Author Topic: P-38 Still has Problems  (Read 9703 times)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
P-38 Still has Problems
« Reply #135 on: June 30, 2004, 09:39:11 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes Milo they did have them.  I have some excellent LW guncamera footage of 9th AF ground attack P38's getting bounced.  

They were removed from the Escort fighter role.

Crumpp


And I have numerous references of 9th AF P-38s 'bagging' e/a. Such as, 37 a/c  lost in air combat (16 of which were 190s by JG6) on 25 Aug.

Yup, the P-47 did not leave to many LW a/c for the P-51 to shoot down. A few extra months of combat helped the P-47.;)

"Mustangs accounted for 4,950 of the 10,720 air combat victories claimed by the USAAF in Europe accounting for 46.2% of air losses inflicted on the enemy."

Offline BUG_EAF322

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3153
      • http://bug322.startje.com
P-38 Still has Problems
« Reply #136 on: June 30, 2004, 10:22:02 AM »
Just let crump go with the majority

ignorant thinkin
influenced by some arrogant LW pilots who wich ofcourse always tell the truth.


not to mention some LW FW aces died on a meeting with the lightning.

Offline Murdr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5608
      • http://479th.jasminemaire.com
P-38 Still has Problems
« Reply #137 on: June 30, 2004, 02:08:31 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by gripen
There have been several long threads on the P-38 and P-51B and high altitude performance of them and there is no reason to go them through again. Shortly; the P-51B with the V-1650-3 was far better fighter above 25k than any serie produced P-38 ever flown.

BAC report on the P-38 can be found from here

NACA report on max lift coefficients can be found from here

NACA report on dive recovery flaps can be found from here

In addition "America's Hunred Thousand" contains unbiased performance data.

gripen


gripen, I dont even know what your point is.  For that matter Im not even sure what your references bring to the discussion.  Citing a NACA reference from 1947?  Kelly Johnson was frustrated that he had to put his test pilots at risk because the NACA would not do it.  With the speeds needed for testing the NACA was concerned about damaging their wind tunnels.  Kelly Johnson's report from 1943 researched and defined the mechanics of compressibility.  Aircraft speeds before the 38 were low enough that the issue hadnt been expored before.

I spent several post talking specifically about that limitation on the P38, and its effects on its likelyhood to be put in the position of a low speed fight in the MA.

Crumpp, I believe, mistakenly had the impression that there was an active lobby going on here to have the P38 overmodeled, and approched it on the argument that with comparisons to other aircraft, we should not be allowed to change the model.  When we pointed to a specific suggestion that has a concensus behind it, and was not limited to the P38, he did not offer opposition to it.

Going back to the thread topic, I would be interested if you had thing to offer to refute critiquing of the P38s performance under the AH2 flight model.  For instance, it has been pointed out that while the dive flaps do simulate the disruption of airflow that staves off the shockwaves that cause loss of elevator control.  They do not "pitch the nose up" or cause a noticable amount of lift that has been reported in real life.  The accelerated stall characteristics still wing over.  Many sources discribe accel. stall characteristic, and it doesnt appear to line up with the model.  Those things are just observations, not a call to action.  In fact I think if you read through you will find in most cases the people who observe these little details also praise the improved accuracy of the new flight model produced by HTC.  Then there is the auto-flap issue that has been discussed at lenght.

If "there have been several long threads.......and there is no reason to go them through again."  Why are you jumping in and pointing out limitations of the P-38 that have already been pointed out in discussion by the P-38 drivers themselves?  

Dont take me the wrong way.  Crumpp brought in the issue of direct a/c comparison.  Before that compairisons were pointing out general shortfalls of the P-38.  Is your argument that "your plane sucked, so I oppose any idea that makes your plane better, and wont engage you on the merits of your points?"  If it is, frankly its kind of lame.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2004, 02:10:32 PM by Murdr »

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
P-38 Still has Problems
« Reply #138 on: June 30, 2004, 02:26:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Murdr


That was an uncharacteristicly kind way you put that AKAK.



He caught me in one of those rare good moods



ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
P-38 Still has Problems
« Reply #139 on: June 30, 2004, 02:36:15 PM »
Murdr,

In fact No one said anything about the P38 other than:

1.  It was primarily an Energy fighter.  The exerpts from the P38 bulletin Murdr posted SAY that.  See the blurb about High Wingloading??

2. Popping any flap should leave a plane low and slow quickly unless it's power to weight ratio is such that it can overcome the drag. Very few WWII planes are in this catagory.  Was the only comment I had about the Flap modeling.


Next thing you know...P38 fanatics come flying out of the thread to PROVE me wrong!  On what?  Everything I have posted is fact.  The P38 was CONTRIVERSIAL in WWII in the European Theater.    Many factors go into making a decision and when they were all stacked up the P38 just wasn't the plane for the job in the 8th AF by the 8th AF OWN decision.  You can debate, argue, cry, and moan all day long but the fact remains.  I have read a few books but in no way consider myself an expert on the P38.  In fact other than knowing the facts that the decision was made due to P38's handling problems (compressibility, slow roll etc...), logistical problems and problems meeting the single engine dayfighters of the LW (reasons stated by the 8th AF) I was kinda on the fence.  More I look at though the more I DO agree with the 8th AF decision.  It was the wrong fighter for them.  

As for the flight test I posted.  The P38F was the model at hand for the USAAF at the time Fabers 190A3 was captured.  It did not make the grade and left many of the advantages with the 190.  Now If you interested in comparing later model P38's with later model 190's I would love to exchange info with you.

Crumpp

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
P-38 Still has Problems
« Reply #140 on: June 30, 2004, 02:43:36 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yeah It's biased.  It doesn't have the P38 running circles around every plane in the Theater...........

One things for sure, the P38 was replaced by more capable fighters in the European Theater.  You can cry conspicarcy theory all day long but the fact remains, IT WAS REPLACED.

:rolleyes:

Crumpp



Why is it the Luftwhiners always get in a tissy fit when a player starts a thread on US planes?  This was a thread about the auto-flaps feature and was going along great with some good ideas being tossed back and forth. Then here comes you, the Luftwhiner in lederhosen, crying about how we want the P-38 to be the uber of all uber planes.  But the silly Luftwhiner you are, hasn't yet realized that in AH2, the P-38 is already uber.  All we want is a gamey feature be removed or at the least make an option where if you want full control of your flaps you can disable the auto-retract or if the pilot is like you and needs that crutch of the auto-flaps, then they can keep this gamey feature on.

So unless you can actually provide some intelligent feedback on the auto-flaps system, you can remove yourself from this thread.  I know it's hard to fathom but Germany lost the war and got their arses kicked.  Get use to it and live with it.



ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
P-38 Still has Problems
« Reply #141 on: June 30, 2004, 02:47:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322



not to mention some LW FW aces died on a meeting with the lightning.



Don't forget the mighty and all powerful uber pilot Galland running away like a scared little school girl from a P-38.  Lucky for him that Lowell was bingo and couldn't pursue Galland for the kill.  I bet Galland had to change his lederhosen after that flight



ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline OIO

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
P-38 Still has Problems
« Reply #142 on: June 30, 2004, 03:10:42 PM »
crumpp the p-38 was not replaced due to performance. It was replaced due to economics.

A P-38 was twice as costly to build and maintain and required a much more skilled pilot (read: more training) than it would a P-51 or a P-47.

When the P-51 came into the war it was set to replace both the 38 and the 47 as an air superiority fighter...mainly because it was the only plane that had the range to fly freely to Berlin and back (38s could reach berlin but couldnt stay long, a 51 could).

The 8th AF had a serious problem with incompetent commanders handling the fighter arm. They just didnt grasp the fighter as an offensive weapon. They saw it as an escort for what they considered was the offensive weapon: the bomber (and the commanders that led the fighters in the 8th AF were..you guessed it! Bomber commanders. To them the fighter was like adding more turrets to the bombers instead of using the fighters to destroy the LW in the air).

That coupled with rather low octane fuel avaliable in england at the time, trouble with engine components (again, apparently only the 8th AF had this issue, med/africa and pacific theatre 38 units had almost no issue with this).

In the 8th AF's case, their bomber commander leaders (which again, also were in command of the fighters) they only switched tactics from using the fighter as a close escort to using the fighter to sweep the air clean of the LW just about the time the P-51 was entering service. And it doesn't take a genious to see that bomber commander would like to have cheaper fighters (Read:able to deploy more , faster) that could fly the whole way with the bombers , would choose to get rid of problematic P-38's (which were only problematic thanks to the way the bomber commanders managed them..no other AF had their problems) and take the new P-51 to replace them.

Also worthy of note is that by the time the P-51 came into the war the LW was already crippled.. the P-38 and P-47 and the RAF had ripped the LW apart. The P-51 just delivered the mercy blow over Berlin.

As far as the flaps: I'll be happy when the 38 doesnt autoretract & spin by merely touching the speed mark. Its as dumb as my car's engine blowing up when it touches the first red tick on my rpm gauge :P

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
P-38 Still has Problems
« Reply #143 on: June 30, 2004, 03:22:39 PM »
Um...

The P-51 is credited with about 4900 planes killed in the air in ETO

The P-47 is credited with like 2800.


That doesn't seem like "more" to me.

Total kills in the ETO for the P-47 numbered about 6,000, versus about 9900 for the P-51--that is with ground kills included.

Where are you people getting "more" for the P-47 from?   I have never seen anything to suggest that the P-47 scored more kills, A2A or otherwise, than the P-51 in the ETO.  Are you assuming since the Mustang scored about 45% of the kills in ETO, that the Thunderbolt must have scored all the rest?

I think I know where your mistake lies---you looked at 12,000 total kills in ALL theaters of operation for the P-47, and thought that was its ETO score.  The Thunderbolt served in large numbers in all theaters of the war with considerable success.

The P-47's real claim to fame was, in terms of losses, it was the safest fighter to fly--especially for the A2G missions.

I'm not here to claim that "plane x is better than plane y".  I will, however, correct mistakes I see.  The P-51's success in ETO was largely due to timing, change of tactics and its excellent gunsight.  Any of the fighters the USAAF used would have been equally as successful under those circumstances.


How did we get to talking about the Jug in a P-38 thread?


J_A_B
« Last Edit: June 30, 2004, 03:25:04 PM by J_A_B »

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
P-38 Still has Problems
« Reply #144 on: June 30, 2004, 03:42:57 PM »
Murdr,
I did not turn this thread to P-38 vs other planes discussion, some other writers did. I just pointed with the reference that there were good aerodynamic reasons why the P-38 did not do well in the high altitude. Actually I wrote that there is no reason to start  that discussion again.

Regarding NACA and P-38, actually NACA invented dive recovery flaps for the P-38 and did preliminary work (wind tunnel testing etc.). Funny thing is that the dive recovery flaps were first tested on the XP-51 which in fact did not need them. Later the P-38 and the P-47 got dive recovery flaps as standard equipment. Naca wind tunnel testing also revealed the reasons for the high speed problems and NACA also developed several solutions. Basicly NACA is the last one to blame on high speed problems of the P-38; I think that first one to blame is allready mentioned in your post.

And if you study carefully the last linked report, you will note that it gives  quite thorough picture on tuck under phenomena as well as function of the dive recovery flaps. Only thing it misses is the drag rise caused by dive recovery flaps. For that you should get DSIR 23/15088 from the PRO.

OIO,
Actually the F-5Bs in the MTO had very similar problems as the P-38Js in the ETO during winter 43-44, see AHT. Fighter groups in the MTO did not get P-38Js before spring because the ETO had priority.

gripen

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
P-38 Still has Problems
« Reply #145 on: June 30, 2004, 05:20:34 PM »
Ack-Ack

Why don't you put that quote back into context.  It's refering to the book "Fork Tailed Devil".  The author struck me as very biased TOWARDS the P38 and against the 8th AF decision.  He blames it on the only shipment of parts in the European Theater to fix the compressability problem being shot down by a spitfire over the Atlantic.  The book is long on pilot stories and short on data.

Crumpp

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
P-38 Still has Problems
« Reply #146 on: June 30, 2004, 07:01:50 PM »
gripen,

Quoting from the NACA Report on Maximum Lift Coefficients;

"In the subcritical Mach number region, the maximum lift coefficient obtained in flight by the airplanes tested (F6F-3, P-38, P-51, P-63, P-39) declined steadily with increasing Mach number.  As the Mach number was increased in the supercritical Mach number region, the maximum lift coefficient of NACA conventional airfoils continued to diminish as at subcritical Mach numbers, while that of NACA low-drag airfoils reached a minumum at a Mach number between 0.40 and 0.55 and then began increasing until secondary peak values were reached at a Mach number between 0.50 and 0.66."

If I read this right, the effect of the Reynolds number on the lift coefficient of conventional airfoils was more or less linear, increasing geometrically the faster the airplane flew...that is lift decreased progressively in the same manner at supercritical Mach numbers as it did at the subcritical Mach numbers.

The lower-drag airfoils (laminar flow for example) reached minimum lift coefficients between 0.40 and 0.55 and then began to increase as the aircraft approached supercritical Mach numbers.  In other words, if this performance was graphed, it would show a low point for lift between 0.40 and 0.55 and would then begin to show a rise, or increase in lift at speeds above Mach 0.55.

Mach .60 at 30,000 feet is roughly 450mph.  The only American prop-driven fighter capable of that kind of performance in level flight at that altitude was the P-47.  For an aircraft with a laminar flow or similar low-drag airfoil to realize any lift coefficient benefit over a conventional airfoil such as that of the P-47, it would have to be put into a dive.

The fly-in-the-buttermilk in this equation is thrust, determined by propeller efficiency and high-altitude horsepower available for combat.  Late model P-47s could maintain sea-level powers of 2700hp all the way to 35,000 feet.  The P-51D saw its available power drop from 1700hp at sea level to 950hp at 29,500 feet.  The P-38s maintained sea-level powers to altitudes slightly above 26,000 feet after which they began to drop.  With full internal fuel and ammo, the P-38 was also heavier than the P-47, which means that the P-47 enjoyed a lower power-loading at higher altitudes than the Lightning.

All this indicates that at normal combat speeds, the Jug had better maneuverability at high-altitudes than either the Pony of the Lightning.  This is borne out by the testimony of numerous pilots who have flown all three types:  that is, the Jug was the most maneuverable fighter they ever flew at high-altitudes
« Last Edit: June 30, 2004, 07:05:19 PM by Shuckins »

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
P-38 Still has Problems
« Reply #147 on: June 30, 2004, 07:06:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
Ack-Ack

Why don't you put that quote back into context.  It's refering to the book "Fork Tailed Devil".  The author struck me as very biased TOWARDS the P38 and against the 8th AF decision.  He blames it on the only shipment of parts in the European Theater to fix the compressability problem being shot down by a spitfire over the Atlantic.  The book is long on pilot stories and short on data.

Crumpp


I think it was YOU who suggested it as the source for P-38 information, and I corrected you on that. While it is an interesting book, and the anecdotal information has merit, it is not nearly as good a P-38 book as Warren Bodie's "The Locckheed P-38 Lightning."
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
P-38 Still has Problems
« Reply #148 on: June 30, 2004, 07:12:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Shuckins
Mach .60 at 30,000 feet is roughly 450mph.  The only American prop-driven fighter capable of that kind of performance in level flight at that altitude was the P-47.  For an aircraft with a laminar flow or similar low-drag airfoil to realize any lift coefficient benefit over a conventional airfoil such as that of the P-47, it would have to be put into a dive.

The fly-in-the-buttermilk in this equation is thrust, determined by propeller efficiency and high-altitude horsepower available for combat.  Late model P-47s could maintain sea-level powers of 2700hp all the way to 35,000 feet.  The P-51D saw its available power drop from 1700hp at sea level to 950hp at 29,500 feet.  The P-38s maintained sea-level powers to altitudes slightly above 26,000 feet after which they began to drop.  With full internal fuel and ammo, the P-38 was also heavier than the P-47, which means that the P-47 enjoyed a lower power-loading at higher altitudes than the Lightning.

All this indicates that at normal combat speeds, the Jug had better maneuverability at high-altitudes than either the Pony of the Lightning.  This is borne out by the testimony of numerous pilots who have flown all three types:  that is, the Jug was the most maneuverable fighter they ever flew at high-altitudes [/B]


The P-38J and L models maintained sea level power to approximately 30K, at which point the turbocharger could no longer keep up with the supercharger in the thin air. Even then, the P-38 did not lose power nearly so fast as the P-51. Also, the P-38 applied its power through two props, which gave it an advantage in the ability to apply a greater percentage of the available power. Even at 30K, the P-38 was capable of around 3000 HP, applied through two propellers. The P-38 did have rather poor propellers compared to the P-47 and the P-51 models that were equipped with the Hamilton Standard High Activity Paddle prop which was hydrostatically controlled.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
P-38 Still has Problems
« Reply #149 on: June 30, 2004, 07:15:58 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by gripen

I did not turn this thread to P-38 vs other planes discussion, some other writers did. I just pointed with the reference that there were good aerodynamic reasons why the P-38 did not do well in the high altitude. Actually I wrote that there is no reason to start  that discussion again.

gripen


You can thank Crumpp for turning a discussion about P-38 flaps into another bogus blizzard of Bravo Sierra about comparisons between the P-38 and the P-51 or the FW 190. You'll have to ask him what the point of the exercise was.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe