some highlights in the differences between the p-38L in AH and the real one:
quote:
>...[T]he P-38 was a difficult plane to fly with some
>handling characteristics that were dangerous,
Ixnay!!
Other than knowing how to handle an engine-out situation on take-off (the usual
VMC business), the Lockheed offered no trouble. A complex airplane? For its
day, yes. A dangerous airplane? Not at all.
This P-38 debate is endless, but some things about the P-38 that made it such
an marvelous design haven't been brought up that probably should be:
To achieve high-speed capability, an airplane will have high wing-loading
(gross weight to wing area) and low power loading (gross weight to horsepower).
The P-38 had very high wing loading (which provides other benefits, such as
when penetrating weather, etc.), higher than anything other than one-off
record-breaking and racing planes when it was introduced. And it also had
unusually low power loading; in fact it had the lowest power loading of any US
design (maybe any design) of WWII. Turbocharging ensured this power loading
would remain constant to very high altitudes.
This meant the airplane would be fast. But high wing loading would normally
degrade turning, climb and ceiling. With such high wing-loading, the P-38
should have been a dog in all but top speed. It wasn't because of two other
factors.
One is its aspect ratio (span to chord ratio; that is, the relationship of the
length of the wing to its width). Another, related, factor is its span loading
(ratio of airplane weight to wingspan).
In turns or climbs, a plane's drag tends to increase and its speed to decrease.
A way to counter this is to increase the wingspan. For any given wing area,
increasing the span decreases the chord, providing a higher aspect ratio. For
structural and other reasons, most WWII-era fighters had aspect ratios of 6 or
less. The P-38 had an amazing aspect ratio of 8, meaning that it could gain
the advantage of high wing loading for speed and still not lose in
maneuverability, climb or ceiling.
A large wingspan, however, generally degrades a plane's rate of roll because
the wing surface is so far out from the fuselage and center of gravity. Making
the wing tips narrower by tapering the plan form does a lot to counter this.
Normal fighter configurations had a taper ratio of about 2 (the wing tip being
only about half as wide as the wing root). The P-38 had a taper ratio of 3.
So, you had an airplane that was fast yet a good climber, a good turner and
good roller.
But wait--there's more:
Power has to be converted to thrust thru a propeller. Big powerful engines
need big propellers to handle that power, but the diameter of a prop is limited
by tip speed. So power has to be absorbed by adding blades or increasing their
width. But a prop working harder on a given volume of air has inherent
aerodynamic inefficiencies requiring performance compromises. Bottom line
being that propeller inefficiency limits the value of engine power.
But because the P-38's power was in two "sections" (engines), each with its own
propeller, it was able to use its power as efficiently as a much lower-powered
airplane operating at lower speeds. And the increased propeller disc area of
the two props ensured that the plane's power and thrust would be maximized
throughout the maneuver range.
This thrust efficiency made for an airplane that leaped into the sky on
take-off and could accelerate in the air like a drag racer.
Pretty neat, huh?
But wait--there's more:
Ordinary fighters of the day had a tail length ratio (number of times the wing
chord goes into the distance from the center of gravity to the tail surfaces)
of between 2 and 2.5. This ratio might be compared to wheelbase on a car. A
shorter wheelbase makes for a choppier, less stable ride. The P-38's tail
length ratio was a whopping 4. This means it had excellent damping, or the
tendency to slow the rate of departure from a trimmed position. This made it a
great plane for flying long distances in, with one finger on the wheel, or for
instrument flying, or as a steady gun platform or for dropping bombs.
The large tail length ratio required a smaller than normal tail surface area
because of the increased arm at which the surface worked. This reduced drag
and made for a truly excellent flying airplane.
Not bad, huh?
But wait--there's more:
The width of the horizontal tail surface was determined by the spacing of the
booms. The result was a very high aspect ratio for the tail plane. The
endplate effect of the two vertical fins and rudder surfaces on the end of the
booms produced an aerodynamic apparent aspect ratio that was even higher. This
had the effect of providing very rapid changes in force with small changes in
the aircraft's angle of attack. This great sensitivity, combined with superb
damping, meant that less trimming force was necessary for stability and that
there was a wide range of CG position or stability available without
degradation of flying characteristics.
Like, wow, man!
But wait--there's more:
The high aspect ratio of the horizontal tail also produced narrow chord
elevators, which in a turn meant light control forces for maneuver. Ditto for
the vertical tail surfaces and rudders. Net effect, the pilot could dance the
airplane all over the sky without breaking a sweat, while bellowing out the
latest tunes from "Oklahoma!" to drown out the curses in his headphones of any
other pilot in some lesser machine that he chose to sky-wrassle with.
Because the engines rotated in opposite directions, they produced a symetrical
slip stream flow which eliminated the need the carry rudder displacement, thus
reducing a source of drag. And there was no change in trim with changes in
speed, which was a pure blessing in maneuver combat, er, dogfight.
Then there is the Fowler flap system which actually increases wing area,
tricycle landing gear, centerline fire guns, plenty of internal fuel, a roomy
cockpit....
The P-38 also had an amazing degree of detail refinement compared to other
planes. All its external surfaces were smooth with no distrubances from rivets
or lap joints, for example.
One negative was necessarily small ailerons because of the wing taper, meaning
large aileron displacement would be necessary to initiate a roll. That meant
high aileron forces. That's why the control wheel was used, and why the later
models had aileron boost. Savvy pilots would blip the inside throttle when
they wanted a smart roll ASAP. Less savvy pilots did lots of pushups. And
there was the cockpit heating and defrosting thing (by the way, it's just as
cold at 25,000 ft. in the tropics as in Europe), which did get solved about as
soon as it became apparent. Cooling was never as effectively solved.
But, all in all, a pretty damned good flying machine.
As pilots of the day said, if Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a
P-38.
At lower or higher speeds, the P-38 could out-do the P-51, using manuever
flap setting at low speeds, and having greater control authority at high
speeds. Of course, at any time, the P-38 driver could push the contest
into--and through--the accelerated stall, which the P-51 driver dared not do:
the P-51 would depart controlled flight suddenly and violently, while an
accelerated stall in a P-38 was scarcely noticeable--a little mushing and the
nose dropping a bit.
>> It's [P-51] handling could be downright nasty with violent departure
>> and very little accelerated stall warning.
The P-38's stall was a gentle as a J-3 cub. Power-on stalls, usually fatal in
P-51s (and other single-engine fighers), were a piece of cake in the
Thirty-Eight. It gave plenty of stall warning.
The P-38 floated in and planted
itself. If you came in a little fast, you could use the dive brakes to
slow down before your wheels touched. (where is the drag from our dive flaps?)...
As far as a combat type went, I recall Sidney talking about how it was
impossible to overshoot an aerial target in a dive with the P-38. If you
saw that you were overtaking faster than you liked, you popped the speed
brakes. Couldn't do that with any other plane. He also liked the low
speed maneuvering flaps, the hydraulicly boosted ailerons, and the overall
ruggedness of the airplane.
During the late winter of 1944 ocurred the famous dual between a
Griffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG. Col. Lowell few the
P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass. Lowell was
able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the
Spitfire pilot did. Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning
circle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall
characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride
the stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut
back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver. After 20 minutes
of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree
angle, not vertically down). Lowell stayed with the Spit through the
maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground. After that the
Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home. This contest was
witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground...
As the plane approached 30,000 ft, speeds over
Mach 0.60 could be sustained in level flight. Thus, manuevering could
quickly give the plane compressibility problems. At Mach 0.65 (290 mph
IAS, 440 mph TAS at 30,000 ft.; 360 mph IAS, 460 mph TAS at 20,000 ft.)
drag began to soar as the plane began to encounter compressibility. At
Mach 0.67 shock waves began forming and buffeting began at Mach 0.675. At
Mach 0.74 tuck under began. Buffeting developed at a lower Mach number in
any maneuver exceeding 1 g.
What this meant to a pilot in combat in say, a P-38H such as that used by
the 55FG or 20FG circa Jan. '44, was that if, at high altitude such as
Me-109s preferred approaching bomber formations, he locked on to the e/a
and it split-S'ed and dove away (typical Luftwaffe evasive maneuver), if
he attempted to follow, his P-38 would start to vibrate, then start
bucking like a rodeo bronco, the control column would begin flail back and
forth so forcefully it would probably be ripped out of his hands and begin
pounding him to crap. Once the plane dropped down to lower altitude where
the speed of sound was higher, the buffeting declined and the trim tab
could be used to haul the airplane out of what seemed to be a death dive.
Recovery with trim tab resulted in 5 g pull-out. Many a low-time service
pilot would be so shaken by this experience that he would never dive the
P-38 again, and might be so afraid of the airplane that his usefullness as
a fighter pilot was over.
The late J and L models solved this problem with the installation of a
dive flap. Extend the flaps at the beginning of a dive and all problems
were eliminated. Again, these models weren't available in the critical
period between fall 1943 and spring 1944 when the most desperate battles
against the Luftwaffe took place, and when the P-38s rep in Europe was
established.
The reason P-38s were as successful as they were in Europe (and it should
be kept in mind they performed their escort role before it was decided to
free the fighters from the bombers to seek out e/a on favorable terms so
they were always forced to engage on unfavorable terms) was at least in
part because they were wonderful aerobatic airplanes with absolutely no
maneuvers restricted except the dive. Loops, Immelmans, slow and snap
rolls, Cuban eights...it could perform them all with perfection. It had a
wonderful ability to perform in the vertical, with an excellent rate of
climb, splendid zoom climb. It could easily change direction while
executing vertical maneuvers. It was also a very stable gun platform,
being stable and very smooth while executing maneuvers...
In contrast, the P-51, had far fewer compressibility problems at speeds
normally encountered in combat, including dives from high altitude. The D
model was placarded at 300 mph IAS (539 mph TAS, Mach 0.81) at 35,000 ft.
In a dive, the P-51 was such an aerodynamically clean design that it could
quickly enter compressibility if the dive was continued (in reality, a
pilot could, as a rule, catch any German plane before compressibility
became a problem). But, say, in an evasive dive to escape, as the P-51's
speed in the dive increased, it started skidding beyond what the pilot
could control (this could be a problem in a dive onto a much lower-flying
plane or ground target--couldn't keep the plane tracking on the target if
speed was too high). As compressibility was entered, it would start
rolling and pitching and the whole plane would begin to vibrate. This
began about Mach 0.72. The pilot could maintain control to above Mach
0.80 (stateside tests said 0.83 (605 mph) was max safe speed--but
structural damage to the aircraft would result).
The P-51's quirk that could catch the uprepared service pilot by surprise
was that as airspeed built up over 450 mph, the plane would start to get
very nose heavy. It needed to be trimmed tail heavy before the dive if
speeds over 400 mph were anticipated. However, in high speed dives, the
plane's skidding changed to unintended snap rolls so violent that the
pilot's head was slammed against the canopy. Depending on how much fuel
was in the fuselage tank, on pull-out stick force reversal could occur, a
real thrill that could totally flummox a low-time service pilot diving
earthward at close to 1,000 ft per second trying to escape a pursuer.
The P-51 was a good dogfighter, positively stable under all flight
routines. A pilot didn't have to work hard to get it to the limits of its
flight envelope (that is, he wasn't sweating heaving and pushing and
pulling and kicking to get it to move its ass.) It was important to burn
down fuel in the fuselage tank to avoid longitudenal instabillity.
Cranking into a tight turn with too much go-juice in the tank would mean
instant stick force reversal and the pilot had to brace himself to oppose
the stick slamming backward into his solar plexus, and shove hard to
prevent the turn from tightening till, if he was lucky, he entered a high
speed stall, or, if unlucky, the wing ripped off.
Turns above 250 mph IAS were the killers, because they resulted in g
forces high enough to black out the pilot so that he couldn't oppose the
stick reversal and the Mustang would, unattended, wind itself up into a
wing-buster...
The P-38 did not want to roll at all when aileron force was first applied
(inertial resistance), so there was a heartbeat of hesitation, then the
plane would very sluggishly begin to roll. This sluggishness persisted
through about 10 degrees of roll, after which the rate of roll became very
good; in fact, with the aileron boost of the later J and L models, the
faster the plane was going, the faster the rate of roll, giving the plane a
terrific advantage in high-speed maneuver combat.
The initial reluctance of the P-38 to enter a roll was easily
counteracted: throttle back the inside engine briefly as as you turn the
wheel, then bring power back up. The plane would snap into a roll so fast
it might knock your head against the canopy. The trick was not to let the
plane get away from you when doing this. It took praciice to get it right
and make it an automatic action, especially during the heat of combat.
The P-38 was splendidly maneuverable and had an excellent rate of climb
and rapid rate of acceleration. And, of course, its concentrated nose
armament was a distinct advantage...
Here's an excerpt of a Luftwaffe experte's (Heinz Knoke, 52 kills, all in
the West) description of a duel with a P-38 (from "I Flew for the Fuhrer"):
"...At once I peel off and dive into the Lightnings below. They spot us
and swing round towards us to meet the attack.... Then we are in a madly
milling dogfight...it is a case of every man for himself. I remain on the
tail of a Lightning for several minutes. It flies like the devil himself,
turning, diving, and climbing almost like a rocket. I am never able to
fire more than a few pot-shots...."
475FG is officially credited with destroying 547 Japanese aircraft in
aerial combat while losing just 27 planes to enemy air action. That gives them
a kill ratio of 20.25:1.
Greatest single loss of P-51s on a combat mission in the ETO for P-51s =
11(363FG); in ETO for the P-38 = 8 (55FG).
The first quadruple kill by the USAAF in the ETO was acomplished by a P-38,
which downed 3 FW-190s and 1 Me-109. The three FWs were downed in a classic,
turning dogfight.
USAAF boss Hap Arnold, discussing the P-38 vs. the P-47 in a letter to Eaker in
June, 1943, wrote: "I can't help but compare the excellent results
accomplished with the P-38...and the meager results accomplished by your
Fighter Command equipped with [the P-47].
Hunter himself described the P-38 as "a wonderful ship." (This is similar to
the comment on the P-38 made by George Preddy, the leading Mustang ace. In his
diary he notes of the P-38: "This is a wonderful flying ship." About the P-47
he wrote, "This is a nice flying ship." Later he wrote, "Sure getting
disappointed in the P-47." About the P-51 he wrote, "It's a good flying
ship.")
Demand was so great for the P-38 in North Africa and the Pacific, however,
that there was an insufficient supply and so, by default, the P-47 stayed in
the ETO.
Sid Woods flew against the Japanese with the 49FG (one confirmed kill). He
flew against the Germans with the 479FG and as CO of the 4FG (nine confirmed
kills). He considered the Japanese tougher foes than the Germans, the pilots
more skillful, aggressive and determined, the airplanes they flew formidable
fighters.
In a mock dogfight between the Mustang and the Lightning, the skilled P-38
driver would fight in the vertical, taking advantage of his superior climb
speed and aerobatic ability. The skilled Mustang pilot would attempt to extend
away and come back unobserved. Once either locked onto the tail of the other,
it would be very difficult to shake. The P-38 driver in such a situation would
want to work the speed of the engagement down into the stall area where the
Mustang couldn't follow him. He could also split-S, dive and zoom, probably
losing the P-51. The Mustang pilot with a P-38 on his tail had fewer options.
At high altitude, he could point the nose at the ground and keep it there till
the the Lightning dwindled, then zoom climb into a fast, shallow climb to
extend away.
Interesting that the twin-engine fighter would have the advantage in a slow
turning contest, or in the vertical--loops, split-Ses.
What would typically happen if a Mustang bounced a Lightning would be that the
P-38 would split-S, the Mustang would follow through the roll but keep on
diving for some distance before pulling out, then circle around for another try
at a bounce. The Lightning pilot would continue the split-S up into a loop and
scan the sky for the Mustang. Typically, he would spot him some distance below
beginning a pull out. The Lightning driver would finish the loop and fall on
the climbing Mustang, locking onto his tail. The smart Mustang pilot would
reduce the chance of this by rolling out of h is escape dive into a climb in a
different direction. He might do a corkscrew climb. The "winner" of the
dogfight would be the pilot who better kept sight of his foe, who better
anticipated what his foe would do next, and who knew what to do with his own
airplane to counter that anticipated move; in other words, the better pilot
won--not the airplane.
The P-38 had so many positive attributes from a piloting perspective, from easy
taxiing to harmless power-on stalls, that it makes no sense to compare it with
the Me 109, which had so few.
It makes more sense to compare the 109 with the P-40, which, I would suspect,
was the AAF's take-off and landing crash champ. It took a lot of rudder fed in
early on to keep it going straight. Legions of pilots lost it on take off or
landing.
The cloverleaf was a horizontal maneuver that took advantage of the P-38's
exceptionally gentle stall characteristics. It was a low-speed maneuver. The
pilot would tighten his turn until he actually stalled out, ease off and let
the plane unstall itself, then tighten back up into a stall, ease up....
Viewed from above, the pattern the airplane flew through the air looked
something like a cloverleaf, and this simile was used in teaching the maneuver.
No German fighter could stay with the P-38 in a turn.
Of course, this manuever was useless against Japanese fighters like the Ki-43
and Zero, because they stalled out something like 30 mph slower than the best
theP-38 could do.
The P-38 was a complex aircraft, and required time in the cockpit to learn to
operate it well, but in the hands of a skilled pilot, there was very little it
could not do.
>Or is it that the turn was all in horizontal plane with no
>vertical maneauvering ?
Your understanding of the manuever seems spot on.
It was not a common maneuver, but a sort of last ditch hole card. Gerry
Johnson, ops exec of the 49FG used it to break contact with a Ki-44 he was in a
rough one-on-one with on a mission to the oil refineries of the DEI in the fall
of 1944. As he told it, he had fought the Tojo from 24,000 ft. down to the
deck, where it had latched onto his tail. He didn't dare straighten out and
try to run, because it was too close. He couldn't dive. He was forced to try
to out-turn it because he didn't have anything else to try. He started
clover-leafing and, to his great relief, the Tojo was unable to stay with him
and broke off contact, whereupon Johnson, master fighter pilot that he was,
turned the tables on the Tojo and shot him down.
In the SWPA, the Ki-61 had similar--if not somewhat better--dive
characteristics to the Me 109, yet no P-38 driver ever hesitated to plunge
after a Tony. The trick in the dive was: throttles to idle before dropping
the nose below the horizon, bank left and right to slow when buffeting began.
Pretty straightforward. In any case, compressibility was not a problem for any
model P-38 if the dive were entered from below 25,000 ft.
One thought is that most P-38 drivers in the SWPA transitioned from the P-40, a
diving sonostudmuffinun if there ever was one, or P-39 (also a good diver), and they
were used to making terminal velocity dives to save their hides. Both these
planes would yaw quite badly as speed built up in the dive and could otherwise
be disconcerting.
Aside from buffeting, which could easily be controlled, the P-38 was a
sweetheart in a dive compared to a P-40, so PTO pilots who had cut their
combat teeth on the Curtiss or Bell never had reason to fear it. If the ETO
boys were entering combat in the P-38, all the shock and confusion of
first-time combat would have been throw onto the P-38, and its quirks
magnified. Just a guess.
During the second Philippines campaign, some P-38 pilots heard a desperate
pilot calling on the radio in a voice on the edge of panic: "I'm losing
coolant! What should I do?" Assuming he was a new Lightning pilot with little
experience, they called back and told him to relax. Just feather the prop and
he'd get back okay. There was a moment of silence, then he responded, "Feather
it, hell! I'm in a P-51!"
There was a corollary experience. Returning from a long mission one day, a
bunch of P-38s, all flying on fumes, were jockeying to land first when a firm
voice came over the radio: "I'm coming in on one engine!" Naturally he got
priority clearance, and everybody looked around to see who was in trouble.
What they saw was a Tac Recon smart bellybutton in a P-40 slipping in on final.
Everybody started swearing--and then started laughing.
>> The P-51D was far from an excellent climbing fighter as
>> well. It's acceleration was rather poor in comparison
>> to many of it's contemporaries.
True. The P-38 was the best climber in active USAAF inventory and could easily
leave a P-51 choking on its heel dust. It also had brute acceleration the P-51
could not match (although the P-51 could accelerate very well indeed, the P-38
was better). The best accelerating P-38 was the H. Later models were
heavier, although the L got some more beans to play with.
The turbo really came into its own on the P-38 in the climb, providing sea
level horsepower to very high altitudes, so climb was smooth and consistent,
with 100 percent power being available at all altitudes. In earlier models,
inadequate intercooling limited the effectiveness of the turbos at high
altitude. This was corrected from the J. The P-51's two-stage, two-speed
mechanical supercharger caused it to lurch upstairs in a series of steps, HP
beginning to fall off immediately after a "gear change." The switch from the
first stage to the second stage of the supercharger occurred at about 17,000
ft. Just before the shift, the P-51 had performance about on par with a P-40N
at the same altitude. Then when the second stage kicked in, it became a tiger.
>I don't recall seeing P-38's accompanying
>B-29's to Tokyo.
That was an HQ decision based on rationalizing fighter plane procurement (Both
the P-38 and P-47 were considered for phasing out, along with the P-39, P-40
[both actually phased out] and P-63). The P-38 would have had no difficulty
escorting B-29s to Tokyo, or cleaning house when it got there.
The last dogfight the AAF fought in the war, on the afternoon of Aug. 14, 1945,
was fought between P-38Ls and Ki-84 Franks over the Bungo Straight between
Shikoku and Kyushu. Five Lightnings of the 35FS tangled with eight Ki-84s of
the 47th Sentai and sent four of them down for the loss of one of their own.
The most accurate source for P-38 data is Warren Bodie's
>> "The P-38 Lightning" and our friend CDB, P-40 and P-38 ace of the 49th
>> Fighter Group.
>
>Why is Bodie's fact list the most accurate??? I would believe that
>he is a historian, and his facts have been confirmed by other
>reputable historians. Do you suppose that all
>the contributors to Jane's are spinning tales???
Bodie obtained the full endorsement of Kelly Johnson and Ben Kelsey
prior to publication. Both men contributed to the book, Kelsey wrote
the prologue and Johnson, the forward. Bodie was the founder of the Split-S
Society which led to today's P-38 National Association. To most of the
P-38 community, Bodies is looked at as "the keeper of the flame".
Bodie is also a remarkable aviation historian. Bodie had access to
Lockheed's wartime records, likely due to his friendship with Johnson
and Kelsey. A great deal of what Bodie presents, has never been
published before. Why? Because no one has had access to the records
to the extent that Bodie has.
>Twice?? I very much doubt it, no matter which model of P-38 you
>> >compare to which model of P-51. I think climb rates between the two
>> >were generally similar, with the edge going to the P-51 against most
>> >models of the P-38.
>>
>> Obviously Mike was overstating. Nonetheless, ANY model of the P-38,
>> from the F through the L could outclimb the P-51B, C or D. That is not
>> even debatable. The P-51 was at best, a mediocre climber. The L model
>> (the most common variant) held an 800 fpm advantage from sea level, and
>> it only got greater as they went up. That is the result of the
>> turbocharged engines making constant power whereas the Merlin made
>> power in steps, so to speak, due to the two speed, two stage
>> supercharger. The P-38L also accelerated notably better as well.
>
>I only have book figures:
> P51B-1-NA -- 3.6 min to 10,000ft; 7 min to 20,000ft
> P38F-15-LO -- 4 min to 10,000ft; 8.8 to 20,000ft
There are lots of published figures bouncing about in various books. The
problem with most of these is that there is never a source listed.
The USAAF did a great deal of testing with every variant of the P-38. Most of
the data generated is available through the USAF Historical Research Center.
This requires one to travel there and perform a search. You can usually hire a
student to do your research if you don't mind parting with some green stuff.
The following climb figures appear in various test documents from several
different test facilities.
Time to height:
P-38F from sea level to 10,000 ft at 48 in. Hg. MAP, 2,900 rpm: 3.56 min.
P-38F from brake release to 10,000 ft.: 4 min, 35 sec.
P-38J sea level to 23,800 ft, 60 in. Hg. MAP, 3,000 rpm: 6.19 min., still
maintaining 2,900 fpm at that altitude.
P-38L sea level to 20,000 ft. 60 in. Hg. MAP, 3,000 rpm: 4.91min, still
maintaining 3,450 fpm at that altitude.
>This book also shows P38J climb very similar to P51B climb, no figures
>for P38L climb. If the great superiority in climb of the P38 over the P51
>only occurred at sea level, then perhaps that should have been stated.
>But it is debatable.
No debate at all.... The P-38 was the best climbing USAAF fighter, period.
>
>> Let's review a few facts.
>> 1) The P-38F was a bit faster than the Bf-109F (406 mph vs 388 mph)
>
>Well, my book shows 395 mph for the P38F. Perhaps showing different max
>speeds at different altitudes would be more meaningful here, but I don't
>have enough of these figures either.
The 395 mph figure comes from a test series done at Elgin in 1942. The maximum
manifold pressure utilized was 44.5 in. Hg. At 48 in. Hg. 406 mph was attained.
The lower MAP was selected for the test to reduce the danger of detonation due
the limited cooling capacity of the intercoolers. In combat, not such low limit
would be adhered to.
>> 2) The P-38, any model, could easily out turn the Bf-109F.
>
>Easily? Bt what criteria, at what speed and at what altitude?
Yeah, easily, at any altitude or speed.
>If the Bf109F could take on
>the Spitfire it could surely take on the P-38.
Says who? The P-38F was about 35 mph faster than the Spitfire Mk.Vb
It could disengage from a Spitfire at will. The P-38, with its fowlers deployed
could turn with the Spit initially and flying the classic yo-yo, remain behind.
>Turning is not the only measure of an aircrafts manuverability.
>Roll rate, acceleration, and energy retention are also important.
Roll rate in early models was directly related to pilot skill. Proper use of
differential throttle would induce a remarkable high roll rate (in either
direction) not attainable by aileron alone. Acceleration was always very
good with two airscrews generating thrust. As for energy retention,
the P-38 was a difficult aircraft to slow down. It did not bleed energy
as fast as most of its contempories.
>If the LW had found the 109F lacking against an ungainly twin, they would have
>ordered a completely new fighter design.
There was nothing ungainly about the Lightning. At 250 mph it could turn
with the A6M Zero. At 275 mph, it could turn inside the A6M. Try that with
any Bf-109 variant. One problem faced by the 109 was ill effects of torque.
Torque could limit roll rate in one direction while enhancing it in the other.
The P-38, with its engines and props turning in opposite directions, did not
suffer from the P factor. The 109, on the other hand could induced to snap
spin out of a tight turn. The P-38 could maneuver on the edge of a stall with
good control. Not so the Bf-109.
The Bf-109 was clearly outclassed by the P-38, especially the J and L models.
>
>>
>> 3) The P-38F could climb as fast as the Bf-109F.
>
>If the P-38F could not outclimb the P-51, it surely couldn't outclimb the
>109. I seem to recall the 109F climbed at around 4,000 ft/min at sea
>level, but I can't find the figures now. What climb figures do you have
>for the P-38 which are so impressive?
Above 25,000 ft, the P-38F climbs better than the 109F. Below that, the 109F
has the edge, with the exception of a zoom climb.
>
>>
>> 4) The P-38F was better armed.
>> 5) The P-38F had a vastly greater range.
>>
>> Obviously the Bf-109F was not "superior in every way to the P-38F".
>
>Actually, I said superior in every way except range and firepower.
>
>>
>> Most of the mission profiles in the MTO kept the P-38's below 15,000 ft.
>> Down there, the Luftwaffe had nothing that could handle the Lightning.
>
>Except the Bf-109 and the FW-190.
Unsupportable rubbish. P-38's killed Luftwaffe fighters, over their own
airspace at a rate of 4 to 1 in air to air combat. The P-38L achieved
a kill ratio of 6 to 1.This excludes losses not related to aerial combat.
When the P-38L arrived in the ETO and MTO, the Bf-109 was, for all
purposes, obsolete. The Fw-190A series was not far behind. Only the
Fw-190D and Ta-152 series were "state of the art".
this goes on.
Badboy, f4udoa and others have raised eyebrows to our poor performing p-38L and its performance relative to the real aircraft. I hope HTC will consider refining the p-38 flight model.
the cloverleaf maneuver is totally impossible in Aces High. this is a fact. this is because the P-38 stall model is so inacurate its not even funny.
dive flaps in Aces High do not produce the amount of drag the real ones did. this is a fact.
high speed turn of the p-38 is lacking. low speed turn performance (below 250mph) is also quite pathetic due to ineffectiveness of the fowler flaps.
etc etc etc.
the p-38 needs some work
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 01-12-2001).]
