Dogfighting in a P 38 (1 Viewer)

[tyrodtom]

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 ?

 

[drgondog]

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

 

[drgondog]

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]

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.

 

[fubar57]

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

 

[pbehn]

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.

 

[drgondog]

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]

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]

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?

 

[tyrodtom]

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.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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!

 

[GrauGeist]

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

Thanks!

 

[IdahoRenegade]

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]

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.


View attachment 349599

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]

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]

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.

 

[swampyankee]

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.