P38 Lightening

I believe that these twin boom planes were known as widow-makers for another reason. On some, the horizontal tailplane was set at the top of the vertical fins. So when a pilot jettisoned, he stood a good chance of being cut in half...

that wasnt very friendly was it

I understand the P38 was considered dangerous due to its very marginal single engine handling at lower speeds.
An engine failure just after take off with a full combat load would result in an uncontrollable "spiral in" unless the power of the good engine was immediately reduced. Not a natural reaction in such an emergency.
It took some nerve & training to do this and feather the failed engine in the right order and whilst control could then be maintained the rate of climb was very low until the speed had built up.

Quorneng wrote: I understand the P38 was considered dangerous due to its very marginal single engine handling at lower speeds.
An engine failure just after take off with a full combat load would result in an uncontrollable "spiral in" unless the power of the good engine was immediately reduced. Not a natural reaction in such an emergency.
It took some nerve & training to do this and feather the failed engine in the right order and whilst control could then be maintained the rate of climb was very low until the speed had built up.

Up until recent times, most multi-engined aircraft were like that, Q. The issue is either control or performance. Nowadays, VMCA (minimum control speed in the air following engine failure) and VMCG (minimum control speed on the ground following engine failure) are researched and tabulated. Aircraft are not certified to operate below those speeds with one engine failed and the rest at high power. As a result, minimum approach speeds can be faster than first thought to allow a suitable margin above VMCA.

I remember reading a long time ago that P-38 pilots in the Pacific theatre claimed that they could live with the Zero in a turn by performing what they called the 'Lockheed Stomp' - cutting power to the inner engine in the turn, using the combination of asymmetric thrust and control authority to tighten the turn.
Mike

Indeed Andy but as the P38 Allisons rotated 'outward over the top' - chosen to reduce tail buffet and make a better gun platform - it also made the 'engine out' situation worse as the single engine torque compounded the effect of thrust asymmetry whereas with the conventional 'inward over the top' configuration the torque helps.to counter it.

The bottom line here, Q, is that the aircraft was uncontrollable below what was known as 'safety speed', i.e the speed at which with one engine at full power and the other one failed the aircraft would climb away. The actual speed, and the reasons for it, were academic, but I do accept that outwardly rotating engines would increase the safety speed. If, at the point of engine failure, the speed was below safety speed, then the action was to throttle back and crash straight ahead. If above safety speed, then it was safe to climb away.

On some aircraft there was a long gap between take-off speed and safety speed, on some it was small. I suspect that the Lightning was the former rather than the latter, but it was by no means unique.

The flying technique required was not dangerous, but it did require certain skills that would have been taught in training. If the aircraft was dangerous, then it would not have gone into service.

There used t be a military forum back in Compuserve days - most members were American - and there was quite a bit of debate on the relative merits of USAAF WW2 fighters - this was between folks who had actually flown them in combat, not armchair experts - and one P-51 pilot commented on how, in his inexperience, he had got too close to a Luftwaffe fighter (can't remember what) and had been frustrated to see his tracers pass either side of the enemy's fuselage without hitting anything, allowing the Luftwaffe pilot to escape, A P-38 pilot smugly observed that with the firepower grouped in the nose, that was a problem that he had never encountered!
Mike

A jolly good debate chaps, keep it up, perhaps we have a (yank) perusing the forum who could add to the very interesting topic.

I think the P51 pilot was bit slow on the uptake. Surely all he had to do was ease the turn slightly to have at least 2 guns on target for a moment at least. Or would the action be too quick to allow for this? I only arsked / as Bernie used to say LOL ( Bresslaw ) [badass] :S

As I remember the exchange (it must have been 20 years or so ago) he was so close that he had to pull up to avoid a collision - or perhaps the Luftwaffe guy pushed forward. Whichever, one Luftwaffe pilot lived to fight again.
Mike

It may be of interest that the P38 was the subject of several Army Air Corp reports.
This report made a number of recommendations in March 1943 concerning the P38F The type about to be used in Europe.
Of particular note is the insufficient carburetor inter cooling that limited the maximum performance at high altitude. Exceeding the carb inlet temperature would lead to detonation and engine failure so it needed careful instrument monitoring when opening the throttle to achieve maximum available combat power.
B17 escort duties flew at altitudes where this was a significant problem.
On the other hand operating altitudes in the Pacific were in general lower and thus within the capabilities of the intercooler where the same model P38F proved very successful indeed. Not surprisingly the benefit of having two engines over long sea distances rather outweighed any operational difficulties.
This report in May 1943 concerning the later P38G points out that although it has a better performance many of the underlying problems remain.
The inter cooler capacity problem was not solved until the arrival in Aug 1943 of the P38J model with its big chin inter cooler radiators and dive brakes that allowed steep dives without entering compressability problems that dogged the earlier marks.
However by this time the P51 Mustang B and C models were entering service that could match the P38 for altitude and range and had much improved maneuverability along with simpler maintenance requirements.
The cockpit layout of the P51 (with the benefit of UK operational input at its design stage) was considered superior to the P38 where many of the controls and switches were illogically placed as well as being hard to reach and operate with a gloved hand.
Many war surplus P38s were sold to other nations but the majority of those in the Paciific region were bulldozed into pits and set alight!! :woohoo:

im still trying to figure what batteres will be needed for this model but circumstamces have prevented me from advancing