Single-seat Fighter Training

ClayO · May 7, 2021

There was a brief side discussion on another thread about how little training there was when going from a two-seat trainer to a single seat aircraft. It reminded me of years ago, when I went to a talk given by Thomas Lanphier. The main subject of his talk was the mission to shoot down General Yamamoto, but he also talked about what it was like to fly the P-38. He said on his first checkout flight, the instructor spent a few minutes going through all of the controls; he took off, flew around for a while, and then when he was getting ready to land, he couldn't remember where the landing gear lever was. He spent a few harried moments searching the cockpit, found it and landed without incident. Looking at the cockpit of a P-38, it makes me think that there were probably a lot of accidents and close calls due to this gap in the training that we don't know about.

SaparotRob · May 7, 2021

Stories like that never seemed to be in Caidin's books.

Thumpalumpacus · May 7, 2021

SaparotRob said:
Stories like that never seemed tome in Caidin's books.

His writing always struck me as a sort of historically-based thriller, more concerned with superlatives and adrenaline than facts.

wlewisiii · May 7, 2021

I have read in the past that Lockheed aircraft fuel systems were particularly complex when compared to other manufacturers and that this lead to many more fuel related accidents in their aircraft. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read that. I do know that when I read the manual for the P-80 it struck me as a horrible mess asking for a valve to be turned the wrong way, especially on the earlier engines that required different fuel types between startup and cruise.

Ascent · May 8, 2021

I remeber reading an account from an RAF pilot converting to Vampires after the war. Being no twin seaters part (most) of his instruction was getting in the cockpit while the person showing him the ropes got groundcrew to lean on the tail. Once the nose was in the air he was told "That's the approach angle you want when coming in to land" before being sent off to do circuits.

Admiral Beez · May 8, 2021

ClayO said:
getting ready to land, he couldn't remember where the landing gear lever was.

This reminded me of those Polish pilots who served with the RAF that would forget to put their landing gear down. Unfamiliarity with retractable undercarriage, insufficient training and related language barriers may have all been factors.

The Polish Pilots Who Flew In The Battle Of Britain

"many pilots landed with the wheels still up. Pilot Officer Wladyslaw Rozycki of No. 238 Squadron RAF expressed how difficult the training procedure could be: 'This day a very sorry and unpleasant thing happened to me. I have damaged a machine, for the first time in my eleven years of flying! Even more painful, as it happened on foreign soil'."

FLYBOYJ · May 8, 2021

Folks, look at other twin engine aircraft of the period, especially fighters and you'll find their cockpit layouts very similar. There was no multi-engine transition at the beginning of WW2 and it resulted in disastrous results, especially when losing and engine during takeoff.

FLYBOYJ · May 8, 2021

wlewisiii said:
I have read in the past that Lockheed aircraft fuel systems were particularly complex when compared to other manufacturers and that this lead to many more fuel related accidents in their aircraft. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read that. I do know that when I read the manual for the P-80 it struck me as a horrible mess asking for a valve to be turned the wrong way, especially on the earlier engines that required different fuel types between startup and cruise.

This is hogwash - Lockheed fuel systems were no different than many other aircraft manufactures. The P-38's system may have been considered complex because there were 2 of everything! I've worked around and flown in T-33s and am not aware of this valve you mention and I do know there wasn't great changes between the P/F-80 and the T-33 (besides the extra cockpit and armament), perhaps something that was in the P-80A. If you find a reference to this please post!

special ed · May 8, 2021

I related in another thread the account of a friend, former USN Corsair & Hellcat pilot, who had the occasion of an AAF P-38 stop at their base. After an inspection of respective USN & AAF aircraft the P-38 was flown a few circuits by my friend Herb and a few other USN types. Herb's comment was "It had a wheel like a truck and flew like a fighter." Herb did not tell of any damage to the P-38.

FLYBOYJ · May 8, 2021

wlewisiii said:
I do know that when I read the manual for the P-80 it struck me as a horrible mess asking for a valve to be turned the wrong way, especially on the earlier engines that required different fuel types between startup and cruise.

I just skimmed through a P-80A flight manual and found nothing of the sought. The P-80 used one type of fuel for all operations and the only thing you're doing with fuel is transferring between tanks during the flight. (Drop tanks, L/E tanks, wing tanks and then main tank). The only aircraft that I can recall that used 2 different fuel types was the Me262, one type for the starter IIRC.

wlewisiii · May 8, 2021

According to my copy of AN 01-75FJB-1 1 Oct 49, the F-80C required gas to start if it was using JP-1 for it's main fuel. The leading edge tanks were to be filled with the lowest grade gasoline available. Aircraft using JP-3 used it in all tanks and didn't have to change over after startup or have potentially the wrong fuel to chose in flight.

I thought more versions of the aircraft used that so that's where my confusion was coming from.

FLYBOYJ · May 8, 2021

wlewisiii said:
According to my copy of AN 01-75FJB-1 1 Oct 49, the F-80C required gas to start if it was using JP-1 for it's main fuel. The leading edge tanks were to be filled with the lowest grade gasoline available. Aircraft using JP-3 used it in all tanks and didn't have to change over after startup or have potentially the wrong fuel to chose in flight.

I thought more versions of the aircraft used that so that's where my confusion was coming from.

Yeah, that was obviously an exception requirement. I think JP-1 was just about straight kerosene and wasn't used for very long. I think later fuels were cut with gasoline.

BobB · May 9, 2021

special ed said:
I related in another thread the account of a friend, former USN Corsair & Hellcat pilot, who had the occasion of an AAF P-38 stop at their base. After an inspection of respective USN & AAF aircraft the P-38 was flown a few circuits by my friend Herb and a few other USN types. Herb's comment was "It had a wheel like a truck and flew like a fighter." Herb did not tell of any damage to the P-38.

My father was on a Navy field on Mindoro in 1945 where B-24's and PB4Y's were based. One day a P-38 buzzed the field, then landed. One of the Navy pilots had gone to an Army airfield and talked them into loaning him a P-38. A former USMC pilot who was an airport neighbor went through his training in 1950 in SNJ's, then advanced training in F6F, F4U, F8F & AD-1. He also got a checkout in TO-1 which was F-80C transferred from the Air Force. The checkout was read the flight manual, pass a cockpit checkout blindfolded, then a guy showed you how to start the engine and you went flying. He went to Korea where they looked at his records and said "You're jet qualified. We need you to to fly F9F's." He read the manual, got a cockpit checkout, they showed him how to start the engine and he made a brief familiarization flight. His second F9F flight was a combat mission. Same squadron as John Glenn and Ted Williams but not at the same time as them.

GrauGeist · May 10, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
The only aircraft that I can recall that used 2 different fuel types was the Me262, one type for the starter IIRC.

The Riedel engines had their own fuel supply that was isolated from the Jumo's supply.
Even types like the Martin JRM's APU (Ranger engine) had an isolated fuel supply.

Dimlee · May 14, 2021

ClayO said:
He said on his first checkout flight, the instructor spent a few minutes going through all of the controls

Something like that, I guess. Sorry for the wrong time period, I just love this movie.

Thumpalumpacus · May 15, 2021

GrauGeist said:
The Riedel engines had their own fuel supply that was isolated from the Jumo's supply.
Even types like the Martin JRM's APU (Ranger engine) had an isolated fuel supply.

I'd thought about replying to the point earlier, but I don't really consider APU/EPU fuel to be a dual fuel type in that you're not using both fuels in the same engine. For instance, the F-16s the 301st flew out of Carswell used JP-4 for the engine, and then had about 7 gallons of hydrazine to power the EPU in the event of an engine failure (for FBW control). But that to me is not really a plane that uses two fuels.

GrauGeist · May 15, 2021

The Me262 had a gasoline powered starter engine located in each of the Jumo004's nose-cone.
To start the jet engine, you pull-started the Reidel, which then started the jet in motion in preparation for ignition.
Sort of like a pony motor on an old Caterpillar.

Here's a Reidel mounted on the front of a BMW003 jet engine.
Note the cylinder between the exhaust pipes, this was the housing foe the pull-starter cord - it would have had a ring on the end and would have been stowed in the nose-cone's recess.

(Image source: Wiki. I know, I know...but it was faster.)

Thumpalumpacus · May 15, 2021

GrauGeist said:
The Me262 had a gasoline powered starter engine located in each of the Jumo004's nose-cone.
To start the jet engine, you pull-started the Reidel, which then started the jet in motion in preparation for ignition.
Sort of like a pony motor on an old Caterpillar.

Here's a Reidel mounted on the front of a BMW003 jet engine.
Note the cylinder between the exhaust pipes, this was the housing foe the pull-starter cord - it would have had a ring on the end and would have been stowed in the nose-cone's recess.
View attachment 623405
(Image source: Wiki. I know, I know...but it was faster.)

I get that. I suppose to me it's a matter of whether it's used for propulsion, or ancillary purposes.

GrauGeist · May 15, 2021

Thumpalumpacus said:
I get that. I suppose to me it's a matter of whether it's used for propulsion, or ancillary purposes.

In this case it was purely a starter (with it's own fuel tank/supply) and switched off as the Jet spooled up.
Each jet engine had a gear-driven generator located top and foreward of the engine itself, so the Reidel was just along for the ride after getting it going.

nuuumannn · May 15, 2021

Close up of Me 262's intake; the pull-the-ring-thing is missing, but can be seen on the cutaway BMW engine at the bottom. The two rectangular doors on the engine cowl are for fuel and oil filler for the Riedel.

Riedel starter

Front BMW 003

Single-seat Fighter Training

Airman 1st Class

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Major

Staff Sergeant

Senior Airman

Major

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

2nd Lieutenant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman 1st Class

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Tech Sergeant

Major

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads