P38 a super plane?

[gwshaw]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The pre J model P-38's were limited by the intercoolers that were in the leading edges of the wings, which were not capable of efficiently cooling the intake charge for extended periods. This kept the power rating down, and shortened the period for which peak power was available.

[/b]
Yes, the original integral intercoolers in the wing were sized to cool the charge necessary for 1000 hp @ 20,000 ft. The turbos provided enough compression for 31 in Hg output, but to 25,000 ft vice 20,000 ft in the prototypes So there was more compression heating above 20,000 ft. But more importantly the mass flow, hence cooling load increased as engine powers did.

Power is proportional to how much charge is being consumed. So the F/G models had a 32.5% higher cooling requirements, and the H had 42.5% or 60% higher. All at 20,000 ft, at 25,000 ft the problem would be even greater. The original intercoolers just couldn't handle the increased load for very long.

The F model was not used much by the 8th AF, the 20th and 55th went into service in late 1943 with mostly G and H models, getting their J models later, and possibly getting SOME L models before transitioning to the P-51 around D-Day and later.

Regarding the P-38K, it only had THREE blade Hamilton Standard High Activity Paddle props, and not the four blade version produced later. It did however have engines even more powerful than the engines in the P-38L.

[/i]
Mea culpa, yes they were three bladed props. The engines were basically the same as the F17/F30, just having the reduction gear ratio increased to lower prop tip speed. Power would be the same 1475/1725 hp @ 3200 rpm as the F30 on the L-5.

The performance increase was due to the better props, the original props had a tip speed of 903 fps, the K dropped that to 831 fps @ 3000 rpm and 888 fps @ 3200 rpm. Compared to approx 857 fps for a Bf 109G/K and 828 fps for a Fw 190A for example.

That improved performance at high speed/high altitudes, while the higher AF paddle blades improved things at low/climb speeds.

The K SHOULD have been produced instead BEFORE the J, and the J improved from there. Eventually, the P-38L should have had 13 or 14 foot four blade Hamilton Standard High Activity Paddle Props, and the engines that were developed in 1943 for the P-82 Twin Mustang. Those engines would have exceeded 2000HP with turbocharging. The P-38K performed better than either the J or L did. But alas, it never happened that way, due to the USAAF and the War Production Board screwing the pooch. Too bad.

[/i]
Agreed that the K should have entered production in mid '43. But disagree about the engines. The P-82 engines had a variable speed aux stage blower, that wasn't necessary with the turbosupercharged P-38. The P-82 engine would have had more hp below about 10,000 ft, but the F30/B33 combo was better up high.

A better bet would have been to replace the 8.1:1 integral blower with the 8.8:1 from the F3R. At 3200 rpm that should have been treading pretty close to 2000 hp.

Or better yet adopt the larger blower from the new G series Allisons and keep the 8.1:1 blower drive. Again that would be about 2000 hp, and the turbo would have allowed that to be maintained to 25,000 ft.

As a side note Earl "Dutch" Miller flew the P-38, the P-39, and the P-47 during the war. He said the absolute worst prop made was the Curtiss Electric used on all three. Only the P-47 later had the Curtiss props replaced with the superior Hamilton Standard props. Earl said he always looked for a plane that DIDN'T have the Curtiss props, if given a choice. [/B]

Props were always a problem, with the Curtis electrics having the worst reputation. The early P-38 models only had one generator, and if it went out the props became fixed wherever they were at the time. Not a good thing for propellor efficiency or engine life. They were also very slow to adjust their pitch, not good for a fighter that needs to adjust power quickly over a wide range.

The Hamilton Standards seemed to be the best, as long as you had engine oil to adjust pitch with. Of course if you don't have engine oil you have bigger problems than the prop pitch.

Greg Shaw

[Crumpp]

Here is the P38L setup for the flights:




Here are the Pilots who flew it opinions:




From Francis Dean's "Report on Joint Fighter Conference"

Crumpp

[JB42]

From what I have read the P-38 had only two real assests. Rudundancy and top-end speed.

In the ETO it was quickly out matched by later war 109s and 190s. It's get away speed no longer held an advantage and half the moves you guys make in the MA would never be attempted in RL, so its manueverability was never a saving grace.

In the PTO however, its speed advantage still held it's own and the just the fact that having two engines made it worth it's weight in gold.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Crumpp

From Francis Dean's "Report on Joint Fighter Conference"

I have the book and I've talked to two of the pilots that attended the conference.

This was what we in the Navy would have called a boondoggle. You have a considerable group of non-combat flyers commenting within the context of their limited experience. These are the factory pilots, most having never flown in combat. Plus, they have their built-in bias' and a loyalty to their employer. Many of the military pilots were also non-combat types. If I remember correctly what Corky Meyer stated, only about 10% of the pilots had combat experience and only a couple of those within the previous 18 months.

Single engine Navy pilots will not care for the P-38, regardless of how it performed. The few USAAF pilots who had combat experience in the P-38 (Tom Lamphier being one of them), lauded the big twin. They knew how it performed in combat, and it's in combat where theory and opinion are tested, not at Wright and Eglin Fields, or at NAS Anacostia.

Also, have a look at the responses in general. For almost any given aircraft, two guys may write "very maneuverable" and two others jot down "maneuverabilty is poor." How does one reconcile such diverse opinions? Well, one doesn't. You take the comments within the context of the people involved. Very, very few historians accept the JFC as anything more than personal opinion. No one can evaluate a fighter with 30 minute hops in a peacetime environment. Did you notice that some pilots rated the F4U-1D superior to the F4U-4 at high altitude combat? That's patently absurd, considering the F4U-4 does everything markedly better than the F4U-1D. These guys also didn't generally like the F6F-5. How odd, considering that it destroyed more Japanese aircraft than the P-38, P-47, P-39 and P-51 combined!!!! When Japanese fighter pilots were asked after the war what American fighters they feared most, they responded with the Hellcat and the Lightning. F4Us, P-47s and P-51s were considered far less lethal. Why do you think that is? Perhaps because the F6F and P-38 were more agile than the others, yet they were still very fast (there's a lot of data supporting the TAIC testing that showed the F6F-5 to be a 400+ mph fighter, well above the "official" 385 mph).

Also coming out of this "conference" with a so-so rating was the P-63. One pilot wrote that it climbed too slow! Rather rediculous when considering that the P-63 was the fastest climbing fighter in the USAAF inventory by a wide margin. Another pilot wrote that the P-61 had excellent acceleration. A remarkable statement in light of the P-61's 28,000 pound weight giving it by far the worst power loading of all 1944 vintage planes tested during the conference. There's damn little credibility to be found in the JFC.

While the JFC is an interesting read, it is also massively flawed as a test document. Objectivity was almost nonexistent. Not everyone flew everything. Nothing was instrumented. Pilots with no multi-engine experience were evaluating complex twin-engine  fighters (P-38, P-61 etc). Navy pilots who had no previous experience in liquid cooled fighters were whining about coolant temps... Well, of course they were! Talk to the veterans who flew both the P-51 and P-38 during their combat tours and you'll find them about equally divided as to which one was the better fighter. Pilots who flew one or the other exclusively will have a bias towards that type, it's only natural to like what you are familiar with.

Most pilots liked the F7F and XF8F, which is no surprise as these were almost in a class by themselves.

So, my point is this: Enjoy the book, but don't accept the opinions on face value. Talk to the combat veterans instead. Why? Because it was the combat vets who took theory, concept and the hardware out of the isolated arena of test pilots and went into harms way. They, more than anyone, are qualified to offer valid opinions on any combat aircraft.

My regards,

Widewing

[Crumpp]

Widewing says:
These guys also didn't generally like the F6F-5.

Read the second sentenance under "Combat Qualities".  I can't find the words Manuverability is good for a fighter, and P-38 together anywhere in the book.  

If pilot anecdotes are the standard then:

Great!  I have a Luftwaffe veteran who outran 5 P51D's on the deck in an FW-190A8 during the Ardennes Offensive?  Can we make that happen, Pyro?

Crumpp

[gear]

NO WAY !!!!!!!! Not in this sim.
The allied fliers would not like that.

[BUG_EAF322]

So it seems JFC burns well in the fire place

u can pull as any red lines under text that suits u, but i won't buy that crap

burn it

[Crumpp]

So it seems JFC burns well in the fire place

What's the matter, don't like the truth?

Guess you would rather push it off on the standard excuses for P38 performance,  "should have's", "would have's", and more P38 "if only's".

JFC is engineers and combat pilots who have no stake in any of the fighters.  Their focus is getting the best plane to the tip of spear.  The P38 was not a steller performing fighter in the USAAF lineup especially in the European Theater.

How odd, considering that it destroyed more Japanese aircraft than the P-38, P-47, P-39 and P-51 combined!!!!

Of course!  There where more P38's in the Pacific than any other fighter.  The JFC notes that the P38 is a good fighter when paired against the much slower Zeke.

Crumpp

[Angus]

Something out of curiouslity.
I somewhere read that the P38 could do 300 mph+ and climb at the rate of 1500 fpm while at it. This was told to be an evasive maneuver against the Zeke, since it would be left behind very rapidly.
Any info on this?

Oh, and for Crumpp, I also knew a pilot who caught 190's in his P51C, be it uphill, diving or turning. They could of course roll around better, but not get away

[Crumpp]

Oh, and for Crumpp, I also knew a pilot who caught 190's in his P51C, be it uphill, diving or turning. They could of course roll around better, but not get away

I would not doubt it, Angus.  Talking to the Focke Wulf pilots it took skill and experience to get maximum turn performance out of it.  You have a copy of that Luftwaffe memo I provided you.  It directs Focke Wulf pilots to get out and practice level turns for this very reason.  Main thing was to be calm and be able to read the subtle hints and back off the stick pressure not apply it at the correct times as the FW-190 tended to "self tighten" any turn.

The P51 and the FW-190 had very similar turn performance.  Allied fighter pilots with less than 5 hours in the type could turn it almost as well as the P51B.  The advantage would definitely lay with the P51 as it was a more "honest" airplane and gave much better warning when it was on the edge.

Many FW veterans turn fought P51's and were consistently successful.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp



JFC is engineers and combat pilots who have no stake in any of the fighters. Their focus is getting the best plane to the tip of spear. The P38 was not a steller performing fighter in the USAAF lineup especially in the European Theater.

Must have missed this Crumpp

You have a considerable group of non-combat flyers commenting within the context of their limited experience. These are the factory pilots, most having never flown in combat. Plus, they have their built-in bias' and a loyalty to their employer. Many of the military pilots were also non-combat types. If I remember correctly what Corky Meyer stated, only about 10% of the pilots had combat experience and only a couple of those within the previous 18 months.



The SOP for USAAF pilots in the MTO and ETO was not to turn more than 1/2 a turn in combat. Then there was the vector roll, which the P-47 used to advantage, when chasing their 190 and 109 victims.

[Crumpp]

You have a considerable group of non-combat flyers commenting within the context of their limited experience. These are the factory pilots, most having never flown in combat. Plus, they have their built-in bias' and a loyalty to their employer. Many of the military pilots were also non-combat types. If I remember correctly what Corky Meyer stated, only about 10% of the pilots had combat experience and only a couple of those within the previous 18 months.

There is a complete list of participating pilots, the USAAF pilots covers almost three pages of small print.  The front jacket exclaims "Combat Pilots, engineers, and manufacturers".  

Sounds like someone is attempting to minimize the scathing reviews the P38L recieved by combat pilots and engineers both.

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Crumpp

The P51 and the FW-190 had very similar turn performance.  Allied fighter pilots with less than 5 hours in the type could turn it almost as well as the P51B.  The advantage would definitely lay with the P51 as it was a more "honest" airplane and gave much better warning when it was on the edge.

I agree 100% with your statement on turn performance, however I doubt it would be  the P-51 "honest" behaviour in turns that made the difference in turns, rather it was the 'redflag' pilot`s inexperience with the FW 190.. from all records, the P-51 seems just as bad in stall behaviour as the 190, ie. absolutely no warning was given, stall was sudden, vicious and fierce, often accompanied by a 180 degree snaproll and so big hit on the stick that it ripped itself out of the pilot`s hands..

No1 reason why I prefer the 109 over the 190 despite armament and ruggedness... the former tolerates even the most blatant mistakes, and stall characteristics are excellent.

[Angus]

From what I've read, the 190's stall was very vicious.
The 51 would give you enough warning to pop a notch of flaps.
But very experienced 190 pilots learned their ride well enough to become confident enough for some turnings.
BTW, there were quite some RAF 51's around. Their Pilots grew up with the doctrine of turnfighting, so.........depends of pilot...

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Crumpp
There is a complete list of participating pilots, the USAAF pilots covers almost three pages of small print.  The front jacket exclaims "Combat Pilots, engineers, and manufacturers".  

Sounds like someone is attempting to minimize the scathing reviews the P38L recieved by combat pilots and engineers both.

Crumpp

As usual Crumpp, you are full of baloney. Read the list and note their ranks and titles.... 80% pencil pushing senior officers who were generally flying desks for a living.

So, on what pages are those "scathing reviews by combat pilots and engineers both"?

Oh, and once again I'll ask this: With what unit and where did you see combat? You've ignored that question twice already, leading me to suspect that you were not completely truthful (collective gasp from the audience, having never suspected that Crumpp might exaggerate)..... You surely remember this statement: "However as a combat veteran myself (Army)"

If you would look a the P-38 card, only 3 pilots had negative comments about its combat performance. When writing about the JFC, Corky Meyer thought it was a first class fighter, and he worked for Grumman. Remember, only 28 pilots who flew the P-38 actually filled out the flight cards, and most of these were reported to be factory pilots, who wanted to fly everything the competition showed up with, like Mercedes engineers drive BMWs.

My regards,

Widewing