Thinking about me P-38 as I'm bored at work...

[Animal]

Some people complain about visibility and SA in the P-38L, I find it great. But maybe because I'm used to it.
The cockpit layout is very nice, and all around views are good, though you have to move the plane a little for better views in some angles.
As for the nose guns, I find them awesome. But then again I consider myself a great shot, in part because of my accurate HOTAS and rudder control. You get close to me in and you are going down. Its that simple, its a sniper. Its harder to hit with a concentrated burst, but when you get the hang of it, its better than the spread guns of other yankee planes. Specially if you get used to aim at specific plane parts, like the wings, tails, or my favorite; the cockpit. For shooting down bombers, aim for the wingtips.

[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Animal ]

[BBanzai]

Im still trying to get a handle on the 38. I fly it most of the time and usually get shot down. I still think its the best plane jsut trying to get a feel for how to fly it.

I have tried TnB fighting with it but I am either pciking the wrong plane to try this against or just stink at it (probably some of both). I have just started experimenting ith E fighting (BnZ) so dont have good opinion of this with the 38 yet. I have noticed that in a shallow climb it outclimbs anything and that the shallow climb combined with a BnZ attack makes the 38 pretty tough to catch by equal E or even slightly higher E fighters.

Anyone who can give me some other pointers or wouldnt mind spending some time helping someone get a better grip on this plane feel free to send me an e-mail or note.

Everyhting I have read about the 38 sasys it was the toughest lane of all the great WWII fighters to learn how to fly. Once mastered though it was one of the best if not the best fighter of WWII.

[Tac]

Heck after they toughened it up I still tried to kill other 38's with a spray of 50 cal expecting to see it break apart.

pre-fix you would hit with a spray and watch it lose a wing and see its tails flop away from it.

now it doesnt. You have to HIT it with a good burst to smack it down. Just like ANY other plane.

Im not sure about that durability thing of the 51 and 38 being equal.

Compare loss rate of 51 vs 38. The 38 lost a lot less planes than the p51, and the 38 saw action longer than the 51 and earlier, facing the best pilots the LW and the IJA/N had. Not bad for a plane twice as complex to fly for a recruit and with so many operational problems.

Also look at its K/D ratio. In the toughest times, vs the toughest enemy pilots, the 38 dished out much more grief than it received.

[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Tac ]

[fdiron]

TAC, the P51 was not the least durable fighter.  Its radiator was vulnerable, but thats it.  I have a picture of a P51 with the pilot standing in a hole in the wing made from flak.  Also, the P51s engine was capable of running without the radiator when raw fuel was pumped into the engine via the primer pump.  Some pilots knew about this and were able to safely return to base after suffering radiator damage.

[Tac]

Least durable allied fighter. The zero I think was the least durable of them all  

[Seeker]

Does any one here bother trying to operate the two engines independantly at all?

When?

Why?

How?

And does it make a difference?

Any one know if pilots were trained to operate the engines independantly?

I'm suspicious that engine management (or lack there of) is one reason why sims never seem (in the eyes of 38 lovers) to do the 38 justice. Comments?

[F4UDOA]

TAC,

Funny you should mention the K/D of the P-38 and the P-51. I have never seen detailed K/D numbers for each plane. Can you post that data if you have it?

For some reason the Navy/Marine birds and the RAF have far more detailed information available via the web as far as source documents. AAF birds which get far more notority IE. P-51, P-47 and P-38 are all but impossible to get your hands on those types of docs. Conspiracy??  

[Tac]

I used to have my dual throttle help me in doing tight turns Seeker, but since I upgraded to win2k I lost that ability in my stick   *sniff*.

Single engine management helps a lot if you losing a wingtip, you can compensate and keep control of the craft.

F4udoa, I believe widewing posted that info earlier this year. It should be on this forum.

"Conspiracy??"

Dunno, Skully would disagree    

[gripen]

Tac,
I wonder on what statistics your claims are based? Generally P-38s and P-51s (RAF Mustangs) started operations about same time at spring 1942 and actually the Mustang saw serious combat earlier. And in the 8th AF the P-38 joined in combat just two months before the P-51B and from March 1944 the P-51 was more numerous than the P-38 (actually earlier if we count 354th FG). BTW the P-51 reached much better claim/loss (note word "claim") ratio right from the beginning in the 8th AF. About losses it should be also noted that if there is much more P-51s in combat (like in the ETO and later also in the MTO from June 1944 and against Japan from January 1945) then there is certainly more losses, there were not so much combat losses in Alaska or Latin America...

gripen

[Widewing]

Originally posted by fdiron:
TAC, the P51 was not the least durable fighter.  Its radiator was vulnerable, but thats it.  I have a picture of a P51 with the pilot standing in a hole in the wing made from flak.  Also, the P51s engine was capable of running without the radiator when raw fuel was pumped into the engine via the primer pump.  Some pilots knew about this and were able to safely return to base after suffering radiator damage.

Ah, I don't think you'd get very far without coolant regardless of how much you operated the primer. Moreover, it seems like a good way to foul the spark plugs. If you had a minor leak, then I suppose anything you could do to reduce cylinder head temperature is beneficial, to a point. However, a solid hit to the radiator core or a partial severing of a Prestone line will result in powered flight that can be estimated in minutes. Very few minutes.

One disadvantage of having the radiator mounted behind the cockpit is the long lines required to circulate the coolant to and from the engine. This increases the likelihood of damage should the aircraft be hit. Inasmuch as most damage tended to be found aft of the cockpit, this also raises the odds of damage to the coolant system.

The same problem troubled the P-38, but it had that insurance engine, with which to get home.

My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

Originally posted by gripen:
Tac,
I wonder on what statistics your claims are based? Generally P-38s and P-51s (RAF Mustangs) started operations about same time at spring 1942 and actually the Mustang saw serious combat earlier. And in the 8th AF the P-38 joined in combat just two months before the P-51B and from March 1944 the P-51 was more numerous than the P-38 (actually earlier if we count 354th FG). BTW the P-51 reached much better claim/loss (note word "claim") ratio right from the beginning in the 8th AF. About losses it should be also noted that if there is much more P-51s in combat (like in the ETO and later also in the MTO from June 1944 and against Japan from January 1945) then there is certainly more losses, there were not so much combat losses in Alaska or Latin America...

gripen

I agree. P-38 losses operating with the 8th AF were consistantly higher per sortie than for the P-51, with several exceptions that can be discounted due to non-combat related events. Indeed, there are a myriad of reasons for this, but the fact is indisputable that air combat losses were less per sortie for the Mustang. Most of those reasons have been expounded on here in the past. I will limit my comments to this: Once the P-38L began to arrive in the ETO, the kill Vs loss ratio just about equalized between the two types. In North Africa and the MTO, the P-38 performed much better than in the ETO. We need not discuss the SWPA as this was a vastly different type of airwar than that found in Europe.

I'm afraid that TAC is mixing his apples and oranges.

My regards,

Widewing

[Tac]

Then indeed I was. Thanks for the info widewing  

<F> all you pony drivers    

[HoHun]

Hi everyone,

since we already had apples and oranges, I'd like to add some pears now ;-)

According to K. H. Regnat's "North American P-51 Mustang", the A-36 Apache squadrons in Europe flew 23400 sorties, dropping 7248 t of bombs, scoring 84 air-to-air kills and another 14 air-to-ground aircraft kills, but losing 177 aircraft themselves.

That's equal to a 682 lbs of bombs per sortie, and a loss rate of just 0.76%. I'd tend to think that in an overall WW2 context, this was a rather low loss rate, but it would be highly interesting to see comparable figures for other fighter bombers!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Guppy]

HoHun,

362nd FG (P-47s) of the Ninth Air Force, from June to October 1944, flew 6,488 sorties and lost 59 aircraft (0.91% loss rate) and 54 pilots. Their losses were apparently slightly higher than average.

(Over the same period, the 362nd was credited with 49 kills, 2 probables and 11 enemy aircraft damaged.)

[ZOSO]

Hi guys, nice thread!

When I log on, I decide I want to fly a P-38.  Looking at the map, how do I decide where to go?  I've been flying the P-51 for a while now, so I look for a big gob of enemy and get some alt then slash through them.  This doesn't work with the P-38(for me anyway).

Also, I don't think anyone mentioned Dive-bombing.  Air to mud is not really my thing, but I try to stay competent.  Any tips?