Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
One of them is all old and wrinkly!
And this human interface is overcome with TRAINING. 8 switches vs 6??? Sorry Tomo, this is a non-issue. If it's that mentally challenging for a pilot to activate a few extra switches, they shouldn't be flying airplanes!WHile I appreciate people posting the pics of different cockpits of 2-engined aircraft, IMO that kinda misses the point. P-38 when compared with a P-51 had/has disadvantage in area of 'human interface'. In the 'America's hundred thousnad' it is remarked as with every new version, the cockpit controls and switches get more tedious to operate. Pilot of P-38J/L was to switch between up to 8 fuel tanks, vs. 6 for P-51D and up to 5 (usualy just 4 used) on P-47D; coupled with twice the number of engine controls that was supposed to make it harder to master, and easier for new pilots to make mistake when under pressure of imminent combat.
How may times in the field were these adjusted????Sorry, but, as anyone who has worked on them will tell you, the P-38 is excessively complicated and it has nothing to do with having a second engine. It is so bad anyone would think it was British. Actually strike that - it makes British aircraft look quite simple.
This is a main landing gear door hinge - one of five per door so there are 20 per aircraft. What is not shown are the spring and the other casting. etc. Over 40 parts per hinge. The same basic design on the nose gear and gun bay doors.
View attachment 522250
Showing spring and some other details like the spools
View attachment 522252
Some detail off the technical drawing ("blueprint")
View attachment 522251
The main gear and door mechanism is also super-complicated with multiple cylinders (retract, uplock, downlock, door) pulleys, bell-cranks and cables. Lots of high maintenance items - especially when compared to the B-25 where one cylinder opens the main door, retracts the gear and closes both doors and once set up the mechanism is trouble free.
Gear
View attachment 522255
Doors
View attachment 522254
One of them is all old and wrinkly!
How wonky are those rudder pedals?
Switching hands? So what!! I fly a GA single engine aircraft with a simple 160 hp engine and I switch hands all the time, continually trimming the aircraft, working the radios, GPS and looking at charts. Again, placement of switches and equipment in a cockpit is something you come proficient in during training while you're gaining familiarization with the aircraft.
IMO the complex P-38 cockpit argument is a myth created by Col. Rau who did not like the twin engine P-38, had many pilots ill-trained to fly them and were not operating them IAW the manufacturer's guidelines. If you think ETO P-38 drivers had it so bad, what about the 18 and 19 year old Bomber Command pilots flying Lancasters without co-pilots! I bet they were keeping busy if they had an engine out, especially during takeoff!!!!
Plenty of strong points on both machines, but also some important 'negatives', especially for P-38. Also, plenty of missed opportunities.
P-51: quick development cycle, good performance even on modest power, excellent performance on good power, almost no 'issues', apart from faulty HMG installantion and, sometimes, not having a positive lock of U/C cover (remedied in winter of 1943/44), long/very long range. Lack of hi-alt performance until Merlin was installed; no drop tank facility early on. Reasonable firepower, if light per UK/Germans standards sometimes.
P-38: long/very long range, good firepower, good performance at all altitudes, ability to carry heavy payload. Problems include protracted development process, lack of second source (granted, not a culprit of a type, but, that coupled with the long development and P-38 being a twin meant that there was a shortcoming of P-38s in 1942-43), big size for a fighter, blind zones for pilot due to booms and nacelles. Problems that were serious, but were rectified by 1944 were low rate of roll, awful heating of cockpit, just one generator, low permissibel dive speed (even with P-38, the P-51 was far better in this regard). Twin engined means twice the engine maintenance and almost twice the fuel needed - not such a factor for CONUS units, but was a thing for units deployed thousands of miles abroad. Twin engine A/C = additional training vs. 1-engine type, not facilitated with complicated layout of handles and switches.
The only thing complicated is you had to do the same process as you would do on a single engine fighter twice.The complexity of the P-38 cockpit was also a disadvantage according to pilot reports because it took a bit longer to go from cruise configuration to combat if bounced.
Ive read quotes from 3 or 4 p38 pilots that deploying the dive flaps before entering the dive to keep the plane under the speed of compresability in the first place was common practice. If this was the case and I would tend to believe the pilots that it was, the p38 from J25 on( wich is most of them) did indeed solve the compresability problem. Of course it was replaced with a slower dive problem but having your dive limited to say 470 mph at 25,000 feet isnt all that shaby. Alot of planes were starting to run into trouble not to far in excess of this anyway.Hello Tomo Pauk,
One performance advantage of the P-38 that wasn't mentioned is its higher acceleration when compared to P-51 and P-47.
Some of those problems that you mentioned that were rectified really were not.
The Rate of Roll was improved with hydraulically boosted ailerons, but there was still a very bad lag until the beast reacted.
The permissible dive speed really did not improve at all. It was the ability to recover from a dive that was improved.
Nose tuck and loss of control still happened at the same speeds, but with the dive recovery flaps, there was at least a means of slowing down and pitching the aircraft up instead of just going for the ride.
The onset of Compressibility was at Mach 0.675 or about 450 MPH TAS at 30,000 feet.
Consider that this is only about 30 MPH above the maximum level speed at that altitude, so there really wasn't much margin.
Other odd things are that the fuel selectors in early and late models of the P-38 changed by quite a bit to the point where if you know how one works, it won't help you figure out the other one for cross feed.
The complexity of the P-38 cockpit was also a disadvantage according to pilot reports because it took a bit longer to go from cruise configuration to combat if bounced.
Personally, I believe the P-38 wins the beauty contest but of course that is subjective.
- Ivan.
Ive read quotes from 3 or 4 p38 pilots that deploying the dive flaps before entering the dive to keep the plane under the speed of compresability in the first place was common practice. If this was the case and I would tend to believe the pilots that it was, the p38 from J25 on( wich is most of them) did indeed solve the compresability problem. Of course it was replaced with a slower dive problem but having your dive limited to say 470 mph at 25,000 feet isnt all that shaby. Alot of planes were starting to run into trouble not to far in excess of this anyway.
The only thing complicated is you had to do the same process as you would do on a single engine fighter twice.
Manual says that the placard speeds could be exceeded by 20mph with the dive flaps deployed vs undeployed.
Not a great improvement. At low level it didn't really matter.
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-five hours 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 heavy load). 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 things wrong. 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.
Manual says that the placard speeds could be exceeded by 20mph with the dive flaps deployed vs undeployed.
Not a great improvement. At low level it didn't really matter.