Interesting reading about P-38s (long)

[gatt]

From comp.sys ... flight-sim:

 

> Concerning the P-38's, I know they carried alot of the escort load but in all
>honesty were not really suited that well for it. They had the range, but lacked
>the performance to engage the later model FW-190 or 109 on equal terms.

This is the general impression expressed by many who have grown up hearing the P-51 praised to high heaven. However, it simply isn't true. The performance of the P-38 steadily improved with each model. The P-38F
and G were a match for the Bf 109F and Fw 190A in 1943. The last and most numerous of the P-38 models was the "big L". The L model was powered by the latest V-1710 making 1,725 hp each. In War Emergency Power, the
P-38L could exceed 440 mph at 21,400 ft. and was pushing its critical Mach in level flight. The L was also fitted with dive flaps, which effectively brought the terror of compressibility under control. With the Fowler flaps set in "maneuver" position, there was nothing in the Luftwaffe inventory that could turn with the Lightning at low to medium speeds (above this, turning ability is more a function of pilot G tolerance that aircraft capability). Don't believe the mythology, the P-38 was an outstanding dogfighter. Typical of the unknown facts is that the P-38 offered the best acceleration of any American fighter, both in level flight and dive acceleration. It was also the
best climbing fighter in the USAAF inventory (nearly 30% better than the P-51D).
The Lightning offered performance that was equal to and usually better than what the Luftwaffe had to offer. If this is fantasy, how did the P-38 maintain a 4:1 kill ratio (not claims, this ratio is supported by post-war investigation) over the best the Luftwaffe had to offer?
If it were so poor, why do some of the top "experten" state that the P-38 was the most deadly of the Allied fighters. Galland differs, but even Steinhoff commented, " I cannot understand Galland's comments on the Lightning, Especially when he was nearly killed by this fighter on at least two occations."

From page 44 of the 8th AF News June 2000
Lt.Gen Johnnes Steinhoff, Luftwaffe fighter pilot. 176 victories. Interviewer: "Of all the Allied fighters you encountered, which was the most difficult to handle with a good pilot at the controls?"

Steinhoff: "The Lightning. It was fast, low profiled and a fantastic fighter, and a real danger when it was above you. It was only vunerable if you were behind it, a little below it and closing fast, or turning into
it, but on attack it was a tremendous aircraft. One shot me down from long
range in 1944. That would be the one, although the P-51 was deadly because of it's long range, and it could cover any base in Europe. This made things difficult, especially later when flying jets."

In a personal letter to Trevor Constable, "Macky" Steinhoff responds to
a similar question: "I would state, without reservation, that the toughest Allied fighter
was the Lockheed Lightning. Many of my war time comrades have stated that they found the Lightning to be an easy victory. Perhaps this is true if you were able to attack without being detected. My experience has
been that if the Lightning was attacking you, you were in serious trouble.
The Lockheed was faster than our Messerschmitt or Focke Wulf. Never was I able to match this large fighter in a tight turn. When in trouble, a common tactic was to begin a tight climbing spiral. This was a sure method to dislodge the P-51 and the Thunderbolt. They could do nothing to
counter this other than make quick shots at very poor angles. But, if you attemped to escape the Lightning by this method, you would be shot down in short order because the Lockheed could follow you while climbing at a greater angle and turning a much tighter spiral."

"In every encounter I had with the Lightning, I came away very thankful to be alive. When I recall that I was shot down by a Lockheed and had two of my ships damaged beyond repair on other occations, I am grateful to the Americans that these fighters were not deployed in greater numbers."

Steinhoff also wrote:

"....the Lightnings loomed up terrifyingly fast in front of me, and it was only for the space of seconds that I was able to get into firing position behind one on the outside of the formation.  And, as if they had received prior warning, they swung around smartly as soon as I opened fire."
".... I tried to follow a Lightning's tight turn, but gravity pressed me down on my parachute with such force that I had trouble keeping my head in position to line up the sight on him... Then a shudder went through my aircraft as my leading edge flaps sprang out: I had exceeded the permissible gravity
load."

".... If a Lightning turned into your attack, it was advisable to continue on
past. If you chose to try to follow the Lightning's turn, you would find the American behind you within seconds. At this point, only poor marksmenship would allow you to escape unharmed."

>This of
>course holds only when dealing with reasonably experienced German pilots...
>rookies facing the swarms of escorts stood little chance regardless of their
>plane type. Fortunately for the P-38, they didn't have many of those veterans
>to face.

Oh yes they did! When the P-38 began escort operations in November of 1943, the Luftwaffe still had a great many "experten" flying in the west. Early missions flown by the P-38 Groups placed them a huge disadvantage. First, barely 50 fighters were available for any given mission. Subtract 20% due to aborts, and you have forty fighters, 500 miles from home, outnumberd 8:1 on a good day. Second, the P-38s were tied to the bombers by the "close escort" policy of Eaker. This prevented the fighters from sweeping ahead of the bombers, catching the Luftwaffe before they could organize
their forces. This meant that the P-38s spent most of their mission being bounced. Even the P-51 would have been pounded
under those circumstances.

Of course, the P-38 had a host of mechanical troubles in the ETO that it did not encounter in other theaters. The engines were blowing up with disturbing frequency.
The P-38s flew a veriety of mission profiles. However, it is not important how many sorties are flown, but how many hours are accumulated. The overwhelming majority of combat hours flown by 15th AF (Italy) P-38s were at high altitude in icebox temperatures. Yet, the catastrophic failure rate was but a fraction of that suffered by the P-38s of the 8th AF in similar conditions (colder on an average of just 4 1/2 degrees). In regard to engine failures, the 8th suffered failures on climbout,
during cruise and at full METO power. These failures were so evenly  distributed that accurate failure analysis was very difficult. It took months of careful study to reveal the exact train of events that led to engines failing. These were succinctly defined by Doolittle in a letter to the
Deputy Commander of Administration. Doolittle ordered that every engine be
inspected by doing a compression test on every cylinder and removing the cylinder
heads on those engines that indicated poor compression on one or more cylinders.
In each and every case where low compression was discovered, broken piston rings were found. This was caused by detonation. The detonation was caused by the anti-knock compounds seperating from the gasolene base.
This happened for the following reasons:

1) Over-cooling of the intake charge in the intercooler. Both the P-38H and the
P-38J were powered by the V-1710-90 and 91 engines. The P-38H experienced considerably less engine failures that the J model. Therefore, it became obvious that part of the problem resided in the P-38J engine installation. Intake charges typically measured 35 to 50 degrees C lower in the J model than the H model. A partial and temporary fix recommended by Doolittle
was to seal the grill of the intercooler when its shutters were closed. This
same measure had been proposed at the squadron level, but had been thwarted
by middle level command. Doolittle fixed that too. The intercoolers on the
P-38J were specifically designed for tropical use. Whereas the intercoolers
for the older model P-38s were designed for lower air temperatures.

2) The Allison intake manifold was poorly designed. As a result of this, mixture distribution was always a bit too lean to cylinders 4 and 6 of the  right bank. At low temperatures and low manifold pressures (which exacerbated the problem) this condition was magnified greatly. Of the many engines that displayed compression loss, several were found to have melted piston
crowns, as well broken rings and scored cylinder walls. Obviously, these were
about to become catastrophic failures. Redesigned intake manifolds were
eventually available in the ETO, however they arrived about the same time as the
P-38L-1-LO which was powered by the V-1710-111 and 113 that sported  a newly designed intake manifold and new turbosupercharger regulators. The L also had revised intercooler shutter sealing and a reduced volume that raised the charge temperature significantly.

3) It was determined that the fuel being made available to the 8th AF was
inconsistant in it octane rating. Typically, fuels tested varied between 92 and
104 octane, with the bulk of the samples being in the 94-96 octane range.
Moreover, the use of aeromatics to raise anti-knock qualities was found to
be a prime contributor to detonation process. Doolittle (who was the
major force in the development of 100+ octane fuels in the 1930s) specified that "It
is presumed that as it is desirable to raise the lead susceptibility, iso-araffins rather than aeromatics will be used as additives." Doolittle then ordered that 2 million gallons of specially blended fuel be produced specifically for the P-38 Groups of the 8th AF. The anti-knock specification for the fuel being used at the time was 100-130 octane. Doolittle was enraged when he read the test results and called everyone involved in fuel procurement onto the
carpet. His orders would now be followed or there would be hell to pay. Shell Oil was
selected to blend the special fuel. Some saw favoritism in Doolittle's choice since he had been employed by Shell and was the key man in the deveopment of high octane aviation fuels. However, Doolittle was far more loyal to his aircrews than any oil company. His pragmatic method of problem solving earmarked Shell as being the most capable refiner, one that could meet
his standards of quality control. His new specification demanded a tightened lower limit of anti-knock rating. The new fuel would be rated at 110-130 and it must be refined with as flat a distillation range as technology allowed.
It should be noted that Doolittle requested test results from the fuel being supplied to the 12th and 15th Air Forces. Those results indicated that these samples maintained an average anti-knock rating of 112 octane, nearly nominal to the specification. There is no doubt that something was amiss
with the avgas supplied to the 8th AF while in Britain. Once Doolittle's changes were fully implemented, the Allison failure
rate declined to levels comparible with the Packard Merlin of the P-51.
Eventually, the P-38L lowered the failure rate below that of the Packard.

Perhaps this could help Citabria. He is not getting enuff kills in his P38  


[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 08-02-2000).]

[Citabria]

the 440mph is probably a typo.
I've only seen max speed of 414mph TAS quoted.

keep in mind that the LW was fighting the P-38 at high altitudes where the lightnings allison engines and superchargers produced more power when functioning properly than the merlin engined and LW a/c. it ate the 190 up and gave the 109 nightmares.

but great stuff.
the only real maneuvering/dogfighting disadvantage of the real p38's was the low critical mach.

theres only a few things I still hope for on the AH P-38L:

1. twin engine stall model. the p-38L stall characteristics in AH still dont mesh w pilot reports of its stall behavior. in fact the AH P-38 stall is still very wierd.

2. dive flaps ability to pitch the nose up 10-15 degrees at low speed. this does not happen in AH.

3. in AH the other aircraft out accelerate the p38 in a dive.

4. turn ability is under debate on all aircraft so I have no clue as to how accurate or inaccurate this area is or will be since I dont know what changes will be brought about by successive patches.

[CavemanJ]

follow the 109s in a spiral climb??
out run the 109s??

I've dreamed of that...

[fire_ant]

This was fascinating.  Thanks for posting all that info.  What is critical mach?

DB

[funked]

Somebody asked Franz Stigler (28 victories in Me 109, Fw 190, Me 262) what he thought of the P-38 at the WB Con.  I forget the exact words but he said that anyone who thought the P-38 was like the Bf 110 (alluding to comments by Galland and others) was crazy.

[Soulyss]

Another thing that was a strike against the P38 in the ETO was it's shape and appearence.  It did not look like any other aircraft in the sky.  P51 and P47 were somtimes mistaken for 190's and 109 which let them get close and maintain the element of surprise.  P51's would also get in trouble sometimes with B17 gunners since they resembled the 109.  The p38 didn't have these advantages especially when it was producing contrails.    

------------------
 

"Smoke me a kipper boys, I'll be back for breakfast"

[This message has been edited by Soulyss (edited 08-02-2000).]

[Dune]

Great post Gatt, thanks  

My grandfather flew P-38J's with the 384th FS/364th FG/8th AF from Mar 44 to Spt 44 when they recieved Mustangs.  He still says with pride that the first time he saw Berlin was from the cockpit of his Lightening.

 

------------------
Lt Col Dune
X.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

[Jigster]

 

Originally posted by Soulyss:
Another thing that was a strike against the P38 in the ETO was it's shape and appearence.  It did not look like any other aircraft in the sky.  P51 and P47 were somtimes mistaken for 190's and 109 which let them get close and maintain the element of surprise.  P51's would also get in trouble sometimes with B17 gunners since they resembled the 109.  The p38 didn't have these advantages especially when it was producing contrails.    

But the P-38's could hide amoungst the B-17s, or flak though  

Hey Westy, if you read this, you still have that picture of the P-38 hiding in the B-17's with the engine shot out that Tiff posted in NBW2?

- Jig

[Westy]

I think so but with no web site I can't embed the picture in a post  

-Westy

[Tac]

Yes, i've been reading a lot of pilot reports about the P-38, both US pilots and the pilots that flew against them Lightnings.

From what I read and from what I see in AH bears down to the following being off in AH:

1) Odd stalls (as Citabria pointed)
2) Slow acceleration (this is the most annoying part for me!)
3) Guns dont seem to benefit from being packed in the nose. I'll try to find all the links I saw this, but in many pilot reports the 38's guns were praised because a short burst would do terrific damage, even on a snapshot. However, in AH, you need to SPRAY the con with them, even when below d500 to get the target plane to break up.


And of course, I'd like to be able to paint my plane hehe.. a Green lightning would be so much nicer!    

Edited: Hey DUNE, if possible, could you get your grandad to comment on the P-38 here? It would be marvelous to have such feedback!


[This message has been edited by Tac (edited 08-02-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Tac (edited 08-02-2000).]

[Dune]

Tac, I had asked him about comparing some of the features of the P-38J and P-51D.  Here are some of the things he told me:

 

He said that he remembers the P47 being the fastest diver. The 38J which he flew had to be watched or it would "tuck under" (his phrase) during power dives. This problem was mostly solved by the dive flap on the 38L.
He also mentioned that the thoery that 38J's couldn't go deep into Germany was a myth. His first combat mission was a bomber escort flight to Berlin. He said that in some ways the 38J was a better escort than the 51D because when it was loaded with drop tanks it climbed to 20-25,000 feet faster than the 51D would.
Yes, when they would take off they would drain the first 30 gals. out of the center-tank to improve the handleing. Then they would drain the drop tanks. On the subject of P51D spins; he said that in over a 1,000 hours of stick time in a P51 (including combat) that the only time he had a P51 go into a spin was when he wanted it to. He said that spins were not something he worried about.

I also have a copy of his FG's History.  In it they made an interesting point about the -38J.  One of the pilots said that the main reason they felt the fear of compression was a bigger handicap to them than engine problems.  Becuase the LW escape tactic was a "split-s", this really was a problem for them.  Many times they would prevent the LW from reaching the heavies, but they couldn't chase them.

------------------
Lt Col Dune
X.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

[CarlieTester]

Did the long range variants utilize exotic fuel injection compounds (like, but not "limited" to methanol/water) to control detonation and salvage power at full lean?

[Drano]

Seeing this come up in the timeline gave me the idea it was some new post! It did have the magic word in it tho.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

[Arlo]

Holy effing dead letter office, batman.

[hazmatt]

One thing that is left out here is the amount of workload the pilot had to do to manage the engines on the 38.

 I recall reading that it required something like 6 different controls and some time to get the engines of the 38 out of cruise into fighting mode. From one of the engagements I have read in Steinhoffs "Messerschmitts Over Sicily: Diary of a Luftwaffe" 2 109s engaged a flight of 38's shooting 1 or 2 of them down. There was on "fear" are hype about how dangerous the 38 was. They did seem puzzled why the 38s appear to run instead of engaging.

I'm not downplaying the 38, I'm just saying that I could cherry-pick quotes to support why I think any plane was greater then another plane.