Which submodel of the P-38L do we have in AH?

[eddiek]

I realize this has probably been brought up earlier, as I recall numerous posts regarding the P-38 FM.

Reason I ask is that I found some charts from Lockheed-Martin on the P-38L-5-LO, and was curious as to the differences in performance there versus the AH P-38L.

Here are the links if ya wanna glance at them:
 http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/ClimbChart.html
 http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/SpeedChart.html

[Tac]

the porked one with tinfoil armour of course. what a silly question!      

[gripen]

I have seen discussion about this on rec.aviation.military but all information seems to be somewhat unaccurate. Anyway, there appear to wide range of engine rating claims for P-38L. Sometime ago I got a reprinted P-38 manual (Pilot's Flight Instructions for Army Models P-38H Series, P-38J Series, P-38L-1 L-5 and F-5B Airplanes) and here are ratings for the P-38L which are same as for P-38J (fuel grade 100/130):

WEP: 1600hp 3000rpm 60" 25800ft no ram (28700ft with ram)
MIL: 1425hp 3000rpm 54" 26600ft no ram (29000ft with ram)

My friend has the America's Hundred thousand book but engine rating values in that book appear to be very unaccurate, for example it claims WEP critical altitude 26500ft for the P-38H while manual gives 7000ft (10k with ram). The AHT also continously mixes rammed and non rammed critical altitudes, that's why it gives different ratings for the P-38J and P-38L. Overall it seems to be a great book but from the engine view point it contains a lot errors.

Then there is a book called Vee's for Victory, I have not seen this book but according to a newsgroup discussion it claims that by manufacturer the V-1710 F-30R/L was also rated for 1725hp 3200rpm 60" with grade 150 fuel but this rating was never authorized for service use by the USAF.

Then there is this web page which claims 1725hp at 64", no fuel grade or rpm is claimed. Well, to me it seems to be similar biased comparison as the Navy's F4U vs P-51 test. In both cases testers (Lockheed or Navy) used higher than normal ratings to make their plane to look better.

I've got a book (The Mustang by Ken Delve) which contains data from a report called Tactical Employment Trials P-51B (USAAF, February 1944). And in these tests this early P-51B without fuselage tank (3000rpm 67") actually outclimbed P-38J-1 (3000rpm 60") at combat load. And if we want better values for the P-51, why don't we use 150 octane fuel (80"), with this rating the P-51B climbed initially over 4700fpm and the P-51D did 4500fpm (RAF and RR tests). And these ratings were really used in combat (V-1 hunt).

Gripen

[eddiek]

The 64" MAP jumped out at me too, but I was not sure if it was a typo or what.  Curiously enough, the TAS with seems to correspond on the graph with what AH lists as the top speed for our P-38 on WEP.....about 414(???).  
I know there has been a lot of books and other materials over the years on the various planes and such.  I definitely remember a book on planes that I checked out and read that listed the various speeds of the planes, and 440 mph was what that particular book listed for the P-38........don't ask for the name of the book, though, 'cause that was back in the early 80's....  

My own opinion is that all manufacturers, of all nationalities, fudged a bit on their performance figures, just enough to make their plane "shine" a bit more than the others............but that is just my opinion.  
Curiously enough, you are the first I have seen to criticize the AHT book by Dean.......have been intending to buy one just to have.  I doubt the engine #'s are off intentionally, I imagine the author, even after years of research, did his best.  You always have to consider the source of any information, and anyone who believes that any one source is the "bible" and totally infallible needs only to look around at the world, the real one, and see that for any event, there will be differences in perspective.  The authors are human, and therefore subject to error.
What I try to do is get as much data as I can and derive my own conclusion after analyzing it.
You can find books on any plane in the AH planeset, or books that have information on them if the book is not dedicated to that plane, and get varying reports of "how it was."  Ya gotta keep an open mind, IMO.

[Nashwan]

You can read the whole thread on rec.aviation.military at the google archive http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=9932e8fe0ffe68a5,41&start=0
CC Jordan, the only source I've seen for the 1725hp figures for the Lightning, sometimes posts here as widewing.

[gripen]

eddiek,
Well, actually that P-51B-1 report lists top speed 422mph for the P-38J-1 (3000rpm 60") but I don't know if the J-1 was better streamlined than later L model.
 
BTW it also lists just 433mph for the P-51B.

Gripen

[Tac]

"but I don't know if the J-1 was better streamlined than later L model."

its lighter and some say the green paint is more aerodynamic *grin*  

[eddiek]

Talking about the various accounts and how each could be and likely was biased by the author's own likes/dislikes:  Yesterday I read an article from a Grumman test pilot who was involved in testing the F6F-3 against the F4U Corsair.....in the article, he said that due to an airspeed indicator flaw, the F6F showed 20 knots less even when the two planes were side by side in stable formation!  Instrument errors could have and I think DID contribute to the differing #'s we see.  
I will scan and post that text in the next day or two.  It made for some very interesting reading.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Tac:
"but I don't know if the J-1 was better streamlined than later L model."

its lighter and some say the green paint is more aerodynamic *grin*  

Thanks, I've read that USAF made compromise between weight, drag, camouflage and manufacturing costs, that's why they rejected painting. The RAF also studied this but they decided to keep painting.

Anyway, I searched a bit usenet with coogle and also this BBS. It seems that this Widewing/CC has posted maybe thousands of lines on this subject and there appear to be several different engine ratings claimed by him. The problem is that despite many requests he does not reveal his sources.

BTW Does anybody know if the Germans really used that "Fork tailed devil" nickname? One newsgroup poster wrote that he has interviewed german pilots couple decades but so far he had not meet a pilot which had known this. Only source for this appears to be Martin Caiden's book which seems to be at least partially fictious (for example story about that captured Italian P-38).

gripen

[HoHun]

Hi Gripen,

>I've read that USAF made compromise between weight, drag, camouflage and manufacturing costs, that's why they rejected painting.

USAAF aircraft were easily detected and identified as enemy at extreme ranges by Luftwaffe pilots when their bare aluminium skin flashed in the sun. Of course, with the degree of air superiority the USAAF held when they dropped camouflage, this was a minor problem for them. It's my impression that Luftwaffe camouflage wasn't optimzed for air-to-air combat either - the main goal seems to have been protection of the planes when dispersed around the base since allied "Jabos" were a constant threat. Air-to-air camouflage would have resulted in lighter schemes I think.

>Anyway, I searched a bit usenet with coogle and also this BBS. It seems that this Widewing/CC has posted maybe thousands of lines on this subject and there appear to be several different engine ratings claimed by him. The problem is that despite many requests he does not reveal his sources.

I think the best numbers I've seen in CC Jordan's posts were 442 mph at 24500 ft for a modified P-38J-5LO with the engine running at 60" Hg, 3215 rpm. If I remember correctly, the aircraft didn't actually achieve this speed due to technical problems, but it was extrapolated from partial test data. CC Jordan also mentioned that in bench tests, 3200 rpm induced detonation, and one of the four test engines broke down as a result.

In short, I don't think either the power setting or the speed could be expected to have been used operationally.

Kelly Johnson as the designer of the P-38 pointed out two of what he considered the main deficits of the P-38: Its low limiting Mach number and the inability of the turbochargers to take back pressure so that the exhaust thrust couldn't be exploited(worth perhaps 200 HP per engine at high speed, by my rough estimate).

The speeds achieved by the fastest P-38 variants in level flight at its best altitudes weren't far from its critical Mach number. 442 mph at 24500 ft would be close to 0.64 Mach, with the critical Mach number of the P-38 being 0.65 Mach. (Dive flaps could effect recovery from dives up to 0.68 Mach, though.)

>BTW Does anybody know if the Germans really used that "Fork tailed devil" nickname? One newsgroup poster wrote that he has interviewed german pilots couple decades but so far he had not meet a pilot which had known this. Only source for this appears to be Martin Caiden's book which seems to be at least partially fictious (for example story about that captured Italian P-38).

I really love Martin Caidin's books, and it's my impression that they were actually well researched in comparison to other contemporary publications. However, some of what he wrote was following the ancient rule of "if in doubt, print the legend", and the "Gabelschwanzteufel" was one case of that.

In no German publication I've ever found that term used, and it's not my impression that the "Lightning" - as Luftwaffe pilots called it  - was seen as killer by its opponents anyway. What the Luftwaffe pilots really feared were "Mustangs" - those really were the symbol of USAAF air power, and the Luftwaffe pilots were entirely focused on them. "Auf verlorenem Posten" ('Forlorn Hope') by Robert Jung is an excellent example for the view of a young Luftwaffe pilot who's aware that in the face of allied airpower, he'll probably end as cannonfodder.

By the way, I think that any use of the term "Gabelschwanzteufel" in the Luftwaffe during WW2 would have been suppressed immediately since it expressed a defeatist perspective towards enemy weaponry. In a totalitarian dictatorship fully aware of the possibilites of propaganda, such a term certainly would have met immediate resistance.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[gripen]

I don't believe either that these high ratings were used in service. The V-1710 was allready near limits at 3000rpm and 60" at high altitudes (as seen in practice), as for comparison the B-series R-2800 (same compression ratio) was limited to 52" without water injection and even with water normal ratings were about 56-60". Overall I think that these "hot rod" ratings are mostly myths and very poorly documented.

I have read just Me 109 (what was the name?) book by Martin Caidin and I have mixed feelings about it. It was quite poor, many writers have done better. I have read a lot critics about accuracy of his Saburo Sakai book. Generally I tend to doubt Caidin's books but I admit that he could tell good stories  

Mein deutsch ist nicht gutt aber... that "Gabelschwanzteufel" does not sound like a nickname given by the Germans at all.

gripen

[DmdStuB]

I just recently read "Forked Tailed Devil" myself (a good buy at $1.00 at the local used book store) and was wondering about that same thing.  I just can't imaging the Luftwaffe pilots calling it that.
Caidins book has some great stories about the development and testing of the 38, as well as the problems getting it deployed.  
As far as the Italian p-38 story being fictitious, it does seem extraordinary, but I have never seen that it was untrue....what have you seen, Gripen?  Just curious is all.
The book was written in the early 70's and it has alot of personal  interviews and ancedotal type stuff in it.  We all know the problems with ancedotal evidence, so the reader needs to take it for what it is.  Its a good read, I recommend it to all.

StuB

P.S. According to Caiden there was a model fitted with paddle bladed props, etc, that didn't see combat.
Well, ok, so they only made one......I still want it in Aces High!

 

Originally posted by gripen:


BTW Does anybody know if the Germans really used that "Fork tailed devil" nickname? One newsgroup poster wrote that he has interviewed german pilots couple decades but so far he had not meet a pilot which had known this. Only source for this appears to be Martin Caiden's book which seems to be at least partially fictious (for example story about that captured Italian P-38).

gripen

[gripen]

Originally posted by DmdStuB:
As far as the Italian p-38 story being fictitious, it does seem extraordinary, but I have never seen that it was untrue....what have you seen, Gripen?

Actually this story is so often questioned that they think to put it to the FAQ at the 12 O'clock High BBS. Anyway, here is it again cut and pasted from the newsgroup (or find it yourself with coogle):

"Ok, let's start again...    The only P-38 ever owned by the Regia Aeronautica
was captured on 12 June 1943 in Sardinia where a ferrying US pilot landed by
mistake due to the malfunctioning of the compass. Soon brought to the Italian
Test Center of Guidonia (near Rome), this aircraft was flown *with Italian
markings* by Col. Angelo Tondi (Chief test pilot of the center) in half a dozen
scrambles against USAAF bombers attacking Rome and Central Italy's targets.

On 11 August 1943 Col. Tondi intercepted off the coast the B-17F s/n 42-30307
of 419th BS, 301st BG and shot down it at 12.00 hrs*. This was the only
successful interception completed by this aircraft and soon after the P-38 was
grounded due to the bad quality of the Italian petrol that had corroded the
fuel tanks.

* (cfr. Missing Air Crew Report n.490 available at the National Archives)

All the above is obviously proved not only by photographic evidence but also by
the accounts of Col. Tondi and by the documents of the Guidonia Test Center
reporting all the scrambles effected by the P-38. This material is available to
the researchers at the Italian Air Force Historical Branch.

I would like to add that the recurring story of the Italian-flown P-38 and the
use of a YB-40 to counter it has been based only on "rumors" during the war,
that in turn gave life to some "humorous" (in my view) accounts reporting even
that the P-38 was flown by a "daring Italian pilot, Lieutenant
Guido Rossi"... who had had a love affair with the wife of the YB-40 pilot...!

That "material" was seized acritically by Martin Caidin and used in his works,
so the tale went on and on...

This is only an example of the damage that a lack of serious historical
research can do in spreading "urban myths"...

Ferdinando D'Amico
===========================
Mr. D'Amico is a qualified researcher in the field of wartime Italian air
combat.  He is known for going directly to the pilots to answer specific
questions.   I recieved other replies that were variations on the same
information.

 

Originally posted by DmdStuB:
P.S. According to Caiden there was a model fitted with paddle bladed props, etc, that didn't see combat.
Well, ok, so they only made one......I still want it in Aces High!

AFAIK that's true, it was the XP-38K. It also had water injection (like later P-47s)which probably had finaly solved detonation problems.

gripen

[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]

[Jigster]

I've seen several times where it was Ju-52 pilots that dubbed the P-38 that. I believe it originated when the LW were still executing airborne and glider missions in North Africa, Italy, and the Medd. In general.

[gripen]

Jigster,
What's the source?

gripen