The p38 and docile handling charachteristics or lack thereof.

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

M

michael rauls

Tech Sergeant
1,679
862
Jul 15, 2016
This is something that has been puzzling me more and more lately. I was reading an article George posted in obituaries about Dorothy Olson who just passed away at 103. She flew with the WASPs and one of her comments was" the p38, anybody could fly one of those but the p51, that was a challenge. You had to stay on top of it".
It made my think about that about half the descriptions of the p38s flight characteristics I had read by both pilots and historians was that it was wonderful and easy to fly with no prohibited moaenuvers and almost impossible to stall and about half discribe the exact opposite.
Was this perhaps largely a matter of altitude? That is maybe those that flew the Lightning in theaters or under conditions that dictated it would be at medium to low altitudes found it easy to handle as they never ran into compresability problems and those that had to operate it at higher altitudes had the opposite experience or perhaps there are other factors that acount for this difference in perception.
 
Didn't the P-51 require constant trimming for speed fuel load changes? Second nature if you fly it all the time, something that needs a bit of study if you are just ferrying one.
 
pbehn said:
Didn't the P-51 require constant trimming for speed fuel load changes? Second nature if you fly it all the time, something that needs a bit of study if you are just ferrying one.
Click to expand...

If you are a ferry pilot you are probably very familiar with the aircraft.

That said, it is unlikely that ferry pilots would have the full fuel load and the instability that comes with that.
 
The P-38 was easy to fly and the P-51 is, too. But the P-51 has one characteristic that is not evident in any other US WWI fighter of which I am aware.

A stall with power-on is much more violent than a power-off stall. It CAN get flat and the nose can nod up and down, and it can take 10,000 feet to recover if you are a bit ham-handed. The moral is simple, do not aggravate a power-on stall; break the power-on stall quickly. The advice to not stall it down low goes for all aircraft, not just specific types. Mostly, the problem above is for pilots new to the P-51, not pilots familiar with it. But every Mustang pilot I know is aware of the fact that the P-51 power-on stall CAN bite you very hard, particularly at aft CG. They account for it by avoiding the issue. Once known, the issue is not overly important. It did not affect the Mustang much, but perhaps made a few new pilots not pull as hard as they could in dogfight turns. These pilots likely would not be veteran P-51 pilots.

There is no such issue for the P-38, but it has other issues, particularly a rather lower critical Mach number. However, all WWII fighters had a critical Mach number to be avoided. The P-38 has the disadvantage of cruising relatively close to the limit ... but so does a Beech Bonanza ... lower the nose at cruise and you are at Vne VERY quickly. The thing is, you aren't engaging in aerial combat in a Bonanza, so it doesn't come up much. The only other "scary" thing in a P-38 might be engine-out operation for a new P-38 pilot. This is true for all conventional twins and is not P-38-specific, but it DID have more power than most twins most new P-38 pilots might have flown previously. Power give you the ability to kill yourself in single-engine operation. The trick is not to take advantage of the opportunity while a neophyte.

Perhaps some of the WASPs were "new" to a type, but they were no newer than male pilots who trained on the type. I don't see that there would be much of a statistical difference in issues with new pilots whether male and female. Their stats should be similar since both make great as well an awful pilots in about the same proportion.
 
Twins could be difficult with an engine out especially some heavy German nightfigters. That's where the difficulty lies when an engine fails in bad weather with a low fuel state. Yikes.

Female ferry pilots in the UK would fly anything! A tiger moth to a Lancaster so would not have anything other than very basic knowledge of an aircraft. Yes it was basic flying but they wouldn't have the more intimate knowledge of a pilot who flew a particular type.
 

Were they attached to certain factories when delivering aircraft to units?
 
Hi,
About the flight charachteristics of the P-38, i saw the following video :

What surprised me was the "lag" between the ailerons movements on the stick and the airplane reaction,it's like the pilot has to anticipate his actions a few tenths of second before the action happens. It looks like the plane hasn't the same direct responsivity that you expect from a fighter (having the fw-190 or the p51 in mind here as both have a direct link between the brain and the plane's reaction based on available vid's on the web)
So, what happen in this vid? got any idea?
Thanks
 
Gentlemen,

While this is surely an exception, it may demonstrate how difficult a P-38 was to fly. On August 24th 1943, 6 pilots with no twin engine time, and about 70 hours each in advanced P-40 training (training time in the States, not combat) were assigned to fly P-38s of the 27th Fighter Squadron, 1st Fighter Group. The pilots were 1st Lt Jim Alford, (a former flight instructor) and 2nd Lts. Eldon Vondra, Merle Brown, Frank Gerry, Francis Lawson, and Walter Flynn. A combination of circumstances lead these pilots being posted to the group. First, the P-40 squadron that these 6 were to be assigned to was deactivated. Second. The 1st Fighter Group needed pilots to replace the ones that they lost. Third, none of the 6 wanted to be assigned as co-pilots on some multi engined aircraft. Finally, Alford knew the officer in charge of making assignments. In war, the rules aren't always followed. Lawson flew 6 training flights starting on August 26th and then his first combat mission on Sept 5, 1943.

As a follow-up, the fates of the 6 pilots with final (?) ranks and scores:
Lt Vondra KIA 12/1/43. His score was 1 destroyed, 0 probable, . 5 damaged.
Lt Brown POW 3/29/44. His score was 1 destroyed, 0 probable, 1 damaged.
Lt Gerry POW 6/13/44 His score was 3 destroyed, 0 probable, 2 damaged.
Capt Lawson Competed tour. His score was 2 destroyed, 0 probable, 1 damaged.
Capt Flynn Completed tour. His score was 0 destroyed, 0 probable, 1 damaged.
Capt Alford Completed tour. His score was 2 destroyed, 0 probable, 1 damaged.

Vondra was lost in a running dogfight with 15-20 enemy aircraft while flying a P-38G.
Brown was shot down by enemy fighters while flying a P-38H
Gerry was lost on an escort mission while flying a P-38J.

The above does not really prove if a P-38 was easy or difficult to fly. However, the above does point out that at least 6 pilots with no twin engine training were successful with it.

Sources: An Escort of P-38s by John Mullens.
War Diary 27th Fighter Squadron by Frank (Francis) Lawson
http://raf-112-squadron.org/1stfghonor_roll.html
FYI

Eagledad
 
As far as I know the ferry pilots were ferry pilots, there was no position of female ferry pilot in UK. Their job was very simple to fly a plane from A to B. However within that, to get into almost any plane and fly it from A to B having just read the pilots notes requires a special skill and a great sense of danger and self preservation. When you think of the "howlers" that were known to be made by experienced pilots like Polish (and other) aces forgetting to put down the landing gear on Hurricanes or Griffon Spitfire pilots forgetting that it had the opposite torque effect. To do what they did in so many types was a skill in itself. I imagine in my minds eye they were far from the usual view of pilots of the time, not carefree at all but absolute pedants for what the pilots notes said.
 

Mass Moment of Inertia.
 
Home - Air Transport Auxiliary

Obviously there was no job called Female Ferry Pilot!

Females could not fly combat in the RAF but did fly combat aircraft in ferry missions.

Imagine flying an unfamiliar aircraft to an unfamiliar air base in all weather? Navigation as well as you're flying to anywhere. And it's not all Spitfires but Bothas and other death traps.

Since most aircraft losses were not combat related then I give them credit for the bravery to do a risky job.
 
Last edited:
I had to catch a bus today and the driver was female. I survived so that's a plus.

Certainly didn't have female bus drivers when I was a youngster.

Most but not all aircraft are designed not to kill you. Even a dog like the MiG-23 flew perfectly OK on landing and takeoff and in a straight line.

Dorothy Olsen should fly a Boeing 737 Max if she wants a challenge!
 
bada said:
It looks like the plane hasn't the same direct responsivity that you expect from a fighter (having the fw-190 or the p51 in mind here as both have a direct link between the brain and the plane's reaction based on available vid's on the web)
Click to expand...
Polar moment of inertia. Most of the airplane's mass is not located along its roll axis as it would be in a single engine fighter. It takes more aileron effort to accelerate engines, fuel tanks, turbos, intercoolers, and tail booms in a circular path around the roll axis than to rotate them on-axis. I'm guessing this P38 is one of the later ones with aileron boost, as Chris doesn't appear to be straining too hard, and the response lag appears roughly akin to what one might expect from a Piper Aztruck or Navahunk with auxiliary tiptanks and full fuel. You get one of those rolling smartly into a turn and you might find yourself banking a tad steeper than you intended as you give it hard opposite aileron to try to stop the roll. Inertia; it's all about inertia.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
davebender said:
Ferrying an aircraft from point A to point B is one thing. Performing combat maneuvers is something very different.
Click to expand...
AMEN! Most twins give a greater feeling of solid stability and gentle responsiveness when trimmed up in cruise flight than a single of comparable power and weight. If you're ferrying from A to B and you've had rudimentary multi engine training, but nothing specific to your current mount, you're not going to agressively explore the corners of its performance envelope. Not like someone who's going to take it into harm's way. If you learned on and drive a classic aircooled VW beetle and the boss asks you (the only stickshift driver around) to bring her 428 Cobra to her at the office during rush hour, do you think you'd take the opportunity to burn off a little testosterone? Do you like being employed? Do you like living?
Cheers,
Wes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

British Dive Bombers or lack thereof
8 9 10
Replies
189
Views
14K
SaparotRob
617th squadron and the bunkers in Ijmuiden.
2
Replies
23
Views
794
DerAdlerIstGelandet
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
873
Ivan1GFP
I
S
Comparison of the Gloster F.5/34 and the Mitsubishi A6M2.
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
5K
z42
Z
K
B-25G and B-25H information on spent 75mm cartridges - through hatch or port?
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register