Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Did you check the specific units, dates, and names and see if they actually can help confirm the information.Go do a search on Youtube is the best thing I can tell you.
Within the video they cited specific units, dates and pilot names as well as the release of directives by 8th AF, but where else you'd find them I do not know. I am surprised that Warren Bodie's monumental work on the P-38 did not mention this, that I can recall.
On the other hand I saw a video a little while back on Youtube about the P-38 that I am at least 90% sure is fabricated bunk, but I have not yet done the research to find out definitely.
I like those pictures. Secret aircraft projects of the USAAF? Extra scenes from the Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow?MIflyer was likely referring to this video:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqT6LUz8GME
A more elaborate video about this:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsxTh8Lgdc8&t=559s
As is shown by his marvelous 'Wings Of" books he kept detailed notes of his flights and impressions of aircraft as well. Wings of the Luftwaffe is his best, and it is available on ebay for $9 or less, but his Wings of the Navy is as well.It is certainly possible that Brown made a mistake.
Browns Father was not a pilot, "Wings on my Sleeve" contains a lot of trash and is not a biography. Best have a read of "Winkle" by Paul Beaver for the truth.His father was a WW1 pilot who got to know a number of the German pilots
I had read of the Bf-109 having heavy elevator controls but never the FW-190 and I have read a lot of books about both...The BF-109 and FW-190 had heavy elevators, especially at high speed, so much so that it imposed limitations from pulling out of dives. So maybe they were disinclined to go fast enough to encounter compressibility.
Interesting,Another Eric Brown dive performance that does not lineup with other testing.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqG_UO2bJbQ
British test pilot Roland Beamont comments on FW 190 dive performance:
At its Vne (dive limit) of approximately 500mph IAS the controls were noticeably heavy and rate of roll slowing, whereas the Tempest V was unaffected and retained high-rate roll at its Vne of 545mph — the highest dive speed of any fighter of the period. This was significant, as the Spitfires IX and XIV were limited to 450 and 465mph respectively and only the P-51D (and Mustang III) had a higher limit at 485mph;
Attached a typical test report
Logically, there is no reason why having the P-38's engine turn inwards would cause the aircraft to be unable to lift off, but thath happened. So, tey changed the engines to outward-turning, and the issue "went away." Doesn't seem to be a logivcal explanation for that one, either, but the solution is real and well-documented.Logically, I do not see how shutting down one engine would solve the problem. The P-47 had the same problem with compressibility. It is with air flow starting to go supersonic over the wings. Then again, I am no expert and could be wrong.
Question for the experts here. Did either the Me-109s or the Fw-190s have similar problems with compressibility?
Logically, I do not see how shutting down one engine would solve the problem. The P-47 had the same problem with compressibility. It is with air flow starting to go supersonic over the wings. Then again, I am no expert and could be wrong.
Question for the experts here. Did either the Me-109s or the Fw-190s have similar problems with compressibility?
From my reading with the P-47, compressibility would cause the stick to feel like it was in concrete. It was unmovable until the airplane got into thicker air causing the Mach number to decrease. Then the pilot could regain control.My understanding is that with the P-38 the compressibility issue was more about the speeded airflow over the wing blanking or locking the horizontal stab control? Or am I just saying the same thing a different way? I thought that the way the wave of air from the wing hit the hori stab, it either lost effectiveness, or induced destructive vibration.
I'm not clear on the P-47's similar issues. If you or someone else can help me get that, I'd be appreciative.
The reason the production P-38 turn in the direction they do is all to do with the pitching moment, makes for a steadier gun platform with power changes.there is no reason why having the P-38's engine turn inwards would cause the aircraft to be unable to lift off, but thath happened. So, tey changed the engines to outward-turning, and the issue "went away." Doesn't seem to be a logivcal explanation for that one, either, but the solution is real and well-documented
From my reading with the P-47, compressibility would cause the stick to feel like it was in concrete. It was unmovable until the airplane got into thicker air causing the Mach number to decrease. Then the pilot could regain control.
Every pilot report I ever read about the Bf 109 mentions the heavying up of the elecators above 250 mph or so and the l;ack of rudder trim as limiting factors. That's every combat evaluation I've read over 60+ years of reading about WWII,. including Soviet reports, American reports, British reports, AND German reports.On one side, we have manufacturer numbers, on other side we have "feelings" or personal opinions. i know which one i choose.
Do we know what position was the vertical tail on when Brown did the dive? if trimmed for level flight, wel then this could explain a lot... but we do not know it cause he didn't wrote it.
Brown could have made mistakes (and not only with the FW) just because he tried the planes, and didn't flew them daily so he hadn't the right reflexes to adjust what was supposed to be adjusted?
Which would would you put faith in:
a factory test pilot doing a programmed test with specific instruments dedicated to the test build in the airplane or the casual test pilot that fly a plane for an hour max?
Then you have not read the prototype flight test report.The reason the production P-38 turn in the direction they do is all to do with the pitching moment, makes for a steadier gun platform with power changes.
The P-38 never had difficulties in taking off irrespective of prop rotation direction that I'm aware.
The aircraft that was unable to take off was the F-82 where the props rotated towards the centre line at the six o'clock position, that kept the centre section in a stalled condition because of the prop wash rotation. Fix was to swap engines so that rotation at the top of the prop (12 o'clock) was towards the centre line.
View attachment 859042
But what did Caidin say?Every pilot report I ever read about the Bf 109 mentions the heavying up of the elecators above 250 mph or so and the l;ack of rudder trim as limiting factors. That's every combat evaluation I've read over 60+ years of reading about WWII,. including Soviet reports, American reports, British reports, AND German reports.