Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The effect of being cold increases with time, for a high altitude interceptor inadequate heating is inconvenient and uncomfortable, for long range missions it can be fatal, especially since UK missions in February meant the pilot was probably very cold before he even took off.Actually some wereView attachment 647247
Secrets of a P-38 Ace. John Tilley's electrifying story
One of the enduring P-38 myths is that Lockheed was suddenly blindsided by heating issues when P-38s started flying escort missions out of the UK. In fact, the P-38 heating system was known to be inadequate long before that. The following test report on the "Tactical Suitability of the P-38F Type Airplane" (from Mike Williams marvelous site) makes this crystal clear:
P-38F Tactical Trials
View attachment 647254
View attachment 647252
View attachment 647253
Note that the tests were completed a year before any long-range escort missions were flown. As I have pointed out previously escorted deep penetrations raids didn't start until Big Week in February 1944. In fact, the tests were completed even before the 8th AF had dropped a single bomb on Germany. While the tests were going on the P-38 was just beginning to enter service. At that time bomber escort missions of any sort weren't even being contemplated.
Note that contrary to the claims that the problems were related to the English winter the tests were done in balmy Florida. Also note the unfavorable comparison to the P-39 which was certainly was not flying great distances at high altitudes.
The P-39 and the other Allison powered fighters used a different heating system than the P-38. They simply tapped hot air from the radiator discharge. This would have been impractical for the P-38 due to the location of the radiators. The P-38 used the same system Lockheed used on their pre-war radial powered airliners. I am curious as to why the USAAC didn't use the glycol cockpit heater they developed in the early 1930s which would have yielded better results. From Air Corps News February 18, 1932:
View attachment 647248
The following Test Report delineates the extensive modifications finally undertaken to the heating system to get satisfactory performance:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/P-38J_performance_11march44.pdf
The amount of heat was more than doubled and a plug for a heated flight suit was added. Even in this test it was noted that the cockpit was poorly sealed.
View attachment 647256
The P-38 flight manual gives the history of the heating system
View attachment 647251
View attachment 647250
View attachment 647249
The right emitter heated the cockpit and the left heated the armament (camera in the PR versions) The heat previously used for the armament was diverted to the cockpit and an electric heater was substituted for the armament.
Also of note was the cockpit sealing was extremely poor. Considering that Lockheed built the high altitude XC-35 research aircraft before WWII this is inexcusable.
Lockheed XC-35 Electra | National Air and Space Museum
The Lockheed XC-35 and the Evolution of the Pressurized Cabin
Ageed. A point I have made in the past and tend to ignore when applied to me is that the people making the decisions where under tremendous pressure to make the decisions very quickly with an overriding need to get aircraft into combat yesterday if not sooner. When bomber crews are dying at an unsustainable rate the comfort of a fighter pilot becomes pretty much irrelevant.Yes, there was plenty of time to implement a fix, just as there was plenty of time to fix other issues on the P-38 as well as other aircraft. Again, the contractor (Lockheed) can't and won't implement any major design change (as it's a modification to the contract) unless government approved. My guess is someone at Wright Patterson decided the heating issue wasn't important enough to order an aircraft modification through a contract change or didn't want to halt the production line to implement this modification.
I grew up in a part of the world that can see temperature as low as minus 40 so I am fully aware of how difficult it can be to function in cold weather and the serious issues that can result from prolonged exposure.The effect of being cold increases with time, for a high altitude interceptor inadequate heating is inconvenient and uncomfortable, for long range missions it can be fatal, especially since UK missions in February meant the pilot was probably very cold before he even took off.
I agree I was just referring to the part in your post, not your words but a linked quote that contained "Although designed as a high altitude interceptor".I grew up in a part of the world that can see temperature as low as minus 40 so I am fully aware of how difficult it can be to function in cold weather and the serious issues that can result from prolonged exposure.
Having spent time trying to keep warm in a Volkswagen beetle with the same style of exhaust manifold heater as the P-38 I feel empathy for the pilots.
Ageed. A point I have made in the past and tend to ignore when applied to me is that the people making the decisions where under tremendous pressure to make the decisions very quickly with an overriding need to get aircraft into combat yesterday if not sooner. When bomber crews are dying at an unsustainable rate the comfort of a fighter pilot becomes pretty much irrelevant.
Agree on both fronts - over the years many people have tried to demonize (for a better choice of words) Lockheed for deficiencies found on the P-38, and there were many on the early production models. As stated many times previously, no one expected more than 75 P-38s to ever be constructed and the aircraft was operated in a variety roles it was never intended, again one of them being a long range escort. Most of the bashing was the result of the memo written by Col Rau, 3 June1944. I bolded and colored key points;I grew up in a part of the world that can see temperature as low as minus 40 so I am fully aware of how difficult it can be to function in cold weather and the serious issues that can result from prolonged exposure.
Having spent time trying to keep warm in a Volkswagen beetle with the same style of exhaust manifold heater as the P-38 I feel empathy for the pilots.
Great post. Thanks!
The infamous Webasto auxiliary heater that Canadian spec Beetles often came with didn't truely solve the problem.The Army didn't want to take the performance hit a gasoline fueled cockpit heater would cause.
American Stewart-Warner South Wind car heater from the 1930s.
View attachment 647356
View attachment 647357
After the British got out of their contract for Aircobras by specifying such a heater the Army didn't want to see the P-38s performance ruined by such a device.
(Sarcasm)
BTW Old VW Beetles and Corvairs could be equipped with such heaters as options.
You guys are all confused, it's really a:Honest, I thought you guys made up turbulator.
A couple of questions to show my ignorance.Agree on both fronts - over the years many people have tried to demonize (for a better choice of words) Lockheed for deficiencies found on the P-38, and there were many on the early production models. As stated many times previously, no one expected more than 75 P-38s to ever be constructed and the aircraft was operated in a variety roles it was never intended, again one of them being a long range escort. Most of the bashing was the result of the memo written by Col Rau, 3 June1944. I bolded and colored key points;
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, VIII FC. They are intended purely as constructive criticism and are not intended in anyway 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-fivehours 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 heavyload). 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 thingswrong. 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. Thelogical 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/Vand 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 Hough 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.
P-38 detractors have taken bits and pieces of this memo to bash the P-38 and Allison over the years, but if you read into it Rau identifies the root of the problem in the first paragraph. Now IMO, he was overcritical about the cockpit configuration, compare the P-38 cockpit to other twin engine fighters (DH Mosquito, Beaufighter, Me110) of the period and I don't think you'll see much difference. The P-38 had to fulfill roles that wasn't identified when it was being developed and although difficulties were encountered, got the job done.
That's been asked several times and I really don't have an answer, it's not found in the basic flight manual in any cockpit nomenclature (at least in the copy I have). I believe it might have something to do with arming the guns or turning on the gunsight.A couple of questions to show my ignorance.
1). What is a "Combat Switch"?
As far as I know, "no."2). Did the P-38 ever get the "marvelous mechanism" known as a "unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold pressure regulator etc."?
They were - I believe the original selector had a raised portion that was twisted into position, the later selector had a handle.3). Were the valve selector handles changed for easier use?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks FB, too bad about number 2, sounds like it would have been quite the boon in combat.That's been asked several times and I really don't have an answer, it's not found in the basic flight manual in any cockpit nomenclature (at least in the copy I have). I believe it might have something to do with arming the guns or turning on the gunsight.
As far as I know, "no."
They were - I believe the original selector had a raised portion that was twisted into position, the later selector had a handle.
Yes, because the airplane is a born Dogfighter. Same scenario WWI aircraft found themselves in.No, the Zero was designed to be exactly what it was, a long-range naval air superiority fighter - but that term was not in use. Fighters of World War One didn't fly 500-600 miles into enemy territory and dominate the air over enemy bases. Fighters of World War I didn't operate from aircraft carriers because aircraft carriers didn't exist.
Every plane design involves the art of intelligent compromise. Japan needed a plane with a 600 mile combat radius, one that could operate from aircraft carriers, including small ones. The plane had to be able to take on the best planes operated by potential adversaries, and it had to make due with a 950-1050 horsepower engine and be affordable to the Japanese government and be producable by Japanese industry. The Zero fulfilled these requirements, but more to the point, in the 5 months from December 1941 through May 1942, the Zero drove all opposition from the sky, enabling the country to accomplish most of its territorial goals by May 1942. During this period, and even through the battles of Coral Sea and Midway, losses of the A6M in the air were manageable even though the plane did not have armor or protected fuel tanks. To that end, those features were not essential to the aircraft accomplishing its mission. In the Guadalcanal campaign, despite the Zero generally flying 600 miles from Rabaul, the Zero fought the F4F to a statistical draw (according to Lundstrum), and the Wildcat was a much more expensive aircraft than the A6M. The problem with the Zero was that it wasn't replaced in 1943 when the Allies replaced their 1941 fighters.Yes, because the airplane is a born Dogfighter. Same scenario WWI aircraft found themselves in.
The Zero, while having excellent climbing ability, wasn't such a good diver, as the plane was built too lightly (to put it in a very general sense), thus it wasn't a good plane for "Boom and Zoom" tactics, which is a WWII scenario.
That's what I meant when I posted that statement.
Yes, interesting comment.The problem with the Zero was that it wasn't replaced in 1943 when the Allies replaced their 1941 fighters.