P38 a super plane?

[HoHun]

Hi Widewing,

>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.

In that point, I actually agree with you. However ...

>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.

Here I strongly disagree. Combat veterans' opinions are just as varied as those of the Joint Fighter Conference test pilots, and the only reason the subjectivity of the latters is so obvious is that they submitted them in a formalized way while veterans' quotes are picked up in a fairly random manner.

Fighter pilots are focused on the strengths of their rides, and on keeping a strongly positive look at their chances of success (and success means survival for them). If they don't, you can consider their morale cracked  - which rarely happened. Biased towards their regular mounts, ignorant of the exact performance of the opposing fighter, un-trained in the finer point of aeronautics, they are not in a position to speak the final word on combat performance. Not even their perception can be trusted - 50% overclaiming was normal thoughout the war, and as we know that situational awareness is a weapon as well as a target in air combat, that's entirely inevitable.

It's important to understand that the combat pilots of WW2 were in a much more difficult position than the simulator pilot today. One fatal mistake was enough to kill you, and death was permanent for them. They knew next to nothing about the performance of the planes they were up against, and if they had intelligence data at all, it was likely to be wrong, or outdated at best. Often, they didn't have the slightest idea what they were up against, and what it was capable of. Fighting an unknown enemy is much more difficult than fighting against a plane you have piloted a thousand times, and died in a hundred times. A fighter's strengths appeared exaggerated in non-controlled environment commonly called "real life", and weaknesses might never be discovered by the enemy simply because he doesn't suspect their existence.

Combat veterans' statements can be incredibly valuable if you fully understand them, along with all the context, but that is much harder than many people realize. To properly understand a fighter's strengths and weaknesses, the first priority is to get data on performance and handling that was derived from flights in a controlled environment. Combat veterans can greatly add to the understanding of the tactical situation if you manage to match their statements to the relevant bit of test data - which can be difficult. Not because the combat veterans don't make sense, but mainly because you need a lot of data on the exact context that often missing in their quotes.

Combat veterans are often quoted on this forum, which is a good thing. However, I think they are too often quoted because they make the poster's favourite aircraft look good, and too rarely with a real appreciation of the combat veteran's perspective and history.

Some Luftwaffe aces' quotes I've seen here simply show that the guys, whilst being great combat pilots, didn't know a thing about aerodynamics. They flew (and won) by concepts that worked for them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that these concepts that were scientifically correct. They were not trained to be test pilots, so no one should expect them to deliver objective quotes like we'd expect from test pilots.

(Not that we should expect perfect objectivity from WW2 era test pilots - flight testing was just beginning to progress from art to science during WW2, and was a fairly subjective business throughout the war. That brings me back to the Joint Fighter Conference after a long digression :-) The incoherent test results we were observing there are just what should be expected as state of the art at the time. The test pilots there didn't do a poor job - the results were as good as they could be at that time using that methodology. In fact, I actually suspect that the Joint Fighter Conference was at least partly motivated by the realization that the flight testing process still was less than perfect, and an attempt to average out the different opinions, preferences, techniques and biases by employing a large number of test pilots with different backgrounds. I'd say that while this method has its limitations, it's not without merit :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[BUG_EAF322]

Kinda feel sorry for those guys who had to fly the P38 back then.

They where the pioneers of bringing the fighter war over germany.

don't forget that it was a learning curve with alot to learn or relearn.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
WW,

I do not discount the JFC as you do. Again there were to many quality pilots and combat vets there for me to make that decision.

Comparing the F4U-1 and the P-38 is like comparing an apple to a shoe. Not only not the same ballpark but not even the same sport. The F4U-1 was in service in combat in Korea and not just the -4,-5 and AU-1. Because it had utility above and beyond the role it was designed for.

I can't find a single reference that states that anyone was flying the F4U-1 in Korea. The first F4U units to see combat in Korea were VMF-214 and VMF-323. They were flying the F4U-4B/C.

As to comparing the F4U-1D to the P-38L (similar vintage), where does the Corsair do better than the Lightning? Climb? No, not even close. Standard bomb load? Nope, the P-38Ls were certified for 4,000 pounds on their hardpoints. Range? Forget it... A P-38L with 310 gallons under each wing could stretch its legs to over 3,000 miles. Milo Burcham flew a P-38F that far, and it carried 110 gallons less than the L model. Speed? Slight edge to the Corsair down low... P-38L wins from 20k on up. Roll rate? F4U below 300 mph, P-38L above 300 mph. Handling? P-38L wins hands down at low speeds, give the F4U the edge above 400 mph. Generally speaking, the F4U is outclassed in a dogfight vs the P-38L.


The P-38 lost it's utility late in the war because it became to complicated to maintain compared to aircraft that could do the same job at least as well with less training at a lower cost. Hence obsolete. The F4U-1 actually became cheaper and easier to train while doing as good if not a better job than the Jets that were to replace it at least up until the early 1950's as far as range endurance, ability to absord damage and bomb load.

LOLOLOL Obsolete? Utter nonsense. P-38s were STILL the preferred fighter in the Pacific when the war ended. Gen. Kenney stated that pilots lost a measure of confidence and effectiveness when their units switched to the P-51 and P-47. There's no doubt that the P-38 was more expensive to maintain than a single-engine fighter, but that's a no-brainer. P-38s could go places that land based F4Us would never get to. Lindburgh was sent out to the Pacific by United Aircraft to teach F4U units how to stretch their fuel (Vought was a UA company). He ended up flying with the 475th FG in the P-38. He preferred the P-38, due its range and twin-engine dependibility.


Name one thing a P-38L could do better than a P-47D-30 in late 1944?

Fly further, climb faster and below 15,000 feet, kick the living hell out of the P-47D in a dogfight.


The P-47 could take more damage while delivering huge amounts of ordinance and still be the best high altitude escort available.


What makes you think the P-47 could absorb more damage than the P-38? I know of one instance where a P-38 collided with a Halifax. That Halifax went down. However, the P-38 flew home and landed normally WITH AN ENTIRE VERTICAL STABILIZER OF THE HALIFAX EMBEDDED IN ITS WING!

If a P-47 should suffer engine failure (and it wasn't that uncommon), it was down, no ifs ands or buts. Not so the P-38.
Yes, the P-47 was unmatched as a high altitude escort. As long as the mission radius was relatively short. It took the P-47N to finally match the P-38L in terms of range.


What could the P-38L do better than the P-51D as an escort fight?

Get home. The 15th AF, who flew as many P-38s as P-51s saw more Mustangs lost to mechanical issues than P-38s. In the ground support role, the P-38 was superior.


The P-51D more economical, greater range, less training.

True, but only if the P-38 is restricted to 160 gallon drop tanks. Using 310 gallon tanks, the P-38 out-ranged the P-51D by about 400 miles.


So the AAF said why maintain three when we can have two to do the same job while we develope the P-80.

Which Air Force? The P-38 remained in production until late August 1945. P-38s were still being delivered in October of 1945. Indeed,  Kenney never had as many as he wanted.

Which one would you have replaced logically not emotionally?

Considering that the P-38 was not replaced anywhere but in the ETO, I don't understand your point.


FYI, the F4U-1 had enormous range with DT's while being able to deploy from a carrier. And I would argue the acceleration as well.

Enormous range? Compared to what? Even the P-47D-25 out-ranged the F4U-1 series.

As to acceleration, the P-38 would leave a -1 series Corsair behind like it was tied to a tree. I doubt that the F4U-4 could accelerate faster than the P-38L, much less its far less energetic and older sibling. Look at Dean's calculations (you seem to like referring to him), he puts the P-38L well ahead of the F4U-4 and likewise, the P-38F well ahead of the F4U-1. If he's right (and he probably isn't far off), its no contest.

My regards,

Widewing

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Guppy35
Hmmm.  Not sure if that's accurate Ack-Ack.  From Roger Freeman's book "The Mighty Eighth"

"At the end of July, the Group Commander of the 1st, Colonel John Stone, flew his P38F to the Royal Air Force Establishment at Farnborough to match it against a captured FW190A.  The results showed the twin engined Lightning came to come up well in turns and manoeuvers at lower altitudes, but unable to achieve the 190s rate of climb or accelleration."

No doubt this was the Arnim Faber 109A3 he flew against.

The 1st was not yet operational at that time and Stone had just taken over as CO.

Dan/Slack

But the trials the British ran that led them to cancel their order of the P-38 was the one they did with the Model 322.  That was the trial that Crummp was alluding to.


ack-ack

[Crumpp]

But the trials the British ran that led them to cancel their order of the P-38 was the one they did with the Model 322. That was the trial that Crummp was alluding to.

No it is not.  Are you blind?  I posted the trial twice.

Crumpp

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
But the trials the British ran that led them to cancel their order of the P-38 was the one they did with the Model 322.  That was the trial that Crummp was alluding to.


ack-ack

Hmmm, still not positive.  The RAF refused any more Lightnings based on reports from the RAF evaluation pilot at Burbank if Warren Bodie's book is to be believed.

One RAF model 38 did get to RAE Farnborough, AF107 in March of 42, but only 3 total RAF model Lightnings reached England.  One to Cunliffe Owen, one to Boscombe Down and AF107 at Farnborough.    AF107 was given back to the USAAF in December 42.

Is there something you've seen showing that AF107 was flown against the 190?  Only thing I can find is the 1st FG P38F in that time frame.

Dan/Slack

[Scherf]

I've only ever seen the larger-volume tanks referred to as ferry tanks.

Scherf

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Guppy35
20th FG with P38s flew their first mission with the 8th on December 28, 1943.

For some reason, this is often overlooked.  Many people seem to think that the P-38 was flying escort missions long before the P-51 arrived, and, of course, that's not so.

- oldman

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Scherf
I've only ever seen the larger-volume tanks referred to as ferry tanks.

Scherf

310 gallon tanks were used by the 5th AF for combat missions to Formosa and other distant targets. There were speed restrictions for releasing empty tanks as at speeds above 200 mph, they could strike the tail plane. Typically, the P-38s would take one 310 gal. tank and one 160 gallon tank. They would burn off the bigger tank first, and then drop it while retaining the 160 gal. tank as long as it had fuel. Other set ups included one 310 gallon tank and a 2,000 pound bomb. This allowed them a combat radius of 700 miles. They could bomb the target, engage enemy aircraft and have plenty of gas remaining for the flight home.

I have photographs of both set ups in use with the 475th FG.

My regards,

Widewing

[Crumpp]

"At the end of July, the Group Commander of the 1st, Colonel John Stone, flew his P38F to the Royal Air Force Establishment at Farnborough to match it against a captured FW190A. The results showed the twin engined Lightning came to come up well in turns and manoeuvers at lower altitudes, but unable to achieve the 190s rate of climb or accelleration."

The combat trials speciifically list Col. Stone as the Pilot of the P38F.  It is on the page listing the A/C set up and engine settings.

Some Luftwaffe aces' quotes I've seen here simply show that the guys, whilst being great combat pilots, didn't know a thing about aerodynamics. They flew (and won) by concepts that worked for them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that these concepts that were scientifically correct. They were not trained to be test pilots, so no one should expect them to deliver objective quotes like we'd expect from test pilots.

Absolutely.  I have an interesting Luftwaffe document attempting to explain to pilots aerodynamically some of the aircraft behavior they experience in the air and ways to prevent unwanted traits.

Crumpp

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Oldman731
For some reason, this is often overlooked.  Many people seem to think that the P-38 was flying escort missions long before the P-51 arrived, and, of course, that's not so.

- oldman

Well, not long before. Six weeks before the first P-51B group flew an escort mission, the 55th FG was escorting bombers in their P-38H fighters.

It wasn't until early November that the 354th FG began organizing in England. Near the end of the month they flew their newly assembled P-51Bs to Boxted. They began hurried training and flew their first escort mission on December 12, 1943. In contrast, the 55th had been flying sweeps in early October and began escorting bombers on the 22nd of October.

Down in the MTO, P-38s had been flying bomber escort for nearly a year before the first Lightnings were operational in Britain. You could certainly say that this was long before the Mustangs arrived.

My regards,

Widewing

[JG14_Josf]

"Combat veterans' statements can be incredibly valuable if you fully understand them, along with all the context, but that is much harder than many people realize."

The above statement can be illustrated with example found in Robert Shaw's book Fighter Combat.

Now, before I move on. Before I continue posting on this board. I would like to map out what is going to happen. This will happen again here, as it will inevitably do, because we are people.

I am going to post stuff. Other readers are going to have a problem with the stuff I post and they are going to attack me personally.

I already see this going on with Milo and Crumpp.

Moderators do not step in; the law of the land is driven by the least common denominator. Negative perfection reigns supreme.

Communication is not the object of participation.

These are the weapons of the anti-information demons:

1. The straw man argument.
The object of the straw man argument is to pick something out of the undesirable information from the victim and make something up about it (change the words around) so as to appear as if the poster says something obviously wrong and then attack this imagined message.
The attacker appears (in his mind) to be a winner. He defeats the straw mans erroneous message.
This can go on for years.

2. Hyperbole.
Exaggerate a victim’s message with absolute references; always, never, impossible, etc. to highlight specific desired misdirection away from the actual message being communicated. This method is well suited to compliment the straw man argument. Repeating a victim’s message in hyperbolic terms can serve to construct a straw man where in all actuality the original message was meant as a question or subject of inquiry. The straw man makes absolute statements while the victim of hyperbolic reference meant only to spark reasonable discussion. The attack is then made upon the straw man who was so stupid as to make such wild claims. Hyperbole can also be used defensively to highlight any inquiry into a point of contention. One could take this post as my use of hyperbole in defense of future points of contention aimed at me. We can see about that later. If my person is attacked then this is not hyperbole. If the content of my messages are the only thing contended with here in this forum by other members then this post, by me, is an example of preemptive defensive hyperbole.

3. Attack the messenger.
This is the basest form of political discourse. The idea is to simply misdirect any consideration of data being transferred by directly insulting the poster who is so bold as to post such undesirable text. In person such conduct is likely to end in violence. This, my friends, is the desired result of those prone to resort to insults.

Back on topic:

Pilots are human beings and therefore they are prone to error. Test pilots suffer from this condition as well as combat pilots.  

I really would like to continue posting on flight sim boards. The exchange of information is valuable. Unfortunately there is a cost.

What is it going to be?

[Widewing]

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Widewing,

(Snipped)

 The incoherent test results we were observing there are just what should be expected as state of the art at the time. The test pilots there didn't do a poor job - the results were as good as they could be at that time using that methodology. In fact, I actually suspect that the Joint Fighter Conference was at least partly motivated by the realization that the flight testing process still was less than perfect, and an attempt to average out the different opinions, preferences, techniques and biases by employing a large number of test pilots with different backgrounds. I'd say that while this method has its limitations, it's not without merit :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hey Henning,

I do agree with much of what you said. Nonetheless, test pilots generally lacked even an inkling of an idea what combat flying was really about.

Remember Tony LeVier, Lockheed's Chief Test Pilot? Tony was a successful racer in the pre-war years, having won the Greve Trophy race and finishing second in the Thompson Trophy race twice (2nd time in 1946 flying a P-38L, behind a very fast P-39Q, but well ahead of a horde of P-51s and an F2G Corsair). LeVier was one of the most technically savvy test pilots alive during WWII. He could do amazing things in the P-38, and he toured England in 1944, demonstrating the P-38 to Fighter Groups assigned to fly them. Despite his tremendous piloting skill and his countless hours flying the Lightning, Tony discovered he was overmatched against the combat pilots. In mock dogfights with veteran pilots of the 364th FG, Tony had his backside kicked all over the whole of southern Britain by guys with less than 300 hours in the P-38. He was devastated at how roughly he was handled. What he didn't understand was that his opponents had been trained in aerial combat tactics and that their skills had been honed against the Luftwaffe. LeVier could fly the P-38 inverted with an engine feathered just 15 feet above the ground. Impressive stunt to be sure, but it won't help you in combat.

LeVier quickly found out that while he would occasionally push P-38s beyond their normal limits as part of the test flight card requirements, the guys flying the P-38 were pushing the plane beyond its normal limits almost every day! These guys were doing things that would leave the engineers stammering in horror. LeVier returned to Los Angeles with tales of P-38s returning from missions with wrinkled skin and bent main spars. First hand accounts of engines burned-out with just 6 hours on them left both Lockheed and Allison engineers shaking their heads in disbelief.

Test pilots of the era knew how to push their aircraft beyond design limits under controlled conditions. However, they would never subject an aircraft to the abuse that combat pilots did, and did so almost on a mission basis. I'm convinced that flight testing as we know it today was more the result of combat pilots transitioning to test pilots in the later stages of the war, through the late 1940s. Guys like Welch, Yeager and Brown had far greater insight into what a combat plane needs to be capable of than any test pilot whose experience was limited to non-combat flying.

My problem with the JFC is that virtually all of the factory pilots were without combat experience, as were the majority of the military pilots present. Most of these guys had no idea what "really" was important in a combat aircraft and wouldn't recognize some qualities even if they saw them. This and the fact that they specifically asked manufacturers NOT to send combat vet test pilots indicates that they felt that these pilots lacked the engineering skills that they erroneously thought were paramount. NAA's 15 kill ace test pilot, George Welch Graduated Purdue University with an Engineering Degree prior to the war, but that was apparently overlooked.

My regards,

Widewing

[Crumpp]

do agree with much of what you said. Nonetheless, test pilots generally lacked even an inkling of an idea what combat flying was really about.

Most test pilots ARE former combat pilots.  How did Richard Bong get killed?

While the "limits" a combat pilot pushed his aircraft too are debatable one thing is a fact in this thread:

Widewing your arguments are hardly quantifiable in terms of AH.

It seems to be:

All Flight Tested documentation that does not show the results we want is null and void because of testimony you have simply typed on the BBS.

Imagine the shoe on the other foot and this was someone making the same arguments for the 109's performance?  Would you let this standard fly??

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Here we can see the Pilot of the P 38F and the climb and combat power setting of the A/C.  Sorry it is a crappy copy.  The ink is over 60 years old and has ran somewhat.



Crumpp