Or one of a number of other warbirds?
Here's your dealer:

http://www.platinumfighters.com/#!inventory/c15ed

WEll I know what to do if/when I win a lottery......I'm all for the P-38L.....

Ftg, I'm with you. If money were no object, it would be the P-38 in a heartbeat!

One thing I've always wondered... why with current flying P-38 Lightnings doesn't anyone reverse the rotation of BOTH engines to eliminate the P-38's known issues with P-factor critical engine on BOTH engines

The original P38 was made the way it was with dual out-turning engines because it reduced tail-plane turbulenceand in general made the aircraft a more stable gun platform.

Without needing to worry about aiming the 50cal M2's, dual IN turning props would make the aircraft less "twitchy" on a post V1 engine failure

Does anyone have a P-61 ?? Many never heard of it .I remember seeing a movie about it , made by Bell who made the radar system .It was night fighter which even flew into early Viet Nam !

quote:

Originally posted by mete:
Does anyone have a P-61 ?? Many never heard of it .I remember seeing a movie about it , made by Bell who made the radar system .It was night fighter which even flew into early Viet Nam !

The P-61 was made by Northrop, the last were retired from service in 1948-49

The only aircraft in flying condition as late
as the Vietnam War were all in California being used as fire-fighting aircraft.

There are four known to exist, none in flying condition.

ONE of these aircraft was recovered from a crash site in New Guinea and is currently being restored in Redding PA (the intent is to restore it to flying condition)
of the remaining three the Smithsonian had one, the US Air Force Museum another and the remaining aircraft is on indoor display.

I'd love to have the G F3-F 2

Allan, wouldn't an outward rotating engine be preferable in the event of an engine failure?

I'm not a pilot, but sometimes remember what my father used to say about twins when I asked whether they were "safer" than single-engined airplanes:

"Nope; just double the chance of engine failure."

BTW, you just helped me waste a perfectly good hour at work, Bill!

friar

quote:

Originally posted by Allan DeGroot:
One thing I've always wondered... why with current flying P-38 Lightnings doesn't anyone reverse the rotation of BOTH engines to eliminate the P-38's known issues with P-factor critical engine on BOTH engines

The original P38 was made the way it was with dual out-turning engines because it reduced tail-plane turbulence and in general made the aircraft a more stable gun platform.

Without needing to worry about aiming the 50cal M2's, dual IN turning props would make the aircraft less "twitchy" on a post V1 engine failure

Friar: Sorry bro!

mete:
Go to the Mid Atlantic Air Museum website and you can see progress of the P-61 they are restoring. It is absolutely amazing what has been done with the restoration.

I'm a bit short right now so I'll take the fw 190 Dora. Much better at high altitude anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by friarmeier:
Allan, wouldn't an outward rotating engine be preferable in the event of an engine failure?

I'm not a pilot, but sometimes remember what my father used to say about twins when I asked whether they were "safer" than single-engined airplanes:

"Nope; just double the chance of engine failure."

BTW, you just helped me waste a perfectly good hour at work, Bill!

friar

quote:

Originally posted by Allan DeGroot:
One thing I've always wondered... why with current flying P-38 Lightnings doesn't anyone reverse the rotation of BOTH engines to eliminate the P-38's known issues with P-factor critical engine on BOTH engines

The original P38 was made the way it was with dual out-turning engines because it reduced tail-plane turbulence and in general made the aircraft a more stable gun platform.

Without needing to worry about aiming the 50cal M2's, dual IN turning props would make the aircraft less "twitchy" on a post V1 engine failure

No the issue on the P-38 is that the engines are outward turning, the top blade on rotation n turns to the wing tip.

This creates something called P-Factor, because the tip moving towards the wingtip creates more lift.

You'd think this is a good thing until you realize that it isn't the greater lift that causes a problem, but the LOSS of that lift on the "Engine out" side that causes the issue.

On loss of power the pilot gets very busy... he has to reduce reduce rate of climb, reduce flaps and most importantly, reduce power on the engine that's still running, this all had to be done in a few seconds or the aircraft rolls inverted (Yes, even against full opposite Aileron) while it is generating a rapid yaw rate towards the dead engine.

Look at those little vertical stabilizers and tell me how much surplus Rudder control power you have?
Particularly with ONE engine trying to turn the whole airplane into a spinning top about the vertical axis?

Typically before the pilot realizes what is all going on the aircraft is impacting the ground inverted,
turned >90degrees from the runway heading.

Generally speaking all three of these things are counter-intuitive to most pilots, but if you fail to do any of the three the response of the aircraft is very predictable... it rolls inverted and flies into the ground at low altitude with a high yaw rate

If EITHER engine loses power the torque of the running engine is assisting the power-out side to drop and the P-factor is helping the running side wing to rise. (at a rate of roll greater than the control surfaces can oppose)

You basically have all the forces working together to roll and yaw the plane towards the dead engine.

The plane very much WANTS to turn into the dead engine at the same time it wants to drop the wind with the dead engine, and NOT turning into the dead engine is the first holy commandment of twin engine flying.

Normally on a twin engine aircraft only one engine is "Critical" because of the outward-turning props on the P-38 BOTH engines are "Critical" in creating P-factor.

If the engines are both IN-turning there is no "P-factor"

IF both engines turn the same direction there is only P-factor on ONE engine, thus one critical engine...

Follow what I'm getting at here?

The part that really gives me trouble understanding why the engines don't get "reversed" is on an Allison the engine accessories are mostly designed to turn either direction.

Literally all you have to do to run an Allison "Backwards" is swap out the
starter motor (To Spin it the opposite direction) and re-arrainge the spark wires

And of curse swapping the propellers from side-to-side (Unless you want to try flying it backwards

With both engines running the P-38 is smooth and fast, with one engine out on takeoff it is best described
as a malicious bitch that is hell bend on killing you.

Not that "Converting it" to inward turning propellers that an engine failure after V1 is
going to be an enjoyable experience (or leave you with an unsoiled flight suit) but I think
it will increase your survival prospects.

Certainly someone properly trained in the type would not get "Confused" by the differences
I am suggesting.

quote:

Originally posted by friarmeier:
Allan, wouldn't an outward rotating engine be preferable in the event of an engine failure?

I'm not a pilot, but sometimes remember what my father used to say about twins when I asked whether they were "safer" than single-engined airplanes:

"Nope; just double the chance of engine failure."

BTW, you just helped me waste a perfectly good hour at work, Bill!

friar

quote:

Originally posted by Allan DeGroot:
One thing I've always wondered... why with current flying P-38 Lightnings doesn't anyone reverse the rotation of BOTH engines to eliminate the P-38's known issues with P-factor critical engine on BOTH engines

The original P38 was made the way it was with dual out-turning engines because it reduced tail-plane turbulence and in general made the aircraft a more stable gun platform.

Without needing to worry about aiming the 50cal M2's, dual IN turning props would make the aircraft less "twitchy" on a post V1 engine failure

Actually even if everything else on the aircraft instrument vacuum (to drive instrument gyros) , electric power generation and hydraulic pumps are redundantly powered by both engines, "P-factor" is waiting to kill you in the event of a single engine failure on a twin engine aircraft with out-turning engines

The engine that turns outwards increases lift on that side, it is the loss of the lift due to P-factor (when the engine stops turning) that causes the aircraft to roll toward the dead engine...

Anyone here ever been told "Never turn towards a dead engine"?

On a P-38 it doesn't matter which engine quits, due to P-factor BOTH engines are "Critical"

Which is why an engine failure just after rotation causes a P-38 to roll aggressively towards the dead engine then fly inverted into the ground, it needs to be noted that a P-38 has no tendency to float off the ground during it's takeoff roll without serious control input
even in the case of a pilot starting his takeoff with a power-on brake-stand and "pop" the flaps somewhere further down the runway.

So far, everyone's missed a critical point regarding the P-38; the Curtiss constant speed props used were electric not hydraulic as on most other aircraft. To cycle the prop from flat (takeoff) pitch to the feathered position required about 15 seconds. This was made even worse. if it was the left engine that gave it up, as it was the one that had the aircraft's only generator. Feathering a prop using only battery power was almost a waste of time- the 1400 horsepower on the good side fighting the unfeathered drag on the dead side made low altitude recovery quite unlikely at best.

Porosonik.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_DqFAbtrps
P-38 traing film

Slide to about 21:00 to see feathering, prop control and single engine characteristics.

quote:

This creates something called P-Factor, because the tip moving towards the wingtip creates more lift.

Alan you've got the right idea but that is only one small factor in critical engine characteristics.

This explains it perfectly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_engine

And obviously as stated both engines are critical on the P-38 but it's simply a matter of maintaining single engine safety speed to control the airplane on the critical single engine just like any other twin. Single Engine Safety Speed (VSSE) takes the worst case; most aft CG, gear up, gross weight, most critical flap configuration and most critical engine wind milling into account.

Remember VMCa is a control velocity speed it has nothing to do with climb performance.

quote:

On loss of power the pilot gets very busy... he has to reduce reduce rate of climb, reduce flaps and most importantly, reduce power on the engine that's still running, this all had to be done in a few seconds or the aircraft rolls inverted (Yes, even against full opposite Aileron) while it is generating a rapid yaw rate towards the dead engine.

If you lose an engine at or above VSSE (Single engine safety speed) you will be required to drop the nose to maintain VSSE or faster. You would clean up the flaps as able, but you would NEVER reduce power on the good engine. What you have described above is VMCa roll/control loss due to trying to fly at speed below VMCa (Velocity Minimum Control air) on one engine. A situation where the asymmetric thrust overcomes your ability to counteract it with rudder due to low airspeed. If you are at VSSE or above you will have full control of the airplane, single engine at full power on the good engine. That is why we ALWAYS operate at or above VSSE until committed to land when flying a multi engine airplane.

quote:

NOT turning into the dead engine is the first holy commandment of twin engine flying.

That ^^^ is an old housewives tale and absolutely untrue. Once again if you are at or above VSSE you can turn into your dead engine all day long with no troubles whatsoever. Watch the video link above and watch the guy do an aileron roll into the dead engine no problem. Also watch Bob Hoover do it multiple times in his airshow act in the Shrike Commander.It's all about having enough airspeed over the tail to counteract asymmetrical thrust with rudder.

The VSSE on the P-38 according to the training film linked above is 120 MPH. If you were to lose an engine at a rotation speed below 120 you'd have your hands full after 120 it will fly without any undue drama.

Also as a side note the props on a P-38 do not take 15 seconds to feather. There is a 15 second reference but it is in reference to resetting your electric prop controllers. The film footage showing feathering is done in a standard time period like any other airplane. It takes just a few seconds to go from normal pitch to full feathered.

Like many WW-II era aircraft, pilots got into trouble single engine when they rotated at 90 or 100 and lost an engine before obtaining their VSSE speed. That slight time period between lift off and single engine safety speed is critical. The B-25 was another one that had a "coffin" corner between rotate speed and VSSE.

Airplanes are not designed or operated like that anymore for obvious safety reasons stated above. In WW II they didn't yet seem to fully understand VMC and all of the dangers involved.

For the money, the FW-190 is the best deal. But those P-51Ds sure look sweet.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
For the money, the FW-190 is the best deal. But those P-51Ds sure look sweet.

Lower initial cost but I don't know if you would be able to actually operate it with the almost total lack of spare parts. Sure is a beautiful airplane though.

I always wondered where people go to buy something like that, but that is not a "real" Messerschmidt..It's a Spanish version, called the Avia. They use them in movies, because the ME 109s are somewhat scarce.