# Dogfighting in a P 38



## snelson (Aug 1, 2016)

i've been thinking again and came up with a few questions. 

1. when in a dogfight could the pilot use throttles to change how the engines worked? i mean one engine on full power the other on half. if so how would the change the flight characteristics, is there any advantage to doing something like this?

2. what about the dive brake? could using it make turns tighter or slow the plane down so they didn't over shoot the target?

i know that i'm not real clear in how i'm asking these questions but thanks anyway.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 1, 2016)

The "dive brakes" were actually "dive recovery flaps" and automatically deployed to alter the airflow over the control surfaces, preventing compressability lockup.

These flaps only existed on the J series onwards, by the way.


----------



## GregP (Aug 1, 2016)

According to former P-38 pilots that give talks at the Planes of Fame, they could throttle up the outside engine and throttle down the inside engine in a tight turn and make it even tighter ... right up to the point where it departs into a spin if they weren't careful. The pilots who have mentioned it said it wasn't too hard to figure out when to stop as the controls got very light.

I have no personal knowledge either way and make no claim. Just reporting what I have heard on occasion. Some around here don't put too much value on eyewitness testimony. I do, though I'll never have a personal chance to test the theories.

I doubt if even Steve Hinton tries that these days ... buy will ask when he is around. There is no war on, particularly for our P-38, and the risk of a low-altitude spin is prohibitive. We DO occasionally use military MAP during an airshow routine, but there has to be a good reason to do it. One such good reason is when Steve flew our P-38 as part of a 3-ship aerobatic act with the Horsemen team. It was beautiful to watch and I have posted the video of it here before.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2016)

_"on my 3rd mission while in a P-38H model. The 2nd was an Oscar while I was flying in a J model. I was particularly proud of this one 'cause I was able to stay inside this maneuverable little rascal's left turn for 360 degrees while doing about 90MPH, and at less than 1000' above the water. That P-38J was bucking and shuddering all the way around in what was nothing more nor less than a controlled stall. I was so close to the Oscar that his engine oil covered my windshield. For the last half of the turn I was shooting at a dark blur that finally burst into-flames. When I saw the Oscar explode I pulled up and started calling for someone to lead me home cause I couldn't see through the oil on my windshield. "Pete" Madison was kind enough to oblige. When we got back to base, I had to crank down the side window and wipe a clear spot on the windshield so I could see enough to land the bird."_

1st Lt. John Tilley, 431st Fighter Squadron, 475th Fighter Group

Secrets of a P-38 Ace. John Tilley's electrifying story

Most P-38 groups in the SW Pacific did not "dogfight" any Japanese fighter, the common tactic was "zoom and boom." There were a handful of select pilots that knew how to control the P-38 at incredibly slow speeds and use differential power to their advantage, but these guys were the exception to the rule.

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


----------



## Token (Aug 1, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The "dive brakes" were actually "dive recovery flaps" and automatically deployed to alter the airflow over the control surfaces, preventing compressability lockup.
> 
> These flaps only existed on the J series onwards, by the way.



Yeah, but could he be talking about the Fowler flaps? Fowler flaps existed much earlier in the run, were manually operated (hydraulically driven), and from sometime in the F model they had a "Combat" setting to increase maneuverability.

Also, are you sure the Dive Recovery Flaps are automatically deployed? The manual says (in "Pilot Operating Instructions", section 18 "Diving", last paragraph "Dive Recovery Flaps") that the Dive Recovery Flaps should be extended before starting the dive, or right after starting the dive. In another section it says that the Dive flaps are electrically operated from a switch on the pilots control wheel and will extend and retract in under 2 seconds, and that this can be checked on the ground.

T!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2016)

GregP said:


> Some around here don't put too much value on eyewitness testimony.



Thats BS Greg and you know it! Put your big boy pants on and stop acting like a butthurt child.

Everyone here puts a lot of value on eyewitness testimony, what pisses people off is when YOU discredit other eyewitness accounts such as the pilots who flew the planes because those accounts are not worth a damn if it was not told at your museum.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 2, 2016)

Token said:


> Yeah, but could he be talking about the Fowler flaps? Fowler flaps existed much earlier in the run, were manually operated (hydraulically driven), and from sometime in the F model they had a "Combat" setting to increase maneuverability.
> 
> Also, are you sure the Dive Recovery Flaps are automatically deployed? The manual says (in "Pilot Operating Instructions", section 18 "Diving", last paragraph "Dive Recovery Flaps") that the Dive Recovery Flaps should be extended before starting the dive, or right after starting the dive. In another section it says that the Dive flaps are electrically operated from a switch on the pilots control wheel and will extend and retract in under 2 seconds, and that this can be checked on the ground.
> 
> T!


The Fowler Flaps were installed on the P-38F mid-production onwards and were extensions on the trailing edges of the wing center section. They were not used in a dive.





The Dive Recovery Flaps were embedded in the wings, just outboard of each engine and when deployed, would restore the lift boundary, during compression, back to the confines of the wing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 2, 2016)

So without the dive recovery flaps, where does the compression happen? 

Is it to where the flaps in the wings won't move or the flaps in the tail won't move?

Also, without the dive flaps, short of it being a fatal mistake, when can the pilot regain control? At lower altitudes where the air is more dense or only when/if the plane slows down so the compression goes away?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 2, 2016)

In a dive where speeds reach the point of compression, the control surfaces become inoperable.

In otherwords, the control surfaces are literally held in place (frozen) by the compression of the airflow and won't respond to the pilot's efforts to pull out of a dive.

The Recovery flaps "lift" (or divert) the compressed airflow away from the control surfaces, which in turn allows the pilot to be able to pull back on the stick and get a response from the aircraft.

In some cases, like the Me262 for example, the pilot "may" regain control in a terminal dive, by pushing forward on the stick, which in turn breaks the compression envelope and allows them to regain control.

This is, of course, if they have enough altitude...


----------



## GregP (Aug 2, 2016)

Geez Adler, what did I do to you today? Whatever it was, it was unintended.

I just haven't had the experiences related by WWII pilots particularly well received. It was not a comment on you or anyone else in particular. You can bet there won't be another from any pilot including me.

Mea culpa.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2016)

GregP said:


> Geez Adler, what did I do to you today? Whatever it was, it was unintended.
> 
> I just haven't had the experiences related by WWII pilots particularly well received. It was not a comment on you or anyone else in particular. You can bet there won't be another from any pilot including me.
> 
> Mea culpa.



Sure it was Greg. It was a cheap shot and you know it. It added nothing to the discussion.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 2, 2016)

GregP said:


> According to former P-38 pilots that give talks at the Planes of Fame, they could throttle up the outside engine and throttle down the inside engine in a tight turn and make it even tighter ... right up to the point where it departs into a spin if they weren't careful. The pilots who have mentioned it said it wasn't too hard to figure out when to stop as the controls got very light.
> 
> *SNIP*



I remember reading waaaay back when, that guys like Dick Bong and Tom McGuire etc. used this method, although I can't remember where I read it and as FBJ already said, only a select few could accomplish it.

I might have read it in a... martin caiden "history" of the P-38, so, you know, there's that to consider.


----------



## Token (Aug 2, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The Fowler Flaps were installed on the P-38F mid-production onwards and were extensions on the trailing edges of the wing center section. They were not used in a dive.




Yes, I understand that the Dive Recovery Flaps and the Fowler flaps are not the same thing. But the OP was asking about using the “dive brake” to improve combat positioning, if not maneuvering, by increasing drag.


My suggestion was that the Fowlers could be manually used, and would increase drag, slowing the aircraft as the OP originally intended. Of course that assumes you are not over the speed rating of the flap position you have selected. But was there a speed rating on the 8% combat setting?


Also, from the pdf copy of the P-38 manual I have it appears the pilot can manually deploy the Dive Recovery Flaps at any time of his choosing.

T!


----------



## wuzak (Aug 2, 2016)

Token said:


> Also, from the pdf copy of the P-38 manual I have it appears the pilot can manually deploy the Dive Recovery Flaps at any time of his choosing.



Aside from operating them differentially, would the dive brakes provide any benefit for turning?

I am doubting that differential dive brake operation was possible, since when they were really needed - in a dive - differential operation could prove disastrous for the pilot if it was selected accidentally instead of full dive brakes.


----------



## GregP (Aug 2, 2016)

You're being a bit sensitive there Adler. I haven't taken a cheap shot at anybody since I got re-employed more than 2 years ago. When I take a shot, it'll be an obvious one, really.

Still, you made your point. No more second-hand stories from old pilots. Nothing to add to that in text or pics. Got it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2016)

GregP said:


> You're being a bit sensitive there Adler. I haven't taken a cheap shot at anybody since I got re-employed more than 2 years ago. When I take a shot, it'll be an obvious one, really.
> 
> Still, you made your point. No more second-hand stories from old pilots. Nothing to add to that in text or pics. Got it.



Are you obtuse?

1. It was obvious. Why make the comment?

2. You obviously did not get my point. I am not saying 2nd hand stories are a no go. I am saying this:

A. Not a single person is against your 2nd hand stories or dislikes them, AS YOU CLAIM.

B. People where sick and tired of you of you discrediting 2nd hand stories others had read in books or heard from others because they differ from ones you heard in your museum. YOU are NOT the only person with these kind of resources abd knowledge.

3. So I say it again. Out the big boy pants on. Stop being butthurt over BS, and quit with the cheap shots.

Look Greg, I am not an asshole, and I am one of the most easy going Mods around here (I have evolved with age...), but I am not going to stand by and ignore such comments that are false, and have no merrit to the discussion.

The ball is in your court. You can quit with the nonsense, and we both move on and forget about it, or we can hash this out. You decide.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 2, 2016)

Adler and Greg, watch any motor race and listen to the commentary, then when there is an accident listen to the two involved racers point of view, the eye witnesses (commentators) frequently havnt got a clue what happened and the two people involved never agree who was at fault, that is the value of eye witness statement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 2, 2016)

I was pretty sure I HAD stopped any attitude more than 2 years ago. 

You can believe it or not, but it wasn't a cheap shot at you. It was a statement that I had heard some former pilots say they could turn the P-38 with differential throttle, as was asked in the opening post, and an allowance by me that some folks don't seem to put much credence to old pilot's recollections. And that's ALL it was.

If you think otherwise, there's nothing I can do about it. I am not an expert in WWII planes, but am around people who are on frequent occasions. I have mostly quit positing what they say since it seems to get taken wrong rather often. This incident makes me want to go back to lurking as there really was no intent at all to say what you have rather obviously taken it for.

I have no axe to grind whatsoever. To the best of my recollection, I haven't sniped at anyone in the last 2 years except maybe James W. ... I plead guilty to that one. I sniped at the F-35, but that's an aircraft and is a far cry from taking shots at forum members. I got told to leave it alone and I have as far as I know, in here.

Your post above is baffling to me since I rather carefully made sure to point no fingers at anyone. Sorry if you didn't like it much, but I honestly can't see that it should be offensive to anyone, much less the chief moderator. It was NOT intended to be so and I really don't want to argue with you or anyone else at all, or even have cross words. I haven't felt as if I was in much of a disagreement with anyone in over 2 years excepting James W.

This discussion is just perplexing to me. I think you are posting to the Greg from 3 - 4 years when I was depressed and angry at the world. I'm not there today and am not harping at anyone. So if it is "in my court" as you stated above, I say there was and IS no intent to insult anyone in here. Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words, but I talk like me, not like someone else. I didn't see it as a potential insult. Sorry you did. No intent for it at all.


----------



## GregP (Aug 2, 2016)

Thanks pbehn. Rather spot on as an observation.

I can go back and read the post, try to put myself in Adler's place, and can see maybe it could be taken that way. But I would never have thought so when I wrote it and posted it. Back when I was unemployed, I should have stayed away ... but there was nothing much else to do and almost no other outlet at the time. Words come back to bite you later, sort of like emails from politicians.

Let's see, it's like a quote from the Bellamy Brothers song, "Life ain't nothing like a bowl of cherrys. There's too little laughter and too much sorrow. It's more like a jar of Jalapenos, 'cause what you do and say today, it don't go away to stay, no it'll just come back and burn your ass tomorrow."

To those people out there whom I have insulted in the past, I'll say let's be friends going forward.

Cheers.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 2, 2016)

GregP said:


> Thanks pbehn. Rather spot on as an observation.
> 
> I can go back and read the post, try to put myself in Adler's place, and can see maybe it could be taken that way. But I would never have thought so when I wrote it and posted it. Back when I was unemployed, I should have stayed away ... but there was nothing much else to do and almost no other outlet at the time. Words come back to bite you later, sort of like emails from politicians.
> 
> ...


I have no idea what the argument is or was you havnt insulted me. I started racing a Suzuki X7(250cc), any road test of a Suzuki X7 will tell you of its faults, unstable prone to weaves at high speed (high speed was 100MPH my tuned version did 110mph) however tuned and sorted I got many second and third places against the later Yamaha RD250LC, I also beat a Laverda 1000cc Jotas and a Ducati 900SS and dozens of Yamaha 400/350s. Many people who saw me ride said I was "mad" despite the fact that I didnt crash. The bike was unstable because it had a light frame and very short wheelbase, it was unbeatable under braking even by open class racers and was lightening quick on steering. The next year I got a Yamaha and started to get a few wins, however I will never forget the stupid ill advised comments of spectators who saw what they saw but didnt actually realise what they were seeing. My bike would shake and squirm but still grip and turn if you treated it right whereas others like the Laverda would just throw the rider up the track with almost no warning. That colour my opinion of eye witness and veterans accounts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2016)

GregP said:


> I was pretty sure I HAD stopped any attitude more than 2 years ago.
> 
> You can believe it or not, but it wasn't a cheap shot at you. It was a statement that I had heard some former pilots say they could turn the P-38 with differential throttle, as was asked in the opening post, and an allowance by me that some folks don't seem to put much credence to old pilot's recollections. And that's ALL it was.
> 
> ...



I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 2, 2016)

I appreciate that.

I'll try to think about it before posting ... maybe that'll either help or make it worse! Hope it helps.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2016)

James W was a sanctioned target

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


----------



## GregP (Aug 2, 2016)

Hi Pbehn,

I know what you mean. I competed on motorcycles for 20 years and have heard various bikes described by different "riders" different ways. One rider remembered the Kawasaki 900 as unbeatable. I recall head shake and a LOT of frame flex, making it a bike that was both powerful as well as very scary when anywhere NEAR the limits of traction.

I quit road racing, after fixing and selling the 750 Suzuki, at age 44 after low-siding at 165 mph and sliding into hay bales somewhere about the middle of a turn. Thing is, I was mostly riding Observed Trials and really didn't have any business out on a paved road course anyway. I was doing it, "for fun," and it wasn't when you fell. Ruined a brand new $1,000 pair of Bates leathers, but also walked away sore instead of seriously injured. The leathers did their job, after a fashion, as did the Shoei helmet. Expensive afternoon for the wallet. But I was running in third at the time, so I think back on it with some fondness that was absent when it happened.

I couldn't use differential throttle to help turn because there was only one engine and the swingarm didn't flex like the old bikes! The Kawasaki 750 Triple had a LOT of frame and swingarm flex coupled with a very "pipey" engine setup that left the front end in the air at various odd times when all you wanted was a short acceleration to the next turn. When the front came down, it would head shake even with a steering damper! I hate tank slappers ... especially when I'm the rider! It certainly interferes with your style as a rider.

Maybe I hit "critical Mach! (_Recall the 750 Triple was called a "Mach III"_). Did you ever race a Suzuki 500 Titan Twin? Now there was an odd duck of a bike. Not remembering it with any special fondness, like with a Yamaha RD350.

I'd love to talk bikes and trade some "scares," but that might seriously wander off-topic in a P-38 Dogfighting thread, eh what? Back to P-38s ... and strange aerodynamic possibilities. I have definitely read that the elevator balances were completely unnecessary, but were placed there at the direction of the USAAF (or USAAC at the timne), specifically the commander of aircraft procurement. But I have no proof of same. I just read about that somewhere in the past. Can't recall quite where, but it seems like the source was a Ben Kelsey interview sometime post-war.

Good one, FlyboyJ!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 2, 2016)

Hey FlyboyJ,

Being as observant as I am, I noticed the IA part of your sig (after all this time) and wanted to ask you a couple of questions.

What is the most frequent discrepancy you notice when certifying an experimental aircraft? I mean one that is a homebuilt, like maybe a Vans RV. The most frequent show stopper if not corrected.

What is the most frequent discrepancy you have seen or heard about at Reno? ... something that needs to be corrected before racing.

Sorry it's off-topic.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2016)

GregP said:


> Hey FlyboyJ,
> 
> Being as observant as I am, I noticed the IA part of your sig (after all this time) and wanted to ask you a couple of questions.
> 
> ...



In both cases - weight and balance and proper documentation (current airworthiness certificate, registrations, ops specs and in the case of the jets, current parachute pack cert. I know it's paperwork but it's still part of being in a safe condition to fly (only certificated aircraft are "airworthy").

As far as physical discrepancies? Homebuilts - structural problems as part as poor construction methods. jet warbirds - clogged filters, both hydraulic and fuel. Someone will spends thousands on a great paint job but will forget or blow off changing a $100 filter.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 2, 2016)

I thought experimental homebuilts also got an airworthiness certificate. What do they get in lieu of one? More specifically, what is it called?

Every plane I flew when I was flying frequently was certified (mostly in clubs), and all the experimental homebuilts I have ridden in were and are owned by friends (or friends of friends) and I didn't inspect the paperwork before going for a flight. I DID pay attention to the preflight inspections and declined to go once when he declined to inspect it even when I asked about it. It was a Midget Mustang. He didn't even check the oil! Pretty close to an RV-7 in performance.

Both he and the plane are still flying. I still wouldn't get into it without a preflight since I have never seen him inspect anything. I can only assume he does it when the hangar doors are closed.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Aug 2, 2016)

try Robin Old's autobiography, he flew P-38s in Europe before switching to Mustangs. He has a lot of first hand accounts. 


Amazon product
_View: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003FQM306/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1#navbar_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2016)

GregP said:


> I thought experimental homebuilts also got an airworthiness certificate. What do they get in lieu of one? More specifically, what is it called?


 They do get an airworthiness certificate but in any type of maintenance or inspection release you use the term "safe for flight," or "safe for operation."


GregP said:


> Every plane I flew when I was flying frequently was certified (mostly in clubs), and all the experimental homebuilts I have ridden in were and are owned by friends (or friends of friends) and I didn't inspect the paperwork before going for a flight. I DID pay attention to the preflight inspections and declined to go once when he declined to inspect it even when I asked about it. It was a Midget Mustang. He didn't even check the oil! Pretty close to an RV-7 in performance.


 Yikes!


GregP said:


> Both he and the plane are still flying. I still wouldn't get into it without a preflight since I have never seen him inspect anything. I can only assume he does it when the hangar doors are closed.


He better! Eventually that will catch up with him!


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 2, 2016)

snelson said:


> i've been thinking again and came up with a few questions.
> 
> 1. when in a dogfight could the pilot use throttles to change how the engines worked? i mean one engine on full power the other on half. if so how would the change the flight characteristics, is there any advantage to doing something like this?
> 
> ...



SNelson,

While I have not flown the P-38 (I did sit in one at the Phoenix Air Races) I did fly the F-15. Yes, we would on occasion pull a throttle but that was done to induce yaw (lateral turns). The Eagle would not do a normal turn tighter on one engine. Also realize we had no restrictions on the flight envelope (or almost none). You could fight in a tail slide if you had to, just don't get inside 500' of another aircraft.

As for speedbrakes we were allowed to use them, however most guys didn't as they could interfere in certain regimes. They are mostly used on formation rejoins or slowing in the pattern or during landing. On landing rollout the Eagle aerobrakes to help slow the aircraft, and if you put the boards down (stowed) and the flaps up, you could hold the nose up to about 60-70 kts (it really looks much slower). I could see a guy in the P-38 using them (with high situational awareness) to cause an attacker to overshoot. However, getting slow in front of a guy who is trying to gun you should be done with altitude below you and when not in his gunsight.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 3, 2016)

Hey Biff,

Was it Lefty Gardner's White Lightning you sat in? I was there and also was there when Kevin Eldridge bailed out. Never thought at the time I'd know him some 30 years later! Great guy, and a lucky one, too. It wasn't pretty when the oil line broke. I went out some 3-4 days later with a good friend ( Ron Saum, we rode Observed Trials motorcycles together and his son, Andy, was Arizona state champion several times) who worked at the GM proving Grounds and found a few parts.

Lefty's P-38 was always dirty and Pat & Joe Yancey sprayed 409 all over it at that show and it shined a bit better ... looked whiter anyway. That was a long time ago, seems like maybe 1985 to 1987, but I can't really recall the exact year. Old memories get older and I can't understand people who remember the year and day when are where they were in WWII, but there are guys who DO recall it. I have a hard time remembering what I had for lunch on Wednesday of last week! ... but I still recall electrical engineering school almost class by class. Maybe I have reason to think of it more. Still, I can remember Kevin's Super Corsair plight VERY clearly, just not the exact year and day. He went out over the left side and should have gone out over the right side. Maybe he would not have hit the horizontal tail ...

As you well know, that's now the Red Bull P-38 and it is all shiny Aluminum. It is a P-38-L-5 (44-53254) with early cowlings, so it looks like an early model, but isn't. But ... you know that already. Lefty flew a good show that day, didn't he?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 3, 2016)

Flaps for manoeuvre and flaps for landing are really two different things though some did use landing flaps to manoeuvre. Many landing flaps could not be lowered incrementally and certainly not at high speed. This was one of the argument put forward for 'blow back' flaps which would, as the name suggests, be blown back into the wing rather than being blown off the aircraft altogether.
Whilst not specifically related to the P-38, some doubt was cast on the use of flaps to manoeuvre in combat at the Patuxent River Fighter Conference. Whilst some claimed it was at least theoretically useful to deploy flaps in combat, and the flaps on certain aircraft were hel[ful in non combat trials, other doubted that a pilot in combat would have the time or foresight to use them. This view was best summed up by the remarks of a Lieutenant Colonel Renner.

_"I asked the question only because I wanted to know of any combat pilot who when bullets are bouncing off the armor plate, or you see those tracers coming over your shoulder and you twisted hell out of that thing and maybe got ready to go straight down, which is one saving grace against the Nip - whether he was thoughtful enough or had enough confidence in those flaps that he would reach over and pull the flap down when he was in a turn and he might want to go down the next instant. I had enough to do to keep track of the Nip and try to get the proper lead and all the other problems in my mind without groping around for that flap handle."_

The limitations of flaps for manoeuvre were explained by a Commander Palmer, referring to the F6F and F4U).

_"I think the basic reason that Andrews mentioned the use of maneuver flaps is that against the present Jap plane you can turn with him for a short while only by use of these maneuver flaps. It is a known fact that you can't turn with those jobs indefinitely. It gives you a momentary advantage during an attack."_

How much were flaps used to manoeuvre, to gain that momentary advantage? I'd bet not much.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Gixxerman (Aug 3, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I have no idea what the argument is or was you havnt insulted me. I started racing a Suzuki X7(250cc), any road test of a Suzuki X7 will tell you of its faults, unstable prone to weaves at high speed (high speed was 100MPH my tuned version did 110mph).



Sorry to digress....

pbehn a fellow X7 rider, well I never.
I loved those little beasties, I had 4 of them 

(one was a Bee-line tuned one that wrecked it's engine inside 1000mls but boy was it fast (well, I know it's all relative, this was the mid - late 80s) & a lot of fun)


----------



## Gixxerman (Aug 3, 2016)

GregP said:


> Maybe I hit "critical Mach! (_Recall the 750 Triple was called a "Mach III"_).



Sorry to put the pedant's hat on here Greg....

The H1 500cc bike was the Mach III, the H2 750 was the Mach IV (and the 350 was the Mach II & the S1 250 was the Mach I, apparently, although outside of the net I'd never seen that used for the smaller bikes before even if it does kind of make sense).



GregP said:


> Did you ever race a Suzuki 500 Titan Twin?



I had a GT500 which was a later disc braked version of the T. Quite detuned too by all accounts as the T could reach 105 - 110mph & the GT was lucky to break the ton.
Didn't race it but unless it was seriously altered for racing I shudder at the thought, it was so long!


----------



## pbehn (Aug 3, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> SNelson,
> 
> While I have not flown the P-38 (I did sit in one at the Phoenix Air Races) I did fly the F-15. Yes, we would on occasion pull a throttle but that was done to induce yaw (lateral turns). The Eagle would not do a normal turn tighter on one engine. Also realize we had no restrictions on the flight envelope (or almost none). You could fight in a tail slide if you had to, just don't get inside 500' of another aircraft.
> 
> ...


Biff, after a training "fight" how much did pilots recollections differ from each other and from verified radar/camera flight recorder information?


----------



## pbehn (Aug 3, 2016)

Gixxerman said:


> Sorry to digress....
> 
> pbehn a fellow X7 rider, well I never.
> I loved those little beasties, I had 4 of them
> ...


He He He didnt the tuner tell you that tuning shortens engine life? I used to change pistons, rings and little end bearings after about 200miles, with the cut down skirt and larger ports the pistons have a much harder life, one piston was cracked and just about ready to "go" on strip down.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 3, 2016)

GregP said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> He didn't even check the oil! Pretty close to an RV-7 in performance.
> 
> *SNIP*



Built a nice rod for a customer once in about 1990, he came in one day in his two/three year old Eldorado making funny engine noises. We're a resto shop but I had him pop the hood, yeah, funny noises like rod knock. Pulled the dipstick, on the end was a burned glob of black something or other. I asked him when was the last time he put oil in it. His response?

"Put oil in? Didn't it come from the factory with oil?"

There are days I have no hope for the human race.

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


----------



## eagledad (Aug 3, 2016)

Gentlemen,

To the original subject:

From what I remember, the 5th AF recommended “Dive and Zoom” tactics against the Japanese aircraft. They did not recommend using the maneuver flaps and/or dive flaps to try and turn with the Japanese fighters. I believe that tests against the Zeke 52 confirmed the wisdom of the advice.

The 8th Air Force P-38 drivers tried to lure the German fighters into horizontal combat where the Lightning would have the edge. 8th Air Force documents indicated that the P-38 was superior to both the Me-109 and FW-190 below 18,000 feet.

In the 15th Air Force, the commander of the 14th Fighter Group (O.B. Taylor) felt the P-38 could out maneuver any aircraft, friend or foe, below 30,000 feet.

Maneuver Flaps: As stated in an earlier post, these became available in late block F models. They increased the P-38’s ability to turn and maneuver by increasing the wing’s CL and actually increasing the wing area (Dean in America’s 100000). The use of the flaps were restricted to 250 IAS or less.

I believe that most fighter pilots, if given a choice would vastly prefer the Dive and Zoom attack over any other form.

Of course, whoever sees his opponent first has a great edge, and the P-38’s shape usually gave that advantage to its opponent.

If you engage in air to air combat on even terms, you have messed up somewhere.

Eagledad


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 3, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Biff, after a training "fight" how much did pilots recollections differ from each other and from verified radar/camera flight recorder information?



Pbehn,

During upgrade sorties I usually took notes of some sort during lulls or between fights. No grade sheet attached usually not as both guys had two tapes per plane running and the data to reconstruct a fight was there with some sleuthing required. Odds were you would have most of what you needed. 

During initial training I could not reconstruct a fight from memory only, however with time and practice you get good at it. Some guys are better than most, no surprise there. Also realize that when debriefing a Basic Fighter Maneuver (BFM) ride, AKA dogfighting, the lines are drawn VERY accurately so the true learning points can be pulled out. Do it long enough and you know almost instantly during a fight when a learning point occurs. Those points are also known as errors. I usually made a comment, chuckle or oh s--t when those occurred depending on whether I was winning, losing or breaking even...

When reading about engagements I take them with a grain of salt, filtered through my experiences and do not give them an easy 100% accurate cred rating. I look for detail in the story along with acknowledgement of own ship errors, along with time between the event and when pen was put to paper. The standout guys when viewed thru those filters are Bud Anderson and Gunther Rall. Remember this is all opine based filtering!

There is nothing like winning at something very competitive, and ego and time tend to distort those. 

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 3, 2016)

GregP said:


> Hey Biff,
> 
> Was it Lefty Gardner's White Lightning you sat in? I was there and also was there when Kevin Eldridge bailed out. Never thought at the time I'd know him some 30 years later! Great guy, and a lucky one, too. It wasn't pretty when the oil line broke. I went out some 3-4 days later with a good friend ( Ron Saum, we rode Observed Trials motorcycles together and his son, Andy, was Arizona state champion several times) who worked at the GM proving Grounds and found a few parts.
> 
> ...



Greg,

That Corsair went down at the 94 Phoenix Air Races. Jimmy Buffet was the concert dujour (SP?). I remember it as it was my first year on the F-15 West Coast Demo Team. It was very cool to go to the pilot meeting every morning and see all those guys, Lefty, Hoover, etc., that I had followed via Air Classics.

I did not sit in Lefty's plane, although I'm pretty sure it was there. I don't remember the plane other than it was silver, and pretty sure it was a J or L model. The visibility out of it was atrocious. Those motors are huge and take up a lot of visual space, plus the girders that frame the cockpit were quite distracting. However, remember my point of reference is an Eagle.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 4, 2016)

Thanks Biff. I remember the "race" almost second by second, but the exact year didn't seem to stick out. It was only 21 years ago ... I had a hand-held at the race and was listening in on place-to-plane. They were taking turns leading. It wasn't really a race ... it was more like "rally 'round the race course and let them see what an air race might be like." I suppose there wasn't really enough money there to stage a real race. Seems a shame to lose the Super Corsair in a demonstration run, doesn't it?

Don't recall the other P-38's monicker because I was mostly over at Lefty's plane. Too bad the main sponsor, "Incredible Universe," went bankrupt a couple of years later and the "race" went away. An acquaintance of mine still has one of their old delivery trucks. It wasn't bad as a show, but definitely wasn't a race. They had the monster truck "Grave Digger" there to do some wheelies and jump a car, and did a biplane - jet car drag race. Since it was an ex-military field, the drag race truck got up to some 300 mph before he popped his chutes!

Unless I mis-remember (could be) the aerobatic acts were Leo Loudenslager in the Bud Light Special and Bob Hoover. Could be wrong because there were 2 or 3 "Phoenix 500s" before it died off.

Good times well past, but not forgotten.

We all miss Leo and Wes Winter.

I'm glad I wasn't in Texas when Wes pulled the wings off of his Partenavia P-68. I have seen that footage as reported on Japanese TV and the posters think it happened in Japan rather than in Texas due to the language being spoken! Go figure. I could post it here, but it's not the sort of thing I like to remember an old friend by.

Cheers. Keep 'em flying.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Aug 5, 2016)

GregP said:


> Hey Biff,
> 
> Was it Lefty Gardner's White Lightning you sat in? I was there and also was there when Kevin Eldridge bailed out. Never thought at the time I'd know him some 30 years later! Great guy, and a lucky one, too. It wasn't pretty when the oil line broke. I went out some 3-4 days later with a good friend ( Ron Saum, we rode Observed Trials motorcycles together and his son, Andy, was Arizona state champion several times) who worked at the GM proving Grounds and found a few parts.
> 
> ...



Greg, we may have met and not known it... I spent a lot of time at Lefty's P-38 in Reno ('86-88). I've got a couple of cousins that live in Stead and one can watch the races from their driveway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hiromachi (Aug 5, 2016)

Since this was touched on the first page, few posts under OP, then I thought bringing US Army Air Force information would add to the discussion as well. Following is based on US Army Air Force Informational Intelligence Summary from May 10th, 1944. It provides a decent perspective on Type I Model I Japanese fighter (Oscar) and P-38 and how they compare. 
Not that P-38 exact model is to me unknown, tests were carried in SWPA and at given time it could be anything from late G model to whatever else was being supplied, also Oscar was not in amazing condition and based on numbers pilots gave, it was flown below recommended combat power, since pilot used 30"Hg MAP and 2100 RPM on all maneuvers, while recommended is +130 mmHg MAP (35"Hg) at 2600 RPM. It was even below normal power (I'm not going into terms right now, Japanese had many intermediate terms for various engine settings ranging from economical cruising up to overboost, depending on throttle position) which is +40 mmHg (31.5"Hg) and 2480 RPM. P-38 on the other hand operated without radio, but carried full combat load of ammunition. For climbs pilot used 40"Hg-45"Hg MAP at 2600-3000 RPM and according to quote: "climbed 3,500 to 4,000 feet per minute to 20,000 feet."

So wasting no more time here is the quote, based on Jim Long (j-aircraft.com) excerpt from AAF Intelligence Summary:


> *REPORT OF OSCAR PILOT
> 
> Tests at 5,000, 10,000 ft.*
> 
> ...



Based on this I find it hard to believe that P-38 could keep with Oscar, maybe with a damaged one but data above makes it rather one sided for any maneuvers involving turning. Also it seems that Oscar suffered a lot less than Zero with high stick forces on ailerons and could keep up in rolls with P-38 at least to a certain degree. P-38 on the other hand possessed a clear and obvious speed and climb advantage, albeit it still has to be remembered that Oscar was not in perfect condition here.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 5, 2016)

Hi Soulezoo,

Maybe so. It was a good time at any rate. Lefty flew the crap out of that P-38 and did what I'd call "minimal" maintenance. It wasn't until it was a bit "tired" that many items would get addressed and corrected. Despite that, he always put on a great show.

I'd hesitate to make any combat conclusion against a plane not being flown at combat power or by a pilot not familiar with the aircraft. I doubt seriously if the P-38 / Oscar comparison means much when compared with a combat encounter with an early-war, well-trained Japanese veteran combat pilot in the Oscar. But it does make an interesting read.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> Based on this I find it hard to believe that P-38 could keep with Oscar.



At the end of the day you're leaving out one important aspect - pilot skill.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Aug 5, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> At the end of the day you're leaving out one important aspect - pilot skill.



I agree. While we make many threads about the advantages/disadvantages of differing aircraft discussing ad infinitum (and it can be fun doing so, that's why we are here) in the end, it is about the ability of one pilot to be able to harness the ability of his craft and impose his will on the opponent. Finnish Buffaloes anyone?

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


----------



## Hiromachi (Aug 5, 2016)

I'm not leaving it Flyboyj, I am fully aware that good pilot will bring best of his aircraft and bad pilot will struggle with basics. But pilot skill is something hard to measure and harder to put into equation, thus a standard tests carried on captured equipment are a decent way to judge things. No perfect by all means, but they give perspective.

I mean they were usually carried in such a way that pilots flew aircraft, tested them and compared and then swapped places to see how it looks from different perspective and only then they would form conclusions. Those were given to combat pilots to gain advantage over the enemy. If you ask me, thats pretty huge responsibility given to those men since others would possibly follow their correct or incorrect advises.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> I'm not leaving it Flyboyj, I am fully aware that good pilot will bring best of his aircraft and bad pilot will struggle with basics. But pilot skill is something hard to measure and harder to put into equation, thus a standard tests carried on captured equipment are a decent way to judge things. No perfect by all means, but they give perspective.


And all true, but again consider the total picture when hearing about someone like John Tilley who did turn inside an Oscar at 90 knts, shoot down the aircraft and live to tell about, and I know he wasn't the only one who managed to do this.


----------



## Hiromachi (Aug 6, 2016)

I consider that as well. The problem is my nature, I just like to know both sides of the coin. And in this case we only know what Mr. John Tilley said, we dont know the point of view of that poor guy who got shot down. Maybe he was wounded ? Maybe his aircraft was damaged or exhibited unexpected problems ? Any of this could happen and be the reason why good pilot such as Mr John Tilley managed to get a firing solution. 

Anyway, thats about the rant. I also have a question in regard to P-38, F model specifically. Do anyone know when last of them were replaced on the frontlines ? When going through Pacific Wrecks I was able to find F models in combat all the way to 1944.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 6, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> we dont know the point of view of that poor guy who got shot down. Maybe he was wounded ? Maybe his aircraft was damaged or exhibited unexpected problems ? Any of this could happen and be the reason why good pilot such as Mr John Tilley managed to get a firing solution.


 How about considering the Japanese pilot lacked either skill or training?!?!



Hiromachi said:


> I also have a question in regard to P-38, F model specifically. Do anyone know when last of them were replaced on the frontlines ? When going through Pacific Wrecks I was able to find F models in combat all the way to 1944.


 From what I could see it seemed like some units had earlier model P-38s well into 1944. This may be due to "attrition replacement' where individual tail numbers may not be replaced with a newer aircraft until it has flown a certain amount of hours or until the airframe is lost or "beyond economical repair." Although later model P-38s offered great improvements over earlier models, the specific theater combined with operational results might not have warranted the rapid replacement of these aircraft.


----------



## Hiromachi (Aug 6, 2016)

Sure, there is such possibility. But its as good assumption as any other.


----------



## vdorta (Aug 6, 2016)

snelson said:


> 1. when in a dogfight could the pilot use throttles to change how the engines worked? i mean one engine on full power the other on half. if so how would the change the flight characteristics, is there any advantage to doing something like this?
> 
> 2. what about the dive brake? could using it make turns tighter or slow the plane down so they didn't over shoot the target?



1. Yes, by doing that you can tighten your radius of turn and gain a momentary advantage and, as has been said, it was only used sparingly and by the best pilots. I remember reading a detailed explanation by a P-38 pilot in a book years ago.

2. Not the dive brake; the maneuvering flap was the first 8-degree position of the Fowler landing flaps.


----------



## eagledad (Aug 6, 2016)

If I remember correctly, the P-38F's flew their last combat missions with the 82nd FG the end of May 1944, though the first J's were used in early 1944.

Up in the Aleutians, P-38G's were used along with newer versions of the P-38 into 1945.

Eagledad


----------



## MIflyer (Aug 6, 2016)

A big deal on the P-38 was when they added the hydraulic boost for the ailerons on the L models. But this boost was not like that on more modern aircraft there was no proportional "partial" use or "Q feel" system that automatically adjusted the amount of back pressure to the pilot to account for differing speed and altitude. When you slow an airplane you need to move the controls a lot more than when you are going faster. I even recall a period where my airplane had been down for months for a engine top overhaul; when I flew it and then slowed it before turning base leg I thought, "What's wrong with this things? The roll rate has gotten terrible!" Then I realized I was only doing 60 MPH and all was normal. The jets had the ability to get a little bit of boost by moving the stick not too far and the Century series fighters had Q feel systems designed to let you move the stick with the same amount of effort at low or high speed and get the same results. The only such system I have had some experience with was that for the F-106; it used very high pressure bottled air to power the system and if a certain thing went wrong the pilot had 3000 PSI on the rudder pedals. 

But with the hydraulically boosted ailerons on the P-38L you got it all and you got it right now! In a hard maneuvering dogfight that was fine - if you expected it. When a group of P-38 pilots from Gerry Johnson's unit in the PI went to pick up some new P-38L's, flying on the way home they were horrified. The airplanes were all but uncontrollable! Level flight seemed to be almost impossible; a slow drunken roll from side to side was all they could manage. They realized that landing with that control problem was going to be a nightmare. One pilot even said he planned to just point the airplane over a big lake and bail out when they got to home base. 

Then one pilot noticed a valve labeled "Aileron Boost" and tried turning it off. Then all was back to normal. No one had even told the pilots about the new aileron boost feature! Furthermore, it was NEVER supposed to be used for takeoff, landing, cruise, or formation flight! Someone at the depot had turned the boost system on, presumably to test it, and then not bothered to turn it off. They were all lucky they did not crash on takeoff.

Capt Eric Brown of the Fleet Air Arm said that while he found the roll rate of the stock P-38 to be unimpressive that the models with the hydraulic boost system "rolled like a dingbat." And apparently they did. On one mission Gerry Johnson decided to show his men how it was done, said, "Watch this!" and outmaneuvered a Japanese fighter, using a combination of the hair curling roll rate and the P-38L's famous zoom climb capability to essentially out turn the enemy fighter in what I guess was a form of High Speed Yo Yo. A P-38 pilot's son I know said his Dad put it this way, "When we got that aileron boost that's when we really became the Fork Tailed Devils."

And by the way, the "dive brakes" were not like flaps at all. They are at the midpoint of the wing, not the trailing edge, and are hinged so that they come down with a V shape, like long inverted pyramids under the wing, to brake up the airflow.

Y'all have a good weekend and Happy Enola Gay Day!

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


----------



## wuzak (Aug 6, 2016)

Then again....

From Francis Dean, _America's Hundred Thousand_:

_The P-38 was a large and heavy fighter not suited for quick "snap" or "slam-bang" maneuvers, and had a particularly slow initial response to roll due to a a *high lateral inertia* characteristic. The problem was a slow start into a roll and thus an inability to switch quickly from one attitude to another, as in reversing from a turn in one direction to one in the other. As one pilot said "It was disconcerting to have a fighter barreling in on you, crank the wheel over hard, and just have the P-38 sit there. Then, after it slowly rolled the first five or ten degrees of bank it would turn quickly, but the hesitation was sweat producing". Many combat losses, particularly in North Africa, were attributed to this creaky initial rate of roll. Another pilot noted "The first ten degrees of bank came very slow". *Power boosted ailerons*, introduced the same time as dive recovery flaps, *gave the P-38 pilot a lot more "muscle" to improve roll characteristics at high speeds, but did nothing to improve them at low and moderate speeds where maximum roll performance was dependent only on full aileron deflection instead of pilot effort*.
_
What I understand from that is that at low to moderate speeds the pilot could achieve full deflection of the ailerons without too much effort, meaning that the rate of roll was all down to the great god of aerodynamics and Newton's laws. 

Getting the ailerons deflected in half the time or with less physical effort mattered little to the roll rate at low speeds.

At high speeds the ailerons cannot be fully deflected, the roll performance depending on how far they can be, which is dependent on the force applied to them through the stick. With no assistance it wasn't a whole lot, but with assistance it was a great improvement.

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


----------



## BLine22 (Aug 6, 2016)

vdorta said:


> 1. Yes, by doing that you can tighten your radius of turn and gain a momentary advantage and, as has been said, it was only used sparingly and by the best pilots. I remember reading a detailed explanation by a P-38 pilot in a book years ago.



Using asymmetrical thrust in level turn will just create a skidded turn just like using to much rudder to tighten the turn. From what I have read about the P-38, asymmetrical thrust was used in vertical maneuvers like wing-overs and hammer -head type course reversals.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## snelson (Aug 11, 2016)

thanks for the info guys. i've heard story's about how the 38 was outclassed by single engine aircraft, yet some of our best ace's flew it. what would a P 38 need to do against German planes boom and voom or run for it.


----------



## GregP (Aug 11, 2016)

Our two top aces flew the P-38. That would be Dick Bong and Tommy McGuire.

In their cases, they were stationed around some quite active Japanese airfields. They probably had a lot more "opportunity" for aerial combat than many other pilots did after V-E day. Not to say anything negative about their skills at all ... I was just pointing out that they actually saw airborne Japanese aircraft and likely had more opportunity to score more than a lot of other pilots did.


----------



## Frank Stewart (Aug 13, 2016)

GregP said:


> Hi Pbehn,
> 
> I know what you mean. I competed on motorcycles for 20 years and have heard various bikes described by different "riders" different ways. One rider remembered the Kawasaki 900 as unbeatable. I recall head shake and a LOT of frame flex, making it a bike that was both powerful as well as very scary when anywhere NEAR the limits of traction.
> 
> ...


I started on a Kwacker 500 triple while I was stationed in Ethiopia and it was fast for the time. It would do an honest 125 according to the timer's stop watch. I did not know that it handled like crap until much later when I was stationed in Heidelberg FRG. I lived in Dias Bach and worked in Patton Barracks and commuted over the mountain on the new Kwacker 750 Triple that I brought with me as Household goods. It was the first one in Germany and we destroyed the 750 cc Street stock class, which everyone knew were not stock. But it was probably the only stock bike on the track that first year. I traded up to the 900 four and for the first time I had a bike which handled well, or so I thought until I rode a Norton Commando Caffe Racer! That second season we did well enough to earn a Sponsored ride on a TZ-1 Yamaha water pumper that came in a crate and had to be assembled by the buyer. It had two sets of cylinders and pistons so it could run in either the 250, or 350 cc classes. It did 165 with the 350s in it in the traps at Hockenheim Ring south of Heidelberg, which was my home track. I crashed the bike at speed in front of my wife and kids and 35 of my Platoonies right under the TV camera stand broadcasting to 17 million Germans coming out of the Ost Curve? That was the end of that because until that time my wife did not know how dangerous it was. So when we came home for the first time in almost 7 years, I bought a CanAm dirt bike for all the "slow" dirt sports. Did you know they would go over the tonne right out of the crate?


----------



## GregP (Aug 13, 2016)

Yep. All the big off road bikes will go fast, assuming they are WRs. They accelerate like a bat outta' hell with motocross gearing, but only in the motocross speed ranges. Give me a WR any day.

My old favorite in the woods was a Husky 390 WR, but any Can Am WR was a serious contender. The primary factor was the person riding it. Disk Burleson was fast in the woods on anything. He could do 75 mph in woods and never hit a tree when most of us were seriously dodging trees at 45 mph.

None of which has anything to do with Luftwaffe aircraft, but IS fun to remember on occasion. Of all the riding I did, Observed Trials was the most fun by long shot.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Aug 15, 2016)

GregP said:


> Our two top aces flew the P-38. That would be Dick Bong and Tommy McGuire.



Not only the top 2 aces, but of the top 10 US aces, 3 of them flew the P-38 (the other P-38 driver on the top 10 list is Charles MacDonald). The F4U and the P-47 each have two pilots in the top 10 (although one of the P-47 drivers, Francis Gabreski, got some of his kills in the Spitfire), all other aircraft, F6F, F4F, and P-51 only have a single pilot in the top 10.

T!


----------



## GregP (Aug 16, 2016)

Yes, the "top ten" are all over the map, aircraft-wise. It tells a story of opportunity and gives credence that a combat outcome was much more dependent on pilot skill and initial situation than on the aircraft being flown.

Greg Boyington would be in there had his AVG victories happened while flying for the USA, but the AVG were not a US military group. So while he DID score 28, only 22 were in US military service. I'm pretty sure his early victories were in P-40s and the US Marines score was in F4Us. You can dispute his AVG score if you have some primary document proof. The Marines recognize his 6 kills with the AVG (maybe 5.75?) with 22 while in US Marine service.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 16, 2016)

What bothers me, and always has bothered me is that the AVG credited Boyington with 2 air and 2 1/2 ground but the USMC accepted Boyingtons claims for "6 air" with no corroborating authority? Tex Hill stated that Boyington's claims were BS - not just his claims of '6 air' but also his claims of 30 ground. I have no horse in this game but Tex Hill had a lot of credibility with his peers.

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


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 16, 2016)

and didn't Boyington claim he got another one ( not witnessed by anyone else ) just before he went down?


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 16, 2016)

there are a few other americans like don gentile who got some of their kills in spitfires and hurricanes. there are some guys who made top aces in certain planes but which plane more aces out of the men??? I would say the 109 for the LW, spitfire for the RAF, and 51 for the US


----------



## GregP (Aug 16, 2016)

The F6F has to rank right up there near the top of that list, but I couldn't say for sure which one created more aces. Certainly the F6F did whatever it did in a shorter time than the P-51 did, probably due more to more frequent opportunities than to any other factor.

As for Boyington, I am NOT a fan of post-war, and especially WAY LATER post-war, revisionism unless they are going to scrutinize every single kill equally. The guys who raised a stink about Boyington were close friends with Joe Foss and wanted him to out-rank Boyington, mostly for political reasons. They got their wish and he got elected state representative and governor of South Dakota, but I doubt seriously they ever srcrutinized Foss's kills as equally as they did Boyington's.

I make no claim right here that any of Foss's victories were questionable or that Greg Boyington's weren't, for that matter, but to look carefully at one or two individuals and not to look at others with an equally doubtful eye is just wrong. It is "selective review" by people with a personal agenda and the power to implement it ... that almost always results in an unfair outcome. If it hasn't in some case, I haven't heard of it ... which doesn't mean it never happened.

It would be interesting to see how all the WWII victories would stand up to equal review, and not just for US claims. I suspect there would be widespread adjustments downward, mostly not from deliberate overclaiming, but rather from combat events that might preclude someone from continuous observation of a "kill" going down and crashing, particularly if scored at high altitude or above a cloud layer.

The victory claims by bomber gunners in large formations are an entirely different case that I will simply decline to speculate about here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 16, 2016)

Greg - the F6F was in combat ops in Southwest Pacific in August 1943, four months ahead of the P-51B. Of the 6300 'all in' P-51 victory credits, including RAF, less than 100 were scored in P-51/Mark I and IA, P-51A and A-36.

The P-51B/C alone was far ahead of the F6F until long after the Mariana's campaign ended in August 1944.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 16, 2016)

Not too sure the F6F was deployed as rapidly as the P-51. The PTO was, after all, the lesser priority of the two theaters as far as new equipment went. Without knowing for sure, I'd bet the F6F was deployed in far fewer numbers in a set timeframe. They didn't have many "bases" to deploy them to and the carriers wouldn't hold all that many Hellcats each.

Not really arguing the point at all, though I have seen it claimed otherwise in the past in other places. Just saying the difference in awarded victories for the two types was not great and the P-51 would seem to have had a definite advantage in having to escort bombers when enemy aircraft were almost certain to be encountered while the F6F had to fly combat air patrols and hope to encounter enemy aircraft over a large ocean. They also could be reasonably certain of encountering Japanese aircraft in the vicinity of well-known locations for Japanese airfields. I'd think that the encounters in the PTO were naturally mostly over water and were much smaller in overall aircraft numbers than any normal raid in the ETO.

I have never located a source for a summary of Naval aircraft victories that has the same information as the USAAF data does, so I can't really tell. But the Japanese certainly made many fewer aircraft than Germany, and they were much more widely spread out due to the nature of being mostly in a big ocean. With a certainty, the P-51 never even approached the kill-to-loss ratio of the F6F against enemy aircraft. That could easily be due to the very fact of lesser numbers and more congested combat area at the same time. If a flight of, say 8 Hellcats encountered a flight of, say, A6Ms, the two flights would almost certainly be more concentrated together than a typical fight in the ETO, where several sets of enemy aircraft could come out of the sun from different directions, more or less all at the same time.

It would be an interesting comparison, and I'm not even sure what questions to ask, much less of the outcome of such an analysis, assuming the data exist at all. Perhaps not. I still think the total victory awards for the two aircraft are so close as be rather insignificant in actual numbers. The local conditions for aerial combat are more interesting to me than the theater. 

The F6F probably had a smaller chance of encountering an enemy aircraft on an average mission, but a much great chance of acvtually engaging when enemy aircraft were spotted.

This is NOT intended to make any sort of statement negative about the P-51 at all. I was just thinking about potential battle over land defended by planes trying to intercept more or less known bomber streams versus potential battle of at sea or over some enemy airfield when many fewer aircraft were usually involved in any single encounter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2016)

Grumman had been working on a successor to the F4F Wildcat since 1938 and the contract for the prototype *XF6F-1* was signed on 30 June 1941.

26 Jun 1942 The Grumman XF6F-3 Hellcat prototype made its maiden flight.

The first production F6F-3, powered by an R-2800-10, flew on 3 October 1942, with the type reaching operational readiness with VF-9 on USS Essex in February 1943

31 Aug 1943 The first combat mission of the US Navy's latest fighter aircraft occurred when F6F-3 Hellcat fighters of VF-5 operating from the carrier USS Yorktown assisted in an attack on Japanese installations on Marcus Island.

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


----------



## GregP (Aug 17, 2016)

I think they both did a very good job and, behind the F8F Bearcat and maybe the A6M Zero, the P-51 and F6F are my favorite WWII fighters. Perhaps I just like the looks of a radial fighter. When I say favorite, I mean looks alone.

When it comes to effectiveness, the Spitfire, Bf 109, Fw 190, P-51 and F6F are all outstanding. Many others could be added. It is amazing to me that the various designers came up with so many designs with performances so similar to one another yet so different in approach. 

It's like Olympic sprinters. They come from all over and from diverse backgrounds and cultures ... and run within a hair of one another.


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 17, 2016)

GregP said:


> It is amazing to me that the various designers came up with so many designs with performances so similar to one another yet so different in approach.
> 
> It's like Olympic sprinters. They come from all over and from diverse backgrounds and cultures ... and run within a hair of one another.



Agree 100%.

But also because of these differences, each had an area where they were better than the others. One performs better between 10 and 15,000 feet. One is better between 15 and 20,000 feet. One dives better. One climbs better.

And this is why we love these little metal beasts!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 17, 2016)

drgondog said:


> What bothers me, and always has bothered me is that the AVG credited Boyington with 2 air and 2 1/2 ground but the USMC accepted Boyingtons claims for "6 air" with no corroborating authority? Tex Hill stated that Boyington's claims were BS - not just his claims of '6 air' but also his claims of 30 ground. I have no horse in this game but Tex Hill had a lot of credibility with his peers.




If memory serves, and it is probably letting me down but anyway, back in the late 80's early 90's I think, I heard Tex Hill speak at the Air Force Museum in Ohio. What a guy. During a Q & A session someone brought up Boyington, probably because of that terrible TV show back in the 70's. At any rate, let's just say the General Hill was quite the gentleman about it, but I got the distinct impression he had doubts about Boyingtons claims.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 17, 2016)

GregP said:


> Not too sure the F6F was deployed as rapidly as the P-51. The PTO was, after all, the lesser priority of the two theaters as far as new equipment went. Without knowing for sure, I'd bet the F6F was deployed in far fewer numbers in a set timeframe. They didn't have many "bases" to deploy them to and the carriers wouldn't hold all that many Hellcats each.
> 
> *The point you made wasn't 'deployed as rapidly as the P-51", it was that the P-51 was deployed earlier than the F6F. The F6F deployment was in the Fleet and extended to Atlantic and Pacific. True the carriers did not carry as many F6Fs per carrier as a single Fighter Group in the ETO/MTO, That said, the Carrier Task Forces sailed into Japanese territory and engaged continuously as part of the assault/neutralization and met continuously and aggressively from strongholds like Truk whereas the LW tended to avoid the P-51 escorts.*
> 
> ...



The big air to air battles in the Pacific were largely USN fleet fighter engagements with Japanese Land based aircraft. The nature of US bomber stream escort is that the LW avoided engagement with fighters and chose unprotected spots in the bomber stream to attack. Conversely the Japanese fighter sought out the American forces and engaged American fighters without reservation.

As to US claims vs Japanese/German losses. The match up of German losses, when examining available LW loss to AAF fighter credits, was far closer than when comparing US (USN, USMC, AAF) victory credits to actual reported Japanese losses. Additionally, the ocean leaves little evidence of a downed Japanese aircraft

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 17, 2016)

drgondog said:


> . Additionally, the ocean leaves little evidence of a downed Japanese aircraft



It, or at least the English Channel and North Sea, also provide a convenient explanation of the yawning gap between aircraft claimed shot down and those you can actually find on your island 
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 17, 2016)

One very nice fact about AAF Missing aircrew reports in the ETO/MTO is that the LW wrote their own accounts of that particular downed aircraft found on their soil. The ventured 'cause' was often questionable as it was a ground crew that arrived on-site 15 to 60 minutes afterwards, but the connectivity to the dogtags and serial number/type aircraft often very reliable..

Nobody wrote detailed reports on aircraft destroyed in the PTO/CBI

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 17, 2016)

drgondog said:


> One very nice fact about AAF Missing aircrew reports in the ETO/MTO is that the LW wrote their own accounts of that particular downed aircraft found on their soil.



As did the British. Crashed Enemy Aircraft Reports also included photographs, though sometimes of a smoking hole in the ground. RAF Air Intelligence was understandably keen to ascertain any developments in German aircraft and their technologies and the reports were written by department AI1(g) which also maintained close ties with the RAE at Farnborough.

German prisoners were also questioned (obviously) by another department, A1(k), under Group Captain S D Felkin, which was also responsible for captured documents, an amazing number of which Luftwaffe crews were carrying when captured, contrary to standing orders.

R.V Jones, who knew a thing or two about military intelligence, wrote of Felkin's endeavours.

_"The fact is that, thanks to Group Captain Felkin's outstanding work, Prisoner of War interrogation reached a standard of efficiency far exceeding that known in any previous war; and the flow of information that he continuously maintained throughout constituted one of our most important sources of Intelligence."_

Jones would have been particularly grateful for intelligence gathered by Felkin relevant to the so called 'battle of the beams'.

Cheers

Steve

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


----------



## GregP (Aug 17, 2016)

I've been told by more than a few former Naval aviators that the dogfights in the Pacific tended to include only 8 to 16 - 20 aircraft and were a lot easier to keep track of than protracted fights with a lot of airplanes over land. By 8 to 20, I mean two flight of four each fighting or possible two flights of 8 - 10 each fighting. Many fights were 4 on 4.

So, the Navy pilots I have hear are under the impression that their claims are much more reliable than claims from a large melee above the clouds where "victims" might be smoking and trying to get into the clouds to escape or might actually be going down.

I have no way to gauge the accuracy of their thoughts on that, but keeping track of a few planes seems easier than keeping track of hundreds of bombers being attacked by tens to hundreds of fighters while being guarded by several hundred more fighters, many of which might be shooting at the same enemy aircraft from different angles.

I suppose we'll never really know since , if we don't know for sure by now, going back 80 years and finding definitive facts from old reports would be a monumental undertaking, with no sure answers. It would all be a SWAG based on individual interpretations of old combat reports. It might have been different and easier when the people doing the interpreting were fighter pilots who had flown and fought the same skies, but the people looking nowadays have most likely never flown a WWII fighter, much less tried to shoot one down or even get on another one's tail.

I'll stick to the WW2 awarded victories as we know them, including crediting Boyington with 28, 22 in US service. We've been over this before with no resolution, so I don't expect one now. I'll join the revisionist bandwagon when they look at the entire claim list, not when they look at one or two guys to move someone else up on the list for political reasons.

Meanwhile, we can see that the two best US fighters were the P-51 Mustang and the F6F Hellcat. Their victory totals of 5,954 for the P-51 and 5,168 for the Hellcat are at least close to one another. I'd credit the P-51 with having more overall opportunity as well and more planes in combat since they made more P-51s and escorted bombers for a good portion of their ETO service life. So I'll just say that whether you flew a Hellcat or a Mustang, you were in a good fighter aircraft. I'd be elated to have been assigned to either one.

Likewise the P-38 was third on the victories list by a small margin over the P-47 and I wouldn't kick at either one of those either. The normally highly-regarded F4U was 6th on the list by air-to-air victories, just behind the P-40 which, though generally maligned, still scored better than the Corsair in the war. Many will hasten to point out it was in combat longer while I would hasten to point out it was also the only game in town when we rather decidedly didn't know squat about aerial combat with modern fighters, so many of its losses were on the front end of a rather steep learning curve, and we had to lose quite a few before the higher-ups would admit their aerial tactics were flawed.

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


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Hello Biff; Where did you fly -15s? I was with the "Peace Sun Program" In KSA and got to go on dozens of "Check Rides" after they found out I could shoot A2A pictures with a Mamiya RZ-67 and medium long lens to make incredible blow ups of the Saudi Pilots in their hot ships! It was one of my most favorite stations!



Shooter,

91 - 92 1st Fighter Squadron / 325th Fighter Wing Tyndall AFB, FL (Home of Air Superiority)
92 - 97 60th and 58th Fighter Squadrons / 33rd Fighter Wing, Eglin AFB, FL (The Nomads)
Includes 3 tours at Dhahran, S.A. plus West Coast F-15 Demo Team Narrator
97 - 08 159th Fighter Squadron / 125th Fighter Wing, Jacksonville IAP, FL (ANG)
Includes 1 tour at Prince Sultan Air Base and 1 tour at Incirlik AB, Turkey, plus 1 deployment to Laage AB, GE & 1 deployment to NAS Key West, FL, to fight the Mig-29s (See Attachment - I made the cover shot as well). Okay, can't upload the attachment from work but Google: November 2002 Air Force Magazine Agile Archer and open the PDF (best flying TDY I EVER DID).

If you have any shots of Eagles during my timeframe please share! Tail Codes would be TY, EG or a Lightning Bolt.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## airminded88 (Aug 19, 2016)

That's... an interesting criteria..


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> How about the P-39 in Ruski hands? Do you know of any info on that, or where I might find it?
> Thanks again, sincerely,
> Stewart.



I haven't read it, but have been told that apparently the last word on them is a book called 'Cobra' by Birch Matthews, a former Bell engineer. It's a 416 page hard-cover [Schiffer, 1996]...


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Read the German's accounts of losses to bomber guns. They kept great records for most of the war and knew which planes attacked which bomber type as formations were mostly of a single type and they deduced that holes in the front came from bomber guns and in the back from fighter guns.
> That is how we know that B-17s shot down more EA than any fighter plane type. ( EA = Enemy Aircraft!) Aunt Viola asked, so I thought I better make that clear?



I wonder how they counted those holes in shot down aircraft ?

You do realize a high percentage of them are going to be nothing but smoking holes in the ground don't you ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 20, 2016)

Tyndall is William Tell home - just down the road from Eglin, near Panama City.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Read the German's accounts of losses to bomber guns. They kept great records for most of the war and knew which planes attacked which bomber type as formations were mostly of a single type and they deduced that holes in the front came from bomber guns and in the back from fighter guns.
> That is how we know that B-17s shot down more EA than any fighter plane type. ( EA = Enemy Aircraft!) Aunt Viola asked, so I thought I better make that clear?



Lol.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Yes! You got it all! But the idea is not to go slow and the faster you are going the more maneuver power you have and the less likely you are to get shot down. Ever hear the pilot's adage that "Speed is life!"?
> 
> *That might be one of the reasons that a German fighter pilot would pick the Me 262 over an FW 190D.*
> 
> The P-38 was depending on what you were trying to do, either the fastest prop plane of WW-II, ( Economy Cruise!) or one of the fastest planes at larger throttle settings and at higher altitudes it was the second fastest prop plane of the war behind only the Ta-152H on the juice! When combined with the absence of torque and P-effect plus CL guns, made it the best all around combat plane of WW-II, based on it's abilities in the hands of a great pilot.



*You should probably research published flight tests for cruise data - and if you have the time research Drag Polars before blurting out 'stuff' regarding cruise speeds. Ditto for top speeds. *

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Read the German's accounts of losses to bomber guns. They kept great records for most of the war and knew which planes attacked which bomber type as formations were mostly of a single type and they deduced that holes in the front came from bomber guns and in the back from fighter guns.



Luftwaffe fighters *never* attacked allied fighters head-on? Thanks for clearing that up

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


----------



## pbehn (Aug 20, 2016)

fubar57 said:


> Luftwaffe fighters *never* attacked allied fighters head-on? Thanks for clearing that up


When faced with a company front attack, US airmen were instructed to avoid combat to keep LW statistics in order.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 20, 2016)

I don't suppose that Shooter is familiar with deflection shots.. or has researched clear evidence of 8th AF claims to actual LW losses when zero escort fighters were in the area.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 20, 2016)

drgondog said:


> I don't suppose that Shooter is familiar with deflection shots.. or has researched clear evidence of 8th AF claims to actual LW losses when zero escort fighters were in the area.


Well they still occasionally dig up planes in UK that were shot down in the second world war, when hitting earth/clay the engine is between 2 and 3 metres below the surface, good luck finding the bullet holes in that.

Archaeologists find precious items from Spitfire that crashed in 1940


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> All of my "Check rides" were either in the KSA, or Incerlik AFB and between 1980 and 1986. I spent 3 years in each Nation, but only one in Incerlik as I was up in Sinope for two years when I was not TDY near the Ruski boarder. In Saudi Arabia, I was at Taif KSA Air Base the whole time. I do not have any pictures left at all. My home was burglarized 5-6 years ago and all my camera equipment ( A Mamiya RZ-67, two Nikon F-3s, A Yashikaflex TLR, a Half frame Olympus, two Minolta 16s, A Bollieu(SP) Super-8 Movie Camera and dozens of lenses were stolen along with my weather proof Aluminum Cary Strongbox full of negatives. They must have been very sad when they finally got it open and there was no gear inside, only orange negatives. I still have a print of Prince XXXX over Makah. That was my first shot. In it he flew a large right hand turn near Makah while our American Instructor Pilot flew a matching, but inverted turn so I could shoot his plane out of the top of the canopy with Makah in the back ground! It was a publicity shot celebrating the first flight of an Arab in Space on our shuttle who also was an F-15 Pilot. I did it for my American boss who wanted a unusual, but stunning gift for said Prince. Then the word got out because anyone could recognize his face.
> I have a second question for you; When I was over there, a Saudi Pilot in an F-15 shot down two F-4s over the Persian Gulf. The Story circulated goes like this;
> He was on a Missile Qualifying flight when the E-3 Sentry that was on a demo flight trying to sell it to the Saudis picked them up flying low over the water. There were no other planes in a position to reach them before they got to some place dangerous so the Arab and his American Instructor Pilot were vectored to intercept. The Saudi lost his cool and the American had to "Talk" him through it, some even stated he had to undo his safety belts and reach over the Arab's shoulder to set the switches in time to make the shot! They got both planes which were in close formation with the single Sparrow missile?
> Do you know if any of this is true, or is it all BS told around the Friday evening Poker table after the news got out? By the way, one of the regulars was that Saudi prince who's picture I took and he claimed it was all true. I still do not know if they were all in on it and I was the Patsy, or it was true?
> I have a slow sence of humor and still am the favorite straight man in every crowd.




Ahhh, the old:

_"We were inverted...

...conducting foreign relations."_

Hmmm, were did I hear that one before? Maverick or Goose?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Have you ever actually looked at pictures of said "Smoking holes in the ground"? You would be surprised how much stuff survives the impact, especially from WW-II planes as they are not nearly as dense as modern stuff and their impact speeds are very low in comparison.
> As to your first question, it is easy to tell whether a hole, any hole, in the spinner, engine and or cowl, windshield, wings, etc, came from the front of back. Also, many pilots rode them down to crash landings, or to walk-a-ways after which they wrote the plane off, etc... so they just asked the pilot! Or they found the wreckage to salvage the metal and took note of the condition it was in. After all, they were very AR back then.



I've only been to a few crash sites to help EOD recover munitions. T-28s A1E, etc. sometimes the wreckage was so mangled, it would take someone with intimate knowledge of that particular aircraft to figure out what part came from where.
The Germans were using children to man their flak batteries, slaves to assemble their aircraft, they didn't have the spare personnel to send skilled people out and assess the damage on every shot down aircraft.

BS as usual from you shooter8.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 20, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> I've only been to a few crash sites to help EOD recover munitions. T-28s A1E, etc. sometimes the wreckage was so mangled, it would take someone with intimate knowledge of that particular aircraft to figure out what part came from where.
> The Germans were using children to man their flak batteries, slaves to assemble their aircraft, they didn't have the spare personnel to send skilled people out and assess the damage on every shot down aircraft.
> 
> BS as usual from you shooter8.



I will never forget the last crash site I went to. Pieces so small and mangled you could not tell what kind of aircraft it was.

I had to fly mortuary affairs to the crash site so they could recover the bodies of the crew. All recovered body parts where in small plastic bags, labeled "bone", "organ", "finger", etc.. Everything was placed in a few small boxes.

Will never forget the scene and the smells, or the fact that I had been out flying a border trace mission on the Serbian border just the night prior with them. We returned home, they stayed out and unfortunately crashed.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 20, 2016)

Folks, most if not all of Shooter's BS has been deleted. Every time he posts I'm going to pull out the BS repellent!

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 20, 2016)

Good job, Joe...and it looks like you aired the stench out of the Fw190D-9 thread, too!

Thanks!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Aug 21, 2016)

If you would-correct me if I'm wrong with some of my assumptions from what I've read, and from what I've interpreted from that.

To change direction as quickly as possible any vehicle (and especially aircraft) want their mass concentrated at the center of gravity. The further away from the CG (or perhaps center of lift in the case of aircraft) the more force it takes to rotate that mass about the CG, and the slower the acceleration about that axis for an equal application of force. The term is "moment of inertia", which varies by axis/direction change being imparted.

The '38s basic design involves a large moment of inertia in the roll axis. The mass of the engines, booms and support equipment all resist efforts to get them to roll about the CG, and take both time and force to make that happen. Hence the fact that the aileron forces, especially at speed, can exceed what the pilot can hold at full deflection (prior to boosting) and explains the slow initial roll rate. All of which makes perfect sense. Even with full deflection at lower speeds, initial roll rate (acceleration in the roll axis) was slower than many other fighters.

But look at the plane in other axes. In climbing/diving (pitch axis if I understand my terminology) the moment of inertia of the '38 is very low-perhaps the lowest of any volume fighter. The engines barely extend past the front of the wings, the fuel is load is centralized, all the mass of the weapons is very near the center of the aircraft. And you have a huge elevator. From what I've read, the '38 not only climbed very well, but "pitch up/down" was also excellent. Yank the yoke into your gut and the '38 would loop very quickly, putting it's firepower towards whatever was coming up behind it. Again, from some of my reading, it was supposed to be among the best "looping" or "fight in the vertical" planes of the war. Changing direction using the vertical bleeds far less energy than a horizontal turn, since some kinetic energy is turned into potential, then regained from diving out of the turn.

In addition, while it's initial roll rate was slow, it's sustained turning rate was excellent, and compared to other planes got better the longer it went on. Single engine fighters would eventually slow to the point that the propeller torque would exceed the control authority of the plane, causing a violent snap-spin. The balanced torque of the twin engines eliminated that problem with the '38. While single engine planes snapped out of control from engine torque (is this the same as P-factor? Not sure I completely understand that term) the 38 would just "mush" a bit. Ease off a little bit, let her regain speed and haul it in again. Repeating the process resulted in a "cloverleaf" turn as it was sometimes described.

My understanding is that single engine planes typically rolled well (or better) in one direction than the other-the one the engine/propeller torque was trying to roll them into anyway. A fighter with a clockwise rotating engine would roll very quickly counter-clockwise, not so much the other way. The '38 would roll equally whatever way the pilot wanted to. Now, my understanding was that the main reason for differential throttle control was to reduce torque in one engine, causing the plane to roll into the "reduced" engine (due to outwardly rotating props). Not so much to induce a yaw, which was a side effect.

Again, this is my understanding of the issue-may well be all wet. Look forward to learning from you guys. So much to pick up on this site!


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Aug 21, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The Fowler Flaps were installed on the P-38F mid-production onwards and were extensions on the trailing edges of the wing center section. They were not used in a dive.
> View attachment 349598
> 
> The Dive Recovery Flaps were embedded in the wings, just outboard of each engine and when deployed, would restore the lift boundary, during compression, back to the confines of the wing.
> ...



Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that all models of the P-38 were equipped with Fowler flaps. From the mid-F model on they were equipped with a mode that allowed them to be partially extended (8 degrees IIRC) to enhance maneuverability at lower speeds. But as far as I know the same flap style was on all models.


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Aug 21, 2016)

Thorlifter said:


> So without the dive recovery flaps, where does the compression happen?
> 
> Is it to where the flaps in the wings won't move or the flaps in the tail won't move?
> 
> *Also, without the dive flaps, short of it being a fatal mistake, when can the pilot regain control? At lower altitudes where the air is more dense or only when/if the plane slows down so the compression goes away?*



My understanding is that by chopping power and going to flat pitch on the props, the resulting drag/loss of thrust would slow the '38 below the point of compressibility at any altitude. Under about 25k feet it didn't matter, compressibility wasn't an issue with the denser air at that elevation and below. This of course before the dive recovery flaps were installed.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 21, 2016)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that all models of the P-38 were equipped with Fowler flaps. From the F model on they were equipped with a mode that allowed them to be partially extended (8 degrees IIRC) to enhance maneuverability at lower speeds. But as far as I know the same flap style was on all models.


Hmmm...yes, I recall that post of mine. I had to keep trying to repost it because the server and my ipad do not play well together.

Yes to the Fowler flaps being part of the original design. And it should have also said that the F mid-production onwards provided an 8° setting. I see that the part where I wrote about the G series flaps being strengthened to allow deployment at higher speeds, is completely missing, too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 31, 2017)

There's a lot of evidence that eyewitness testimony is not reliable; if it was the gold standard some people think it to be, the entire RAF and Luftwaffe would have been shot down twice over Britain by the day after Dunkirk. Interviews with eyewitnesses decades after the fact are going to see memories contaminated by every thing from talks with other veterans, through history books, to movies. This doesn't mean anyone is lying; memory is fragile.


----------

