Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: gatt on August 02, 2000, 01:10:00 AM
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 08-02-2000).]
-
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.
-
follow the 109s in a spiral climb??
out run the 109s??
I've dreamed of that...
-
This was fascinating. Thanks for posting all that info. What is critical mach?
DB
-
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.
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
(http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kalger/sig.gif)
"Smoke me a kipper boys, I'll be back for breakfast"
[This message has been edited by Soulyss (edited 08-02-2000).]
-
Great post Gatt, thanks (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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.
(http://www.pyker.dircon.co.uk/pictures/364g/Williams.jpg)
------------------
Lt Col Dune
X.O. 352nd Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"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
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
But the P-38's could hide amoungst the B-17s, or flak though (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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
-
I think so but with no web site I can't embed the picture in a post (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-Westy
-
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! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
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).]
-
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 (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"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
-
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?
-
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
-
Holy effing dead letter office, batman.
-
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.
-
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.
Two throttles, two prop controls, and two mixture controls, pretty much the norm for a propeller driven twin. Very conceivable to screw up management of one or more in the heat of battle.
-
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.
Probably you were reading the report of the CO of the hapless 20th FG. See https://www.historynet.com/p-38-flunked-europe.htm (cleverly titled "Why the P-38 Flunked Europe"):
Major General William Kepner, the fiery commanding general of VIII Fighter Command, wondered, as so many others did, why the P-38 wasn’t producing the results everyone wanted, and what to do about it. Asked to provide a written report, 20th Fighter Group commander Colonel Harold J. Rau did so reluctantly and only because he was ordered to.
“After flying the P-38 for a little over one hundred hours on combat missions it is my belief that the airplane, as it stands now, is too complicated for the ‘average’ pilot,” wrote Rau. “I want to put strong emphasis on the word ‘average,’ taking full consideration just how little combat training our pilots have before going on operational status.”
Rau wrote that he was being asked to put kids fresh from flight school into P-38 cockpits and it wasn’t working. He asked his boss to imagine “a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission.” Rau’s young pilot was on “auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on.” So, flying along in this condition, wrote Rau, the kid suddenly gets bounced by German fighters. Now he wonders what to do next.
“He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main [fuel tank],” Rau wrote. “So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches (valves) to main, turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight.” To future generations this would be called multi-tasking, and it was not what you wanted to be doing when Luftwaffe fighters were pouring down on you.
“At this point, he has probably been shot down,” Rau noted, “or he has done one of several things wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure.”
Another P-38 pilot described the multi-tasking challenge this way: “When you reduce power you must pull back the throttle (manifold pressure) first, then the prop RPM, and then the mixture. To increase power you must first put the mixture rich, then increase prop RPM, then increase manifold pressure. If you don’t follow this order you can ruin the engine.” Rau added that in his own limited experience, his P-38 group had lost at least four pilots who, when bounced, took no evasive action. “The logical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit trying to get organized that they were shot down before they could get going,” he wrote.
- oldman
-
Thank goodness AHIII doesn't require detailed engine management. Every AH pilot can imagine he does all that by instinct.
-
Thanks oldman, that was exactly what I read, however I couldn't remember where I read it.
-
What is critical mach?
It's the speed where the airflow over some part of the aircraft reaches the speed of sound.
Badboy
-
It's the speed where the airflow over some part of the aircraft reaches the speed of sound.
Badboy
Howdy BB... just as I logged MNM I noticed you were the one who shot me down.
LOL hope all is going well.
-
Howdy BB... just as I logged MNM I noticed you were the one who shot me down.
LOL hope all is going well.
Yep, that was my first time in MNM, it was crazy fun!!
For me it's a 2am start, so not sure how often I'll be able to make it.
Nice to see you there, hope everything is going well at your end too.
Badboy
-
For me it's a 2am start, so not sure how often I'll be able to make it.
Dude. This is why you retired. Just sleep later.
- oldman
-
Yep, that was my first time in MNM, it was crazy fun!!
For me it's a 2am start, so not sure how often I'll be able to make it.
Nice to see you there, hope everything is going well at your end too.
Badboy
All well here.
Dang 2 am... so you are usually counting sheep. Ahhh memories of early AH.... sheeeeep.
-
Dude. This is why you retired. Just sleep later.
Good point.
I guess I'm still getting used to some of the freedoms of retired life :aok
Badboy
-
I realise this is a three-month reply to a thread that started in 2000(!), but it jogged something within me. One of the fascinating things about Aces High and Air Warrior is that they can trace their lineage back to the really early days of the public internet, and I remember reading the message in the OP's post ages ago.
While going through my bookmarks I stumbled on this, which is full of USENET posts from the early 1990s with lists of MUDs and/or people talking with starry eyes about the coming abundance of bandwidth, and how the internet is going to be fantastic when there are thousands of people on it:
http://textfiles.com/internet/ (http://textfiles.com/internet/)
But what I couldn't find was the archive that had the discussion about P-38s. From what I remember one of the participants spent several years dropping hints that he was an actual P-38 pilot. He used to drop names ("I know that Mike in the 23rd never had any problem with cold weather", that kind of thing), and although he never explicitly claimed to a former P-38 pilot he never corrected anybody when they referred to him as such.
The problem is that as P-38 pilots died off it became apparent that he could not possibly be legitimate - the only person he could be had died a year or so beforehand. He was a clever mimic. He never posted again.
It has haunted me ever since. It taught me that you should always be wary of people on the internet who have an "aura". I remember a similar thing happening at Bluray.com a few years later (someone pretended to be a Sony executive kept referring to other Sony executives in first-name terms, but again the number of people it could be was limited and he was eventually outed as a fraud).
Dammit, if only I could find the archive.
Oh yeah, here it is - another bunch of posts from Usenet:
https://yarchive.net/mil/cdb.html (https://yarchive.net/mil/cdb.html)
It was a chap called CDB100620. The thing is that if you google "CDB100620 p-38" even today there are people on the internet who quote him, but he was at best a well-informed impersonator:
"Those of us who have written CDB in private were convinced that he was Elliott Dent of the 7th Fighter Squadron, 49th Fighter Group. Dent was the only pilot in the 7th with 6 confirmed kills. CDB signed his e-mail "E.D." I began my messages to him with "Dear Elliott". I was never corrected and certainly led to believe that I was, indeed, writing to Mr. Dent.
Now here's the caveat........
Elliott Dent died on August 28th, 1993."
-
From what I’ve heard the p38 was losing in ETO before it had hydraulic ailerons. The power boosted ailerons made all the difference.
-
From what I’ve heard the p38 was losing in ETO before it had hydraulic ailerons. The power boosted ailerons made all the difference.
And it was still losing.
- oldman
-
It was a pretty airplane. :old:
-
And it was still losing.
- oldman
<wags finger> That's enough out of you buddy! :neener:
-
The P38J models introduced to ETO was not what the 38L described in the text, the Luftwaffe could disengage at will by diving away, something the J model could not follow due to compression.
Bad tactics did not help at all.
The P38 during -44 was very vulnerable in their new role as fighter-bombers according to JG26.
-
And it was still losing.
- oldman
Although I generally agree but look to the record of the 479th FG flying late block J-15's (w/o boosted ailerons) under Zemke. They had as good an air to air ratio as any other FG in the ETO. Just before they converted to -51, the 479th received one P-38J-25 for familiarization purposes, but no combat in the J until squadrons in the 9th AF got enough to fly missions in Oct/Nov.
Leadership? More experienced pilots? Better engagement judgment? More reliability with the changes inside the cockpit including heating and fuel management that were installed after March 1944?
-
Although I generally agree but look to the record of the 479th FG flying late block J-15's (w/o boosted ailerons) under Zemke. They had as good an air to air ratio as any other FG in the ETO. Just before they converted to -51, the 479th received one P-38J-25 for familiarization purposes, but no combat in the J until squadrons in the 9th AF got enough to fly missions in Oct/Nov.
Leadership? More experienced pilots? Better engagement judgment? More reliability with the changes inside the cockpit including heating and fuel management that were installed after March 1944?
Experience in the P-38 before the 479th left states was a key to the 479th's success in the ETO when they got shipped over seas.
-
Experience in the P-38 before the 479th left states was a key to the 479th's success in the ETO when they got shipped over seas.
I've been away from this subject for awhile - apologize for excavating a dead horse.
I devoted a significant amount of time digging into P-38 ETO history for my new book "P-51 Mustang; NAA's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the 8th AF" - (forgive the hyperbole).
First, a mild rebuttal on the comment >experience was the key for the 479th. IMO it was Zemke's leadership as the surge in VC's for the 479th was after he took over in August, 1944 - particularly in late September just before conversion to P-51. A comparison could be the 55th FG which had as much training as the 479th 'in type'.
The resolution of issues with the engines/aftercooler and oil cooler embodied in the early J through mid block J-15, including introduction of second generator to provide cockpit cooling as well as simplified controls, marked the beginning of the P-38 as a fighter pilot's airplane in combat with LW at high altitude ETO conditions. Neither the 479t nor 20th, 55th and 364th ever flew the J-25 with dive flap and boosted ailerons - only the 9th AF got those in October/November and the 15th only got P-38Js in MTO in June/J-25 in November, 1944. Comment here - the 332nd 'Red Tails' outscored each of the VERY experienced 1st, 14th and 82nd FG after they (332nd) converted to Mustangs in the MTO.
For the 8th AF P-38 combat record, the evaluation of USAF 85 VCs to 'probable air to air losses' documented by MACRs, point to about 1.6:1 air to air for all four groups. If you separate the 479th FG, the other 3 FGs were closer to 1:1.
There were six fighter Aces in 479th. Of the 6 (Zemke, Jeffrey, Gleason, Olds, Candelaria and Creighton) ONLY Olds managed to get five in the P-38 in four plus months of operations.
The number of air aces that got five or more in P-38H/J in ETO are barely a handful. The top P-38J ace (Morris 7.33 20th FG) was shot down by an Me 410 after 7 months in combat ops. He was also unique as the first 8th AF pilot to score 4 on one mission.
The P-38J flown by the 20th, 55th, 364th and 479th also had the highest loss per VC ratio for airfield strafing. Big target, two vulnerable cooling systems - each prone to quick fires when hit by explosive shells. For the ETO the top VC to strafing loss ratio was the P-51. (IMO that was because the range and reduced target profile enabled the P-51 to strike more less defended airfields early on before the LW upgunned all airfields with light 20mm flak.)
That said, my father's group (355th FG) did not lose Any aces to air to air (of 21) but lost five shot down by flak (one rescued) and one stuck in mud attempting a rescue.
As to '440 mph' top speed for P-38L. No AAF flight test substantiates the Lockheed claims for anything above 414+ mph with combat load out. I'm not saying the L could Not exceed 414 with the final engine/cooling capability - but the fat P-38 wing and overall cumulative parasite drag caused a signifcant onset Mach well short of similar drag rise speeds in a P-51.
-
There were six fighter Aces in 479th. Of the 6 (Zemke, Jeffrey, Gleason, Olds, Candelaria and Creighton) ONLY Olds managed to get five in the P-38 in four plus months of operations.
If you read Olds book he mentions that he was not fond of whoever the leader was in the beginning when they were flying 38s. If I recall correctly he didn't believe that he was aggressive enough. I don't have my book handy or I would be able to give you the name.
-
I realise this is a three-month reply to a thread that started in 2000(!), but it jogged something within me. One of the fascinating things about Aces High and Air Warrior is that they can trace their lineage back to the really early days of the public internet, and I remember reading the message in the OP's post ages ago.
Oh yeah, here it is - another bunch of posts from Usenet:
https://yarchive.net/mil/cdb.html (https://yarchive.net/mil/cdb.html)
It was a chap called CDB100620. The thing is that if you google "CDB100620 p-38" even today there are people on the internet who quote him, but he was at best a well-informed impersonator:
"Those of us who have written CDB in private were convinced that he was Elliott Dent of the 7th Fighter Squadron, 49th Fighter Group. Dent was the only pilot in the 7th with 6 confirmed kills. CDB signed his e-mail "E.D." I began my messages to him with "Dear Elliott". I was never corrected and certainly led to believe that I was, indeed, writing to Mr. Dent.
Now here's the caveat........
Elliott Dent died on August 28th, 1993."
As another belated reply (but nearly the 15+ years that resurrected this thread), I would like to correct something. I indeed looked up CBD100620 as you suggested, and found in the first link a post in the old usenet archive from 1996, where he specifically stated that Elliot Dent was in fact his father-in-law. https://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html (https://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html) - see the first paragraph, and note that he also states that his father in law did in fact post once while visiting, which may have been from that account. This may have been part of the confusion (and who knows - perhaps his first name WAS Elliot as well). I vaguely recall some of those usenet names and conversations from the mid 90's - my how time has flown.
Mike
-
If you read Olds book he mentions that he was not fond of whoever the leader was in the beginning when they were flying 38s. If I recall correctly he didn't believe that he was aggressive enough. I don't have my book handy or I would be able to give you the name.
Col Kyle Riddle - down in Aug 44, evaded and returned to take over after Zemke wen down in T-storm. My father was offered the group when he was Deputy Gp CO of 355th FG but had to stay on after his 300 hour tour and he wanted to go home for a rest.
The 479th flourished under Zemke's leadership.
-
Another bump of this ancient thread, but since you guys speak of the 479th I thought it would be interesting to mention that the 479th P38s likely operated with 150 octane fuel. This would have allowed them to use 65-75 inches manifold over the standard 60 inches, giving the P38 a 20-25mph speed boost at max power.
From the page below, the 479th operated at Station 377 Wattisham, England from 15 May 1944 - 23 November 1945. They converted from P38s to P51s in the time period between October-December 1944.
Now in the second document, you see 150 octane fuel deliveries starting June 10th, 1944 to Station 377 (Wattisham), at least 4 months before their conversion to P51s began. Meaning they probably had 4-6 month operating time with P38s while being supplied with 150 octane fuel.
Anyways yeah I just thought this was interesting, since many people believe P38s were only tested for 150 octane use and never used in combat with it.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/562449901544538134/893250656280920084/Screenshot_2021-09-30_at_17-37-46_Air_Force_Combat_Units_of_WWII_-_AFD-090529-056_pdf.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/562449901544538134/893251633968996353/unknown.png)
-
I haven't seen any data re: 150 octane fuel in the J-15. That said, one way of the other, the Late block J-15s that populated the 479th had largely resolved cockpit heating, Intercooler/oil cooler and Turbo issues which had limited P-38 Allisons to 60". Additionally, and critical to the discussion, was that the Cruise settings of high boost/low RPM per Allison/Lockheed practice (vs VIII ATS) resolved the Turbo 'go bang' problems when spooling up from low boost in an emergency.
To be clear, the extra boost permitted by the 150 octane simply made the Potential predicted, and occasionally validated by flight test, performance of top speed and ROC. The possibility of raising top speed by 15mph+ really meant getting To the ~ 420mph at 25K presented by Lockheed for the -89/-91 V-1710 at 1600 Hp. The downside of the 150 octane application is that it probably reduced FTH for the 1600 Hp to several 1000 feet Lower.
The last mixed P-38/P-51 mission flown by 479th was September 28th, 1944.
-
I wish they put the P-38K into production. :aok
-
The P-38K as tested, with different gear ratio, slightly larger prop was slightly superior to P-38J in climb.
The 'P-38K' that Kelsey (and Bodie) raved about, never got past being sent to Rolls-Royce for an installation of Merlin trial before 8th AF and Materiel Command killed it in June/July 1944.There was more demand for Packard Merlins than supply and NAA had Number 1 priority for P-51B/C/D/K and then H.
So there were no firm decisions even regarding configuration - i.e two stage V-1650, redesign intercooler/radiator, scrap GE turbo - or retain Turbo slightly modify the radiator/intercooler. In either case the heavier Merlin required either ballast or change in wing location to account for CG change.
In any case, a 'production' P-38K as described would not have been in serial production intil late 1945.
-
The P-38K was tested in April 1943. It could have reached production in October 1943. Further, the Hamilton Standard High Activity propellers were not "slightly larger", they were considerably larger (13'-6"), large enough to require them to be raised significantly, creating the need to an entirely new cowl (even compared to the J/L cowl), and more efficient. They were also far more reliable, and reduced the load on the electrical system considerably. They not only increased the climb rate, but also acceleration, as well as reducing fuel consumption. It is also reasonable to conclude that if equipped with the Hamilton Standard High Activity paddle prop, the P-38 would have also be upgraded to the four blade version as other aircraft were. One of the greatest handicaps faced by the P-38 was the inability of the Curtiss Electric propellers to harness the horsepower of even the earlier G model engines with any real efficiency.
Lockheed engineering studies found ZERO advantage in the proposed installation of the Merlin 1650 as compared to the Allison V-1710 with the GE turbocharger. It was heavier, burned more fuel, and made less power at every altitude. It was also larger. The installation would have required an entirely new engine fuselage. It would have resulted in reduced performance in every category. The only even marginal reason to install Merlins would be to eliminated the turbochargers and intercoolers, and that would merely cost power. In some forty years of research on the P-38, I have never seen any documentation of an actual attempt by anyone to install Merlin engines in a P-38 airframe. Neither of the P-38K prototypes, the first, based on what was believed to be an F model (the one seen in pictures), or the one based on a prototype J model, were known to survive, nor were known to be subjected to an attempt to install Merlins. The idea that either one would have been shipped to Britain to have Rolls Royce install Merlins is quite odd. Sipping prototypes to Britain, when there were a few thousand aircraft already there, would be quite odd.
Actually, in May/June 1944, Material Command actually requested the P-38K, or a similar version (it would have been the P-38L, up-fitted to a four blde version of the Hamilton Stanard prop) be put into production.
-
The P-38K was tested in April 1943.
\
Good lord, Hilts is back. Dude!
- oldman
-
\
Good lord, Hilts is back. Dude!
- oldman
Rumors of my demise were greatly exaggerated. Cancer did not get me.
-
Another bump of this ancient thread, but since you guys speak of the 479th I thought it would be interesting to mention that the 479th P38s likely operated with 150 octane fuel. This would have allowed them to use 65-75 inches manifold over the standard 60 inches, giving the P38 a 20-25mph speed boost at max power.
From the page below, the 479th operated at Station 377 Wattisham, England from 15 May 1944 - 23 November 1945. They converted from P38s to P51s in the time period between October-December 1944.
Now in the second document, you see 150 octane fuel deliveries starting June 10th, 1944 to Station 377 (Wattisham), at least 4 months before their conversion to P51s began. Meaning they probably had 4-6 month operating time with P38s while being supplied with 150 octane fuel.
Anyways yeah I just thought this was interesting, since many people believe P38s were only tested for 150 octane use and never used in combat with it.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/562449901544538134/893250656280920084/Screenshot_2021-09-30_at_17-37-46_Air_Force_Combat_Units_of_WWII_-_AFD-090529-056_pdf.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/562449901544538134/893251633968996353/unknown.png)
Thanks.
The claims that the P-38 was never operated above 60"-64" of MAP in combat are almost completely without merit. Considering that multiple P-38 test pilots toured the theaters of operation, and they had access to testing that showed the Allison was tested for hours at up to 80" of MAP, and over 3200 RPM, there's little doubt that they were rigged for it in the field, especially when 150 octane was available. The low top speeds shown for the J and L model DO NOT show the WEP settings in use.
-
Rumors of my demise were greatly exaggerated. Cancer did not get me.
:eek:
Glad you're better Hilts :salute
-
Well, here is the flight test in July 1944 to evaluate 44-1 at 3000/70"MP.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-28392.html
Top Speed = 419mph at 19.8K, at limit speed 26,800 RPM for Turbo. 3000RPM @70" MP.
At critical alttude of 24K top speed was 413mph at 60"MP
The primary advatage was a higher rate of climb with a corresponding trade off of a.) lower speed at escort altitudes, b.) lower ceiling and c.) lower critical altitude.
There NEVER was a 20-25mph increase in top speed for the jump between 130 and 150 octane. Additionally the usual 10-15mph boost of top speeds (17mph in above report) came with a corresponding lower critical altitude. The issue for the P-38 was the turbo limits. Note also that the P-38J-15 for this test was flown in clean (no wing pylons) condition - as most P-38 tests were flown compared to P-51 testing, where most, including the associated 44-1 flight tests were flwn with racks - a 12mph drag penalty but inclusive of all ETO/MTO escort conditions.
Also - the 'potential horsepower available' for each succeeding model was never the issue - it was always the intercooler and turbo issues - not to mention the poor quality 'leaking' ducting design which seems to be mentioned in nearly every P-38 flight test I have seen when 'issues' are discused. Life followed art as that was a constant maintenance write up in ETO
-
Another bump of this ancient thread, but since you guys speak of the 479th I thought it would be interesting to mention that the 479th P38s likely operated with 150 octane fuel. This would have allowed them to use 65-75 inches manifold over the standard 60 inches, giving the P38 a 20-25mph speed boost at max power.
They were operating at 70"MP from July forward in ETO, IIRC 9th AF didn't switch until November-December. There was no increase of 20-25mph as the turbo rpm was the limiting factor - not to mention the drag rise due to lower Mcrit of the P-38
From the page below, the 479th operated at Station 377 Wattisham, England from 15 May 1944 - 23 November 1945. They converted from P38s to P51s in the time period between October-December 1944.
The 479th first 'mixed bag' meeting was escort on disastrous Sept 27 Kassel mission where 445th was clobbered. Olds was on that mission and called to testify at the investigaion board afterwards.
Now in the second document, you see 150 octane fuel deliveries starting June 10th, 1944 to Station 377 (Wattisham), at least 4 months before their conversion to P51s began. Meaning they probably had 4-6 month operating time with P38s while being supplied with 150 octane fuel.
Quibbling but ~ 3 1/2 mo. The transition began in early September, first combat with mix was either Sept 26th or 27th.
Anyways yeah I just thought this was interesting, since many people believe P38s were only tested for 150 octane use and never used in combat with it.
All three (P-38, P-47, P-51) were cleared in April 1944 by Materiel Command, all three were operational in ETO (8thAF at 3" below MC authorization in late June 1944.
VIII Air Technical Services lowered the US fight test ceiling for permissible 5 minute limit (continuous) boost for 150 octane fuel.
-
i remember reading somewhere that cost of p38 in terms of build as well as maintenance was prohibitive when compared with P51. For all it's advantages, cost did not justify them.
-
The P-51 was excellent in terms of cost/performance. It was one of the less-expensive US fighters.
Fighter costs in 1944 (Air Technical Service Command, Budget and Fiscal Office, http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t082.pdf):
P-38, $97,000
P-47, $86,000
P-51, $52,000
P-39, $51,000
P-40, $45,000
From America's Hundred Thousand, by Dean, p. 520 (1944 F4U-1D):
F4U, $75,000
Supposedly from A History of the United States Air Force 1907-1957, Alfred Goldberg, editor or from Victory Roll, by William Wolf:
F6F, $63,000
FM2, $50,000