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 ?
Dogfighting in a P 38
- Thread starter snelson
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
Major
Tyndall is William Tell home - just down the road from Eglin, near Panama City.
drgondog
Major
Lol.
drgondog
Major
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
General
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
Major
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
Ahhh, the old:
"We were inverted...
...conducting foreign relations."
Hmmm, were did I hear that one before? Maverick or Goose?
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.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Good job, Joe...and it looks like you aired the stench out of the Fw190D-9 thread, too!
Thanks!
Thanks!
IdahoRenegade
Airman 1st Class
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!
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!
Last edited:
IdahoRenegade
Airman 1st Class
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.
Last edited:
IdahoRenegade
Airman 1st Class
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
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,031
- Jun 25, 2013
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.
