The p38 and docile handling charachteristics or lack thereof.

Ward Duncan told me there was at least one time when the pilot could not figure out how to handle an engine problem that he squeezed into the cockpit beside the pilot and took over the throttles himself to figure out what was going on. And we are not talking getting into the radio compartment behind the seat, two guys were in the pilot's seat. A real two seat P-38 certainly was feasible and would have also made the basis for a night fighter version.

The P-38 Swordfish, designed to investigate aerodynamic problems, including what they finally found out to be compressibility. showed what could have been done.

Gentlemen, but especially noted to Michael R & Wes;

Pipe dreams really do happen! If one is truly devoted to achieving one's dreams regardless of the activity, be it flying, race car driving, or anything else, the saying "Whenever there's a will, there'll be a way," will make it so. Not to suggest the extremes such as a blind person flying an airplane but within reasonable limits, almost anything is possible. I speak for personal experience.

Wes & everyone else has witnessed my participation in this discussion on various merits of flying. However, I'd like to make a brief, but hopefully I inspiring statement. I'm a licensed VFR private pilot with a multi-engine rating. I'm officially checked out in exactly 30 different aircraft. Before hanging up my spurs, I had flown very well for over 25 years in all those aircraft without any major incident. At one point I flew from Los Angeles to Canada & back just to attend an airshow. I could go on with various memberships into aviation organizations & doing much more in aviation-related fields, but that's getting away from my point I'm about to make.

Here's the best part: I'm born 93% deaf in both ears. In anticipation of your questions: yep, I speak & understand sign language, I can also speak orally (telephones are still a challenge), in all honesty, I mostly flew out of uncontrolled airfields (& there are far more of those than towered airfields in Class B & C airspace) & finally, did not have all that much money to start. The flying school had a "Pay as you go" program.

So, if you really want to fly & eventually work your way into a P-38 ( Planes of Fame offer a de facto "work in aircraft as you go"), then your pipe dreams are achievable.

Skyediamonds said:

Gentlemen, but especially noted to Michael R & Wes;

Pipe dreams really do happen! If one is truly devoted to achieving one's dreams regardless of the activity, be it flying, race car driving, or anything else, the saying "Whenever there's a will, there'll be a way," will make it so. Not to suggest the extremes such as a blind person flying an airplane but within reasonable limits, almost anything is possible. I speak for personal experience.

Wes & everyone else has witnessed my participation in this discussion on various merits of flying. However, I'd like to make a brief, but hopefully I inspiring statement. I'm a licensed VFR private pilot with a multi-engine rating. I'm officially checked out in exactly 30 different aircraft. Before hanging up my spurs, I had flown very well for over 25 years in all those aircraft without any major incident. At one point I flew from Los Angeles to Canada & back just to attend an airshow. I could go on with various memberships into aviation organizations & doing much more in aviation-related fields, but that's getting away from my point I'm about to make.

Here's the best part: I'm born 93% deaf in both ears. In anticipation of your questions: yep, I speak & understand sign language, I can also speak orally (telephones are still a challenge), in all honesty, I mostly flew out of uncontrolled airfields (& there are far more of those than towered airfields in Class B & C airspace) & finally, did not have all that much money to start. The flying school had a "Pay as you go" program.

So, if you really want to fly & eventually work your way into a P-38 ( Planes of Fame offer a de facto "work in aircraft as you go"), then your pipe dreams are achievable.

Click to expand...

One more point about fuel tanks & complexity: Pilots trained & then mostly fly single engine Cessnas, are more apt to run out of fuel when transitioning to other aircraft such as Piper. Why? The selector valve all single engine Cessnas fuel systems feature "Off, Left, Both, Right" settings. Which means in most cases, he/she can select "Both" & essentially fly & forget. Not so with most tricycles single engine Piper aircraft which do not have "Both" settings on their selector valves. On cross-country flying in a Piper, fuel management is a necessity.

My last rented (& most enjoyed, the Piper Aztec) twin engine plane was belly landed on short final because the puking pilot ran out of fuel in his inner tanks (the standard twin Aztec has four tanks, two on each wing). The outer tanks were still full...... The pilot walked away without a scratch.

When introduced, the P-38 program had four glaring fault,s aside for the low critical Mach number. In no particular order:

1) There as no pilot combat training. If a new pilot cruised into the combat area not configured for combat and got attacked, he had to
a) pull back the throttles
b) go forward on RPM
c) advance the throttle to combat power
d) turn on the gunsight
e) turn on the boost pumps

He could be shot down before doing the first three ...

2) The P-38 had a lousy cockpit heater at first. Guys were literally freezing in it. I spoke with one old vet who saw Tony LeVier do an aerobatic show with in in England, and his comment was, "I'd like to see him do that after 4 hours at -50°F!" The "fix" was an electric cockpit heater and it can absolutely toast the pilot if he wants it.

3) There was a basic difference between U.S. fuel and the fuel in England, at least at first. Our (U.S.A.) fuels were 4% aromatics and British fuels were 20% aromatics. So, they could never replicate the issue on the test stand until someone brought over some British fuel. That took about 9 months to happen. Instant replication on the test stand. Do NOT get me wrong, there was nothing wrong with British fuel at all. It was just different from what was used at the factory for tuning purposes, and the engines were misjetted for it from the factory. Once the issue was known, the issue went away rapidly.

4) The original Allison F series engine had smooth intakes, and there were 4 of them (one for each three cylinders in the intake system). This resulted in the two cylinders for each intake track being rich and one lean. This took about 6 months to fix and the fix was easy: a turbulator was fitted inside the intake and the issue went away. But, by then, the P-51 was being introduced and there was no real need for two air superiority fighters in the same theater, required two sets of logistics chains and two sets of aircraft-specific trained crews.

Today, the issues have all been corrected and the Allison is a fine-running, fuel-efficient engine. In late 1942, it was a bit of a handful, particularly for pilots new to both the P-38 and to the Allison engine. I can tell you that recognizing the color of the exhaust and adjusting the mixture is relatively easy, but not until you do it for yourself with some expert coaching for maybe 10 - 15 engine runs. Trying to learn it for yourself while airborne on your first flight might easily put many into the ground while they monkeying with the mixture instead of flying the airplane.

GregP said:

There was a basic difference between U.S. fuel and the fuel in England, at least at first. Our (U.S.A.) fuels were 4% aromatics and British fuels were 20% aromatics. So, they could never replicate the issue on the test stand until someone brought over some British fuel. That took about 9 months to happen. Instant replication on the test stand. Do NOT get me wrong, there was nothing wrong with British fuel at all. It was just different from what was used at the factory for tuning purposes, and the engines were misjetted for it from the factory. Once the issue was known, the issue went away rapidly.

Click to expand...

This problem was long gone by the time the P-38s showed up in europe in ernest (late 1943/early 1944).
In 1940/41 the US was using the low aromatic fuel (some sources say less than 2%) while the British used the high aromatic fuel, not LESS THAN 20% (could be more).
The American fuel was about 100/100. You can't make 100/125 or 100/130 fuel without either using a large amount of aromatics or prohibitivly expensive base stock and a lot more lead than they wanted to use in a service fuel.
The British fuel in the BoB was around 100/115-120. It varied from batch to batch and they had no way to measure the higher number (rich response) until the Performance number scale was developed. Which was done soon after the BoB ended. We are still 3 years from P-38s showing up in Europe for escort duty (aside from a few missions in 1942 before all available P-38s were sent to North Africa).
The US quickly specced out a 100/125 fuel and a number of engines were rated on it. How much was made and/or how wide a distribution in the US it got I don't know.
The British jumped right for 100/130 fuel once they could measure the rich response using the PN scale. However the Americans and British decided well before Pearl Harbor that having a joint fuel specification would be a good thing so the US adopted the 100/130 fuel (we are still over 2 years from the P-38 showing up in Europe for escort duty).
Then the production problems came in. The original 100/130 joint fuel specification called for not more than 3.0cc of lead per gallon. A large increase in hundreds (if not thousands ) of tons of 100/130 fuel could be made if the standard was relaxed to 3.6cc per gallon by using slightly lower grade base stocks and/or less of some of the rare aromatics. this new specification was either late 1941 or early 1942. In late 1942 they were figuring how to increase production of 100/130 even more. It was decided to go to a max of 4.6cc of lead per gallon (not all fuel blends required the max amount of lead) and also to increase the max allowable percentages of certain heavy aromatics ( there are over a dozen aromatic compounds, not all suitable for motor fuel). Large increases tonnage of 100/130 fuel were made from similar quantities of base stock without having to devote thousands of tons of high grade steel to refinery production.



However some of the new fuel blends (and there were a large number of individual blends that met the standard specification) required different spark plugs or more frequent spark plug changes. The problem of fuel puddling in the intake manifolds was suspected early (the heavy aromatics seperating out) and this was in early 1943, well before the P-38s showed up in Europe. Allison started work on the intake manifold with the turbulator in the spring of 1943. It wasn't ready until the end of 1943 at which point it was used on ALL Allisons regardless of the type of airplane they going in and replacement manifolds were shipped out to be fitted to engines in the field or as they came in for overhaul?

This problem with the later fuels in 1943/44 had nothing to do with the difference in fuel between the British and the Americans in 1940-41. the 1943/44 fuel was at least 3 changes in specification from the fuels in use in 1940/early 1941.


Running the P-38s at low rpm and high boost for cruising kept the engine a bit hotter, the turbos hotter and the intercooler hotter which helped prevent the fuel puddling but the army didn't want to run them that way, they wanted to use high engine rpm and low boost, thinking that this allowed for quicker time to max power from cruising settings.


The later P-38s got a generator on each engine which gave them the extra power to run electric cabin heaters. The ones up to the beginning of 1944 only had one generator and since so much of the airplane was electric (like the props) overloading and killing the generator was a mission kill if not a loss of the aircraft.

GregP said:

3) There was a basic difference between U.S. fuel and the fuel in England, at least at first. Our (U.S.A.) fuels were 4% aromatics and British fuels were 20% aromatics. .

Click to expand...

Since the discussion of US and UK fuel has reared its head again, I was watching a corny detective series this evening (Foyle) set in WW2 that mentioned Tizard, out of boredom I googled Tizard. Henry Tizard was not only played a part in developing RADAR and was involved in the Tizard mission but also was involved in the development of octane ratings themselves after WW1 from wiki "After the end of the war he was made Reader in Chemical Thermodynamics at Oxford University, where he experimented in the composition of fuel trying to find compounds which were resistant to freezing and less volatile, devising the concept of "toluene numbers" – now referred to as octane ratings." Just an aside, as you were.

Responding to GregP's observation of new pilots cruising into combat unprepared & having to go through a quick list of "four steps to take," with the possibilities of being shot down before completing the first three steps: It's just an intuition on my part, but the chances are that the " newbie combat wanna be" Pilot would pretty much know in advance by even a few minutes that he's about to enter combat. My guess is from pre-flight briefing where the action is most likely to take place, the leader of his flight informing him either via radio or if maintaining radio silence, wiggle his wings, dropping the fuel tanks, or hand signals & this newbie would already go through the motions of having his plane configured for combat.

GregP - that looks like it was taken verbatim from the infamous "Col Rau" memo. Skyediamonds hit the nail on the head with his comments.

"When introduced, the P-38 program had TWO glaring faults aside for the low critical Mach number. In no particular order"

1) There was little or no multi engine training
2) There was no multi engine combat training

Skyediamonds said:

It's just an intuition on my part, but the chances are that the " newbie combat wanna be" Pilot would pretty much know in advance by even a few minutes that he's about to enter combat.

Click to expand...

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But what I've read and heard from the pilots themselves is that except for the Chuck Yeagers and Dick Bongs of this world, the average "combat virgin" pilot was all thumbs, sky blind, and way behind the situation the first few times out. Less so in today's arena of extensive combat training, but in earlier times, with pilot production at an accelerated pace, that luxury was unavailable to most.
And Skyediamond's premise of getting a few minutes warning discounts the possibility (probability?) of the six o'clock surprise bounce.
Cheers,
Wes

Skyediamonds said:

Responding to GregP's observation of new pilots cruising into combat unprepared & having to go through a quick list of "four steps to take," with the possibilities of being shot down before completing the first three steps: It's just an intuition on my part, but the chances are that the " newbie combat wanna be" Pilot would pretty much know in advance by even a few minutes that he's about to enter combat. My guess is from pre-flight briefing where the action is most likely to take place, the leader of his flight informing him either via radio or if maintaining radio silence, wiggle his wings, dropping the fuel tanks, or hand signals & this newbie would already go through the motions of having his plane configured for combat.

Click to expand...

When the P-38 was re-introduced into the ETO, the typical flying day over Britain and western Europe was dismal. Cloud formations, layered cloud stacks and just miserable weather all along the route - combined with the disadvantage of being easily seen First - gave LW flights easy decisions regarding 'fight or flight'. The Fight choice enable the German pilots an opportunity to seek a tactical advantage, particularly in the layered cloud cover, to sneak into a good position very close to the P-38s.

Ergo, there were many instances when a P-38 pilot had very little time to process low speed cruise settings to combat settings. Until the add of the extra generator and cockpit heater and improved fuel management controls - the freezing (and sluggish) pilot was pretty busy dropping tanks, reducing RPM, advancing throttle, turning on gunsight - while trying to avoid being shot down. Compounding that set of experiences, diving to evade wasn't much of an option either for all the reasons mentioned 1000 times about onset compressibility and less maneuverability than the 109G6 or Fw 190A-5.

As to pre-flight briefing, during the fall/winter of 1943 the IO basically generalized the area from BE of the P-47s to the Target was a good guess. That envelope was where the LW had the highest ratio of critical mass of defending fighters against the 55th FG, and then the 20th (December).

Last but not least - with one FG available for target support out of range of the P-47, there were no options for a.) sweeps out in front, and b.) ideal positioning for mandatory close escort. The Germans knew the altitude, frequently predicted the primary target 'region' and had the latitude to direct both 109s and even 190s to the same altitude or greater than top cover squadron. Dial back to the discussion above.

My post was not taken word for word from any book or single conversation. Just observations from conversations with WWII veterans and from talking with owners who came through Joe Yancey's shop. Sorry if it appears the same as anybody else's observations. I can say that at least four early P-38 pilots have commented on the gasoline situation where the early P-38's were flying with wrong fuel (aromatics). They didn't just "make that up." The information was too detailed. It manifested itself in destructive ways, particularly at high altitudes, such as intake backfires that resulted in failed engines when changing power levels. Once corrected, that was never an issue again. Anyone can see the difference in intake manifolds if they look at early ones compared with late ones with turbulators in them. I have never seen an Allison actually RUN on the early manifolds because of reported issues with them. NOBODY today wants a flyable Allison V-1710 with early parts in it! Those parts include early wrist pins, early intake manifolds, and early valve trains.

All the P-38 early pilots I have ever heard speak anywhere commented on the poor aircraft cockpit heaters.

I've heard over 10 former P-38 pilots who flew early in the war comment on the total lack of combat training, but that reversed itself as we gained experience, as we might expect. Once the veterans started transitioning back to the U.S.A., they were glad to help train new pilots ... but combat preparation training started earlier than that once we started figuring out how to survive the first few aerial combat engagements. Coming into a combat area with the engines at higher power and rpm settings helped a LOT. They still had to turn on the gunsighs, but that was easy by comparison.

After WWII, we "forgot" about "ACM" training and had to learn it all over again in Viet Nam.

It might be worth remembering that that U.S.A.'s two highest-scoring aces flew P-38s. It can't be a too bad as a fighter.

When it comes to combat training, you have to have some idea of the combat you will be in, by the time the P-38 was introduced the Germans had a very good defence system with a nasty habit of not doing what you wanted them to and doing what you didnt want them to.

GregP said:

My post was not taken word for word from any book or single conversation. Just observations from conversations with WWII veterans and from talking with owners who came through Joe Yancey's shop. Sorry if it appears the same as anybody else's observations. I can say that at least four early P-38 pilots have commented on the gasoline situation where the early P-38's were flying with wrong fuel (aromatics). They didn't just "make that up." The information was too detailed. It manifested itself in destructive ways, particularly at high altitudes, such as intake backfires that resulted in failed engines when changing power levels. Once corrected, that was never an issue again. Anyone can see the difference in intake manifolds if they look at early ones compared with late ones with turbulators in them. I have never seen an Allison actually RUN on the early manifolds because of reported issues with them. NOBODY today wants a flyable Allison V-1710 with early parts in it! Those parts include early wrist pins, early intake manifolds, and early valve trains.

All the P-38 early pilots I have ever heard speak anywhere commented on the poor aircraft cockpit heaters.

I've heard over 10 former P-38 pilots who flew early in the war comment on the total lack of combat training, but that reversed itself as we gained experience, as we might expect. Once the veterans started transitioning back to the U.S.A., they were glad to help train new pilots ... but combat preparation training started earlier than that once we started figuring out how to survive the first few aerial combat engagements. Coming into a combat area with the engines at higher power and rpm settings helped a LOT. They still had to turn on the gunsighs, but that was easy by comparison.

After WWII, we "forgot" about "ACM" training and had to learn it all over again in Viet Nam.

It might be worth remembering that that U.S.A.'s two highest-scoring aces flew P-38s. It can't be a too bad as a fighter.

Click to expand...

Greg,

Did any of the Lightning Vets talk about multi, P38, or combat prep training? Just curious what they actually received prior to their first combat sorties. Red Flag is based on the premise that getting through the first five combat hops is the key to longevity, and you get as close to that as possible through a Flag trip.

Cheers,
Biff

GregP said:

My post was not taken word for word from any book or single conversation. Just observations from conversations with WWII veterans and from talking with owners who came through Joe Yancey's shop. Sorry if it appears the same as anybody else's observations. I can say that at least four early P-38 pilots have commented on the gasoline situation where the early P-38's were flying with wrong fuel (aromatics). They didn't just "make that up."

Click to expand...

I am not saying that they made it up. However there were two different periods of time were aromatics were problem for the US.

The first was in 1940 or early 1941 when the US fuel was under 2% (or 4% ) aromatic and the British fuel was not less than 20%. Now at this time there were darn few P-38s flying. Trying to use British specification fuel in US aircraft caused a host of problems in all manner of aircraft as the High aromatic fuel dissolved many of the rubber components in the fuel systems like gaskets and seals. It could also dissolve or cause to leak rubber fuel lines or connections. The fuel also dissolved (at least partially) the early self sealing fuel tank liners used by the US and the resulting "gunk" clogged fuel lines/filters.
How much of this was responsible for the US and the British deciding to issue joint fuel specifications I don't know but it was obvious that British and American 100 octane fuels were NOT interchangeable on anything approaching a regular basis at this time.

The Americans changed the formulation of their rubber components in the fuel systems to withstand high aromatic fuels. They developed a new type of self sealing tank liner or tank bag. And so you could put the joint specification fuel into american aircraft without screwing up the fuel system and you could run the higher manifold pressures the high aromatic fuel allowed.

Jump forward to late 1942 or early 1943. With the allies needing all the 100/130 fuel they could get they decided to allow both more lead (the 4.6cc per US gallon) and allow the greater use of heavy aromatics. Since there are over dozen aromatics it is a bit difficult to figure out which ones they are talking about in the books/articles on this subject.

Now please note that I said "the greater use of heavy aromatics." not necessarily the greater use of all aromatics or that higher percentage of total aromatics was used. Just like many other chemicals or base materials there were shortages of certain aromatics or they were needed for other products. Like Toluene not only being a great additive for gasoline to fight detonation but being a main ingredient in paint thinners and paint solvents not to mention a main ingredient in TNT. So if a refinery can't get enough Toluene for a batch of gasoline it needs to find something else or several something elses. The problem is compounded by the fact that the fuel specifications also spelled out the heat value of the fuel per pound (usually 18700 btu's per pound) and some of the Aromatics (like Toluene) have lower heat values (toluene = 17400) which tends to put an upper limit on the amount of aromatics that can be used. Some of the less desirable aromatics had higher vaporization temperatures than gasoline and some of the more desirable aromatics which meant they turned back into a liquid at lower temperatures (puddled) and it was this fuel specification that caused the majority of the fuel problems in the P-38. The higher amount of lead didn't help as it tended to foul the plugs quicker. Fouled plugs and a rapid increase in power level was a good recipe for detonation regardless of what else was going on with the fuel.

The pilots who flew P-38s are not making anything up or lying, they are telling you or anybody else who asks what they were told at the time back in WW II. However this does not mean that they were told the correct information at the time.

There was a problem with the fuel being used in England in late 1943/early 1944 in P-38s. It had to do with the aromatics being used. However it had nothing to do with old 1940 less than 2% more than 20% aromatic fuel. The was no "British" fuel in late 1943/44 vs American fuel. There was fuel available in Britain. Who it came from is certainly subject to question. There were dozens of refineries supplying fuel to the allies at this time and there were literally dozens (if not hundreds) of different fuel blends. As long as the fuel met ALL the published requirements (octane/PN number ratings, heat content, vapor pressure, gum residue, allowable amount of dye and a number of others) it was a acceptable. A single refinery could change it's "blend" several times in one month depending on the supply/s of raw materials it had to work with.
Unless the pilots (or their mechanics) were chemists and had a small laboratory available their ability to analyze the fuel was very limited and they could only go on what they were told.

Different sources or letters describe or mention the lower volatility of new specification fuel, they mention the lead separating out or they say that the P-38 behaved poorly with aromatic fuels available in England (note the difference from british fuel?) . Please note that one letter which addressed this problem from R.M. Hazen, Allison chief engineer to H.M. Poyer, director of engineering at Bell aircraft was dated March 19th 1943. So the possible problem was anticipated long before the P-38s returned to the ETO. The new fuel was also part of the reason for developing the Keystone piston rings as the regular rings tended to stick with the new fuel.

Hi Shortround,

I am certainly not saying you are wrong, and your information makes a lot of sense. However, I was NOT there, and am relying on recollections from P-38 pilots who flew them in combat some 75 - 76 years ago. They mention issues with the P-38 that we KNOW were later traced to fuel. None of them mentioned aromatics, just the issues that we now know were caused by wrong jetting from the factory and possibly aromatics. A couple referred to their Allisons as the "Allison Time Bomb." I surmise they had to be early pilots because once the issues were fixed, the Allison gave good service. Since they didn't have that recollection and were ETO pilots, I surmise the issues they described were almost all related to fuel, intake manifolds, and the like in early P-38s. All recalled the cold and bad heaters. Several said their "combat training" was done flying operational missions. I surmise they had little formal combat training.

So, yes, I could be off in left field. But here's the thing. I spent 34 years as an electrical engineer listening in meetings and coming up with a problem statement from listening in meetings, among other tasks. I would then take the problem statement back to the next meeting to be sure I understood what they were trying to say before starting to work on it. Most of the time, after my early days, I was pretty well on target.

In this case, I don't have the luxury of seeing the same P-38 pilots and asking them if my estimate of their issues seems accurate because they are very old guys who rarely come back even a year later. When they DO (if they do), we volunteers don't get most of the questions for the panels. We let the paying public ask the questions.

Could I be wrong? Definitely. But the issues they talked about are decently well known, including dive flaps, fuel, coldness in the cockpit, and low limiting Mach number (wasn't called that back then).

So, I cannot go out and ask them specific questions and I don't claim your information is in error, either. I'm trying my best to reconcile both and come up with a likely explanation. Most of technical discussions in here are, for me, kind of like that ... Go look into things when time allows and see if the items discussed seem to meet the realities I can find, knowing full well that an exact problem description in any particular discussion, may or may not EVER surface in ANY reference.

It's sort of like trying to find out the real top speed of, say, an F6F-5 Hellcat. I can find speeds anywhere from 365 to 415 mph and I can find articles by Corky Meyer that say the Corsair and Hellcat would fly side by side at the same power settings. By the way, that has been confirmed by several pilots who fly around with both types these days. What is the real answer? I STILL don't know for sure, but my best guess is somewhere around 380 - 390 mph, with the Corsair having a slightly optimistic airspeed indicator ... but it SHOULD be slightly faster at the top end due to ram air effect that the Hellcat did not have.

With me, these questions are not an exact science due to lack of exact descriptions of issues we talk over in here that are actually covered in references. I hope you understand.

Cheers.

There is absolutely no doubt there were issues with the early P-38 but as stated on here many times over and over again, this was an aircraft that was developed before the war, was never intended to be placed in large scale production, gave the AAF a weapon that could at least be competitive (and in many cases superior) to the enemy, and lastly was able to fulfill mission requirements (actually many) until the war ended. Circular Proposal X-608 was a crystal ball that resulted in the AAF having a viable weapon for WW2 but that crystal ball didn't show everything needed for the future.

Personally I think it got a bad rap by the brass in the ETO as many of the issues encountered were being addressed and corrected, but during wartime it's quite obvious you don't have time to sit and wait for improvements, especially if you're that 250 hour pilot with 25 hours multi-engine time and no twin combat training trying to get your heater to work. To add to the situation, you had people calling the shots who themselves had minimal twin engine time, let alone in a twin engine fighter aircraft.

Finally, speaking of Circular Proposal X-608 - has any one ever seen or read this document? Just wondering if there was ever a government specification written for the minimum performance requirement for a cockpit heater?

Hi Flyboyj, As you said above, I'd like to see the requirements that were circulated. Lacking that, I can from hearing them described by real, live P-38 pilots say that the heaters use on many P-38s were not very good and that the electric units that later replaced the earlier baffle-type heaters were VERY good. And that tells us nothing about what was asked for in the spec, does it? I can't find a pdf, letter, or any reference that has the text of circular proposal X=608, though it supposed to have required a top speed of at least 360 mph. That is from hearsay only as I cannot find the text of X-608.

Say, are you at Reno? Did you see the crash of Drago? Looks like a heck of a crosswind! Cheers.

GregP said:

Hi Flyboyj, As you said above, I'd like to see the requirements that were circulated. Lacking that, I can from hearing them described by real, live P-38 pilots say that the heaters use on many P-38s were not very good and that the electric units that later replaced the earlier baffle-type heaters were VERY good. And that tells us nothing about what was asked for in the spec, does it? I can't find a pdf, letter, or any reference that has the text of circular proposal X=608, though it supposed to have required a top speed of at least 360 mph. That is from hearsay only as I cannot find the text of X-608.

Say, are you at Reno? Did you see the crash of Drago? Looks like a heck of a crosswind! Cheers.

Click to expand...

Hi Greg -

As the old saying goes, "if it wasn't in the proposal, we shouldn't be doing it." Would love to see a copy of the original X-608 document!

I don't do Reno anymore. When we lost Mike Mangold I gave up my Reno participation, as a matter of fact I gave up working on L29s and L39s all together - and to take it a step further I'm now semi retired. I've sold off about half of my tools and do little outside aircraft maintenance. I am working part time at a small FAA repair station and hope to do that until Social Security kicks in then I'll sleep in every day and chase the neighborhood kids off the lawn!

I did see the Draco crash. Very sad, glad Mike Patey and his wife walked away unscathed.

Flyboy,
Had no idea that you live in Reno or that you worked on planes, specifically the L-28's & -39's. I too am currently living in Reno. I'm also A&P rated, in addition to being a VFR multi-engine Pilot. I saw Draco up close & even posed standing by it while my son took a picture. Those balloon tires were huge! That, & the custom shock absorbers made it look like one of those jacked up pickup trucks we often see at those extreme truck shows. Sorry to learn of it's crash. But in all honesty, the weather was pretty bad with heavy winds lashing rain. I'm surprised he attempted to takeoff during that time. Especially since it was forecasted to clear up & calm down later that afternoon -which it did. At least everyone walked away without a scratch. The pilot (Patey?) even posted his views on YouTube while the firefighters were still at the scene.

Flyboy: Ooops, sorry. I misread that you don't do Reno for you living in Reno.