P38 a super plane?

[Flyboy]

Originally posted by Angus
Ok, so back to the ground.
The P38's performance, for what we know:
Speed equal or better than a Spitty. what mark?[/i]
Climb: medium, (good flat climb?)
Turn: Better than a 47 or a 51?
Roll rate: With boost, very very good.
Range: with DT's very good
Firepower: Nice nosepack
Ordnance: Wholy cow, it's a mean one!
Durability: Well, it has 2 engines and can fly on one....
Weaknesses: Well, bad sideways view? Dive compressions. And it's a big target. damn ugly MOFO [/i]
Agree on this list? Add and edit at will.
Regards.
Angus.

P.S. I choose P38 for dogfighting rather than the 190. The same goes for ground attack. But that's AH.....

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Just think about that for a moment.  That's about 45 min out and 45 min back.  A shorter mission than most of the Luftwaffe pilots.  

 

The time period of the conversation is Feb '44.  Could the Allies fix a leaky tank in 8 months?  Of course...



No Milo.  The Allies produced the document.  I just found it in Wright Patterson's archives.



As for the P38 / P47.  I will believe a flight data over the POH any day.  Got plenty of examples of how the manual is wrong at work.  Takes the Military forever to get a supplement out and they love to combine things that are different into one book.

Either way data is out there to support both arguments and the facts are the P47 reached about were the "E" is in GERMANY on this map.  I don't think the P38 went much farther.  50 P38's facing two hundred Luftwaffe fighters is pure exaggeration in Feb '44.  One year earlier and it would be believable.  




So back to the P 38 and its performance.
Anybody care to see the complete report on the P38 vs. FW-190 from the RAE trials?  Yeah I know it's a P38F.  It's also a "de-rated" 801D2 that only reaches 375mph top speed.  Or the Official Luftwaffe assessment of the P38 perhaps?

Crumpp

IIRC, the British trials with the P-38 was the Mark 322 series which was a little different from the F model flown by the USAAF.  It lacked the superchargers and had two right rotating props instead of counter rotating ones.

ack-ack

[Crumpp]

IRC, the British trials with the P-38 was the Mark 322 series which was a little different from the F model flown by the USAAF. It lacked the superchargers and had two right rotating props instead of counter rotating ones.

Got the trials.  It is an F.

Crumpp

[Ack-Ack]

Here's an interesting tidbit from one of Crummp's "sources".

MANEUVERS

Production hops, acceptance flights, and occasional delivery flights are pretty dull compared to the combat action you fellows get. We know there's little comparison, but daily flights in each new plane off the assembly line enable us to become thoroughly familiar with the qualities and the limitations of the Lightning.The P-38's maneuverability is a much discussed subject in ready-rooms on every fighting front. The best way to get the answer for yourself is to take a 38 up and practice, practice, practice. As you become morefamiliar with the plane, the more amazed you will bewith its ability to climb, bank, and pull out, even with one engine feathered. Only through practice and repetition of Immelmans, slow rolls, and stalls can you truly learn what is meant by the 38's maneuverability.
 
Usually the individual's physical and mental limitations - not the plane's limitations - are factors that govern combat maneuverability. In many cases the plane will "take" a lot more than you as the pilot can stand; therefore, recognize your own limitations-know how many G's you can stand, and for how long; be so familiar with your plane that .you automatically react to a situation despite the gray haze that creeps before your eyes in a sharp pull out.

From reading this article, it sure sounds like the P-38 was a maneuverable aircraft.


ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

The Mark 322B Lightning I that the British ordered and ran trials on is not the same as the P-38F.  The Mark 322 Lighting I did not have a supercharger nor counter rotating props.  This was from the belief of the RAAF that since the Mark 322B would be operating at primarily medium altitudes, a supercharger would not be needed.  The Mark 322F and B are were the "castrated P-38s".  When the British cancelled their order after the trials, the USAAF then converted the remaining planes back to the F but without superchargers and became the RP-322 variant used for training.

The only real benefit that came from the trials was the name the Brits gave the P-38, otherwise it would have been stuck with the rather lame name of "Atlanta".


ack-ack

[Crumpp]

It's a USAAF P38F and not an RAF A/C in the trials.

Only through practice and repetition of Immelmans, slow rolls, and stalls can you truly learn what is meant by the 38's maneuverability.

Yeah if your a great pilot you can learn to maneuver any aircraft.  That is what this says Ack Ack.  This is Lockheed saying, "Our airplane works, you just don't know how to fly it.  Really, it does, I swear."

Usually the individual's physical and mental limitations - not the plane's limitations - are factors that govern combat maneuverability.

Besides it's really the pilot that has to be manuverable, not the plane....

Crumpp

[BUG_EAF322]

crump crap out

[Crumpp]

The Mark 322B Lightning I that the British ordered and ran trials on is not the same as the P-38F. The Mark 322 Lighting I did not have a supercharger nor counter rotating props. This was from the belief of the RAAF that since the Mark 322B would be operating at primarily medium altitudes, a supercharger would not be needed. The Mark 322F and B are were the "castrated P-38s". When the British cancelled their order after the trials, the USAAF then converted the remaining planes back to the F but without superchargers and became the RP-322 variant used for training.

Nice Story but once again it is just part of the "Modern Creation" of great P38 performance.



Just out of curiousity?  If I am a "Luftwhiner", doesn't that make the P 38 crowd a "Lightning Lamenter?".  And a few just "Lightning Liars"….

Crumpp

[Scherf]

It wasn't my fault!
Really, it wasn't!
An old friend came in out of town!
The car ran out of gas!
I got a flat tire!
I didn't have enough money for cab fare!
The tux didn't come back from the cleaners!
There was an earthquake!
A terrible flood!
Locusts!

It wasn't my fault I swear to God!!!

[pasoleati]

I have to agree with Widewing here. If you read the JFC thru, you will find amazing examples of stuff casting doubt on the general reliability of the evaluation cards. For example, conference spokesman wonders how the F4U-1D and FG-1D get so different evaluation. At one stage, he has to remind that Mustangīs tailwheel is unlocked by pushing the stick forward on neutral position. How a pilot who doesnīt know the basics of the aircraft he is supposed to evaluate can do it honestly and fairly? For the same aircraft you find one commenting "a long take off run" while another comments "short".  One descibes stall as poor, another describes it good. These evaluation charts have so many inconsistencies that I wouldnībet my head on just those comments. And Widewing is right, vast majority of the pilots are non-combat guys. This is apparent if you read the report thoroughly, not just the first and last few pages. BTW, if you check the 3g stalling speeds, you note that the Corsair and the Lightning have almost the same figure and Mustangīs figure is only 11 mph slower, indicating that the P-38 canīt be that bad in turn. And Crumpp, you make much fuss about acceleration. Basically every report mentions that the Spitfire has poor acceleration, yet most people donīt condemn it for that. Smells like double standards to me.

Jukka

[Crumpp]

This is apparent if you read the report thoroughly,

Read the report throughly.  Please point out where?  What page?

Widewing and a many other P 38 fans have just produced "stories" that when you examine the facts, don't hold water.

The accelleration test's where in response to the modern creation of the P38 outstanding accelleration.

On the Stall Speeds under G.  Read an EM.   Most planes under G are very close.  Least  all the real EM I have a copy of in my collection.

Crumpp

[pasoleati]

What is an EM? For EM means to me an Erection Manual and afaik those manuals have no info on stall speeds or characteristics. If you look at the same JFC report, you will find that e.g. 3g stalling speed varies considerably between the aircraft present. You wrote that "most planes under g are very close" which is total BS.

You are asking me for page refs. This indicates that you have not read the report as those two comments, i.e. re Mustang tailwheel and variance for comments on F4U and FG, are easily remembered. And do you deny that several aircraft get mixed views, i.e. some says "bad", another "good". From such a report you really cannot draw any realistic conclusion. The value of the JFC lies elsewhere. To me the reportīs discussion part  itself is far more important than the basically flawed evaluation.

[BUG_EAF322]

Crumpp must be angry he can't beat lightnings in his fockewulf.

Ask for help maybe ask wilbus he can help u.



I never doubt the P38 was a good plane not a superplane u just needed to learn to fly it.

anyway tell me why it climb so good with full ordnance.

there is more than wingloading and horsepower

i have to find my book p38 aces over the pacific  it quoted there weren't that much p38's operating over the pacific.

it had trouble with the tony it could chase it longtime and didn't have that much more speed over the tony.

The tony also killed most of the lightnings

but the pilots liked it to fight with as it was less nimble as the zeke/zero/oscar

they did mention dogfighting

[F4UDOA]

pasoleati,

Nobody is saying that the JFC is the gospel or that everything is 100% fact. I can find flaws and contradictions in most authentic documents. But you don't "throw the baby out with the bath water".

If you want to know why the stall speeds don't match just the fact that the weight, power setting and flap condition are not listed combined with different CAS erros in each A/C makes those results skewed. By the way those are the 3G stall speeds Mr.Dean used in AHT turn tables if you want to know why they came out the way they did. If you plug in the Clmax from NACA into his turn index calculations you get something completely different. Stall data is listed in the POH, even 3G stalls are in the Vn diagrams.

The JFC was a quanititative analysis not qualitative. In other words you get a consenses of the feeling about these A/C in 1944/45 from a group of dissimilar pilots.

The problem I have is people trying to rewrite history with the "Super P-38" which it clearly was not in late 1944/45. IMHO it was at it's peak in 1942/43 and by the end of 1944 it's time was up as a front line fighter.

[Crumpp]

What is an EM? For EM means to me an Erection Manual and afaik those manuals have no info on stall speeds or characteristics.

That is the problem.  You don't know what your talking about yet you are very willing to hop in and offer an uninformed opinion.

EM is an Energy Manuvering diagram.  Depending on the set up of the aircraft and conditions, as F4UDOA explains,  those stall speeds can change.

Check out some of Badboys EM diagrams on AH aircraft.  Matter of fact I can post one done by the RAE on the Spit I and Me-109E.  The Spit outturns the Me-109E under certain conditions, however under other portions of the "edge" of the envelope this is not the case.

Here are some examples.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/defaultframe.html

Hope that helps you to understand.

Crumpp