Considering that the only Gotha built was a V1 and V2 prototype, and V3 was not finished, I would not asume that they would of left you with the engines exposed next too your seat. It would be easy to rivit some aluminum sheet to the pipe framework for production models.
Best - worst cockpits
- Thread starter AL Schlageter
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Considering that the only Gotha built was a V1 and V2 prototype, and V3 was not finished, I would not asume that they would of left you with the engines exposed next too your seat. It would be easy to rivit some aluminum sheet to the pipe framework for production models.
That pilot has over 100 hours of combat in a P-38 when he wrote that. It was his interpritations of what could happen to new pilots. Here is the full text.
20th Fighter Group Headquarters
APO 637 U.S. Army
(E-2)
3 June 1944
Subject: P-38 Airplane in Combat.
To: Commanding General, VIII Fighter Command, APO 637, U.S. Army.
1. The following observations are being put in writing by the undersigned at the request of the Commanding General, VII FC. They are intended purely as constructive criticism and are intended in any way to "low rate" our present equipment.
2. After flying the P-38 for a little over one hundred hours on combat missions it is my belief that the airplane, as it stands now, is too complicated for the 'average' pilot. I want to put strong emphasis on the word 'average, taking full consideration just how little combat training our pilots have before going on as operational status.
3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced", what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure.
4. In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost as least four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive action. The logical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit, trying to get organized that they were shot down before they could get going.
5. The question that arises is, what are you going to do about it? It is standard procedure for the group leader to call, five minutes before R/V and tell all the pilots to "prepare for trouble". This is the signal for everyone to get into auto rich, turn drop tank switches on, gun heaters on, combat and sight switches on and to increase RPM and manifold pressure to maximum cruise. This procedure, however, does not help the pilot who is bounced on the way in and who is trying to conserve his gasoline and equipment for the escort job ahead.
6. What is the answer to these difficulties? During the past several weeks we have been visited at this station time and time again by Lockheed representatives, Allison representatives and high ranking Army personnel connected with these two companies. They all ask about our troubles and then proceed to tell us about the marvelous mechanisms that they have devised to overcome these troubles that the Air Force has turned down as "unnecessary". Chief among these is a unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold pressure regulator, which will control power, RPM and mixture by use of a single lever. It is obvious that there is a crying need for a device like that in combat.
7. It is easy to understand why test pilots, who have never been in combat, cannot readily appreciate what each split second means when a "bounce" occurs. Every last motion when you get bounced is just another nail in your coffin. Any device which would eliminate any of the enumerated above, are obviously very necessary to make the P-38 a really effective combat airplane.
8. It is also felt that that much could done to simplify the gas switching system in this airplane. The switches {valve selector handles} are all in awkward positions and extremely hard to turn. The toggle switches for outboard tanks are almost impossible to operate with gloves on.
9. My personal feeling about this airplane is that it is a fine piece of equipment, and if properly handled, takes a back seat for nothing that the enemy can produce. But it does need simplifying to bring it within the capabilities of the 'average' pilot. I believe that pilots like Colonel Ben Kelsey and Colonel Cass Huff are among the finest pilots in the world today. But I also believe that it is difficult for men like them to place their thinking and ability on the level of a youngster with a bare 25 hours in the airplane, going into his first combat. That is the sort of thinking that will have to be done, in my opinion, to make the P-38 a first-class all around fighting airplane.
HAROLD J. RAU
Colonel, Air Corps,
Commanding.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I've read that report several times -it reinforces the fact that there was no adequate twin engine aircraft training at the beginning of the war and because of that there was a lot of prejudice aganst the P-38, but then again many 5th AF pilots squashed many of the issues stated in the above paper. BTW 100 combat hours could equate to about 20 missions, an average tour....
Chocks away!
Senior Airman
We forget that the Me-109 had a very good and simple instrument layout
Glider
Captain
I have just finished reading a series of articles about the development of cockpits from WW1 to the mid 80's. Re the WW2 era it was summarised that on average the following were national trends.
UK had the best night flying instrument layout with the basic 6 in all aircraft and it is still a major influence today.
Germany had the best general layout with certain things being common across all aircraft such as colour coding for different types of instrument wiring and hydraulic pipes for differing purposes. The Fw190 was held in high regard because the cockpit was sealed with a proper floor and sides. This resulted in a cleaner cockpit with less chance of dust, mud, debris etc getting caught in cable runs. It also stopped dust and bits floating when doing negative G manoeuvres.
The USA had more problems with instrument layout as their manufactures had different approaches. They had a standard panel but it was more confusing than the British or German panel.
Re visibility it split the war into thirds.
In the early war period the British tended to have better visibility mainly due to the reduced framing in the Spitfire compared to the 109, P40, Zero.
In the middle period the Fw190 had high marks for its view but the majority of the aircraft were unchanged from the first period and the P47c and P51a-c had similar problems to the P40, 109 and Zero. Its worth noting that the twin fighters (Me110, Beaufighter, Mossie and P38) always tended to have a good view from the cockpit.
In the last third things had evened up with the widespread use of teardrop canopies and the reduced framing in earlier designs such as the 109.
Clearly this is a very high level summary and there were exceptions but I thought that it may be of interest in this thread
UK had the best night flying instrument layout with the basic 6 in all aircraft and it is still a major influence today.
Germany had the best general layout with certain things being common across all aircraft such as colour coding for different types of instrument wiring and hydraulic pipes for differing purposes. The Fw190 was held in high regard because the cockpit was sealed with a proper floor and sides. This resulted in a cleaner cockpit with less chance of dust, mud, debris etc getting caught in cable runs. It also stopped dust and bits floating when doing negative G manoeuvres.
The USA had more problems with instrument layout as their manufactures had different approaches. They had a standard panel but it was more confusing than the British or German panel.
Re visibility it split the war into thirds.
In the early war period the British tended to have better visibility mainly due to the reduced framing in the Spitfire compared to the 109, P40, Zero.
In the middle period the Fw190 had high marks for its view but the majority of the aircraft were unchanged from the first period and the P47c and P51a-c had similar problems to the P40, 109 and Zero. Its worth noting that the twin fighters (Me110, Beaufighter, Mossie and P38) always tended to have a good view from the cockpit.
In the last third things had evened up with the widespread use of teardrop canopies and the reduced framing in earlier designs such as the 109.
Clearly this is a very high level summary and there were exceptions but I thought that it may be of interest in this thread
- Thread starter
- #46
AL Schlageter
Banned
- 220
- Oct 9, 2007
I don't understand the comment on the A6M. There was some canopy framing but it did have a 360 degree clear canopy, as did the Ki-43.
The 109 had good view over the nose due to the inverted V engine. This allowed lead that would have the e/a still in view when other fighters would have had the e/a disappear.
Harold J. Rau was the CO of the 356th FG from Feb 43 to Nov 43. They flew P-47s. He was the CO of the 20th FG from Mar 44 to June 44. In July 44, the 20th traded their P-38s in for P-51s.
The 109 had good view over the nose due to the inverted V engine. This allowed lead that would have the e/a still in view when other fighters would have had the e/a disappear.
Harold J. Rau was the CO of the 356th FG from Feb 43 to Nov 43. They flew P-47s. He was the CO of the 20th FG from Mar 44 to June 44. In July 44, the 20th traded their P-38s in for P-51s.
Hi Gibbage,
>Chief among these is a unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold pressure regulator, which will control power, RPM and mixture by use of a single lever. It is obvious that there is a crying need for a device like that in combat.
Interesting to see this was demanded by combat pilots! I had not seen such a clear statement regarding its usefulness before.
(Prestel, the engineer behind the BMW 801 single-lever control, had asked "What does the pilot of a multi-engine aircraft do if he suddenly is forced to change the engine parameters quickly?" ... only to answer his own question: "He screws up." I'd say he had anticipated the problem ...)
>Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure.
I believe some Allied aircraft received so-called "inter-connected throttle and rpm levers" later that made sure that when the throttle was opened, the rpm lever was advanced at the same time. However, it might be that the connection had to be overridden for cruise in order to get the the best range from the engines ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Chief among these is a unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold pressure regulator, which will control power, RPM and mixture by use of a single lever. It is obvious that there is a crying need for a device like that in combat.
Interesting to see this was demanded by combat pilots! I had not seen such a clear statement regarding its usefulness before.
(Prestel, the engineer behind the BMW 801 single-lever control, had asked "What does the pilot of a multi-engine aircraft do if he suddenly is forced to change the engine parameters quickly?" ... only to answer his own question: "He screws up." I'd say he had anticipated the problem ...)
>Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure.
I believe some Allied aircraft received so-called "inter-connected throttle and rpm levers" later that made sure that when the throttle was opened, the rpm lever was advanced at the same time. However, it might be that the connection had to be overridden for cruise in order to get the the best range from the engines ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
This is a very common mistake made by low time pilots who don't have a lot of "complex" aircraft time - that being an aircraft with a constant speed propeller and a lot of horse power. Even today people learning to fly an aircraft with a constant speed prop have difficulty with this but then again, its not impossible to master. Just remember any power changes involve working the prop first....
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
