Real p38 pilots video

[FLOOB]

Talking 'bout how much it sucked in eto. Go to 12:00 in the video for the p38 parts.

[Randy1]

I still hope HTC will give the P-38L the field set higher manifold pressure setting the new engines deserved.

[bustr]

From 28:00 on the narrator talked about gunsights.

1. - He called the N9 the K9 while the film showed a P47 with a NAVY Mk8 which at least was correct. In the ETO almost all AAF fighters were refitted with the RAF MKII until the P51D. P38 kept the N3 and subsequent L3 due to space constraints. Sperry made K9 which was an upper turret gunsight in B24. The N9 was initially fitted to P51-D from the factory, never B\C, and rapidly replaced with the K14 in late 44.

2. - The description of the K14 gyroscope not being able to work during high G maneuvering was correct. During high G maneuvering the 70Mil ring and dot fixed reticle on the early K14 was the same diameter as the reticle in the N3 gunsights that the AAF had taken out and refitted with British MKII for it's 100Mil ring. A 70Mil ring was found to be useless for deflection shooting at the higher speeds fighters maneuvered at.

One complaint by pilots of the K14, was the white reticle projection was lost against a background of white clouds. N3, L3, Mk8, MKII, and N9 had a yellow or orange diffuser.

[FLOOB]

Yep the p38 was caca in real life.

[PR3D4TOR]

It did well in the Pacific War where the combat was generally at lower altitudes. And against a technologically inferior enemy.

[Ack-Ack]

It did well in the Pacific War where the combat was generally at lower altitudes. And against a technologically inferior enemy.

It also did well in the MTO and ETO, the 8th AF was the only group to get rid of its P-38s and a lot of that was due to inner 8th AF politics than actual issues with the P-38.

[FLOOB]

The p38 debacle.


Kelly Johnson should've been sent to the gallows for that one. What the hell were they thinking..

[Randy1]

A bunch of Aces in the P-38,  That is hard to overlook.

Keep in mind the P-38 was a design initiated in the 1930s.  It was the only design that meet the Army's call for a new fighter if I remember right.

The problems the P-38 suffered were slow to be resolved but what we don't know is the source of the slow problem resolution.  Was it the pressure from different sources to maintain production or was it Lockheed's failure to attack the problems with enough resources or lack of Army leadership?  My guess is all three.   Like the P-38L, the -30 engines being neutered back to the -17 engine specs after passing test at Allison and Lockheed.  The why on that may have ties to the Mustang production and inter politics.  Big Money has its dark side.

[PR3D4TOR]

Keep in mind the P-38 was a design initiated in the 1930s. 

So were most WWII fighters. Even the 262. The P-38 was a newer design than both the spit and 109. The 109 was in production a year before the start of the P-38 design process.

[Randy1]

So were most WWII fighters. Even the 262. The P-38 was a newer design than both the spit and 109. The 109 was in production a year before the start of the P-38 design process.

Ya but the 262 did not prototype till the 40s.  The specs for the 38 were above the 109s know of during late 30s during the spec development, design process and prototype stages.  Apples and oranges here.

The P-38 spec wise would be the best performance fighter of the day.  If near mach flow research had advanced far enough, the P-38 might have shortened the war by gaining air superiority earlier in the war.  Of course if frogs had wings . . . .

[PR3D4TOR]

I think you have your timelines mixed up. The P-38 was not an early-war fighter. The 109 was designed in 1933, so the P-38 had better be designed to higher specifications in 1937. However the P-38 did not enter service until early 1942, and even then only in a very limited role on the US mainland as the plane was not really ready for service. By that time there were 400+ mph 109G's, 190A's and Spit9's flying around in Europe. And the 262 prototype had flown a year earlier. The P-38 may have been revolutionary back in 1937 when it was conceived, but when it actually showed up in 1942 its performance had already been surpassed by newer models of the old planes it had been designed to beat.

[PR3D4TOR]

[Zimme83]

A bunch of Aces in the P-38,  That is hard to overlook.

Keep in mind the P-38 was a design initiated in the 1930s.  It was the only design that meet the Army's call for a new fighter if I remember right.

The problems the P-38 suffered were slow to be resolved but what we don't know is the source of the slow problem resolution.  Was it the pressure from different sources to maintain production or was it Lockheed's failure to attack the problems with enough resources or lack of Army leadership?  My guess is all three.   Like the P-38L, the -30 engines being neutered back to the -17 engine specs after passing test at Allison and Lockheed.  The why on that may have ties to the Mustang production and inter politics.  Big Money has its dark side.

There were a bunch of aces in the Brewster too so thet doesnt really saying much. If u look at how many planes that actually saw combat Brewster was prob the best ace maker of the WW2, but that doesnt mean that the Brewster was a good plane.

[FLOOB]

The brewster was a very good fighter plane compared to it's adversaries and the p38.

Compared to the p38:
It cost less
It cost less to maintain
It cost less to fuel
It required less maintenance
It was lighter
It had a radial engine
It turned very tight
It had a decent roll rate
It handled well at any speed
The pilot didn't freeze to death
The pilot didn't have to do any acrobatics to bail out
Spin recovery
Ability to dive

[Zimme83]

Yes but the Brewster was a pre war design and unlike spit and 109 a pretty limited one, against other pre war/EW planes it worked well but were too slow to be a real compeditor against most other planes. The Brewsters big luck was that plane performance is only a small part of aerial combat.