P-38 and B-17

[Cadetat6]

P-38 has two engines and they turn in opposite directions.

B-17 has four engines and they all turn in the same direction.

Is there any other plane , with more than one engine, that turn in opposite direction?

 

Art

[texas38]

I never knew that about the P-38 props turning in opposite directions. As to whether there are any others, let me ask my resident in-house pilot - my hubby. Will get back to you later. - Marilyn

[chucktoo1926]

Let's hear it for the P-38; best fighter ever

I pulled this out of my doc's. It's long but tells you what you want to know

 

From: cdb100620@aol.com (CDB100620)

Subject: P-38 as best (was Re: Zero, P-40B...)

Date: 12 Aug 1996

 

I'm offering the suggestion that the P-38L (and later J models) was the

best all-around fighter aircraft of World War II, not based on the numbers

or book references, but on the views of two WWII pilots who flew the

aircraft--and others--in combat. One was my father-in-law, Elliott Dent

(who posted once to this group when he was visiting me) and Sidney Woods,

a WWII buddy of my father-in-law who fought in both Europe and the

Pacific. I'll refer to them as Elliott and Sidney.

 

Elliott flew P-40s in combat with the 49 FG before switching to P-38s.

He liked the P-40. His only complaint, and it was a major one, was that

the model he flew mostly, the N, was a pig at altitude.

 

The P-38, however, was a vast improvement. Things he cited as making the

P-38 superior to other WWII fighters:

 

First and foremost (although usually overlooked by nonpilots) was its

tricycle landing gear. WWII fighters had landing speeds too high for

conventional gear. There was always that critical point in landing when

speed had dropped such that the rudder was ineffective, yet the tail was

still in the air and trying to use wheel braking to control direction

would collapse a gear or lead to a ground loop. Exhausted pilots

returning from multi-hour combat missions didn't need the final challenge

of a fast landing in a tail-dragger. The P-38 floated in and planted

itself. If you came in a little fast, you could use the dive brakes to

slow down before your wheels touched. I'm sure everyone has seen the film

of that F4U landing at Guadalcanal that balloons and floats down the

runway forever. That sort of thing couldn't happen with a P-38.

 

Second, two engine reliability. Especially on long over-water flights,

the security of having a spare engine in case one quit, simply can't be

appreciated by a non-combat pilot. As much as he liked the P-40, Elliott

recalls that the tension of listening intently to the engine--what was

that noise? Was that a miss? Did it just stutter?--soaked his flight

suit with sweat. And many a compatriot who reported engine trouble and

broke out of formation was never heard from again.

 

Third, range. The P-38 could go where the action was, or trade range for

payload and carry a bomber's load. Only the P-51D and P-47N (which came

along very late in the war) were in its range playground.

 

Fourth, let's call steadyness. With engines turning in opposite

directions, the P-38 was stable in all maneuvers and could roll equally

well right or left. The big-engined, big-propped singles had torque and

P-factor problems that became increasingly pronounced as speed dropped, as

in a dog fight (which you shouldn't get into, of course, but sometimes you

do anyway). They always rolled faster one way than the other. The P-38

driver just rolled the way they couldn't to escape, On the ground this

made them genuinely dangerous to operate.

 

Fifth, firepower concentration and range. The P-38's nose gun arrangement

got rid of all the problems of wing guns, specifically the need to be

within a specific range for the fire to tell. Anywhere within 1,000 yards

would give you hits. Given the tendency for unexperienced pilots to open

fire too far away, the P-38 offered the greatest chance for strikes. Much

wing-gun fire was wasted, especially by low-combat time pilots who fired

at twice or three times nominal range. In head-on attacks, where it is

virtually impossible to hold your fire until you hit the "sweet spot"

where the wing guns converge, the P-38's advantage of pointing yourself at

the enemy and holding the trigger down was signficant.

 

Sixth, dive brakes. Any aircraft that could reach the vicinity of 400 mph

at 20,000 feet would have compressibilty problems in a dive. Only the

P-38J/L offered a solution.

 

Elliot was credited with six kills and five probables. Among other

medals, he was awarded the DSC, the DFC, the Air Medal, the Purple Heart.

He flew 251 combat missions.

He piloted the P-40 and P-38 in combat, the P-39 and P-51 stateside.

 

Sidney flew P-40s and P-38s with the 49FG. He participated in the Battle

of the Bismark Sea. He flew 112 combat missions with the 49th. After a

rest stateside, he went to the 4th FG in Europe. He flew 68 combat

missions in Europe in P-51s. I don't know what he may have flown

stateside.

 

Sidney shot down two Japanese planes with the 49th and 10 with the 4th

(one of these on the ground, as the USAAF in the ETO counted aircraft

destroyed on the ground as kills. The USAAF in the PTO did not). Five of

the air kills were FW-190s. Among the medals awarded him that I know

about, were the Silver Star, the DFC, the Croix de Guerre and the Air

Medal.

 

Sidney described the Mustang as a super P-40. He did not consider it in

the same class with the P-38. He often said that the P-40 and P-51

represented pre-war air combat thinking, and that the P-38 represented the

future. That's a broad statement, and I can't recall his specific reasons

for making it, but it does give you a sense of his feeling for the

aircraft.

Sidney said that were he flying the P-38 in Europe he could have shot down

more planes than he did. On more than one occasion, for example, he noted

that while he was closing in to wing-gun range an FW would execute one of

its fabulous snap-rolls and split-S away. Had he been in a P-38 he could

have opened fire seconds earlier, gained strikes for certain, possibly

destroying the aircraft.

 

Sidney believed the poor showing of the P-38 in the ETO was the result of

AAF brass, who, pre-war were wedded to the unescorted heavy bomber

concept, and didn't dare admit, in the face of terrible bomber losses,

that they had a perfectly capable figher capable of escorting their

bombers from day one to the farthest target they ventured to--but they

chose not to use it. Instead, they mutually, if unconsciously, fixed on

every reason they could find to discount the P-38 as a capable fighter.

They could then say they had no choice but to go unescorted until the P-51

came along. Had they said, Yeah, we had a good escort fighter in the P-38

but decided not to use it, congressional committees would have been

demanding to know who screwed the pooch (his phrase).

 

As far as a combat type went, I recall Sidney talking about how it was

impossible to overshoot an aerial target in a dive with the P-38. If you

saw that you were overtaking faster than you liked, you popped the speed

brakes. Couldn't do that with any other plane. He also liked the low

speed maneuvering flaps, the hydraulicly boosted ailerons, and the overall

ruggedness of the airplane.

 

He felt that the AAF made a mistake in not standardizing the P-38 as "the"

fighter and having Republic and North American build it as well as

Lockheed.

 

L.S.

 

chucktoo

[Walt's Daughter]

Excellent coverage there, dear roaming reporter!

 

That's the kind of documentation we like to see here at VI Corps.

[chucktoo1926]

ONE MORE THING--------THE--- B-17, Best Bomber.

 

Papa ART and I belong to a group called the Yankey Air Force with the Yankee Air Museum at Willow Run Air Port, where FORD produced the B-24s during WWII. We have a beautifully reconditioned B-17 named The Yankee Lady. Art and I took an hour flight in it 2 years ago. What a thrill that was. We asked the pilot about the motors. Did the ones on starboard spin in one direction and the ones on port,in the other. He said they all spun in the same direction, and there was a constant strain to keep it going straight, much like a race car, only in the car the strain was to keep it FROM going straight.

 

chucktoo

[Jiggersfromsphilly]

The USN F7F Tigercat . The torque was a problem for carrier based aircraft and thats one of the ways they worked to counterbalance it.

 

I heard that the Yankee Airforce had a tragic fire. Was that from you guys? If not could you fill us in on the details ?

 

The Pilot of that Craft didn't use his trim tab to help?

[chucktoo1926]

Jiggers --- You have me there. I'm not a pilot, but I love airplanes. You mentioned that you would like to know more about the Yankee Air Museum and the fire that dealt the museum such a terrible blow. They had some planes that were in their final stages of restoration and were in the process of being painted when the fire struck. But don't let me go on; I have the link you and others can click on to see for yourselves. here goes;

 

http://www.yankeeairmuseum.org

 

 

One other thing; The Yankee Lady B-17 that Art & I flew in was in the movie Tora, Tora, Tora. It was among that group of 17s coming io from the states while the Nips were swarming over the Island.

Also you will see the F-105 in one of the photos. What a beauty she was. I'd say she was probably only days to completion, and she would have been up closer to the hanger doors, and saved.

 

chucktoo

[Custermen]

Is there any other plane , with more than one engine, that turn in opposite direction?

That feature was quite common in many twin-engine military airplanes. Military engines produced so much thrust that the torque could cause some to lose control on take-off. Also during a dive bombing run the torque created in a high speed dive could throw off the pilot's aim.

The DeHaviland Mosquito was a fast, light-weight recon aircraft made out of wood that had counter-rotating engines.

The P-61 Black Widow night fighter also had counter-rotating engines but it was a late arrival in the war. I think the first Lockheed experiment with a flying wing powered by two piston engines used this design.

 

There were some aircraft that used one engine with twin counter-rotating props.

Also, if you saw the movie about Howard Hughes in "The Aviator", he crashed while test flying his XF-1 recon plane in 1946. Some say the reason he crashed was because one engine's prop went flat pitch and began vibrating. Hughes thought it was an engine trim. If he had shut down the engine he would have never crashed. Of course his first 2 mistakes caused this when he took an aircraft on a first test flight for more than 1 hour and didn't stay near an airport.

 

Steve

[Walt's Daughter]

Steve (or anyone else):

 

Did you happen to catch the wonderfully produced show on the DeHaviland Mostquito about a week or two ago on the tube? I can't remember if it was on the History Channel or not. I will check into it. Anyway, it was an hour long show and really fascinating. I'll see if I can gather some details. It's worth a watch!

[Walt's Daughter]

I heard that the Yankee Airforce had a tragic fire. Was that from you guys? If not could you fill us in on the details ?

 

Ah, you probably read the facts right here. I started a thread on it a while back. Here's the scoop:

 

http://208.56.11.96/Invision/index.php?showtopic=40

 

Here's the link to their site. I have also visited the place. Used to live very close by.

 

Yankee Air Museum