twice the engines) and maintain than the P-51.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 28, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> *I was actually shooting for an earlier version without the water injection and 8 guns.*


Don't bother, not enough difference to worry about. The earlier version was slower by 6mph at 27000' and 300fpm at 20000'. Enjoy the time with your family. [/QUOTE]

*Thank you sir, I did enjoy the time with my family.
Now it is time to dig deeper into research and calculations. I am currently studying
many subjects all at once. The P-47D-6 and P-47C are in that category. I am currently
searching my files and wwiiaircraftperformance.org for the answers. HOWEVER, when
I post the new information, I believe it belongs on the P-39 vs. P-47...er uh vs. P-40
thread. That is where I shall post it when time permits.

I am also working up a P-39N / P-40N-1 / P-51A comparison of Allison single engine
fighters of 1943.....very interesting by the way. That baby will have to go on the
P-39 vs. P-47...er uh vs. P-40 thread also.

This all sounds like fun to me....I have to work the next 5 days in a row, so it may take
some time......................................DAMMIT!*

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 28, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> Having sat in a P38 and a Mustang, it is my opine that all versions of the P51 have better visibility. The P38 might have a touch better at 6, but everywhere else it lagged.


I rewrote the earlier bit and corrected that the visibility was superior from the front and sides on the P-51 through P-51C, and superior to the rear as well on the P-51D. Regarding the P-38, I put visibility was superior to the rear prior to the P-51D


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 28, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> As far as I know, the P38 (and perhaps the Mosquito) was unique in this regard due to its extremely high power to weight ratio and the rotation direction of its counter-rotating propellers giving both engines "critical" behavior regardless of which one fails.


I thought a critical engine was the one to most affect yaw? From the descriptions of the P-38 it seems that each engine would basically cause a loss of control if either kept at full power or pushed to emergency power


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I thought a critical engine was the one to most affect yaw? From the descriptions of the P-38 it seems that each engine would basically cause a loss of control if either kept at full power or pushed to emergency power



When a P-38 lost an engine, the yaw affect was the same (therefore no critical engine or both engines were"critical engines" depending on who's semantics you want to play with) and for the most part the emergency procedures were the same on either engine. As previously mentioned, if you lost an engine at higher power settings (like during take off) you have to reduce power on the good engine first then go into emergency procedures for the failed engine. Loss of control was the main concern during take off as airspeed and altitude was limited and the landing gear would more than likely be down.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 28, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I thought a critical engine was the one to most affect yaw? From the descriptions of the P-38 it seems that each engine would basically cause a loss of control if either kept at full power or pushed to emergency power



Hello Zipper730, 
With twin engine aircraft, usually the propellers both rotate in the same direction.
In that case, losing power to the inboard rotating propeller leaves the outboard rotating propeller turning which has a greater effect on the lateral and directional control of the aircraft.
The reason is that the torque effect of the inboard rotating propeller tends to compensate a bit for the lateral offset of the thrust while the outboard rotating propeller torque tends to add to the effect of the lateral offset of the thrust.
Thus loss of the inboard rotating propeller causes the most adverse control effects which makes it the critical engine.
In the case of the P-38, both propellers rotated outboard, so loss of either engine would cause equally bad control effects. From an expectation of effects, I would consider both engines to be critical, but neither has a greater effect, so one could also call NEITHER engine critical.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2018)

Another consideration for determining critical engine would be the accessories carried within the engine or QEC. As mentioned, early P-38s had one generator on the left engine, I believe there was one hydraulic pump as well, so this would put the left engine as the critical engine. I believe the P-38J doubled up all engine driven accessories.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Dec 29, 2018)

pbehn said:


> This is a forum where the mods are more abusive than the participants and worse in their ignorance and partisan views.


Thanks, I guess? Did not know I was abusive and had partisan views. Ignorant might be, one cannot know everything I guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 29, 2018)

Marcel said:


> Thanks, I guess? Did not know I was abusive and had partisan views. Ignorant might be, one cannot know everything I guess.


PAR TI SAN (noun): One who views his own views as fact and differing views as partisan.

To quote the Firesign Theater, I think "We're All Bozos on this Bus".
By being here, we all choose to live with it.
That's what makes it great.
And a happy new year to all!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 29, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> it seems that each engine would basically cause a loss of control if either kept at full power or pushed to emergency power


ONLY IF you're below VMCa, as in takeoff, slow flight, or on a go-around.
IIRC, VMCa at full power was somewhere around 150 mph, on an airframe that was usually ready to fly at about 100, leaving you with a 50 mph "danger zone".
If you're carrying max range fuel and ordnance for a strike at Rabaul from Guadalcanal, and you lose your left engine (with your only generator and only hydraulic pump) right after liftoff, you have a CRITICAL SITUATION.
If you don't INSTANTLY reduce power on your right engine, you're going to flip inverted and go in on your back. If you do manage to get the power reduced and apply 100+ pounds pressure to the right rudder pedal, you've got a heavy, draggy, dirty, airplane (gear down, one notch flaps down, racks full of fuel tanks and ordnance, and no hydraulic or electrical power, except maybe ten minutes battery), that you're trying to fly on one off-center engine at reduced power. Say your prayers, stay in ground effect, and get over water ASAP, so you can ditch your payload.
If you're still alive by then, relax a little and see if you can coax her up over VMCa and get a little more power on and relax the cramps in your right leg a little.
Congratulations, you made it! Now you can get a little rack time and be rested for tomorrow's strike mission.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 29, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> IF you're below VMCa, as in takeoff, slow flight, or on a go-around. IIRC, VMCa at full power was somewhere around 150 mph, on an airframe that was usually ready to fly at about 100, leaving you with a 50 mph "danger zone".


Means an inch away from ending up as barbacoa...


----------



## Graeme (Dec 29, 2018)

A couple of "Good Points" on having two engines as listed by Col Oliver B. Taylor, Commander of the the 14th Fighter Group in 1944...







(From P-38 Lightning - Ethell - Jane's, 1983 - pp 23)


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 29, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Means an inch away from ending up as barbacoa...


Maybe a couple of inches (manifold pressure) away!
Put yourself in the pilot's seat.
Your heavily laden bird has probably stayed in ground lover mode a little longer than usual, so you may already be 10-15 mph into the danger zone before you get airborne. If your left engine quits now, suddenly and totally, your plane instantly starts to swing, and then bank, left. You need to INSTANTLY retard both throttles and STAND on the right rudder with all your might, while shoving forward on the yoke to hang onto the speed you already have. This takes guts, as it's going to feel like you're falling out of the sky, and you will if you don't get a little power back on soon.
Now, if you're fortunate enough to have stopped the turn and you're still flying, you need to find out how much power you can give the right engine without overpowering that rudder and your already shaking right leg. If you have enough control authority to get into a 3°-5° bank to the right, it will improve your performance slightly and give you a better chance of survival. Remember, this all started right after liftoff, and you haven't gained any altitude, so you're probably dodging obstacles to boot, and ground effect is the only thing keeping you alive.
Flying half sideways in ground effect over land is not the best place to pickle your external payload if you hope to escape alive, so get over water ASAP and pickle away. On a hot tropical day the air density at low level over water is apt to be slightly greater than over an island baking in the sun. That, plus your now significantly reduced weight should give you a chance to gradually accelerate your "dirty bird" (remember, you're still dragging gear and flaps, and have no hydraulics or electrics) up past VMCa, which will give you better control authority, allow a little relaxation of right rudder pressure (and the use of rudder trim), and maybe if you're lucky, use the last little bit of battery power to feather that windmilling left prop. (Something you should have done earlier, but you were too maxed out.) (Damn those electric props!! If you had Ham Std Hydromatics your accumulators would guarantee full feathering regardless of system pressure or pump delivery volume.)
Now it's time to fly around a bit, get the feel of your plane on one engine with power changes, burn off some fuel, and cuss out the ops officer for giving you (a new guy) this tired old POS, while the new birds with dual everything and redundancy galore went to the senior guys who had more skills and experience, and could have handled this fiasco more gracefully.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 29, 2018)

I remember reading somewhere back in the mists of time that the reason for only one each generator and hydraulic pump was because in this world of American clockwise turning engines, there weren't any readily available accessories of the correct capacities that turned the "wrong" way. Anybody got the straight skinny on this?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 30, 2018)

Why didn't they just switch engines from one side to the other making both engines inward turning? Lose one on takeoff and the effects are not nearly as bad.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 30, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Why didn't they just switch engines from one side to the other making both engines inward turning? Lose one on takeoff and the effects are not nearly as bad.


This has been discussed in other threads. That was tried, but it put the entire wing center section in a negative AOA stalled situation, creating lots of drag and no lift, and badly impacting performance, especially in turns and pull ups.
Visualize the slipstream swirling around the fuselages and striking the wing center section, you'll see why. Inward rotation gives you negative AOA; outward gives you positive.
Performance in combat was deemed more important than ease of single engine handling. Calculated risk.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Maybe a couple of inches (manifold pressure) away!
> Put yourself in the pilot's seat.
> Your heavily laden bird has probably stayed in ground lover mode a little longer than usual, so you may already be 10-15 mph into the danger zone before you get airborne. If your left engine quits now, suddenly and totally, your plane instantly starts to swing, and then bank, left. You need to INSTANTLY retard both throttles and STAND on the right rudder with all your might, while shoving forward on the yoke to hang onto the speed you already have. This takes guts, as it's going to feel like you're falling out of the sky, and you will if you don't get a little power back on soon.
> Now, if you're fortunate enough to have stopped the turn and you're still flying, you need to find out how much power you can give the right engine without overpowering that rudder and your already shaking right leg. If you have enough control authority to get into a 3°-5° bank to the right, it will improve your performance slightly and give you a better chance of survival. Remember, this all started right after liftoff, and you haven't gained any altitude, so you're probably dodging obstacles to boot, and ground effect is the only thing keeping you alive.
> ...



Hi Wes- great narrative! But you know you're painting a "worse case situation" LOL, but that's what we train for, right?



XBe02Drvr said:


> I remember reading somewhere back in the mists of time that the reason for only one each generator and hydraulic pump was because in this world of American clockwise turning engines, there weren't any readily available accessories of the correct capacities that turned the "wrong" way. Anybody got the straight skinny on this?
> Cheers,
> Wes



I believe you're correct but to mention again, no one ever thought more than an handful of P-38s were ever going to be built. As pointed out no one properly trained to fly twin engine aircraft, let alone thought about accessory redundancy in 1937. All this was eventually learned.

I believe a gear plate was put at the base of the accessories that were placed on the right side to include the magnetos, but I'm almost guessing about this. I'll have to look into some old books and manuals.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 30, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hi Wes- great narrative! But you know you're painting a "worse case situation" LOL, but that's what we train for, right?


"Worst cases" kill pilots, especially in training. (Dick Collins wasn't wrong!) BTW, I checked him out in a sailplane, and soloed his son. They arrived in a friend's "enhanced" Baron, and it was some entertaining watching them wrestle that hotrod down onto our 30x2400 foot strip with visual illusions on short final, a hump in the middle, a slope to the left, and a crowned surface. They weren't too proud to execute go-arounds until they got the approach just right. Smarter than most.
(Back on topic) Most of the quotes I've seen from WWII seem to refer to engine failures at altitudes and speeds where controllability was not a problem. The lack of testimony from survivors of takeoff engine failures has an ominous feeling about it.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> *Most of the quotes I've seen from WWII seem to refer to engine failures at altitudes and speeds where controllability was not a problem*. The lack of testimony from survivors of takeoff engine failures has an ominous feeling about it.
> Cheers,
> Wes



The film clip I posted earlier shows how easy it could be done, but then again Tony LeVier was flying.

I've spoken to a few P-38 drivers over the years and I never heard them speak of having to deal with an engine failure on takeoff, but they did speak of an engine getting shot out during combat. Col. Mike Alba (55th FG) told me he enjoyed the P-38 and in some ways liked it better than the P-51. He did mention the cold cockpit and the necessity of having several hundred hours of twin time before being proficient in the P-38. I remember mike saying he did loose and engine during a mission - no issues, feathered the bad engine and flew home.

The earlier comment "The asymmetry of the remaining engine would flip over the aircraft. A pilot would have to be lucky and have enough altitude to correct for this" is one of the dumber comments I've seen on here in a very long time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 30, 2018)

Seems like just about every ww2 fighter had some issue you had to be wary of.
Whether it was the p38s engine out on takeoff, the p51s lack of stall warning, or the p40s narrow under carriage and corresponding ground loop potential seems like just about all of them had some flight or takeoff/ landing characteristic that could bite if the pilot didn't really now what he was doing and sometimes maybe even if he did.
Maybe the F6F and P47 are the lone standouts here without any such issues I'm aware of. The caviaght being if you're flying the Hellcat you're probably flying it off a carrier which seems like that was pretty dangerous in and of itself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 30, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The film clip I posted earlier shows how easy it could be done, but then again Tony LeVier was flying.
> 
> I've spoken to a few P-38 drivers over the years and I never heard them speak of having to deal with an engine failure on takeoff, but they did speak of an engine getting shot out during combat. Col. Mike Alba (55th FG) told me he enjoyed the P-38 and in some ways liked it better than the P-51. He did mention the cold cockpit and the necessity of having several hundred hours of twin time before being proficient in the P-38. I remember mike saying he did loose and engine during a mission - no issues, feathered the bad engine and flew home.
> 
> The earlier comment "The asymmetry of the remaining engine would flip over the aircraft. A pilot would have to be lucky and have enough altitude to correct for this" is one of the dumber comments I've seen on here in a very long time.



FBJ,
What page is the Tony LeVier demo on?
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 30, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A pilot would have to be lucky and have enough altitude to correct for this" is one of the dumber comments I've seen on here in a very long time.


I would substitute "more uninformed" for "dumber". Think back to before you started flying and accumulating experience. Do you think you could have accurately described the various issues of asymmetric thrust and VMCa in high powered twin engined airplanes? I know I couldn't have.
Actually, that "dumb" comment is kind of true in a broad sort of way. A pilot caught in the heavily loaded engine-out scenario I described in my earlier posts would have to be very quick and very precise (and very lucky!) in his aircraft handling to get away with it. Any deviation from perfect performance would end in a smoking crater off the end of the runway. Two bombs, two drop tanks, and a full bag of internal would make for quite a fireworks display.
Whole different ballgame from Tony LeVier in his lightly loaded, clean airframe, air show bird.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 30, 2018)

Tony LeVier was also a test pilot with much more experience in the P-38 than service pilots. As a test pilot, his job was to find the edges of those envelopes that the service pilots were supposed to stay within.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 30, 2018)

Seems like the P-38 was a handful, experienced pilot or not.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I would substitute "more uninformed" for "dumber". Think back to before you started flying and accumulating experience. *Do you think you could have accurately described the various issues of asymmetric thrust and VMCa in high powered twin engined airplanes? *I know I couldn't have.


Absolutely not, but then again I wouldn't have tried to comment on something I know little or nothing about or try to throw in some made up folklore or mis information. This individual has a long history of armchair flying seemingly based on comic books or maybe by watching Black Sheep Squadron re-runs!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> FBJ,
> What page is the Tony LeVier demo on?
> Cheers,
> Biff


 Post 160 if this link don't work, look at the 30:01 mark

P-38 vs P-51

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Seems like the P-38 was a handful, experienced pilot or not.



Depends what you call a handful. It was a twin and many other twins produced during WW2 had better and yet worse characteristics, but the point is it had two engines and demanded an experienced pilot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Tony LeVier was also a test pilot with much more experience in the P-38 than service pilots. As a test pilot, his job was to find the edges of those envelopes that the service pilots were supposed to stay within.


Agree - but then again the process of dealing with emergency procedures were able to be learned and accomplished, just like LeVier demonstrated

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> A pilot caught in the heavily loaded engine-out scenario I described in my earlier posts would have to be very quick and very precise (and very lucky!) in his aircraft handling to get away with it. Any deviation from perfect performance would end in a smoking crater off the end of the runway. Two bombs, two drop tanks, and a full bag of internal would make for quite a fireworks display.
> Whole different ballgame from Tony LeVier in his lightly loaded, clean airframe, air show bird.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Agree to a point. Sure the airplane used in the demo was more than likely a fresh factory demo bird, point is the P-38 was no more a death trap then any other fighter twin. How about a heavily laden Me 110? Beaufighter? Let's throw the tail dragger aspect into this as well!


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 30, 2018)

Tony LeVier and his " lightly loaded, clean airframe, air show bird " that he put on demonstrations with in Europe to the groups flying P-38s. 

Granted he was probably carrying little, if any ammunition and less than a fuel load of fuel but it may have still had shackles and such attached.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 30, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I believe you're correct but to mention again, no one ever thought more than an handful of P-38s were ever going to be built.


Yeah, I know you mentioned that earlier and I was about to ask you a question on that: Particularly how many they actually expected to be built. 

It seems odd to spend a whole bunch of money on a program that will yield little fruit.


----------



## fliger747 (Dec 30, 2018)

Somewhere along the way I piled up maybe 20,000 hrs multi time. In that time I did have a number of real engine failures. On a long flight keeping fuel balanced kept one very busy! The advent of level D simulators has been a great step forward in both practicing and evaluating engine loss during the most critical phases of flight. Transport category aircraft of today have calculated V speeds which are including runway length, surface, altitude, bars pressure, wind and whatnot for each takeoff. The most difficult are those events at the minimum control speeds, whether on the ground or in the air. Before V1 runway remained for a rejected takeoff, after V1 runway remained allowed the takeoff to continue till V2 when a rotation and minimum climb gradient could be attained.

Most current light twins and almost all WWII twin tactical aircraft would have a "blue line". This meant any failure on the ground would mean a rejected takeoff without regard to remaining runway. If in the air a straight ahead crash would be accepted till the blue line, which would guarantee both minimum directional control plus some sort of minimum climb rate. 

In a typical simulator event lasting four hours, much more time was spent flying around with one or more engines "out" than operating. Maximum adverse conditions were practiced extensively till a good proficiency was obtained. 

WWII pilots did not have the luxury of such simulator training nor todays standards of reliability and maintenance. 

They were after all, expendable.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Yeah, I know you mentioned that earlier and I was about to ask you a question on that: Particularly how many they actually expected to be built.
> 
> *It seems odd to spend a whole bunch of money on a program that will yield little fruit*.



At the time of it's development, the P-38 was considered the most advanced combat aircraft in the world. The US was preparing for war and it was a bit of a gamble as no one knew what the future would hold...

P-38 was the mainstay AAF fighter in the Pacific, the 2 top US aces flew it, first US fighter to exceed 400 mph, was produced through out the entire war, was used for the "aerial assassination" of Admiral Yamamoto and shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other AAF fighter. (I've only scratched that surface) Aside from that some of it's flaws (compressibility) revealed what was necessary for future development of fighter aircraft. That statement couldn't be further from the truth!!!!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 30, 2018)

Beaufighter was particularly known as a bit of a hog engine out. I spoke with Beaufighter pilots years ago when I worked at an airfield that used to be home to a Beaufighter operational training unit in WW2 and they praised it in flight, but it could be prickly at times. The Beaufighter II with Merlins was apparently terrible on the ground, as even with both engines going, it had a tendency to ground loop with the smallest advance of the power levers. I read of one pilot describing its handling as 'evil'.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 30, 2018)

fliger747 said:


> Somewhere along the way I piled up maybe 20,000 hrs multi time. In that time I did have a number of real engine failures.


Some guys get all the action! In 13,000 hours of flying, I never had an in-flight engine failure; closest thing being precautionary shut down of a PT6 due to a stuttering bleed valve, which never could be induced to duplicate that behavior. They changed it out, sent it off to P&W for analysis, who returned it "Ops Checks OK. No fault detected"
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 30, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> It seems odd to spend a whole bunch of money on a program that will yield little fruit.


Unlike the exotic "lab rat" X-planes of post WWII, which also cost a bundle of change, the P38 was blazing the frontiers of aircraft performance with a practical, potentially combat capable airframe. This was just the sort of wise investment with likely high returns that a cash strapped economy struggling to climb out of the Depression needed.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 30, 2018)

> closest thing being precautionary shut down of a PT6 due to a stuttering bleed valve, which never could be induced to duplicate that behavior.



That's curly. Those happen occasionally where we just can't replicate the problem on the ground. We just defer for further crew reports. If the problem still happens we change everything until it gets to the inevitable engine change. But PT-6s are pretty reliable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 30, 2018)

nuuumannn said:


> That's curly. Those happen occasionally where we just can't replicate the problem on the ground. We just defer for further crew reports. If the problem still happens we change everything until it gets to the inevitable engine change. But PT-6s are pretty reliable.


We ferried the plane 2 hrs back to homeplate and tried everything we could do to cause it to repeat. We took the DOM and the shift supervisor up and tried everything we could do to make it stutter. No joy. They swapped it out of our plane, and after it came back from P&W, put it on another plane where it lived out its scheduled life without a hiccup.
In ten years of operating PT6s with three different companies and 30+ planes, I'm only aware of one actual failure, and that was a doozy. A 1900 at MGTOW departing Watertown NY on a wet runway with 500 ft scud overhead and 3 Kts tailwind, blew its right engine at Vr. And I mean BLEW! Flames and engine parts out both stacks bouncing off the wing and rattling down the side of the fuselage. They got it around the pattern under the scud layer and back on the ground intact, but it wasn't pretty. The plane had to go back to the paint shop for a little cosmetic treatment.
That plane is out in CO or WY now hauling UPS packages for Ameriflite.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 31, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Why didn't they just switch engines from one side to the other making both engines inward turning? Lose one on takeoff and the effects are not nearly as bad.



Hello P-39 Expert,
Just about every other twin has the issue of a critical engine to deal with; The loss of one of the engines causes asymmetrical thrust effects much greater than the lateral offset would suggest. The issue is not new. It just happens that with the P-38, there is the same issue with both engines.



XBe02Drvr said:


> This has been discussed in other threads. That was tried, but it put the entire wing center section in a negative AOA stalled situation, creating lots of drag and no lift, and badly impacting performance, especially in turns and pull ups.
> Visualize the slipstream swirling around the fuselages and striking the wing center section, you'll see why. Inward rotation gives you negative AOA; outward gives you positive.
> Performance in combat was deemed more important than ease of single engine handling. Calculated risk.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Hello XBe02Drvr,
I believe there is a little more to the issue than the AoA of the Wing Center section.
If that were the only issue, then changing the airfoil or the incidence of that section of the wing would have addressed the situation.
Most other twins have one propeller rotating inboard and one rotating outboard to deal with.
The P-38 already had different airfoils at the wing root and wing tip and early in the design, a wing root fillet was added to address turbulence problems from the nacelle to the stabilizer.
Note also that some export Lightnings sold to the British had both propellers rotating in the same direction and I believe their biggest issue was that the lack of a turbo gave up a lot of altitude performance.

It has been stated in various places that having outboard rotating propellers is aerodynamically more efficient.
I believe it might have something to do with the propeller slipstream offsetting some of the wingtip vortices, but perhaps someone with more knowledge of aerodynamics can sanity check this idea.

- Ivan.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 31, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I believe there is a little more to the issue than the AoA of the Wing Center section.
> If that were the only issue, then changing the airfoil or the incidence of that section of the wing would have addressed the situation.


Whoa! I don't think it's that easy. Visualize the airflow as it spirals around the nacelle and strikes the wing. It's going to be striking the leading edge and upper curvature of the airfoil at an angle that defies smooth boundary layer flow. It will actually destroy what could be a smooth lifting airflow at very low power settings when you energize the slipstream with more power.
How are you going to fix this with airfoil or incidence changes that don't: A) screw up the internal spar structure, B) create high drag or negative lift at either end of the speed spectrum, or C) create these same vices at either end of the power spectrum?
As for the vortices issue, intuitively at least, outward rotation should accelerate spanwise flow which should energize, rather than inhibit, wingtip vortices, reducing L/D.
I think both of us may be stabbing in the dark here. Any bona fide aerodynamicists out there?
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 31, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Whoa! I don't think it's that easy. Visualize the airflow as it spirals around the nacelle and strikes the wing. It's going to be striking the leading edge and upper curvature of the airfoil at an angle that defies smooth boundary layer flow. It will actually destroy what could be a smooth lifting airflow at very low power settings when you energize the slipstream with more power.



Hello XBe02Drvr,
I believe we have a slight mismatch in terminology. The "Nacelle" when used in the context of the P-38 refers to the center pod that the pilot sits in. At least that is how I have seen it described in documentation.

If we back up even further, consider that the spiral airflow from the propeller is going to hit one side of the wing on the top surface and the other side on the bottom surface. With your concern about what is happening on the wing root section, you might also want to note that the opposite is happening on the section outboard of each engine. 
Which would cause a worse effect? The Leading Edge on the outboard section of the wing is a typically a bit further from the propeller, but this is not always the case. There are plenty of twins with a straight leading edge such as the A-20 Havoc.
Also, if this effect were so great, then most twins without propellers that rotated in opposite directions would have this kind of problem.

As stated before, I am certainly no aeronautical engineer, but as I see it, the smooth boundary layer flow is most important at high forward speeds during which the direction of the airflow is not greatly affected by the propeller. At very low speeds, you want the slight vortices to energize the airflow to prevent separation and actual drag isn't terribly important because those huge Fowler Flaps are hanging out in the airstream anyway.



XBe02Drvr said:


> How are you going to fix this with airfoil or incidence changes that don't: A) screw up the internal spar structure, B) create high drag or negative lift at either end of the speed spectrum, or C) create these same vices at either end of the power spectrum?



First of all, I do not believe this would be a problem for reasons stated above.
It is an issue encountered by every twin with engines mounted out on the wing.
If it were a problem though:
A) I don't believe the differences in airfoil shape would require any serious structural changes. A slight change in the shape of the leading or trailing edges would not affect the location of wing spars.
I also don't believe that a couple degrees of incidence which is quite a lot would significantly affect structure either.
B) In reality, it is only the high end of the speed range that is of concern. Note that this is an interceptor aircraft (or at least this was the mission it was designed for). Perhaps cruise conditions might be of interest, but so many things change at the low end of the speed range that it should not be difficult to address.
If there is negative lift at the low end of the speed range, then the huge change in effective camber when the Fowler Flaps are deployed should address that issue.
C) As mentioned before, if the propeller creates one situation on the inboard side, it is doing just the opposite on the outboard side, so the situation will happen somewhere.



XBe02Drvr said:


> As for the vortices issue, intuitively at least, outward rotation should accelerate spanwise flow which should energize, rather than inhibit, wingtip vortices, reducing L/D.
> I think both of us may be stabbing in the dark here.



Intuition is an interesting thing. I don't think mine agrees with yours, but that doesn't make yours any less valid. I will try to explain how I see things and maybe someone here can shoot a few holes in the "theory".

Assuming Outboard Rotation of propellers:
Airflow would be moved outboard on the upper surface of the wing and inboard on the lower surface of the wing.
Normal wing tip vortices happen because there is a higher pressure on the underside of the wing than on top of the wing and this pressure differential equalizes at the wing tip
The vortex is caused by air flowing outboard on the underside and inboard at the top side.
Note that this is opposite to the direction of air flow being created by the propeller.

Another effect would be that the two propellers are pushing air inboard between the booms on the underside of the wing center section on each side of the nacelle. This should create a higher pressure area and additional lift in that portion of the wing similar to what we might see in a hovercraft.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 31, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> the spiral airflow from the propeller is going to hit one side of the wing on the top surface and the other side on the bottom surface. With your concern about what is happening on the wing root section, you might also want to note that the opposite is happening on the section outboard of each engine.
> Which would cause a worse effect?


The effect on the inboard section would be greater, as the wing is attached at the top of the fuselage, bringing the spiral flow from an inwardly rotating prop directly down on the top surface of the inboard wing section. On the outboard side, the fuselage protrudes significantly below the wing, somewhat breaking up the spiral flow and creating an area of turbulent flow and reduced pressure under the wing.


Ivan1GFP said:


> I also don't believe that a couple degrees of incidence which is quite a lot would significantly affect structure either.


I also don't believe a couple degrees of incidence would fix this problem either.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2018)

From an old post..

*"Warren M. Bodie, in his book The Lockheed P-38 Lightning: The Definitive Story Of Lockheed's P-38 Fighter, states that, "Engine rotation was changed so that the propellers rotated outboard (at the top), thereby eliminating or at least reducing the downwash onto the wing centersection/fuselage juncture. There was, by then, no doubt that the disturbed airflow, trapped between the two booms, was having an adverse effect on the horizontal stabilizer. No problem was encountered in reversing propeller rotation direction; they merely had to interchange the left and right engines." *

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 31, 2018)

SO they tried it both ways and went with the one that caused the least problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Jan 1, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I remember reading somewhere back in the mists of time that the reason for only one each generator and hydraulic pump was because in this world of American clockwise turning engines, there weren't any readily available accessories of the correct capacities that turned the "wrong" way. Anybody got the straight skinny on this?
> Cheers,
> Wes



It is often claimed that the CCW Allison engines could not support generators and other accessories.

This is what is politely called a crock of shit.

In the Engine manuals folder there is a copy of the Allison Service School Handbook in post 2 at V-1710 Operators Manual. That document shows the details but not in a simple format.

The attachments below from the Allison _Handbook of Operation and Maintenance _describes the accessory drives far better. The starter and oil pump being "before" the idler gear are handed (have opposite DoR) but all other drives (supercharger, cam shafts, magneto, distributors, etc) and accessories turn the standard direction. Given the oil pump is internal this means the starter is the only accessory that differs between left and right engines.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> It is often claimed that the CCW Allison engines could not support generators and other accessories.
> 
> This is what is politely called a crock of shit.
> 
> ...



Excellent info! I thought this was accomplished by by a gear pad mounted at the accessory base, evidently I'm thinking of another engine. It took a while to figure it out but it's right there, item K. Thanks for posting this! Now the only question - was this configuration available during early P-38 production runs?


----------



## MiTasol (Jan 1, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Excellent info! I thought this was accomplished by by a gear pad mounted at the accessory base, evidently I'm thinking of another engine. It took a while to figure it out but it's fight there, item K. Thanks for posting this! Now the only question - was this configuration available during early P-38 production runs?



Yes - the F2 (V-1710-27, -29) series engines the accessory case has the number 9 and number 10 locations needed for this change. I have never seen a manual for the F1 engine used on the P-38 prototype but I would be surprised if it did not because one of the original design features of the Allison was the ability to produce left and right engines with the minimum of different parts.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 4, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Dan Fahey,
> The situation you describe would only be true at very low airspeeds and high power settings along with an instant loss of power: Below minimum control speed for single engine operation.
> Above that speed, generally things are not so bad.
> 
> ...


Not true on p38 elevator. Most others damage to one side could survive. P38 hit in middle would break same at appendages. All axis pilots were trained to aim and damage that area. Rendering aggressive maneuvering problematic!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Not true on p38 elevator. Most others damage to one side could survive. P38 hit in middle would break same at appendages. All axis pilots were trained to aim and damage that area. Rendering aggressive maneuvering problematic!



OMG!!! Do You have something to confirm this gibberish??? Do you have combat reports, references or other data to PROVE this?!?!? Like most of your posts I think this is another figment of your imagination!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jan 4, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From an old post..
> 
> *"Warren M. Bodie, in his book The Lockheed P-38 Lightning: The Definitive Story Of Lockheed's P-38 Fighter, states that, "Engine rotation was changed so that the propellers rotated outboard (at the top), thereby eliminating or at least reducing the downwash onto the wing centersection/fuselage juncture. There was, by then, no doubt that the disturbed airflow, trapped between the two booms, was having an adverse effect on the horizontal stabilizer. No problem was encountered in reversing propeller rotation direction; they merely had to interchange the left and right engines." *


Didn't the same thing happen with the Twin Mustang? Wouldn't leave the ground until the engines were reversed or something like that?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 4, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The effect on the inboard section would be greater, as the wing is attached at the top of the fuselage, bringing the spiral flow from an inwardly rotating prop directly down on the top surface of the inboard wing section. On the outboard side, the fuselage protrudes significantly below the wing, somewhat breaking up the spiral flow and creating an area of turbulent flow and reduced pressure under the wing.



Hello XBe02Drvr,
It took me a while to figure out what you meant. By "Fuselage" in this case, I presume you are referring to the boom behind each engine.
The condition that you are describing is what would happen with an inboard propeller rotation but note that the wing and boom are nearly symmetrical with the propeller, so if the propeller were rotating outboard, the same thing would be happening to the outer wing panels.
The only really significant difference as I see it is that there is a nacelle on the centerline which acts as a fence that does not exist on the outboard side.



XBe02Drvr said:


> I also don't believe a couple degrees of incidence would fix this problem either.



My belief is that the angle of relative airflow on the wing center section was not that significant from a performance point of view.
The reason for this belief is that the XP-38 had inboard rotating propellers and was not noted for particularly poor flying characteristics.
In fact, the reports were quite good and easily enough to justify building a YP-38 after the loss of the prototype.

The reduction of turbulence on the horizontal tail mentioned by others sounds like a pretty good explanation for changing the propeller rotation but obviously the amount of turbulence was not enough to be a show stopper if the XP-38 was successful and if the British export Lightning had one propeller rotating inboard and one rotating outboard.



Dan Fahey said:


> Not true on p38 elevator. Most others damage to one side could survive. P38 hit in middle would break same at appendages. All axis pilots were trained to aim and damage that area. Rendering aggressive maneuvering problematic!



Hello Dan Fahey,
The kindest way I can put this is that I believe you are making some assumptions that may not be true.
It is a pretty silly thing to claim anything for "All axis pilots....".
Keep in mind also that the size of the tail surfaces of an aircraft is not an arbitrary thing. The size is chosen to give enough longitudinal stability and control to fly the aircraft. Extra size isn't beneficial because it just causes unnecessary drag. Sometimes, losing some area from the horizontal stabilizer may not kill you but sometimes it will. It depends on how marginal the stability is under those flight conditions.

Note that the B-17 in the attached images did not survive. All 11 crew on board died.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Dan Fahey,
> The kindest way I can put this is that I believe you are making some assumptions that may not be true.
> It is a pretty silly thing to claim anything for "All axis pilots....".



Mr Ivan;

I commend your eloquence and tact with regards to that reply. If I had half of your smoothness I'd be making this year's commencement speech at Yale!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2019)

_"Lieutenant Thomas Smith’s P-38 smashed headlong into a disintegrating Bf 109 as the German fighter’s spinning propeller tore gashes in the P-38 from engine to tail and _*severed the horizontal stabilizer, which extended between the Lockheed’s twin booms*_. Worst of all, the P-38’s right engine froze with the prop blades at a high-rpm setting, so they were set almost flat to the airstream.

Smith radioed that he was bailing out and jettisoned his canopy—an action he would regret in the cold hours that followed. As soon as he let go of the control yoke and took his feet from the left rudder pedal, the P-38 rolled violently into the dead engine. It would be nearly impossible for the aircraft to stay stable long enough for Smith to jump.

Smith made it back by flying a series of climbing orbits followed by a short dash toward home base. When he stumbled over the enemy-occupied town of Trieste, Italy, every flak burst sounded horrifyingly close as he flew with no canopy. Incredibly, Smith made a wheels-up landing. Besides being exhausted and half-frozen, he suffered his only injury upon landing—a lump on his head from hitting the gunsight."_


Read more at Unbreakable | History | Air & Space Magazine

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Winner Winner:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Jan 8, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Maybe a couple of inches (manifold pressure) away!
> Put yourself in the pilot's seat.
> Your heavily laden bird has probably stayed in ground lover mode a little longer than usual, so you may already be 10-15 mph into the danger zone before you get airborne. If your left engine quits now, suddenly and totally, your plane instantly starts to swing, and then bank, left. You need to INSTANTLY retard both throttles and STAND on the right rudder with all your might, while shoving forward on the yoke to hang onto the speed you already have. This takes guts, as it's going to feel like you're falling out of the sky, and you will if you don't get a little power back on soon.
> Now, if you're fortunate enough to have stopped the turn and you're still flying, you need to find out how much power you can give the right engine without overpowering that rudder and your already shaking right leg. If you have enough control authority to get into a 3°-5° bank to the right, it will improve your performance slightly and give you a better chance of survival. Remember, this all started right after liftoff, and you haven't gained any altitude, so you're probably dodging obstacles to boot, and ground effect is the only thing keeping you alive.
> ...




Since the thread is involving a comparison between the '51 and the '38...what do you do in a similar situation in a '51 when you lose an engine?


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jan 8, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Since the thread is involving a comparison between the '51 and the '38...what do you do in a similar situation in a '51 when you lose an engine?


It's a little less complicated.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 8, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Since the thread is involving a comparison between the '51 and the '38...what do you do in a similar situation in a '51 when you lose an engine?


Land.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 8, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> Land.


Ok how hard? 😁

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 9, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Since the thread is involving a comparison between the '51 and the '38...what do you do in a similar situation in a '51 when you lose an engine?


Put it back on the runway, give it full up elevator, jettison your drop tanks, give it all the braking action you can without standing it on its nose, lock your inertia reel harness, jettison your canopy, and ride it into the mangroves as slow as you can manage. Grasp your harness right next to, but not touching the quick-release as you roll into the trees. PRAY!
I vote for trike gear and a second engine, despite the control issues. Hey, we're shit hot aviators, we can hack it! Dumbshit mistakes always happen to the other guy, not me!
Cheers,
Wes. 😎😇

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Jan 9, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Since the thread is involving a comparison between the '51 and the '38...what do you do in a similar situation in a '51 when you lose an engine?



You do not have to fight the aircraft wanting to yaw badly and you do not have to identify the correct engine and shut it down after reducing power on the remaining engine against all instinct. You only have to determine the best place to park and if the best option is gear up or down. Given that most airstrips, even in war, were positioned where you had a fairly clear path straight ahead that was not necessarily hazardous.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 9, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> You do not have to fight the aircraft wanting to yaw badly and you do not have to identify the correct engine and shut it down


A very brave (or foolish) FAA inspector pulled an engine on me suddenly at rotation in a Beech 1900, after clandestinely pulling the autofeather circuit breaker. Fortunately it was a 300 ft wide runway, because quick as I was, we were nearly 30° off heading before I got the yaw stopped, and the plane was already starting into a yaw induced roll. Fortunately, I had the gear in transit when it happened, and we were light, so it was a no flap takeoff. Still, with 1100 HP working off center on a 13,000 lb airframe, and the dead prop windmilling, there was practically zero climb until the gear completed its cycle. Once cleaned up and up to VySE with the proper bank angle, it climbed quite well.
You can bet I was some kind of pissed off at the Fed and just waiting for him to criticize my performance. Instead, he said "That's it, we're done, good show. Take me home."
Not wanting to look a gift horse in the mouth, I kept my mouth shut, but filed an ASRS report, and my Chief Pilot wrote a nastygram to the inspector's boss, who happened to be our airline's PIO. I never saw that inspector on one of our planes again.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Jan 9, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> A very brave (or foolish) FAA inspector pulled an engine on me suddenly at rotation in a Beech 1900, after clandestinely pulling the autofeather circuit breaker. Fortunately it was a 300 ft wide runway, because quick as I was, we were nearly 30° off heading before I got the yaw stopped, and the plane was already starting into a yaw induced roll. Fortunately, I had the gear in transit when it happened, and we were light, so it was a no flap takeoff. Still, with 1100 HP working off center on a 13,000 lb airframe, and the dead prop windmilling, there was practically zero climb until the gear completed its cycle. Once cleaned up and up to VySE with the proper bank angle, it climbed quite well.
> You can bet I was some kind of pissed off at the Fed and just waiting for him to criticize my performance. Instead, he said "That's it, we're done, good show. Take me home."
> Not wanting to look a gift horse in the mouth, I kept my mouth shut, but filed an ASRS report, and my Chief Pilot wrote a nastygram to the inspector's boss, who happened to be our airline's PIO. I never saw that inspector on one of our planes again.
> Cheers,
> Wes



When I was a young and stupid low time T-6 pilot I rode right seat in a B-25 several times. Nice and high and all cleaned up the pilot told me the aircraft was mine and that he was going to fail an engine on me. 

@#$%^ that thing goes upside down fast if you stupidly ram in lots of power in on the other engine.

I should have known from the way he made sure on pre-flight that the aircraft had absolutely no loose items that I should have trimmed first then asked _what now_. Trim and nothing else was the correct response.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Jan 9, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> You do not have to fight the aircraft wanting to yaw badly and you do not have to identify the correct engine and shut it down after reducing power on the remaining engine against all instinct. You only have to determine the best place to park and if the best option is gear up or down. Given that most airstrips, even in war, were positioned where you had a fairly clear path straight ahead that was not necessarily hazardous.



Assuming you had a long strip and/or runout zone as you describe-should an engine failure occur in a '38, why would you not just pull both engines to idle and do the same thing? I'm not a pilot, but it seems to me as if a "panic braking" job would be easier to accomplish with a plane with tricycle gear than a tail dragger-perhaps I'm wrong here.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 9, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Assuming you had a long strip and/or runout zone as you describe-should an engine failure occur in a '38, why would you not just pull both engines to idle and do the same thing? I'm not a pilot, but it seems to me as if a "panic braking" job would be easier to accomplish with a plane with tricycle gear than a tail dragger-perhaps I'm wrong here.



The problem I think was limited runway lengths. Usually in a multi at some point you are committed to taking off, known as V1 in today’s speak. Also modern fighters have light weight brakes which results in a more go oriented mentality. Modern airliners will water your eyes with how well they will stop.

Also with today’s jetliners you do a reduced power takeoff to limit engine wear and fuel usage but with a safety margin that allows for a comfortable pad should you lose an engine at or beyond V1. And you don’t have to push up the power to continue the engine out takeoff in most instances.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 9, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Assuming you had a long strip and/or runout zone as you describe-should an engine failure occur in a '38, why would you not just pull both engines to idle and do the same thing?


Fighter strips on Pacific islands weren't known for their overly generous runway lengths, and they usually had palm forests or mangrove swamps at the ends of the runways with a berm of bulldozed slash left from the SeaBees "blitzbuild" construction techniques. Not your preferred overrun safety zone. A P38 loaded for a 700 mile strike mission with drop tanks and external ordnance would not be my chosen chariot for a romp in the woods.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Jan 9, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Assuming you had a long strip and/or runout zone as you describe-should an engine failure occur in a '38, why would you not just pull both engines to idle and do the same thing? I'm not a pilot, but it seems to me as if a "panic braking" job would be easier to accomplish with a plane with tricycle gear than a tail dragger-perhaps I'm wrong here.



Trike gear will help naturally for a normal abort but, except on psp, the prop plowing dirt will provide even better deceleration if you have to stop that hard. The other alternative is gear up so long as you decide fast so the over-centre geometric lock can be over-ridden by the retract cylinder.

I would expect having a big solid one piece engine between you and an obstacle you slam into is better personal protection than five relatively loosely attached items of far lower mass which will not hit that obstacle simultaneously and which, being small rear surface area, have a reasonable chance of punching through the thin bulkhead between them and you.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 9, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> And you don’t have to push up the power to continue the engine out takeoff in most instances.


My friend Kathleen said the 737-800s she was flying had an FMS-FADEC setup that would automatically trim the power on the working engine for best performance and controllability if an uncommanded power loss happened on one engine with gear down and speed > V1. Is that what you're talking about? What are you flying these days?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 9, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> it seems to me as if a "panic braking" job would be easier to accomplish with a plane with tricycle gear than a tail dragger


You're right about that, but the issue with a heavily loaded P38 is the much greater weight and takeoff speed, so you'll be farther down the runway than a single engine fighter, going faster, and you still only have two mainwheel brakes to stop all that inertia. And unlike modern twins, no reverse thrust capabilities.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 9, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> My friend Kathleen said the 737-800s she was flying had an FMS-FADEC setup that would automatically trim the power on the working engine for best performance and controllability if an uncommanded power loss happened on one engine with gear down and speed > V1. Is that what you're talking about? What are you flying these days?
> Cheers,
> Wes



Wes,

I’m on the IAE engined A320 / 319. It’s FBW, and in the event of a problem the checklist automatically pop up on the glass. 1980s tech but very well done. The versions I fly have no protections like that, and did not know the Guppy’s had anything like that. I have a good bud who is a Captain on them and will see if UALs versions have that.

An engine failure at or beyond V1 in an Eagle is a non event. However at brake release on a burner takeoff I had one stag and the lateral yaw would have put me off the runway had it been the other motor. The nose wheel had lateral scuff marks from yaw. Total eye opener. The Ops Group CC met me at the jet when I shut down as he had heard the “bang”.

Not sure how well defined engine failure or engine out the procedures were on WW2 aircraft.

We didn’t use V speeds in the Eagle until late 90s or early 2000s. Very safe and reliable steed.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Jan 9, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You're right about that, but the issue with a heavily loaded P38 is the much greater weight and takeoff speed, so you'll be farther down the runway than a single engine fighter, going faster, and you still only have two mainwheel brakes to stop all that inertia. And unlike modern twins, no reverse thrust capabilities.
> Cheers,
> Wes



I understand what you're saying and it makes sense. But, when comparing with the Mustang-is that necessarily true (greater weight and only 2 mainwheel brakes, yes of course). Let's say you load a Mustang and a Lightning with 2000 lbs of bombs (which I recall was the rated load on later P-51s). The Lightning has nearly twice the HP, less than 2x the weight (IIRC-need to verify that) and a relatively high-lift wing. It was noted for acceleration. In that situation-would it have a greater takeoff speed, or be further down the runway at takeoff speed, than the Mustang? Just curious-not trying to start a fight or anything.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 9, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> I understand what you're saying and it makes sense. But, when comparing with the Mustang-is that necessarily true (greater weight and only 2 mainwheel brakes, yes of course). Let's say you load a Mustang and a Lightning with 2000 lbs of bombs (which I recall was the rated load on later P-51s). The Lightning has nearly twice the HP, less than 2x the weight (IIRC-need to verify that) and a relatively high-lift wing. It was noted for acceleration. In that situation-would it have a greater takeoff speed, or be further down the runway at takeoff speed, than the Mustang? Just curious-not trying to start a fight or anything.



Idaho,

On the brake front both the P38 and P51 only had main wheel brakes. My guess the P38 might be able to stop easier due to no fear of tipping during a hard braking event.

My guess on takeoff is the P38 would most likely get airborne sooner for two reasons: first the 38 could go to full power almost immediately, and second combined with its wing size, weight gain compared to its overall weight would get airborne slightly sooner as well as having a lower takeoff speed.

These are guesses based on what I’ve seen with the planes I’ve flown, but are nothing but a guess.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Jan 9, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Idaho,
> 
> On the brake front both the P38 and P51 only had main wheel brakes. My guess the P38 might be able to stop easier due to no fear of tipping during a hard braking event.
> 
> ...



After I posted, I went and did a little research. The P-38 has a higher wing loading, and a very slightly higher stall speed (according to Wikipedia, so take with a grain of salt). Would be interesting to see them both similarly loaded and see what does get off the ground sooner/in less runway.

When you say "the 38 could go to full power almost immediately"-I gather you cannot on the '51. Is that due to the need to gather adequate speed to have the control forces necessary to overcome torque/p-factor on the single engine?

I have a copy of Bodie's book-this thread has me wanting to dig it out and read it again. I also have a copy of America's 100,000-but it's MIA. I blame my wife...


----------



## Greyman (Jan 9, 2019)

British figures:

*P-38F*
Take-off over 50ft obstacle: 600 yards (15,500 lb)
Landing over 50ft obstacle: 800 yards (13,360 lb)

*P-51B/C*
Take-off over 50ft obstacle: 660 yards (9,190 lb)
Landing over 50ft obstacle: 900 yards (7,720 lb)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 9, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> I understand what you're saying and it makes sense. But, when comparing with the Mustang-is that necessarily true





BiffF15 said:


> My guess on takeoff is the P38 would most likely get airborne sooner for two reasons: first the 38 could go to full power almost immediately, and second combined with its wing size, weight gain compared to its overall weight would get airborne slightly sooner as well as having a lower takeoff speed.





Greyman said:


> *P-38F*
> Take-off over 50ft obstacle: 600 yards (15,500 lb)
> Landing over 50ft obstacle: 800 yards (13,360 lb)
> 
> ...


The one thing that's not addressed in this conversation is the difference in critical speeds between a single and a twin. Your Mustang pilot can lift off when his airplane is ready to fly, probably 1.2 or so stall speed at its current weight. A Lightning wants to fly way below single engine control speed, and a prudent pilot will keep it pinned down until at or near that speed. I'm betting that the British test pilots that derived Greyman's figures didn't do that, and especially didn't do it loaded for a Guadalcanal - Rabaul strike with drop tanks and two 1000 lb bombs. Difference between theoretical world and combat world.
I've been to Hamilton, I've been to Oshkosh, and admittedly, at an airshow they're lightly loaded, but the Lightnings had visibly longer takeoff runs than the Mustangs.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 9, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The one thing that's not addressed in this conversation is the difference in critical speeds between a single and a twin. Your Mustang pilot can lift off when his airplane is ready to fly, probably 1.2 or so stall speed at its current weight. A Lightning wants to fly way below single engine control speed, and a prudent pilot will keep it pinned down until at or near that speed. I'm betting that the British test pilots that derived Greyman's figures didn't do that, and especially didn't do it loaded for a Guadalcanal - Rabaul strike with drop tanks and two 1000 lb bombs. Difference between theoretical world and combat world.
> I've been to Hamilton, I've been to Oshkosh, and admittedly, at an airshow they're lightly loaded, but the Lightnings had visibly longer takeoff runs than the Mustangs.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Wes,

Not surprising. However think about taking 1K worth of armor, fuel tanks, guns and ammo out of a 9k airplane vice a 15k airplane. The lighter plane will get a bigger boost in performance than the heavier one due to percentage of total weight removed.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 9, 2019)

Not having a horse in this race, as I like these two fighters just about equally....

From Dean's _America's Hundred-Thousand_:

Take-off distance (gross weight/zero wind/hard surface/sea level/take-off power):
P-38J *1,080ft* at 17,699lbs
P-51D *1,185ft* at 10,176lbs

Power loadings (gross weight/horsepower) at various altitudes, when compared to 11 other fighters:
P-38L ranked *first* at 10,000ft/20,000ft/30,000ft
P-51D ranked *2nd* at 10,000ft and *3rd* at 20,000ft.

The P-38L ranked *first* in level flight acceleration when compared to seven other late war US fighters. The P-51D ranked *third *(when starting at 250mph and applying combat power).

The climb rate of the P-38J/L in NORMAL power is shown to be *superior* *to the P-51D* in either NORMAL or MILITARY power, at practically every altitude.

Speed, range, roll and turn rate go to the P-51.

In addition to this, the author makes mention of the Joint Fighter Conference held during October 1944. Out of all the categories where both the P-38L and P-51D are mentioned, there are four where the Lightning is ranked higher than the Mustang by sheer number of votes:

1) Best overload takeoff from small area (something we discussed earlier).
2) Best rudder.
3) Best characteristics 5 mph above a stall
4) Worst cockpit (obviously not a positive trait at all, for which it ranked 1st)

In contrast the P-51D ranked higher than the P-38L in nine categories (when both are mentioned), such as best engine controls arrangement (1st), best ailerons at 100mph, best ailerons at 350 mph (1st), nicest all-around stability, best elevators, best dive stability and control (this one is easy to understand), best all-around fighter above 25,000ft, best fighter-bomber, and best strafer.

There is a strong possibility that the majority of the pilots present at the conference weren't twin-engine qualified, which obviously would make the P-38 a handful to operate. But without knowing the backgrounds of these pilots this is pure speculation on my part.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 10, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Wes,
> 
> Not surprising. However think about taking 1K worth of armor, fuel tanks, guns and ammo out of a 9k airplane vice a 15k airplane. The lighter plane will get a bigger boost in performance than the heavier one due to percentage of total weight removed.
> 
> ...


Well in order to pursue this any further, we'd have to know the weight and configuration conditions under which the the British tests were done, and whether they were comparable between the two aircraft in practical terms.
In order to get it right we should compare the two aircraft fueled and loaded for the same ultra long range strike mission under the same climatic conditions. I don't know about the Mustang, but I'm pretty sure Rabaul with 2,000 lbs of bombs was an overload takeoff for a Lightning out of Henderson. Takeoff performance there would be significantly less than in merry old England.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jan 10, 2019)

Fuel to the fire:

*P-38G*
Take-off over 50ft obstacle: 580 yards (15,000 lb)
Landing over 50ft obstacle: 800 yards (13,020 lb)

*P-51D*
Take-off over 50ft obstacle: 720 yards (9,478 lb)
Landing over 50ft obstacle: 950 yards (7,860 lb)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 10, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Fuel to the fire:
> 
> *P-38G*
> Take-off over 50ft obstacle: 580 yards (15,000 lb)
> ...


Data source?
At least Darren's data had a little more detailed information.


----------



## Greyman (Jan 10, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Data source?
> At least Darren's data had a little more detailed information.



Ministry of Supply data sheets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 10, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Not sure how well defined engine failure or engine out the procedures were on WW2 aircraft.


You saw the Tony LeVier video that was posted upthread didn't you? I think that about covers it as far as the fighter community was concerned. Different story with the bomber boys, I'm sure.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 10, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You saw the Tony LeVier video that was posted upthread didn't you? I think that about covers it as far as the fighter community was concerned. Different story with the bomber boys, I'm sure.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Wes,

I think the LeVier video was good but what I don’t know was when it came out and what was actually being taught at the school house.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 10, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Wes,
> 
> I think the LeVier video was good but what I don’t know was when it came out and what was actually being taught at the school house.
> 
> ...


I don't know either, but given that the P38 with all of its quirks was thrust into what had been a solidly single engine culture, it seems probable that the training system might take a bit of time to catch up. The bomber / transport community "owned" the multi engine training structure, so AT6 nuggets from the fighter pipeline were probably going straight into P38s with no dual control trainers available. Interesting question. Anybody out there know?
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 10, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The one thing that's not addressed in this conversation is the difference in critical speeds between a single and a twin. Your Mustang pilot can lift off when his airplane is ready to fly, probably 1.2 or so stall speed at its current weight. A Lightning wants to fly way below single engine control speed, and a prudent pilot will keep it pinned down until at or near that speed. I'm betting that the British test pilots that derived Greyman's figures didn't do that, and especially didn't do it loaded for a Guadalcanal - Rabaul strike with drop tanks and two 1000 lb bombs. Difference between theoretical world and combat world.
> I've been to Hamilton, I've been to Oshkosh, and admittedly, at an airshow they're lightly loaded, but the Lightnings had visibly longer takeoff runs than the Mustangs.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Hello XBe02Drvr,
There are a few differences with the airshow birds and the ones flown in combat.
First of all, I don't believe the typical airshow P-38 will have operational Turbochargers which means there is going to be less power available.
Next and most importantly, a lot more items can be stripped from a P-51 without screwing up the CoG location.
With the P-38, all that armament and armour and such is up front and I know at least one of the manuals states that if there is no ammunition being carried, the aircraft must be ballasted to maintain proper CoG.

Another advantage in low speed flight for the P-38 is that its Fowler Flaps add quite a bit of additional wing area so a normal comparison of wing loading doesn't tell the full story either.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 10, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Another advantage in low speed flight for the P-38 is that its Fowler Flaps add quite a bit of additional wing area so a normal comparison of wing loading doesn't tell the full story either.


And if you're taking off heavily loaded with partial flaps, your VMC is going to be higher still and your safe takeoff speed reached even farther down the runway.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 10, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And if you're taking off heavily loaded with partial flaps, your VMC is going to be higher still and your safe takeoff speed reached even farther down the runway.
> Cheers,
> Wes




Wes,

Good point. To piggyback on that certain air carriers do takeoffs in their B767 757s at flaps 5 rather than 15 when performance allows. The flaps 5 allows you to stay on the runway longer to accelerate to a higher speed prior to takeoff. Once airborne, you get to accelerate altitude faster (than flaps 15), and to reach clean maneuvering speed quicker as well. Same goes for a V1 cut profile (engine out takeoff continued). The excess performance gained from the higher speed takeoff is actually a larger safety margin. And it burns 300-500 lbs less fuel.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello XBe02Drvr,
> There are a few differences with the airshow birds and the ones flown in combat.
> First of all, I don't believe the typical airshow P-38 will have operational Turbochargers which means there is going to be less power available.
> Next and most importantly, a lot more items can be stripped from a P-51 without screwing up the CoG location.
> ...


Hi Ivan -

From my time at Reno I heard from the piston pounders that the CG for the Mustangs raced there was actually really squirly, even with the stock birds. Crew chiefs really watched their "Ps and Qs" after the Ghost incident. As there were no P-38s racing I have no knowledge how this would compare. I believe that only one or 2 of the airworthy P-38s have fully operational turbochargers. I vaguely remember reading the ballast required on a non-armed P-38 was easily installed and not that much. I know I have some data on this buried in a box.

I crewed in the jet class and was totally anal on my bird's weight and balance as we stripped a whole bunch of sh*t out of the aircraft prior to getting serious

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 10, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hi Ivan -
> 
> From my time at Reno I heard from the piston pounders that the CG for the Mustangs raced there was actually really squirly, even with the stock birds. Crew chiefs really watched their "Ps and Qs" after the Ghost incident. As there were no P-38s racing I have no knowledge how this would compare. I believe that only one or 2 of the airworthy P-38s have fully operational turbochargers. I vaguely remember reading the ballast required on a non-armed P-38 was easily installed and not that much. I know I have some data on this buried in a box.
> 
> I crewed in the jet class and was totally anal on my bird's weight and balance as we stripped a whole bunch of sh*t out of the aircraft prior to getting serious



Hello FLYBOYJ,
I thought the accident with Galloping Ghost / Jimmy Leeward resulted from the loss of a trim tab on the elevator which caused a severe pitch up (enough to collapse the pilot's seat). I had not heard that it was a CoG issue that was the cause.
The mention about ballasting can be found in a British manual on the Lightning. Perhaps it is also found elsewhere.
Do you happen to know if any of the P-51s with CoG issues were converted to carry a passenger?

In looking at where components are in the P-51, we know the Fuselage fuel tank is well behind the CoG and the wing armament is very near the CoG or slightly behind. The armour plate behind the cockpit is also reasonably far aft, so all of these would tend to move the CoG slightly forward to improve stability a bit.
With the P-38, it does make one wonder what would happen if the ammunition were expended in flight rather than just not loaded on the aeroplane. In any case, if there is concern for just some ammunition, what happens when a 20 mm cannon and 4 .50 cal MGs are also removed from the same area?

- Ivan.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello FLYBOYJ,
> I thought the accident with Galloping Ghost / Jimmy Leeward resulted from the loss of a trim tab on the elevator which caused a severe pitch up (enough to collapse the pilot's seat). I had not heard that it was a CoG issue that was the cause.


You are correct but after that mishap the feds came down hard on everyone with a very watchful eye. I do know that there were W&B issues brought up with many participants. 


Ivan1GFP said:


> The mention about ballasting can be found in a British manual on the Lightning. Perhaps it is also found elsewhere.
> Do you happen to know if any of the P-51s with CoG issues were converted to carry a passenger?


I've seen some discussion about P-38 ballast. Were the British notes about the model 322?

I've never heard about any CG issues with 2 seater P-51s but my guess the weight of the original radios and armor plate behind the pilot would make up for human ballast.


Ivan1GFP said:


> In looking at where components are in the P-51, we know the Fuselage fuel tank is well behind the CoG and the wing armament is very near the CoG or slightly behind. The armour plate behind the cockpit is also reasonably far aft, so all of these would tend to move the CoG slightly forward to improve stability a bit.
> With the P-38, it does make one wonder what would happen if the ammunition were expended in flight rather than just not loaded on the aeroplane. In any case, if there is concern for just some ammunition, *what happens when a 20 mm cannon and 4 .50 cal MGs are also removed from the same area?*
> - Ivan.


Don't readily know but remember, Lockheed did put another human in that nose. They also threw another body in piggy back and even threw a big radar below the nose. I think there was a wide envelope to play with.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Jan 11, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> My friend Kathleen said the 737-800s she was flying had an FMS-FADEC setup that would automatically trim the power on the working engine for best performance and controllability if an uncommanded power loss happened on one engine with gear down and speed > V1. Is that what you're talking about? What are you flying these days? Cheers, Wes



Back in the real round engine days Grumman on the Trackers fitted two rudders, one behind the other. The rear rudder was for all normal flight ops. They built in a system using the torque sensors so that an engine failure automatically punched the front rudder hard over to compensate for the yaw. Given the aircraft was designed to operate at extra low altitude and used spoilers for roll control this was probably the only reasons that the aircraft did not produce a big splash if an engine failed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 11, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Back in the real round engine days Grumman on the Trackers fitted two rudders, one behind the other


NAS Ops Dept had 3 SH3s, 2 US2Bs, a C1, a U11 (Piper Aztec), and a base CO who felt all his pilots should be 100% interchangeable. So his fixed wing fliers were out practicing autorotation in SH3s and his rotorheads were out doing V1 cuts in Stoofs....with predictable results. Nobody died, fortunately, but a lot of metal got bent, and the CO's retirement ceremony was moved earlier by almost a year.
Two SH3s suffered collapsed gear / tail rotor amputation hard landings, the overrun arresting cables got a workout, and a US2B and the C1 got parked in the mangroves at various times.
Cheers
Wes

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 14, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 15, 2019)

Nice walk around by Tony LeVier on a 435th FS bird. I flew with that squadron at Holloman AFB in AT-38s circa 1990.

Very cool.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 29, 2019)

Attached is the history of the 496th Fighter Training Group which was tasked with training P-38 and P-51 pilots for the 8th and 9th Air Forces. Table 2 "Accident Analysis" shows that accidents were actually rare during take off. It also shows a much higher accident rate for the P-38.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Attached is the history of the 496th Fighter Training Group which was tasked with training P-38 and P-51 pilots for the 8th and 9th Air Forces. Table 2 "Accident Analysis" shows that accidents were actually rare during take off. It also shows a much higher accident rate for the P-38.


Great info, ref. table 2 - data worth discussing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 29, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great info, ref. table 2 - data worth discussing.
> 
> View attachment 527396


I find the data in the table surprising. With the p38 being very difficult to stall and the Mustangs lack of stall warning and difficulty in recovery( so i have read anyway) I would have expected these rates to be much different.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 30, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I find the data in the table surprising. With the p38 being very difficult to stall and the Mustangs lack of stall warning and difficulty in recovery( so i have read anyway) I would have expected these rates to be much different.


Notice that the greatest discrepancy in accident RATES is in the in-flight category. There the P38 has three critical flight regimes to the P51's two, namely, accelerated stalls and compressibility dives (both), and engine-out flight (P38 only).
Having lived and worked in the world of ACM training, I would lay odds on compressibility and single engine handling as being the Lightning's two Achilles heels in the combat training environment.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 30, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great info, ref. table 2 - data worth discussing.
> 
> View attachment 527396


The 496th was usually the first stop for inbound ETO replacements. I have two 'suspicions'. The first is that the 'in type' hours for the P-38 pilots were far lower than the P-51, compounding multi-engine complexity in comparison to AT-6 to P-40 or AT-6 to P-51. Some multi engine training in 1943 did proceed from AT-6 to C-45 'variants' but a C-45/B-25 is a long way from realistic P-38 prep.

The second point would be based on extrapolating the % category for P-51 hours = 23,417 hours to 7, 432 hors for P-38 would reduce (on pro-rata basis)

P-51 Hours = 7432, Acc = 22, A/c lost = 7, pilots KIFA = 3, [1000 hour % don't change], Type Acc = *Flight/9.2*, Landing/8, Taxi/4.4 total; -----> which really shows the high accident rates of P-38 vs P-51 as a % of hours logged.

The second point relates to first (namely in type low training hours for P-38 hours), namely the P-38 was particularly more complicated based on in-flight pro-rata comparisons - *P-51 = 9.2 to P-38 = 24* for same number of hours (pro-rata). 

Speculating that KIFA lost to compressibility may not have been the leading causes as both the problem and the warnings were well known by Jan 1944. More likely (IMO) were the lingering process issues of moving low Boost/low RPM cruise conditions to High Boost/RPM until AAF/ETO complied with Lockheed and Allison recommendations. Additionally, the Intercooler/turbo and oil cooler issues on the J early designs weren't fully ironed out until the March timeframe when the -15's arrived.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Jan 31, 2019)

In my years with the fighter aces assn. there was lots of opportunity to talk Mustang v Lightning. The 38 guys distinguished between the J/L and predecessors, but overall it was hard to find a Lightning guy who didn't adore the bird. Those who flew both, including (maybe especially) Robin Olds said they always loved the 38 but favored the 51 because it could go where the Swastikas grew. One exception was a 55th FG pilot who made ace in the 51 but always called it "the funny plane" because of that aft CG with the fuselage tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 3, 2019)

drgondog said:


> The 496th was usually the first stop for inbound ETO replacements. I have two 'suspicions'. The first is that the 'in type' hours for the P-38 pilots were far lower than the P-51, compounding multi-engine complexity in comparison to AT-6 to P-40 or AT-6 to P-51. Some multi engine training in 1943 did proceed from AT-6 to C-45 'variants' but a C-45/B-25 is a long way from realistic P-38 prep.
> 
> If you read the paper it states quite clearly that the P-51 pilots had no hours on type.
> 
> ...


----------



## drgondog (Feb 4, 2019)

Makes sense that little P-51 time was available for replacement pilots in 1944. Those P-51s in Stateside OTU trained as a group and deployed primarily to CBI and Pacific, the rest were in huge demand for combat operations - far exceeding supply. I know my father did all fighter transition in P-40N/F at Sarasota, and when he arrived in England, he did 5 touch and go's in a P-51B at 496th FTU (late May 1944) before reporting to 355th FG.

The reason that most Mustang Fighter Groups set up 'Clobber College' at their bases were a.) more unit specific training in tower & comm, b.) element/flight take-off and formation assembly, c.) check out for bombing/strafing. Additionally, nearly all the replacement crews were woefully deficient in IFR for ETO flight conditions.

Stateside Training and Service Command were always way behind the curve for ETO conditions. Ditto Material Command and Proving Ground testing before deployment.

All this said, it makes the P-38 accident statistics even more focused on the complexity of operation compared to single engine fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 16, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Of course they did; this is where the P38 shined
> 
> True enough, but this is why rookies didn't lead missions, or even flights or sections. By the time they had the responsibility for navigation, they also had experience. I've had enough over water flying experience so I'd take a 550 mile bomber escort to Truk with combat probability only in the target area over the same mission to Berlin @ -40C with 400 miles each way over defended territory ANY DAY.
> 
> ...



You are a braver man than I Gunga Din. If I am in a SE ac and said engine craps out, I want my ever loving butt over terra firma...even if it's frozen. I don't know about the reliability of military today. Biff could attest to that, but in WW2 there was a more than fair chance of having an issue. Each squadron took off with 2 or 3 spares to cover aborts. Mind you each squadron put 16 ac in the air. So 2 or 3 to cover 16 is a better than 10 to 20% chance of planes having problems. My dad had less than 50 missions and had to abort at least 3 times...that I know of. One time he had fouled plugs and the engine ran too rough. He was able to return to base, which was the closest base to the coast. But the 2 other times he was forced down in France. The radio shorted and filled the cockpit with smoke on one mission and I do not know the details about the second abort. But I do know on both of those he wasn't able to make it back across the channel to England. He would have had to bail out or ditch her in if he was over water and THAT he was not to keen on doing. He was part of a couple air/sea rescues which left him less than confident. One was on an Aprodite mission against the sub pens on Helgoland in the Frisian Islands. There was no enemy resistance for the fighters...so it wasn't flak or enemy fire that brought the pilot down. So he had mechanical issues over the North Sea. It became a comedy of errors with no less than 30 US aircraft involved. They droped dingys and a huge life boat from air/sea rescue ac but to no avail. All the king's fighters and all the king's ships couldn't bring that pilot home again. No one wanted to ditch in the sea. They would ride that prey til she gave her last gasp of life before taking a dunk. And that was a "compressed area (North Sea over Germany/English channel)...not the wide expanse of the Pacific. They didn't have all the ELTs then that they do now. So a ditch in the sea especially in the PTO could leave you lost forever. Currents can take you many miles away in a very short time. I would rather end up in taking my chances with Sgt. Schultz at Stalag luft X than be floating in the South Pacific hoping someone...US or Jap gets me before the Sharks or dehydration. If you feel comfortable back then sitting in a dingy waiting for someone to find you, God love you. For me, I take option A, over freaking cold ass land. Just my preference.

P39 expert. The 357th FG which my dad belonged to started off in 39s. The only one of the group that had anything nice to say about the 39 was Yeager and I really doubt he would have traded in anything to fly that in combat. Most of the boys hated the plane. From the "flat spins and augering in" as the song goes most to a T were happy to be flying anything else, especially when they ended up in Mustangs. Read the Poltava Affair about the Frantic missions to see how the Ruskies used and abused the 39.

Biff your comments about landing and taking off between the 2 planes holds true. You can find a lot of pictures of mustangs ( and spits ) nose in the pavement because brakes were applied too soon. On take off you had to bring the power up slowly on the 51 because the torque would skid you off to the left if you firewalled it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 16, 2019)

bobbysocks said:


> You are a braver man than I Gunga Din. If I am in a SE ac and said engine craps out, I want my ever loving butt over terra firma...even if it's frozen.


In the case of single engine a/c, I agree with you; I don't fancy joining the Polar Bear Club via a North Sea dunking any more than the next guy. But we are talking about the P38 here, and given its issues in ETO, I'd opt for the Pacific if I had a choice, despite the navigation concerns, which I don't find that daunting.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 16, 2019)

I'd like to expand on something Mr. Tillman said about about p38 pilots differentiating between the early and later models(the J25 and L). 
The later model p38s, at least as represented by the 474th, the only unit to fly the p38 in the European theater to VE day, seem to have been quite successful. The 474th achieved a slightly better than 4 to 1 kill loss ratio with the 38 and when one considers there usual mission profile with the 9th( loaded with ordinance on the way in) that's pretty impressive. As good as the p51 under thebsame conditions? No, the Mustang was still more successful by a comfortable margin but it should be enough to dispel the often heard trope that even the later model p38s couldn't have got the job done.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 16, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I'd like to expand on something Mr. Tillman said about about p38 pilots differentiating between the early and later models(the J25 and L).
> The later model p38s, at least as represented by the 474th, the only unit to fly the p38 in the European theater to VE day, seem to have been quite successful. The 474th achieved a slightly better than 4 to 1 kill loss ratio with the 38 and when one considers there usual mission profile with the 9th( loaded with ordinance on the way in) that's pretty impressive. As good as the p51 under thebsame conditions? No, the Mustang was still more successful by a comfortable margin but it should be enough to dispel the often heard trope that even the later model p38s couldn't have got the job done.



Michael - the issues in the ETO were related primarily to extreme high altitude cold affecting the intercooler/aftercooler and the oil cooler and GE Turbosuperchargers. Secondary issues but important were that Army Air Force Service command doctrine for cruise management pointed to both low RPM and Boost and really too low cruise speed for margin of safety when attacked. Both of those problems were more or less solved by April 1944 but by the time the 367th and 474th went operational, the 9th AF was out of long range escort game and the 9th AF from late May through EOW were out of high altitude mission requirements. The outfit that did extremely well from May through end of September was the 8th AF 479th FG. Under Zemke's leadership they were scoring as well as the P-51 and P-47. (BTW Zemke opined that of the 3 he flew combat in, the Mustang was the best air supremacy fighter).

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 16, 2019)

drgondog said:


> Michael - the issues in the ETO were related primarily to extreme high altitude cold affecting the intercooler/aftercooler and the oil cooler and GE Turbosuperchargers. Secondary issues but important were that Army Air Force Service command doctrine for cruise management pointed to both low RPM and Boost and really too low cruise speed for margin of safety when attacked. Both of those problems were more or less solved by April 1944 but by the time the 367th and 474th went operational, the 9th AF was out of long range escort game and the 9th AF from late May through EOW were out of high altitude mission requirements. The outfit that did extremely well from May through end of September was the 8th AF 479th FG. Under Zemke's leadership they were scoring as well as the P-51 and P-47. (BTW Zemke opined that of the 3 he flew combat in, the Mustang was the best air supremacy fighter).


Certainly agree with all of that. I guess that's kind of the crux of the matter, by the time the issues with the p38 we're at least for the most part solved the bad impression had been made and the discision had been made to go with the p51 for air superiority as it probably should have been anyway(at least for the most part, can think of a few situations where it would be good to keep a few p47s/ p38s around) had been made. Hey better ( except climb)performance at half the cost and apparently a lower non combat related loss rate also.
It's just that I hear/ read alot of people assert that the the p47/ p38 combination, even the with the J25/ L series, just couldn't get it done in the European theater.
Could they have done as well as the Mustang if they had been chosesn to remain the dominant escort fighters? No I think the p51 still does better by a comfortable margin but I also think the dismissive comments I sometimes hear/ read about the p47/ p38 in Europe don't stack up against the actual numbers.
I guess the simples way to put it is, if youve got a 4 to 1 kill ratio against the enemy and your massively outproducing him on top of it then the outcome is inevitable. Not as good as a 8 to 1 ratio(Mustang) but still ends in the same way albiet certainly at more cost.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 16, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Certainly agree with all of that. I guess that's kind of the crux of the matter, by the time the issues with the p38 we're at least for the most part solved the bad impression had been made and the discision had been made to go with the p51 for air superiority as it probably should have been anyway(at least for the most part, can think of a few situations where it would be good to keep a few p47s/ p38s around) had been made. Hey better ( except climb)performance at half the cost and apparently a lower non combat related loss rate also.
> It's just that I hear/ read alot of people assert that the the p47/ p38 combination, even the with the J25/ L series, just couldn't get it done in the European theater.
> Could they have done as well as the Mustang if they had been chosesn to remain the dominant escort fighters? No I think the p51 still does better by a comfortable margin but I also think the dismissive comments I sometimes hear/ read about the p47/ p38 in Europe don't stack up against the actual numbers.
> I guess the simples way to put it is, if youve got a 4 to 1 kill ratio against the enemy and your massively outproducing him on top of it then the outcome is inevitable. Not as good as a 8 to 1 ratio(Mustang) but still ends in the same way albiet certainly at more cost.



Michael,

I agree. However when the Mustangs are at an 8 to 1 ratio, a 4 point advantage, think about how many more bomber crews survived because 4 less aircraft were airborne, or flying two or three times a day. It adds up.

Cheers, 
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 18, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Certainly agree with all of that. I guess that's kind of the crux of the matter, by the time the issues with the p38 we're at least for the most part solved the bad impression had been made and the discision had been made to go with the p51 for air superiority as it probably should have been anyway(at least for the most part, can think of a few situations where it would be good to keep a few p47s/ p38s around) had been made. Hey better ( except climb)performance at half the cost and apparently a lower non combat related loss rate also.
> It's just that I hear/ read alot of people assert that the the p47/ p38 combination, even the with the J25/ L series, just couldn't get it done in the European theater.
> Could they have done as well as the Mustang if they had been chosesn to remain the dominant escort fighters? No I think the p51 still does better by a comfortable margin but I also think the dismissive comments I sometimes hear/ read about the p47/ p38 in Europe don't stack up against the actual numbers.
> I guess the simples way to put it is, if youve got a 4 to 1 kill ratio against the enemy and your massively outproducing him on top of it then the outcome is inevitable. Not as good as a 8 to 1 ratio(Mustang) but still ends in the same way albiet certainly at more cost.


According to statistics compiled by the USAAF (via Roger Freeman), from the the first appearance of the P-38 over Germany in October 1943 to the end of Big Week in February it took 28 P-38 sorties for each Luftwaffe fighter claimed, it took 27 P-47 sorties per claim, but only 8 P-51 sorties.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 18, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> According to statistics compiled by the USAAF (via Roger Freeman), from the the first appearance of the P-38 over Germany in October 1943 to the end of Big Week in February it took 28 P-38 sorties for each Luftwaffe fighter claimed, it took 27 P-47 sorties per claim, but only 8 P-51 sorties.


Very interesting stats. They point out how successful the p51 was but also the dramatic difference between the effectiveness of the earlier model p38s( pre big week) and the J25/L series( post big week).
As far as the p47 I find those stats a head scratcher as I don't have the numbers here in front of me but to the best of my memory they really cleaned up during big week. Perhaps there were just many more of them.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 21, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> I don't believe that 200gal ferry tank was used in combat. In fact, the Thunderbolt was flying combat missions out of England with the 8th AF without drop tanks between April 30 and July 30 in 1943. No attachment points or any provision at all for external fuel on the new main escort fighter of the 8th AF bombing Germany from England. Then in August they got one 75 gallon belly tank and after that 108 gallon belly tanks became available.


Actually, on July 28th - the 4th FG used the 205 gallon tank operationally to catch 1./JG 3 and I./JG 26 from behind near Emmerich for a 9 for exchange.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Feb 21, 2019)

drgondog said:


> Actually, on July 28th - the 4th FG used the 205 gallon tank operationally to catch 1./JG 3 and I./JG 26 from behind near Emmerich for a 9 for exchange.


Was that mission specific to the 205gal tank? Most sources I've read say no tanks for the P-47 until August, then just 75gal tanks.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 22, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Was that mission specific to the 205gal tank? Most sources I've read say no tanks for the P-47 until August, then just 75gal tanks.


Ramrod on July 28th, 1943. Penetration escort.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Feb 22, 2019)

drgondog said:


> Ramrod on July 28th, 1943. Penetration escort.


Not regular escort missions, right? Those udder tanks weren't used on a regular basis.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 22, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Not regular escort missions, right? Those udder tanks weren't used on a regular basis.


They were 'regular' until the metal 75 and paper 110's were available, then ceased altogether. At best they were only useful until ~20,000 feet of altitude and maybe 100 gallons used. Hunter ordered them to be 'retained', fighter commanders said 'no thanks'. They were not pressurized or leak proof.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 22, 2019)

Since it could take around 90 gallons or so just to get a P-47 off the ground and up to around 25,000ft these tanks did give a nice boost (take off would have been done on internal tanks) and perhaps the initial cruise in was done at a bit lower altitude than normal/desired so the tanks would still feed. Crossing the French/Belgian/Dutch Coast with 25% or more fuel on board could extend the radius quite a bit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 23, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Very interesting stats. They point out how successful the p51 was but also the dramatic difference between the effectiveness of the earlier model p38s( pre big week) and the J25/L series( post big week).
> As far as the p47 I find those stats a head scratcher as I don't have the numbers here in front of me but to the best of my memory they really cleaned up during big week. Perhaps there were just many more of them.


Correct. P-47s flew 12 times the number of sorties.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Feb 23, 2019)

A brief comment , involving WW2 Naval aviators and the P-38. A friend who flew both F4U and F6F ( he was carrier based for the Hellcat) said one day at his land base, a P-38 landed. After much examination of each others planes, Herb and several other Navy types made a couple of circuits in the 38. He kept telling me "It had a wheel like a truck, but turned like a fighter."

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
4 | Funny Funny:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 19, 2019)

Half on topic only but here is what McArthur had to say about the P-38 as a P-40 replacement in July 42
I thought I saved an interesting pilot report last night about P-38 pilots needing multiple days off after long range missions but seems I was too tired to put it in the right folder. I will try and find again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 19, 2019)

Found it. From an undated US Army Pacific Air Intell Report

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 19, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Found it. From an undated US Army Pacific Air Intell Report
> View attachment 535594


I realize that this is a P-38 vs P-51 thread, but I believe these are the seats some P-47 operators had installed in their rigs:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 20, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Half on topic only but here is what McArthur had to say about the P-38 as a P-40 replacement in July 42
> I thought I saved an interesting pilot report last night about P-38 pilots needing multiple days off after long range missions but seems I was too tired to put it in the right folder. I will try and find again.
> 
> View attachment 535524



Discussed in another thread, I came across this article. With that memo written in mid 42' I think the article explains the climate.

Air Force Magazine

He was a superb leader and organizer. He also knew how to get along with MacArthur.

*According to Arnold and Gen. George C. Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, MacArthur's air commander, Lt. Gen. George H. Brett, was in wrong with MacArthur and his staff. Marshall said the situation was rife with clashes of personalities.*

*Brett had in fact been shut off from MacArthur and his staff*

Before he could tackle the logistics issue, he had to face MacArthur. According to Brett, neither* MacArthur nor his staff possessed an understanding of air operations. Yet, he said, after conferring only with his immediate staff, MacArthur made all decisions himself. *

*"You don't win wars with file cabinets," he said. *

Kenney decided to confront (Gen.) Sutherland. In a meeting, he jabbed a dot onto a piece of paper. As he thrust it before MacArthur's chief of staff, he said, "The dot represents what you know about air operations, the entire rest of the paper what I know."

When Sutherland reacted belligerently, Kenney suggested they see MacArthur. Sutherland backed down.

Brett had told Kenney that he rarely saw MacArthur and added, "Every endeavor I have made to explain what I was trying to do has been lost among lengthy dissertations which I would not take the time to deliver to a second lieutenant."

Now, it was Kenney's turn. He recalled, "I listened to a lecture for approximately an hour on the shortcomings of the Air Force in general and the Allied Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific in particular."

The air forces, MacArthur charged, had done nothing.

Kenney interrupted and told him that he would take care of air operations. He added, "If, for any reason, I found that I couldn't work for him, I would tell him so and do everything in my power to get relieved."

*According to Kenney, MacArthur grinned, put his hand on his shoulder, and said, "I think we are going to get along together all right."*

Just because you're a 5 star general doesn't mean you're an authority in air operations. The rest is history.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

