Data source?
At least Darren's data had a little more detailed information.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Data source?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)
Data source?
At least Darren's data had a little more detailed information.
You saw the Tony LeVier video that was posted upthread didn't you? I think that about covers it as far as the fighter community was concerned. Different story with the bomber boys, I'm sure.Not sure how well defined engine failure or engine out the procedures were on WW2 aircraft.
You saw the Tony LeVier video that was posted upthread didn't you? I think that about covers it as far as the fighter community was concerned. Different story with the bomber boys, I'm sure.
Cheers,
Wes
I don't know either, but given that the P38 with all of its quirks was thrust into what had been a solidly single engine culture, it seems probable that the training system might take a bit of time to catch up. The bomber / transport community "owned" the multi engine training structure, so AT6 nuggets from the fighter pipeline were probably going straight into P38s with no dual control trainers available. Interesting question. Anybody out there know?Wes,
I think the LeVier video was good but what I don't know was when it came out and what was actually being taught at the school house.
Cheers,
Biff
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
And if you're taking off heavily loaded with partial flaps, your VMC is going to be higher still and your safe takeoff speed reached even farther down the runway.Another advantage in low speed flight for the P-38 is that its Fowler Flaps add quite a bit of additional wing area so a normal comparison of wing loading doesn't tell the full story either.
And if you're taking off heavily loaded with partial flaps, your VMC is going to be higher still and your safe takeoff speed reached even farther down the runway.
Cheers,
Wes
Hi Ivan -Hello XBe02Drvr,
There are a few differences with the airshow birds and the ones flown in combat.
First of all, I don't believe the typical airshow P-38 will have operational Turbochargers which means there is going to be less power available.
Next and most importantly, a lot more items can be stripped from a P-51 without screwing up the CoG location.
With the P-38, all that armament and armour and such is up front and I know at least one of the manuals states that if there is no ammunition being carried, the aircraft must be ballasted to maintain proper CoG.
Another advantage in low speed flight for the P-38 is that its Fowler Flaps add quite a bit of additional wing area so a normal comparison of wing loading doesn't tell the full story either.
- Ivan.
Hi Ivan -
From my time at Reno I heard from the piston pounders that the CG for the Mustangs raced there was actually really squirly, even with the stock birds. Crew chiefs really watched their "Ps and Qs" after the Ghost incident. As there were no P-38s racing I have no knowledge how this would compare. I believe that only one or 2 of the airworthy P-38s have fully operational turbochargers. I vaguely remember reading the ballast required on a non-armed P-38 was easily installed and not that much. I know I have some data on this buried in a box.
I crewed in the jet class and was totally anal on my bird's weight and balance as we stripped a whole bunch of sh*t out of the aircraft prior to getting serious
You are correct but after that mishap the feds came down hard on everyone with a very watchful eye. I do know that there were W&B issues brought up with many participants.Hello FLYBOYJ,
I thought the accident with Galloping Ghost / Jimmy Leeward resulted from the loss of a trim tab on the elevator which caused a severe pitch up (enough to collapse the pilot's seat). I had not heard that it was a CoG issue that was the cause.
I've seen some discussion about P-38 ballast. Were the British notes about the model 322?The mention about ballasting can be found in a British manual on the Lightning. Perhaps it is also found elsewhere.
Do you happen to know if any of the P-51s with CoG issues were converted to carry a passenger?
Don't readily know but remember, Lockheed did put another human in that nose. They also threw another body in piggy back and even threw a big radar below the nose. I think there was a wide envelope to play with.In looking at where components are in the P-51, we know the Fuselage fuel tank is well behind the CoG and the wing armament is very near the CoG or slightly behind. The armour plate behind the cockpit is also reasonably far aft, so all of these would tend to move the CoG slightly forward to improve stability a bit.
With the P-38, it does make one wonder what would happen if the ammunition were expended in flight rather than just not loaded on the aeroplane. In any case, if there is concern for just some ammunition, what happens when a 20 mm cannon and 4 .50 cal MGs are also removed from the same area?
- Ivan.
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
NAS Ops Dept had 3 SH3s, 2 US2Bs, a C1, a U11 (Piper Aztec), and a base CO who felt all his pilots should be 100% interchangeable. So his fixed wing fliers were out practicing autorotation in SH3s and his rotorheads were out doing V1 cuts in Stoofs....with predictable results. Nobody died, fortunately, but a lot of metal got bent, and the CO's retirement ceremony was moved earlier by almost a year.Back in the real round engine days Grumman on the Trackers fitted two rudders, one behind the other
Great info, ref. table 2 - data worth discussing.Attached is the history of the 496th Fighter Training Group which was tasked with training P-38 and P-51 pilots for the 8th and 9th Air Forces. Table 2 "Accident Analysis" shows that accidents were actually rare during take off. It also shows a much higher accident rate for the P-38.
I find the data in the table surprising. With the p38 being very difficult to stall and the Mustangs lack of stall warning and difficulty in recovery( so i have read anyway) I would have expected these rates to be much different.
Notice that the greatest discrepancy in accident RATES is in the in-flight category. There the P38 has three critical flight regimes to the P51's two, namely, accelerated stalls and compressibility dives (both), and engine-out flight (P38 only).I find the data in the table surprising. With the p38 being very difficult to stall and the Mustangs lack of stall warning and difficulty in recovery( so i have read anyway) I would have expected these rates to be much different.
The 496th was usually the first stop for inbound ETO replacements. I have two 'suspicions'. The first is that the 'in type' hours for the P-38 pilots were far lower than the P-51, compounding multi-engine complexity in comparison to AT-6 to P-40 or AT-6 to P-51. Some multi engine training in 1943 did proceed from AT-6 to C-45 'variants' but a C-45/B-25 is a long way from realistic P-38 prep.