FINALLY saw a P-38 fly

[Jay Honeck]

And I thought that Oshkosh this year would finally bring my long-anticipated
viewing of a P-38 in flight, with Glacier Girl's anticipated participation.

Much to my delight and surprise, Porky II, the "Planes of Fame" museum's
flying P-38, was at the Quad City Airshow yesterday, in Davenport, Iowa.

We flew over in the morning, and were able to get a hand's on, close up view
of this awesome plane. Talk about perfection! It looks like it just rolled
off the assembly line! In my opinion, this aircraft completely stole the
show from the Thunderbirds and everyone else who did their usual excellent
job. (Although the T-birds flew short a plane -- I suppose one of the
pilots was under the weather?)

Even though the Lightning only did one low pass during the airshow (and a
bunch of mid-level passes up around 500 feet AGL), it was still the thrill
of a lifetime to see that beautiful forked-tail devil in flight.

I had never heard a P-38 start up or take off, and I was amazed at the silky
smoothness of those huge Allison engines. Compared to the Corsair or even
the Mustang, it sounds like a precision machine working in an oil bath.

And seeing it coming right at you -- wow! What a great silhouette, and
remarkably small, given the plane's immense (relatively, for its day) size.
From the front, it's obvious that Kelly Johnson put a great deal of effort
into aerodynamic slipperiness...

QC always puts on a great airshow, but this one really topped them all.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Jay Honeck" > said:
>We flew over in the morning, and were able to get a hand's on, close up view
>of this awesome plane. Talk about perfection! It looks like it just rolled
>off the assembly line! In my opinion, this aircraft completely stole the

I took these pictures with an incredibly primitive digital camera at the
"1941 Historical Aircraft Group" air show in 1997:
http://xcski.com/~ptomblin/1941/p38_1.jpg
http://xcski.com/~ptomblin/1941/p38_2.jpg
http://xcski.com/~ptomblin/1941/p38_3.jpg
Even though the paint job needed a lot of work, it was a very impressive
aircraft.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Some days violence is just a nice quick solution to a problem that
would need thought, planning and actual work to do justice to.
-- Wayne Pascoe

[Jay Honeck]

> Much to my delight and surprise, Porky II, the "Planes of Fame" museum's
> flying P-38, was at the Quad City Airshow yesterday, in Davenport, Iowa.

See http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm for a couple of
low-res videos of this P-38 in action...

(Just scroll down to see the P-38 videos.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I took these pictures with an incredibly primitive digital camera at the
> "1941 Historical Aircraft Group" air show in 1997:
> http://xcski.com/~ptomblin/1941/p38_1.jpg
> http://xcski.com/~ptomblin/1941/p38_2.jpg
> http://xcski.com/~ptomblin/1941/p38_3.jpg
> Even though the paint job needed a lot of work, it was a very impressive
> aircraft.

Is that plane still flying? I've seen two P-38s with the "Marge" paint
job -- one in the EAA Museum in OSH, and one in the Bong Museum in
Superior, WI.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Montblack]

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> Is that plane still flying? I've seen two P-38s with the "Marge" paint
> job -- one in the EAA Museum in OSH, and one in the Bong Museum in
> Superior, WI.


In your P-38 aviation video (Start-Up) the two props are spinning in the
same direction. Is this normal for P-38's? British?

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
(scroll down to "P")

http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p38.html
"The XP-38 had been powered by two liquid cooled, Allison V-1710 engines
turning 11 1/2 foot Curtiss Electric, inward turning, counter-rotating
propellers. With the YP-38s and all subsequent Lightings, the propellers
rotated outward negating torque when both engines were operating (A batch
ordered by Britain did not have counter-rotating propellers.)"


BTW, the missing T-Bird pilot is down for the season, unless he can complete
his retraining before then. Something medical(?) knocked him off the team a
while back. Ok, he's still on the team, but he's not on the tour.


Montblack

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Is that plane still flying? I've seen two P-38s with the "Marge" paint
> job -- one in the EAA Museum in OSH, and one in the Bong Museum in
> Superior, WI.

That's probably Tallichet's plane. Here's a photo of what it looked like in 1997.
http://www.475thfghf.org/Photos/p38_2.JPG

This is what it looks like now.
http://www.warbird-photos.com/Airshow04-Aircraft/images/IMG_2890.JPG

If it's the same plane, it's still flying.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Montblack wrote:
>
> In your P-38 aviation video (Start-Up) the two props are spinning in the
> same direction. Is this normal for P-38's? British?

That's not normal. It has, however, proven to be extremely difficult to locate
parts for the oddball engines on warbirds with counter-rotating props (another
example is the twin Mustang). I think it likely that they simply replaced the
engine with a standard Allison at some point in time.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Montblack wrote:
>
> In your P-38 aviation video (Start-Up) the two props are spinning in the
> same direction.

I've watched that quite a few times now, and I think this must be some kind of
optical illusion. If you freeze the display when one of the right prop blades is
vertical and above the wing, it appears to be in line with the camera. That is
consistent with the prop rotating clockwise as viewed from behind. If you freeze
the display when one of the left prop blades is vertical and *below* the wing,
it appears to be in line with the camera. That is consistent with the prop
rotating counter-clockwise.

The 2004 publicity shot I posted earlier also seems to have counter-rotating props.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Jay Honeck]

> In your P-38 aviation video (Start-Up) the two props are spinning in the
> same direction. Is this normal for P-38's? British?
>
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
> (scroll down to "P")

Wow -- that is TOTALLY bizarre. The props most certainly are
contra-rotating on Porky II, yet, I agree -- the video makes it look
like they're both turning the same direction.

Of course, it also makes them look they're turning about 60 rpm.

Must be some side effect of the low frame rate?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dale]

From memory only, all P-38s had counter-rotating props. The early
version the props turned "in" as in most designs today with
counter-rotating props. Most production models had the props turning
"out"...the direction that most adversely effects handling/performance
during single engine flight.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Dale > said:
>From memory only, all P-38s had counter-rotating props. The early

No, the British ones turned the same way. They also didn't have
superchargers, which probably explains why P-38s are thought of as a
Pacific theatre plane.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Usenet is a co-operative venture, backed by nasty people -
follow the standards.
-- Chris Rovers

[Newps]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, Dale > said:
>>From memory only, all P-38s had counter-rotating props. The early
>
> No, the British ones turned the same way. They also didn't have
> superchargers, which probably explains why P-38s are thought of as a
> Pacific theatre plane.

Yep, Chuck Yeager said in his book that the P38 was the worst plane that
you could possibly make for the mission it was given over there in Europe.

[Bob Chilcoat]

That's pretty big for an insect, Jay. Are you sure it was a fly? :-)

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:RiTve.109135$xm3.88742@attbi_s21...
> And I thought that Oshkosh this year would finally bring my
> long-anticipated viewing of a P-38 in flight, with Glacier Girl's
> anticipated participation.
>
> Much to my delight and surprise, Porky II, the "Planes of Fame" museum's
> flying P-38, was at the Quad City Airshow yesterday, in Davenport, Iowa.
>
> We flew over in the morning, and were able to get a hand's on, close up
> view of this awesome plane. Talk about perfection! It looks like it just
> rolled off the assembly line! In my opinion, this aircraft completely
> stole the show from the Thunderbirds and everyone else who did their usual
> excellent job. (Although the T-birds flew short a plane -- I suppose one
> of the pilots was under the weather?)
>
> Even though the Lightning only did one low pass during the airshow (and a
> bunch of mid-level passes up around 500 feet AGL), it was still the thrill
> of a lifetime to see that beautiful forked-tail devil in flight.
>
> I had never heard a P-38 start up or take off, and I was amazed at the
> silky smoothness of those huge Allison engines. Compared to the Corsair
> or even the Mustang, it sounds like a precision machine working in an oil
> bath.
>
> And seeing it coming right at you -- wow! What a great silhouette, and
> remarkably small, given the plane's immense (relatively, for its day)
> size. From the front, it's obvious that Kelly Johnson put a great deal of
> effort into aerodynamic slipperiness...
>
> QC always puts on a great airshow, but this one really topped them all.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Bob Chilcoat]

Probably the props weren't quite synched, so the strobe effect of the video
showed one turning "backwards".

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> In your P-38 aviation video (Start-Up) the two props are spinning in the
>> same direction. Is this normal for P-38's? British?
>>
>> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
>> (scroll down to "P")
>
> Wow -- that is TOTALLY bizarre. The props most certainly are
> contra-rotating on Porky II, yet, I agree -- the video makes it look
> like they're both turning the same direction.
>
> Of course, it also makes them look they're turning about 60 rpm.
>
> Must be some side effect of the low frame rate?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[CryptWolf]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, Dale > said:
> >From memory only, all P-38s had counter-rotating props. The early
>
> No, the British ones turned the same way. They also didn't have
> superchargers, which probably explains why P-38s are thought of as a
> Pacific theatre plane.

The British rejected the special run of P-38s and they were used for
training in the US. Give me some time and I can even dig up the exact
designation and probably the serial numbers. The British version wasn't
actually designated a P-38 and something of an oddball. Wish I could
remember the title of the book. You really can have to many books
sometimes, but that is another story and part of how I got started in
flying.

The P-38 was used quite a bit in Europe and the Pacific by the US until it
was replaced by the P-51. I don't think the British ever flew a P-38 in
combat.
The F-4/F-5 (P-38 photo versions with no guns) recce birds remained for a
time after the regular P-38s were retired.

Which reminds me of a joke about the pilot who screams over the radio
in a panic "My engine quit. What do I do?"

To which the old P-38 pilot replies "Feather the prop, bank into the good
engine and fly it home."

The other pilot replies "But I only have one engine it's a P-51".

The old P-38 pilot replies back. "Then I guess you are going swimming."

Or something like that. So I was told or maybe read somewhere. ;)

[Kyle Boatright]

One thing that impressed me when I saw Glacier Girl at SnF was the way Steve
Hinton flew a really tight, relatively slow pattern with it. It looked to
be a much better flying aircraft in the slow regime than most of the other
WWII fighters I've seen - particularly P-51's. Also, the P-38's climb angle
after takeoff was much higher than the other WWII fighters I've seen.

[George Patterson]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> They also didn't have
> superchargers, which probably explains why P-38s are thought of as a
> Pacific theatre plane.

They're considered a Pacific theatre plane because Ira Eaker wanted to set the
8th Air Force up with only one type of fighter escort (to reduce spare parts
counts and other maintenance issues). Lockheed could not provide enough P-38s to
supply the entire 8th. North American could provide enough P-51s. Eaker had the
Lightnings transferred out.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 19:10:52 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>No, the British ones turned the same way. They also didn't have
>superchargers, which probably explains why P-38s are thought of as a
>Pacific theatre plane.

The P-38 sometimes gets a bum rap for it's appearance in the European
theatre. The initial versions had excessively complicated controls
and had the turbocharger tubing running up and down the D section of
the wing. Naturally there were a lot of leaks in this system.

The oil being used apparently congealed at very low temperatures, the
type encounted at the typical high altitudes at which combat occured.

The fuel seemed to be a problem too, with seperation of components
occuring, which reduced it's octane rating leading to severe
detonation and engine failure. Frequently.

The cockpit heater was not adaquate leading to frosting of the
windshield and canopy, which of course made it difficult to see out
of. Seeing out is considered reasonably important in a combat zone.
In addition, the lack of heat severely incapacitated the pilots.

In addition, there was the problem of not being able to exceed a
certain speed in a dive, which allowed the Messerschmitt's and Focke
Wulf's to dive away vertically with impunity.

The DC-4 bringing dive flaps that would have alleviated this situation
was mistaken by an intercepting Spitfire for a Focke Wulf Condor, and
shot down off the coast of Scotland.

The P-38's shape is and was of course unique, a disadvantage in a
combat zone as the enemy knows for sure that you are foe, no mistake.
Plus the P-38 was a big airplane which meant that it could be seen
from a greater distance.

As if this weren't all enough to make the fighter unpopular, it's
controls stiffened up at high speeds, a characteristic shared by most
fighters designed early in the war.

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.

In any event, the last model of P-38 deployed to Europe had boosted
controls and automated cooling controls. The boosted controls made it
instantly more maneuverable than most of it's opponents. It was a
formidable fighter and few German or Allied airplanes were it's match.
But by then the orders were cut and the P-38 was replaced by the P-51.
It cost a lot less to manufacture P-51's than P-38's, more could be
built in a month than P-38's and the performance was essentially
equal, especially in regards range.

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

Corky Scott

[John T]

Yep, read a book that said the P-38 was a success in the pacific and
africa/med theatres because the the combat was low alt, while the
european theater was high alt where the P-38 wasn't a good performer.

John

[Jay Honeck]

> The British rejected the special run of P-38s and they were used for
> training in the US. Give me some time and I can even dig up the exact
> designation and probably the serial numbers. The British version wasn't
> actually designated a P-38 and something of an oddball. Wish I could
> remember the title of the book. You really can have to many books
> sometimes, but that is another story and part of how I got started in
> flying.

That would probably be "Fork-Tailed Devil" by Martin Caidin.

An absolutely outstanding book, by the way. It started my love affair with
the P-38 when I first read it, some 35 years ago...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> 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"

[gregg]

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

[Morgans]

"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

[Corky Scott]

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

[Morgans]

"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

[Corky Scott]

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