Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

P38 Lightning question

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

P38 Lightning question

Old 16th Feb 2018, 14:22
  #61 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 55
Posts: 5,498
Originally Posted by cavuman1 View Post
Yet I find stick control suits me best of all. Starting in a Blanik LET L-13 and graduating to Grob 103's, I always found stick and rudder to be the most intuitive setup.

- Ed
Do you fly gliders left handed, or do you manage well right handed?

My left hand on the stick was usually rewarded with a clip round the ear 'ole and a crisp reminder from the instructor that left hand is needed for cable release and airbrakes!
treadigraph is online now  
Old 16th Feb 2018, 21:28
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 204
Angel Answer for Treadigraph

I always used my right hand on gliders' control sticks. It felt natural and reserved my left paw for actuation of the speed brakes/spoilers and release knob. I'm trying hard to remember back thirty-eight years to the Ross Barnett Reservoir in Jackson, Mississippi, where I took my initial soaring instruction, but I clearly remember climbing into the cockpit and having my elderly instructor place my right hand on the stick. He said "Y'all use this here contraption along with them there rudder pedals to maneuver this here aereoplane. (sic)" I do recollect with absolute clarity wondering why an all metal beast with forward swept wings would have flight characteristics any better than a greased anvil. It did, but not by too much!

After release from the Piper PA-25 Pawnee tow plane on my first flight, I spied a vulture spiraling upward in a well-developed thermal close to our position. I banked into the thermal and was immediately rewarded with a +2,000 f.p.m. variometer reading. My Good Old Boy instructor, who had flown a Waco troop carrying glider during the Normandy invasion and who had amassed thousands of hours subsequently (without being shot at!) whispered loudly from the rear seat: "Son, I reckon you is gonna be right good at this here soarin'!")

- Ed
cavuman1 is online now  
Old 16th Feb 2018, 23:40
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,684
Is it true that USAAF P38s had both clock and counterclockwise engines installed and the ones the RAF operated both turned in the same direction?
The RAF aircraft turned in the same direction as they used the same power plant as the P-40 for commonality, but as mentioned by others they never took delivery except for a few for test purposes.

USAAF aircraft all had props that turned outboard at the top, the prototype had props that turned inboard at the top. The USAAF set up produced a more stable gun platform because of reduced pitching moments with power alterations.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
P-38001.jpg (414.2 KB, 29 views)
megan is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2018, 07:35
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 4,656
The RAF aircraft turned in the same direction as they used the same power plant as the P-40 for commonality, but as mentioned by others they never took delivery except for a few for test purposes.
I believe it was a combined French/British order just as for the P40 and Wildcat. Although the last two were delivered (just to the UK as France had fallen at that stage), the RAF test pilots flying the first batch didn't like the handling of the P38 and the order was cancelled. I gather it did have the yoke because of the high aileron forces.
Dan Winterland is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2018, 07:49
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 169
Yamamoto didn't like the P-38 either!
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2018, 08:36
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,533
The de Havilland Hornet had handed Merlins that rotated inwards at the top. This was to reduce that asymmetric efforts of losing an engine in the same way as the P38 prototypes. However on the Hornet this didn't give rise to the stability problems that the P38 had. In fact, it could hold it's own with single engine fighters of it's day on one engine alone.

A slim fuselage with a single rudder compared with twin booms and two rudders directly behind the propellors seems to be a good a reason as any.
Fareastdriver is online now  
Old 17th Feb 2018, 08:55
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,179
I've always wondered why they chose those rotation directions for the P38 because it increases the bending stresses at the wing roots, whereas "inwards at the top" (as per Hornet etc) actually provides bending relief. So the P38 must have had a higher structure weight than was strictly necessary.

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2018, 06:11
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,684
FED, the twin boom layout would have been dictated by the necessity to house the turbo chargers, intercoolers and all the plumbing. Look at the bulk of a P-47 to house the identical items, a single fuselage would have required nacelles of enormous size. The USAAF had a penchant for turbos rather than engine driven supercharges as on the Merlin.
megan is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2018, 01:46
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,540
Indeed - here is the system in a P-47:

GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2018, 03:08
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NZ
Age: 67
Posts: 187
Yamamoto didn't like the P-38 either!
Not for long.
Fark'n'ell is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.