P-47 and P-38

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by TimRas
Sorry, just wanted to know more of this "USAAF had a deeply ingrained bias against the P-38" thing


Just may be it was that the P-51 could do everything that that the the p-38 could do, at half the price (51,572 vs 97,147 $, 1944 price).

Well, the problem with your assumption is that the P-51 couldn't do everything a P-38 could do. Not even close. In fact, the only thing a P-51D could do better than a P-38J-25-Lo or later was top speed in a dive, and top speed at CERTAIN altitudes.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Widewing
Everyone seems to have forgotten that the P-38 was a primary fighter in the MTO, escorting bombers into Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Germany (several trips to Berlin too). It proved as reliable there as the P-51, not suffering the engine failure issues seen when deployed with the 8th AF.

You cannot isolate the 8th Air Force experience and point to the aircraft as the cause. You must evaluate what was going on the 8th AF that led to the problems.

Historians have done that and concluded that the problems were related to fuel formulation, which uniquely broke down in the Allison's intake manifold, with the anti-knock additive coming out of solution. Doolittle specified a specific fuel formulation for P-38 groups, which promptly eliminated fuel related engine damage. A second problem was that the 8th Air Force did not make any effort to train pilots in high altitude flight operations. Stateside RTUs were training pilots to fly and fight at 20,000 feet and below. Compounding the training problem was that replacement pilots rarely had any experience flying twin-engine aircraft. Most pilots arriving in Britain were trained on single-engine fighters, most getting their time in P-40s.

Now all of the above doesn't account for the P-38's design flaws. Things like a totally ineffective cockpit heater, single generator, manual oil cooler, radiator and intercooler doors; they all contributed to the numerous problems. These flaws could only be overcome, or at least mitigated by training. In the 8th AF, there was no genuine training for P-38 groups. Meanwhile, the 8th AF set up an entire training program for P-51 pilots, including combat training at "Clobber College".

Down in Italy, the 15th AF had set up a P-38 Training Command to get P-38 pilots up to speed rapidly. Plus, the fuel used in the MTO was formulated differently (much of the 8th's gas was refined by the Brits).

When the P-38L began arriving in the ETO and MTO, it arrived with automatic cooler doors, different engines with revised intake manifolds (which prevented fuel break-down), a more effective heater, dive recovery flaps, hydraulic powered ailerons and a myriad of other improvements that made the Lightning a first-rate fighter in the region.

The fact remains that the improvements were too late for the 8th AF, who never cared for the P-38 anyway. However, these new P-38s were gladly received in Italy and earned their keep flying with three of the 15th's six fighter groups. These P-38 groups were in combat up until the surrender.

The problem was one of attitude. The USAAF had a deeply ingrained bias against the P-38 and to a lesser degree, the P-47. They weren't the epitome of what the Generals thought a fighter should be. Indeed, these Generals, who became known within the USAAF as the Mustang Mafia, were in charge of the USAAF Fighter Command after the war ended. As a result, the P-38s were scrapped or sold off. P-47s were stuck in reserve and Air Guard units. The net result was that the primary ground support aircraft in place at the beginning of the Korean War were tired, old P-51Ds. While they dominated the Korean Yaks and Lavochkins, they suffered huge losses to ground fire due to the frailty of their cooling systems. Meanwhile, the Marines and Navy were flying the far more durable F4U-4, F4U-4B and F4U-5 (as well as the awesome AD-1 Skyraider). In October of 1950, the Navy offered the USAF 312 mothballed F4U-1Ds. The Air Force scoffed at the notion. Another 200 P-51 pilots would die before the surviving Mustangs were retired and replaced by the F-80 and F-84. Until the Inchon landings opened airfields on the Korean peninsular, the F-80s and F-84s had to operate out of Japan. They lacked the range to loiter over combat areas in Korea. Thus, the P-51s and a few dozen F-82 (twin Mustangs) were the primary support fighters.

When one evaluates the performance of a fighter in a theater or zone of combat, one must look at the entire picture. A localized snapshot can be extremely misleading.

My regards,

Widewing

Damn fascinating stuff Widewing:aok

[gripen]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Well, the problem with your assumption is that the P-51 couldn't do everything a P-38 could do. Not even close. In fact, the only thing a P-51D could do better than a P-38J-25-Lo or later was top speed in a dive, and top speed at CERTAIN altitudes.

Thousands of lines have been written here on this earlier...

IMHO the P-38 did well everywhere where it fought primarily at low altitudes. However, the P-51 replaced it everywhere in high altitude tasks including MTO and Pacific. While dive brakes and other mods improved the situation, the main flaws were still there and fixing these would have required large redesigning.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by gripen
Thousands of lines have been written here on this earlier...

IMHO the P-38 did well everywhere where it fought primarily at low altitudes. However, the P-51 replaced it everywhere in high altitude tasks including MTO and Pacific. While dive brakes and other mods improved the situation, the main flaws were still there and fixing these would have required large redesigning.

Yes, thousands of line have been written. And plenty of them are wrong.

The P-38 did quite well at every altitude. The 9th AF, 15th AF, and even the 5th AF all fought at high altitudes and did pretty well. With P-38's.

There were units that flew high altitude missions that NEVER turned in their P-38's for P-51's during the war.

For the most part, the P-51 ended up replacing the P-38 due to supply and cost issues. The P-38 was never adequately second sourced, and was ALWAYS in short supply. Funny, there were over 10,000 P-38's built during the war, and there still weren't enough to go around. They were always in demand, so it seems maybe everyone didn't want to get rid of them. And there were PLENTY of units that flew at higher altitudes that either kept their P-38's or wanted to but were forced to turn them in.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by TimRas
Sorry, just wanted to know more of this "USAAF had a deeply ingrained bias against the P-38" thing


Just may be it was that the P-51 could do everything that that the the p-38 could do, at half the price (51,572 vs 97,147 $, 1944 price).

True, the problem is the 8th AF in particular the Bomber Theory guys had an escort fighter that could go the distance in 42 but shipped it to North Africa and let the bomber guys get clobbered into 1944.  The Mustang wasn't there in 42 with the range to escort the buffs.

My favorte 54th FS story (these being the guys who flew in the Aluetians starting with P38Es) is the recollections of one of the pilots about how to get out of the cold of the huts and warm up he'd crawl into his 38 to sleep.

They took 38Es with DTs and had them in the air for 11 hours to test range in the worst kind of conditions.  The E didn't have the leading edge fuel tanks of the J/L.

They didn't know the 38 was supposed to be a problem and swore by it.

The 9th AF guys flying 38s in the 370th didn't want to give them up for 51s but had to.  367th didn't want to give them up for Jugs.  474th lobbied the 9th AF CO to keep their 38s and won the argument.

1st 14th and 82nd all did just fine in 38Fs through Ls from 42 til the end of the war in the MTO.

Economically the 51 was the better deal.  Again it wasn't there in 42 and a lot of bomber guys died while the generals left them hanging believing they could go unescorted when they could have had 38s going with them from the beginning.

[Guppy35]

Lots of folks seem to forget the problems the 51s had .  Those guys that flew those early missions to Germany knowing the guns might fail, the plugs might foul, the motor mounts might fail, etc had some serious guts doing that in a single engine bird.

[LEADPIG]

Originally posted by Guppy35
True, the problem is the 8th AF in particular the Bomber Theory guys had an escort fighter that could go the distance in 42 but shipped it to North Africa and let the bomber guys get clobbered into 1944.  The Mustang wasn't there in 42 with the range to escort the buffs.

My favorte 54th FS story (these being the guys who flew in the Aluetians starting with P38Es) is the recollections of one of the pilots about how to get out of the cold of the huts and warm up he'd crawl into his 38 to sleep.

They took 38Es with DTs and had them in the air for 11 hours to test range in the worst kind of conditions.  The E didn't have the leading edge fuel tanks of the J/L.

They didn't know the 38 was supposed to be a problem and swore by it.

The 9th AF guys flying 38s in the 370th didn't want to give them up for 51s but had to.  367th didn't want to give them up for Jugs.  474th lobbied the 9th AF CO to keep their 38s and won the argument.

1st 14th and 82nd all did just fine in 38Fs through Ls from 42 til the end of the war in the MTO.

Economically the 51 was the better deal.  Again it wasn't there in 42 and a lot of bomber guys died while the generals left them hanging believing they could go unescorted when they could have had 38s going with them from the beginning.

It never ceases to amaze me and anger me the stupidity of the leaders who do things on purpose that only helps to get the people they are supposed be protecting killed and make it harder on them.

The P-38 could have been carrying them all along but due to their brain constipation of "they can fly unescorted" alot of folks died. When they had what seemed to be an obvious solution that even the most mentally retarded general should have recognized.

Alot of that is going on now with the current war and administration. And guess who gets screwed, the guys doing the hard work. America just never learns does it ??

[SgtPappy]

Living as a Canadian, I SHOULD be biased against the US, but hey. As human beings aren't we all just slightly messed up?

Give us power and we'll screw our people over some more.

[Motherland]

Originally posted by Guppy35
Lots of folks seem to forget the problems the 51s had .  Those guys that flew those early missions to Germany knowing the guns might fail, the plugs might foul, the motor mounts might fail, etc had some serious guts doing that in a single engine bird.

Why would the guns in the 51 be any more prone to failing then those in the 38? They were both M2HB's (plus, obviously, the 20mm in the 38)werent they?

[Ack-Ack]

The way the guns were laid out in the early P-51 caused frequent jamming during combat maneuvering.


ack-ack

[bj229r]

I read a book by a guy (later made general) who had 6 or so kills in Italy in B model....he said the 4 guns were mounted at funny angle due to the wing not being thick enough?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Motherland
Why would the guns in the 51 be any more prone to failing then those in the 38? They were both M2HB's (plus, obviously, the 20mm in the 38)weren't they?

The installation caused them to be prone to jam, especially during high G maneuvers. Can't remember off hand if it was a feeding issue or an ejecting issue,

The heads on the Merlins in the earlier P-51's were notorious for cracking, and you had 30 seconds of power left after they dumped the coolant out, then it seized. They also had even more problems with spark plug fouling than the Allisons in the P-38 did. The problems carried over to a lesser degree even in mid 44.

[LEADPIG]

Originally posted by Widewing
When one evaluates the performance of a fighter in a theater or zone of combat, one must look at the entire picture. A localized snapshot can be extremely misleading.

My regards,

Widewing

So basically due to people in charge's. Ignorance, refusal to accept the situation and work with what they had. And not live in a fantasy land of what tactics were going to work they got alot of people killed. Doolittle was a wonderful man, smart practical, and with common sense. He kept his mind on what was important, bringing people back alive and doing whatever had to be done to do that.

The story about the Navy offering the AF mothballed F-4u's  and the Air Force not accepting them is classic. They'd rather see pilots get shot down and killed flying in P-51's when hit with a pellet gun. Than they would rather use F-4u's and come home alive.

That's America for you.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Motherland
Why would the guns in the 51 be any more prone to failing then those in the 38? They were both M2HB's (plus, obviously, the 20mm in the 38)werent they?

The problem was with the installation of the guns. To fit within the limited space provided, the guns were canted on an angle. This resulted in the belted rounds have to make a sharp turn to feed into the receiver of the weapon. Jams were the rule with this layout. It was fixed in the P-51D, with a redesigned wing structure that allowed the guns to set upright.

The image below shows the acute angle the ammo belt had to bend.

By the way, the Brownings could be configured to feed from either side of the receiver.



My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

Originally posted by TimRas
Sorry, just wanted to know more of this "USAAF had a deeply ingrained bias against the P-38" thing


Just may be it was that the P-51 could do everything that that the the p-38 could do, at half the price (51,572 vs 97,147 $, 1944 price).

It boiled down to the P-38 not being the type of fighter ex-fighter pilot brass hats preferred. General Hunter (head honcho of 8th AF Fighter Command) stated that "the P-38 is not my idea of a fighter". He flat-out refused to even qualify in the type, preferring to tool around his bases in a C-45, P-39 or even a Spitfire Mk.V. He expressed relief that the P-38 squadrons were transferred to North Africa.

Even Hap Arnold weighed in, stating that the P-38 "is too complex to maintain easily, too complex for inexperienced pilots and too damn expensive."

Several Group COs are on record stating that they didn't like the P-38. One even said that he would rather fly the P-40. They didn't like the increased work load of two engines and related systems. Many simply saw a twin-engine fighter as an aberration, completely at odds with what they thought a fighter should be (single-engine).

When General Kenney petitioned Arnold for more P-38s, Arnold told him he was getting P-51s. Kenney preferred the P-38 for long, over-water missions, where an engine failure in a P-51 meant a lost pilot.

In his memoirs Kenney wrote: "I settled a lot of problems with the Personnel Section that afternoon and then flew to Dayton for a conference with Lieutenant General William Knudsen on modifications for aircraft coming my way and on the continuation of the P-38 in production. There was another drive at that time to stop building any more of them and to substitute P-51 Mustangs. I told Knudsen that the reasons I had given him in September 1943 for wanting the P-38, still held. We still had a lot of water to fly over and I wanted a fighter plane that could bring the kids back if one engine quit. Knudsen promised me he would not let anyone shut off P-38 production below the number required to keep me going."

Also from the same memoir; "Everyone was really stubborn about giving me airplanes, or even replacements for my losses. I warned them that if they
didn’t keep me going, we would be run out of New Guinea, as supply of our troops there was impossible unless we maintained at least local control of the air. I suggested that maybe they might let me have ten per cent of the aircraft factory output and let the rest of the war have the remainder. The answer was still No. The European show did not like the B-24, or the P-38, or the P-47 Republic Aircraft fighter. They preferred the B-17 as a bomber and the P-51 Mustang as a fighter."

My regards,

Widewing