Ok I'm gonna post my source but yall gotta read it!!!!!
Really my beef is with the dive flaps everything is fine to me.
And the 444mph was a lockheed test not USAAF test.
And it was posted by a respected member of AH..
http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html thats the site..
From:
Jordan@worldwar2aviation.com (C.C. Jordan)
Newsgroups: soc.history.war.world-war-ii
Subject: Re: P-51/Merlin
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:22:53 GMT
On 18 Jul 1999 12:06:44 -0400,
Gavin.Bailey@dial.pipex.com (Gavin Bailey) wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:00:40 GMT,
dbsdesign@aol.com (DBSDESIGN) wrote:
>
>>Anyway, the Spitfire pilot was supposed to land after the
>>engagement to lecture on the excellence of his ship except
>>that he never landed. He returned to his base and was never
>>heard from again.
>
>Interesting, if true. However, most sources give the Spitfire XIV a
>better performance than this account would give credit for - e.g. the
>rate of climb for the P-38L and Spit XIV were similar. In fact the
>earlier, single-stage supercharge Griffon II-powered Spitfire XII had
>comparable (in fact slightly better) performance figures at low and
>mid-altitudes than the P-38L (372mph @ 5,700ft and 397mph @ 18,000ft).
The basic performance figures for the P-38L are as follows (from Lockheed
factory test logbooks):
Max speed at sea level: 352 mph
Max speed at 5,500 ft : 369 mph
Max speed at 23,500 ft. 440 mph (WEP) 5 minutes max.
Max speed at critical alt: 444 mph @ 25,800 (WEP) 5 minutes max.
>
>
>It might be worth restarting the relevant performance figures of the
>Spitfire XIV with the improved Griffon 65 at this point - climb to
>20,000ft in just over 5 mins, 40,000ft in 15 minutes and a maximum
>speed of 447mph @ 25,600ft (approx 370mph @ 2,000ft) and a service
>ceiling of 44,500ft.
The P-38L, continued
Max climb rate at sea level: 4,225 fpm (50% fuel, normal ammo)
Max climb rate at 23,400 ft: 3,940 fpm
Time to 23,400 ft: 5.94 minutes
Time to 30,000 ft: 8.86 minutes
Service Ceiling: 44,000 ft.
Add to this the ability to carry up to 4,000 lbs of underwing ordnance
and an absolute maximum range of just over 3,000 miles, and one can
see that the P-38 is a superb fighter. By the way, the bomb max bomb
load and max range are, naturally, mutually exclusionary.
>
>So far as I am aware, all of these figures exceed the performance of
>the P-38L Lightning, although I would say that both aircraft were
>broadly in the same category in terms of performance. Too much
>attention tends to be paid to paper performance figures in this kind
>of debate, but then these debates are usually fuelled by
>(understandably) individual subjective prejudice more than anything
As you can see, the Spitfire Mk.XIV is in a virtual dead heat with the P-38L.
One of the major misconceptions to evolve since the war was that the P-38
was generally inferior to the other major American and British fighters. This
unfounded belief is difficult to overcome because of 54 years of status quo
aviation and history writing.
Great fighters have certain characteristics that if exploited, can be
overpowering to an enemy. Bob Johnson showed that the P-47D could
easily over-match the Spitfire IX if one avoided a turning engagement and
used the superior roll rate, dive acceleration, speed and zoom ability
of the Thunderbolt.
Remember this rule, it is the gospel (prior to missiles):
"The faster fighter determines the rules of engagement."
In the case of a P-38L vs a Spitfire Mk.XIV, the fighter carrying the
greater speed into the fight will likely win, pilot skill being equal.
My regards,
C.C. Jordan
The Planes and Pilots of WWII Internet Magazine
http://www.worldwar2aviation.comHonor and remember the WWII veterans.
From:
C.C.Jordan@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: U.S. 55th Fighter Group (was: something else)
Date: 11 Feb 1999 14:31:58 GMT
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:31:26 +0200, Yama
wrote:
>C.C. Jordan wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 00:30:26 -0500, Bob Andrew wrote:
>> >
>> >The Merlin powered P-51 was faster than the P-38L at all altitudes.
>>
>> This is incorrect. The L was capable of 442 mph in WEP at 22,500 ft.
>> Futhermore, the L was still producing 1,320 hp per engine at 30,000 ft.
>> The Merlin was down to 1,090 hp at this height. The turbos were more
>> efficient than the Merlin's blower.
>
>All figures I've seen about top speed of P-38J/L are in the range of
>660-680km/h, that is 410-422mph. In what configuration L was
>supposed to break 710km/h (about same than P-51D)? Painted, guns
>loaded, all equipment onboard? How much fuel? Italian and French
>manufacturers, for example, almost always presented performance
>figures which were 5-10% better than in real life, because they used
>'Reno configuration'.
The most commonly printed max speed numbers for the P-38L state
414 mph. How interesting. Consider that the L was fitted with the -30
Allisons, as opposed to the -17 on the J. There is a big difference, and
I'll go into that a little later.
The typical numbers presented for the J are 421 mph IN WEP.
The typical numbers presented for the L are 414 mph IN METO.
This is one of the pitfalls of using commercially available data. It
usually isn't researched very well. The difference between METO and
WEP is 600 hp. The -30 produced a minimum of 1,725 hp in WEP.
As opposed to 1,425 hp in METO.
The -17 installed in the P-38J had the same METO rating as the -30
at 1,425 hp. However, the -17 only made 1,600 hp in WEP. The
additional power could push the L to speeds over 440 mph. Warren
Bodie concludes the maximum speed in WEP as 443 mph at altitudes
between 20,000 and 23,500 ft. Bodie obtained his data directly from
Lockheed, where he was employed as an engineer on the U-2 and
F-117 programs. Therefore, I tend to except Bodie as a more credible
source than Green and Swanborough et al.
My regards,
C.C. Jordan
The Planes and Pilots of WWII online magazine
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/
A member of the WWII Web-ring.
Honor and remember the WWII veterans.
"In reality, there exists only fact and fiction. Opinions result from
a lack of the former and a reliance on the latter."
From: C.C.Jordan@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: U.S. 55th Fighter Group (was: something else)
Date: 12 Feb 1999 03:54:38 GMT
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:35:16 -0500, Bob Andrew wrote:
>
>
>"C.C. Jordan" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The typical numbers presented for the J are 421 mph IN WEP.
>> The typical numbers presented for the L are 414 mph IN METO.
>> This is one of the pitfalls of using commercially available data. It
>> usually isn't researched very well. The difference between METO and
>> WEP is 600 hp. The -30 produced a minimum of 1,725 hp in WEP.
>
>>
>> The -17 installed in the P-38J had the same METO rating as the -30
>> at 1,425 hp. However, the -17 only made 1,600 hp in WEP. The
>> additional power could push the L to speeds over 440 mph. Warren
>> Bodie concludes the maximum speed in WEP as 443 mph at altitudes
>> between 20,000 and 23,500 ft. Bodie obtained his data directly from
>> Lockheed, where he was employed as an engineer on the U-2 and
>> F-117 programs. Therefore, I tend to except Bodie as a more credible
>> source than Green and Swanborough et al.
>
>If Lockheed was testing its own aircraft, I would call this commercially
>available data 
It should be obvious that Lockheed would do exhaustive testing on their
own aircraft. Lockheed's internal test reports were not released publically.
Nor were Allison's.
>
>Without knowing how this plane was loaded or configured (ammo, bombracks,
>fuel load), or how its engines were tuned and prepped for the test, I
>would stick with the figures which at least claim to be measured 'under
>typical combat loads'.
The testing in question is always performed at combat weight with ballast
added for ammmunition. In other words, full load, clean configuration.
>
>I'm sure Lockheed could get a P-38L to hit 443 mph, but I wonder how fast North
>American could get a P-51D to go?
443 in WEP.... That means you have about 5 minutes of maximum horsepower.
The above speed is not sustainable. Nor, for that matter is METO sustainable.
Why? Overheating. Even for the Mustang, METO was not sustainable for long
periods.
>
>Also, the published WEP hp for the -30 is 1600, where does 1725 come from?
>The difference represents 9% of a power setting which is already supposed to
>be extremely high.
There's that word again: "Published". Published by who?
Allison spent a great deal of time and money on the "dash thirty" program.
They produced volumes of dynometer data for Lockheed and the AAF.
Lockheed did their own testing and confirmed the Allison numbers. Hence,
the installation of the -30 in the L model.
The following are the CORRECT stats for the Allison V-1710F-30.
Write 'em down somewhere....
Ratings [minutes] Power RPM Manifold [in.Hg] Altitude [ft]
Normal (no limit) 1,100 2,600 44 30,000
Take Off (5) 1,475 3,000 54 SL
Military (15) 1,475 3,000 54 30,000
WEP (5) 1,725 3,000 60 28,700
My regards,
C.C. Jordan
Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=
