P-38 vs P-51

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

 
Excellent work. Did you notice the climb numbers were substantially higher for the P-39N at all altitudes up to 8000meters (26400')?
 
True and agree, but that argument is mute when the Mustang has a catastrophic engine failure after taking flack, double the point if over a vast body of water.

This is a myth.
P38's loss of an engine would not survive any better.
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.

Another P38 Achilles Heal was combat damage to the rear Elevator.
 
you want to play games with guns and ammo? I wonder How a P-47 does with only six guns and 200 round per gun?[/QUOTE]

My Bad guys. The figures I used for the P-47-10 came from a report dated 11 Oct. '43.
In the A. Purpose section it states:
"1. To report results of flight tests on P-47D-10 airplane, AAF No. 43-75035 run at the
manufacturer's plant. Airplane equipped with Pratt & Whitney R-2800-63 engine with
water injection; standard Curtiss 714-1C2-12 propeller; type A-17 turbo regulator. Airplane
ballasted to simulate the following conditions: Six .50 caliber guns; 300 rounds per gun;
305 gallons gasoline; 15 gallons water; 14 pounds pyrotechnics
. In this condition the gross
weight was 13,234 pounds with a C.G. wheels up, of 29.63 percent M.A.C. Mixture auto-
rich; throttle wide open on all tests. Horsepower data obtained with torquemeter."


I was actually shooting for an earlier version without the water injection and 8 guns.
 

Well this is going to get interesting...
 
This is a myth.
P38's loss of an engine would not survive any better.
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.

MIght be interesting trying to explain to some pilots in the CBI theater who made it back up to 600 miles on one engine why the couldn't have done it.
Maybe they were hit at high altitude?
 
you want to play games with guns and ammo? I wonder How a P-47 does with only six guns and 200 round per gun?

My Bad guys. The figures I used for the P-47-10 came from a report dated 11 Oct. '43.
In the A. Purpose section it states:
"1. To report results of flight tests on P-47D-10 airplane, AAF No. 43-75035 run at the
manufacturer's plant. Airplane equipped with Pratt & Whitney R-2800-63 engine with
water injection; standard Curtiss 714-1C2-12 propeller; type A-17 turbo regulator. Airplane
ballasted to simulate the following conditions: Six .50 caliber guns; 300 rounds per gun;
305 gallons gasoline; 15 gallons water; 14 pounds pyrotechnics
. In this condition the gross
weight was 13,234 pounds with a C.G. wheels up, of 29.63 percent M.A.C. Mixture auto-
rich; throttle wide open on all tests. Horsepower data obtained with torquemeter."


I was actually shooting for an earlier version without the water injection and 8 guns.[/QUOTE]


Good middle of war P-47 information seems hard to find, it is either from the B-47B & C when they were going into service and a lot of things were either marked "provisional" or estimates or just plain weird (same fuel burn with and without the 200 gallon ferry tank????) or it is for the P-47M &N with different engines and different turbos and different fuel tanks on the N.
Thanks for trying.
 
Dammit guys, I need to change the information in my post #134. I need
to substitute the water-injected P-47D-10's performance with the P-47D-6's.
That would make an even greate...........Ah crap, forget it. Someday I will
post it all somewhere. 'Till then have at it.
 

Hello Dan Fahey,
The situation you describe would only be true at very low airspeeds and high power settings along with an instant loss of power: Below minimum control speed for single engine operation.
Above that speed, generally things are not so bad.

Combat damage to the "rear Elevator" for just about ANY aircraft would bring it down.

Hello Corsning,
Which are the faulty figures?
From AHT, the gross weight of an early P47D was 12,740 pounds and for a P-47D-23 would be 13,582 pounds.
From what I can find, the default ammunition load tended to vary a bit, but for the gross weights I just listed was 8 guns with 275 rounds per gun. Later models went down as low as 200 rounds per gun.

- Ivan.
 

This was back in the mid 80's and I saw Lefty Gardner shut down an engine at Reno and land safely in his P-38. I have no info on why he had to shut down the engine, but I witnessed this and he definitely did not flip over.
 
Ivan,
I apologize sir. I have run out of time tonight. This is family time now
and I have to be up at 3:50 a.m.
I was going to post (and should have to begin with) the P-47D-6-RE
No. 42-74616 report dated 28 September 1943.
It can be seen at www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org that was put together
by Mike Williams and Neil Stirling.
 
Early P-38s only had one set of accessories (pumps, generator, etc) later ones got two generators but I am not sure about a full duplicate set of pumps. I believe P-38s used electric propellers, having the battery go dead means some pretty tricky work to adjust the pitch on props and you better get it right the first time.
 

Dan - do you know that a CRITICAL ENGINE is? Do you know what ENGINE OUT PROCEDURES are? Go do some homework and come back because once again and as always you speak from deep bovine fecal cavities.

Oh - and do show us statistics about aircraft losses due to rear elevator damage during combat.
 
Last edited:

As per S/Rs post, they could fly on one engine but not both engines could be that one engine.

The P-38 could easily fly on one engine (to include the early ones) and it did fly well. The P-38 did not have a CRITICAL engine so ENGINE OUT procedures were the same whether the left or right engine failed. Yes - early P-38s had the issue with one generator but in the end each engine had 2 magnetos which meant the aircraft kept flying. (DAN ARE YOU READING THIS)

The P-38 is one of the only twins I know of where you had to REDUCE power on the good engine if you had an engine failure during take off. (Wes, if you read this chime in on other GA or Corp twins with the same characteristics.)

"Another issue with the P-38 arose from its unique design feature of outwardly rotating counter-rotating propellers. Losing one of two engines in any twin engine non-centerline thrust aircraft on takeoff creates sudden drag, yawing the nose toward the dead engine and rolling the wingtip down on the side of the dead engine. Normal training in flying twin-engine aircraft when losing an engine on takeoff would be to push the remaining engine to full throttle; if a pilot did that in the P-38, regardless of which engine had failed, the resulting engine torque and p-factor force produced a sudden uncontrollable yawing roll and the aircraft would flip over and slam into the ground. Eventually, procedures were taught to allow a pilot to deal with the situation by reducing power on the running engine, feathering the prop on the dead engine, and then increasing power gradually until the aircraft was in stable flight. Single-engine takeoffs were possible, though not with a maximum combat load."

Lockheed P-38 Lightning Airplane Videos and Airplane Pictures
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread