FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Oh I know Adler, I was refering to HealzDevo....
Worst aircraft of WW2? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Oh I know Adler, I was refering to HealzDevo....
OOOps I misunderstood then. Sorry
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
No sweat! 
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
FLYBOYJ said:
I've heard the 'Flying Gas Can' and the explosion explanation for a number of unexplained Mariner losses. I also heard that story about the rescue attempt of the avengers and this is what they attributed the loss of the Mariner to. I don't know if some earlier planes had problems or just crap like so much of the P-38 stuff is.
wmaxt
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
wmaxt said:
just crap like so much of the P-38 stuff is.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
so you're saying the P-38 had no problems and that all the most commonly stated problems are just lies?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
the lancaster kicks ass said:
No, but there were a lot of exaggerations of the P-38's shortcomings, especially in the ETO...
The only real problem I could think of for the P-38 in the ETO would be the poor cockpit heating. BRRRRRR it would be cold this time of year!
It was a truely remarkable plane, but not without it's problems as we all know. I think the people from either side (the supporters, and critics) are going over the top with the P-38. One side says it's the unbelievable, could do anything and beat anyone fighter ... while the other side says it's a waste of time.
The P-38 was an effective, long-range fighter with the capability to dogfight anything in the sky with an experienced and well trained pilot inside. It was a versatile and could perform most tasks better than others. But it could not carry the war on it's own back. It did have various problems. It wasn't an aircraft for the rookies, it was hard to learn. And there were better dogfighters in the sky.
The P-38 was an effective, long-range fighter with the capability to dogfight anything in the sky with an experienced and well trained pilot inside. It was a versatile and could perform most tasks better than others. But it could not carry the war on it's own back. It did have various problems. It wasn't an aircraft for the rookies, it was hard to learn. And there were better dogfighters in the sky.
Ill agree with that.
So will I. It can't be that bad if the top American ace of the war flew one in the Pacific...
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
Jesus Villamor, the first filipino ace flew a P-26, does that make them great too? 
see, i do pay attention in the other threads
see, i do pay attention in the other threads
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
plan_D said:
Perfect!
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
FLYBOYJ said:plan_D said:
Perfect!
I think Plan is very close but It wasn't that hard to fly if you had someone interested in flying it. And yes there were a couple of planes that under some situations were better dogfighters, there weren't many. All planes had their limitations including the P-38, but very few had as wide a range of abilities much less the competency of those various capabilities.
One of the things that is little known about the P-38 was the attitude that some COs had. The CO of the 20th FG (8th AF) hated the P-38 simply because it wasn't a P-40 or single engined. They never operated the P-38 effectively or even tried to develope tactics for it. They didn't like it over 20,000ft where in their words "it was only as good as the German fighters" due to the altitude (the power did drop considerably at altitude in the early P-38 because of the intercooler situation). They still thought it was the best plane under 20,000ft.
wmaxt
The P-38 was a hard aircraft to fly simply because of the twin-engine layout. Single engined aircraft are much easier to fly. And it's well known that P-38 trainees had a hard time with the P-38, and even more so the first-time combat drivers were almost always in a difficult position because the P-38 took much more training which the USAAF did not give.
It's not a case of the people being uninterested in flying the plane - it's a case of Spitfires, Fw-190s, Mustangs, Hurricanes, Bf-109s all being easier planes to be trained in.
It's not a case of the people being uninterested in flying the plane - it's a case of Spitfires, Fw-190s, Mustangs, Hurricanes, Bf-109s all being easier planes to be trained in.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
plan_D said:
D's hitting the nail on the head, I've rambled about training in multi engine aircraft and practicing engine out procedures - the #1 killer of multi engine pilots.
I've recently learned that when you had an engine out in a P-38 you actually REDUCED power on the good engine, but to the point where you still maintained what is called Vmc, the minimum control airspeed with the critical engine inoperative, or in airplanes with counter rotating propellers, one engine inoperative (OEI). If you maintain an airspeed above Vmc, you should theoretically have enough rudder power to counteract any engine-out yawing and rolling. At the same time, regardless of horsepower, A piston twin with one operative engine doesn't lose half its climb capability — it loses about 80 percent! Too much power on one engine in the P-38 and you torque roll, flip and die, too little power and you don't climb or exceed Vmc, stall and die.
Now with all this aside, if you have the right pilot trained, he's a formidable opponent riding on a survivability insurance policy...
evangilder
"Shooter"
Yep, that is true. I have interviewed a P-38 pilot that said that if he had an engine out in his first 20 hours or so, he probably would not be there talking to me. There was basically no training for the P-38, just a quick orientation while squatting down behind the pilot in the radio area. He went from P-39s to the P-38. After the orientation, they gave him a plane and left him to his own devices.
This brings to mind for me the teething problems the B-26 had, the so called Widowmaker. If you did not follow procedure and did not flip the engine management systems that were located behind the Pilot, then yes the plane tended to fall from the sky. It was at one time considered the worse aircraft in the US inventory but once the pilots were well trained it became, arguably, the best medium bomber the US had. I say arguably because I am still a Mitchell fan. Point is that many a great plane started out as a piece of buffalo chip.
:{)
:{)
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
CurzonDax said:
Engine Management system?!? Explain that one????
