P38 a super plane?

[Crumpp]

Late war P38's in the ETO had powered ailerons and excellent rate of roll for your info.

Boosted roll rate chart has already been posted in this thread.  

Crumpp

[Angus]

Really?
Drool....
BAck to browsing

[Dispair]

An interesting article about p-38/39

and another one

[Krusty]

The P39 isn't being discussed here...

[gwshaw]

I have been staying out of this, but a couple quick comments.

1000 kph dives:

Airspeed indicators were notoriously inaccurate as speeds got into the transonic range. I wouldn't put any more credence into a 1000 kph dive from a Fw 190 than I would a 700+ mph dive that both the early P-38 and P-47 were claiming.

P-38F vs Fw 190A:

I got into it with Barbarossa over this several years ago.

The P-38F was being flown at 2800 rpm and a little under 1100 hp,  not 1150 or 1325 hp which was the rated power. I'll see if I can dig up the 2800 rpm hp curve for the F-5/10 to get a more accurate power figure. On 1150 hp the P-38F was a 395 - 400 mph fighter. On 1325 hp it was in the 415 mph range.

There were some very conservative intercooler limitations used in the testing apparently. In service, the hp was gradually increased from 1150 hp to as high as 1425 hp depending on altitude. Basically more power at lower altitude because the turbo wasn't heating the induction air as much at lower altitudes/turbine speeds.

Another thing to take into account when looking at the testing results is the differences in engine rating systems.

The US engines didn't have anything like the climb or climb and combat ratings of the european engines. So most of the US aircraft (climb) figures are at 2600 rpm normal power, roughly 1000 hp for the Allisons involved. Bump the US aircraft up to mil power, and the rather anemic (climbing) P-39, P-40 and P-51 are all in about the same range as a Fw 190A on C&C and Spitfire V on climb power.

(edited to clarify that I'm referring to climb performance)

Greg Shaw

[Wolfala]

Any relation to Bobby Shaw?

[Crumpp]

Airspeed indicators were notoriously inaccurate as speeds got into the transonic range. I wouldn't put any more credence into a 1000 kph dive from a Fw 190 than I would a 700+ mph dive that both the early P-38 and P-47 were claiming.

Absolutely.

The P-38F was being flown at 2800 rpm and a little under 1100 hp, not 1150 or 1325 hp which was the rated power. I'll see if I can dig up the 2800 rpm hp curve for the F-5/10 to get a more accurate power figure. On 1150 hp the P-38F was a 395 - 400 mph fighter. On 1325 hp it was in the 415 mph range.

Interesting information.  So Looks to me like a rated FW-190A3 and full powered P38F would have similar results as the derated FW-190A3/underpowered P38F.

Wonder how the performance lines up with the later FW-190A's which developed 400 more horses and the wide chord props?

Good stuff, gwshaw.  

Crumpp

[gwshaw]

Originally posted by Crumpp

Interesting information.  So Looks to me like a rated FW-190A3 and full powered P38F would have similar results as the derated FW-190A3/underpowered P38F.

[/b]
Probably pretty comparable over all when both operating at full rated power. P-38 probably climbs better above about 1 km, climb fth for the BMW 801D. But given that the V-1710-F5/10 doesn't ever appear to have been allowed full power above about 15,000 fth, the Fw 190A was probably faster between about 18,000 and 22,000 ft. With the P-38 passing it up again somewhere between 20,000 ft and 25,000 ft even on 1150 hp.

Wonder how the performance lines up with the later FW-190A's which developed 400 more horses and the wide chord props?

[/b]
Problem with that is the Fw 190A only had that additional 400 ps right at SL in low blower. The P-38J gained 275 hp x 2 over the P-38F/G at low altitude, and 450 hp x 2 at high altitude, all the way to 25,000 ft. While the P-38L-5 gained 400 hp down low, 575 hp up high, up to 28,500 ft or so. The P-38 improved more between '42 and '44.

Unfortunately Lockheed was never allowed to build the P-38K, think 1475/1725 hp with four paddle bladed propellors. Would have easily exceeded VNE in level flight up high, but would have been scary at medium/low altitudes.

Greg Shaw

[gwshaw]

Originally posted by Wolfala
Any relation to Bobby Shaw?

Had an uncle Bobby Shaw, but he died about 70+ years ago. 40 years before I was born. Probably not the same one you are thinking of.

Greg Shaw

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by gwshaw
Had an uncle Bobby Shaw, but he died about 70+ years ago. 40 years before I was born. Probably not the same one you are thinking of.

Greg Shaw

No, he's thinking of Robert L. Shaw, the author of one of the bibles of fighter pilots. The Book is called "Fighter Combat" by Robert L. Shaw.

One of the guys from AH is auctioning a copy here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4509716098&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT

[Crumpp]

What versions of the P38 were in service from November 1943 thru Feb 44?

What version is in service in July 44 thru the end of the war?

Crumpp

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

In the 8th AF, the 20th and 55th (the first P-38 groups)were equipped with the G and H model when they went into action in late 1943, with SOME EARLY P-38J models reaching them in late 1943 and early 1944. The P-38L arrived in mid 1944, as most units in the 8th AF had already or were in the process of transitioning into the P-51.

The same basic timeline applies to the 9th AF.

New models of the P-38 were VERY slow to reach deployment. The USAAF and the War Production Board failed to adequately second source the P-38, despite the fact that they evidently felth the P-38 was so important and critical tro the war effort that NO production delays on the part of Lockheed were tolerated. The two week shutdown to switch to produce the P-38K was denied in April 1943. Yes, that's right, the P-38K should have entered service about the time the 20th and 55th went into combat with the P-38G and H.

Oddly, the ONLY plant that was chosen to second source produce the P-38 was Consolidated Vultee in Nashville Tennesse, near my home (I had family that worked there). However, Consolidated itself was a company experienced in and dedicated to production of large aircraft, where as the P-38 was builty nothing like such aircraft, and required an entirely different mode of manufacture.

Even MORE senseless was that Lockheed Burbank was tasked with building Boeing B-17 bombers, taking OVER half the plant capacity, and cutting P-38 production by more than 50%. In reality, had some of the idiots in charge gotten their heads out of their asses, the Lockheed Burbank plant could have been dedicated to production of the P-38 @ 100% capacity, and the P-38K could have been a reality. Lockheed could have produced twice as many much needed P-38's (many units flew War Wearies in combat far past their best lifetime) and brought new improved models to the front lines much faster. The last 12K of the 20K+ or so P-38's that would have resulted would have been P-38K or better models.

Consolidated Vultee would have done well building B-17s. As it was, they only produced 100 or so P-38's (113 I think). They'd have been better off making 5K or so B-17's.

[gwshaw]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No, he's thinking of Robert L. Shaw, the author of one of the bibles of fighter pilots. The Book is called "Fighter Combat" by Robert L. Shaw.

Yah, I figured thats who he was asking about. No, I'm not related.

But it is a great book, got my copy from the USNI a number of years ago.

Greg Shaw

[Crumpp]

In the 8th AF, the 20th and 55th (the first P-38 groups)were equipped with the G and H model when they went into action in late 1943, with SOME EARLY P-38J models reaching them in late 1943 and early 1944. The P-38L arrived in mid 1944, as most units in the 8th AF had already or were in the process of transitioning into the P-51.

Looking at the development of the P38 vs FW-190A I think the general conclusions of that tactical trial hold true until the introduction of the BMW 801TS equipped FW-190A8's in July '44.  

Crumpp