Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH

[Widewing]

Gentlemen,

I am going to give you a rare opportunity to read the verbatim text of a letter written by 20th FG Commander Harold Rau. I was sent a photocopy of Rau's original by Arthur W. Heiden of the 79th FS, 20th FG. To our knowledge, this letter has never been reproduced anywhere before, so you guys are getting to see it before it is displayed on the Planes and Pilots of WWII web site. I will paste it in, but it may lose its original format.

This is the best example I can give you that describes the problems faced by units operating the P-38 in the ETO.

My regards,
Widewing

The letter follows:


      20th Fighter Group Headquarters
                APO 637  U.S. Army
                  (E-2)

                            3 June 1944

Subject: P-38 Airplane in Combat.

To: Commanding General, VIII Fighter Command, APO 637, U.S. Army.

   1. The following observations are being put in writing by the
undersigned at the request of the Commanding General, VII FC. They
are intended purely as constructive criticism and are intended in any
way to "low rate" our present equipment.

   2. After flying the P-38 for a little over one hundred hours on
combat missions it is my belief that the airplane, as it stands now, is too
complicated for the 'average' pilot. I want to put strong emphasis on the
word 'average, taking full consideration just how little combat training our
pilots have before going on as operational status.

   3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that
we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five
hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod,
penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along
with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM.
He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve
the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy
load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or
may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced",
what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power
and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down
and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop
tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two
separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold
pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot
possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this
point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things
wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing
RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets
to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature
with subsequent engine failure.

   4. In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost as least
four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive action. The
logical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit, trying to get
organized that they were shot down before they could get going.

   5. The question that arises is, what are you going to do about it?
It is standard procedure for the group leader to call, five minutes before R/V
and tell all the pilots to "prepare for trouble". This is the signal for
everyone to get into auto rich, turn drop tank switches on, gun heaters on,
combat and sight switches on and to increase RPM and manifold pressure
to maximum cruise. This procedure, however, does not help the pilot who is
bounced on the way in and who is trying to conserve his gasoline and equipment
for the escort job ahead.

   6. What is the answer to these difficulties? During the past several
weeks we have been visited at this station time and time again by Lockheed
representatives, Allison representatives and high ranking Army personnel
connected with these two companies. They all ask about our troubles and
then proceed to tell us about the marvelous mechanisms that they have devised
to overcome these troubles that the Air  Force has turned down as "unnecessary".
Chief among these is a unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold
pressure regulator, which will control power, RPM and mixture by use of a single
lever. It is obvious that there is a crying need for a device like that in
combat.

   7. It is easy to understand why test pilots, who have never been in
combat, cannot readily appreciate what each split second means when a
"bounce" occurs. Every last motion when you get bounced is just another
nail in your coffin. Any device which would eliminate any of the enumerated
above, are obviously very necessary to make the P-38 a really effective
combat airplane.

   8. It is also felt that that much could done to simplify the gas switching
system in this airplane. The switches {valve selector handles} are
all in awkward positions and extremely hard to turn. The toggle switches for
outboard tanks are almost impossible to operate with gloves on.

   9. My personal feeling about this airplane is that it is a fine piece of
equipment, and if properly handled, takes a back seat for nothing that the enemy
can produce. But it does need simplifying to bring it within the capabilities of the
'average' pilot. I believe that pilots like Colonel Ben Kelsey and Colonel
Cass Huff are among the finest pilots in the world today. But I also believe
that it is difficult for men like them to place their thinking and ability on
the level of a youngster with a bare 25 hours in the airplane, going into his
first combat. That is the sort of thinking that will have to be done, in my
opinion, to make the P-38 a first-class all around fighting airplane.

               HAROLD J. RAU
               Colonel, Air Corps,
               Commanding.

[Dingy]

 

Originally posted by Vermillion:
And I won't even go into the La5fn

Its a sweet ride but those ShVak 20mm cannon have THE WORST ballistics in the game bar none.

[Buzzbait]

S! all

I would salute the P-38 devotees who put forward their case so strongly.  Certainly the P-38 had a fine record.  It was definitely not a bad plane.  However despite the fact that my sympathies lie with them, I find myself having to act as the devil's advocate.  History is history and the facts are that the P-38, (and the P-47) were superseded in the combat role in the USAAF by the P-51.  After the second War, the P-38 and P-47 dropped from active service.  The P-51 (and Corsair) however continued on right through into Korea.

The Flying Commanders of the USAAF made a conscious decision to switch.  And I don't believe they were mistaken in their decisions.  By that time, (after the war)  all the leading commanders were seasoned professionals with lots of combat experience.  When they reccommended use of the P-51 over the P-38 or P-47 it was on the basis of it being a better aircraft.  Even in the closing months of the War with Japan, the P-38 was going the way of the Dodo.

The P-38 had a fine combat record in the Pacific, not so fine in the European theater.  That's the way it goes some times.  A particular plane strongpoints show very well against some opponents and not so well against others.  The speed, durability, dive, rollrate at speed and climb of the P-38 allowed it to dominate its main Pacific opposition, the Zero.  Against the FW190 and 109, it lost some of those advantages.  It also had problems operating at the higher altitudes of the European Theater.  (Not flight problems, but cockpit heating, etc.)  Undoubtably a later model P-38 like the "L" would have been more successful, but that opportunity wasn't available.  Weapons are seldom given a second chance if they are not successful, and the P-38 had to make way for the Mustang.

[Animal]

Buzzbait:

The reason for the P-38 being replaced by the P-51 late and after the war is not based on performance AT ALL.

The P-51 was MUCH cheaper to build and mantain, so was the corsair. They were relatively simple fighters wich were also very effective.

The P-38 was a very very complicated fighter regarding construction and manteinance.

Oh and he who said it was a Widow Maker; all planes were, but the P-38 was the LEAST one. Two engines instead of one was a feature always envied by pilots of the Pony. It was a docile fighter with no torque, tricicle gear, etc.

You say it was a widow maker because if caught slow and low, it was dead meat. But so were other fighters, at least the P-38 could out accelerate most other American planes at the time to get out of that sticky situation.

[Dune]

Bolillo posted:
 

I think it reflects the the men not the machine. and all this B/S about the germans split s-ing and diving away, werent the fighters at that time tied to the bombers?

Yes, in one respect you're correct.  The escorts had not been freed at that time.  However, 3 different 364th FG pilots all mentioned this as a reason why they didn't get more kills.  And 2 of these 3 became aces.  So we are not dealing with pilots who could not fly.

If you read some of the reports by P-47 pilots of the time, they all say to scare the LW, wait till they Split-S and then go after them.  

It wasn't a matter of tactics on the USAAF part.  From one plane the favorite LW tactic led to safety, from the other it usually got them in trouble (if not shot down).  This is part of the reason the -38 groups had lower initial scores.

------------------
Col Dune
C.O. 352nd Fighter Group
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"

"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona

[This message has been edited by Dune (edited 01-21-2001).]

[Voss]

What makes the Internet (and our country) great is you don't have to listen to anyone. We are all entitled to our opinions. So, here's mine...

I don't have to have flying time to know the answer to this riddle (P-38 SHOULD SUCK)! I have been visiting airshows for at least 35 years. In that time I have seen a few crashes. One type stands out as the plane that killed every pilot that crashed it. I can't think of one that walked away! Sadly, of this one particular type, there were more then a handful.   Please, look for yourself! Check back on WWII types for the past fifty years! And see how many of which did what! ...or live in ignorance. Sorry, I have no time to hunt up links for anyone. It is WW's book not mine.

WideWing, I don't know what your problem is. I didn't mean anything personal. Maybe, you expected a bunch of seventeen-year-olds, here? However, I don't care what experience you have chalked up for the Navy, or flying cattle cars, or what have you. You have to show me to gain my respect. I reserve my opinion for what I see. Perhaps then you would have a different opinion? I think so. Real life doesn't mean squat on the Internet. Show me what you can do here! I've flown those other sims. AH is where it’s at! That's Voss' opinion. It's also my opinion that every online sim jock, without at least two years of flying, should regularly kill himself in the P-38. But, none of these games are real to that extent, thank god (I hate empty arenas)!

Please, get an HTC AH account and come have fun! Guys that fly these sims have a lot to show real pilots (or unreal).   I have seen a lot of real life jocks throw down that "PLAY" viewpoint before. Everyone is a dweeb at first! The fact is, it doesn't matter what you know, you will learn. Obviously, those other sims had nothing to offer you. That's because we're all here!  

If, you feel otherwise, come show me.

You have already posted enough information to figure out why the 38 is so bad (my opinion). I know of at least one fighter ACE that died DURING THE WAR in the 38 because he got momentarily stupid. Happens to a lot of really good guys. I'm not saying the 38 should see a lesser role, that it played less of one, or that it didn't do anything someone else said it did. I just said it is a widow maker, and I stand by that. It killed a lot of kids. Now I'm calling it "A REAL potato." You are welcome to call it something else!  

Bill Atwood hails from model aircraft. His influence extends into modern aircraft and engine design. He was an aviator of old. Some of his model designs have only recently been built. Composite materials were required to attain miniature status. Full size versions would kick ass! He heavily influenced contributors for RC/Modeller Magazine before it was a F-A-C-T.   Most, of "Great Planes" designs would not be in existence today, were it not for him. I built and flew his P-38 design (prints by Mako Sato and kit by MK - Mitsu Kato I think?). The kit was a real joy, everything came out real light, and the plane was a real potato! I sold the hell out of it.   For years to come, after that experience, I watched pilot after pilot (R/C this time) auger 'em big time. One of them, had WWII flying experience, but I don't recall his history.  Atwood’s F4U was the best. Better then the P-51, anyway. “Models make great airplanes, but great airplanes don’t always make great models.” That is a truth that I have learned.
 
Another man of the same name is responsible for the design of .049 engines. Without that engine aviation would have died as a whole! How many kids, each year, learn the lessons of flight (along with pranging those fingers) with a Cox engine? He designed damn near every one of them.

So, I repeat myself. If Jesus were born an Aircraft Designer, his name would have been Bill Atwood.

Lee was great, but he was no Jesus!
 
Voss 13th T.A.S.


[This message has been edited by Voss (edited 01-21-2001).]

[Badboy]

I've been working on Energy Maneuverability analysis for the real WWII fighters and I would like to comment on the point made regarding the stall speed of the P-38.

Propeller driven (puller/tractor) aircraft have a power on stall speed that is lower than their power off stall speed. The reason for that is due to the fact that the wings are in the slipstream of the propellers and the wash speeds up and energizes the air over them, thereby reducing the stall speed. Because of that, obvious safety concerns have resulted in power off stall speeds being more commonly quoted in the flight manuals of the prop' fighters, while in some sources both are quoted.

However it has been stated here that the power on stall speed of the P-38 is higher than the power off stall speed. The explanation proposed, uses the fact that the rotation of the slipstream causes a slight increase in the AoA on the inboard wings. However, that is equally true of single engined types, one wing receiving a slight upward flow the other downwards, and that doesn't change the fact that they still have a lower power on stall. That they still have a lower power on stall speed reflects the fact that even at relatively high angles of attack, the prop' wash is still being driven over the wing at a very low angle of attack because the prop is generally normal (90 degrees to the axis of the aircraft) to it. That will always have the effect of energizing the flow over the wing delaying separation and would be no less true for the P-38 than any other aircraft.

             

I've only seen one source that has this the other way around for the P-38 (report of the joint fighter conference) and I'm very tempted to think that it is a typo, some one appears to have typed the values in the wrong column.

Two other factors that are often neglected for the P-38 serve to improve its turning performance, are due to its twin engine configuration, they are... Firstly, during low speed high AoA, the engine thrust has a component that contributes to the radial load factor, at high angle of attack this is almost double that for single engine fighters. Secondly, another benefit of this is that normally the center of lift and center of gravity are relatively close together, with positive stability that requires a downward force on the tail, however, the component of prop thrust, with its large lever arm provides a strong nose up pitching moment that reduces the downward tail force, thus enhancing the lift even further. Those factors along with the previously mentioned effect of the propwash speeding up and energizing the air over wings, thereby increasing the lift, means that the P-38 was indeed better in practice than the average flight sim' pilot (or for that matter your average aero graduate) would normally expect. Add to that, the fact that the unusually high aspect ratio wing gave the P-38 enhanced climbrate and sustained turning ability, all of which is often ignored in the literature.

Here is my Energy Maneuverability analysis of the real P-38, versus the P-38 as modeled in AH.

       

That shows a significant disparity in instantaneous and sustained turning ability at low speeds, but is really quite close around the middle of the envelope. As time allows, I've been comparing various flight sim' aircraft with their real world counterparts and the Aces High models are very impressive! The P-38 does seem to have suffered by the influence of what (I hardly dare suggest) looks very much like suspect data.
 

Leon "Badboy" Smith


[This message has been edited by Badboy (edited 01-21-2001).]

[Jimdandy]

 

Originally posted by Badboy:

       

I've seen your data presented on a documentary about WWII fighters years ago. They were saying the same thing. They suggested that the problems associated with the 38 were more of a lack of proper training in the aircraft. Very nice presentation of the basic physics behind your argument. I think the Germans were much more advanced in the boundary layer flow knowledge than the Allies. I think the later FW's and the 262 may have had vortex generators on the wings to enhance the effect.


[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-21-2001).]

[214thCavalier]

Hmm Voss so you are basing your denial of facts about the "real world" P38's on the basis of your experience building and flying and watching others crash "model" P38's ????
I believe the fighter ace you mention died because of engaging while he still had his drop tanks attached, a momentary lapse of judgement or maybe as posted above he did not have time to drop em, somehow though i doubt the P38 was cleared for A2A combat whilst carrying drop tanks so to try to blame the plane for this is not correct.

[-towd_]

god i love this thread/

wildwing is now my hero. please post more of this excellent information sir . i have enjoyed every word of it. my grand father ws in a p38 squadron in alaska that ws apperently the one to recieve the castrated 38 ment for the french.brits would you have any infor on the squadron number as i have no history of the unit and dont even know its name ( p.s. ) it was like 98% jewish adn the squad insignia was a seal with a walking stick leaning on a swasticka . shooting in the dark but you seem to have a encyclopedic knowledge of the 38 thanks .


 and not like you need any help sir . but voss may you piss off and get a life . mayby in game design? hehe

[Jimdandy]

 

Originally posted by -towd_:
god i love this thread/

wildwing is now my hero. please post more of this excellent information sir . i have enjoyed every word of it. my grand father ws in a p38 squadron in alaska that ws apperently the one to recieve the castrated 38 ment for the french.brits would you have any infor on the squadron number as i have no history of the unit and dont even know its name ( p.s. ) it was like 98% jewish adn the squad insignia was a seal with a walking stick leaning on a swasticka . shooting in the dark but you seem to have a encyclopedic knowledge of the 38 thanks .


 and not like you need any help sir . but voss may you piss off and get a life . mayby in game design? hehe

YOU MUST READ "The Thousand Mile War." You will love every page! It's about the Alaskan front. Your Grandfather flew in the worst conditions imaginable. Just getting from point A to point B up there was a nightmare. Read that book it's great!

[Buzzbait]

S! all

To the fellow who suggested the P-38 was removed from active service after the war and replaced by the P-51 and Corsair because it was too expensive to build...  Sorry, that one doesn't hold up.  Since the end of the second war the US military has never had a problem with spending whatever amount of money it felt nessesary to provide itself with the best equipment possible.  If the P-38 had better performance, it would have been continued in production and in active service.  The facts are, it was obsolescent in 1945.  Any other statement to the contrary is dreaming.

But of course, that doesn't take away from its fine record during the war.

[BUG_EAF322]

obsolete noway

[Tac]

Buzzbait, the P38 did cost almost twice as much than a P51 and it was very costly to maintain when compared with any other plane.

All nations involved in the war were doing their best just to stay in the fight. If a P51 has more range and great performance (and the p38 outperformed it in almost all aspects except for top speed), is half as expensive to build and cheap to maintain...well, you would certainly put your priorities on THAT plane rather than building the expensive one. It was a matter of economics, not of performance.


"Since the end of the second war the US military has never had a problem with spending whatever amount of money it felt nessesary to provide itself with the best equipment possible"

Correct. DURING the war they preffered the mustang for the reasons above stated. After the war they jumped to JETS...which made even the P51 quite obsolete.

"The facts are, it was obsolescent in 1945"

Bollocks.

[Jimdandy]

The prop planes were only kept after WWII as a stop gap in the US inventory as jet fighters capable of performing the same roles were developed. If you are making the argument that the most modern fighter was kept in operational statues the longest after WWII then I would say the the A-26 Invader beets them all. But it really wasn't because just because they were more modern or more capable. It was a combination of several things.

1. Lockheed was hot and heavy on the P-80 program and thus wasn't real hot on a new variant of the P-38.

2. As I said the US didn't have jets to fill all the roles needed right after WWII (if the A-26 is any indication this was the case into Vietnam!). The Lockheed Neptune was first flown in prototype on 1945 and I think the navy still uses a turboprop version of it today! The jets of the immediate post war period just weren't capable of carrying the payloads needed for many of the missions.

3. Economics. The P-51 was cheaper to build and maintain than the P-38.

4. There were prop planes on the drawing boards at the end of WWII that could be used to full fill the roles of the P-47 and P-38. Example: AD-1 Skyraider, a signal engine plane that was larger and could carry more payload than the 38 or the 47.

5. The P-51H had been introduced before the end of WWII.

I could go on but I think you get my point. I wasn't because the P-38 wasn't a capable aircraft. It was a combination of economic and technological constants of the time. Most of the roles that couldn't be filled buy the jets of the day (and even in rare cases the current jets) were ground attack and endurance roles. If all you need is a stop gap until the replacement (that in a lot of cases was being developed before the end of WWII) is put in to production you pick the most economical plane that will fill the role.

[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-21-2001).]