Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Lets not forget our highest scoring pilots, Bong and McGuire, used P-38s. I would have to go with the P-38, mostly cause I can't swimALSO, the P-38 has no critical engine and twin rudders. You have positive airflow over the rudders no matter which engine quits. The Mustang did it's job admirably albeit maybe not comfortably. I would be very nervous flying behind a Merlin over all that water. VMC for most WWII types is between 125 and 145mph, which gives a safe margin in single engine cruise. For example, the VMC of a B-25 is 145mph, with an engine feathered you can still cruise at 160-170mph.
jim
The P-47 turbo supercharger quietened the engine enormously was compared to the P-51. The P-51 engine noise was extremely exhausting on long pacific missions.
I am not sure but I don't think the P-47 at Chino has a turbo either. GregP or anyone else can you confirm this?
I don't want to be a stickler for details but only the Turbo Chargers are non functioning on some aircraft. They may be installed for looks but are easily rendered inop. The Superchargers are still an essential functioning part of the engine. The Turbo used on the P-38 and P-47 is the same used on the B-17 and B-24.
jim
Both engines on production P-38's were critical, stbd engine righthanded, port engine lefthanded. IOW failure of either engine caused both yaw and torque effect to want to roll the plane over to the left/right if the left/right engine failed. The original YP-38 had a no critical engine arrangement (stbd engine lefthanded, port engine righthanded) but the flow pattern in normal operation was not favorable.Lets not forget our highest scoring pilots, Bong and McGuire, used P-38s. I would have to go with the P-38, mostly cause I can't swimALSO, the P-38 has no critical engine..
Not really depending how you look at it. Like saying a glass of water is half empty as opposed to being half full. Engine out procedures were identical on each engine and although it has been mentioned that the YP-38 flew better than production models during engine out operations, you were still trimming the aircraft in some form to compensate for the dead engine. One could argue that because the left engine on earlier models carried the generator, that was considered the critical engine. I've had this question posed to many multi engine pilot, some of them being test pilots and it seems to come back as a "split decision."Both engines on production P-38's were critical, stbd engine righthanded, port engine lefthanded.
Great post Jim! One of the pilots I posed this question to summed it up with great simplicity in something like this "if you have to do more work shutting down or flying on one engine as opposed to another, that's you're critical engine." BTW Tony LeVier also maintained the P-38 didn't have a critical engine.I thought about the critical engine controversy before I posted that. The definition of critical engine is one that most adversly affects handling and performance. The P-38 featured outward turning contra-rotating propellors (as you correctly pointed out) that eliminated torque when both were running normally. I tend to believe the story that the inward rotating propellors caused an area of turbulence between the booms and affected elevator stability, therefore were switched to outward. The power to weight ratio of the P-38, combined with positive rudder and rudder trim authority no matter which engine failed, eliminates the conventional critical engine theory. Watch this video, it is thorough in it's single engine performance parameters.View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilArlZzLW-U
During WWII, high performance multi engine flying was in its infancy. Commonly referred to as "single engine flying speed" rather than VMC or critical engine inop, it was taught that there was no reason to fly below this speed for the particular airplane being flown. The P-38 can be flown normally above 120mph, as seen in the Lockheed training film. I've got around 350 hours of PIC in the B-25 Mitchell. Part of the Type rating check ride is a VMC demonstration (at altitude). There are alot of contributing factures to the definition of VMC, which culminates with loss of directional control. The accepted VMC for the B-25 is 145mph. During my flight training and on the checkride itself it was possible to get the airplane down to about 110mph before I could no longer hold heading or alititude. This is well below 145, and the airplane behaves well but it is not what you want during takeoff if there is an engine failure, it will roll over into the dead engine. Which is why it is taught to retard the throttles and land straight ahead in the event of an engine failure on takeoff if single engine flying speed is not attained. see this video of an A-26...View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvplU_5ysjk This is what happens when VMC is not attained before liftoff and you have an engine failure.
1. I guess it's a matter of semantics but what you are saying is that the P-38 handled satisfactorily on one engine, which a lot of twin bombers of that time didn't, agreed. However AFAIK the definition, not theory really, of a critical engine is one which if lost will leave the torque and yaw of the remaining engine reinforcing one another to roll the plane in one direction, ie usually referring to twins with both engines of same hand, port engine critical if both engines are righthanded, stbd engine if both are left handed. But by the same standard definition, neither engine is critical with counter-rotating engines turning inward, and both are critical with counter-rotating engines turning outboard.1. The power to weight ratio of the P-38, combined with positive rudder and rudder trim authority no matter which engine failed, eliminates the conventional critical engine theory.
2. The Mustangs that were built in 1944 were the same as the ones built in 1945. In reality there isn't a whole lot of differences between the B and the D models.
3. The superiority of the D model was proven during Korea, as it was chosen over the H model to serve in country.
1. I guess it's a matter of semantics but what you are saying is that the P-38 handled satisfactorily on one engine, which a lot of twin bombers of that time didn't, agreed. However AFAIK the definition, not theory really, of a critical engine is one which if lost will leave the torque and yaw of the remaining engine reinforcing one another to roll the plane in one direction, ie usually referring to twins with both engines of same hand, port engine critical if both engines are righthanded, stbd engine if both are left handed. But by the same standard definition, neither engine is critical with counter-rotating engines turning inward, and both are critical with counter-rotating engines turning outboard.
But even if one assumes the standard definition of criticial engine goes out the window with counter-rotating engines, some counter-rotating twins fly better on one engine than others, and the P-38 a relatively good one, but it never matters much which engine fails on any counter-rotating twin (well except maybe a push-pull twin), just as far as flight characteristics.
3. The F-51D was used in Korea rather than any of the somewhat different lightweight Mustangs (H) or morever the apparently more suitable F-47D or N because not only did more F-51D's remain in total USAF inventory (though the difference between total F-47 and F-51 in June 1950 wasn't as great as is sometimes portrayed) but those in ZI were concentrated on the West Coast, and moreover the FEAF still had a small number of F-51D's in inventory in Japan (though not distributed to units). Those were the a/c sent to Korea in late Jun for the ROKAF but which flew some missions w US pilots. Also it had spares stockpiles and remaining maintenance and pilot experience with the F-51D, not with the H nor the F-47. The H would have offered little advantage in Korean conditions anyway, D being adequate in the handful of combats pitting F-51's against NK prop a/c and any prop fighter was heavily outperformed by the MiG-15 later on. But FEAF later regretted the decision of 51 v 47 as F-51 losses soared especially in 1951 v more heavily AA armed Communist field armies by that time. But, the USAF wasn't willing to support operation of multiple prop fighter types in Korea and (commanding general) Stratemeyer was told to forget it when he broached the idea of adding the F-47 later on (see "Stratemeyer Diary").
Joe