P-38 vs P-51

[XBe02Drvr]

Hi Wes- great narrative! But you know you're painting a "worse case situation" LOL, but that's what we train for, right?

"Worst cases" kill pilots, especially in training. (Dick Collins wasn't wrong!) BTW, I checked him out in a sailplane, and soloed his son. They arrived in a friend's "enhanced" Baron, and it was some entertaining watching them wrestle that hotrod down onto our 30x2400 foot strip with visual illusions on short final, a hump in the middle, a slope to the left, and a crowned surface. They weren't too proud to execute go-arounds until they got the approach just right. Smarter than most.
(Back on topic) Most of the quotes I've seen from WWII seem to refer to engine failures at altitudes and speeds where controllability was not a problem. The lack of testimony from survivors of takeoff engine failures has an ominous feeling about it.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Most of the quotes I've seen from WWII seem to refer to engine failures at altitudes and speeds where controllability was not a problem. The lack of testimony from survivors of takeoff engine failures has an ominous feeling about it.
Cheers,
Wes

The film clip I posted earlier shows how easy it could be done, but then again Tony LeVier was flying.

I've spoken to a few P-38 drivers over the years and I never heard them speak of having to deal with an engine failure on takeoff, but they did speak of an engine getting shot out during combat. Col. Mike Alba (55th FG) told me he enjoyed the P-38 and in some ways liked it better than the P-51. He did mention the cold cockpit and the necessity of having several hundred hours of twin time before being proficient in the P-38. I remember mike saying he did loose and engine during a mission - no issues, feathered the bad engine and flew home.

The earlier comment "The asymmetry of the remaining engine would flip over the aircraft. A pilot would have to be lucky and have enough altitude to correct for this" is one of the dumber comments I've seen on here in a very long time.

 

[michael rauls]

Seems like just about every ww2 fighter had some issue you had to be wary of.
Whether it was the p38s engine out on takeoff, the p51s lack of stall warning, or the p40s narrow under carriage and corresponding ground loop potential seems like just about all of them had some flight or takeoff/ landing characteristic that could bite if the pilot didn't really now what he was doing and sometimes maybe even if he did.
Maybe the F6F and P47 are the lone standouts here without any such issues I'm aware of. The caviaght being if you're flying the Hellcat you're probably flying it off a carrier which seems like that was pretty dangerous in and of itself.

 

[BiffF15]

The film clip I posted earlier shows how easy it could be done, but then again Tony LeVier was flying.

I've spoken to a few P-38 drivers over the years and I never heard them speak of having to deal with an engine failure on takeoff, but they did speak of an engine getting shot out during combat. Col. Mike Alba (55th FG) told me he enjoyed the P-38 and in some ways liked it better than the P-51. He did mention the cold cockpit and the necessity of having several hundred hours of twin time before being proficient in the P-38. I remember mike saying he did loose and engine during a mission - no issues, feathered the bad engine and flew home.

The earlier comment "The asymmetry of the remaining engine would flip over the aircraft. A pilot would have to be lucky and have enough altitude to correct for this" is one of the dumber comments I've seen on here in a very long time.

FBJ,
What page is the Tony LeVier demo on?
Cheers,
Biff

 

[XBe02Drvr]

A pilot would have to be lucky and have enough altitude to correct for this" is one of the dumber comments I've seen on here in a very long time.

I would substitute "more uninformed" for "dumber". Think back to before you started flying and accumulating experience. Do you think you could have accurately described the various issues of asymmetric thrust and VMCa in high powered twin engined airplanes? I know I couldn't have.
Actually, that "dumb" comment is kind of true in a broad sort of way. A pilot caught in the heavily loaded engine-out scenario I described in my earlier posts would have to be very quick and very precise (and very lucky!) in his aircraft handling to get away with it. Any deviation from perfect performance would end in a smoking crater off the end of the runway. Two bombs, two drop tanks, and a full bag of internal would make for quite a fireworks display.
Whole different ballgame from Tony LeVier in his lightly loaded, clean airframe, air show bird.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[swampyankee]

Tony LeVier was also a test pilot with much more experience in the P-38 than service pilots. As a test pilot, his job was to find the edges of those envelopes that the service pilots were supposed to stay within.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Seems like the P-38 was a handful, experienced pilot or not.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I would substitute "more uninformed" for "dumber". Think back to before you started flying and accumulating experience. Do you think you could have accurately described the various issues of asymmetric thrust and VMCa in high powered twin engined airplanes? I know I couldn't have.

Absolutely not, but then again I wouldn't have tried to comment on something I know little or nothing about or try to throw in some made up folklore or mis information. This individual has a long history of armchair flying seemingly based on comic books or maybe by watching Black Sheep Squadron re-runs!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FBJ,
What page is the Tony LeVier demo on?
Cheers,
Biff

Post 160 if this link don't work, look at the 30:01 mark

P-38 vs P-51

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Seems like the P-38 was a handful, experienced pilot or not.

Depends what you call a handful. It was a twin and many other twins produced during WW2 had better and yet worse characteristics, but the point is it had two engines and demanded an experienced pilot.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Tony LeVier was also a test pilot with much more experience in the P-38 than service pilots. As a test pilot, his job was to find the edges of those envelopes that the service pilots were supposed to stay within.

Agree - but then again the process of dealing with emergency procedures were able to be learned and accomplished, just like LeVier demonstrated

 

[FLYBOYJ]

A pilot caught in the heavily loaded engine-out scenario I described in my earlier posts would have to be very quick and very precise (and very lucky!) in his aircraft handling to get away with it. Any deviation from perfect performance would end in a smoking crater off the end of the runway. Two bombs, two drop tanks, and a full bag of internal would make for quite a fireworks display.
Whole different ballgame from Tony LeVier in his lightly loaded, clean airframe, air show bird.
Cheers,
Wes

Agree to a point. Sure the airplane used in the demo was more than likely a fresh factory demo bird, point is the P-38 was no more a death trap then any other fighter twin. How about a heavily laden Me 110? Beaufighter? Let's throw the tail dragger aspect into this as well!

 

[Shortround6]

Tony LeVier and his " lightly loaded, clean airframe, air show bird " that he put on demonstrations with in Europe to the groups flying P-38s.

Granted he was probably carrying little, if any ammunition and less than a fuel load of fuel but it may have still had shackles and such attached.

 

[Zipper730]

I believe you're correct but to mention again, no one ever thought more than an handful of P-38s were ever going to be built.

Yeah, I know you mentioned that earlier and I was about to ask you a question on that: Particularly how many they actually expected to be built.

It seems odd to spend a whole bunch of money on a program that will yield little fruit.

 

[fliger747]

Somewhere along the way I piled up maybe 20,000 hrs multi time. In that time I did have a number of real engine failures. On a long flight keeping fuel balanced kept one very busy! The advent of level D simulators has been a great step forward in both practicing and evaluating engine loss during the most critical phases of flight. Transport category aircraft of today have calculated V speeds which are including runway length, surface, altitude, bars pressure, wind and whatnot for each takeoff. The most difficult are those events at the minimum control speeds, whether on the ground or in the air. Before V1 runway remained for a rejected takeoff, after V1 runway remained allowed the takeoff to continue till V2 when a rotation and minimum climb gradient could be attained.

Most current light twins and almost all WWII twin tactical aircraft would have a "blue line". This meant any failure on the ground would mean a rejected takeoff without regard to remaining runway. If in the air a straight ahead crash would be accepted till the blue line, which would guarantee both minimum directional control plus some sort of minimum climb rate.

In a typical simulator event lasting four hours, much more time was spent flying around with one or more engines "out" than operating. Maximum adverse conditions were practiced extensively till a good proficiency was obtained.

WWII pilots did not have the luxury of such simulator training nor todays standards of reliability and maintenance.

They were after all, expendable.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yeah, I know you mentioned that earlier and I was about to ask you a question on that: Particularly how many they actually expected to be built.

It seems odd to spend a whole bunch of money on a program that will yield little fruit.

At the time of it's development, the P-38 was considered the most advanced combat aircraft in the world. The US was preparing for war and it was a bit of a gamble as no one knew what the future would hold...

P-38 was the mainstay AAF fighter in the Pacific, the 2 top US aces flew it, first US fighter to exceed 400 mph, was produced through out the entire war, was used for the "aerial assassination" of Admiral Yamamoto and shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other AAF fighter. (I've only scratched that surface) Aside from that some of it's flaws (compressibility) revealed what was necessary for future development of fighter aircraft. That statement couldn't be further from the truth!!!!

 

[nuuumannn]

Beaufighter was particularly known as a bit of a hog engine out. I spoke with Beaufighter pilots years ago when I worked at an airfield that used to be home to a Beaufighter operational training unit in WW2 and they praised it in flight, but it could be prickly at times. The Beaufighter II with Merlins was apparently terrible on the ground, as even with both engines going, it had a tendency to ground loop with the smallest advance of the power levers. I read of one pilot describing its handling as 'evil'.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Somewhere along the way I piled up maybe 20,000 hrs multi time. In that time I did have a number of real engine failures.

Some guys get all the action! In 13,000 hours of flying, I never had an in-flight engine failure; closest thing being precautionary shut down of a PT6 due to a stuttering bleed valve, which never could be induced to duplicate that behavior. They changed it out, sent it off to P&W for analysis, who returned it "Ops Checks OK. No fault detected"
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

It seems odd to spend a whole bunch of money on a program that will yield little fruit.

Unlike the exotic "lab rat" X-planes of post WWII, which also cost a bundle of change, the P38 was blazing the frontiers of aircraft performance with a practical, potentially combat capable airframe. This was just the sort of wise investment with likely high returns that a cash strapped economy struggling to climb out of the Depression needed.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[nuuumannn]

closest thing being precautionary shut down of a PT6 due to a stuttering bleed valve, which never could be induced to duplicate that behavior.

That's curly. Those happen occasionally where we just can't replicate the problem on the ground. We just defer for further crew reports. If the problem still happens we change everything until it gets to the inevitable engine change. But PT-6s are pretty reliable.