P-38 vs P-51

[XBe02Drvr]

Since the thread is involving a comparison between the '51 and the '38...what do you do in a similar situation in a '51 when you lose an engine?

Put it back on the runway, give it full up elevator, jettison your drop tanks, give it all the braking action you can without standing it on its nose, lock your inertia reel harness, jettison your canopy, and ride it into the mangroves as slow as you can manage. Grasp your harness right next to, but not touching the quick-release as you roll into the trees. PRAY!
I vote for trike gear and a second engine, despite the control issues. Hey, we're shit hot aviators, we can hack it! Dumbshit mistakes always happen to the other guy, not me!
Cheers,
Wes.

 

[MiTasol]

Since the thread is involving a comparison between the '51 and the '38...what do you do in a similar situation in a '51 when you lose an engine?

You do not have to fight the aircraft wanting to yaw badly and you do not have to identify the correct engine and shut it down after reducing power on the remaining engine against all instinct. You only have to determine the best place to park and if the best option is gear up or down. Given that most airstrips, even in war, were positioned where you had a fairly clear path straight ahead that was not necessarily hazardous.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

You do not have to fight the aircraft wanting to yaw badly and you do not have to identify the correct engine and shut it down

A very brave (or foolish) FAA inspector pulled an engine on me suddenly at rotation in a Beech 1900, after clandestinely pulling the autofeather circuit breaker. Fortunately it was a 300 ft wide runway, because quick as I was, we were nearly 30° off heading before I got the yaw stopped, and the plane was already starting into a yaw induced roll. Fortunately, I had the gear in transit when it happened, and we were light, so it was a no flap takeoff. Still, with 1100 HP working off center on a 13,000 lb airframe, and the dead prop windmilling, there was practically zero climb until the gear completed its cycle. Once cleaned up and up to VySE with the proper bank angle, it climbed quite well.
You can bet I was some kind of pissed off at the Fed and just waiting for him to criticize my performance. Instead, he said "That's it, we're done, good show. Take me home."
Not wanting to look a gift horse in the mouth, I kept my mouth shut, but filed an ASRS report, and my Chief Pilot wrote a nastygram to the inspector's boss, who happened to be our airline's PIO. I never saw that inspector on one of our planes again.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[MiTasol]

A very brave (or foolish) FAA inspector pulled an engine on me suddenly at rotation in a Beech 1900, after clandestinely pulling the autofeather circuit breaker. Fortunately it was a 300 ft wide runway, because quick as I was, we were nearly 30° off heading before I got the yaw stopped, and the plane was already starting into a yaw induced roll. Fortunately, I had the gear in transit when it happened, and we were light, so it was a no flap takeoff. Still, with 1100 HP working off center on a 13,000 lb airframe, and the dead prop windmilling, there was practically zero climb until the gear completed its cycle. Once cleaned up and up to VySE with the proper bank angle, it climbed quite well.
You can bet I was some kind of pissed off at the Fed and just waiting for him to criticize my performance. Instead, he said "That's it, we're done, good show. Take me home."
Not wanting to look a gift horse in the mouth, I kept my mouth shut, but filed an ASRS report, and my Chief Pilot wrote a nastygram to the inspector's boss, who happened to be our airline's PIO. I never saw that inspector on one of our planes again.
Cheers,
Wes

When I was a young and stupid low time T-6 pilot I rode right seat in a B-25 several times. Nice and high and all cleaned up the pilot told me the aircraft was mine and that he was going to fail an engine on me.

@#$%^ that thing goes upside down fast if you stupidly ram in lots of power in on the other engine.

I should have known from the way he made sure on pre-flight that the aircraft had absolutely no loose items that I should have trimmed first then asked what now. Trim and nothing else was the correct response.

 

[IdahoRenegade]

You do not have to fight the aircraft wanting to yaw badly and you do not have to identify the correct engine and shut it down after reducing power on the remaining engine against all instinct. You only have to determine the best place to park and if the best option is gear up or down. Given that most airstrips, even in war, were positioned where you had a fairly clear path straight ahead that was not necessarily hazardous.

Assuming you had a long strip and/or runout zone as you describe-should an engine failure occur in a '38, why would you not just pull both engines to idle and do the same thing? I'm not a pilot, but it seems to me as if a "panic braking" job would be easier to accomplish with a plane with tricycle gear than a tail dragger-perhaps I'm wrong here.

 

[BiffF15]

Assuming you had a long strip and/or runout zone as you describe-should an engine failure occur in a '38, why would you not just pull both engines to idle and do the same thing? I'm not a pilot, but it seems to me as if a "panic braking" job would be easier to accomplish with a plane with tricycle gear than a tail dragger-perhaps I'm wrong here.

The problem I think was limited runway lengths. Usually in a multi at some point you are committed to taking off, known as V1 in today's speak. Also modern fighters have light weight brakes which results in a more go oriented mentality. Modern airliners will water your eyes with how well they will stop.

Also with today's jetliners you do a reduced power takeoff to limit engine wear and fuel usage but with a safety margin that allows for a comfortable pad should you lose an engine at or beyond V1. And you don't have to push up the power to continue the engine out takeoff in most instances.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Assuming you had a long strip and/or runout zone as you describe-should an engine failure occur in a '38, why would you not just pull both engines to idle and do the same thing?

Fighter strips on Pacific islands weren't known for their overly generous runway lengths, and they usually had palm forests or mangrove swamps at the ends of the runways with a berm of bulldozed slash left from the SeaBees "blitzbuild" construction techniques. Not your preferred overrun safety zone. A P38 loaded for a 700 mile strike mission with drop tanks and external ordnance would not be my chosen chariot for a romp in the woods.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[MiTasol]

Assuming you had a long strip and/or runout zone as you describe-should an engine failure occur in a '38, why would you not just pull both engines to idle and do the same thing? I'm not a pilot, but it seems to me as if a "panic braking" job would be easier to accomplish with a plane with tricycle gear than a tail dragger-perhaps I'm wrong here.

Trike gear will help naturally for a normal abort but, except on psp, the prop plowing dirt will provide even better deceleration if you have to stop that hard. The other alternative is gear up so long as you decide fast so the over-centre geometric lock can be over-ridden by the retract cylinder.

I would expect having a big solid one piece engine between you and an obstacle you slam into is better personal protection than five relatively loosely attached items of far lower mass which will not hit that obstacle simultaneously and which, being small rear surface area, have a reasonable chance of punching through the thin bulkhead between them and you.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

And you don't have to push up the power to continue the engine out takeoff in most instances.

My friend Kathleen said the 737-800s she was flying had an FMS-FADEC setup that would automatically trim the power on the working engine for best performance and controllability if an uncommanded power loss happened on one engine with gear down and speed > V1. Is that what you're talking about? What are you flying these days?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

it seems to me as if a "panic braking" job would be easier to accomplish with a plane with tricycle gear than a tail dragger

You're right about that, but the issue with a heavily loaded P38 is the much greater weight and takeoff speed, so you'll be farther down the runway than a single engine fighter, going faster, and you still only have two mainwheel brakes to stop all that inertia. And unlike modern twins, no reverse thrust capabilities.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[BiffF15]

My friend Kathleen said the 737-800s she was flying had an FMS-FADEC setup that would automatically trim the power on the working engine for best performance and controllability if an uncommanded power loss happened on one engine with gear down and speed > V1. Is that what you're talking about? What are you flying these days?
Cheers,
Wes

Wes,

I'm on the IAE engined A320 / 319. It's FBW, and in the event of a problem the checklist automatically pop up on the glass. 1980s tech but very well done. The versions I fly have no protections like that, and did not know the Guppy's had anything like that. I have a good bud who is a Captain on them and will see if UALs versions have that.

An engine failure at or beyond V1 in an Eagle is a non event. However at brake release on a burner takeoff I had one stag and the lateral yaw would have put me off the runway had it been the other motor. The nose wheel had lateral scuff marks from yaw. Total eye opener. The Ops Group CC met me at the jet when I shut down as he had heard the "bang".

Not sure how well defined engine failure or engine out the procedures were on WW2 aircraft.

We didn't use V speeds in the Eagle until late 90s or early 2000s. Very safe and reliable steed.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[IdahoRenegade]

You're right about that, but the issue with a heavily loaded P38 is the much greater weight and takeoff speed, so you'll be farther down the runway than a single engine fighter, going faster, and you still only have two mainwheel brakes to stop all that inertia. And unlike modern twins, no reverse thrust capabilities.
Cheers,
Wes

I understand what you're saying and it makes sense. But, when comparing with the Mustang-is that necessarily true (greater weight and only 2 mainwheel brakes, yes of course). Let's say you load a Mustang and a Lightning with 2000 lbs of bombs (which I recall was the rated load on later P-51s). The Lightning has nearly twice the HP, less than 2x the weight (IIRC-need to verify that) and a relatively high-lift wing. It was noted for acceleration. In that situation-would it have a greater takeoff speed, or be further down the runway at takeoff speed, than the Mustang? Just curious-not trying to start a fight or anything.

 

[BiffF15]

I understand what you're saying and it makes sense. But, when comparing with the Mustang-is that necessarily true (greater weight and only 2 mainwheel brakes, yes of course). Let's say you load a Mustang and a Lightning with 2000 lbs of bombs (which I recall was the rated load on later P-51s). The Lightning has nearly twice the HP, less than 2x the weight (IIRC-need to verify that) and a relatively high-lift wing. It was noted for acceleration. In that situation-would it have a greater takeoff speed, or be further down the runway at takeoff speed, than the Mustang? Just curious-not trying to start a fight or anything.

Idaho,

On the brake front both the P38 and P51 only had main wheel brakes. My guess the P38 might be able to stop easier due to no fear of tipping during a hard braking event.

My guess on takeoff is the P38 would most likely get airborne sooner for two reasons: first the 38 could go to full power almost immediately, and second combined with its wing size, weight gain compared to its overall weight would get airborne slightly sooner as well as having a lower takeoff speed.

These are guesses based on what I've seen with the planes I've flown, but are nothing but a guess.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[IdahoRenegade]

Idaho,

On the brake front both the P38 and P51 only had main wheel brakes. My guess the P38 might be able to stop easier due to no fear of tipping during a hard braking event.

My guess on takeoff is the P38 would most likely get airborne sooner for two reasons: first the 38 could go to full power almost immediately, and second combined with its wing size, weight gain compared to its overall weight would get airborne slightly sooner as well as having a lower takeoff speed.

These are guesses based on what I've seen with the planes I've flown, but are nothing but a guess.

Cheers,
Biff

After I posted, I went and did a little research. The P-38 has a higher wing loading, and a very slightly higher stall speed (according to Wikipedia, so take with a grain of salt). Would be interesting to see them both similarly loaded and see what does get off the ground sooner/in less runway.

When you say "the 38 could go to full power almost immediately"-I gather you cannot on the '51. Is that due to the need to gather adequate speed to have the control forces necessary to overcome torque/p-factor on the single engine?

I have a copy of Bodie's book-this thread has me wanting to dig it out and read it again. I also have a copy of America's 100,000-but it's MIA. I blame my wife...

 

[Greyman]

British figures:

P-38F
Take-off over 50ft obstacle: 600 yards (15,500 lb)
Landing over 50ft obstacle: 800 yards (13,360 lb)

P-51B/C
Take-off over 50ft obstacle: 660 yards (9,190 lb)
Landing over 50ft obstacle: 900 yards (7,720 lb)

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I understand what you're saying and it makes sense. But, when comparing with the Mustang-is that necessarily true

My guess on takeoff is the P38 would most likely get airborne sooner for two reasons: first the 38 could go to full power almost immediately, and second combined with its wing size, weight gain compared to its overall weight would get airborne slightly sooner as well as having a lower takeoff speed.

P-38F
Take-off over 50ft obstacle: 600 yards (15,500 lb)
Landing over 50ft obstacle: 800 yards (13,360 lb)

P-51B/C
Take-off over 50ft obstacle: 660 yards (9,190 lb)
Landing over 50ft obstacle: 900 yards (7,720 lb)

The one thing that's not addressed in this conversation is the difference in critical speeds between a single and a twin. Your Mustang pilot can lift off when his airplane is ready to fly, probably 1.2 or so stall speed at its current weight. A Lightning wants to fly way below single engine control speed, and a prudent pilot will keep it pinned down until at or near that speed. I'm betting that the British test pilots that derived Greyman's figures didn't do that, and especially didn't do it loaded for a Guadalcanal - Rabaul strike with drop tanks and two 1000 lb bombs. Difference between theoretical world and combat world.
I've been to Hamilton, I've been to Oshkosh, and admittedly, at an airshow they're lightly loaded, but the Lightnings had visibly longer takeoff runs than the Mustangs.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[BiffF15]

The one thing that's not addressed in this conversation is the difference in critical speeds between a single and a twin. Your Mustang pilot can lift off when his airplane is ready to fly, probably 1.2 or so stall speed at its current weight. A Lightning wants to fly way below single engine control speed, and a prudent pilot will keep it pinned down until at or near that speed. I'm betting that the British test pilots that derived Greyman's figures didn't do that, and especially didn't do it loaded for a Guadalcanal - Rabaul strike with drop tanks and two 1000 lb bombs. Difference between theoretical world and combat world.
I've been to Hamilton, I've been to Oshkosh, and admittedly, at an airshow they're lightly loaded, but the Lightnings had visibly longer takeoff runs than the Mustangs.
Cheers,
Wes

Wes,

Not surprising. However think about taking 1K worth of armor, fuel tanks, guns and ammo out of a 9k airplane vice a 15k airplane. The lighter plane will get a bigger boost in performance than the heavier one due to percentage of total weight removed.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[DarrenW]

Not having a horse in this race, as I like these two fighters just about equally....

From Dean's America's Hundred-Thousand:

Take-off distance (gross weight/zero wind/hard surface/sea level/take-off power):
P-38J 1,080ft at 17,699lbs
P-51D 1,185ft at 10,176lbs

Power loadings (gross weight/horsepower) at various altitudes, when compared to 11 other fighters:
P-38L ranked first at 10,000ft/20,000ft/30,000ft
P-51D ranked 2nd at 10,000ft and 3rd at 20,000ft.

The P-38L ranked first in level flight acceleration when compared to seven other late war US fighters. The P-51D ranked third (when starting at 250mph and applying combat power).

The climb rate of the P-38J/L in NORMAL power is shown to be superior to the P-51D in either NORMAL or MILITARY power, at practically every altitude.

Speed, range, roll and turn rate go to the P-51.

In addition to this, the author makes mention of the Joint Fighter Conference held during October 1944. Out of all the categories where both the P-38L and P-51D are mentioned, there are four where the Lightning is ranked higher than the Mustang by sheer number of votes:

1) Best overload takeoff from small area (something we discussed earlier).
2) Best rudder.
3) Best characteristics 5 mph above a stall
4) Worst cockpit (obviously not a positive trait at all, for which it ranked 1st)

In contrast the P-51D ranked higher than the P-38L in nine categories (when both are mentioned), such as best engine controls arrangement (1st), best ailerons at 100mph, best ailerons at 350 mph (1st), nicest all-around stability, best elevators, best dive stability and control (this one is easy to understand), best all-around fighter above 25,000ft, best fighter-bomber, and best strafer.

There is a strong possibility that the majority of the pilots present at the conference weren't twin-engine qualified, which obviously would make the P-38 a handful to operate. But without knowing the backgrounds of these pilots this is pure speculation on my part.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Wes,

Not surprising. However think about taking 1K worth of armor, fuel tanks, guns and ammo out of a 9k airplane vice a 15k airplane. The lighter plane will get a bigger boost in performance than the heavier one due to percentage of total weight removed.

Cheers,
Biff

Well in order to pursue this any further, we'd have to know the weight and configuration conditions under which the the British tests were done, and whether they were comparable between the two aircraft in practical terms.
In order to get it right we should compare the two aircraft fueled and loaded for the same ultra long range strike mission under the same climatic conditions. I don't know about the Mustang, but I'm pretty sure Rabaul with 2,000 lbs of bombs was an overload takeoff for a Lightning out of Henderson. Takeoff performance there would be significantly less than in merry old England.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Greyman]

Fuel to the fire:

P-38G
Take-off over 50ft obstacle: 580 yards (15,000 lb)
Landing over 50ft obstacle: 800 yards (13,020 lb)

P-51D
Take-off over 50ft obstacle: 720 yards (9,478 lb)
Landing over 50ft obstacle: 950 yards (7,860 lb)