FINALLY saw a P-38 fly

Finally, at least one expert remarked that to transition from cruise
power settings to combat power required so many control manipulations,
coolant flap settings, and myriad other adjustments that pilots had
their heads down in the cockpit making them all while being bounced,
all the while flying in a straight line.

That last may be a slight exaggeration.

Considering that our leading ace of the war, Richard I. Bong, flew only the
P-38 in the Pacific Theater, as did Tommy McGuire -- our Number 2 Ace in the
war -- this last is, indeed, an exaggeration. As with all things, with
practice all movements were done without thought, nearly instantly.

So the P-38 was sent to the Pacific where it excelled.

Indeed.

The P-38 failed in Europe because the climate was too damned cold, and
because the airplane had a few design flaws that were heightened by the
cold. As you state, by the time the J and L models came along -- which
fixed all of the early shortcomings -- the orders had already been cut to
transition to the Mustang and Thunderbolt.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I have often wondered about inertia and twins in general:

with the engines off the centerline was it harder to get a twin into a
roll, and harder to stop?


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

"gregg" wrote in message
...

I have often wondered about inertia and twins in general:

with the engines off the centerline was it harder to get a twin into a
roll, and harder to stop?

Saying nothing of P effects, and torque, it is the fact that a object with
most of it's weight at the center is easier to spin. Think of the figure
skater pulling the arms in. She started with arms out, slowly. Arms in,
the same energy spun her faster.
--
Jim in NC

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:56:38 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"gregg" wrote in message
...

I have often wondered about inertia and twins in general:

with the engines off the centerline was it harder to get a twin into a
roll, and harder to stop?

Saying nothing of P effects, and torque, it is the fact that a object with
most of it's weight at the center is easier to spin. Think of the figure
skater pulling the arms in. She started with arms out, slowly. Arms in,
the same energy spun her faster.
--
Jim in NC

What you say is true Jim, but in WWII, it wasn't the configuration of
the airplane that limited fighter maneuverability so much as how the
controls stiffened up at speed.

Take for instance the Mitsubishi A6M-21 Type Zero fighter, the famous
Zero. Looking at the wings you will notice that the ailerons extend
nearly all the way from the wingtips to the base. The length of the
aileron looks a lot like the typical unlimited aerobatics airplane of
today, only it had no spades to assist it.

You don't have to be an aerodynamics engineer to look at that and just
know that that configuration would be hard to deflect at high speeds.
And that's exactly what happened. Navy pilots flying Grumman F4F
Wildcats learned early on that they could escape a tough situation by
diving and rolling at high speed because the Wildcat's controls did
not stiffen up as much as the Zero's.

Both the Spitfire and Messershmitt 109's suffered stiffening controls
at high speeds to the point where at high speed (near 400 mph), it
took 4-5 seconds to bank from one 45 degree bank to the opposite 45
degrees and most pilots had to use both arms to push against the stick
to accomplish this. Just think about that and put that image in your
head of pushing against the stick and then counting the seconds. A
high speed dogfight must have looked like the airplanes were banking
in slow motion.

Given that situation, ANYTHING that lightened up control forces was
going to give a significant advantage to the pilot of that airplane.
Brute strength and stamina were likely a factor in a maneuvering fight
early in WWII.

So when the P-38 got hydraulically boosted controls, the pilot was
able to deflect the ailerons with a lot less effort, and the airplane
could bank and turn faster than many single engine fighters with
unboosted controls despite it's large size and twin engine
configuration.

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote\


What you say is true Jim, but in WWII, it wasn't the configuration of
the airplane that limited fighter maneuverability so much as how the
controls stiffened up at speed.

All true points, but the question was about inertia.
--
Jim in NC

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:48:39 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:

All true points, but the question was about inertia.
--
Jim in NC

Right, but once the P-38 got boosted controls, those who flew them
claimed they could maneuver with, if not outmaneuver most of the
single engine fighters they encountered. This included, according to
the description I read of one hotshot P-38 pilot, a Spitfire he mock
fought for a bet, which was witnessed by everyone at the airfield, and
General Adolph Galland in a FW 190D. He found out it had been Galland
he was fighting against during one combat when he was at one of those
Aces symposiums years later. He was describing this combat to someone
and Galland, who was present as a member of the symposium, sidled over
and listened in. When the story was finished, Galland exclaimed: "By
Gott, you nearly keel me dat day!"

Corky Scott