Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The fact that there is a critical engine undermines the case of twin aircraft being safer than single ones, in combat they have twice as many engines to hit, easier to see, easier to hit and twice as much fuel to hit. This is a forum where the mods are more abusive than the participants and worse in their ignorance and partisan views. I will join Drgondog in exile, and we all know how that happened, don't we?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.
The fact that there is a critical engine undermines the case of twin aircraft being safer than single ones, in combat they have twice as many engines to hit, easier to see, easier to hit and twice as much fuel to hit. This is a forum where the mods are more abusive than the participants and worse in their ignorance and partisan views. I will join Drgondog in exile, and we all know how that happened, don't we?
The fact that there is a critical engine undermines the case of twin aircraft being safer than single ones, in combat they have twice as many engines to hit, easier to see, easier to hit and twice as much fuel to hit. This is a forum where the mods are more abusive than the participants and worse in their ignorance and partisan views. I will join Drgondog in exile, and we all know how that happened, don't we?
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.
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
FBJ,
I'm pretty sure that the P38 had two critical engines, which meant the engine out procedures were the same.
IIRC from Tony Leviers book that the P38 brought about some performance innovations, IE a V1 or SETOS (single engine take off speed). I think the initial performance calculations came from a SWP 38 Squadron.
Cheers,
Biff
I think he was feeling unsupported by the rest of the forum after his little set-to with Schweik, and you gotta admit you guys did get on Dan's case kinda hard. Some of us have thinner skins than others, and I think Pb may have been feeling a little self-conscious about being under-informed about the fine points of engine out procedures in high powered twins.Never had a problem with pbehn. I don't know what or why this happened.
I think he was feeling unsupported by the rest of the forum after his little set-to with Schweik, and you gotta admit you did get on Dan's case kinda hard. Some of us have thinner skins than others, and I think Pb may have been feeling a little self-conscious about being under-informed about the fine points of engine out procedures in high powered twins.
You know the old saw about: "If ya ain't a pilot, ya ain't sh$t!". I think we "high and mighty" aviators sometimes get a little too full of ourselves for the comfort of our less fortunate shipmates. Mea maxima culpa. Et tu, Brute`?
Cheers,
Wes
If you service the wiffie by dumping it through the outflow valve, well, what do you expect? S - - t happens when you put a new guy out on the floor before he's fully trained! No wonder it's stuck!but then again it's hard to fill brain cavity when the outflow valve is stuck!
I think he was feeling unsupported by the rest of the forum after his little set-to with Schweik, and you gotta admit you did get on Dan's case kinda hard. Some of us have thinner skins than others, and I think Pb may have been feeling a little self-conscious about being under-informed about the fine points of engine out procedures in high powered twins.
You know the old saw about: "If ya ain't a pilot, ya ain't sh$t!". I think we "high and mighty" aviators sometimes get a little too full of ourselves for the comfort of our less fortunate shipmates. Mea maxima culpa. Et tu, Brute`?
Cheers,
Wes
That's an interesting piece of data that I didn't know prior to this pointOn early models (B/Cs), ammunition doors & landing gear doors sometimes opened under high-gee conditions (frequently during high-speed dives) - this often then overstressed the wings, with several aircraft losing a wing and crashing (witnessed by other pilots). This was eventually resolved. You mentioned this in passing without mentioning its deadly effect. There was at least one P-51B lost to this in April 1944*, so not completely solved as per your date.
Very valuable dataI found such tables for Northern Hemisphere.
Atmospheric Temperature Profiles of the Northern Hemisphere
That looks more like a bowling ball than a baby...
In dont think the dive recovery flaps changed the maximum speed of the p38 in a dive. It would still be mach .68 which I think is around 470 at 25,000 feet.( the speed of sound can vary somewhat with temperature and humidity). What they would do is take away the threat of uncontrolled flight into terrain if this speed were exceeded.Regarding the P-38
Advantages
Disadvantages
- Performance
- The earlier P-38's (E/F) had a superior rate of climb to the unlettered P-51's; against the P-51A it was superior from 0-5000 and from around 20,000 feet up
- The earlier P-38's (F/G) seemed to be able to out accelerate earlier P-51 models (P-51/P-51A) in level flight from 0-250 mph and probably a bit above that
- I would not be surprised if it would out-accelerate the P-51 in a dive initially due to it's greater mass -- I wouldn't do it long though (mach tuck is a bitch).
- The P-38's seemed to have better zoom climb performance all the way up to the P-51B at least, while close -- it'd hang on a bit longer.
- The P-38J's long-range wing-tanks didn't upset the CG as much as the Mustang's did, so it didn't require as much burning of internal fuel before switching to drop-tanks.
- Armament
- The armament centered in the nose provides a greater range of, well, ranges where it can accurately hit other aircraft
- The 20mm cannon also provides substantial hitting power over the P-51's all 0.50 armament
- It was able to carry substantial bomb-loads, around 3200 lbs if I recall versus the Merlin powered P-51's 2000 lb loads
- Other
- The nose-gear made for easier landings, better initial acceleration on takeoff, and better visibility when taxiing
- Rear visibility was probably better on the P-38 up to the P-51D owing to the shape of it's canopy
- It might have had more docile stall-characteristics, and might have been easier to land on short-fields
- The extra engine might have made for greater survivability when flying over oceans and possibly even in air-to-ground configurations (that said, the P-47 is king in air-to-ground).
I could be wrong on this, but that's basically what I seem to have grasped so far. I am curious how fast the P-38 could go with the dive recovery flaps in terms of mach number.
- Performance
- The P-51 had a faster rate of roll than the P-38's until the P-38J/N came around
- The P-51 had a much faster critical mach number and placard limits in dives than any aircraft in the USAAF inventory, as far as I know.
- The P-51A had a superior rate of climb from about 5000-15000 feet, which is a very useful altitude block
- The P-51B had a superior rate of climb from below 10,000 - 15,000 feet or so, and above 25,000 feet.
- Armament: I'm not sure if the P-51 had any advantage except that it had more guns
- Other
- The cockpit was said to be better designed from a human-factors standpoint than the P-38
- The cockpit seemed to have less issues with extreme cold and frosting in the cockpit over the P-38
- The P-51D's cockpit probably had better visibility, overall, to the rear hemisphere
That's an interesting piece of data that I didn't know prior to this point
While off topic: What kind of rate of climb are we talking about?
Very valuable data
That looks more like a bowling ball than a baby...
Any more mass quoting and Fubar57's going to be apoplectic
As far as I know, the P38 (and perhaps the Mosquito) was unique in this regard due to its extremely high power to weight ratio and the rotation direction of its counter-rotating propellers giving both engines "critical" behavior regardless of which one fails. Most twins are a little underpowered for single engine flight, which means that the maximum thrust asymmetry they can develop is relatively low compared to a powerhouse like the Lightning. This means that they can maintain directional control with rudder down to a relatively low speed (VMCa), which is usually somewhere close to the speed where the airframe wants to lift off.Wes, if you read this chime in on other GA or Corp twins with the same characteristics.
Regarding the P-38
Advantages
Disadvantages
- Performance
- The earlier P-38's (E/F) had a superior rate of climb to the unlettered P-51's; against the P-51A it was superior from 0-5000 and from around 20,000 feet up
- The earlier P-38's (F/G) seemed to be able to out accelerate earlier P-51 models (P-51/P-51A) in level flight from 0-250 mph and probably a bit above that
- I would not be surprised if it would out-accelerate the P-51 in a dive initially due to it's greater mass -- I wouldn't do it long though (mach tuck is a bitch).
- The P-38's seemed to have better zoom climb performance all the way up to the P-51B at least, while close -- it'd hang on a bit longer.
- The P-38J's long-range wing-tanks didn't upset the CG as much as the Mustang's did, so it didn't require as much burning of internal fuel before switching to drop-tanks.
- Armament
- The armament centered in the nose provides a greater range of, well, ranges where it can accurately hit other aircraft
- The 20mm cannon also provides substantial hitting power over the P-51's all 0.50 armament
- It was able to carry substantial bomb-loads, around 3200 lbs if I recall versus the Merlin powered P-51's 2000 lb loads
- Other
- The nose-gear made for easier landings, better initial acceleration on takeoff, and better visibility when taxiing
- Rear visibility was probably better on the P-38 up to the P-51D owing to the shape of it's canopy
- It might have had more docile stall-characteristics, and might have been easier to land on short-fields
- The extra engine might have made for greater survivability when flying over oceans and possibly even in air-to-ground configurations (that said, the P-47 is king in air-to-ground).
I could be wrong on this, but that's basically what I seem to have grasped so far. I am curious how fast the P-38 could go with the dive recovery flaps in terms of mach number.
- Performance
- The P-51 had a faster rate of roll than the P-38's until the P-38J/N came around
- The P-51 had a much faster critical mach number and placard limits in dives than any aircraft in the USAAF inventory, as far as I know.
- The P-51A had a superior rate of climb from about 5000-15000 feet, which is a very useful altitude block
- The P-51B had a superior rate of climb from below 10,000 - 15,000 feet or so, and above 25,000 feet.
- Armament: I'm not sure if the P-51 had any advantage except that it had more guns
- Other
- The cockpit was said to be better designed from a human-factors standpoint than the P-38
- The cockpit seemed to have less issues with extreme cold and frosting in the cockpit over the P-38
- The P-51D's cockpit probably had better visibility, overall, to the rear hemisphere
That's an interesting piece of data that I didn't know prior to this point
While off topic: What kind of rate of climb are we talking about? The figures in post #134 are accurate for the P-39N, although using meters instead of feet was a little different. Climb was about 2650fpm at 20000', 1950fpm at 25000' with a service ceiling of 38500'. Substantially better than most all other planes (FW190, F6F, F4U, P-38F/G, P-47B/C/D, Zero, Typhoon). Better than a Me109G up to 20000' and about the same above. Nowhere near a SpitfireIX in 1943 but nothing else was either.
Very valuable data
That looks more like a bowling ball than a baby...
Any more mass quoting and Fubar57's going to be apoplectic
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?
But he clearly felt chastised all the same.It wasn't even him who got the thread temporarily closed