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

[Pongo]

My reading on the P38 led me to believe that the only real weaknesses it had as a Fighter would not show up in the game as they where cost complexity and reliability issues.
Is there any information in this thread that might modify the flight model of the Lightning in AH? It does seem like a difficult AC to develop a flight model for. It is just so different from the normal tail draggers. Thanks for he excellent info Widewing.

[wells]

Badboy, I disagree.  THe F-82 originally had the same rotation as the P-38.  Being a taildragger, it wouldn't take off.  When they reversed the direction of rotation, problem solved.

BTw, the clean stall of the real P-38 at 17000 lbs is 100 mph + 15 mph as per the correction table in the manual.

[Voss]

 

Originally posted by 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 said airshows. I would refer to model competitions as such. Learn to read for comprehension sometime.  

Don't be too quick to belittle R/C. Not only is it an outstanding sport, but a lot of guys in online simming (programming them too), fly R/C. Everyone can learn something from R/C. I'm looking forward to my first AH CON R/C combat. A lot of big names in simming will be there  

If, the design of the cockpit leads to pilot demise, and there have been numerous losses of privately owned A/C since, then my statement holds. It is very possible that, in the heat of battle, P-38's that spun in were accounted as "lost in action" after someone reported something like "I never saw him again after the bounce."

I didn't deny the P-38's war record. But I do say it is responsible for the death of a lot of recruits and undeniably experts, too.

Heya, Badboy, cool data you submitted! I can't wait to see more.  

Voss 13th T.A.S.

[Buzzbait]

S! all

This is not a badmouth of the P-38.  But if it was superior to the P-51, why was the USAAF converting to P-51's in the Spring of 1945 for its campaign against the Japanese Home islands?  It wasn't a case of range, the P-38 had no problem there.  This was when the war was still going full tilt and money was the least of concerns.  

I'm sorry, but the facts are, the USAAF was converting to the P-51, not staying with the P-38.  And it wasn't because of money, it was because the commanding generals felt their pilots would do better in the Single engined aircraft.

If money was a concern, then why didn't the USAAF convert all the P-38 Squadrons in the Pacific to P-47's or P51's in 43?  The  reason of course, was the P-38 was very competitive against the Zero, Oscar, Tony etc.  The USAAF chose to continue with it because it was effective.  Towards the end of the war, when it ran up against Franks, Georges, etc, it was replaced.

[Dune]

Same facts about the -38 in the ETO/MTO.

First only 10 FG's in the ETO/MTO ever flew P-38's.  This is out of 47.  The 20th, 55th, 364th and 479th FG's in the 8th AF, the 367th, 370th and 474th FG's in the 9th AF, and the 1st, 14th, and 82nd FG's in the 12/15th AF's.  By the end of the war most of these FG's had switched:

8th AF
20th to -51D's in Jul 44
55th to -51D's in Jul 44
364th to -51D's in Jul 44
479th to -51D's in Spt 44
- Note: during the Summer of 44, the -51B was just showing how effective it was.  It was saving bombers and the USAAF needed a reliable, long-range escort.  Therefore the -38's were replaced.  None of these groups flew the -38J-25 which was the first with hydralic-assist ailerones and dive flaps which reduced its compression problems.

9th AF
367th FG to -47D's on Feb 45
370th FG to -51D's in early 45
474th FG stayed in Lightnings
Notes: The 474th was the only -38 group in Northern Europe by the end of the war.  

12/15th AF
1st FG stayed in Lightnings
14th FG stayed in Lightnings
82nd FG stayed in Lightnings.

So, only there were only 4 -38 FG's in Europe at the end of the war.  Because of the cold-weather problems, P-38's didn't stay in the ETO.  However they weren't taken from the MTO because they didn't suffer from the cold.  This is also why most P-38's were sent to the PTO and -51s to the ETO.

------------------
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

[Westy]

 Buzzbait, in the Pacific the B-29 escort over the Japanese homeland in 1945 was done by mostly the P-47 "N" aircraft as it could range as far as the P-51D and could out perform the P-51D at alt.
 
 -Westy

[Daff]

"was done by mostly the P-47 "N" aircraft as it could range as far as the P-51D "

Not "as far"....further  

Daff

------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"

[Jigster]

The quickest answer to why most P-38 FG's converted to P-51's and P-47's lies within the number game.

By the time the phase out was occuring, tours were ending and seasoned pilots were going home for instructor duty.

It takes a considerably longer amount of time to learn to operate a twin for combat operations (as opposed to a single), and with any training situations, planes WILL crashed, belly landed, and any other form of fubar'd that comes to mind.

This combinations was not good for the P-38...it's production price was triple of the P-51, hard to justify when you've got trainees busting them up constantly. Because the seasoned pilots were returning (one way or another) the quickest training period possible is desired for replacements. Single engine training could take as little as 4 weeks (and some went to Europe with only 2 weeks!) where as multi-engines could take twice as long because of the added complexity.

As it's often said, be able to produced big expensive planes, regardless of how capable, is useless unless capable pilots are flying them.

And if you can train replacements twice as fast in a plane that is just as combat capable, why bother with the other?

------------------
   
33rd FW www.33rd.org

[Animal]

^
|
|
|

Jigster;
Excellent post. I wanted to say the same thing, but couldnt find the right words.

Damn booze!

[Westy]

 Thanks Daff     I'd thought so, but not being sure (nor being able to check)  when I wrote that I figured I'd best be conservative  

 -Westy

[BUG_EAF322]

WTG Jigster !!

[F4UDOA]

Heya's,

Quick note to how much the cost of these birds was to produce. I know I have that data somewhere, I just can't find it.

However the F4U I remember was almost as expensive to manufacture as the P-38. But the Navy took a more conservative approach toward transitioning to Jets. The Navy was afraid that Jet technology wouldn't be rugged enough for carrier duty. Indeed in Korea there were times when the F9F Panthers could not take off because of not enough wind across the deck or not enough serviceable A/C. Navy Corsairs flew 80% of total Naval sorties over Korea in the first year of the war, including Skyraiders which were just arriving in significant numbers.

BTW, the AD-1 was a Navy bird almost exclusively in Korea. I may be wrong but, the AF did not use them in significant numbers until Vietnam I believe. Another example of the AF stealing the Navy's idea's such as the F-4 Phantom  

The smart thing for the AF to do would have been to bring the P-47's out of mothballs for the occasion. It was better suited for the job than the P-38, P-51 or any jet the AF had in service at the time.

[Widewing]

F4UDOA wrote:
"The smart thing for the AF to do would have been to bring the P-47's out of mothballs for the occasion. It was better suited for the job than the P-38, P-51 or any jet the AF had in service at the time."

Actually, there were quite a few being operated by ANG units in 1950. Why they were never transferred to active duty units is a mystery.

My regards,

Widewing

[F4UDOA]

CC Widewing,

I have read that.

I have always believed that logistical support in the Armed forces ie. spare parts and replacement engines and planes had more to do with the selection of which was the predominant fighter in any one theater than any other factor unless it was clearly obsolete. In the case of the P-47 I cannot imagine why however. There was no shortage of P&W2800 and it was certainly capable of doing the job. My only reasoning could be Republic dedicating it's production to the F-84 Thunderchief.

Tommy Blackburn swore in his auto-biography that was the reason the F4U was not accepted into carrier service more than any other liability. Since the F4F and F6F shared many common parts it was much easier to put them on board carriers and have full logistic support available immediately. Fact is that F4U-2 began carrier duty in Jan.1944, a full year before the Navy "cleared" the F4U for carrier duty. And only then when it became apparent that it's higher performance was necessary to combat the Kamikaze threat.

[Moose11]

I have to say that the community is full of some real WWII aviation nuts, myself included. Even though this thread is mostly a flame I actually learned quite a bit from it!