1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

Those accident report look pretty much like modern GA stats: CFIT, Loss Control in IMC, Run of  fuel...

Yep ....  a few engine failures some unrecoverable spins and the rest is pilot error mainly flying into things. Partly due to the high learning curve on the Gladiator, poorish visibility (biplane with a canopy), training in poor weather and the fact that it was an unforgiving plane that lent itself to pilot error, a bit like all those Bonanza crashes when the Bonanza first came out. This was pre-war so it is not as if they were inexperienced pilots.

Third Squadron at Kenley has a 1937 entry for K6151where it simply states "Flew into house on high ground in bad visibility, Crowborough, Sussex, Damaged beyond repair and pilot killed." 

There was actually a RAF study that showed pilot's that had some Gladiator hours were actually better more effective pilots in a Spitfire than other similar hour pilot's with more actual Spitfire hours logged. 

Edited September 14, 20214 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

On 9/11/2021 at 4:12 AM, jpe828 said:

I have been holding off on it because of the crazy take off and landing characteristics.... is it something you can master?

I have flown again recently the Spit and Corsair. Both are challenging but nothing that cannot be overcome with  practice , patience and... a good pair of rudder pedals. Both are nice pieces of kit but I prefer the Corsair flight modeling, I find the Spit a little springy (XP legacy ?) and the flaps effect on the flight is still dubious.  The Corsair main default is an absolutely ludicrous stroboscopic effect à la Hollywood on the propeller which spoils the fun. 

I’d love  a really good Gladiator, not one to please the crowd but those of us who have a death wish 😄. We would them transition from the Spit to the Gladiator. Totally ahistorical ! 

About the 38, I don’t know of any data, she was well present on the ETO , enough to get her German nickname  Gabelschwanz Teufel. Saint Exupéry died in a reconnaissance flight in one off Marseille. The Flightiron looks interesting...

With regard to the P-38, and how good it was/how easy to fly, a lot depends on which variant one is talking about. The later variants were very good indeed and in normal flight regimes it was pretty forgiving as far as handling went, particularly if used in the right way, i.e. taking advantage of its impressive climb rate, whereas the early variants, whilst fast, with a good rate of climb and impressive turn rate, could exhibit problems in a high speed dive which in many cases would lead to structural failure or the dive being difficult to recover from. The P-38 was also known for going into a deadly roll if you lost an engine on take off and did what you would normally do in any other twin, which is firewall the good engine, apply a bootful of rudder to compensate for it and not turn toward the dead engine. If you did that 'normal' engine out stuff in a P-38, you'd be pretty much guaranteed to crash, but if you eased the power up to let the speed build slowly, the thing could climb out okay on one engine.

Later versions solved the dive issue for the most part, but it took a long time for Lockheed to figure out the problem because they initially thought it was flutter, which it wasn't, it was actually the centre of pressure moving significantly rearwards on the main wing at high speeds, causing Mach tuck and locking up the elevator with a shockwave. Because of this, you hear a lot of varying opinions from those who fought in, or against the P-38, and much of that is to do with what version one is talking about and what aeroplane was opposing it.

Somewhat surprisingly, the P-38 could actually out-turn the Messerschmitt bf109G, but savvy 109 pilots would flick-roll their aeroplanes and dive away, knowing that P-38 pilots, or at least certainly those in earlier variants, were wary about going into a high-speed dive and also being aware that the instantaneous roll rate of the P-38 was nowhere near that of their 109Gs, Luftwaffe pilots were naturally prone to exploit this whenever they could. In the Pacific theatre, the Lightning could not out-turn the A6M 'Zero', but like a lot of US fighters which were heavier and less nimble, it could use boom and zoom tactics against the Japanese fighter and come out on top. Without exception, Axis pilots knew that going head on against a P-38 would be a dangerous thing to try, particularly in something as fragile as an A6M.

Why the P-38 was more popular in the Pacific theatre than the European one, is largely to do with its construction, configuration and range. With much of the Pacific war involving long transits over the ocean or inhospitable jungles, the P-38 ticked a lot of the right boxes, in that it had the advantage of twin-engined reliability, very sturdy all-metal construction, and like the Mitsubishi A6M, it too had an impressive range. A combination of these features tended to be the things which  mattered more in the Pacific theatre. A comparative example of this is to look at the deHavilland Mosquito, which had the range and the reliability and indeed speed to make it a legend in the European theatre, but its wooden construction fared poorly in the tropical climates of the Pacific, however, in Europe, the USAAF loved the Mosquito and used it a lot for recon and pathfinding. There were other things which also favoured the P-38 in the Pacific, such as the fact that it wasn't known for being the warmest of aeroplanes to fly around in whilst in combat over Europe, whereas in the Pacific, pilots could fly it in shorts and a shirt and probably still need to open a window.

One other thing which is not often appreciated about the P-38, is that it was quite possibly the fighter that was least likely to be involved in friendly-fire incidents, which in the heat of combat could happen a fair bit with most fighters which look broadly similar to one another, for example, believe it or not, the P-47 Thunderbolt, when first deployed to the European theatre, was painted with conspicuous white bands on its nose and wingtips specifically to help Allied pilots avoid mistaking it for a Focke-Wulf 190, because at that point in the war, there were not many Allied fighters in Europe with radial engines. But since there was pretty much nothing else in the sky which looked like a P-38, there were almost no incidents of P-38s being mistakenly shot down by friendlies.

Edited September 14, 20214 yr by Chock

FlyingIron Simulations launching the P-38L Lightning for MSFS this month. 

The bird now in its final stages of development, already undergoing a closed-beta period during the last few weeks. It is, therefore, almost ready to hit the runway.

Gettin' antsy for this... Here we are at the end of September and I have some time off. What do I need to do to buy a pre- release copy?? (Just kidding... Sorta...)

PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME FLY THAT JU-52!!!!

😁

See what happens when you ask nicely?  Looks like we're on the cusp of greatness!  Thanks to my good buddy and AvSim member GregP for the news that this is about to go live 2 hours from now!

And a new review to show some additional features...

 

Edited September 29, 20214 yr by Stoopy

I’m sorely tempted after watching that review - although what she calls ‘turn flaps’ are in fact air brakes - it looks very impressive.

The FI Spitfire is one of my constant favourites to fly.....

 

 

and it’s payday 🤩

38 minutes left!  I'll be a happy man if I can do a quick flight before bedtime.

Yeah that clock is movin' awful SLOW tonight amiright? :D

Available now

Give me all of the bits!

WOW !

Just did my first flights and this is another level. ( just wish I could shoot up a few things ...he he )

 I've had the P-38 in X-plane for a while and I have their Spitfire IX in both.  It was an easy decision.  And it's stunning.  🙂