Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained) (6 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

let me see if I have this straight, It appears you "fly" the plane using IAS but you navigate (find next airport?) using TAS?
Yes. IAS is measured by measuring a pressure and "calculating" speed by assuming sea level density. At sea level, std day TAS and IAS are equal; 100 knots true air speed gives about 33.8 psf pressure. At 20,000 ft, to get the same dynamic pressure, the true airspeed is 136.5 kts.
 
Neither Robbins nor Bong made claims against the Tainan Air Group; it was disbanded months before their first aerial victories were made. And from what I can tell Bong never served in the 80th Fighter Squadron. Can you clarify?
The Tinian Air Group was formed in October 1941 (originally attached to the 25th Air Flotilla) and was restructured in November 1942, with several more changes, the Tinian Air Group continued operations until the Island was attacked and captured by Allied forces in July of 1944.
Olds and Bong had scored quite a few victories prior to June of 1944...
 
The Tinian Air Group was formed in October 1941 (originally attached to the 25th Air Flotilla) and was restructured in November 1942, with several more changes, the Tinian Air Group continued operations until the Island was attacked and captured by Allied forces in July of 1944.
Olds and Bong had scored quite a few victories prior to June of 1944...

Darren was talking on the Tainan AG not Tinian. Tainan AG returned to mainland Japan in Nov. 1942 as a AG 251. AG 251 returned to Rabaul in May 1943
 
Last edited:
If Yoshino's aerial victories don't really matter to you, why bring them up then?
Because victory tallies played a role in building and retaining morale, both in the fighting units and back home. It is a measure of the pilot's stature. A quantitative measure of qualitative skill. A pilot's claims were his measure of success. Vetting the records and discovering that a majority of claims were unsubstantiated does not take away from the esteem these pilots had at the time. Most claims were made in good faith, I would not use the term "blatant", because that implies the pilot was knowingly making a false claim.
 
No one, no matter how gifted, or how benign the conditions, has the skill and knowledge to handle the eventualities that can happen in flight in five hours.
Understand, "going solo" in the context of primary flight instruction does not imply authority to go hop in the plane at will and blast off into the wild blue. The first 3 - 5 solo flights are supervised solos that start off as dual instruction and then have a solo session incorporated under the strict observation and supervision of the instructor. Five hour solos were not routine or common, but an exceptionally adept student could achieve it if they could absorb all the requisite skills in that amount of time. And if you're operating from a low traffic rural airport with enough different runways to handle a variety of wind conditions the occasional talented student could do it, if old man weather cooperated. YOU wouldn't have soloed in five hours, even if the skill set was in place, because you wouldn't have been mentally ready and I wouldn't have made that call. I've had students that were "ready" skillwise to solo in seven or eight hours, but didn't have the confidence to be mentally ready until they were up to twelve or more. These were often of the perfectionist persuasion, and made some of the best pilots in the end.
The FARs delineate what a student must be trained before they can solo, and I always threw in a few "extra" emergency procedures. They best be on their toes, as every .7 or .8 hour lesson would have at least one emergency of some kind.
Before takeoff checklist complete, pattern clear, position and hold, think, "This is the time the engine will quit 200 feet over the departure end; what am I going to do?", before every takeoff.
"Oswego traffic, Cessna seven five seven Bravo Yankee, left crosswind one six, departing east to the practice area." Now if the engine quits right here, where am I going to park this bird?
Bear in mind, my instructing days were in the 70s and 80s, when tort law was not so all-pervasive as it is today. Today I would probably be a little more restrained with the talented super student. Even then, none of mine soloed without first demonstrating a spin recovery, which was above and beyond the FARs.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
Because victory tallies played a role in building and retaining morale, both in the fighting units and back home. It is a measure of the pilot's stature. A quantitative measure of qualitative skill. A pilot's claims were his measure of success. Vetting the records and discovering that a majority of claims were unsubstantiated does not take away from the esteem these pilots had at the time. Most claims were made in good faith, I would not use the term "blatant", because that implies the pilot was knowingly making a false claim.

All of that is very true. But now that we know that there are obvious discrepancies in his record, maybe we should accept the possibility that Yoshino really wasn't as good as first thought. Maybe that's why he was eventually waxed while performing such a stupid maneuver???
 
But up to that time all his claims were while serving with 9th FS, first claims on 27 Dec 42, by which time the Tainan AG was already history.
All true and agree, my point was Bong flew with the 80th (as well as many other units) after his appointment to V Fighter Command HQ. I have no dog in the fight with regards to the comments about the Tainan AG
 
Maybe that's why he was eventually waxed while performing such a stupid maneuver???
What do you mean "stupid maneuver"? He was kind of boxed in, harrying the B-26s at low altitude his options were limited. The B-26 was a speed demon bomber, so if he had overtake speed on them, he was up in the speed range where the Zero was pretty stiff in roll, so he wasn't going to win a turning fight if he lived to get into it, but he had speed, so up was the viable option. This is a situation where control harmony at speed is the deciding factor. Heavy high speed stick forces in the Zero, vs light and responsive in the ("twitchy" aft engine) P-39 allowed the Cobra to stay with him in the pull-up. His goose was pretty much cooked from the onset. His only other survival option might have been a (muscular!) roll to the left into the tightest turn he could manage at that speed and hope the American misjudges his deflection as he gets in a quick snap shot before popping up into his zoom climb. This might have achieved survival, but no victory, an unattractive prospect for any self-respecting Samurai. The zoom into a loop onto the opponent's tail is much more attractive. He just didn't expect the clunky, slow climbing Cobra to commit suicide by trying to go vertical with him.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
He could have quickly throttled back and rolled out, then immediately revert to defensive turning. This would have forced the American to turn too, in order to keep him in his sights. This would have put the American at a disadvantage if he continued turning with the more maneuverable Zeke. Instead, Yoshino misjudged his opponent's abilities and over-reacted to the threat. Two major flaws that manifest themselves in fighter pilots who have trouble thinking under pressure. The hype that surrounds Yoshino is unwarranted IMHO.
 
Understand, "going solo" in the context of primary flight instruction does not imply authority to go hop in the plane at will and blast off into the wild blue. The first 3 - 5 solo flights are supervised solos that start off as dual instruction and then have a solo session incorporated under the strict observation and supervision of the instructor. Five hour solos were not routine or common, but an exceptionally adept student could achieve it if they could absorb all the requisite skills in that amount of time. And if you're operating from a low traffic rural airport with enough different runways to handle a variety of wind conditions the occasional talented student could do it, if old man weather cooperated. YOU wouldn't have soloed in five hours, even if the skill set was in place, because you wouldn't have been mentally ready and I wouldn't have made that call. I've had students that were "ready" skillwise to solo in seven or eight hours, but didn't have the confidence to be mentally ready until they were up to twelve or more. These were often of the perfectionist persuasion, and made some of the best pilots in the end.
The FARs delineate what a student must be trained before they can solo, and I always threw in a few "extra" emergency procedures. They best be on their toes, as every .7 or .8 hour lesson would have at least one emergency of some kind.
Before takeoff checklist complete, pattern clear, position and hold, think, "This is the time the engine will quit 200 feet over the departure end; what am I going to do?", before every takeoff.
"Oswego traffic, Cessna seven five seven Bravo Yankee, left crosswind one six, departing east to the practice area." Now if the engine quits right here, where am I going to park this bird?
Bear in mind, my instructing days were in the 70s and 80s, when tort law was not so all-pervasive as it is today. Today I would probably be a little more restrained with the talented super student. Even then, none of mine soloed without first demonstrating a spin recovery, which was above and beyond the FARs.
Cheers,
Wes
My experience was in gliders with twenty years experience on and off with about eight as an instructor in the 70's and 80's. We will simply have to agree to disagree as there are a number of fundamental differences, namely:-
  • The gliders we used didn't have radios and I wouldn't have used one if they had, as that would be a distraction. I would want the student to be totally focused on the task in hand and not listening to a radio if things start to go wrong. If there going to go wrong it's probably on the circuit and approach where using a radio would be useless as seconds count.
  • You have to have total confidence in a student as there are no second chances on landing, if the student messes it up, they have to sort it out on their own, going around isn't an option.
  • The rules are very strict about what a student has to do before going solo including a number of spins including initiating a full spin starting at 2000ft
    and obviously recovering from it
  • Cable breaks were not unknown and these had to be done from a variety of heights
  • Cross wind landings had to be taught as the wind can change at any time
  • High speed stalls not just normal stalls had to be covered
  • How to handle a slow, variable or fast cable launch
  • and so on
A good student would take about eighty flights to go solo, an exceptional one less but all would be more than five hours
 
Do you happen to have some sort of list, specifying the actual aircraft destroyed by Yoshino, according to allied sources?

No

And I wonder how many Japanese pilots were given credit for the same allied aircraft, as these "lists" were developed years later by various authors and historians through their own individual research.

Possible but less likely than an allied bias, since much of the starting material has an inherent allied bias, due to the source material. Many histories are based on the allied claims based data drawn up after the war, whereas the Japanese losses, where it is available, is based on their own wartime campaign records. Unfortunately those campaign records are incomplete. Many were lost in the subsequent fire bombing campaigns against the homeland, other (aircraft) were lost to unknown causes (like the allies I might add). In those situations we do have to rely on a degree of claims data……pilot x claims he shot down an enemy a/c in a certain area at a certain time. Pilot Y from the other side is recorded as missing in that area at a certain time, that matches the claim. In that circumstance it is reasonable to credit the claim.

There is no central data base which is monitored by an impartial person, in order to compare them and weed out the identical claims and losses. That's just one of the reasons I have a hard time trusting the aerial victory totals of the axis nations that I often read about in books and on the web, but for some reason they are much less scrutinized here and elsewhere.

Your right, they are placed under a lesser level of scrutiny. Its because of the source of the starting points. As Ive alluded to several times, our overall view of losses are based on allied claims data, at least in the PTO. There is no equivalent that is so complete, and so accepted universally from the axis perspective. Doesn't mean that the axis aren't vulnerable to creative accounting in the same way as the allies. Lord knows that happens with annoying regularity, particualalry for the LW Ra Ra boys. I get it.

With an inherent pro-Allied bias in the starting data, it's a natural tendency to try and compensate for that .

If you can easy discount official US Navy documents and trust wholeheartedly in the Japanese version of events, then I think it's not too extreme of me to question the validity of victory totals created decades after the war by people who might just have an axe to grind.

Im not a good enough student of the subject to be able to fully respond to this. Maybe you have a point. However when the claims data are known to exceed the total forces committed on the other side, you just know that something is wrong. It might be distasteful, but the basic situation is what it is. We then have to find ways of rationalizing what we are confronted with.

I would recommend that you find an event and tally the US claims data for that data with the known primary Japanese sources for their losses. Someone like Shinpachi, if you ask him politely can be a huge help in this type of exercise. Tally your Allied sources, to the Japanese sources, and immediately and almost universally the overclaiming problem will be revealed. This happens again and again. Its just as bad when the Japanese unadulterated claims are held up to the light, but most published Japanese victories in the English language aren't based on their claims, its based on the post war known allied losses

And the 4-5 victory tally for Yoshino was calculated by using your formula to derive the actual number of aircraft destroyed in aerial combat. I believe you mentioned that only about a third of credited aerial victories resulted in the destruction of an enemy aircraft. If it works for the allies it should also work for the Japanese as well....

Japanese claims data is worse than the 3:1 error rate, but Japanese claims data is not relevant. As a generalisation Japanese claims are not used to tally up their post war victory estimates. Allied known losses are the primary data sources. Where those known losses match Japanese claims data, it gets down to which Japanese flyer in that combat has the most reliable claim.

So it doesn't work both ways Im afraid. Allied losses have an inherent starting bias, because many of the accounts are based solely on the (allied) claims based datasets, whereas the Japanese are not. It is far from infallible, but the inherent pr-allied bias is clearly there.
 
Last edited:
A good student would take about eighty flights to go solo, an exceptional one less but all would be more than five hour
I also instructed in Schweitzer 2-33s and a 2-32, Lark IS-28Bs, Grob 103, and ASK-21. Glider training is a different animal altogether. We had a particularly difficult mountain airfield to fly from, so student proficiency had to be top-notch, but the lift was fabulous, including mountain wave that could sometimes be accessed right over the field with a 3000 ft tow. No winch launches here! In fact winch launches seem to be pretty rare in the US.
A14 year old club worker/student and I once thermalled a 2-33 into the bottom of the wave and pegged the variometer, kinda leaving the world behind and went up like a rocket. Before I knew it, we were shooting through 11,000 ft MSL, and I was getting concerned, as we had no oxygen, were wearing shorts and tee shirts, and had no radio to call ATC and ask them to open the wave window (our field was under a Victor airway). Spoilers out, diving at max maneuvering speed, we were still going up, and I couldn't seem to get us out of the lift zone. Finally, at 17,600 MSL we flew out of the lift and pegged the variometer down, by which time we were both pretty blue, and didn't see or hear the FB-111 coming until he shot by a couple hundred feet away. He was startled too, and came back around for another looksee, this time in slow?flight with everything hanging, but still two or three times our speed, with the B/N snapping pictures of us.
With the aerotows and longer flights we didn't need anywhere near so many flights to solo a student, but with the deceptive approaches to the field and the challenging terrain, we had to do a series of pattern tows and rope breaks with a student nearing solo. But once they could land reliably at the 'bush they were safe anywhere.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
He could have quickly throttled back and rolled out, then immediately revert to defensive turning. This would have forced the American to turn too, in order to keep him in his sights. This would have put the American at a disadvantage if he continued turning with the more maneuverable Zeke.
Throttle back and slow down into the Zero's optimum speed range only works if you have time enough to accomplish it before your attacker is in firing range. Like any aggressive fighter pilot, Yoshino quite likely would have been focusing on his prey with an occasional glance over his shoulder to check six. Head on silhouette of a P-39 is pretty slim, and on a collision course would be a stationary image, easy to miss in the heat of battle. Many an accomplished fighter pilot has died this way.
If he did manage the "slow down, roll, and pull it tight" successfully, it would all depend on suckering the American into slowing down and joining the circle, something a savvy Cobra pilot should avoid like the plague.
The Cobra is sleek and heavy for its size, hence a good diver and zoomer, but not given to slowing down quickly. With the speed from his dive, the P-39 pilot would be certain to get sucked in his turn and keeping the Zero in his sights not an option. So the options are: dive (oops, we're already just above the wavetops) or zoom climb (something the Airacobra does well) giving both altitude and speed advantage over the opponent. In ACM energy is life. If Yoshino bugs out (not likely for an adrenalated Samurai), you have the speed and altitude to run him down, and if he tries to match your zoom from his slowed down high-G turn, you're going to be on top and can make a diving head on pass into his climb. His cannons have lousy ballistics uphill and you're a slender target, while your diversified battery of MGs and cannon are shooting downhill into a radial engine target.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
My experience was in gliders with twenty years experience on and off with about eight as an instructor in the 70's and 80's. We will simply have to agree to disagree as there are a number of fundamental differences, namely:-
  • The gliders we used didn't have radios and I wouldn't have used one if they had, as that would be a distraction. I would want the student to be totally focused on the task in hand and not listening to a radio if things start to go wrong. If there going to go wrong it's probably on the circuit and approach where using a radio would be useless as seconds count.
  • You have to have total confidence in a student as there are no second chances on landing, if the student messes it up, they have to sort it out on their own, going around isn't an option.
  • The rules are very strict about what a student has to do before going solo including a number of spins including initiating a full spin starting at 2000ft
    and obviously recovering from it
  • Cable breaks were not unknown and these had to be done from a variety of heights
  • Cross wind landings had to be taught as the wind can change at any time
  • High speed stalls not just normal stalls had to be covered
  • How to handle a slow, variable or fast cable launch
  • and so on
A good student would take about eighty flights to go solo, an exceptional one less but all would be more than five hours

80 flights to solo? Wow!

I have never flown a glider, but I do have a private pilots license, and I did my first solo at 14 flights (which I think was a little slow). It was a controlled solo. I first went up with my instructor and reviewed some things (I had an idea I would be soloing, as he told me to bring a white shirt), and then we landed. He got out, and told me to give him 3 takeoffs and landings to a complete stop.

Obviously I had radios too. First I was in a powered single engine aircraft, and two I was flying out of an active airport. At the same time, my instructor was sitting in an airport vehicle near the runway, watching me the whole time. He had a handheld radio to talk to me if I had issues or problems. He also had my wife in the truck with him, so that she could watch me solo for the first time.

Amazing experience, and probably the only thing more amazing in time as a pilot so far, was my check ride.
 
We were limited to winch launches which get you to about 1,800 - 2,000 ft so you had to find lift within 4-5 minutes or you came straight down. So a lot of those launches will be 10 minute flights. Good for take off and landing practice but you need longer flights to teach a lot of the skills needed. Also as mentioned earlier we had to cover a lot of things before anyone is allowed to go solo.
Don't knock cable launches though, they are very exhilarating things to do. 0 - 60 mph in 2.5 seconds and 30 seconds from a standing start to 2,000 ft, balancing the whole thing on one wheel and dealing with crosswinds, does tend to keep you on your toes. You don't have time to think about a problem you just have to react.
 
We were limited to winch launches which get you to about 1,800 - 2,000 ft so you had to find lift within 4-5 minutes or you came straight down. So a lot of those launches will be 10 minute flights. Good for take off and landing practice but you need longer flights to teach a lot of the skills needed. Also as mentioned earlier we had to cover a lot of things before anyone is allowed to go solo.
Don't knock cable launches though, they are very exhilarating things to do. 0 - 60 mph in 2.5 seconds and 30 seconds from a standing start to 2,000 ft, balancing the whole thing on one wheel and dealing with crosswinds, does tend to keep you on your toes. You don't have time to think about a problem you just have to react.
I rode through three winch launches in an ancient Schweizer TG-2 with a CG hook when I was a 14 yr old CAP cadet. Closest thing to a catshot you can get on dry land! The clmbout was spectacular, and with the zero downward visibility from the back seat all you could see was sky. Felt like vertical!
Unfortunately the launching/landing area was only 4500 ft long, and the glider was a pre-WWII style "floater" design with low limit speeds, so 1100 ft was about max if you did everything just right. Fortunately there were pastures and plowed fields right next door with reliable thermals.
The guy who owned the winch and glider was an ex Netherlands AF Hunter pilot, and a bit of a hotrodder to boot, and he had a monster Pontiac V-8 in the winch that he had dynoed at 400 HP before he swapped it from his drag car to the winch.
Such fun!!
Cheers,
Wes
PS: One day a guy showed up trailering a Schweizer 2-32 (the B-52 of gliders) and wanted to get checked out on winch launches. Now the 2-32 is a heavy SOB, can carry three people, and is built like the Brooklyn Bridge. With its clean design, huge wings and high limit speeds and G limits, it could get easily 1300-1400 ft with that hotrod winch.
Years later, I encountered that same 2-32 in the hands of the local glider club, and gave many enjoyable rides in it, as well as the occasional lesson. It was a lousy thermaller with its weight and speed, but a dynamite ridge runner and wave flyer.
 
Last edited:
Amazing experience, and probably the only thing more amazing in time as a pilot so far, was my check ride.
What did you learn on your checkride? My Private Pilot Examiner said "Sweat thyself not, this is just another lesson. We're going to educate each other: you're going to show me how safe a pilot you are, and I'm going to show you a thing or two your instructors never did. So after he put me through my paces, he said "You'll do", then asked: "Have you ever been in a fully developed spin in one of these things?"
"No, we did spin avoidance but no spins".
"Yep, that's what your logbook shows, would you like to see what it's like?"
"Isn't that considered acrobatics?"
"Yep, and it's prohibited except when operating in Utility Category and in a training situation. You're Pilot in Command of this flight, I'm legally just a passenger, so I'm asking, do we meet the stated conditions to do it legally?"
"I guess so."
"Okay, you want to give it a try? Remember, you're PIC."
So he demonstrated, I followed through, then did one each way myself, and got thoroughly hooked on "the world turned upside down"!
Cheers,
Wes
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back