P38 a super plane?

[BUG_EAF322]

MHO 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.

ok that's ur conclusion

but it was still at the frontline

now consider all german planes where me 262's

than all allied planes time's up

i mean the majority that's encountered wasn't  just that .

It still did a superb job at the fighterbomber role (in wich u can encounter nme fighters too)It also could carry more load than a mustang.

The plane thought was very modern it was very allround modern planes are very allround.


Germany would still have a big problem if the USAAF would be bounced by numerical P38's in 1945.

numbers that's what counted we all learned that in the MA

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
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.

I don't think it is people trying to 'rewrite history with the "Super P-38" ' but with some people claiming that it was a dog, which it clearly was not.

[Crumpp]

I don't think it is people trying to 'rewrite history with the "Super P-38" ' but with some people claiming that it was a dog, which it clearly was not.

What it could and could not do are clearly documented in the Flight Test reports.  When people begin claiming that things are otherwise and are unable to produce documentation to back up those claims, then yes, claims of "super P38" are being made.

Crumpp

[BUG_EAF322]

so what's the claim

super is a very relative term

to Bong and other PTO/CBI P38 aces (about 100) it was a "super" plane

to them and the to nazi luftwaffe

[Crumpp]

P38 aces (about 100) it was a "super" plane

That is a poor standard to measure a fighters performance.  If that was what AH was using, just imagine the Luftwaffe fighter performance.  

Two or three Experten from the Luftwaffe combined shot down down more planes than 100 P38 pilots.

to them and the to nazi luftwaffe

You seem to want to put this in a flag waving context.  It is not.  It's about correct facts to reproduce a "simulation" of World War II combat.

No politics involved.  Frankly it is pathetic to even attempt to put it into that context.  The Nazi's were evil.

Crumpp

[Widewing]

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

I asked you to provide page references and you didn't, because you haven't read the book thoroughly. Do your own research, read the book!


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

I provided annecdotal references from pilots who had hundreds of hours in the P-38 IN COMBAT. Naturally, you can't accept the testimony of the men who logged hundreds of combat hours in the plane, you prefer that of  desk jockies who flew a 30 minutes hop. Now  there's logic for you. You are relying upon a seriously flawed document where the majority of the people that flew the P-38, did so for the first time. On top of that, very few of these pilots were combat pilots and none were from active combat units. If a lawyer presented evidence of this quality, the case would be dismissed and the lawyer admonished.


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

I can show testimony of pilots where a P-38L and P-51D took off side by side. Tha P-38 simply left the Mustang in its propwash... More often than not, the better climbers also accelerate faster. Climb comparisons between the P-51 and P-38 show that the P-38 is considerably superior. And it should be with a much lower power loading. In AH2 they're modeled such that actual fuel load determines the better of the two at sea level from 200 mph to 300 mph. Start at 150 and the P-38 wins. Start at 300 and the P-51 wins, barely. Probably not perfect modeling, but close enough for game play.

My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
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.

Honestly, the JFC is largely worthless for anything but conversation.

No one has ever stated or implied in this thread that the P-38 was "super fighter". It was at least as capable as the -1 Corsairs, and superior in some important areas of the flight envelope (range, climb and acceleration being but 3). Yet, no one has referred to the F4U-1 as an inferior fighter, because it wasn't.

If the P-38 was past its prime in late 1944, then the F4U-1 series must have been "over the hill" as well. By late 1945, the P-38 could be classified as being out of date. But, what did you expect from a design dating back to 1938?

My regards,

Widewing

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Crumpp
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

The Model 322 was erroneously labeled as a P-38F in that report.  You can easily look this up yourself, the British flight tested the Model 322-61 (Lightning I) that was powered by two 1,150-hp Allison V-1710-C15 (R) engines without turbochargers.  Think the flight report has them redlining at 300mph.  The USAAF then took over the rest of the order and confirmed the British flight test of the Model 322 and then converted most of them to the F model by putting back the counter-rotating props and turbochargers.  Those that only received the counter-rotating props and not the turbochargers were designated the RP-322 and used for flight training.

You have to keep in mind that the Model 322 that the British and French ordered were not the same as the P-38 the USAAF flew.  It did not have turbochargers nor counter rotating props.  


Again, the only USAAF unit that had difficulties with the P-38 was the 8th AAF.  All other units that flew it did so successfully and at great cost to the German pilots that had the unfortunate luck to run across one.  I wonder how long it took Galland to clean his drawers after Lowell bounced him in one.

More USAAF aces flew the P-38 in the PTO/CBI than any other USAAF fighter.  Another interesting side note, most of the USAAF fighter pilots that were transfered from the PTO/CBT to the ETO/MTO considered the Japanese to be far tougher foe than the Germans.  Some pilots that were considered 'average' by their unit commanders in the PTO/CBI had great success once they transfered over to the ETO, like G. Preddy.  Maybe because the opposition Preddy faced wasn't as skilled in dogfighting as the Japanese were?


ack-ack

[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

[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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Which one would you have replaced logically not emotionally?

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.

[BUG_EAF322]

I don't think the choice to choose stangs and P47's over P38's in the ETO is unlogic

In the PTO they served very well from the beginning on.

So Most of the L's where sended out to that area.

Somehow "nobody" was waiting for stangs and P47's in the PTO either.

Except for the extra longrange high altitude B29 escort missions.

All industrial efforts could be focussed on the ETO with with large build ups of P51's and P47's wich i wont say are crap planes either.


But it still seems the P38 is pretty underestimated by some folks.

Its far from crap

and its sexy

[Crumpp]

Its far from crap

It's performance speaks for itself.  I for one would much rather have been in a P47 going against the Luftwaffe than a P38.  Kinda feel sorry for those guys who had to fly the P38 back then.

Brave men.

Crumpp

[F4UDOA]

Its far from crap

and its sexy

Agreed!!

[Crumpp]

I asked you to provide page references and you didn't, because you haven't read the book thoroughly. Do your own research, read the book!

Pages are posted for all to see!!

I can show testimony of pilots where a P-38L and P-51D took off side by side.

And that means what?  I can show some really outstanding testimony on the performance of the FW-190.  Anybody who studies a fighter in service can find great testimony on it.  What can you prove?  So far, nothing.

There are a million unknowns in "stories" which makes them useless for determining known performance parameters.

Crumpp

[Angus]

Well if I tear 3 pages off the phone book and don't find the name "Frank", - does it mean there aren't any?