Author Topic: P38 a super plane?  (Read 18575 times)

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6134
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #195 on: December 03, 2004, 01:21:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
Where is that whine meter I had laying around.......


Crumpp


No need for a meter, your stupidity and whining is deafening, no one needs a meter to know how bad it is.
"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 F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #196 on: December 03, 2004, 01:36:34 PM »
Wow!

Way to rewrite history guys!!

1. First all of the acceleration results in AHT are calculated. There are many mistakes in those calcations. The Cdo is wrong on almost every single A/C. The HP on the F4U-4 is off amoung other thing but most of all they are calculations. I can show you completely different results based on different numbers. Also the weight of the P-38L is listed as 16,888lbs which is 600lbs underweight!

FYI I have spoken to Francis Dean, in fact I have been in his house and borrowed his things. Many of the documents I post came from him. He had a choice of numbers to use from a variety of sources. And some of those numbers don't match NACA records or stated Cdo, Clmax etc. FY he passed a couple of years ago and he was a very fine man with no bias toward any manufacture. He personally liked the P-40 from what I remember.

2. Captain Virgil Hills- Please provide a hardcopy report or source of your numbers. I have only seen those numbers in proto-type for the P-38.

Very import- you are claiming a top speed 444MPH TAS at 26,000FT. Did you know that the P-38 was limited to 440MPH TAS at 30,000FT? If you bank the airplane or nose down at that speed if would have been on the edge of compression right away.

3. The Vought document was retreived by me, scanned by me and posted by me. It was from the Vought archives and it was an internal reference. Why on earth would they use bogus information for testing? You really have to question yourself when you think Vought was conspiring with Republic to make the P-38 look bad 60 years later.

4. The JFC was contractors from every manufacture including Lockheed, AAF, RAF, Marines Navy etc. It was the third Joint meet of it's type and each aircraft was flown by experianced combat pilots from all services. And the report of the JFC was published by Francis Dean.  

The aircraft flown was a P-38L-5-L0 rated at 60" MAP 3200HP at 17,488lbs.

The question of which was the best A/C under 25,000FT the ranks were

1. F8F-30%
2. P-51D- 29%
3. F4U-1D- 27%
4. F7F- 6%
5. F6F- 2%
6. Mosquito- 2%
7. F4U-4- 2%
8. F2G- 2%

Not one vote was registered for the P-38L. But of course we all know the P-38 was a high altitude interceptor right?

Best Fighter over 25,000FT

1. P-47D 45%<=== How about that!!
2. P-51D 39% <=== No suprise
3. F4U-1 7% <=== My beloved U-Bird
4. F6F-5  3%
5. F4U-4  3%
6. Seafire 2%
7. P-38L   1% <===== 1 vote!! Behind the Seafire!!

I am not saying anything about what was the best or worst. But that was reality in October 1944 and it doesn't matter what any of us think now.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #197 on: December 03, 2004, 02:25:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts


Speed data, from Lockheed:

The basic performance figures for the P-38L are as follows (from Lockheed factory test logbooks): Max speed at sea level: 352 mph Max speed at 5,500 ft : 369 mph Max speed at 23,500 ft. 440 mph (WEP) 5 minutes max. Max speed at critical alt: 444 mph @ 25,800 (WEP) 5 minutes max.
 


Lockheed did their testing using the full power rating authorized by Allison. You won't find the 1,725 hp rating in the pilot's manual. This was due to the concerns the engineers at Wright Field about reliability. Nonetheless, former crewchiefs will tell you that they worked with the Allison tech reps to rig their fighters for the full rating. Tech reps even provided revised charts. While the P-38L could truly haul prettythang in WEP, at altitude it was nudging up close to its critical Mach in level flight. Tony LeVier mentioned mild buffeting at max speed during his test flights in early L-1s.

Regardless of performance, the P-38 was an expert's fighter. It was not an easy aircraft to master. Thus, many of the P-38 pilots converting to the P-51 found it a much less challenging ride. This is a good thing, that rank and file pilots had a new fighter that allowed them to explore its full limits with less required skill. Guys who never fired on a German fighter were now running up impressive scores. This should not be a surprise as twins always present a higher workload than a single. When used by the 9th AF, the P-38 flew most of its missions at medium and low altitudes. Down where compressibility was not an issue, the fast climbing, remarkably maneuverable P-38L was quite formidable.

In Aces High, we see that the P-38L is an extremely dangerous fighter down below 10k. And, like the real world, it's an expert's ride. When fighting in the vertical, only the Ki-84 can beat the P-38 on a regular basis. However, the P-38 accelerates a lot faster than the Hayate, and can disengage if the pilot avoids getting too slow. Taken lightly, the P-38 can surprise an over-confident enemy. Then again, so can the P-47, another fighter sadly under-estimated for its dogfighting ability

Lat week, while doing my trainer thing, I tangled with a squad training in the TA. There were about 6 P-38s. Plus, there were a few Ki-84s, 190s, Spits, a lone F4U-4 and P-40E all buzzing around the field. I grabbed a P-47D-40 from a nearby Rook field and with my red icon headed over to create some mayhem. Show up with a red icon and you are an instant target. My fuel was loaded at 50% and I added a belly tank to get me there. I also took the larger ammo load-out. Coming in at 12k I had to whack a pesky Me 163 first, and then I bounced the horde. I came down, throttle at idle with the speed boards out. I had little trouble painting the P-38s as they turned almost flat break-turns. I used my speed to keep the fight in the vertical plane. That quickly became boring, so I decided to furball with the P-38s. Apparently all of these guys were flying with Combat Trim on, because I was able to match them turn for turn. I was surprised that they flew as a group, not even trying to spit up. As long as I kept them corraled as a group, they weren't much of a threat. However, the Ki-84s, Spits and 190 forced me to turn away from the Lightnings and into their attacks. I clobbered each one of these on the merge, skidding the big Jug for the passing shots.
(too many guys assume that the enemy will just fly by) Another Ki-84 pulls hard for a nearly 90 degree deflection shot. I barrel-roll his way and pass close by, canopy to canopy. I look back and see a tail-less Hayate fluttering down. He must have collided with my Jug (yes, the collision model is turned on in the TA).

Meanwhile a mob of thoroughly annoyed P-38 drivers were seeking revenge and they were no longer being hounded. Soon, I found myself in a huge furball, dodging attacks from every angle. It wasn't long before the engine overheated, meaning that I had lost a significant amount of horsepower. Still, aside from a few minor pings, I had avoided getting hosed. I took shots at the 38s as they presented themselves usually getting hits. A lone Spitfire came in for a head-on shot. I barrel-rolled out of his path and stitched the Spit from nose to tail as he tried to reverse with too much E in his bank. But with that, my guns were empty. It was time to disengage. The engine was cooling somewhat, by I needed to save what WEP power I had for the break-way. By now, the brawl had drawn everyone away from their base, probably 10 miles southwest. The gaggle of P-38s had reformed to my rear, about 1,500 yards behind. All that is but for one P-38 which was off my left wing, oblivious to my presence. I barrel-rolled onto his six. That he did see or was warned by a squadie. The P-38 bunts over and races for the deck with me barely 200 yards behind. He tried to use clumps of trees for cover, whipping in and out between the treetops. I merely eased the nose up and flew over them. Seeing his predicament and not realizing that I had empty guns, he broke hard right towards his squadies. Too hard, as he snaprolled, hit some trees and crashed.

Now there are four P-38s (one augered diving too fast earlier), and a Ki-84 about 1.5 k behind me. Time to reverse. Chop power, coordinate rudder and aileron, haul around in a slightly nose high turn, flaps coming out as speed allows. Suddenly they have a Thunderbolt headed straight at them. As I burst through the gaggle, they scatter every which way, trying to turn around. Flaps all up, throttle into WEP, unload and accelerate. Within 30 seconds the range icons show 2.5k and it's opening fast. A text message appears: "How the hell did you reverse so fast??" I tell him to watch some of Leviathn's films. At around 5k distant they give up the chase. Good thing, I'm nearly out of gas. I check and see that I have 4 minutes of gas at full power. With the P-38s no longer a threat, I pull back power and adjust the prop for best range. 8 minutes later I deadstick the out-of-gas P-47 onto the field I had taken off from. A few minor holes in the wings, but not too worse for the wear.

There was a lot of chatter in the text box, salutes going back and forth. Everyone had great fun. The newbies gained some experience. The P-38 guys were dismayed, though. So, we held a brief class on flying the P-38. In that type of a fight, the P-38 should dominate the Jug. They didn't because they had no idea how to get full performance out of the Lightning. After about 20 minutes they improved considerably. I knew that if we fought the same engagement again, I would not have anywhere near the success that I did the first time. We also discussed breaking into elements and not flying as a gaggle. Three sets of two are a hellava lot tougher to deal with than a group of six flying follow-the-leader. They explained that they were practicing formation flying. LOLOL, someone should have explained that formation flying does not include combat!

What did they learn?

Turn off Combat Trim. Trim manually.
Wingmen should follow behind, in a lag pursuit off to one side.
Split into two plane elements, box in the enemy.
Conserve WEP power.
Avoid purely vertical reverses if other enemy fighters are nearby.
If bounced by a lone fighter, wingmen should break in opposite directions. Use "Thatch Weave" tactics to keep each other's tail clear. P-38s are lethal given a HO shot.
Use top rudder to avoid snaprolls.
Don't just dump the flaps, use them only when they can make a big difference or to avoid getting clobbered. Don't keep them out any longer than required.
Don't get too slow, slow means that they are easy tracking targets, giving the attacker easy angles.
Use zero g loading to enhance acceleration.

Whether or not they remember this stuff, I can't say. But these guys will do better in the MA now that they understand the P-38 more.

Last night, I flew another Jug sortie into the mob, with similar results, except that I landed at the enemy base having exhausted my fuel. The best training is always that which challenges. Tonight, I'll bring a P-38 to the party. :)

Those of you who post here but don't play, download the game. You're invited to the party.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #198 on: December 03, 2004, 03:10:52 PM »
Quote
Then again, so can the P-47, another fighter sadly under-estimated for its dogfighting ability


It was the P47 IMO that destroyed the Luftwaffe.  The P51 just pulled security on the corpse, kicking it when it moved.

Quote
Lockheed did their testing using the full power rating authorized by Allison. You won't find the 1,725 hp rating in the pilot's manual.


That is not quite fair and is loading the data.  I could show you a FLIGHT TESTED FW-190A5 using 1.65ata @2700U/min.  The reality is no service FW-190A5 used that boost pressure.   The dates even line up and it would be so easy to post it and say, LOOK WHAT I FOUND in the Smithsonian archives...

OR

How about a 24 M/S climb rate on an FW-190A5??  With the heads and blower from the BMW 801TS (BMW801TH motor) and the 12.6cm wide wooden prop....

OR

BMW 801D2 using 1.82ata @ 2700U/min.  Tested but did not happen.  The BMW801TS,TH, and TU could use 1.82ata @ 2700 U/min only.

It's a prototype.  It would be decieving to post it as anything else.  

Crumpp
« Last Edit: December 03, 2004, 04:06:42 PM by Crumpp »

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6134
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #199 on: December 03, 2004, 04:04:28 PM »
I never said the Vought document was "cooked". I said professor Klump either can't read or doesn't understand that the P-38 has BETTER power loading in that chart, better than either the P-51 or the P-47.

I also said that the wing loading only accounts for weight and area, but not airfoil type. The aspect ratio of the airfoil determines how much lift you get for the amount of area you have. Meaning calculations based strictly on weight and area are inconclusive and misleading at best. So the area/weight wingloading data on that chart is not nearly so useful as you might think.

As I stated, I do not have hard copy of the Lockheed test pilot logs that produced that speed in hand. I was given the data in an email by Warren Bodie, who is a noted author, and who was also a Lockheed engineer, and as such had access to those documents. I got the same data from C.C. Jordan (AKA Widewing) later on. I KNOW Warren Bodie has seen the documents, and he said he has copies. I don't know if Widewing has seen the actual hardcopy documents.

Yes, I know all about compression and critical mach.

I have stated this many times, and I'll state it again here. The horsepower is not nearly so important for top speed as it is for the amount of power that is available to accelerate, climb, and maneuver. Air to air combat between piston engined propellor driven aircraft rarely, if ever, occurs at top speed. Only at the merge, or if one plane dives out does combat reach top speed. After the first turn or two, speed is often below 350. The power available in the engines of the P-38L at WEP was important not so much for top speed, but for acceleration, climb, and the retention of speed when maneuvering.

You can ask Widewing, I know at least a dozen veteran P-38 combat pilots who flew both the J and L models. To a man, when I asked them about power settings used in combat, they ALL said WEP for the P-38J and L that they flew was a power setting as follows: mixture to auto rich, MAP to 60"-64", and RPM to 3000 to 3200. This yields between 1725HP and 1750HP in the P-38L. This is a setting you will not see in 99% of the published data because it was not in the manual, but it was used by the pilots in combat.

They all said the P-38 was best below 25K. They all said the P-51 was not equal to the P-38 in ability until 25K or above. They all said the P-38 was by far the most "busy" plane to fly, but it was also the most capable, if the pilot was up to the task.
"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: 6134
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #200 on: December 03, 2004, 04:47:27 PM »
What you are talking about may be a prototype Crump, but what Widewing and I are talking about is the P-38L as it was when in service and in combat. As the pilots flew it. With the settings they used. Those are the engines, and those are the settings, just the way the pilots flew it.


With regards to the "Joint Fighter Conference", the biggest problem I have with their 'evaluation" is that it fails to take one thing into account. EVERY pilot I know (or knew to include those who have folded their wings) said that if you didn't have a minimum of 40 hours advanced flying time in  the P-38, you had no business in combat, and could not know enough about flying it to have any sort of valid opinion. To have a pilot, or a group of pilots, fly the P-38 for a very few hours, when they are, by their own admission, devotees of the single engine fighter, and that is what they are trained in and have experience with, is pure folly.

ANY of the truly hot sticks who flew the P-38 in combat, like Ilfrey, Olds, Blumer, MacDonald, Dahl, or Lowell would tell you very quicky that a pilot trained on single engine fighters would have no clue how to REALLY fly a P-38, as it was by it's very design and nature an entirely different animal. As Art Heiden said about the P-51, its main advantage over the P-38 was not performance, but simplicity. The cockpit was not as busy, and you did not need to be an expert on the plane to get all it had to give.

The P-47, the P-38, and the P-51 are all GOOD fighters, none is reall head and shoulders above the rest.

The P-47 without a doubt had a greater role in the actual destruction of the Luftwaffe than the P-38, or the P-51.

The P-38 was the plane that allowed deep penetration raids to continue from late 43 through early 44, when it was either the ONLY long range fighter, or the most numerous of long range fighters.

The P-51 was the plane that allowed the P-47 and the P-38 to be released to do what may have been the most important thing any of them did, and that is general interdiction and close air support.
"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 Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #201 on: December 03, 2004, 05:10:58 PM »
Quote
I never said the Vought document was "cooked". I said professor Klump either can't read or doesn't understand that the P-38 has BETTER power loading in that chart, better than either the P-51 or the P-47.


And you don't seem to get the FACT it has a small power loading advantage vs BIG DRAG disadvantage.  This adds up and reflects in its TESTED accelleration, which is poor.

Quote
I also said that the wing loading only accounts for weight and area, but not airfoil type.


Correct.  However the largest contributing factor is windloading.  Compare the FW-190 to the Spitfire.  The FW-190 has a larger aspect ratio advantage and very similar "e" factor.  No way it turned like a spit.  The P38 has large handicapp to overcome with it's wingloading.  Only with assymetrical power application did the P38 turn well.  Dicey move for most pilots.

 
Quote
This is a setting you will not see in 99% of the published data because it was not in the manual, but it was used by the pilots in combat.


I would not doubt it, Seriously.  I am sure many a Luftwaffe pilot exceeded the limits of his Flugzeug-Handbuch.  In fact, the FW-190 was routinely dove to speeds in excess of 1000kph.  Pyro?? Can you get right on that for us?  For that matter, RAF, VVS, IJNAF, or RCAF pilots, just pick your poison.

Crumpp

Offline Dispair

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #202 on: December 03, 2004, 07:52:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Are you saying the Russians in 1942 had kicked German butt? :D :D Good joke.

I was referring to the opening of the 2nd front on June 6, 1944. Yeah Russians were getting their bellybutton kicked by Germanls up to the med 1943, but they were mostly flying Laggs, Pes and early Yaks that were no match for German planes. Comapring to those early planes P-38 was a better plane.

Offline BUG_EAF322

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3153
      • http://bug322.startje.com
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #203 on: December 03, 2004, 11:45:57 PM »
1000 kph and yes ur talkin crap again

in the first place their equipment was not suited to measure that.

I bet u have sex in lederhosen.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #204 on: December 04, 2004, 01:08:03 AM »
It's time for some anecdotal stuff on the P-38. This was posted to Usenet, nearly 8 years ago.

"I'm offering the suggestion that the P-38L (and later J models) was the
best all-around fighter aircraft of World War II, not based on the numbers
or book references, but on the views of two WWII pilots who flew the
aircraft--and others--in combat.  One was my father-in-law, Elliott Dent
(who posted once to this group when he was visiting me) and Sidney Woods,
a WWII buddy of my father-in-law who fought in both Europe and the
Pacific.  I'll refer to them as Elliott and Sidney.

Elliott flew P-40s in combat with the 49 FG before  switching to P-38s.
He liked the P-40.  His only complaint, and it was a major one, was that
the model he flew mostly, the N, was a pig at altitude.

The P-38, however, was a vast improvement.  Things he cited as making the
P-38 superior to other WWII fighters:

 First and foremost (although usually overlooked by nonpilots) was its
tricycle landing gear.  WWII fighters had landing speeds too high for
conventional gear.  There was always that critical point in landing when
speed had dropped such that the rudder was ineffective, yet the tail was
still in the air and trying to use wheel braking to control direction
would collapse a gear or lead to a ground loop.  Exhausted pilots
returning from multi-hour combat missions didn't need the final challenge
of a fast landing in a tail-dragger.  The P-38 floated in and planted
itself.  If you came in a little fast, you could use the dive brakes to
slow down before your wheels touched.  I'm sure everyone has seen the film
of that F4U landing at Guadalcanal that balloons and floats down the
runway forever.  That sort of thing couldn't happen with a P-38.

Second, two engine reliability.  Especially on long over-water flights,
the security of having a spare engine in case one quit, simply can't be
appreciated by a non-combat pilot.  As much as he liked the P-40, Elliott
recalls that the tension of listening intently to the engine--what was
that noise?  Was that a miss?  Did it just stutter?--soaked his flight
suit with sweat.  And many a compatriot who reported engine trouble and
broke out of formation was never heard from again.

Third, range.  The P-38 could go where the action was, or trade range for
payload and carry a bomber's load.  Only the P-51D and P-47N (which came
along very late in the war) were in its range playground.

Fourth, let's call steadyness.  With engines turning in opposite
directions, the P-38 was stable in all maneuvers and could roll equally
well right or left.  The big-engined, big-propped singles had torque and
P-factor problems that became increasingly pronounced as speed dropped, as
in a dog fight (which you shouldn't get into, of course, but sometimes you
do anyway).  They always rolled faster one way than the other.  The P-38
driver just rolled the way they couldn't to escape,  On the ground this
made them genuinely dangerous to operate.

Fifth, firepower concentration and range.  The P-38's nose gun arrangement
got rid of all the problems of wing guns, specifically the need to be
within a specific range for the fire to tell.  Anywhere within 1,000 yards
would give you hits.  Given the tendency for unexperienced pilots to open
fire too far away, the P-38 offered the greatest chance for strikes.  Much
wing-gun fire was wasted, especially by low-combat time pilots who fired
at twice or three times nominal range.  In head-on attacks, where it is
virtually impossible to hold your fire until you hit the "sweet spot"
where the wing guns converge, the P-38's advantage of pointing yourself at
the enemy and holding the trigger down was signficant.

Sixth, dive brakes.  Any aircraft that could reach the vicinity of 400 mph
at 20,000 feet would have compressibilty problems in a dive.  Only the
P-38J/L offered a solution.

Elliot was credited with six kills and five probables.  Among other
medals, he was awarded the DSC, the DFC, the Air Medal, the Purple Heart.
He flew 251 combat missions.
He piloted the P-40 and P-38 in combat, the P-39 and P-51 stateside.

Sidney flew P-40s and P-38s with the 49FG.  He participated in the Battle
of the Bismark Sea.  He flew 112 combat missions with the 49th.  After a
rest stateside, he went to the 4th FG in Europe.  He flew 68 combat
missions in Europe in P-51s.  I don't know what he may have flown
stateside.

Sidney shot down two Japanese planes with the 49th and  10 with the 4th
(one of these on the ground, as the USAAF in the ETO counted aircraft
destroyed on the ground as kills.  The USAAF in the PTO did not).  Five of
the air kills were FW-190s.  Among the medals awarded him that I know
about, were the Silver Star, the DFC, the Croix de Guerre and the Air
Medal.

Sidney described the Mustang as a super P-40.  He did not consider it in
the same class with the P-38.  He often said that the P-40 and P-51
represented pre-war air combat thinking, and that the P-38 represented the
future. That's a broad statement, and I can't recall his specific reasons
for making it, but it does give you a sense of his feeling for the
aircraft.
Sidney said that were he flying the P-38 in Europe he could have shot down
more planes than he did.  On more than one occasion, for example, he noted
that while he was closing in to wing-gun range an FW would execute one of
its fabulous snap-rolls and split-S away.  Had he been in a P-38 he could
have opened fire seconds earlier, gained strikes for certain, possibly
destroying the aircraft.

Sidney believed the poor showing of the P-38 in the ETO was the result of
AAF brass, who, pre-war were wedded to the unescorted heavy bomber
concept, and didn't dare admit, in the face of terrible bomber losses,
that they had a perfectly capable figher capable of escorting their
bombers from day one to the farthest target they ventured to--but they
chose not to use it.  Instead, they mutually, if unconsciously, fixed on
every reason they could find to discount the P-38 as a capable fighter.
They could then say they had no choice but to go unescorted until the P-51
came along.  Had they said, Yeah, we had a good escort fighter in the P-38
but decided not to use it, congressional committees would have been
demanding to know who screwed the pooch (his phrase).

As far as a combat type went, I recall Sidney talking about how it was impossible to overshoot an aerial target in a dive with the P-38.  If you saw that you were overtaking faster than you liked, you popped the speed brakes.  Couldn't do that with any other plane.  He also liked the low
speed maneuvering flaps, the hydraulicly boosted ailerons, and the overall
ruggedness of the airplane.

He felt that the AAF made a mistake in not standardizing the P-38 as "the"
fighter and having Republic and North American build it as well as
Lockheed."
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #205 on: December 04, 2004, 01:11:30 AM »
More stuff from same author:

"From: cdb100620@aol.com (CDB100620)
Subject: Re: P38 in Europe? A success?
Date: 17 Dec 1996



Thirteen P-38 FGs were deployed in Europe and Med Theaters:
1, 14, 20, 55, 78, 81, 82, 350, 364, 367, 370, 474, 479.

Photo recon versions of the P-38 (F-4 and F-5) served in Europe and the
Med in five PRGs:
3, 5, 10, 67, 68.

The 1FG and 14FG were first to receive P-38 in spring, 1941.

P-38s equipped a total of 27 FG and 10 PRG.

In Europe, the P-38 flew some 130,000 sorties.  That compares with about
214,000 for the P-51 and 423,000 for the P-47.

Aside from about 20 F-4/5s given to the Free French air force, only the
USAAF used P-38s during the war (a handful of non-turbo, non-handed
versions went to and were rejected by the RAF).  One of these proved the
coffin of Antoine de Saint Exupery, author of "Wind, Sand and Stars" and
other aviation literature standards, who disappeared on a flight over
southern France, 31 July, 1944.

The first German plane shot down by the USAAF in WWII is generally
credited to a P-38 on 14 Aug., 1942, an FW-200C downed by Elza Shaham of
342 Composite FG.

The first allied fighters over Berlin were P-38s of the 55FG on 3 March,
1944.

The 1FG was the only USAAF fighter group during the war to win two
Presidential Unit Citations in less than a week, for actions in the MTO.

On two occasions, once in the Pacific and once in the Med, a lone P-38
escorting a group of bombers succeeded in driving off numbers of enemy
fighters attempting to attack the bombers, in each case shooting down one
e/a that got too close.  The Pacific incident involved a P-38 from the
475FG, which shot down a Ki-61 from a gaggle going after B-25s, and the
Med incident involved a P-38 from the 1FG that shot down an Me-109 from a
gaggle going after B-25s.  In each case, the lone P-38 had been late off
the runway, missed the rendezvous and proceeded on alone hoping to catch up
to the rest of the squadron, which was, in each case, turned back by bad
weather that the late starter missed.

The leading P-38 aces in the Med were Micheal Brezas who shot down 12
German planes (2 Me-210, 4 Me-109, 6 FW-190)  while serving with the 14FG,
and William Sloan, who shot down 12 German and Italian a/c (6 Me-109, 2
Mc-200, 1 Mc-202, 1 Re-2001, 1 Ju-88, 1 Do-217) while serving with the
82FG.

The 55FG began operations out of England on 15 Oct., 1943, one day after
Black Thursday when some 60 B-17s were lost on the second Schweinfurt
raid.  First encounter with Luftwaffe on 3 Nov., shot down 3 Me-109 with
no loss to selves.  On 5 Nov., down five Me-109s with no loss.  On 13
Nov., in a sprawling, large-scale battle, shot down 3 FW-190, 2 Ju-88, 1
Me-109, 1 Me-210 but lost 5 P-38s shot down.  Two more were lost due to
engine problems.  On 29 Nov. 7 P-38s were shot down for the loss of no
German planes.
Problems that surfaced with the P-38 in northern European theatre included
its poor performance above 30,000 ft compared to the Me-109, caused by its
lack of high activity propellers able to make use of the power the engines
were delivering at that altitude.  The F models used also had insufficient
intercooler capacity.  Some indication that TEL anti-knock compound was
not being properly mixed into avgas as well (at this time TEL was still
blended by hand into fuel shortly before use rather than being blended
when produced.  This was because in those days the compound tended to
precipitate out if left standing too long.  This problem later corrected.
Others believed either too much (leading to plug fouling) or not enough
(detonation) TEL was being added, causing engine problems.
Another problem that was revealed by the Nov. actions was that 55FG pilots
were attempting to dogfight e/a.  Their airplane may have been up to the
job, but the pilots weren't (many had as little of 20 hours total time on
the P-38, and little or no air to air gunnery training, and were
especially lacking in deflection shooting skills.  Many after-action
contact reports tell of repeated bursts of fire at deflection angles with
no results.  Most kills were the result of dead-astern shots). An 8th AF
report examining the failures of the 55FG noted one main problem was that
the P-38 as an airplane was simply too complicated and too demanding for a
low-time service pilot to fly skillfully, let alone dogfight in. It noted
that many pilots were afraid of the P-38.  55FG lost 17 P-38s in combat in
Nov., while being credited with 23 e/a destroyed in the air.
Morale in 55FG plummeted, and numerous pilots aborted missions claiming
mechanical problems--giving the a/c type a bad rep for mechanical
unreliability, although u/s reports reveal that in most cases the ground
crew could find nothing wrong with the aircraft.  In many instances the
ground crews hinted that the pilots were merely cowards.  In one u/s
report, the pilot had aborted the mission because he claimed the piss tube
was too short and he could not use it.  The ground crew chief wrote in his
report:  "Piss tube to spec.  Problem is pilot's dick is too short."

20FG entered N. Euro. combat at the end of Dec, '43. Did not appear to
suffer from the morale and leadership problems of the 55FG.  First
contacted Luftwaffe on 29 Jan. '44.  Downed 3 FW-190, 3 Me-110, 3 Me-210,
1 Me-109.  No P-38s lost.  3 FWs downed by Lindol Graham, who used only
his single 20mm cannon, 12 shots per plane. (Lindol later crashed and was
killed while attempting to kill the fleeing crew of an Me-110 he had just
forced down in a low-level fight.  The two men were floundering across a
snow-covered field and it appeared that Lindol attempted to hit them with
his props.  His plane seemed to hit the ground, then bounce back up,
soaring into a chandelle, then falling off on its nose and diving straight
into the ground.)
On 8 Feb. James Morris of 20FG downed 3 FW-190s in a single combat,
involving tight turns (in which the P-38's maneuvering flap setting [8
degrees extension] was used) and an Me-109 as returning home, the first
quadruple kill for an 8AF fighter.  All kills were made with dead astern
shots.  Morris missed all his deflection shots. Interestingly, two of the
FWs were first encountered head-on and Morris was able to reverse and
maneuver onto their tails while they tried with all their might to get on
his--and failed. Three days later he downed an Me-109, making him the
first P-38 ace flying out of England. (He would score a total of 8
victories before being shot down on 7 July, the highest score of any
UK-based P-38 pilot.)

364FG arrived in UK in Feb., '44.  Led by Col John Lowell, who had helped
develop the P-38 at Wright-Pat, on its first mission over Berlin on 6
March, he downed 2 Me-109s, and two more on 8 March.  On 9 March he downed
an FW-190.  He was eventually to tally 11 kills in the P-38, but several
were downgraded to probables after the war.
Col Mark Hubbel took over the 20th on 17 March.   He believed P-38
excellent fighter against Luftwaffe and proved it by promptly shooting
down 2 Me-109 and sharing a third with his wingman.  He may have downed a
fourth Me-109 which he was seen pursuing as it streamed smoke in a dive.
He was last seen chasing yet another Me-109,  this time through the door
of a church.  Neither planes nor church survived the encounter.
During the late winter of 1944 occurred the famous dual between a
Griffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG.  Col. Lowell few the
P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass.  Lowell was
able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the
Spitfire pilot did.  Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning
circle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall
characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride
the stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut
back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver.  After 20 minutes
of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree
angle, not vertically down).  Lowell stayed with the Spit through the
maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground.  After that the
Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home.  This contest was
witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground.

Ultimately 7 P-38 FG were operational in northern Europe.  The 474th was
the only one to retain the P-38 till the end of the war.  As pilots grew
used to the plane and developed confidence in it, it successes against the
Luftwaffe grew.  On 7 July, '44, P-38s of the 20FG downed 25 out of 77 e/a
destroyed that day, the highest of any group.
The last UK-based P-38 ace was Robin Olds of the 479FG.  On 14 Aug., '44,
while flying alone, he encountered two FW-190s and engaged them in a
dogfight, shooting both down.
On 25 Aug, P-38s from 367 encountered FW-190s of JG-6, a top Luftwaffe
unit.  Wild, low-level  battle ensued in which 8 P-38s and 20 FW-190s were
down.  Five of the FWs were shot down by Capt. Lawrence Blumer.   367
received a Presidential Unit Citation as a result of this battle.
On the same day, P-38s from 474 shot down 21 FW-190s for the loss of 11
P-38s.  The same day Olds' of 479 downed three Me-109s in a running battle
that saw his canopy shot off.
On 26 Sept., P-38s of the 479 downed 19 e/a near Munster.  Shortly after
that most P-38s were gradually replaced by P-51s.
The last long-range bomber escort in northern Europe by P-38s was on 19
Nov. '44 when 367FG escorted bombers to Merzig, Germany.  FW-190s
attempted to intercept.  P-38s downed six with no losses.  No bombers were
lost either. It was a good way to end the P-38s air-superiority role in
northern Europe."
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #206 on: December 04, 2004, 01:16:17 AM »
Continued from previous:

"The cockpit heating problem was taken care of on the P-38L, the definitive
Lightning, which made up about half the production run.  But that didn't
help pilots in the ETO or MTO in 1943 and early 1944.  There were many
cases of pilots being forced to abort mission because their hands and feet
were frostbitten.

One problem the P-38 had in dealing with the Me-109, but not the FW-190
(which was more of a low and mid-altitude fighter) was the Me's high
altitude performace superiority.  Above 25,000 ft., cooling or
supercharger impeller or turbine speeds became limiting for the Lockheed,
and high speed capability started to fall off.  At low altitudes, the
plane could max out at about 330-340 mph.  This rose to well above 400 mph
between 25,000 to 30,000.  As the plane approached 30,000 ft, speeds over
Mach 0.60 could be sustained in level flight.  Thus, manuevering could
quickly give the plane compressibility problems.  At Mach 0.65 (290 mph
IAS, 440 mph TAS at 30,000 ft.; 360 mph IAS, 460 mph TAS at 20,000 ft.)
drag began to soar as the plane began to encounter compressibility.  At
Mach 0.67 shock waves began forming and buffeting began at Mach 0.675.  At
Mach 0.74 tuck under began. Buffeting developed at a lower Mach number in
any maneuver exceeding 1 g.
What this meant to a pilot in combat in say, a P-38H such as that used by
the 55FG or 20FG circa Jan. '44, was that if, at high altitude such as
Me-109s preferred approaching bomber formations, he locked on to the e/a
and it split-S'ed and dove away (typical Luftwaffe evasive maneuver), if
he attempted to follow, his P-38 would start to vibrate, then start
bucking like a rodeo bronco, the control column would begin flail back and
forth so forcefully it would probably be ripped out of his hands and begin
pounding him to crap.  Once the plane dropped down to lower altitude where
the speed of sound was higher, the buffeting declined and the trim tab
could be used to haul the airplane out of what seemed to be a death dive.
Recovery with trim tab resulted in 5 g pull-out.  Many a low-time service
pilot would be so shaken by this experience that he would never dive the
P-38 again, and might be so afraid of the airplane that his usefullness as
a fighter pilot was over.
The late J and L models solved this problem with the installation of a
dive flap.  Extend the flaps at the beginning of a dive and all problems
were eliminated.  Again, these models weren't available in the critical
period between fall 1943 and spring 1944 when the most desperate battles
against the Luftwaffe took place, and when the P-38s rep in Europe was
established.
The reason P-38s were as successful as they were in Europe (and it should
be kept in mind they performed their escort role before it was decided to
free the fighters from the bombers to seek out e/a on favorable terms so
they were always forced to engage on unfavorable terms) was at least in
part because they were wonderful aerobatic airplanes with absolutely no
maneuvers restricted except the dive.  Loops, Immelmans, slow and snap
rolls, Cuban eights...it could perform them all with perfection.  It had a
wonderful ability to perform in the vertical, with an excellent rate of
climb, splendid zoom climb.  It could easily change direction while
executing vertical maneuvers.  It was also a very stable gun platform,
being stable and very smooth while executing maneuvers.

In contrast, the P-51, had far fewer compressibility problems at speeds
normally encountered in combat, including dives from high altitude.  The D
model was placarded at 300 mph IAS (539 mph TAS, Mach 0.81) at 35,000 ft.
In a dive, the P-51 was such an aerodynamically clean design that it could
quickly enter compressibility if the dive was continued (in reality, a
pilot could, as a rule, catch any German plane before compressibility
became a problem).  But, say, in an evasive dive to escape, as the P-51's
speed in the dive increased, it started skidding beyond what the pilot
could control (this could be a problem in a dive onto a much lower-flying
plane or ground target--couldn't keep the plane tracking on the target if
speed was too high).  As compressibility was entered, it would start
rolling and pitching and the whole plane would begin to vibrate.  This
began about Mach 0.72.  The pilot could maintain control to above Mach
0.80 (stateside tests said 0.83 (605 mph) was max safe speed--but
structural damage to the aircraft would result).
The P-51's quirk that could catch the uprepared service pilot by surprise
was that as airspeed built up over 450 mph, the plane would start to get
very nose heavy.  It needed to be trimmed tail heavy before the dive if
speeds over 400 mph were anticipated.  However, in high speed dives, the
plane's skidding changed to unintended snap rolls so violent that the
pilot's head was slammed against the canopy.  Depending on how much fuel
was in the fuselage tank, on pull-out stick force reversal could occur, a
real thrill that could totally flummox a low-time service pilot diving
earthward at close to 1,000 ft per second trying to escape a pursuer.
The P-51 was a good dogfighter, positively stable under all flight
routines.  A pilot didn't have to work hard to get it to the limits of its
flight envelope (that is, he wasn't sweating heaving and pushing and
pulling and kicking to get it to move its ass.)  It was important to burn
down fuel in the fuselage tank to avoid longitudenal instabillity.
Cranking into a tight turn with too much go-juice in the tank would mean
instant stick force reversal and the pilot had to brace himself to oppose
the stick slamming backward into his solar plexus, and shove hard to
prevent the turn from tightening till, if he was lucky, he entered a high
speed stall, or, if unlucky, the wing ripped off.
Turns above 250 mph IAS were the killers, because they resulted in g
forces high enough to black out the pilot so that he couldn't oppose the
stick reversal and the Mustang would, unattended, wind itself up into a
wing-buster.

So, which plane would rather go into combat against the Luftwaffe in?"
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #207 on: December 04, 2004, 01:21:40 AM »
Finally, from the same writer... and this is entertaining stuff.

"This P-38 debate is endless, but some things about the P-38 that made it such
an marvelous design haven't been brought up that probably should be:
To achieve high-speed capability, an airplane will  have high wing-loading
(gross weight to wing area) and low power loading (gross weight to horsepower).
 The P-38 had very high wing loading (which provides other benefits, such as
when penetrating weather, etc.), higher than anything other than one-off
record-breaking and racing planes when it was introduced.  And it also had
unusually low power loading; in fact it had the lowest power loading of any US
design (maybe any design) of WWII.  Turbocharging ensured this power loading
would remain constant to very high altitudes.
This meant the airplane would be fast.  But high wing loading would normally
degrade turning, climb and ceiling.  With such high wing-loading, the P-38
should have been a dog in all but top speed.  It wasn't because of two other
factors.
 One is its aspect ratio (span to chord ratio; that is, the relationship of the
length of the wing to its width).  Another, related, factor is its span loading
(ratio of airplane weight to wingspan).  
In turns or climbs, a plane's drag tends to increase and its speed to decrease.
 A way to counter this is to increase the wingspan.  For any given wing area,
increasing the span decreases the chord, providing a higher aspect ratio.  For
structural and other reasons, most WWII-era fighters had aspect ratios of 6 or
less.  The P-38 had an amazing aspect ratio of 8, meaning that it could gain
the advantage of high wing loading for speed and still not lose in
maneuverability, climb or ceiling.
A large wingspan, however, generally degrades a plane's rate of roll because
the wing surface is so far out from the fuselage and center of gravity.  Making
the wing tips narrower by tapering the plan form does a lot to counter this.
Normal fighter configurations had a taper ratio of about 2 (the wing tip being
only about half as wide as the wing root).  The P-38 had a taper ratio of 3.
So, you had an airplane that was fast yet a good climber, a good turner and
good roller.
But wait--there's more:
Power has to be converted to thrust thru a propeller.  Big powerful engines
need big propellers to handle that power, but the diameter of a prop is limited
by tip speed.  So power has to be absorbed by adding blades or increasing their
width.  But a prop working harder on a given volume of air has inherent
aerodynamic inefficiencies requiring performance compromises.  Bottom line
being that propeller inefficiency limits the value of engine power.
But because the P-38's power was in two "sections" (engines), each with its own
propeller, it was able to use its power as efficiently as a much lower-powered
airplane operating at lower speeds.  And the increased propeller disc area of
the two props ensured that the plane's power and thrust would be maximized
throughout the maneuver range.
This thrust efficiency made for an airplane that leaped into the sky on take-off
and could accelerate in the air like a drag racer.
Pretty neat, huh?
But wait--there's more:
Ordinary fighters of the day had a tail length ratio (number of times the wing
chord goes into the distance from the center of gravity to the tail surfaces)
of between 2 and 2.5.  This ratio might be compared to wheelbase on a car.  A
shorter wheelbase makes for a choppier, less stable ride.  The P-38's tail
length ratio was a whopping 4.  This means it had excellent damping, or the
tendency to slow the rate of departure from a trimmed position.  This made it a
great plane for flying long distances in, with one finger on the wheel, or for
instrument flying, or as a steady gun platform or for dropping bombs.
The large tail length ratio required a smaller than normal tail surface area
because of the increased arm at which the surface worked.  This reduced drag
and made for a truly excellent flying airplane.
Not bad, huh?
But wait--there's more:
The width of the horizontal tail surface was determined by the spacing of the
booms.  The result was a very high aspect ratio for the tail plane.  The
endplate effect of the two vertical fins and rudder surfaces on the end of the
booms produced an aerodynamic apparent aspect ratio that was even higher.  This
had the effect of providing very rapid changes in force with small changes in
the aircraft's angle of attack.  This great sensitivity, combined with superb
damping, meant that less trimming force was necessary for stability and that
there was a wide range of CG position or stability available without
degradation of flying characteristics.
Like, wow, man!
But wait--there's more:
The high aspect ratio of the horizontal tail also produced narrow chord
elevators, which in a turn meant light control forces for maneuver.  Ditto for
the vertical tail surfaces and rudders. Net effect, the pilot could dance the
airplane all over the sky without breaking a sweat, while bellowing out the
latest tunes from "Oklahoma!" to drown out the curses in his headphones of any
other pilot in some lesser machine that he chose to sky-wrassle with.
Because the engines rotated in opposite directions, they produced a symmetrical
slip stream flow which eliminated the need the carry rudder displacement, thus
reducing a source of drag.  And there was no change in trim with changes in
speed, which was a pure blessing in maneuver combat, er, dogfight.
Then there is the Fowler flap system which actually increases wing area,
tricycle landing gear, centerline fire guns, plenty of internal fuel, a roomy
cockpit....
The P-38 also had an amazing degree of detail refinement compared to other
planes.  All its external surfaces were smooth with no disturbances from rivets
or lap joints, for example.
One negative was necessarily small ailerons because of the wing taper, meaning
large aileron displacement would be necessary to initiate a roll. That meant
high aileron forces.  That's why the control wheel was used, and why the later
models had aileron boost.  Savvy pilots would blip the inside throttle when
they wanted a smart roll ASAP.  Less savvy pilots did lots of pushups. And
there was the cockpit heating and defrosting thing (by the way, it's just as
cold at 25,000 ft. in the tropics as in Europe), which did get solved about as
soon as it became apparent.  Cooling was never as effectively solved.
But, all in all, a pretty damned good flying machine.
As pilots of the day said, if Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a
P-38."
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #208 on: December 04, 2004, 08:20:09 AM »
Time for some more facts on the P38.  I always thought the P 38 was a steller diver.  However, looking at the facts, it seems even this is another MODERN creation.

Lets look at those dive speeds and the effects of the dive flaps:



Now lets check out the opposition:



Wow!  The Luftwaffe fighters don't even start showing any symptoms until they are going over 100 mph FASTER than the P38 below 13,100 feet!!

Crumpp

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #209 on: December 04, 2004, 09:58:37 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
Time for some more facts on the P38.  I always thought the P 38 was a steller diver.  However, looking at the facts, it seems even this is another MODERN creation.

Lets look at those dive speeds and the effects of the dive flaps:

Crumpp


As we have seen before, Crumpp prefers to pick and choose his data, pulling it out of context to support his position. This time he has tampered with a document, erasing what he doesn't want you to see and leaving what he does want you to see. :rolleyes:

Here's the entire page 30 from the P-38 pilot's manual, scanned from my copy.



My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.