The p38 and docile handling charachteristics or lack thereof.

[The Basket]

Ferry Pilots could fly anything so they would certainly not trained on a specific aircraft.

But as landing and takeoff is pretty much where air accidents happen that that is pretty much the ball game there.

Richard Russell who stole and crashed the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 had no prior flying experience and was able to do some fancy flying.

Then again your daddy maybe an Admiral and you only get binned when you shoot down a USAF Phantom.

 

[Skyediamonds]

Gentlemen,

All of the above discussions were incredibly insightful & learned more from you guys. Thank you!

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Richard Russell who stole and crashed the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 had no prior flying experience and was able to do some fancy flying.

According to the accounts I've read, he had a computer with FSX on it, and had a Dash 8 Q400 configured like Horizon's planes on it and had downloaded Horizon's Q400 flight manual, checklists, and ops specs. While there's no substitute for hands on experience, doing your homework can give you a head start. Even if your simulations can't duplicate the "feel" of the aircraft, with enough practice you can absorb enough of the procedures and parameters to get a relatively straightforward plane like the Dash 8 into the air if you're lucky. Note, however, he didn't land it, or even try to.
When my commuter airline employer decided to replace our Fokker F27s, all the peddlers of 35-45 seat turboprops came around to demonstrate their toys. Most of the pilots on the 121 side got to fly all the demo aircraft, and the unanimous vote was for the Dash 8, a "sweet handling bird". Maintenance liked it too.
But....our benighted president overrode everybody and elected to buy the SAAB 340 "because it looks like a real airliner, not an overgrown Cessna". And paid the price in maintenance costs and operational complications. We went bankrupt before the SF340's "teething" maintenance issues were sorted out.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[fubar57]

​

 

[The Basket]

Richard Russell did land that aircraft. He landed that aircraft good.

 

[GregP]

About the P-38, it pitches quit well when you get it into a turn, but the initial roll-in is slower than you might want, and not particularly crisp. Once the roll starts moving and accelerating, you need to think about stopping it, because it doesn't stop immediately or by itself. The supposition a few pages above is correct, our P-38J-20 does not have hydraulic ailerons. We wish it did. Anyone have the parts?

In the video, Chris is doing an airshow fly-by. They are low, maybe 150 feet at crowd center, and going slow for photos … probably 180 - 200 knots. They don't try to make it snap around crisply, they do nice smooth maneuvers so people can get video and pics.

I can talk with Chris and ask specifics, if anyone wants me to, but the P-38 pilots at the museum like it. We have maybe 4 – 6 pilots checked out in the P-38. It is an aircraft in which it is expensive to stay current, and our pilots pay for their own fuel on currency flights. The museum pays when the flight is a museum function. Not surprisingly, most flights wait for museum functions. All P-38 pilots who stay current must share maintenance work among themselves. For instance, Chris Fahey was definitely putting in some time and work when they pulled the left engine twice in one week a few years back. It is reliable, but DOES occasionally need some TLC. He was not the only person working it, but he was definitely a major player during that time. The P-38 is NOT simple to work on. Neither is a P-47, for that matter. Even an AT-6 is a maintenance challenge if you aren't really familiar with it. It CAN be a challenge even if you ARE familiar with it.

Just for those of you who don't know, Chris is a former F-16 pilot with the military, and he usually flies the MiG-15 bis with Steve Hinton in the F-86 in airshows, but Chris is qualified in more than a few types of museum airplanes, including the F-86. John Maloney, for instance, flies the P-26, the B-25, the A6M5 Zero, and pretty much any aircraft we have, when the need arises. Pilots are museum-approved on a case-by-case basis, and NOBODY just flies them … if you fly it, you work on it, with your own tools (SAE, metric, and Whitworth), on your own time. It is a labor of love and, fortunately, we have a few, really great guys who love these airplanes. All out pilots are crowd-friendly and will talk flying with anyone, particularly other pilots, if they have the time.

 

[The Basket]

Speak of the devil....

Student pilot makes emergency landing during first lesson after instructor passes out

 

[michael rauls]

Wes,

Here's my two bits, centavos, cents.

First what I don't know is what type of or type specific training they (ferry pilots) received. I've read that crew chiefs would give the pilots a short bit of training, how to start, speeds, etc prior to the first sortie in theater. That worked under wartime safety standards but not sure what post war allowable looked like.

Second the jump from a T-6 to a single engine fighter would not be that huge when doing cross country/ ferry type flying. Tail dragger, wideish gear, throttle, prop, mixture all about the same. With some good instruction in a T-6 and good preflight ground instruction on a P-51, P-40, P-47 would not have been a big leap for simple cross country type flying. The P-39 would probably have been a little easier as the nose wheel made it more stable on ground maneuvers. The 38 would require multi training and from what I have heard today you get dual on the B-25 prior to flying the P-38. I would have kept my single engine (SE) folks and multi split for safety.

As for the Eagle we usually go from the AT-38 to the F-15. I was flying the the OV-10 immediately prior so I went back to AT-38s for about 25 hours then off to Eagle school. I had no problem going back to the AT38 but I did a few sims prior which most guys didn't, and I had only been in the Bronco for two years. The T38 is a bit tougher to land, very pitch sensitive and final is in the 155+ range plus it is VERY unforgiving in the pattern. Get slow and a huge sink rate is almost immediate, heavy wing rock in the stall, small wing, narrowish gear, underpowered and it's a century series problem looking for a place to happen. Most of its accidents were in close proximity to the field and usually ended with a smoking hole. The Eagle was very forgiving and easier to fly than the 38.

If you took a guy from T-34, T-6 type of flying (speeds, stick and throttle) and showed them only how to start, plus talked about how to fly it and turn them loose in an Eagle it would end with a funeral pyre. I say that due to it taking three dual sorties in the jet before getting solo'd out on top of having landing currency in the T38 and about 8-10 sims. You just need more time and instruction before being turned loose. Any decent pilot should with enough dual time be able to solo it out in my opine. It's relatively easy to fly point A to B. Using one as a weapon is an entirely different event.

Cheers,
Biff

You flew the OV -10 too? Always loved that plane. Can't figure why they retired most of them( I understand the Marines still operate about a dozen of them). Seems like a Bronco is about as good a design as you could get for coin oparations.
Read there's an updated version in the works......maybe, The Supper Bronco I believe?
Would love to hear your thoughts on the Bronco in general.

 

[BiffF15]

You flew the OV -10 too? Always loved that plane. Can't figure why they retired most of them( I understand the Marines still operate about a dozen of them). Seems like a Bronco is about as good a design as you could get for coin oparations.
Read there's an updated version in the works......maybe, The Supper Bronco I believe?
Would love to hear your thoughts on the Bronco in general.

Michael,

There are no more on the books. The USMC was the last branch that operated them. I think there was a trial period where a few were operated overseas in the last decade in a testing configuration. The USMC had a version, the D, that had much bigger engines/ more power which might have had the ability to takeoff single engine. The A-C did not have that capability.

I did not like the cable flight controls as each plane flew quite differently. Also the motors were detuned and could be unreliable (had trouble making takeoff power / torque). It was great to go to the range in, shoot some rockets, drop some practice bombs, win or lose some quarters... The guys I flew with were awesome which is / was the best part.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Skyediamonds]

Gentlemen,

I'll be attending this year's Reno air races. If there should be a P-38 on display or any other warbird, let me know & I'll try to get some colored photos. If Chris should be there, I'd be honored to meet him. I'm a distant acquaintance with Steve Hinton & used to frequently visit Planes of Fame & crawl all over their a/c (with permission of course) getting detailed shots. Steve was always approachable & true hands-on guy. Never personally met his son though.

 

[Skyediamonds]

Wes,

Thank you very much for that insight on the Dash-8 & SAAB-340. Many years ago, I was a ramp rat & while working, would marshal -737's into their spots & quickly cleaned the interiors in effort to help turn them around at our local airport. On break, I used to take advantage of my clearance & wander over the field to check out various aircraft. I think Skywest was one of the commuters who used the SAAB. Up close, it really does look like an airliner. Sorry to hear of all those issues. Never flew in the SAAB but my son & I flew as passengers in the Dash-8 in Florida. We purposely sat next to the main landing gears for obvious reasons as only an enthusiast would understand.

 

[chuter]

I don't know how revealing that is, have you tried driving a car where the power steering isn't working, or even just started driving a car without power steering after a long time driving cars with it.

The boosted ailerons have additional, non-differential aileron travel (that's how the boosted ailerons get a faster roll rate, although with adverse yaw) so they will have a noticeably higher level of force required than the non-boosted ailerons when power is not available (NOT considered to be anywhere near dangerous).

 

[pbehn]

The boosted ailerons have additional, non-differential aileron travel (that's how the boosted ailerons get a faster roll rate, although with adverse yaw) so they will have a noticeably higher level of force required than the non-boosted ailerons when power is not available (NOT considered to be anywhere near dangerous).

Thanks, that was my point, losing the boost on the ailerons doesnt revert to the performance without boost but requires more physical input to achieve the same result, still OK for safe flight but not in combat. Or did I misunderstand?

 

[MIflyer]

The USAF and USMC OV-10 aircraft were transferred to Patrick AFB, FL for the Department of State Air Wing and modified for drug eradication efforts. We saw a lot of them around here for years.

In the book "Jungle Ace" an incident is described where some highly experienced P-38 pilots went to pick up new P-38L's. After they got in the air they found the airplanes to be almost unflyable, so sensitive in roll that they almost could not maintain level flight. One pilot even said he could not possibly land the thing safely and would head over to a lake near the base and then bail out. Then another pilot said that he had noticed an Aileron Boost control and when he turned it off the handling went back to normal. The aileron boost was not supposed to be used during take off and landing and obviously was undesirable for cruise, but someone at the assembly depot presumably had turned all those controls on, checked out the system, and then not bothered to turn it off. The pilots were not told about the aileron boost and either did not bother to read the L model pilot's manual or did not have one.

 

[The Basket]

Thinking out loud but as I do...

Docile handling? Was that ever a thing? Was an a ww2 aircraft ever designed with docile handling? Not so sure. Certainly not in the West.

Any issues the P-38 had would have been far out of scope of any ferry flight. Hardly going to do transsonic dives.

 

[michael rauls]

Thinking out loud but as I do...

Docile handling? Was that ever a thing? Was an a ww2 aircraft ever designed with docile handling? Not so sure. Certainly not in the West.

Any issues the P-38 had would have been far out of scope of any ferry flight. Hardly going to do transsonic dives.

I've read the F6f was specifically designed to have" docile handling characteristics" which they apparently succeeded in. Certainly some ww2 aircraft had alot more than others. Everything is realative I suppose. Some planes give alot more stall warning than others for example. That is the funny thing about the p38, some sources, including pilots describe it as being wonderful to fly and difficult to get into trouble in and some the exact opposite. Although the former have been more numerous in my experience.
This dichotomy of opinion was not confined to ferry flight pilots. I just used that quote because it was the most recent I read so was fresh in my mind. Guess I should have used a different quote. Some seem to be focusing on the fact she was not a combat pilot rather than the perceptions of multiple pilots.
Guess there's only one thing left to do. I'll have to get my pilots liscence and try and figure some way to fly a p38 myself someday.
Yes I know a bit of a pipe dream( the p38 part) but sure fun to think about.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Guess there's only one thing left to do. I'll have to get my pilots liscence and try and figure some way to fly a p38 myself someday.
Yes I know a bit of a pipe dream( the p38 part) but sure fun to think about.

Allow me to be so presumptuous as to make a prediction of what will happen when your ship comes in, you make your millions and your P38 dream comes true.
If you fly her around doing gentle maneuvers and handle her with the care and respect a distinguished lady of her age deserves, never asking her to fly overloaded, never poking her into the far corners of her performance envelope, and never subjecting her to single engine flight when she's low, slow, and dirty, she'll treat you accordingly and you'll sing her praises to your dying day. If you subject her to elder abuse and insist on exploring her limits and burden her with single engine slow flight or high speed dives, your opinion will only be expressed by a smoking crater.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[michael rauls]

Allow me to be so presumptuous as to make a prediction of what will happen when your ship comes in, you make your millions and your P38 dream comes true.
If you fly her around doing gentle maneuvers and handle her with the care and respect a distinguished lady of her age deserves, never asking her to fly overloaded, never poking her into the far corners of her performance envelope, and never subjecting her to single engine flight when she's low, slow, and dirty, she'll treat you accordingly and you'll sing her praises to your dying day. If you subject her to elder abuse and insist on exploring her limits and burden her with single engine slow flight or high speed dives, your opinion will only be expressed by a smoking crater.
Cheers,
Wes

Certainly agree. On the one in a million I ever did get the chance. No one would give that Lightning more respect than I.

 

[MIflyer]

Handling qualities aside, the P-38 was a more complex airplane to fly than were the rest of the USAAF's fighters. Aside from the two engines, both were turbosupercharged, and on takeoff the pilot had to be careful to advance the throttles so to make sure both turbos were up and spinning. In order to operate the landing gear you had to turn the hydraulics on first, then operate the gear lever. Jimmy Stuart scared the daylights out of Tony Levier by forgetting to do that and had to fly around for a while until he figured it out. The hydraulic boosted ailerons we have already discussed.

A friend of mine, Lt Col Ward Duncan, was the maintenance chief for the 9th Photo Recon in India in WWII, and one Saturday he got out his picture collection and proceeded to describe instances such as pilots failing to select the correct fuel tank, killing one engine as a result and then crashing the airplane on landing.

It may have been a nice airplane to fly when all was well, but it was not easy.

 

[Washing Machine Charlie]

I believe your post illustrates one of the major problems the P-38 had when being introduced to fliers....

I've read that single-engine pilots were often given very rudimentary training in twin-engine flying before their first P-38 flights. A decent pilot can figure out how to fly one, but, there were, especially in early models, a lot of additions to the pilot's workload added, when quick responses were needed.

Decent pilots can fly and achieve decent results from an unfamiliar plane type (twin-engine), but, in order to truly exploit a plane's performance a more in depth training program is needed.

Imagine if all those pilots that were thrown into P-38s were first given time in trainer model twin-engines and allowed a more gradual learning curve before combat, what would we be saying about it, now? Training, lack of training, and individual pilot's ability to adapt to twin-engine P-38s is probably why we read so many conflicting comments on the type. Was it the fork-tailed devil or a duck, depends on the flier...

Lastly, war causes a lot of things like training to be cut short, but, I believe this especially impacted the P-38 in a very negative way, that wasn't as obvious in instances where a pilot switched from one single-engine to another.. I remember watching one ace's account of switching to Corsairs from, I believe Wildcats...he was given the manual and a crew chief pointed out the controls, then he made his first solo! Of my memory is correct, he had 7-10 hours flight time before he deployed..

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