Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Dextry on November 27, 2004, 03:43:06 AM
-
Tonight in H2H someone started talking about the P38 in WW2. They stated the P38 was the best plane in WW2 from beginning to end in ALL theaters. Then the whole room seemed to agree and it sort of turned into a P38 chat room about how and why the P38 was the "Greatest" plane in WW2. Of course I don't agree I think the P38 was a great plane in WW2 but was out classed by other fighters, but I don't know a whole lot about the real P38 and how it was used in WW2. Could we get some stories, facts, figures, and data, on what the real P38 could do and did in WW2?:)
-
it was a good plane.. not a match for the spitfire tho :D
-
P38 was a great plane. what some people refuse to realize is that a great plane doesn't mean it's better in every way and in every situation.
P38s suffered from numerous problems during most of their development line. Those problems prevented them from dominating at high altitudes, but were much less significant at low altitude fights. This is why P38 were very successfull in the PTO and MTO. Bottom line is that in the ETO they failed (but there were other reasons for that too, beside preformance)
So, P38s qualities and limitations made it great at certain rolls and an almost failure at others. Pretty much like all other top WWII fighters. It was good - not superior.
Bozon
-
Paging AKAK
-
"failed in the ETO" ?! tell me you are not serious.
-
The V1710 Timebombs underperformed in the ETO because of BAD GAS (particularly in north africa) - not because of any deficiency of the aircraft.
Its many's opinion though that the ETO guys didn't know how to use it correctly - but who knows. Bong would still roll over in his grave.
-
Originally posted by killnu
"failed in the ETO" ?! tell me you are not serious.
P-38s didn't fail in the ETO, they were grossly misused by General Hunter and his cronies, some of whom were fired when Doolittle took over in January of 1944.
Nonetheless, there were real problems with the P-38 in terms of mechanical issues.
While the P-38H proved reliable in general, they used a different type of intercooler than later models (it was located in the leading edge of the wing), and these we prone to leaking after repeated warm to very cold thermal cycles. At high altitudes, these intercoolers were inadequate at cooling the intake charge and pilots had to limit MAP to avoid detonation, and the subsequent risk of engine failure. When the P-38Js arrived in late 1943, they had even greater problems with detonation. However, this was caused by cooling the intake charge too much! P-38Js incorporated new intercoolers in a chin intake below the engines. Since the USAAF had informed Lockheed that the P-38 would not likely see service in the ETO, where the P-47 would be the primary fighter (remember, the USAAF thought at this time that the bombers would not require escort fighters), Lockheed engineered the intercoolers for tropical climates. When it was obvious that the 8th AF bombers did require escorts all the way to the target, two P-38 groups were hastily sent to Britain as the P-38 was the only fighter with the range to fly deep into Germany. These missions would be flown at 30,000 feet or higher and every P-38 pilot knew that this was well above the altitude where the cockpit heater was effective.
So, you can imagine the problems encountered by aircraft optimized for medium altitudes in tropical climates flying at extremely high altitudes over Europe in winter.
Pilots were literally frozen in their cockpits. Canopies and windscreens iced over. At cruise settings, engine temperatures would drop below normal operating temps. Overly efficient intercoolers chilled the fuel so much the tetra-ethal lead separated from the base petroleum. As soon as the pilots pushed up the throttles, engines would begin to detonate and often failed. Later it was determined that the intake manifold design was also faulty, causing some cylinders to run excessively lean, adding the risk of detonation. Early P-38Js had only one generator. If that failed, the nearly frozen battery was useless. Above 20,000 feet, fuel boost pumps are required to provide adequate fuel pressure. Without a generator and having a flat battery meant that the engines starved for fuel and pilots had to descend to get the fuel pressure back up.
There were also serious issues with compressibility. At 30k, a P-38 could exceed Mach 0.68 very easily in even a shallow dive. If speeds exceeded Mach 0.75, recovery would be difficult at best.
Turbo regulators were freezing due excessive oil cooling. Overspeeding turbos usually came apart in spectacular fashion.
Adding to these problems was the large workload associated with the P-38.
Suppose the P-38s are cruising at 30k. Power settings are 33 in/MAP at 2,100 rpm with mixtures in auto lean. Suddenly, they spot a large formation of Bf 109s above them and coming down.
To engage, the P-38 pilot must do the following. Switch the fuel selectors to internal fuel. Select and release drop tanks. Turn on the gunsight and gun warmers. Push both mixture levers into auto rich. Bring the Curtiss Electric props out of cruise pitch. Slowly increase power to MIL power (push up the power before the props and the engines will be damaged, push up power too fast and the engines will detonate and likely fail).
All of this must be done BEFORE they could effectively engage the enemy.
One last factor. Only two Groups of P-38s were available in December of 1943, the 20th and the 55th. While they had a total strength of 70-80 fighters between them, usually only about 60 were available for any given mission. Of these, 15%-20% would be aborts. It was rare for both Groups to get more than a total of 50 fighters into enemy airspace. Facing these 50 fighters were 200-400 Luftwaffe fighters. Yet, despite all the problems, this small group of P-38s not only killed more than they lost, they reduced bomber losses by 50%. Not bad considering that they were tied to the bombers because General Hunter was an advocate of "close escort" tactics. Meanwhile, the USAAF in its infinite wisdom had assigned the first operational P-51B group to the 9th Tactical Air Force. After much yelling and screaming, this unit was "loaned" to the 8th AF.
Adding to the misery was the fact that very few replacement pilots had ever flown the P-38. Some had never even sat in one before they reported to the Groups for duty. Most were trained as P-40 or P-47 pilots. There was little time to train them, they would have to learn on the job. Those that survived the first few missions would usually survive the tour.
When Doolittle took over, he changed priorities. No longer was protecting the bombers the primary mission of the 8th AF Fighter Command. The new orders were to destroy the Luftwaffe where ever it could be found. Close escort was out. Ranging out well ahead of the bombers was in. When fighter groups were relieved of the escort task, they were to return on the deck, with their primary task being to find the Luftwaffe and kill anything in the air or parked on airbases. In this role the P-38 was in its element.
Doolittle also launched an investigation into the woes of the P-38. He discovered the intake manifold problem. He also identified poorly formulated gasolene. Doolittle, who while working for Gulf Oil in the 1930s developed 100+ octane avgas, ordered a custom fuel blend specifically for the P-38s. It proved to be a success. However, the P-51 was proving to be the answer to the 8th AF escort needs. It was easier to fly. It required much less maintenance (only one engine) and offered better combat performance at the altitudes where the bombers flew.
When the P-38L began arriving in the ETO, it found itself without a home. Yet, the P-38L was a different animal altogether. With vastly improved engines, intercoolers and oil coolers designed for cold temperatures and much better cockpit heating, the P-38L was ready for ETO service... Finally. The big L also had dive-recovery flaps, that made high speeds far less dangerous. For the first time, the P-38 had automatic engine controls that greatly reduced pilot workload.
By mid 1944, all P-38s had been transferred to the 9th Tactical AF, where they gave sterling performance. At medium altitudes, the P-38L was more than able to handle anything it would encounter. Kill ratios increased from 2/1 to 6/1 in air to air combat (the P-38 would eventually average 4/1 in the ETO, but did even better in the MTO).
That, in a nutshell is the story of the P-38 in the ETO.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Thanks for that summary Widewing. There is no doubt that the P-38 was one of the great fighters of WWII, but selecting a "best" is really kind of silly.
-
Facing these 50 fighters were 200-400 Luftwaffe fighters.
That is not accurate either. Only a couple of occasions was the Luftwaffe able to effect mass interceptions. Gallands whole premise for his "knockout blow" was to get 400 fighters in contact with the bombers. If he could have done this twice then the casualties would have been prohibitive for the allies to continue the daylight bombing campaign. As it was it never happenend.
The Luftwaffe was lucky to get 200 fighters in the air and on average only a fraction would make contact. This is why at the tip of the spear they were usually outnumbered.
Good summary of pilot training on the Western Front:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101581273_gaf-raf-aaf-fighter-training-hours.gif)
A summary of claims by the USAAF Fighters (does not necessarily mean actual losses):
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101581624_german-aircraft-losses-in-wwii-over-time.gif)
Crumpp
-
The P-38 is the most underrated plane in the entire planeset. Its cleverly disguised as a 'sucky plane' and frankly the P-38 pilots like to keep it that way - one of the most successful cases of psychological treachery in the MA and the BBS :D
Since the very early days the P-38 vets began a relentless lobby-campaign in the boards about how porked and average and non-uber the P-38 was .. and it worked! :D :D
Most people started thinking that the P-38 was "a good plane overall, but nothing too out of the average. An acceptable combat plane, but I wouldn't want to fly it" :D
However in reality the P-38 is one of the most suited planes for 1vs1 combat. It's literally got everything required for close-combat. The only thing it lacks is top speed at deck, which is used when running.
People often say that the "P-38L is best at nothing" - but it is quite misleading. When somebody says "good at everything but best at nothing", the one who hears it usually imagines the subject to be pretty much average in most areas. He imagines a well-rounded out, balanced plane with no weaknesses, as opposed to some planes having superb characteristics at one side, but having distinct weaknesses at other.
Well, that's not the picture he should be thinking! This plane is not "average/good at everything" - it's "almost best at everything" !!
No plane in AH is like the P-38L in that the P-38L has no bad or average traits at all.
Acceleration
It is one of the best accelerating planes in the game - believe it or not, it's true.
The only planes that regularly outaccelerate it ay combat speeds between 150~300mph are the Lavochkins, about three 109s, a Yak-9U, N1K2-J, and a couple of Fw190s.
The difference in acceleration with the P-38L is within 2 seconds in about half of them(about 150~200 yard separation), which leaves only about 3~4 planes that can really "leave" a P-38L "in dust".
At 18k, the places change dramatically, and the P-38L comes within 6th place in acceleration - even when considering perked planes. Only the Bf109G-10, Me163, and the Spit14 can really "outaccelerate" a P-38L. The Bf109G-2 and F-4 outaccelerates the P-38L too, but the difference is under one second. Besides, both the G-2 and F-4 have a lower top speed - it's a losing game.
Climb
It is one of the best climbing planes in the game(when comparing the entire altitude range, I'll consider it 'better climbing' when a plane can outclimb a certain plane for over 75% of the alt range between deck~25k).
It is total 10th best climbing plane, 8th best climbing plane considering only non-perked planes.
Among the seven, non-perked, better climbers, four are 109s. Then there's a Fw190D-9, C.205, and the Spit9, which make the rest three.
Only about five planes total, outclimbs the P-38L over 10k. Among them none of the "MA's favorites" outclimbs the P-38L, except the Fw190D-9 and the Bf109G-10.
Both P-51s, La-7, Typhoon - all these planes climb worse than the P-38L over 10k.
So one may not be able to outrun a P-51 or a Typh or an La-7, but pitch the nose up, engage WEP for 5 minutes and the chances are, the P-38L will pass 10k before the 5minute time limit expires, and will gain a significant amount of alt advantage to either re-engage, or run to safety.
At over 20k, the list grows shorter, and only the Spit9, Spit14, and the Bf109G-10 outclimbs it.
Roll
Roll rate increases with speed, thanks to boosted ailerons. Over 400mph the best rolling plane there is.
Between 300mph~400mph, it is on par with the P-47s, P-51s, Las and Yaks. Only the 190s and F4Us outrolls it.
However, this is admitably a double-edged swords, as when it becomes 0~300mph. As a matter of fact, the only planes that roll worse than the P-38L between 0~300mph is the Spit1 and the Bf109E. So the P-38L shows weakness in sudden change of directions in rolling.
Speed
The most lacking aspect of the P-38L is top speed - especially low alt top speed - between 0~10k.
However, by no means is it a slow, or even an average plane. The planes that hold a constant, handy, and decisve speed advantage over the P-38L are La7, Yak9U, Spit14, Bf109G-10, Fw190D-9, P-47D, and two P-51s.
Among these seven planes, only the Bf109G-10, Spit14 and the Fw190D-9 also holds a constant climb advantage over the P-38L.
The Spit14, P-47Ds, Yak-9U are relatively rare planes in the MA.
Therefore, logically, the most common enemy that posesses a direct threat to the P-38L when it is pressed to the defensive, is the La-7, Fw190D-9, and the Bf109G-10. When a P-38L is caught up and engaged by enemies, it will usually be likely that a 109G-10, Fw190D-9, or a La-7 is what forced it to fight, and then get ganged up.
All other planes which is faster than the P-38L, climb much worse. The La-7 climbs much better than the P-38L until 5k, but over 5k its climb dies out dramatically - which makes it a 50:50 chance when a La-7 decides to try and follow a P-38L that decides to escape by climbing away.
So, unless a P-38L has made a fatal mistake in the SA to begin with(like allowing a higher enemy to come by when at badd odds.. or getting a fighter at its six when low and slow..), the only plane that can catch a P-38L that decides to run away at the right timing, is the Bf109G-10 and the Fw190D-9.
So a summary:
* A P-38L, when meets planes other than these seven, can outrun and outclimb almost all of them with a slight headstart.
* A P-38L, when meets these seven planes, can outclimb five of them. The only non-perked plane it cannot escape, is the Bf109G-10 and the Fw190D-9.
* The Fw190D-9 is absolutley no match when a fight actually occurs. The Bf109G-10 can fight the P-38L on equal terms for a limited response, but soon it will have to either decide to gain a alt-advantage by doing long climbs and change to BnZ tactics, or run away. In the long term a G-10 cannot maneuver with a P-38L - especially in rolling scissors.
Maneuverability
The P-38L is one of the best maneuvering planes, virtually resistant to violent stalls when compared to all other planes. While its 'pure turn performance' may be average at best, the ease of reaching the extreme limits of the envelope oftens makes up for what it lacks.
Most pilots will struggle to maintain a very tight turn in their single-engined, torque-plagued planes. A Bf109F or G-2 may be somewhat simular to the P-38L in the turning circle, if it does not use the flaps. However, while maintaining a tight turn under 200mph is a struggle for the 109, to the torque-less P-38 it is a breeze.
Add in the combat flaps, and for a brief timing the P-38L will outturn even a Spitfire, until the Spitfire decides to bring the fight at really really low speed. But even then, a clever pilot with adequate management of his flightpath by "oscillating" his turns, can stay long enough to gain a shooting solution.
This "oscillation" of flightpath during turn fights is technically a pilot factor rather than a plane factor, however unless a plane has some talent to begin with it's not gonna work. Obviously you're not gonna outturn Spits in a 190 by doing this. The P-38L can - because the plane has the trait.
Only the "pure turners" like the Zeke or the Hurricane, will beat the P-38L in low-mid speed maneuvering so decisively as to never give a chance for the P-38L to use its traits to the max. Other than the "pure turners", only the Ki-84 can beat the P-38L at its own game.
The P-38L is a extremely gentle and stable plane to begin with, and the use of flaps during maneuvering makes it even better.
This plane will go into vertical maneuvering, and it will not flinch even once until it reaches 0mph. And as it stalls and flips over, as soon as reaching about 80mph and it can start some maneuvering.
The Bf109G-10 is also very impressive in the vertical, but at 100mph IAS the torque will be so unbearable that it is practically impossible to keep the plane nosed up straight, even with full ailerons and rudder you couldn't stop it from rolling out.
And even after it stalls out, it needs to recover at least 150mph speed to try and attempt maneuvering.
The only single engined plane that's a UFO like the P-38L, is the Ki-84. Even the N1K2 has torque issues now.
Armament
What can I say... AH2 has brought some profound changes in long range gunnery. Wing-armed planes suck - and average player will never hit an enemy plane at over 400 yards, even when the speed difference is low.
However, centerline weapons still maintain some very powerful long-range potential. Even a puny, fragile Bf109 with just one 20mm cannon may defeat a 6x.50 P-51 or a 8x.50 P-47 during HOs.
..
Now, the P-38L has four of the game's best(or second best, if you consider the UBS 12.7mms on the Yak-9U a better weapon) heavy machine guns, and one best 20mm cannon, all grouped at the nose. The P-38L is the only plane that can still hit out to 600yds+ regularly(well.. the Mossie and the A-20 can do that too..).
The ordnance options don't need any explanation - best in game.
............
Its major drawbacks are compression, bad visibility, large size, and occasional unrecoverable flat stalls. Of them bad visibility is hardly a problem in the game, and flat stalls are easily avoidable by the pilot(don't get greedy). The only real tactical problem is the compression issue - but a lot of planes share simular problems in the game.
Frankly, the P-38L is at least as uber as the La-7 in "combat sense". If we made a scoreboard and took scores for each of the traits and performance issues the P-38L would score higher than the La-7, or as a matter of fact score higher than all the planes in AH2, barring a couple or three.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That is not accurate either. Only a couple of occasions was the Luftwaffe able to effect mass interceptions. Gallands whole premise for his "knockout blow" was to get 400 fighters in contact with the bombers. If he could have done this twice then the casualties would have been prohibitive for the allies to continue the daylight bombing campaign. As it was it never happenend.
The Luftwaffe was lucky to get 200 fighters in the air and on average only a fraction would make contact. This is why at the tip of the spear they were usually outnumbered.
Crumpp
Crumpp, those 50 fighters had to defend 600 bombers extending over a huge area. Usually, they flew by squadron, rarely able to provide mutual support. They were always out-numbered by the defensive fighters. That's fact, not myth.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
A summary of claims by the USAAF Fighters (does not necessarily mean actual losses):
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101581624_german-aircraft-losses-in-wwii-over-time.gif)
Crumpp, how can, from your chart, the USAAF claim German fighters in 1940-41 when the USA was not at war with German then?
Another thing to remember is just because it might say 600 fighter were on a mission does not mean 600 fighters were with the bombers all the way. The fighters flew relays, picking up the bombers and allowing the current escort to rtb.
On the eve of D-day Luftwaffe Reich had 645 se fighters on strength of which 330 were servicable and 194 Zerstörers of which 71 were servicable. For Wilde Sau (Day and Night Fighters) it was 142/101.
-
To sum up Kweassa (no offense mate, but I think you have rose colored glasses on!)
P-38 only climbs and loops well. If you are an alt monkey and like orbiting 15k over the nearest con, then YES, you can dive in on it every time all the time.
The ONLY reason this plane is popular (and my evidence is that this is the move used 99% of the time by every pilot I've ever seen) is that it can merge in a 1v1, pull up, and keep going up and then loop over once the enemy stalls out. I think the zoom climb is way too BS for my tastes (don't care what it was based on, that CAN'T be right), but basically people just nose up and roll onto their backs to shoot the other plane.
Sometimes this results in repeated HOs, sometimes it's a real rope-a-dope and the other plane is floundering.
However It does NOT turn well. Screw the flaps. If you get flaps out more than 1 notch you're dead. It does NOT roll well. You roll much over 400mph you won't be going 400mph for long. Then you're stuck with the normal - read bad - roll rate. It is NOT fast, unless you dive (see alt monkey comment :P ) and it does dive well with those dive flaps.
Basically people fly it because it loops repeatedly forever, and they use this one manuver every chance they get. It's a 1-trick pony.
I've flown it a few times myself. Shot it down a few times myself as well. A 109F4 can teach it a lesson (and that's not as powerful as a G-series engine, either)
Just offering a counter-point. :aok
-
Originally posted by Krusty
However It does NOT turn well. Screw the flaps. If you get flaps out more than 1 notch you're dead. It does NOT roll well. You roll much over 400mph you won't be going 400mph for long. Then you're stuck with the normal - read bad - roll rate. It is NOT fast, unless you dive (see alt monkey comment :P ) and it does dive well with those dive flaps.
Krusty I've flown the P38 in aces high a bit myself and one thing it does do well is turn (at lower speeds of course) if you play your cards right you can turn and roll with spit5's and still kill them.Though the roll is NOT great by any means.
-
You *can*, yes. But it seems more like a blessing from Olympus rather than actual intention. Sometimes you just get lucky and "slip into" a turn, like you're on rails. I've done the same to a SpitV in things that really ought not out turn one. Sometimes it's just position and luck.
Thing is, tho, that once the flaps are out (the 38 is slow) that other planes can do things it cannot, such as yo-yo with the 38 trying to remain steady. The 38 has to get its speed back up, which either involves running (diving, if it can) or pulling flaps in and hitting WEP on level (a death sentence, for sure). Once those flaps are OUT, you *have* to keep them out. Pulling them in will have a bad effect on you, and you can't speed up til they're in. So basically if you have more than 1 notch out in a p38 turn, you're too slow and you can't get any faster without diving vertically away.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
To sum up Kweassa (no offense mate, but I think you have rose colored glasses on!)
P-38 only climbs and loops well. Basically people fly it because it loops repeatedly forever, and they use this one manuver every chance they get. It's a 1-trick pony.
I've flown it a few times myself. Shot it down a few times myself as well. A 109F4 can teach it a lesson (and that's not as powerful as a G-series engine, either)
I can take a B-24J up with 25% fuel, bomb a nearby field, and then perform consecutive loops in it until I become bored (I've done as many as 8).
With the exception of the Ki-84, the P-38L owns the vertical. And if you should find yourself in a 1 vs 1 at low speed, damn few fighters can turn with it. If equally skilled pilots in the 109F-4 and P-38L meet, the 109 is in deep bandini.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/thumbsdown.gif)
It helps to know the P-38's secrets. Like the Ki-84, you should never fight with Combat Trim engaged. Careful trimming and selective use of the flaps will reward the P-38 pilot. Knowing where and when to use the flaps is key to getting the best performance out of the P-38.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Crumpp, those 50 fighters had to defend 600 bombers extending over a huge area. Usually, they flew by squadron, rarely able to provide mutual support. They were always out-numbered by the defensive fighters. That's fact, not myth.
My regards,
Widewing
Crumpp is correct. And just for the record I never agree with him.
Folks always are making excuses for the 38. There's no need to start a flame war but nevertheless Widewing makes it sound as if 60 p38s faced 200 LW fighters every time they went up..
First the LW would rarely get 200 aircraft in the air, rarely get them one place. But then the target for the LW wasn't p38s it was bombers. Even if the LW put up 200 fighters 2/3rds of were pursuing bombers.
Even in late 44 the LW had success against bombers when the numbers had swung even more extreme in other direction.
Bomber streams stretched in some instances 100s of miles, hitting multiple targets. The LW looked for areas along the stream that were least defended, hit those then ran before the escorts arrived. This is true in 1943 as it was in 1944.
While of course had there been more 38s then would have done 'better' but the p38 isn’t better then a Jug or a p51. Against zekes, ki's and Betties it did great.
Galland likened it to a 110, other experten licked their chops at the sight of p38s.
Heinrich Bartels shot down 14 of them, Kurt Bühligen shot down at least 13 (some claim more then that).
The 38 is a great aircraft but it wasn't a war winner, at least not in the ETO or for that matter in NA.
-
"p38 cant turn" ?! :rofl :rofl :rofl uh, sure....:aok
-
ok lets summerise this in 1 sentence....
the p38 is a nice plane but, not a match for a spitfire :D :cool:
-
Crumpp, how can, from your chart, the USAAF claim German fighters in 1940-41 when the USA was not at war with German then?
Your correct. The chart is made off of allied claims is what I should have said. Not actual Luftwaffe losses.
On the eve of D-day Luftwaffe Reich had 645 se fighters on strength of which 330 were servicable and 194 Zerstörers of which 71 were servicable. For Wilde Sau (Day and Night Fighters) it was 142/101.
That looks about correct for the entire Luftwaffe on the Western Front including the Defense of the Reich units. However by D-Day the USAAF was typically launching well over 600 plus escort fighters. In 1944 according to the USAAF they averaged an 8 to 1 numeric advantage in fighter to fighter ratio.
Crumpp, those 50 fighters had to defend 600 bombers extending over a huge area. Usually, they flew by squadron, rarely able to provide mutual support. They were always out-numbered by the defensive fighters. That's fact, not myth.
Maybe in early 1943. After that not likely.
So, what USAAF pilots claim about "hardly being able to find a Luftwaffe aircraft" and what Luftwaffe veterans claim about being grossly outnumbered in the air is not true?
That is the first time I have ever heard in 1943 forward that the USAAF was outnumbered by the Luftwaffe. How many fighters were being made a MONTH in the USA?
Lets look at FW-190 production for the entire war by varient. Now the FW-190 made up roughly 2/3rds of the single engine dayfighter strength on the western front.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101597534_fw-190production.jpg)
The USAAF made more fighter aircraft in few months than Germans did the entire war.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Crumpp is correct. And just for the record I never agree with him.
Folks always are making excuses for the 38. There's no need to start a flame war but nevertheless Widewing makes it sound as if 60 p38s faced 200 LW fighters every time they went up..
First the LW would rarely get 200 aircraft in the air, rarely get them one place. But then the target for the LW wasn't p38s it was bombers. Even if the LW put up 200 fighters 2/3rds of were pursuing bombers.
Even in late 44 the LW had success against bombers when the numbers had swung even more extreme in other direction.
Bomber streams stretched in some instances 100s of miles, hitting multiple targets. The LW looked for areas along the stream that were least defended, hit those then ran before the escorts arrived. This is true in 1943 as it was in 1944.
While of course had there been more 38s then would have done 'better' but the p38 isn’t better then a Jug or a p51. Against zekes, ki's and Betties it did great.
Galland likened it to a 110, other experten licked their chops at the sight of p38s.
Heinrich Bartels shot down 14 of them, Kurt Bühligen shot down at least 13 (some claim more then that).
The 38 is a great aircraft but it wasn't a war winner, at least not in the ETO or for that matter in NA.
Funny, I didn't see a single excuse in my post.
Standard Luftwobble tactics were to attack the escorts and draw them away from the bombers. Almost without exception, the Luftwaffe had the advantage of altitude and could choose when to engage. In other words, the Luftwaffe had every tactical advantage. Meanwhile, USAAF squadrons were up to 30 miles away from each other. Perhaps the Luftwaffe couldn't assemble 200 fighters at one location, but they didn't have to. The P-38s were scattered all over hell and back, usually in 6 groups of 8-10 fighters. These small groups were responsible for protecting up to 150 heavy bombers. Isolating 8 to 10 P-38s is relatively easy under those circumstances. I have several personal friends who flew with the 20th and 55th FGs during this time (one of them, Jack Ilfrey recently died). Everyone one of them reported being attacked by up to 50 fighters on numerous occasions. There simply wasn't enough P-38s available in late 1943. They were joined by one Group of P-51Bs later, but they were still debugging their Mustangs and aborts could reach 50% of the force taking off. American fighter strength really wasn't satisfactory until February of 1944.
As to Galland's comment comparing the P-38 to the Bf 110, he was challenged on this many times by former P-38 drivers. In each case he would back-pedal. Galland was a great fighter pilot, but he was a self-glorifying windbag too (Galland and Tom Lanphier would have been soul mates). I believe that Robert Johnson shot down 14 Fw 190s, 11 109s and two 110s. Not bad considering he only fired his guns 36 times in combat. His kills per sortie compares very well with the best of the Luftwaffe. Johnson licked his chops every time he saw a German fighter, of any type.
An ace is an ace, they think alike and they are completely confident when facing the enemy. Put either pilot into his enemy's fighter and they would have been just as deadly. SImply shooting down a lot of one type prove nothing beyond that pilot's skill at his trade. In the hands of a skilled pilot, the P-38 could hold its own with any conventional fighter of the time.
There's no question that the P-38 was not a war winning design. When it first flew as a prototype, it was the fastest fighter on the planet. However, it was designed with too many compromises that limited its potential. Add to that the expense and difficulty of maintaining the P-38, along with its high initial cost and you can see why the P-38 was eased aside for later single engine fighters. Nonetheless, its basic concept found itself correctly executed in the P-82. There was much merit in the concept, but an interceptor first put on paper in 1938 was not going to meet the needs of long-range escort in 1945. North American and the USAAF saw the value and need of the long-range twin-engine escort fighter and the P-82 fit that need well. Clearly, in the ETO, the P-38's time had passed. Not so in the Pacific where no one was in any hurry to trade their reliable twin-engine P-38s for the new Spam Can. There's nothing more confidence inspiring than a second engine. Especially when flying 5 hour missions over trackless ocean.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Crumpp, or should I say Huck,;) there was 15 FGs in the 8th AF on D-day.
P-51 > 7
P-47 > 4
P-38 > 4
Only the P-51 and P-38 could make deeper penatrations than the German border.
At the end of '43 the 8th AF had 12 FGs of which 10 were P-47 units. That left only the 2 P-38 FGs to escort the bombers into Germany.
Yes in the last 6 months, German a/c were hard to find.
You still forget the Americans used a relay system of fighter escort for the bombers. (1/3 would be on their way to the bombers, 1/3 would be escorting, 1/3 would be rtb)
-
You still forget the Americans used a relay system of fighter escort for the bombers. (1/3 would be on their way to the bombers, 1/3 would be escorting, 1/3 would be rtb)
Who is Huck??
Yes but by the USAAF own analysis of the Air War in 1944, they averaged an 8 to 1 advantage in fighter to fighter engagements.
That data can be found in the archives at Maxwell AFB Alabama.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Maybe in early 1943. After that not likely.
So, what USAAF pilots claim about "hardly being able to find a Luftwaffe aircraft" and what Luftwaffe veterans claim about being grossly outnumbered in the air is not true?
That is the first time I have ever heard in 1943 forward that the USAAF was outnumbered by the Luftwaffe. How many fighters were being made a MONTH in the USA?
Crumpp
Crumpp, how many American fighters were there in the ETO in mid 1943 that could penetrate the Reich? None.
How many were in active combat units as of January 1, 1944? Less than 130.
The Luftwaffe was NOT outnumbered by American fighters over Germany until April of 1944.
Yeah, there were hundreds of P-47s, by they couldn't get beyond the German border. In February of '44, the 8th AF could put up 5 fighter groups that could penetrate German airspace. That's still less than 200 fighters.
So, are you telling us that the mighty Luftwaffe could not muster 200 fighters fighters in early 1944?
During "Big Week", the 8th AF put up 3,300 bomber sorties, supported by 1,620 fighter sorties (deep escort). In response, the Luftwaffe put up 4,399 fighter sorties.... Hmm, they don't seem outnumbered by American fighters yet, do they?
If the Luftwaffe was dumb enough to challenge Armerican air power before they reach the German border (and apprarently they were that dumb as the P-47s killed 2/3rds of the German fighters shot down during Big Week), well then they were outnumbered big time (typically up to 700 P-47s took the bombers to the German border where the P-38s and P-51Bs took over).
Why is this thread turning into yet another "Der Mighty Luftwaffe was defeated by overwhelming numbers, too much for even der Zupermen to overcome" arguments?
Crumpp, save your rationalizing for someone who gives a damn and stop hijacking every thread with your Lost Cause cult theology.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Just a guess, since the same chart was posted on the Axis History forum, the same day you posted it here.
The key word is average. What was the ratio in Jan and then in Dec?
Should add that the LW had 168/115 se fighters, 52/37 Zerstörers and 102/56 NFs in Luftflotte 3 at the end of May '44.
edit.
quote: The USAAF made more fighter aircraft in few months than Germans did the entire war.
Germany produced about 50-55,000 109s and 190s. Now American production was good but not that good.:aok
-
Originally posted by Widewing
. When it first flew as a prototype, it was the fastest fighter on the planet
Hmm wasn't the He-100 faster?
His kills per sortie compares very well with the best of the Luftwaffe.
He wasn't even close in airkills/sortie to the best of the Lw in that regard.
-
Originally posted by Meyer
He wasn't even close in air kills/sortie to the best of the Lw in that regard.
Save the generalizations meyer. Lets have some specifics, like the best, Hartmann who had a 'kill' every 4th sortie.
-
Still waiting for real data about any P38 roll inertial (not roll rate). IMO, real P38s were far away of P47/P51, and well below western standards.
-
what was the p38's kill/death ratio in the pacific? 20 to 1? I dont think there was really a "Best Fighter of the war" Different fighters performed different roles, attacking bomber formations, escorting bomber formations. I would say the P38 is a well balanced fighter in account that it was very capable of bringing down enemy bombers, as well as escorting bombers.
-
Germany produced about 50-55,000 109s and 190s. Now American production was good but not that good.
I just posted the entire production series for the FW-190A (15186 units total). Do not know about 109's but I find 35000 to 39000 Bf-109s to be a little optimistic.
http://www.bf109.com/evolution.html
Crumpp, how many American fighters were there in the ETO in mid 1943 that could penetrate the Reich? None
You need to read my post before you attack it. I clearly state "in 1943 FORWARD. That means AFTER 1943.
Yeah, there were hundreds of P-47s, by they couldn't get beyond the German border. In February of '44, the 8th AF could put up 5 fighter groups that could penetrate German airspace. That's still less than 200 fighters.
Yes and before 1944 it was standard Luftwaffe tactics to let the fighter escort leave and then attack the bombers. The Luftwaffe avoided needless fighter-to-fighter combat on the Western Front.
So, are you telling us that the mighty Luftwaffe could not muster 200 fighters fighters in early 1944?
Again read what I wrote, Widewing. I said only on a few occasions could they muster the 400 fighters you claimed. 200 fighters was a rough number for the average response for early 1944 with a few notable exceptions. Those are the facts not a pom-pom cheer for your favorite side.
During "Big Week", the 8th AF put up 3,300 bomber sorties, supported by 1,620 fighter sorties (deep escort). In response, the Luftwaffe put up 4,399 fighter sorties.... Hmm, they don't seem outnumbered by American fighters yet, do they?
Lets compare sorties:
The USAAF (Fighters) is easy to nail down.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101606539_usaafsorties.jpg)
Don't have the number of bomber sorties to include in that but anyway the discussion was on fighter combat.
The Luftwaffe stands at 34,000 (total for all types of A/C IIRC) for the year of 1944 according to:
http://www.world-war-2.info/statistics/
Now they are off quite a bit on the USAAF sorties so they may very well be off on the Luftwaffe. Facts are I highly doubt the Luftwaffe flew more sorties during Operation Argument than the USAAF.
But as you can see here:
http://www.luftwaffe.no/SIG/OOB/Jan44-1.html
It was not a very large force. Especially when compared to the Allied Strength.
Why is this thread turning into yet another "Der Mighty Luftwaffe was defeated by overwhelming numbers, too much for even der Zupermen to overcome" arguments?
Why do you not read what others write? Instead you attack with some childish nonsensical garbage. Just reading one side of history presents just that ONE SIDE. There is always another point of view and the truth usually lies in the middle. All you have done is show what a jerk you can be. Stop being one and you might learn something and so will I. Nobody has attacked your favorite ride and certainly don't think Pyro is going to rush in here and suddenly pork the flight model on the P38, Chicken Little.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Meyer
Hmm wasn't the He-100 faster?
(Re: Johnson) He wasn't even close in airkills/sortie to the best of the Lw in that regard.
The He 100V-8 was a pure racer without weapons or armor or any of the other required equipment. It incorporated evaporative cooling and had clipped wings. It was not a fighter.
As to Johnson, in their definitive book Fighter Aces, aviation historians Raymond Tolliver and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two leading German aces. Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.
The authors noted that Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
If they aren't among the Luftwaffe's best, who is?
My regards,
Widewing
-
He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
There were lots of guys in the Luftwaffe that had better KD ratios than Molders or Hartmann.
Can't find my copy to check but I believe Guenther Scheel
achieved more kills (71) than he survived sorties. Mike Spick does a great analysis of kill to sortie ratio in:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0804116962/002-6039171-4365643?v=glance
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Why do you not read what others write? Instead you attack with some childish nonsensical garbage. Just reading one side of history presents just that ONE SIDE. There is always another point of view and the truth usually lies in the middle. All you have done is show what a jerk you can be. Stop being one and you might learn something and so will I. Nobody has attacked your favorite ride and certainly don't think Pyro is going to rush in here and suddenly pork the flight model on the P38, Chicken Little.
Crumpp
Crumpp, I realize that being obtuse is your personal cross to bear. Nonetheless, you continuously twist stats and deliberately misinterpret what people write to support your lost cause.
I quoted stats for one week in February and you show us the stats for the entire war... Can't you follow even the most simple logic? I doubt that you could pour urine from your boot if the instructions were embossed on the sole.
Fact: Prior to March of 1944, the 8th AF could put no more than 5 groups of fighters over the Reich, less than 200 fighters. Get used to this, its not going to change.
Another fact: In Aces High, the P-38 is not my favorite ride. But that doesn't mean I can't make it dance the nutcracker when I need it to.
You call me a jerk because I point out that nearly every post of yours is in some way an attempt at justifying the Luftwaffe. Just like R.E. Lee cult deifies Lee and the South's lost cause, you do the same for the Luftwaffe and its lost cause. Speaking for myself, I could care less about your personal obsession. I just wish you would confine it to posts related to that topic, and not spam every thread on the forum that even briefly mentions the war in Europe.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I quoted stats for one week in February and you show us the stats for the entire war... Can't you follow even the most simple logic?
Again you post without reading. It is broken down by month. You can see every fighter sortie flown in the European Theater in February.
Fact: Prior to March of 1944, the 8th AF could put no more than 5 groups of fighters over the Reich, less than 200 fighters. Get used to this, its not going to change.
Your dead wrong. That is why I posted. Facts are you are putting out bad information and some people will read it and believe it. It's called propaganda. The thing you seem to want to accuse me of doing. Feel free to post some facts and sources instead of drivel.
All available AAF fighter escort was provided,17 groups in all--13 P-47, 2 P-38, and 2 P-51--drawn from both VIII Fighter Command and the Ninth Air Force. In addition to these American escort groups, the RAF provided 16 fighter squadrons, consisting of Spitfires and Mustangs.11
Widewing says:
During "Big Week", the 8th AF put up 3,300 bomber sorties, supported by 1,620 fighter sorties (deep escort). In response, the Luftwaffe put up 4,399 fighter sorties.... Hmm, they don't seem outnumbered by American fighters yet, do they?
Facts are:
Fighter sorties in support of the heavy bomber missions amounted to approximately 2,548 for the Eighth Air Force, 712 for the Ninth, and 413 for the Fifteenth.
Way more than 1620 sorties you claim.
For a factual account of Operation Argument:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/III/AAF-III-2.html
You call me a jerk because I point out that nearly every post of yours is in some way an attempt at justifying the Luftwaffe. Just like R.E. Lee cult deifies Lee and the South's lost cause, you do the same for the Luftwaffe and its lost cause. Speaking for myself, I could care less about your personal obsession. I just wish you would confine it to posts related to that topic, and not spam every thread on the forum that even briefly mentions the war in Europe.
Whatever spins your world. Facts are there would have been no need to post anything if you confined yourself to the facts instead of Bull****. Since you seem to think I am a "Luftwaffe cult" I will tell you I am researching a book on the FW-190. In the course of traveling to various historical archives I pick up some interesting information about our favourite subject, WWII planes. Fine with me if you want to stay ignorant and continue to post wrong information. Simply use the ignore list. It works.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Save the generalizations meyer. Lets have some specifics, like the best, Hartmann who had a 'kill' every 4th sortie.
Maybe you should come back when you understand what is being discussed :p
Hartmann didn't have one of the best kills/sortie records, you should know that.
@Widewing: just a few examples:
Günther Scheel 71/70
Günther Rall: 275/621
Emil Lang: 173/403
Otto Kittel: 267/583
Marseille: 158/382
And when I name the He100 I was talking about the D-1 version, who AFAIK did 670km/h.
What was the speed of the P-38 prototype?
-
Funny, I didn't see a single excuse in my post.
Sure you did...
P-38s didn't fail in the ETO, they were grossly misused by General Hunter and his cronies, some of whom were fired when Doolittle took over in January of 1944.
Nonetheless, there were real problems with the P-38 in terms of mechanical issues.
While the P-38H proved reliable in general, they used a different type of intercooler than later models (it was located in the leading edge of the wing), and these we prone to leaking after repeated warm to very cold thermal cycles. At high altitudes, these intercoolers were inadequate at cooling the intake charge and pilots had to limit MAP to avoid detonation, and the subsequent risk of engine failure. When the P-38Js arrived in late 1943, they had even greater problems with detonation. However, this was caused by cooling the intake charge too much! P-38Js incorporated new intercoolers in a chin intake below the engines. Since the USAAF had informed Lockheed that the P-38 would not likely see service in the ETO, where the P-47 would be the primary fighter (remember, the USAAF thought at this time that the bombers would not require escort fighters), Lockheed engineered the intercoolers for tropical climates. When it was obvious that the 8th AF bombers did require escorts all the way to the target, two P-38 groups were hastily sent to Britain as the P-38 was the only fighter with the range to fly deep into Germany. These missions would be flown at 30,000 feet or higher and every P-38 pilot knew that this was well above the altitude where the cockpit heater was effective.
So, you can imagine the problems encountered by aircraft optimized for medium altitudes in tropical climates flying at extremely high altitudes over Europe in winter.
Pilots were literally frozen in their cockpits. Canopies and windscreens iced over. At cruise settings, engine temperatures would drop below normal operating temps. Overly efficient intercoolers chilled the fuel so much the tetra-ethal lead separated from the base petroleum. As soon as the pilots pushed up the throttles, engines would begin to detonate and often failed. Later it was determined that the intake manifold design was also faulty, causing some cylinders to run excessively lean, adding the risk of detonation. Early P-38Js had only one generator. If that failed, the nearly frozen battery was useless. Above 20,000 feet, fuel boost pumps are required to provide adequate fuel pressure. Without a generator and having a flat battery meant that the engines starved for fuel and pilots had to descend to get the fuel pressure back up.
There were also serious issues with compressibility. At 30k, a P-38 could exceed Mach 0.68 very easily in even a shallow dive. If speeds exceeded Mach 0.75, recovery would be difficult at best.
Turbo regulators were freezing due excessive oil cooling. Overspeeding turbos usually came apart in spectacular fashion.
Adding to these problems was the large workload associated with the P-38.
Suppose the P-38s are cruising at 30k. Power settings are 33 in/MAP at 2,100 rpm with mixtures in auto lean. Suddenly, they spot a large formation of Bf 109s above them and coming down.
To engage, the P-38 pilot must do the following. Switch the fuel selectors to internal fuel. Select and release drop tanks. Turn on the gunsight and gun warmers. Push both mixture levers into auto rich. Bring the Curtiss Electric props out of cruise pitch. Slowly increase power to MIL power (push up the power before the props and the engines will be damaged, push up power too fast and the engines will detonate and likely fail).
All of this must be done BEFORE they could effectively engage the enemy.
One last factor. Only two Groups of P-38s were available in December of 1943, the 20th and the 55th. While they had a total strength of 70-80 fighters between them, usually only about 60 were available for any given mission. Of these, 15%-20% would be aborts. It was rare for both Groups to get more than a total of 50 fighters into enemy airspace. Facing these 50 fighters were 200-400 Luftwaffe fighters. Yet, despite all the problems, this small group of P-38s not only killed more than they lost, they reduced bomber losses by 50%. Not bad considering that they were tied to the bombers because General Hunter was an advocate of "close escort" tactics. Meanwhile, the USAAF in its infinite wisdom had assigned the first operational P-51B group to the 9th Tactical Air Force. After much yelling and screaming, this unit was "loaned" to the 8th AF.
Adding to the misery was the fact that very few replacement pilots had ever flown the P-38. Some had never even sat in one before they reported to the Groups for duty. Most were trained as P-40 or P-47 pilots. There was little time to train them, they would have to learn on the job. Those that survived the first few missions would usually survive the tour.
When Doolittle took over, he changed priorities. No longer was protecting the bombers the primary mission of the 8th AF Fighter Command. The new orders were to destroy the Luftwaffe where ever it could be found. Close escort was out. Ranging out well ahead of the bombers was in. When fighter groups were relieved of the escort task, they were to return on the deck, with their primary task being to find the Luftwaffe and kill anything in the air or parked on airbases. In this role the P-38 was in its element.
Doolittle also launched an investigation into the woes of the P-38. He discovered the intake manifold problem. He also identified poorly formulated gasolene. Doolittle, who while working for Gulf Oil in the 1930s developed 100+ octane avgas, ordered a custom fuel blend specifically for the P-38s. It proved to be a success. However, the P-51 was proving to be the answer to the 8th AF escort needs. It was easier to fly. It required much less maintenance (only one engine) and offered better combat performance at the altitudes where the bombers flew.
When the P-38L began arriving in the ETO, it found itself without a home. Yet, the P-38L was a different animal altogether. With vastly improved engines, intercoolers and oil coolers designed for cold temperatures and much better cockpit heating, the P-38L was ready for ETO service... Finally. The big L also had dive-recovery flaps, that made high speeds far less dangerous. For the first time, the P-38 had automatic engine controls that greatly reduced pilot workload.
By mid 1944, all P-38s had been transferred to the 9th Tactical AF, where they gave sterling performance. At medium altitudes, the P-38L was more than able to handle anything it would encounter. Kill ratios increased from 2/1 to 6/1 in air to air combat (the P-38 would eventually average 4/1 in the ETO, but did even better in the MTO).
That, in a nutshell is the story of the P-38 in the ETO.
My regards,
Widewing
That post is full of umm. All planes had teething problems and issues that needed to be 'worked through'. The p38 isn't unique in that regard. All the 'what ifs' or 'what could of been' is pointless since we are dealing with reality.
Standard Luftwobble tactics were to attack the escorts and draw them away from the bombers.
No it wasn't.
Even when the US was at its peak in numbers the LW was still able to hit the bombers stream and cause significant damage. They didn't go after escorts and they didn't attack the bombers where they most defended.
Early they would hang back beyond the range of the escorts then attack or attack where the escorts weren't. Later they developed battle formations in which the bomber attackers which were defended by a close escort group and high cover.
These formation grew larger in size and were eventuallly defeated by long range fighters attacking these battle groups as they formed up.
The LW tactics in regards to hitting the bombers never involved 'stripping away' the escorts. They didnt have the planes for that and they didn't need to if they hit the formations where they were least defended.
The LW didn't fly blind in ww2. They had radar, observers and scout aircraft etc...
When the lw upped to intercept bombers, their target and goal was those bombers. Not the P38s...
Widewing says:
During "Big Week", the 8th AF put up 3,300 bomber sorties, supported by 1,620 fighter sorties (deep escort). In response, the Luftwaffe put up 4,399 fighter sorties.... Hmm, they don't seem outnumbered by American fighters yet, do they?
More of you nonsense here.
4,399 doesn't represent the number of aircraft the lw had in the air at any one time. Many of these are mulitple sorties and most are for aircraft who's duty it was to intercept bombers.
As Crumpp already points out there more then 1,620 fighter sorties flown in Feb '44 by the allies.
Your own distortions and rationaliztions seem to fit:
is in some way an attempt at justifying the P-38.
It was great for smacking down zekes and Betties but in the ETO the p47 and p51 were just much better...
-
LOL, Herr Goering posting again.
Thanks for the specifics, but as you can read in Widewings post, it is you that lacks the comprehension. :p :p
from Freeman's The Mighty Eighth as of Jan 1 '44
P-47 - 56, 79, 352, 353, 355, 356, 358, 358, 361 FG(10)
P-51 - nil
P-38 - 20, 55 FG(2)
In Feb '44
P-47 - 4, 56, 79, 352, 353, 355, 356, 358, 358, 361 FG(9)
P-51 - 4, 357 FG(2)
P-38 - 20, 55, 364 FG(3)
As can be seen, the greatest portion of the available FGs were the 'short' range P-47s.
Feb 20 '44
EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (ETO)
STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): Mission 226: The Eighth Air Force
begins "Big Week," attacks on German aircraft plants and airfields. For the
first time, over 1,000 bombers are dispatched; 21 bombers and 4 fighters
are lost hitting 3 areas in Germany, i.e.:
1. 417 B-17s are dispatched to Leipzig/Mockau Airfield, and aviation
industry targets at Heiterblick and Abnaundorf; 239 hit the primary targets,
37 hit Bernburg, 44 hit Oschersleben and 20 hit other targets of opportunity;
they claim 14-5-6 Luftwaffe aircraft; 7 B-17s are lost, 1 damaged beyond
repair and 161 damaged; casualties are 7 KIA, 17 WIA and 72 MIA.
2. 314 B-17s are dispatched to the Tutow Airfield; 105 hit the primary and
immediate area, 76 hit Rostock and 115 hit other targets of opportunity; they
claim 15-15-10 Luftwaffe aircraft; 6 B-17s are lost, 1 damaged beyond repair
and 37 damaged; casualties are 3 KIA and 60 MIA.
3. 272 B-24s are dispatched to aviation industry targets at Brunswick,
Wilhelmtor and Neupetritor; 76 hit the primary, 87 hit Gotha, 13 hit
Oschersleben, 58 hit Helmstedt and 10 hit other targets of opportunity; they
claim 36-13-13 Luftwaffe aircraft; 8 B-24s are lost, 3 damaged beyond repair
and 37 damaged; casualties are 10 KIA, 10 WIA and 77 MIA.
Missions 1 and 3 above are escorted by 94 P-38s, 668 Eighth and Ninth Air
Force P-47s and 73 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s; they claim 61-7-37
Luftwaffe aircraft; 1 P-38, 2 P-47s and 1 P-51 is lost, 2 P-47s are damaged
beyond repair and 4 aircraft are damaged; casualties are 4 MIA.
Mission 227: 4 of 5 B-17s drop 200 bundles of leaflets on Tours, Nantes,
Brest and Lorient, France at 2123-2200 hours without loss.
TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Ninth Air Force): 35 B-26s bomb Haamstede Airfield,
The Netherlands, as a target of opportunity, after about 100 B-26s abort
attacks on other airfields because of weather.
HQ 314th Troop Carrier Group and 32d Troop Carrier Squadron arrive at
Saltby, England from Sicily with C-47s.
Leipzig is beyond the P-47s radius of action which could barely reach the German boarder, as is Brunswick. That leaves 167 fighters, beyond the P-47's range of action, to escort the 689 bombers to Liepzig and Brunswick.
For the rest of Big Week, http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/Feb.44.html
quote: As Crumpp already points out there more then 1,620 fighter sorties flown in Feb '44 by the allies.
Widewing said during Big Week. LOL, some have trouble reading.
-
quote: 4,399 doesn't represent the number of aircraft the lw had in the air at any one time. Many of these are mulitple sorties and most are for aircraft who's duty it was to intercept bombers.
Did Widewing say in the air at one time? :rolleyes:
-
Widewing said during Big Week. LOL, some have trouble reading.
Those numbers ARE the numbers DURING BIG WEEK.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/III/AAF-III-2.html
Read please.
4,399 doesn't represent the number of aircraft the lw had in the air at any one time. Many of these are mulitple sorties and most are for aircraft who's duty it was to intercept bombers.
Just where did they get the planes to make that many sorties?
The records have been destroyed AFAIK. Please post the source for that number.
Otherwise it's just spillage from Widewing.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
quote: 4,399 doesn't represent the number of aircraft the lw had in the air at any one time. Many of these are mulitple sorties and most are for aircraft who's duty it was to intercept bombers.
Did Widewing say in the air at one time? :rolleyes:
He's using that number of sorties to demontrate LW numerical superiority.
From Crumpp's link:
Fighter sorties in support of the heavy bomber missions amounted to approximately 2,548 for the Eighth Air Force, 712 for the Ninth, and 413 for the Fifteenth. Total fighter losses were 28.
-
What's interesting is that if you talk to 38 vets, they all swore by it. The guys in the MTO certainly didn't mind flying it. They had solutions to the cold. One 1st FG pilot told me he wrapped YANK magazines around his legs as insulation to keep warm, yet he loved the 38 and he flew is combat in F,G and H models. He didn't fly a J or L until he got stateside again.
Clearly they loved it in the Pacific. The twin engine setup being a nice safety factor for those long overwater flights.
But of course you can find pilots who swore by the P47 or the P51 and on and on.
No one plane was the "Best" in WW2. Many of them did things very well, but on their own, none of them were war winners.
That's why I think all the arguments over it are pointless as all of them had good points and bad.
Ultimately, I suppose in terms of US planes, you'd have to name the P40 and Wildcat as the most important, as they held the line for so long when things were at their darkest, before the others got into the game.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Adding to the misery was the fact that very few replacement pilots had ever flown the P-38. Some had never even sat in one before they reported to the Groups for duty. Most were trained as P-40 or P-47 pilots. There was little time to train them, they would have to learn on the job. Those that survived the first few missions would usually survive the tour.
My regards,
Widewing
I think that speaks volumes to much of the attitude towards the 38 in the ETO.
There was a comment made in the daily history of the 436th FS, 479th FG from December 44, that jumped out at me when I read it that speaks to this.
"The first pilot to finish his missions this month was Lt. Herman Hoversten, strictly a P38 boy with an intense dislike of the P51 Spam Can. ...These boys are all from the original group of Palmdale boys and the few who remain can be counted on the fingers of one hand."
The original 479th guys came over trained as 38 pilots at Palmdale, California. There is another mention in the history that all the replacement pilots they got while in England were single engined trained and had to be converted to the 38 prior to the 479th converting to the 51.
The MTO 38 Groups were the first into Europe and were also all 38 trained before coming over so they were better able to utilize the 38 to the fullest.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Those numbers ARE the numbers DURING BIG WEEK.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/III/AAF-III-2.html
Read please.
Listen genius, if you are going to quote Craven and Cate, at least read the entire section on Big Week. I have a complete set of Craven and Cate sitting on my bookshelves as well as a copy of Carter and Mueller's The Army Air Forces in World War II: A Combat Chronology. In addition, I have the complete combat record of both the 20th and 55th Fighter Groups.
2/21/44, 69 P-38s and 68 P-51 escorted the bombers.
2/22/44, 63 P-38s and 65 P-51 escort the bombers, another 122 15th AF P-38s escort bombers from Italy.
2/23/44, 41 P-38s escort bombers from Italy.
2/24/44, 87 P-38s escort bombers from Italy to targets in Austria
70 P-38s and 88 P-51s (including the double sorties by two Groups escort 8th AF bombers into Germany.
2/25/44 85 P-38s escort 15th AF bombers to Regensburg. One hour later, 42 P-38s and 44 P-51s arrive at Regensburg escorting 267 8th AF bombers. Another 44 P-38s and 45 P-51s escort bombers to Stuttgart.
Counting 15th and 8th AF P-38 and P-51 fighters combined, a grand total of 933 sorties were flown, of which 896 actually penetrated 25 miles beyond the German border. Subtract 87 from the 15th that only went to Austria and you have 809 deep penetration sorties. The balance of of the 1,620 sorties were P-47s that crossed into Germany and immediately turned around or P-38 sorties (second sorties of the day) that only went as far as Paris to escort any stragglers.
The 8th AF flew 2,548 fighter sorties, the 9th AF flew 712 and the 15th AF flew 413. That totals to 3,673 total fighter sorties in support of Big Week. Of those, 1,620 actually crossed the German border, and of those only 809 went beyond the border.
Just where did they get the planes to make that many sorties?
The records have been destroyed AFAIK. Please post the source for that number.
Otherwise it's just spillage from Widewing.
Crumpp
Well, you don't know much, do you? Go back to Craven and Cate, to that same chapter. You will notice this: "GAF records by agreement with the United States at the close of the war went to Great Britain, where the unavoidably tedious analysis of the full record by the Historical Branch of the Air Ministry is as yet incomplete (at the time of publishing, IE: 1948).
It is these records that most WWII Aviation historians researched for their work in the years immediately following the war. Christopher Shores lists these records in his Bibliography for hsi analysis of Operation Argument (Big Week). He concluded that the Luftwaffe flew 4,399 sorties, of which 808 were by twin-engine fighters. Certainly, many flew two or more sorties a day.
During that week, the USAAF lost 226 bombers and 28 fighters. Luftwaffe losses were extreme. Quoting Craven and Cate: "The historical section of the German high command, in compiling cumulative combat losses for the West (including the Reich) from the time of the invasion of Russia in June 1941, showed a total of 2,581 fighter planes lost up to January 1944 and the loss of an additional 307 during that month. Losses in February jumped to 456. of which number only 65 were night fighters, the type directed chiefly against the missions of the RAF. The initial cumulative entry for March, moreover, shows by comparison with the closing entry for February a discrepancy of 77 additional losses in the category of single- engine fighters, and thus the total for February may well have been 533 planes. The total for the month of March rises to 567, of which 94 were night fghters. A bound record (26FX-36a of the high command), which is stamped with a security mark indicating it was compiled for the information of the high command alone, charts total aircraft losses, beginning with January 1944, at intervals of approximately ten days as follows:
19 Jan. 1944 355 29 Feb, 1944 545
20 Jan. 1944 335 10 Mar. 1944 514
31 Jan. 1944 661 20 Mar. 1944 552
10 Feb. 1944 508 31 Mar. 1944 777?
20 Feb. 1944 388
The same source indicates that 433 flying personnel were killed in February 1944, that 341 were reported missing, and that 277 had been wounded. Preliminary Air Ministry studies based on German records (AHB 6, No. 132 and AHB 6, No. 133) show the following very tentative monthly totals for all theaters:
Aircraft Destroyed and losses from All Causes
January 1944: 1,050 1,311
February 1944: 1,501 2,121
March 1944: 1,591 2,115
Losses on the Russian front are listed, respectively, as 168, 466, and 431. It will be difficult to reconcile all of these figures, and it is not always possible to determine the exact basis on which the original statistics were compiled, but they do agree in their testimony to an upturn, possibly even a sharp upturn, in attrition as of February 1944 and to results even more disastrous for the following month.
Strong confirmation for such a conclusion is found in the abrupt change which occurred in GAF strategy after February. Although still capable of the stoutest kind of local resistance on occasion, the enemy now refused to commit himself to a policy of full-scale opposition to the daylight bombing campaign. He would send up only token resistance to some missions and then concentrate as large a force as in earlier months against a particular operation. At other times the GAF would try no more than to gain a local superiority by sending overwhelming numbers against one unit, especially a unit that had in some way become separated from its fellows or was left without adequate escort. In short the policy was one of conservation of strength and it conceded to the Allies the vital point of air superiority."
Gee, it's amazing how those destroyed records still exist!
My regards,
Widewing
-
A few tid-bits:
Total produced 10,037 (all versions)
First fighter with tricycle gear
First fighter with power boosted controls
First super-turbocharged fighter to enter squadron service
First fighter with speeds over 400mph
and concequently first to encounter compressability problems
First fighter to extend a fuel range over 3000 miles
First USAAF fighter to deploy via air ferry to ETO
First fighter to carry 4000lbs of bombs into combat
First USAAF fighter to perform level bombing mission
First USAAF Fighter to shoot down a German aircraft. -August 14 1942-
Only USAAF fighter in production from Pearl Harbor to wars end
Killed Admiral Yamamoto -April 18 1943-
First American fighter over Berlin. -March 3 1944-
Destroyed more Japaneese aircraft than any other fighter
Was the plane of the top 2 all time American aces.
First American figher to peacfully touch down in Japan -August 25 1945-
Clearification on the J model, it introduced the dive flaps. The cockpit heat was fixed. The intercoolers were completely redesigned and optimized. The turbosupercharger ducting was redesigned to eliminate a detonation cause. Field mods at squadron level were made to the nacelle fillet, and the intercooler was ganged together with the gun site and gun warmer on a singe switch to optimize the cooling system.
PS. shhhh Kweassa
-
Well, you don't know much, do you? Go back to Craven and Cate, to that same chapter. You will notice this: "GAF records by agreement with the United States at the close of the war went to Great Britain, where the unavoidably tedious analysis of the full record by the Historical Branch of the Air Ministry is as yet incomplete (at the time of publishing, IE: 1948).
Well It's 2004 Genius! The exact number of sorties is not available for the Luftwaffe. Records are missing.
Just like I said the first time.
The 8th AF flew 2,548 fighter sorties, the 9th AF flew 712 and the 15th AF flew 413. That totals to 3,673 total fighter sorties in support of Big Week. Of those, 1,620 actually crossed the German border, and of those only 809 went beyond the border.
So you just counted sorties that crossed the German Border? Guess the Luftwaffe did not respond to any other attack GENIUS.
Quit splitting hairs. You were wrong on the number of sorties and painted a false perception. Since you do own some decent reference material it tells us that:
1. You're not very bright and can't comprehend what you read.
OR
2. You're intentionally presenting false information.
3. You just made a mistake and are not man enough to admit it.
You list the numbers for 2 Fighter Groups? Lets check out some numbers on some typical raids in February 1944.
03 Feb '44
STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): Mission 206: 553 of 671 B-17s hit the port area at Wilhelmshaven, Germany; another 56 hit the Emden area; and 1 hits Oldenburg; 1.8 million leaflets are dropped by B-17s; 193 B-24s are dispatched but they abort the mission over the Zuider Zee due to clouds; 0-1-0 Luftwaffe aircraft are claimed; 4 B-17s are lost, 1 B-24 is damaged beyond repair and 47 B-17s are damaged; casualties are 2 KIA, 9 WIA and 42 MIA.Escort is provided by 74 P-38s, 508 P-47s of the Eighth and Ninth Air Force and 50 Ninth Air Force P-51s; they claim 8-0-3 Luftwaffe aircraft ; 8 P-47s and 1 P-51 are lost, 3 P-47s are damaged beyond repair and 13 P-47s are damaged; casualties are 9 MIA.
Mission 207: 7 of 7 B-17s drop 420 bundles of leaflets on Paris, Rouen, Amiens, Reims, Orleans and Rennes, France at 2110-2146 hours; no losses.
04 Feb '44
Mission 208: 589 B-17s and 159 B-24s are dispatched to attack industry and railroad yards at Frankfurt/ Main, Germany; 346 B-17s and 27 B-24s hit the target; due to weather and navigational problems, 122 B-17s hit Giessen, 51 B-17s hit Wiesbaden, 17
B-24s hit the Trier area, 15 B-24s hit the Arloff area, 2 B-24s hit the Russelheim area, 1 B-24 hits Grafenhausen, 1 B-24 hits Darmstadt, 1 B-17 and 1 B-24 hit Koblenz and 26 B-24s and 23 B-17s hit unknown targets; they claim 4-0-1 Luftwaffe aircraft; 18 B-17s and 2 B-24s are lost, 2 B-17s and 1 B-24 are damaged beyond repair and 359 aircraft are damaged; casualties are
7 KIA, 20 WIA and 203 MIA. Escort is provided by 56 P-38s, 537 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s and 44 Ninth Air Force P-51s; they claim 8-0-4 Luftwaffe aircraft; 1 P-38 is lost, 1 P-47 is damaged beyond repair and 5 P-38s and 4 P-47s are damaged; casualties are 1 MIA.
Mission 209: 7 of 7 B-17s drop 319 bundles of leaflets on Lorient, Tours, Nantes, Raismes, Lille and Cambrai, France and Antwerp, Belgium at 2102-2132 hours without loss.
22 Feb '44
Mission 230: "Big Week" continues with 799 aircraft dispatched against German aviation and Luftwaffe airfields; 41 bombers and 11 fighters are lost.
1. 289 B-17s are dispatched against aviation industry targets at Aschersleben (34 bomb), Bernburg (47 bomb) and Halberstadt (18 bomb) in conjunction with a Fifteenth Air Force raid on Regensburg, Germany; 32 hit Bunde, 19 hit Wernegerode, 15 hit Magdeburg, 9 hit Marburg and 7 hit other targets of opportunity; they claim 32-18-17 Luftwaffe aircraft; 38 B-17s are lost, 4 damaged beyond repair and 141 damaged; casualties are 35 KIA, 30 WIA and 367 MIA.
2. 333 B-17s are dispatched to Schweinfurt but severe weather prevents aircraft from forming properly and they are forced to abandon the mission prior to crossing the enemy coast; 2 B-17s are damaged.
3. 177 B-24s are dispatched but they are recalled when 100 miles (160 km) inland; since they were over Germany, they sought targets of opportunity but strong winds drove the bombers over The Netherlands and their bombs hit Enschede, Arnhem, Nijmegen and Deventer; they claim 2-0-0 Luftwaffe aircraft;
3 B-24s are lost and 3 damaged; casualties are 30 MIA.
These missions are escorted by 67 P-38s, 535 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s, and 57 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s; the P-38s claim 1-0-0 Luftwaffe aircraft, 1 P-38 is damaged beyond repair and 6 are damaged; the P-47s claim 39-6-15 Luftwaffe aircraft, 8 P-47s are lost and 12 damaged, 8 pilots are MIA; the P-51s claim 19-1-10 Luftwaffe aircraft, 3 P-51s are lost and 3 damaged, 3 pilot are MIA.
2/25/44 85 P-38s escort 15th AF bombers to Regensburg. One hour later, 42 P-38s and 44 P-51s arrive at Regensburg escorting 267 8th AF bombers. Another 44 P-38s and 45 P-51s escort bombers to Stuttgart.
Your creating a false perception again.
Lets look at what actually happenend on the 25th.
STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): Mission 235: In the final "Big Week" mission, 4 targets in Germany are hit; 31 bombers and 3 fighters are lost.
1. 268 B-17s are dispatched to aviation industry targets at Augsburg and the industrial area at Stuttgart; 196 hit Augsburg and targets of opportunity and 50 hit Stuttgart; they claim 8-4-4 Luftwaffe aircraft; 13 B-17s are lost and 172 damaged; casualties are 12 WIA and 130 MIA.
2. 267 of 290 B-17s hit aviation industry targets at Regensburg and targets of opportunity; they claim 13-1-7 Luftwaffe aircraft; 12 B-17s are lost, 1 damaged beyond repair and 82 damaged; casualties are 4 KIA, 12 WIA and 110 MIA.
3. 172 of 196 B-24s hit aviation industry targets at Furth and targets of opportunity; they claim 2-2-2 Luftwaffe aircraft; 6 B-24s are lost, 2 damaged beyond repair and 44 damaged; casualties are 2 WIA and 61 MIA.
Escort is provided by 73 P-38s, 687 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s and 139 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s; the P-38s claim 1-2-0 Luftwaffe aircraft, 1 P-38 is damaged beyond repair; the P-47s claim 13-2-10 Luftwaffe aircraft, 1 P-47 is lost and 6 damaged, 1 pilot is MIA; the P-51s claim 12-0-3 Luftwaffe aircraft, 2 P-51s are lost and 1 damaged beyond repair, 2 pilots are MIA.
Mission 236: 5 of 5 B-17s drop 250 bundles of leaflets on Grenoble, Toulouse, Chartres, Caen and Raismes, France at 2129-2335 hours without loss.
From the combat reports:
http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/Feb.44.html
Feel free to examine any mission or date as you need to in order to correct the data you have available.
Since you left out the P47 thinking they could not have possibly participated.
Gradually, however, we learnt how to fight in the Thunderbolt. At high altitude she was a 'hot ship' and very fast in the dive; the technique was not to 'mix it' with the enemy but to pounce on him from above, make one quick pass and get back up to altitude; if anyone tried to escape from a Thunderbolt by diving, we had him cold. Even more important, at last we had a fighter with the range to penetrate deeply into enemy territory--where the action was. So, reluctantly, we had to give up our beautiful little Spitfires and convert to the new juggernauts. The war was moving on and we had to move with it.
http://www.aviation-history.com/republic/p47.html
1100 mile range on the P47D-15RE with drop tanks according to this site.
1,700 miles according to this site:
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/war/fighter/p47/p47_en.htm
You completely left out the P47's from your assessment. Guess you don't know the first escort fighter shot down over German soil was a P47. Your claim they did not escort bombers into Germany proper is just baloney.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
So you just counted sorties that crossed the German Border?
Quit splitting hairs. You were wrong on the number of sorties and painted a false perception.
To bad Widewing that Crumpp could not read you original statement correctly in the first place. Still seems he has some troubles.
Now what was the cruise setting for the range you state for the P-47? American pilots were not as dumb as the German pilots and cruise at the MOST economical speed in a combat zone. **
Now Crumpp, what P-47 pilot would fly at MOST economical cruise in a combat zone? The action radius range of the P-47 with 2 150gal tanks would put it over the Ruhr and even then the radius would depend when the dts were dropped.
** how Barbi's claims the range of the 109
You also forget that 'enemy' territory was not just Germany but continental Europe.
Lets say it was 4400 LW sorties;
5 days in Big Week;
2 sorties/day;
= 440 a/c.
At the end of May '44 the LW had ~1201 'fighter' a/c in the West (Norway, MTO excluded). Did you not once tell us Crumpp that the LW was 'finished' before this? So then the LW must have been capable of those 4400 sorties since it was still a force to be reconned with in Feb '44 if it had 1201 'figthers' in May after being decimated in the months preceeding May.
-
So then the LW must have been capable of those 4400 sorties since it was still a force to be reconned with in Feb '44 if it had 1201 'figthers' in May after being decimated in the months preceeding May.
Well Milo please produce the documentation showing 4400 sorties. Any documentation or source would be appreciated.
The subject is the P47's range.
The range comes from the USAF museum at Wright Patterson.
As for the Luftwaffe fighting ability:
Are you implying that Operation Argument did not break the back of the Jagdwaffe? If you are that is wrong because it did.
Yes Galland did attempt to rebuild the Jagdwaffe in the following months. He almost succeeded numerically. Skill and pilot quality he did not. Bodenplatte squandered his efforts and for the most part completely destroyed the Jagdwaffe.
You claim I misread Widewing:
To bad Widewing that Crumpp could not read you original statement correctly in the first place. Still seems he has some troubles.
Please point out where I did:
Facing these 50 fighters were 200-400 Luftwaffe fighters.
First false statement from Widewing. He creates the perception that all 200 Luftwaffe fighters were opposing 50 p38's. Not true. Those 200 fighters had to defend the entire Western European theater and the Reich. Widewing does not include the hundreds of P47's and the few P51's that were present either.
During "Big Week", the 8th AF put up 3,300 bomber sorties, supported by 1,620 fighter sorties (deep escort). In response, the Luftwaffe put up 4,399 fighter sorties.... Hmm, they don't seem outnumbered by American fighters yet, do they?
Second false statement from Widewing. Widewing uses the number of FIGHTER sorties that crossed the German border to create a false perception again. No historian will accept that the Luftwaffe flew more sorties than the USAAF in Feb '44. It is just not true. Just the number of FIGHTER is thousands over his number. Factor in the knowledge that the Luftwaffe's mission was to intercept the Thousands of bombers and not tangle with fighters and it becomes even more idiotic the picture he attempts to create.
Yeah, there were hundreds of P-47s, by they couldn't get beyond the German border. In February of '44, the 8th AF could put up 5 fighter groups that could penetrate German airspace. That's still less than 200 fighters.
Third false statement from Widewing. The first USAAF shot down over German soil was a P47. They had the range to escort to all but a few targets. According to the USAAF the P47's were present in their own combat reports.
Now what was the cruise setting for the range you state for the P-47? American pilots were not as dumb as the German pilots and cruise at the MOST economical speed in a combat zone. **
So you contention is they flew around on WEP as soon as they went feet dry over France? Or even full Military Power? Suggest you talk to some pilots.
Crumpp
-
At the end of May '44 the LW had ~1201 'fighter' a/c in the West (Norway, MTO excluded). Did you not once tell us Crumpp that the LW was 'finished' before this? So then the LW must have been capable of those 4400 sorties since it was still a force to be reconned with in Feb '44 if it had 1201 'figthers' in May after being decimated in the months preceeding May
Lets look at the total number of fighters available to the entire Luftwaffe. This is not serviceable fighters but total available and has to cover every front and theater.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101664939_luftwaffe_strength2.jpg)
Facts are the 8th USAAF could and did launch more bombers in 1944 than the Germans had fighters to attack them.
Facts are the Germans stupidly got involved in a war they could not win and compounded this mistake by piling blunder upon blunder on top of it. The perception of a "big and undefeatable" Luftwaffe was created by the minds of the propaganda ministry. This legacy still haunts history.
Yes Milo. The Luftwaffe was finished. Air Superiority passed to the USAAF after Operation Argument and never returned to the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe could no longer mount a "maximum" response to every Allied incursion. They had to conserve their strength in order to have any hope of stopping the bombers and could not afford to mix it up with fighters. Thus USAAF fighters could dominate European Airspace just with their presence.
Before Operation Argument the Luftwaffe's ability to pick and choose it's fights was a tactical luxury. Now it was a strategic necessity.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Well Milo please produce the documentation showing 4400 sorties. Any documentation or source would be appreciated.
The subject is the P47's range.
The range comes from the USAF museum at Wright Patterson.
[/B]
I gave you the source. Here's another: Duel for the Sky by Christopher Shores.
Idiot...those number are for the P-47D-40-RA, which had a greater internal capacity (65 gallons) and could carry 183 more gallons under the wings and fuselage than the earlier P-47s in service in early 1944.
First false statement from Widewing. He creates the perception that all 200 Luftwaffe fighters were opposing 50 p38's. Not true. Those 200 fighters had to defend the entire Western European theater and the Reich. Widewing does not include the hundreds of P47's and the few P51's that were present either.
It was true statement. Go back and read again Einstein, I was refering to operations BEFORE 1944. There were no P-51s available for deep penetrations and P-47s were limited to a single 75 gallon belly tank, incapable of reaching Germany. Furthermore, there were many more than 200 German fighters defending the Reich....:rolleyes:
Second false statement from Widewing. Widewing uses the number of FIGHTER sorties that crossed the German border to create a false perception again. No historian will accept that the Luftwaffe flew more sorties than the USAAF in Feb '44. It is just not true.
Again, you insist on changing the argument to support your bullsheet. You insist on referring to the entire month of February when the discussion was about a period of 5 days in late February. What's funny is that you cannot see through your own smokescreen.
Third false statement from Widewing. The first USAAF shot down over German soil was a P47. They had the range to escort to all but a few targets. According to the USAAF the P47's were present in their own combat reports.
Once again you refer to the range of a P-47 model not available until much later in the war. Those P-47s in Britain at the time had a maximum radius of action of 350 miles IF they they had the 108 gallon drop tank. That also assumes climb to only 25,000 feet. Most P-47s were assigned escort altitudes greater than 30,000 feet. This reduced their radius by up to 50 miles. Furthermore, that radius excludes assembly time, which could cut into the radius by another 50 miles. Fighter Groups based on sod fields could not use the 108 gallon tank as it was usually ripped off during the takeoff run. These were limited to single 75 gallon tanks. Not all P-47s were assigned escort tasks to the German border. Groups flew relay coverage. Some groups never got within 100 miles of Germany. Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe, they made the mistake of attacking the bombers when they were being protected by hundreds of Thunderbolts. This error in tactics is what caused the majority of Luftwaffe fighter losses. The very best units in the 8th AF were flying P-47s, not P-38s or P-51s. However, those two types did the escort duty for deep penetrations to the targets.
In early March, the 56th and a few other P-47 groups received their first 108 gallon drop tanks but only a few of their fighters were plumbed for a pair of these under the wings. When all in-service Jugs were modified they finally could stretch their range to the Elbe. During Big Week, the deepest P-47 penetration was to the area of Dortmond, about 60 miles east of the border, although some earlier missions had previously taken the Jugs as far east as the western outskirts of Bremen (south of Oldenburg), where they picked up the returning bombers. Remember, only those groups based on facilities with hard surface runways could use the 108 gallon tank on the belly. Dual wing mounted tanks were not available until late winter due to each P-47 requiring depot level modifications to add the wing hardpoints and plumbing. Only ten could be modified per week and this did not begin until around Christmas of 1943. Less than 100 P-47s were capable of carrying two tanks at the time of the Big Week operation and the locally made 108 gallon tanks were even more rare.
Once the P-47D-25-RE arrived in May, the P-47 now had the range to reach downtown Berlin, although they had zero loiter time (P-51s could loiter for 30-45 minutes).
No one discounted the P-47s during Big Week, in fact I did just the opposite. However, the P-47s did not fly escort to the targets, they had to return shortly after reaching the German border.
Geez Crumpp, you are a dedicated practitioner of obfuscation.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I gave you the source. Here's another: Duel for the Sky by Christopher Shores.
The same source indicates that 433 flying personnel were killed in February 1944, that 341 were reported missing, and that 277 had been wounded. Preliminary Air Ministry studies based on German records (AHB 6, No. 132 and AHB 6, No. 133) show the following very tentative monthly totals for all theaters:
You need to check your sources again Widewing. It does NOT list number of Luftwaffe sorties. It only list number of damaged aircraft and casualties is NOT the same thing. Perhaps the definition of "sortie" elludes you.
Sorties flown by the USAAF for month of Feb 44 amounts to 10,679. So your claim that I am confusing sorties flown over 5 days with those flown over the whole is ludicrous. Again read the material.
For Big Week ALONE:
Fighter sorties in support of the heavy bomber missions amounted to approximately 2,548 for the Eighth Air Force, 712 for the Ninth, and 413 for the Fifteenth.
I will post some combat reports with P47's over Dusseldorf Germany during Big Week.
Furthermore, there were many more than 200 German fighters defending the Reich....
Again you need read what is posted. No one claimed there were only 200 fighters defending the Reich. That was the average number available to attack the bombers in the West. Key words are "average" and "in the west".
Widewing says:
During "Big Week", the 8th AF put up 3,300 bomber sorties, supported by 1,620 fighter sorties (deep escort). In response, the Luftwaffe put up 4,399 fighter sorties.... Hmm, they don't seem outnumbered by American fighters yet, do they?
Facts are the 8th AF could put more bombers in the air than the Germans had fighters to shoot them down. That 4000 sorties is crap. Maybe the entire Luftwaffe put up 4000 sorties that month but certainly not just fighters in the west.
Idiot...those number are for the P-47D-40-RA, which had a greater internal capacity (65 gallons) and could carry 183 more gallons under the wings and fuselage than the earlier P-47s in service in early 1944.
You need to follow the link. I think the AF knows what plane it is AND there is a nice picture of it. The information is clearly labeled P47D-15RE. Once again you reply and do not read.
Again, you insist on changing the argument to support your bullsheet. You insist on referring to the entire month of February when the discussion was about a period of 5 days in late February. What's funny is that you cannot see through your own smokescreen.
It has never been about the month of Feb 44 but about Big Week. The Bullsheet is your creation of the perception P38's went up against the Luftwaffe vastly outnumbered and managed to bring the Luftwaffe to it's knees.
Crumpp
-
Snipped redundant junk...Again.
Originally posted by Crumpp
You need to follow the link. I think the AF knows what plane it is AND there is a nice picture of it. The information is clearly labeled P47D-15RE. Once again you reply and do not read.
LOLOLOLOL! Don't depend upon the USAF Museum for accuracy, they get things wrong as often as not.
The P-47D-15-RE was NOT powered by the PW R2800-59 or -21 engine. This model was powered by the R2800-63, rated at 2,300 hp.
If you look at the Combat radius chart for the P-47D-15-RE (not on the USAF Musum site, but in an actual USAAF printed publication), you will see that the radius of action for this fighter, with one 108 gallon drop tank is 325 miles at 25,000 feet. Of course, P-47s flying with the 8th AF almost always flew at 32,000 feet. The added climb could reduce the combat radius down to around 300 miles. Once again, this excludes time required for group assembly.
Dusseldorf was just 30 miles inside Germany and I've already stated that P-47s reached Dortmund, which is another 20 miles deeper into Germany. So, your combat reports will only serve to prove what I already stated. In lieu of your obvious confusion, I suggest that you find and download a map of wartime Germany to avoid future errors.
It has never been about the month of Feb 44 but about Big Week. The Bullsheet is your creation of the perception P38's went up against the Luftwaffe vastly outnumbered and managed to bring the Luftwaffe to it's knees.
Crumpp
Now you are showing the true colors of a dedicated liar. I never stated any such thing. Previously, you merely twisted facts to suit your argument. Now you have resorted to bold-faced fabrication. Why am I not surprised? Oh, and you have repeatedly referred to total sorties for the entire month of February, ignoring the fact that most of these had nothing to due with Big Week.
Face it Crumpp, you have, as usual, argued yourself into a box, and once trapped you lie like cheap rug to disguise your own nonsense.
I'll take my cue from other posters and I won't waste anymore time with you either.
Widewing
-
radius of action for this fighter, with one 108 gallon drop tank is 325 miles at 25,000 feet.
More crap your peddling. Please post that source because it shows up NOWHERE ELSE.
The P47D-15 could mount drop tanks and the P 47D-22 would have been the model in service in Feb '44 AFAIK.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/repup47.html#repup471
http://www.aviation-history.com/republic/p47.html
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_4.html
Even the P47B had a range of 1100 miles....
So, your combat reports will only serve to prove what I already stated. In lieu of your obvious confusion, I suggest that you find and download a map of wartime Germany to avoid future errors.
Ok let me try and nail your squirmy agrument down.
First you claim the Luftwaffe flew more sorties than the USAAF and confuse sorties with casualties:
Widewing says proof of Luftwaffe sorties is here:
The same source indicates that 433 flying personnel were killed in February 1944, that 341 were reported missing, and that 277 had been wounded. Preliminary Air Ministry studies based on German records (AHB 6, No. 132 and AHB 6, No. 133) show the following very tentative monthly totals for all theaters:
Then you say the USAAF flew less sorties than the Luftwaffe:
Widewing says:
During "Big Week", the 8th AF put up 3,300 bomber sorties, supported by 1,620 fighter sorties (deep escort). In response, the Luftwaffe put up 4,399 fighter sorties.... Hmm, they don't seem outnumbered by American fighters yet, do they?
Then you claim that I keep refering to the total number of FIGHTER sorties from this document showing the absolute numerical superiority of the USAAF in 1944.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101606539_usaafsorties.jpg)
In fact Widewing it has been mentioned numerous times from the USAAF own combat reports:
http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/Feb.44.html
That your claim is WRONG. During Big Week the FIGHTERS of the USAAF flew:
Fighter sorties in support of the heavy bomber missions amounted to approximately 2,548 for the Eighth Air Force, 712 for the Ninth, and 413 for the Fifteenth.
This is not these few groups Widewing claims:
Fact: Prior to March of 1944, the 8th AF could put no more than5 groups of fighters over the Reich, less than 200 fighters. Get used to this, its not going to change.
But from:
17 groups in all--13 P-47, 2 P-38, and 2 P-51--drawn from both VIII Fighter Command and the Ninth Air Force. In addition to these American escort groups, the RAF provided 16 fighter squadrons, consisting of Spitfires and Mustangs.11
Hardly the picture of P38's left all alone to take on the Luftwaffe vastly outnumbered.
Dusseldorf was just 30 miles inside Germany and I've already stated that P-47s reached Dortmund, which is another 20 miles deeper into Germany.
So the P47's could reach around the "E" on this map:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101688571_aaf-iii-1.jpg)
Looks like they could escort quite a ways into Germany.
Crumpp says:
It has never been about the month of Feb 44 but about Big Week. The Bullsheet is your creation of the perception P38's went up against the Luftwaffe vastly outnumbered and managed to bring the Luftwaffe to it's knees.
Widewing reply:
Now you are showing the true colors of a dedicated liar. I never stated any such thing. Previously, you merely twisted facts to suit your argument. Now you have resorted to bold-faced fabrication.
BS. Just like your "I didn't offer excuses...crap" now you backpedal when your argument is proven false. Pathetic. You say it right here very much watered down from your intitial claims:
Widewing says:
Crumpp, those 50 fighters had to defend 600 bombers extending over a huge area. Usually, they flew by squadron, rarely able to provide mutual support. They were always out-numbered by the defensive fighters. That's fact, not myth.
And your inititial garbage:
Widewings says:
One last factor. Only two Groups of P-38s were available in December of 1943, the 20th and the 55th. While they had a total strength of 70-80 fighters between them, usually only about 60 were available for any given mission. Of these, 15%-20% would be aborts. It was rare for both Groups to get more than a total of 50 fighters into enemy airspace. Facing these 50 fighters were 200-400 Luftwaffe fighters. Yet, despite all the problems, this small group of P-38s not only killed more than they lost, they reduced bomber losses by 50%
The guys that took off everyday and did destroy the Luftwaffe had a tough and dangerous task. Many times to them it must have seemed they were outnumbered. When you look out of your cockpit and all you see is bad guys, it matters little how many friendlies are "nearby". There is no reason though to distort the truth. Their actions stand alone and don't need any hype or half-truths to highlight them.
Crumpp
-
(http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47FOIC.gif)
-
Nice Chart. Thanks for posting it.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
(http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47FOIC.gif)
Is it me Milo, or is this huckleberry just entirely confused?
He points to websites that state a range of about 800 miles for the P-47D, pre -25 model. Of course, he overlooks that maximum range is one direction only. He also overlooks that fuel is consumed climbing to altitude, assembly of the force and any fuel used during warm-up and takeoff. He also ignores that the AAF generated its charts based upon 5 minutes at combat power, 15 minutes at MIL power and a 30 minutes reserve. All of which cut into range. So, if we factor in all fuel usage and cut the remaining range in half, we have the Combat Radius of the aircraft. In this case, it is between 300 and 325 miles. Barely enough to cross beyond the Ruhr river, assuming that they have been able to use the entire contents of the 108 gallon tank (which actually had a usable content of 104 gallons). If the tank had to be jettisoned, what percentage remained must be removed from the maximum combat radius.
Total Fuel:
305 gallons internal (265 applied to combat radius)
108 gallons external (104 usable)
-----
413 gallons (369 usable)
Cross index the available fuel, less climbout, combat use and reserve and you end up with 300 miles +/- 25 miles depending upon power settings at cruise (which will vary according to the rendezvous time with the bombers, and whether or not the escort and/or the bombers are on schedule or course).
But then again, what do I know? I only have over 1,100 hours flying military aircraft powered by the R2800 engine (and another 1,200+ hours in Wright R1820 powered aircraft). I suppose I must surrender any experience to the ground-bound desk pilots and their infinite base of real knowledge garnered from the internet. There used to be quite a few WWII combat vets posting to various forums and usenet. Almost all stopped because of the the constant arguments from know-it-all desk jockies who would claim that what these fighter and bomber vets saw and did was not possible or flew in the face of what Joe Blow wrote in some half-assed book they found on the discount rack at Barnes & Noble. Yes, it's a strange world.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing, were you flying the B-17 i saw near the Statue of Liberty Sept. 25?
-
Love it to see these ignorant luftwabble players , they go so up in their german crap i think they believe they gonna earn the iron cross again.
Even the japanese where ignorant to the p38 they thought they killed alot of them
Just as the germans they couldn't accept they where beaten by a twin engined plane
the shame factor is big amongst fighter pilots.
-
Another chart, care of Zeno's
(http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47SEFC.gif)
In another thread someone posted a combat range graph for the Fw190. Anyone remember this? It was nothing like what the A-8 Handbook has for range. Can they post a link for it?
Widewing
e-mail me at miloshmm@hotmail.com for I have some questions for you.
-
You mean something like this:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101723922_combatradius.jpg)
Got over 20 pages for different altitudes and setups.
Almost all stopped because of the the constant arguments from know-it-all desk jockies who would claim that what these fighter and bomber vets saw and did was not possible or flew in the face of what Joe Blow wrote in some half-assed book they found on the discount rack at Barnes & Noble. Yes, it's a strange world.
Knucklehead, I know the difference between combat radius and max range. I also work with Warbirds on the side as well. I don't fly them but run the membership and help out with the restoration. Your attempting to argue semantics.
You post is somewhat confusing. If your a WWII vet, then I thank you for service. You guys did nothing less than save the world.
However as a combat veteran myself (Army) I will point out that even battles that you are present for does not mean your an expert on the entire front or even that battle. I am still learning details of events that occurred in the some of the fights even from years ago. One man, big battlefield which can be a very confusing place.
Looking at the facts:
Your wrong about the Luftwaffe outnumbering the USAAF.
The USAAF could put more bombers than the Luftwaffe had fighters to shoot them down. The Luftwaffe was just not a very big force in relation to forces arrayed against it.
The P47 could and did escort into Germany. Nobody ever claimed it went to Berlin. In fact it was until March that any USAAF fighters went to Berlin.
The perception you have created of 50 P38's vs 200 Luftwaffe fighters is flat out WRONG. If you say you were there and saw it yourself, I encourage you to participate in the Library of Congress program to record veterans experience because this is news. I will ask several of our B17 and B24 veterans what they have to say as well.
If you will bother to pull out a map of Europe you will see the COMBAT RADIUS of the P47 ends in the location I marked on the Operation Argument Target Map above.
Crumpp
-
No Crumpp it was more of a sketch. Thanks for the graph.
-
No Crumpp it was more of a sketch. Thanks for the graph.
No problem. Be careful using this one. It is a rather lengthy report with pages of these graphs. I just grabbed one of the charts and scanned it. IIRC this one is if the Fortresses are at 27,000 feet. I don't remember what the exact aircraft set up was for this one.
Crumpp
-
Emm:
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Widewing says:
Crumpp, those 50 fighters had to defend 600 bombers extending over a huge area. Usually, they flew by squadron, rarely able to provide mutual support. They were always out-numbered by the defensive fighters. That's fact, not myth. "
In the beginning of the Bomber campaign I'd belive this is very much the case.
The Germans had ample time to plot the bombers which went over enemy area sometimes covering hundreds of miles. So the LW had ample time to form up and strike in strength.
Totally the contrary to the BoB when the strike was so close when spotted and there was no time to form up, - hence the big fight of the big wing theory.
And in 1943, the LW could mount more than just 200....just ask Izzy ;)
-
If someone wants to go throught the OoB for the end of 1943, http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LW43.html
Between JG11, 300, 301 and 302, stationed in Germany, they had ~230 a/c. Then there is the Zerstörer to be added in. These would be the a/c attacking the bombers once the P-47s had reached their range limit.
-
Between JG11, 300, 301 and 302, stationed in Germany, they had ~230 a/c. Then there is the Zerstörer to be added in. These would be the a/c attacking the bombers once the P-47s had reached their range limit.
Your correct in an ideal world they could get 400 plus aircraft in the air. Operational reality (Murphy's) dictated that on average the Luftwaffe was able to get a lot fewer planes in the air. During the huge bomber raids of 1944 200 was about the average that made contact with the bomber stream. These would be divided up among the various bomber missions. Some days a lot more and some days a lot less.
Gallands whole premise for his knockout blow was the "big wing theory" with a mass interception.
You can see the Luftwaffe's total fighter strength in the chart I posted.
Crumpp
-
(http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47FOIC.gif)
Guys,
Before everyone jumps on Crummp please read this chart more clearly.
The 800 miles (one way) is listed for 221 gallons of fuel used. The early P-47D11 carried 305 gallons of fuel internally and the P-47D-25 carried 370 gallons of fuel. At 65GPH that one way range at 370Gallons - 45 gallons for takeoff and climb to 5,000FT as stated in the lower left corner = 335gallons / 65GPH = 5.15 hours * 259MPH TAS (200MPH IAS at 12K) for a range of 1330 miles on internal fuel.
For reference the P-38L using 350 gallons of fuel had a max range of 1210 miles (one way).
The Navy provides a formula for combat RADIUS. I have never seen the same for the AAF.
Thanks
-
F4UDOA, true for most economical range.
Yet, the 56th says they had a 3 hour flying time using the 150gal dt. They were using D-10-11s at the time(Feb '44). That is 137gal/hr.
It also states on the sheet, 40gal not available in flight.
One does not stooge around at the most economical setting in a combat zone especially with the tortise acceleration of the P-47.
-
Milo,
I just realized that the Vought document I have shows the P-47D11 with 305 gallons and the P-38J with 300 gallons plugged into their combat radius calcuation. It seems as if the P-47D has the edge. Here it is on the bottom of page 5.
Vought Comparitive analysis (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/MSWF4UDATA.pdf)
One reason is the cruise speed at the most economical setting is 259MPH TAS at 12K. That is probably more than fast enough for bomber escort.
Another thing is the acceleration reputation of the P-38. In actual test against other A/C head to head I have not seen this brought out. In fact the P-47D-40 was superior at low and high alt in that regard in acceleration test I have seen.
-
One does not stooge around at the most economical setting in a combat zone especially with the tortise acceleration of the P-47.
The USAAF escort generally had a good altitude advantage. If you see the report I have, that one I got that graph out of, it took good timing and great ground control to get the fighters into optimum position for attack. This means both altitude and position ahead and above the formations. This rarely happened.
Usually the fighters, on a clear day, would spot the bomber stream on the climb out. This meant climbing up in within sight of the bombers and having to parallel the formation to reach attack positions. The escort would be a good position to bounce them from above and break up their attack. With cloud cover it was even more difficult to maintain cohesion and get into position.
With the ranges the escort had to fly and their advantaged position I imagine they did fly at most economical settings once they reached escort altitude. If they were close escort, even at economical cruise setting, I am willing to bet they still had to zig zag in order not to leave the bombers behind.
Once Doolittle freed the fighters up in December of '44 the escort ranged ahead and really put the Luftwaffe in a dilemma. Now they could be attacked on take off or while forming up to begin the climb out. It was either launch really early, which they began to run short of fuel to do, or fight your way up to the formations of bombers which they did not have the planes or the pilots to do.
Nice Doc's F4UDOA! Thanks for sharing. Can you give me your email and I will get those docs I promised.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, that 3 hr flying time gave a range of 300-350 mi. (Drummer Lake to Boxted)
-
Guess you have not read F4UDOA's doc yet.
Crumpp
-
Just bumped across a wee more on LW strength in the later parts on the war.
Autumn 1944, operation Market-Garden.
1st launch of a total of some thousands of aircraft and gliders, cruising for hours, slowly, as a 100 mile long convoy to Holland, the allied did not get intercepted.
A couple of days later when the second wave was sent from Britain, the LW however had 190 fighters for an intercept job.
Due to various reasons, mostly timing (refuelling and such), less than 100 LW fighters managed to be in the right place at the right time.
There was a fighter screen for cover of the paradrop. No LW fighters are reported to have made it through!
So, lots to think off really.
Firstly, the LW must have been dedicated very closely on the Bombing campaign, with extremely little flexibility on other possible events.
However, they did have the possibility to react and thus perhaps reform, given a day or two.
So there you go. At least, in 1944 autumn, the LW was able to pull 190 fighters from the hat and throw it at what they belived to be a big danger. I doubt that they completely depleted their fighter strenght though.
If they had, imagine what a mess the allied bombers could have done almost everywhere....
-
Following this thread, I think the cover-up conspiracy to hide the uber P-38 from all unsuspecting MA pilots worked quite well again. Good work there gentlemen, thank you all. Except for Kweassa who, unfortunately, must die now :D
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Guess you have not read F4UDOA's doc yet.
Crumpp
Guess you have not read comments by the pilots of the 56th then.:)
-
Guess you have not read comments by the pilots of the 56th then
So if anecdotal evidence is the standard then why does the 109 not have maneuver flaps?
I certainly think that the case is open and shut on the "outnumbered" P38's. It just did not happen. Looks like at the very least the range was close enough they turned back with the rest of the escort.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp you are as bad as Izzy when it comes to 'dream worlds' and reality.
> > theory vs actual reality < <
Feb 20 '44 was the first time the 150gal dt was available and the pilots commented that they could NOW stay airborne for 3 hours. That allowed them to reach Dummer Lake just north of Osnabruck. Call it what you want, but it is in the unit mission history. They were flying the a/c, not you, and should know how long they could stay in the air if they did not want to go for a swim in the North Sea.
July 30 '43 ferry tanks were made available which allowed the P-47s to reach the Dutch/German border. Air time was 2 hr 12 min which gave an extra 20 min of escort time for the heavies. On the 17 Aug, the 56th met the bombers returning from Schweinfurt 15 mi east of Eupen/Malamdy with these tanks.
The 353rd using 108 gal dts was able to reach within a few miles of Bremen.(Nov 25 '43)
Actually the 109 did have manuevering flaps, at least by your definition for the 190. And they were of infinite adjustment, unlike the one position Fw's.
The P-38 had over 100 mi further combat range than the P-47 in late '43-early '44.
-
here is a chart for the P-38, via Zeno's
(http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-38/38FOIC.gif)
As can be seen, setting V gave a range of 330 mi more than the P-47.
-
And for my NEXT trick, I shall procure a rare and non-biased graph to back up everyone's arguments both those for and against the P38 in combat.
Gents, seriously, there is no need to get your panties in a bunch over this discussion. Keep it civil and we can all enjoy it...
-
Always read that a tanked up P38 had more range than the P47's at the same time.
That's why they were there so "deep" before the P51's came around.
Note, they could fly on one engine! Not that all twins can!
The 109 did not really have maneuvering flaps, but they surely had multy-deployment. I somehow remember that the deployment was slow/manual. Anyone?
However they would work well with the slats.
And, the P38 escorts on deep raids were really not that many, as far as I've read.
P47's were suspected by the LW to have shorter range. They sometimes got jumped near the dutch coast to force them to drop their tanks. Why?
And at last, was the LW strength less in 1943 than at the same time in 1944?
I at least (call me silly) can quite well see a circus of 200 black crosses on a good day.......
-
The usage of combat flaps, in the sense to tighting turning, was probably proposed for the 109 earlier then for any other ww2 fighter aircraft - and probably realized too.
niklas
-
How did they deploy?
Compressed air, hydraulics, or jacked?
-
Actually the 109 did have manuevering flaps, at least by your definition for the 190.
It's not definition, It's the USAAF's remember? You need to see it again? :rofl
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Meyer
Maybe you should come back when you understand what is being discussed :p
Hartmann didn't have one of the best kills/sortie records, you should know that.
@Widewing: just a few examples:
Günther Scheel 71/70
Günther Rall: 275/621
Emil Lang: 173/403
Otto Kittel: 267/583
Marseille: 158/382
And when I name the He100 I was talking about the D-1 version, who AFAIK did 670km/h.
What was the speed of the P-38 prototype?
I'm always amazed by this type of pure garbage...your basically comparing apples and oranges:)..
Now, for the record Gunther Scheel is easily the #1 ace from any nation on any front. The logic is simple, he's a "late war" pilot who got very little training and was thrown into the worst part of the meat grinder. A simply amazing score given his specific circumstances.
However, to compare Johnson (since thats were this started) infavorably to any of the above is pure BS. He flew in mid 43-44, a time when the luftwaffe was at its strongest and allied planes were severely hampered by doctrine and plane capabilities. He only flew 91 total sorties, all against superb opposition...unlike many german aces who often fought against inferior opposition (both plane & pilot). Had he flown a second tour...especially in the "meat grinder" phase of the airwar he'd of probably gotten another 30+ kills...
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It's not definition, It's the USAAF's remember? You need to see it again? :rofl
Crumpp
You produced the document. Ergo, it is your definition.:)
Fw described the position as 'landing' not manuevering.:)
Angus, a wheel on the left side of the cockpit. Iirc it took 20-30 secs from full up to full down.
-
Now, for the record Gunther Scheel is easily the #1 ace from any nation on any front. The logic is simple, he's a "late war" pilot who got very little training and was thrown into the worst part of the meat grinder. A simply amazing score given his specific circumstances.
Sounds like some one needs to do a goggle search..
Scheel went MIA in 16/07/43...
He bailed out of his A-5 after engaging with a Soviet Spit and Yak 9. His parachute opened but he was never seen again...
He served on the eastern front during that time where I am sure you would say he was fighting:
against inferior opposition (both plane & pilot).
Gunther Scheel's claim to fame was his 71/70 but htat can be attriibuted to 'luck' just as much as skill. Most likely a little of both...
Anyway,
Addi Glunz flew through some of the worst over the western front and was never shot down. He shot down 19 4 engined bombers, a crapload of spitfires, 6 or 7 p47s, a few p38s etc...
71 victories and another 10-15 that were claimed but unconfirmed.
While his kill per sortie was nothing remarkable his ability to stay alive and be successfull puts here up there with the best.
Be late war east front was no joke either. Do some search on JG54 in Kurland...
It would make flying jugs in west in mid '43 look like a cake walk...
-
dream world vs reality
"The climb to 30,000ft and the necessity for high speed in hostile territory, saw the P-47s 305 gal fuel load consummed at a a rate averging 200 gal/hr"
on ferry tanks used July '43
"Unfortunately they were only suitable for low and medium altitudes, for the lack of pressurisation. Fuel could not be drawn over 20,000ft, which meant the tanks had to be released before reaching the P-47's operational altitude. More over, the tanks were difficult to install, tended to leak, affected the CG of the a/c and sometimes failed to release."
Roger Freeman, a noted and respected aviatian expert and published author.
-
Originally posted by bunch
Widewing, were you flying the B-17 i saw near the Statue of Liberty Sept. 25?
No, I only wish!
I logged time in or was qualified in the T-28, S-2F, US-2B, C-1A and HU-16 (all R-1820 powered).
I also qualified in the C-118 and C-131 (both powered by the R-2800).
All courtesy of the U.S. Navy.
Managed a total of 332 traps as well.
All of this occurred before most of the people who play Aces High were born... Geez, I'm getting to be an old fart.......
My regards,
Widewing
-
"The climb to 30,000ft and the necessity for high speed in hostile territory, saw the P-47s 305 gal fuel load consummed at a a rate averging 200 gal/hr"
Just think about that for a moment. That's about 45 min out and 45 min back. A shorter mission than most of the Luftwaffe pilots.
on ferry tanks used July '43
The time period of the conversation is Feb '44. Could the Allies fix a leaky tank in 8 months? Of course...
You produced the document. Ergo, it is your definition
No Milo. The Allies produced the document. I just found it in Wright Patterson's archives.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101778289_manuverflaps.jpg)
As for the P38 / P47. I will believe a flight data over the POH any day. Got plenty of examples of how the manual is wrong at work. Takes the Military forever to get a supplement out and they love to combine things that are different into one book.
Either way data is out there to support both arguments and the facts are the P47 reached about were the "E" is in GERMANY on this map. I don't think the P38 went much farther. 50 P38's facing two hundred Luftwaffe fighters is pure exaggeration in Feb '44. One year earlier and it would be believable.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101688571_aaf-iii-1.jpg)
So back to the P 38 and its performance.
Anybody care to see the complete report on the P38 vs. FW-190 from the RAE trials? Yeah I know it's a P38F. It's also a "de-rated" 801D2 that only reaches 375mph top speed. Or the Official Luftwaffe assessment of the P38 perhaps?
Crumpp
-
Personally,
Yes, I'd love to see both of the documents you mention.
Cheers,
mhuxta
-
Originally posted by humble
However, to compare Johnson (since thats were this started) infavorably to any of the above is pure BS. He flew in mid 43-44, a time when the luftwaffe was at its strongest and allied planes were severely hampered by doctrine and plane capabilities. He only flew 91 total sorties, all against superb opposition...unlike many german aces who often fought against inferior opposition (both plane & pilot). Had he flown a second tour...especially in the "meat grinder" phase of the airwar he'd of probably gotten another 30+ kills...
Agreed.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by humble
I'm always amazed by this type of pure garbage...your basically comparing apples and oranges:)..
Now, for the record Gunther Scheel is easily the #1 ace from any nation on any front. The logic is simple, he's a "late war" pilot who got very little training and was thrown into the worst part of the meat grinder. A simply amazing score given his specific circumstances.
However, to compare Johnson (since thats were this started) infavorably to any of the above is pure BS. He flew in mid 43-44, a time when the luftwaffe was at its strongest and allied planes were severely hampered by doctrine and plane capabilities. He only flew 91 total sorties, all against superb opposition...unlike many german aces who often fought against inferior opposition (both plane & pilot). Had he flown a second tour...especially in the "meat grinder" phase of the airwar he'd of probably gotten another 30+ kills...
Thanks for your educate response... but I think you need to improve your reading skills.
I'm not comparing 'anything', I'm just saying that Robert Johnson didn't have a similar record of claims/missions that the betters Lw pilots in that category (as Widewing did suggest)
If you 'can't handle the truth' it's not my problem.
~S~
-
Angus, the flaps were handled manually.
You can see them in this picture, it's that big wheel (the another one is for the trim)
(http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/10639/bk6.trim.wheels.1.jpg)
-
Enjoy.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101781786_p38f.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101782014_gafopinions.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101782240_baropinion.jpg)
Crumpp
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101783242_reporttext.jpg)
Crumpp
-
LOL Crumpp, I'll believe the legit historian such as Freeman over some wannabe one, any day.
Stay in your dream world. I will believe what the pilots said regarding the P-47s range and flying times.
That 45 minutes of yours back is 'going downhill''.:eek: Going down hill in a lighter a/c uses much less fuel than 'going uphill' in a heavier a/c. Thirty minutes of that 1.5 hours was spent over 'enemy' territory. ('enemy territory' so you are not confused begins after crossing the Dutch coast)
They dumped those 200gal ferry tank and used others.
Why did you ignore the P-38 chart which has the P-38 having a range MUCH further than the P-47? You must be thick between the ears if you say the P-38 did not get much further than the P-47.
Dispite your dreams, the pilots gave place names and flying times in a combat zone that came NOWHERE near your dream distance in late '43-early '44. But then you do have trouble the way you mix late 43, early 44 and late 44 all together in one pot. :rolleyes:
An Allied word, not the German definition which says it was 'landing' position.
Oh yah. Reduce the sizes of your posted graphics. The extra large size is not impressive, at all.
-
Thanks crumpp
(good thing I'm on broadband ... :D )
cheers,
Scherf
-
Np Scherf. I left it kind of big because the ink was old and faded. It did not copy very well.
Milo...
Your ranting sounds, well...pathetic. Get some help.
Thanks for the flap info but check here. (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=122132&highlight=FW190+Flaps)
Crumpp
-
What is pathetic Crumpp is the dilusional amount of BS you post between the odd bit of good info.
I already know that info.:eek:
-
I already know that info.
Your pretty Dense Milo. Check the date on the thread. It was quite a while ago and No I don't think you do.
An Allied word, not the German definition which says it was 'landing' position.
It's the take off flaps the pilots used in turns like US Combat Flaps. "Start" is the German word for TAKE OFF. The Landing flaps were 58 degrees.
Crumpp
-
quote:
I don't think the P38 went much farther.
That is right you don't think.
Since you used Baugher for the P-47's range, this is what he says for the P38.
P-38H
maximum range with external tanks was 2400 miles.
P-38J
2260 miles at 186 mph at 10,000 feet with two 250 Imp gall drop tanks.
P-47-25-RE
maximum external fuel was 1800 miles at 10,000 feet at 195 mph.
LOL, with all at max fuel load, the P-38 has a minimum of 460 mi GREATER range.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your pretty Dense Milo. Check the date on the thread. It was quite a while ago and No I don't think you do.
It's the take off flaps the pilots used in turns like US Combat Flaps. "Start" is the German word for TAKE OFF. The Landing flaps were 58 degrees.
Crumpp
Some brain fade there Crumpp. You have posted that link before and not to long ago.:rolleyes:
My mistake, used the wrong word.:) Should have said 'take off'. Just like you claimed that chart was American claims ( A summary of claims by the USAAF Fighters) Preoccupied with your range bs for the P-47.
-
Think you missed this...
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101789604_p47range.jpg)
:D
Crumpp
-
Anyone able to decipher what Octane rating is used in the Vought document?
Cheers,
Scherf
-
To bad it does not correspond with the charts post previously.:eek: So, would say there is one of your 'military errors' you yapped about on that chart, using range instead of radius for the P-47.
But when you wear horse blinders, like you do Crumpp, that is what is expected.
Also notice the P-47 has more range than the P-51.:eek:
Using that chart it should have been the P-47s that went to Berlin instead of the P-51s and P-38s. (listed is internal fuel load) And, you called me dense! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Think you missed this...
:D
Crumpp
LOLOLOL.
So, are you stating that all of the data on this document is accurate? Please, please make my day, say yes.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Meyer
Thanks for your educate response... but I think you need to improve your reading skills.
I'm not comparing 'anything', I'm just saying that Robert Johnson didn't have a similar record of claims/missions that the betters Lw pilots in that category (as Widewing did suggest)
If you 'can't handle the truth' it's not my problem.
~S~
Hold it there Herr Meyer. I didn't suggest anything, I reported what two of aviation's more highly regarded historians have stated from the results of their research. That's the truth and you'll just have to deal with it.
Robert Johnson flew 91 combat mission. During those missions, he saw German fighters 43 times. In 36 of the 43 encounters, Johnson fired his guns at the enemy. A result of those 36 instances where he fired on German aircraft, 37 of those aircraft were hit; with as few as 27 or as many as 32 going down, depending on which researcher you are willing to believe.
So, Johnson fired his guns in anger on 36 missions and hit 37 German aircraft, with at least 27 going down, 6 credited as "probables" and 4 others damaged. Some researchers have suggested that Johnson probably shot down 32 Luftwaffe fighters because loss records agree with Johnson's claims for probables on those dates, in the areas where Johnson was engaged. Sorry, but I forget the two gentlemen's names who wrote the piece. However, those possible kills would only be gravy. Johnson's record is remarkable as it is considering the circumstances. I am proud to have gotten to know him in the later years of his life.
At his prime, I'd match him up against any fighter pilot on the planet and take odds Johnson wins.
Oh yeah, on October 8, 1943 Johnson came to the aid of another P-47 engaged with a pair of Fw 190s. Johnson engaged and shot down one of them. Its pilot was Hans Phillip, one of the leading "Experten" with 207 kills. That other 190 was splashed by the other P-47. Phillip was Johnson's 3rd kill.
My regards,
Widewing
-
So, are you stating that all of the data on this document is accurate? Please, please make my day, say yes.
Sure lets here how the Navy was wrong. I sure they have very little experience with airplanes. The document is a flight test and leads me to wonder that if in practical reality the ranges were not much closer than what we see on these charts.
I would like you to show evidence that the P38 squadrons flew on alone with the bombers to target. I can't find a single account of this but I do have several missions with a mixed USAAF escort. Everybody leaves when the P47's have to go. The bombers continue to target "unescorted" as the missions where named.
This of course refers to Operation Argument Missions.
P-38J
2260 miles at 186 mph at 10,000 feet with two 250 Imp gall drop tanks.
Thought we were using the 108 Imp gallon tanks earlier. The P47D is a P47D-11 according to F4UDOA.
Crumpp
-
Oh yeah, on October 8, 1943 Johnson came to the aid of another P-47 engaged with a pair of Fw 190s. Johnson engaged and shot down one of them. Its pilot was Hans Phillip, one of the leading "Experten" with 207 kills. That other 190 was splashed by the other P-47. Phillip was Johnson's 3rd kill.
Where ever you got your 'story' it's just incorrect.
German sources claim Philipp's FW 190 was struck and 'damaged' by the defensive guns of the bombers he was engaging.
Several years ago someone tried to establish that Hans Philipp had been shot down by P-47 ace Robert Johnson. I ran this by several Luftwaffe historians. They discount it as their info, apparently Luftwaffe loss records, indicate that Herr Philipp was shot up quite heavily by the American bombers he was attacking.
Even the version where Johnson 'gets the kill'on Philipp is post war speculation 50 years after the fact.
"Re-knowned P-47 ace Robert S. Johnson followed four Focke-Wulf Fw-190's into a bomber formation and fired on the lead plane. Several hits were scored and plane started going down. Johnson was then attacked by two of the other Focke-Wulf's, and was shot up bad himself. Johnson then dove away from the enemy fighters and ran for home. "
As I pointed out to you before the LW were tasked with destroying bombers, Hans Philipp was attacking 'bombers' not other p47s when he was hit. In fact Johson's claims he was alone with his wingman looking for friendlies after shooting down a 110 and being separated from his flight
In Johson's own words:
Johnson: That was on October 8, 1943. My wingman and I had become separated, as sometimes happens in combat. We were trying to find some friendly airplanes to fly home with. I had just shot down a Messerschmitt Bf-110, which was my fourth kill. As I pulled up from that dive I saw four FW-190s attacking the bombers. I rolled over until I was upside down so I could watch them, as they were some 5,000 feet below me. I was inverted and continued my dive, shooting while pushing the nose forward to give the necessary lead for my bullets to intercept one of the planes. I was shooting at the leader, and his number three or four man pulled his nose up, shooting at me as I was coming down. I continued the attack, and just as I hit the leader, knocking him down, I felt a thump in my airplane. How badly I was hit I didn't know, as I was very busy. I leveled out after that, and I found out 50 years later that my fifth victory was Hans Philipp, a 206-victory ace from the Russian Front. I pulled up right in the path of a group of Bf-110s and FW-190s coming in behind the four I had engaged. I immediately threw the stick left and dropped the nose. Nothing happened when I hit left rudder, and then I knew that my rudder cable was shot away. I had no rudder control at all, only trim tabs.
Whether you chose to believe Johnson shot down Philipp or not (and there is considerable doubt that he did) even Johnson's version of the 190 he claimed to have shot down that day was engaging bombers.
50 years after the fact some one goes to Johnson and tells him he may of shot down Philipp. This is hardly a fact set in stone.
This type BS is the same type of garbage as your 'just 60 p38s took on 200 LW experten'...
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Sure lets here how the Navy was wrong. I sure they have very little experience with airplanes. The document is a flight test and leads me to wonder that if in practical reality the ranges were not much closer than what we see on these charts.I
On pg 48 of the link you liked to quote from earlier http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/III/AAF-III-2.html
Since January, the range of the P-51 had been extended. Without external tanks that aircraft could escort to a point approximately 475 miles from base, a distance roughly equal to the maximum escort range of the P-47 equipped with two 108-gallon auxiliary wing tanks.
The carrying of 2 dts did not start until May '44. The 150gal belly tank came into use mid Jan '44. This tank allowed the P-47s to reach the Dummer Lake area.
The USN screwed up the chart for the P-47s combat range.
-
Of the documents:
WOW!. Do you have page 218 as well??????????????????:) :)
Of the 109 flaps:
Seems like they were too slow for practical use in a dogfight. Deploying with hand like this in a high speed heavy turn, how long????
Of the 190 flaps:
I always thought they were two-stage and were mechanically deployed, and deployable at rather high speed. Am I right here?
-
Of the 109 flaps:
One of the "109" experts could probably answer for sure but IIRC it only took 4 turns to completely raise or lower the flaps.
Of the 190 flaps:
Yes. According to the Flugzueg-Handbuch they could be deployed at 500 kph and below.
Crumpp
-
I can hardly read the range comparison, from when is it? Any way you can put up a better copy of it?
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
To bad it does not correspond with the charts post previously.:eek: So, would say there is one of your 'military errors' you yapped about on that chart, using range instead of radius for the P-47.
But when you wear horse blinders, like you do Crumpp, that is what is expected.
Also notice the P-47 has more range than the P-51.:eek:
Using that chart it should have been the P-47s that went to Berlin instead of the P-51s and P-38s. (listed is internal fuel load) And, you called me dense! :rolleyes:
Actually, if you read note 5, it says auxiliary tanks are used. That could mean drop tanks. It specifically says the aux tanks are used all the way to the target, then dropped.
-
From Crumpp:
"One of the "109" experts could probably answer for sure but IIRC it only took 4 turns to completely raise or lower the flaps. "
4 Turns. Wouldn't wanna do that in a fight. How was the system on the Mustang for instance? A sort of a switch with many steps?
Well, at least it got used quite a bit.
The 190 I presume had it also in a switch?
(Heck, should have a picture of it somewhere on my swolled HD):D
-
More than 20-30° of flaps wasn´t useful anyway, it´s not good that in AH people can use full flap in a better way than 1-2notches for manoevering. The drag penalty was too high with flaps fully deployed.
The advantage of the 109 wheel system was that you could trim the elevator up AND lower flaps simultanously. Trimming was required by all pilots when they started manoevering, so this system safed actually time for the pilot .
And it was lighter than a hydraulic or electric driven system of course
niklas
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Actually, if you read note 5, it says auxiliary tanks are used. That could mean drop tanks. It specifically says the aux tanks are used all the way to the target, then dropped.
Yet if you look at the fuel load(2cd line) it seems (fuzzy scan) to be less than the 410gal the P-38J carried internally. If aux/dts were carried then the fuel load would be MUCH greater, so should at least be 150 gal more at the minimum for the P-38. Same goes for the P-47 which carried 310 gal, as stated, internally. No where, that I can see, does it state the external fuel load.
If the P-47 had such great range compared to the P-38 and P-51, then why was not the P-47 used to escort the bomber to Poltava on the Shuttle mission instead of the P-38 and P-51?
Angus, the Fw had a push button swicth for its 3 positions.
-
More than 20-30° of flaps wasn´t useful anyway, it´s not good that in AH people can use full flap in a better way than 1-2notches for manoevering. The drag penalty was too high with flaps fully deployed.
Exactly. The flap design of the 109 helped increase the turn for sustained periods of time. Airflow over the top of the wing would flow down helping to increase the rate of turn. It did not take a large amount of flaps to get benefits in the turn. Oscar very much preferred the 109's flaps for dogfighting over the FW-190's. They gave the pilot lots of control and were very precise.
The FW-190's flaps design airflow over the top of the wing would not help increase the turn rate as dramatically. Instead the flap itself would be using the flow under the wing and drag of the flap to increase turn. To sustain it the raw power of the engine was used to overcome the drag and keep the plane from stalling. It would hang on the prop around the circle.
At least according to Oscar who flew a Bf-109 from the day the war started until mid-1943. He flew an FW-190 for the remainder of the war. As he explained it you popped flaps for short periods of time to gain lead for the shot in the FW-190 or stall turn hanging on the prop. Of course he also says the FW-190 would turn well if the pilot had the experience to handle it. He greatly preferred the FW-190 to the 109 for dogfighting overall.
Crumpp
-
Actually, if you read note 5, it says auxiliary tanks are used. That could mean drop tanks. It specifically says the aux tanks are used all the way to the target, then dropped.
Exactly. Note 5 says:
Radius includes -
1. 20 minutes to Warm up and Taxi.
2. 1 minute to Take off
3. 10 minutes to Rendevous @ 60 % power at Sea Level.
4. Climb out @ 60% power to 15,000 feet ASL
5. Cruise to Objective @ Optimum Cruise settings
6. 20 minutes of Combat @ Full Military Power at 15,000 feet (My guess is TWO engines really eat up the gas at this point)
7. Return to Base @ Optimum cruise settings at 1500 feet ASL
8. Land with Reserve of 40 minutes time @ Optimum cruise settings.
Auxillery tank is used for:
Rendevous
Climb
Cruise to Objective
At the Objective the Drop tank is released. After that all fuel comes from the main protected fuel tank.
Radius includes distance covered in climb and not descent.
Looks like it test's actual practical combat radius and not just maximum endurance for the sake of distance.
Crumpp
-
(http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-38/38SEFC.gif)
(http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47SEFC.gif)
Now you can do your own math Crumpp but this is what I calculated.
Excluding #3 and #4 (what is the rpm at 60%), the P-47 burns 206.2 gal which leaves 103.8 gal in the 305 gal internal tank. The P-38 burns 246.6 gal which leaves 163.4 gal in the 410 gal internal tank.
If setting IV in the FOIC is used for #3 and #4, for the P-47 at 63 gal (reserve deducted) gives a range of 210 mi and the P-38 at 120 gal (reserve deducted) gives a range of 336 mi., clean condition. That gives the P-38 a range increase of 126 mi. over the P-47
There is no capacity mentioned on the chart for the drop tank(s) but the fuel cap. listed is for internal fuel only. The P-47 could carry a 150 gal tank while the P-38 could carry 2 300 gal tanks.
#1 used Min Specific Consumption, best > P-47/P-38 - 20/22 gal
#2 used take off > P-47/P-38 - 4.5/5.6 gal
#5 used MSC, best > P-47/P-38 - 45/49.5 gal for 45 min.
#6 used emergency > P-47/P-38 - 91.7/120 gal
#7 used MSC, best > P-47/P-38 - 45/49.5 gal for 45 min.
#8 used MSC, best > P-47/P-38 - 40/44 gal
a couple of more charts to help you with a more detailed calculation.
(http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47TOCL.gif)
(http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/38TOCL.gif)
-
And for the lazy one like myself, the overall assumption?
-
Now you can do your own math Crumpp but this is what I calculated.
I'll sit down and figure it out. Looking at it though I think the 20 minutes at WEP is a killer for the P38. It could fly farther but when put to a practical mission it's range was not that much greater.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Where ever you got your 'story' it's just incorrect.
You are right. I was writing by memory. I pulled out Johnson's book tonight and verified what you stated.
You were making a good argument right up until you decided to take the low road with:
This type BS is the same type of garbage as your 'just 60 p38s took on 200 LW experten'...
For the record, I wrote this: "One last factor. Only two Groups of P-38s were available in December of 1943, the 20th and the 55th. While they had a total strength of 70-80 fighters between them, usually only about 60 were available for any given mission. Of these, 15%-20% would be aborts. It was rare for both Groups to get more than a total of 50 fighters into enemy airspace. Facing these 50 fighters were 200-400 Luftwaffe fighters."
So, where do you see 'just 60 p38s took on 200 LW experten'?
Looking at the after action reports of the 55th FG (signed by Col. Frank James), there are several instances where the number of German fighters encountered were estimated "well in excess of 200". One mission was on February 4th, 1944. The 55th and 20th took the bombers to Frankfurt, and were relieved on the way back by 50+ P-51s. Once the P-47s had turned back, that left 56 P-38s to protect 300 bombers from the German border to Frankfurt, and then another 50 miles back before the P-51s showed up. Needless to say, the P-38s were very busy racing back and forth trying to meet every group of Luftwaffe fighters that arrived.
Dr. Carlo Kopp wrote in his treatise on the P-38; "combat radius helps to win air wars. This simple observation sums up much of what distinguished the P-38 from its contemporaries, and also why this aircraft must be considered the single most significant fighter in the US inventory in W.W.II. The critical air battles, when Allied strength was still building up and Axis strength was at its peak, were fought by the P-38 force, deep inside hostile airspace against a numerically superior enemy."
Kopp also states: "The 55th FG became operational with the P-38H at Nuthampstead in the UK, in October, 1943, deploying from McChord Field in Washington state, where it was a training unit periodically stripped of squadrons to reinforce MTO and SWPA FGs. Tasked with bomber escort at high altitude, the single group of P-38s provided deep escort outside of the range of the seven P-47 groups and numerous RAF Spitfire squadrons, which escorted bombers over the Channel. At this time the Luftwaffe was at its peak, with 8 JagdGeschwaders (JG1, JG2, JG3, JG11, JG26, JG51, JG106) equipped with Bf109G and Fw190A and 3 NachtJagdGeschwaders (NJG1, NJG2, NJG6) equipped with Bf110G available to defend the continent, each JG/NJG with typically 3 Staffels (Squadrons) per JG/NJG.
The P-38s were all that stood between the Luftwaffe and the bombers, 500 NM deep inside hostile airspace. Unescorted, the B-17s and B-24s suffered up to 30% attrition on some raids and the P-38s were the only aircraft with the radius to the task. Typically, P-47 Thunderbolts provided fighter cover to and from the German border. The P-47, truly an excellent high altitude fighter, was saddled with its limited range. They were just beginning to be equipped with belly mounted drop tanks. Yet, these were still inadequate for flying beyond the German frontier. The rotund Thunderbolt would suffer from a lack of range until the arrival of the P-47D-25-RE later in 1944. This model had 100 gallons of increased internal tankage and provision for three external drop tanks. Even with the arrival of some P-51B Mustangs, the P-38 was to bear the brunt of deep penetration escort duty for the next several months. The P-51B equipped 354th (9th AF) went operational in late December, 1943, followed by the 357th and 4th FGs in February, 1944. The P-38 equipped 264th went operational in March, 1944, and the 479th as late as May 1944. During the critical late months of 1943 the P-38 stood alone, with Mustang numbers building rapidly from February 1944."
So Wotan, you can twist things all you want, but the simple fact remains that only 50-60 P-38s stood between the bombers and the Luftwaffe, which could certainly get up more than 200 fighters in late 1943.
It seems to me that there is a general pattern among the Luftwaffe apologists. That is to distort, twist and when required, fabricate to support your argument. Moreover, no one defends a lie to the death like these characters. It's sad, because there's much of merit to discuss concerning the Luftwaffe. But, the "supermen" mentality will not allow for that discussion. I expected better from Wotan, but I can see that he subscribes to the same methodology...
My regards,
Widewing
-
The LW were tasked with destroying bombers not p38s and for the most went out of their way to avoid contact with those escorts. The LW bomber interception tactics are well known and written about in any number of books.
The LW attacked sections of the bomber streams where they were least protected. They attempt to hit the bombers and run before the escorts could get there.
The escorts had greater freedom of operation in that they could choose to engage the bomber attackers at will.
Facing these 50 fighters were 200-400 Luftwaffe fighters
You didn't have 400 LW fighters chasing around after 50 p38s. You didn't have 400 fighters whose objectives were to kill p38s. There was no 'face off'...
The p38s ran about trying to prevent the LW from getting to the bombers and the LW ran about trying to avoid the esocrts to get to the bombers.
Just like your post about Johnson you are simple over exaggrating your point due to you own bias. Just as you accuse Crumpp and anyone else who doesn't sign on to your version.
Look at your reply to Meyer. All he did was correct you and he instantly become a 'luftwaffei apologist'.
Questioning your objectivity has nothing to do with being a 'luftwaffe apologist'. If you think so then maybe you ought to seek professional help.
-
It seems to me that there is a general pattern among the Luftwaffe apologists.
Apologist? I see nothing in anyones post in this thread that attempts to argue the moral rightness of the NAZI cause. It was an evil blight upon the world and needed to be stamped out.
Guess you missed:
Crumpp says:
The guys that took off everyday and did destroy the Luftwaffe had a tough and dangerous task. Many times to them it must have seemed they were outnumbered. When you look out of your cockpit and all you see is bad guys, it matters little how many friendlies are "nearby". There is no reason though to distort the truth. Their actions stand alone and don't need any hype or half-truths to highlight them.
Crumpp says:
You post is somewhat confusing. If your a WWII vet, then I thank you for service. You guys did nothing less than save the world.
Which of course you are not a WWII vet.
It is sad that those closest to an event sometimes never get the "distance" to achieve a more balanced prospective. I certainly hope I do not ever get this way about Arabs as we fight a small misguided group that does not represent the majority. Even through I've experienced the pain of seeing my friends killed and crippled I hope I am man enough to continue not to fall prey to petty prejudice and can keep the fight directed at the true enemy, the extremist.
You sir, Widewing, are cut from the same cloth as some of the Luftwaffe veterans. I am very grateful for their help but do feel sorry for some of them. It is sad when you hear things like "We did not have enough summits or meetings" in 1939 or "It's a shame we did not talk more because Germany really did not want war." They still deep down inside deny their countries actions and want to shift some of the blame. It must be painful to have had your youth wasted in such an evil cause. Almost as painful as it would be to have spent it fighting that evil.
Getting back to the P38. I have no doubt that for a pure distance run, the P38 outdistanced the P47. However, the only FLIGHT TEST we have of the aircraft says that on a practical combat mission the P38 did not have a large, if any, advantage.
22 Feb 1944:
STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): HQ VIII Bomber Command is redesignated as HQ, Eighth Air Force.
Mission 230: "Big Week" continues with 799 aircraft dispatched against German aviation and Luftwaffe airfields; 41 bombers and 11 fighters are lost.
1. 289 B-17s are dispatched against aviation industry targets at
Aschersleben (34 bomb), Bernburg (47 bomb) and Halberstadt (18 bomb) in conjunction with a Fifteenth Air Force raid on Regensburg, Germany; 32 hit Bunde, 19 hit Wernegerode, 15 hit Magdeburg , 9 hit Marburg and 7 hit other targets of opportunity; they claim 32-18-17 Luftwaffe aircraft; 38 B-17s are
lost, 4 damaged beyond repair and 141 damaged; casualties are 35 KIA, 30 WIA and 367 MIA.
2. 333 B-17s are dispatched to Schweinfurt but severe weather prevents aircraft from forming properly and they are forced to abandon the mission prior to crossing the enemy coast; 2 B-17s are damaged.
3. 177 B-24s are dispatched but they are recalled when 100 miles (160 km) inland; since they were over Germany, they sought targets of opportunity but strong winds drove the bombers over The Netherlands and their bombs hit
Enschede, Arnhem, Nijmegen and Deventer; they claim 2-0-0 Luftwaffe aircraft; 3 B-24s are lost and 3 damaged; casualties are 30 MIA.
These missions are escorted by 67 P-38s, 535 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s, and 57 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s; the P-38s claim 1-0-0 Luftwaffe aircraft, 1 P-38 is damaged beyond repair and 6 are damaged; the P-47s claim 39-6-15 Luftwaffe aircraft, 8 P-47s are lost and 12 damaged, 8
pilots are MIA; the P-51s claim 19-1-10 Luftwaffe aircraft, 3 P-51s are lost and 3 damaged, 3 pilot are MIA.
http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/Feb.44.html
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101866584_22feb.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101866635_22feb2.jpg)
JG 301 was huge organization in the Luftwaffe. Check it out here:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LW43.html
And then JG 301's strength in May '44.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LWOB.html#Jagdwaffe
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Hold it there Herr Meyer. I didn't suggest anything, I reported what two of aviation's more highly regarded historians have stated from the results of their research. That's the truth and you'll just have to deal with it.
Robert Johnson flew 91 combat mission. During those missions, he saw German fighters 43 times. In 36 of the 43 encounters, Johnson fired his guns at the enemy. A result of those 36 instances where he fired on German aircraft, 37 of those aircraft were hit; with as few as 27 or as many as 32 going down, depending on which researcher you are willing to believe.
Yeah I have that book... but you don't need to do an extensive research to find out that Robert Johnson didn't have a similar record of claims/missions that the leaders of the Lw in that category. Five minutes of google search would do it :)
Of course, if you choose to compare that record with one of the Lw aces who isn't a leader in that category (like Mr. Toliver and Mr. Constable did ) you will come up with a pretty useless conclusion.
Moreover, is totally "oranges & apples" try to compare the record of one pilot BoF, BoB and the channel fight in 1939/41 with another pilot who fought in late 43/44 in the Allied bombing campaign.
And I'm still waiting for the data of the P-38 prototype.
~S~
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Sure lets here how the Navy was wrong. I sure they have very little experience with airplanes. The document is a flight test and leads me to wonder that if in practical reality the ranges were not much closer than what we see on these charts.
I would like you to show evidence that the P38 squadrons flew on alone with the bombers to target. I can't find a single account of this but I do have several missions with a mixed USAAF escort. Everybody leaves when the P47's have to go. The bombers continue to target "unescorted" as the missions where named.
This of course refers to Operation Argument Missions.
Thought we were using the 108 Imp gallon tanks earlier. The P47D is a P47D-11 according to F4UDOA.
Crumpp
You never cease to impress us with your selective data.
That document states that the F7F-1 had a sea level rate of climb of 5,230 fpm. Wow, that's a whole lot better than the Navy's official performance data for climb, which states it as 4,310 fpm.
What about the XF8F-1 at 5,850 fpm? Again, officially, the Navy reports sea level climb for the XF8F-1 at 4,800 fpm.
Did the Navy fail to mention the JATO bottles, or is this what we in Naval Aviation referred to as "gundecking" the paperwork?
What about their 441 mph speed for the P-47D-11? That's 6 mph faster than what Republic claimed, and 8 more than the USAAF reported. Moreover, this P-47 apparently was fitted with under-wing pylons. These were known to reduce speed by another 6 to 8 mph.
When we look at range issues, we see that this document states that the P-38J had an internal capacity of 300 gallons. This is incorrect. The P-38J and L had an internal capacity of 410 gallons.
That's fact and even the Navy can't alter facts. If they only calculated based upon 300 gallons, then you can expect a reduction in combat radius. This document also uses the typical Navy combat profile, not that of the AAF or 8th AF. P-47s typically flew at altitudes between 30,000 and 35,000 feet for escort duty. Not 15,000 feet, especially since the P-47's performance at 15k was less than stellar.
Do you have a copy of Dean's America's Hundred Thousand? If you do, turn to page 599 and examine the range chart (table 100). You will see that the P-38J flying on 410 gallons of internal fuel has a combat radius of 275 miles. Add 330 gallons in drop tanks and the radius extends to 650 miles. Also on that chart is the P-47D-pre-23 and D-25. The P-47D razorback combat radius is defined as 125 miles on 305 gallons internal. When flying with 305 gallons internal, plus another 300 in drop tanks, the combat radius is 425 miles. With greater internal capacity, the D-25 comes in at 600 miles. These reflect climbing to just 25,000 feet. This chart was issued by the Flight Data Unit of the Engineering Division at Wright Field. The chart also shows the increase in radius if they only climb to 10,000 feet, but that is meaningless when we discuss high altitude fighter escort.
There is no doubt that this chart is deliberately conservative, but in relation to the P-47, the Navy only adds 50 miles. Where the Navy goes off is with the P-38, and a portion of that is probably related to calculating range based upon 110 gallons less internal fuel than the aircraft actually would fly with.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The core of this discussion (range radius P-47 vrs P-38) is really interesting to me but I really don't feel like getting into the middle of a flame fest.
So at the risk of walking into a fight I don't want want to be in....
1. In midsummer 1944 a change was made to carburator of the R2800 on the F4U and F6F. This change significantly lowered fuel consumption in mil power by allowing the use of an auto-lean mixture. I believe this change would have been made on the P-47D as well since the fuel consumption was identical prior to the modification on all three airplanes. I have manuals for the F6F and F4U post 1945 that show these changes but I have never seen one for the P-47 other than what is shown at Zenos. I have to scan this chart but it reduces as much as 290GPH at mil power to 242GPH at the same altitude. In anycase I would doubt that this change was not made to the P47.
2. The P-47 range chart shown is only for a 305 gallon tank. The P-47D25 held 370 gallons internally. If you compare the P-47D-25 to the P-38J which held 410 gallons internally then at least there is a base for comparison. Using that chart you can determine several things.
Using 12,000FT as a common alt. on both charts
P-38J cruises at 57GPH at 212MPH TAS.
P-47D cruises at 65GPH at 259MPH TAS (according to my calculation for range 248MPH TAS according to a TAS calculator)
Using the more conservative number the P-38J and P-47D (with no carb mod) run at 3.8MPG Using the my number the P-47 is a little better.
In anycase they are almost exactly the same in consumption with P-38 having 40 more gallons or at 3.8 mpg 152miles greater range than the P-47D25. Not exactly a huge advantage and my P-47 number is conservative.
The question I would have is that at 12,000FT the P-38J was cruising at 212MPH TAS. This speed would barely keep up with the heavies at 25K much less engage fighters. Would it have run at that low a power and still be effective.
Also what tanks were available for the P-47D-25 and P-38J (If these are the aircraft of the time).
-
Originally posted by Meyer
And when I name the He100 I was talking about the D-1 version, who AFAIK did 670km/h.
What was the speed of the P-38 prototype?
Ok, from what I see, the first He 100D-1 flew in September of 1939. The XP-38 first flew in January of 1939. Published sources define the XP-38's speed at 413 mph. However, as far as I know, there was never any calibrated flights done to establish that. We do know that on its cross country flight, the XP-38 averaged 420 mph (including climbout) between Oklahoma and And St. Louis. But, being a west-to-east flight, there was a tailwind. Ben Kelsey crunched his numbers and concluded that his actual airspeed averaged 380 mph over that leg. His average speed for the entire flight was 350 mph. I can't vouch for the method he used to make that determination, but the Army accepted it. Kelsey wrote that the maximum speed he thought the XP-38 could attain was calculated at 394 mph based upon maximum power available at 20,000 feet.
Lockheed projected 420.8 mph for the prototype.
Kelsey calculated 394 mph. Therefore, we might assume that it's true maximum was somewhere in the range of 400 to 410 mph, slightly better than the YP-38s actual with their relative increase in drag. Really, it has to be a best guess as there's no hard data available.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Taking from Roger Freeman's book "The Mighty Eighth"
From the Fall of 43. With a 108 gallon tank used until empty the P47 had a combat range of 375 miles. With a 75 gallon tank the range was roughly 340 miles.
He also mentions the Germans having figured this out took to attacking the fighters to get them to drop their tanks at landfall. An early example of this was on the October 14th mission to Schweinfurt when the 353rd was attacked by 20+ 109s and 190s.
He also mentions the P38Hs of the 55th FG having a potential range of 450 miles with 2 drop tanks. And he comments that there was an urgency to get the 55th up to speed for escort operations because of the longer range.
For what its worth
Dan/Slack
-
P-47s typically flew at altitudes between 30,000 and 35,000 feet for escort duty. Not 15,000 feet, especially since the P-47's performance at 15k was less than stellar.
Looks like it's fuel consumption was spot on at 15,000 ft.
What about their 441 mph speed for the P-47D-11? That's 6 mph faster than what Republic claimed, and 8 more than the USAAF reported. Moreover, this P-47 apparently was fitted with under-wing pylons. These were known to reduce speed by another 6 to 8 mph.
I have plenty of flight graph information. Flights will vary in "top speed" based on many factors. It's not uncommon to find variation. I have FW-190A5 graphs that vary 15-20kph.
Did the Navy fail to mention the JATO bottles, or is this what we in Naval Aviation referred to as "gundecking" the paperwork?
Is that sort of like this:
You never cease to impress us with your selective data.
Nice attempt at a smoke screen. So the P 38 was a wonder fighter huh? The why does it have such crappy stats? The P47 has better wing loading, power loading, and a lot less DRAG!
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101873588_p38drag.jpg)
Again the P38 has a range advantage but not a very big one. They certainly did NOT take on the Luftwaffe 50 P38's vs. 200 Luftwaffe fighters.
BTW I see you conveniently skipped over my last post. You never cease to impress us with your selective reading.
Crumpp
-
WideWing,
That is not a Navy document. That is from the Vought archives.
Notice the F6F is listed as a 400MPH fighter or that the P-47D is rated at 2600HP?
This was a comparitive document assembled is 1945 to show the best performance of Voughts competitors vrs the latest Vought aircraft including the F5U, F4U-5 and F4U-3. Vought certainly had no advantage exagerating the performance of it's competitors in an internal document.
Also the chart shows 300gallons of fuel for the P38J to achieve the stated performance.
-
F4UDOA,
I need your email address please. Got some docs I need to send your way.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
The core of this discussion (range radius P-47 vrs P-38) is really interesting to me but I really don't feel like getting into the middle of a flame fest.
So at the risk of walking into a fight I don't want want to be in....
1. In midsummer 1944 a change was made to carburator of the R2800 on the F4U and F6F. This change significantly lowered fuel consumption in mil power by allowing the use of an auto-lean mixture. I believe this change would have been made on the P-47D as well since the fuel consumption was identical prior to the modification on all three airplanes. I have manuals for the F6F and F4U post 1945 that show these changes but I have never seen one for the P-47 other than what is shown at Zenos. I have to scan this chart but it reduces as much as 290GPH at mil power to 242GPH at the same altitude. In anycase I would doubt that this change was not made to the P47.
2. The P-47 range chart shown is only for a 305 gallon tank. The P-47D25 held 370 gallons internally. If you compare the P-47D-25 to the P-38J which held 410 gallons internally then at least there is a base for comparison. Using that chart you can determine several things.
Using 12,000FT as a common alt. on both charts
P-38J cruises at 57GPH at 212MPH TAS.
P-47D cruises at 65GPH at 259MPH TAS (according to my calculation for range 248MPH TAS according to a TAS calculator)
Using the more conservative number the P-38J and P-47D (with no carb mod) run at 3.8MPG Using the my number the P-47 is a little better.
In anycase they are almost exactly the same in consumption with P-38 having 40 more gallons or at 3.8 mpg 152miles greater range than the P-47D25. Not exactly a huge advantage and my P-47 number is conservative.
The question I would have is that at 12,000FT the P-38J was cruising at 212MPH TAS. This speed would barely keep up with the heavies at 25K much less engage fighters. Would it have run at that low a power and still be effective.
Also what tanks were available for the P-47D-25 and P-38J (If these are the aircraft of the time).
Only problem with this is you are talking mid summer 44 when the groups were in 51s or transitioning to 51s.
The 47 v 38 range issues were late 43-early 44 issues prior to the introduction of the P51 so you are talking earlier D model 47s vs H model P38s.
The tanks in use with the Jug were single 75 gallon metal tanks or 108 gallon pressed paper tanks. Later they carried more then this but initially it was on the belly not the wing mounts as the early 47s did not come with wing hardpoints. The 38 had the two 150 or 165 gallon tanks on pylons next to the fuselage inside of the engines.
Some quick checking shows that, at least according to Warren Bodie's massive work on the P47 that the wings weren't strengthened to take the external hardpoints until the D-15. Problem is the 8th was flying the D-5 and D-10 and D-11 and didn't get the later models until roughly April 44 when the Mustangs were coming in fast too.
It still came down to Jugs that could at most carry a single 108 gallon tank on the centerline vs H and early J model Lightnings with two larger drop tanks.
Adding images of the birds in question. These are the ones that were in the thick of it when it mattered
Early Jugs with either 75 or 108 gallon tanks and a Early 38 with two 165 gallon tanks. These are the ranges that mattered in late 43-early 44
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1101878652_jugs.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1101878807_early38.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Nice attempt at a smoke screen. So the P 38 was a wonder fighter huh? The why does it have such crappy stats? The P47 has better wing loading, power loading, and a lot less DRAG!
Let's see...
Combat ready, with full internal fuel and ammo load:
P-47D-25 weighs in at 14,700 lbs.
P-38L-1-LO weighs in at 17,500 lbs.
P-47 wing loading is 49 lbs per sq/ft
P-38L wing loading is 53.4 lbs per sq/ft... But wait, let's not forget those flower flaps which effectively adds approx. 62 sq/ft to the wing area. These lower the wing loading to around 45 lbs per sq/ft. Wing area isn't of significant value until speeds drop down below were G loading on the pilot is no longer the limiting factor. On the other hand, the P-47 used a slotted flap that did not significantly increase effective wing area, but did produce lots of drag. In a low-speed dog fight, the P-47 is all but helpless against the P-38L.
Power loading is another subject. The P-38L's power loading is considerably lower than that of the P-47. 3,200 hp vs 2,300 hp in WEP, or 2,850 vs 2,000 at MIL power. Typically, the P-38L comes in at about 1.25 lbs less per hp than the P-47. Sorry, you missed that one.
As to drag, the P-47 does have less than the P-38L, but the Lightning is a much large aircraft. So that comparison is useless.
In terms of acceleration and climb, the P-38 wins easily.
The P-47D's advantages over the P-38L is limited to about 10-15 mph maximum speed (but not at the P-38s best altitude, they are about the same there) and its higher critical Mach. The P-47 has a better initial turn roll rate, but the P-38L has the higher sustained roll rate. In terms of ease of operation, the P-47 offered less work load. However, the P-38 was easier to fly, requiring less trim adjustment and it was a far more stable platform and much easier to fly at night.
In the SWPA, the 9th FS of 49th FG had to turn in their war weary P-38Fs and Gs in for brand new P-47Ds. The pilots were miserable. Not only was the Jug a relative "lead sled", it lacked the range to get to the fight. Victories plummeted and so did morale. Several months later, they began receiving P-38Js and eventually, Ls. Scoring quadrupled, morale soared and the 49th eventually rivaled 56th FG in total air to air kills. And consider that two of the 49th's three squadrons flew P-40s up until August of 1944.
You have attributed to me the statement that the P-38 was a wonder fighter. I never made any such statement (like that's a surprise). What the P-38 would become is the most successful AAF fighter in the Pacific (the Hellcat shot down nearly 3 times as many Japanese as the P-38) and was also very successful in the MTO and North Africa. It was a first rate fighter. By 1945 it was showing its age, but it was still capable of holding its own. Considering it was old technology by the end of the war, one cannot honestly compare it to the late-war monsters like the F7F, F8F, P-51H, P-47N, Tempest V, Ta 152 and those about to show up like the P-82 and F4U-5 and Sea Fury. Nonetheless, it did its job and did it well.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
The tanks in use with the Jug were single 75 gallon metal tanks or 108 gallon pressed paper tanks. Later they carried more then this but initially it was on the belly not the wing mounts as the early 47s did not come with wing hardpoints. The 38 had the two 150 or 165 gallon tanks on pylons next to the fuselage inside of the engines.
38 carried 310 gallon drop tanks as well...
they carried them for the first time in combat during the April 17, 1943 Yamamoto mission.
-
P-47 wing loading is 49 lbs per sq/ftP-38L wing loading is 53.4 lbs per sq/ft... But wait, let's not forget those flower flaps which effectively adds approx. 62 sq/ft to the wing area.
The P38's flaps added lots of drag. At least according to the USAAF P38 pilots magazine. CVH ran a link to it with a great article explaining to pilots how to use the flaps.
You sure do make a lot of excuses for official documentation on the type.
Crumpp
-
Keep forgetting Crummp.
markw4@comcast.net
Thanks dude
-
Nice try with that piece of manufacturer's advertizing propaganda, Crumpp.;)
Dan, yup many have been sidetracked till a later time period even though this 38/47 range subject began because of Big Week.
Now I think there would have been quite a few P-39Js around late '43-early '44 as 38H production ended in Aug '43 with ~600 a/c manufactured. P-38J production ended in June '44 at ~3000 a/c produced
The 55th FG, as well as the 20th FG, re-equiped with J models in Dec '43.
Now some trivia.
There was a movement to replace the Allisons in the P-38 with Packard Merlins but strong lobbying by GM in Washington DC had this idea crushed. Allison was a sub of GM.
-
Crump the P38 had Fowler flaps with combat setting !!!!! the P47 didn't!!!!
It a whole other kind of flap wich in kind of way extends ur wing ofcourse there was more drag but not as much like a slotted flap. The fowler is a lockhead trademark at the time.
it looks like just trying helpless keeping ur head above the water
anyway continue
:cool:
oh and what the about the extra wash off 2 engines over the p38's wing i readed that in a longtime ago post .
pyro or hitech told this was counted to in its calculations of the AH p38 model
-
Originally posted by Widewing
You never cease to impress us with your selective data.
That document states that the F7F-1 had a sea level rate of climb of 5,230 fpm. Wow, that's a whole lot better than the Navy's official performance data for climb, which states it as 4,310 fpm.
[/i]
All depends on context, ie what power rating they were using for the figures.
I worked up figures for the F7F-1 a couple years ago.
At a loaded weight of 21,476 lbs I get a climb rate of 3900 fpm @ 2100 hp x 2 mil power.
WEP climb rate all depends on what rating they used. I have seen figures of 2250 hp, 2380 hp, 2600 hp and 2800 hp for the R-2800-22/32W.
Giving climb rates of:
2250 x 2 = 4025 fpm
2380 x 2 = 4575 fpm
2600 x 2 = 5125 fpm
2800 x 2 = 5600 fpm
I have seen climb figures as high as 6500 fpm for the F7F-1, which is probably doable lightly loaded on 2800 hp.
What about the XF8F-1 at 5,850 fpm? Again, officially, the Navy reports sea level climb for the XF8F-1 at 4,800 fpm.
[/i]
Well considering a stock, loaded F8F-2 set a climb record of standing start to 10,000 ft in 94 seconds in 1947 at the Cleveland air races, that doesn't sound to implausible.
Again, it all depends on the power ratings. 2100 hp would probably give right about 4800 fpm. I will see if I can find some starting data to do a workup on the F8F-1/2, but 5850 fpm is probably reachable on about 2500 hp.
I'm still trying to get a handle on the R-2800-22/32W. It looks like they were single-stage/two-speed blowers, vice the two-stage/two-speed blower in the -18W in the F4U-4.
Looks like low blower should match up with neutral blower in the -18W, which hits right about 2380 hp @ SL max.
My guess is that 2380 hp was the maximum possible in low blower, but high blower could be engaged to generate higher manifold pressures and power. If I can get info on the blower ratios and diameters I can get more solid power figures for both low and high blower.
Did the Navy fail to mention the JATO bottles, or is this what we in Naval Aviation referred to as "gundecking" the paperwork?
What about their 441 mph speed for the P-47D-11? That's 6 mph faster than what Republic claimed, and 8 more than the USAAF reported. Moreover, this P-47 apparently was fitted with under-wing pylons. These were known to reduce speed by another 6 to 8 mph.
[/i]
Again test conditions and ratings are everything. A P-47D-30 managed 450 mph on 2535 hp when tested against a P-47N in '44. Yet that is still officially rated as a 426 mph airplane IIRC.
Given that R-2800-21/63/59 ratings varied from 2000, 2100, 2300, 2400 and 2535 hp depending on date, 441 mph for a razorback with pylons isn't unreasonable.
If the razorbacks can manage 420 mph on 2000 hp, which initial models were rated at:
2100 hp = 428 mph
2200 hp = 437 mph
2300 hp = 450 mph
2400 hp = 457 mph
2535 hp = 470 mph
Subtract about 15-20 mph for those godawfull pylons that Republic burdened the TBolt with, and you get right about 437 - 442 mph on 2400 hp.
When we look at range issues, we see that this document states that the P-38J had an internal capacity of 300 gallons. This is incorrect. The P-38J and L had an internal capacity of 410 gallons.
That's fact and even the Navy can't alter facts. If they only calculated based upon 300 gallons, then you can expect a reduction in combat radius. This document also uses the typical Navy combat profile, not that of the AAF or 8th AF. P-47s typically flew at altitudes between 30,000 and 35,000 feet for escort duty. Not 15,000 feet, especially since the P-47's performance at 15k was less than stellar.
[/i]
The P-38J didn't get the 55 US gallon leading edge tanks in the initial production blocks. It was either the J-10 or J-15 that got the tanks.
If it was an early production P-38J then the USN figures are correct.
Greg Shaw
-
It a whole other kind of flap wich in kind of way extends ur wing ofcourse there was more drag but not as much like a slotted flap. The fowler is a lockhead trademark at the time.
Lets see what Lockheed recommends on the flaps:
These should not be extended at speeds in excess of 250 MPH. There is danger of structural failure if this limitation is disregarded.
Don't be caught with your flaps down for any length of time in combat; the reason being that with maneuvering flaps down you can unknowingly get down to such low speeds that all the power in the world won't do you much good should you need sudden acceleration.
http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue6.htm
The dive flaps only masked the symptoms not fixed the problem.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-rm-a7c24/index.cgi?page0023.gif
oh and what the about the extra wash off 2 engines over the p38's wing i readed that in a longtime ago post .
While it does have some benefits, the "extra" washout has more penalties. This is why you do not see many successful twin engine prop fighters. The P 38 was hands down the most successful of them.
It was far from a "super" fighter and was in many knowledgeable peoples opinion, the worst of the USAAF late war fighters. Even the Luftwaffe "always attacked the P 38 in preference to other USAAF fighters". Victory on the wing and more points for promotion.
Least that is what the documentation and facts say.
Examining the correct time period of the discussion:
Dan, yup many have been sidetracked till a later time period even though this 38/47 range subject began because of Big Week.
As Milo says, the time period is Feb '44, Operation Argument.
Not:
Widewing says:
late 1943.
So what we have so far is the documentation; Allied, Lockheed's, Vought, and Luftwaffe ALL say a different story from what the "fans" on th BBS are claiming.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The dive flaps only masked the symptoms not fixed the problem.Crumpp
They are not flaps, they are spoilers designed to interupt the airflow and force the nose up. If you look through KJ's notes on their implementation, you will see that they are required to be deployed before the initiation of a dive, and then remain deploy until the dive recovery is implemented.
The lower main wing spoiler, or drf as it is called by some is standard on the L, and selectly installed on J's if they were in factory at the time of their development, and sometimes in field if a conversion kit was available to the unit.
Either way, the statement that the drf masked the problem is completely incorrect, it was intended as a solution to the compressability issues if employed properly, NOT if it sop was followed.
read through KJ's data and notes sometime, it is quite impressive when you really study and look at the issues he and his test pilots faced, along with the reports of the combat pilots, I take their statements as gospel.
-
They are not flaps, they are spoilers designed to interupt the airflow and force the nose up.
I realize they are not flaps. And I was correct. They do exactly what you state. That is NOT solving the compressibility problem. They correct the symptoms and not the problem.
-
Crump u should have asked Bong what he thought was a superplane he wouldn't trade it for a stang nor a p47.
it what they felt what was a "super" plane that's whats counting.
those interviews really tell nothin and seems to be pushed into some direction like the p38 was only good over water.
strangly it quotes the fw is faster on the deck later on it's the p38
but keep the believe with ur nazi planes
-
Crump u should have asked Bong what he thought was a superplane he wouldn't trade it for a stang nor a p47.
Of course he did. Most pilots become very emotionally attached to a piece of equipment that saves their lives. It's not confined to pilots either. Soldiers in combat like equipment that works for them. Should I run to the BBS and anounce the FW-190A8/R8 Sturmjager was the greatest fighter of WWII just because a guy that flew it loved it?
Great post gwshaw!
Look for those docs this evening, F4UDOA.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Meyer
Thanks for your educate response... but I think you need to improve your reading skills.
I'm not comparing 'anything', I'm just saying that Robert Johnson didn't have a similar record of claims/missions that the betters Lw pilots in that category (as Widewing did suggest)
If you 'can't handle the truth' it's not my problem.
~S~
Actually your the one with the "issues". I'm always amazed when I run into people blinded by their own desire to see a given topic a certain way. so even though it'll "bounce off" your arrogant posture here is "the truth"....
The heart & soul of the luftwaffe was formed in the crucible of the spanish civil war. Not only did numerous pilots gain invaluable experience (They were rotated thru to maximize the number of pilots exposed to actual fighting). They also developed the "proper" tactics and gave invaluable feedback to german aviation engineers. As a result at the beginning of WW2 the germans had the best pilots, planes and doctrine in the world. The "high point" for the germans in the air war was 1943 thru mid 1944. During that time they had the best combination of planes/pilots/tactical circumstance in the war. Put in the proper context Robert Johnson's accomplishments equal those of any of the top aces of WW2. Many of the pilots you listed have the benifit of experience and length of service not neccessarily greater "ability". I'm not downplaying the accomplishments of any of the expertain...simply putting things in a more nuetral perspective.
-
U begin with quoting sissy lw experten like that gay galland .
so al lw groupies blindly follow his statements.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Sounds like some one needs to do a goggle search..
Scheel went MIA in 16/07/43...
He bailed out of his A-5 after engaging with a Soviet Spit and Yak 9. His parachute opened but he was never seen again...
He served on the eastern front during that time where I am sure you would say he was fighting:
Gunther Scheel's claim to fame was his 71/70 but htat can be attriibuted to 'luck' just as much as skill. Most likely a little of both...
Anyway,
Addi Glunz flew through some of the worst over the western front and was never shot down. He shot down 19 4 engined bombers, a crapload of spitfires, 6 or 7 p47s, a few p38s etc...
71 victories and another 10-15 that were claimed but unconfirmed.
While his kill per sortie was nothing remarkable his ability to stay alive and be successfull puts here up there with the best.
Be late war east front was no joke either. Do some search on JG54 in Kurland...
It would make flying jugs in west in mid '43 look like a cake walk...
Cant argue with Addi Glunz...as for the other comments...
Scheel had a reputation for very aggresive flying, personally I dont think the overall quality of the russian "air force" was up to par with the germans or western allies...simply a question of "doctrine"...however without a doubt the "guards" air regiments being formed during that time frame were a much higher caliber opponent.
As for "late war" in the east vs 43 western front...couldnt disagree with you more. The allies in 43 had to stage and fly from england...the germans had the luxury of choosing when and where to attack. Additionally the aircraft match ups were certainly favorable for the germans. In the east the germans almost never flew beyond there own lines during the late war so they had some ability to control contact. we have a very late war yak/la-5/la-7 in AH....a majority of the late 44 russain units still were flying "early" la-5's, p-39's, mig-3's etc....
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Nice try with that piece of manufacturer's advertizing propaganda, Crumpp.;)
Dan, yup many have been sidetracked till a later time period even though this 38/47 range subject began because of Big Week.
Now I think there would have been quite a few P-39Js around late '43-early '44 as 38H production ended in Aug '43 with ~600 a/c manufactured. P-38J production ended in June '44 at ~3000 a/c produced
The 55th FG, as well as the 20th FG, re-equiped with J models in Dec '43.
Now some trivia.
There was a movement to replace the Allisons in the P-38 with Packard Merlins but strong lobbying by GM in Washington DC had this idea crushed. Allison was a sub of GM.
Yep you are right Milo, I was looking late 43 and I see that both the 20th and 55th were getting early Js at the end of 43 into 44. Issue is the same however as you are then comparing the J to those early Jugs only capable of carrying a drop tank on the centerline.
From all I can see, the Jug with a strengthened wing with the two hard points that allowed them to carry up to 3 108 gallon tanks didn't occur until roughly April 44 if not a bit later and by that time the Mustang was starting to make it's presence felt.
And if Warren Bodie's book is accurate, they still couldn't reach Berlin like the 38s could.
Clearly the Jug got there later on post D-Day with all the refinements internally and externally, but a lot of short sightedness on the part of the long range bomber guys cost them as the early P47 wasn't equipped for that long range escort role.
Dan/Slack
-
Emm, this:
"In the east the germans almost never flew beyond there own lines during the late war so they had some ability to control contact. we have a very late war yak/la-5/la-7 in AH....a majority of the late 44 russain units still were flying "early" la-5's, p-39's, mig-3's etc..."
I belive the Germans did fly quite a bit over the lines. The Soviets however didn't fly very deep.
So it was very much a fight over the lines.
Yet there is a point. Not so many German flyers were taken POW when being shot down.
However the Russians killed many a pilot on capture.
So who knows...?
-
Angus,
I'm simply relating what I've read regarding the airwar in the east (almost all written from the german side). They were stretched very very thin and had the primary job of intercepting russian JABO's. The german JABO's obviously did fly attack sorties...but often without escort. Basically the germans flew either behind or at the front a great majority of the time...
Again thats my impression based on what I've read.
-
Range or deep penetration was not a primary issue over the eastern front. However, as I suggested read something about the air over Kurland for instance.
The LW may not have strayed deep over there own lines like they did in BoB but the sheer numbers and quality of late war Soviet aircraft was well beyond what the western allies faced over Western Europe in '43. (a4s, a5s and G6s)
You make the same mistake Widewing makes. The LW in the west weren't tasked with attacking allied fighter strength but to go after the allied bombers.
Their freedom of action was more restrictive then the allies. The allies could stand off and above and engage the LW on their terms. While there were some notable air battles between fighters these were for the most part limited.
Read Johnson's account above of his attack on the 4 190s. He's 5000ft above as they attack bombers. He then dives and attacks. The advantage is clearly in his hands.
Not that AH or game can re- create 'history' but if you have flown any of the Ah scenarios / events that focused on the bomber war you would understand why those attacking the buffs, even if they out number the allied escorts, are at a greater risk to those escorts while they are engaging the bombers.
Just sheer numbers don't tell the whole story.
In Kurland JG54 flying A8s and a few A9s attacking low flying Il2s (many of them) were even more at risk to Soviet fighters, who not only had more operational freedom but out numbered them. Fighting plane types like late war Yaks, La-5FNS and La7s, P-39Qs etc... at less than 3000m while outnumbered would seem to me far more 'risky' then what you saw in the west in '43.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I realize they are not flaps. And I was correct. They do exactly what you state. That is NOT solving the compressibility problem. They correct the symptoms and not the problem.
It is a solution to the problem Crump if the spoilers are properly employed. When employed they force the nose up thereby preventing compressability...
It may not be glamorous, but it does solve the problem with the 38's compressability in combat.
-
It may not be glamorous, but it does solve the problem with the 38's compressability in combat.
You are correct in that it gives the P38 the ability to fight better. Where as before it could not dive at all, now it can dive and recover from it.
It solved the problem like Dayquil solves the flu. You feel better but you still have the flu.
Yep you are right Milo, I was looking late 43 and I see that both the 20th and 55th were getting early Js at the end of 43 into 44. Issue is the same however as you are then comparing the J to those early Jugs only capable of carrying a drop tank on the centerline.
According to the notes on that document has the P47D11 carrying a single tank centerline. The P38 got the benefit of two tanks during the test.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101789604_p47range.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101873588_p38drag.jpg)
Note 1 above ^
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, why do you keep posting that advertizing propaganda chart? Where on that chart does it give the capacity of the dts supposidly fitted to the a/c?
Is that 550 or 950 mi for the P-51?
-
Is that 550 or 950 mi for the P-51?
It's 550 for the P51B.
Crumpp
-
In my sense, the P38 is practically a super plane. With its 4x50s and 1x20mm its able to take out planes quickly and its got a large ammo load. Its got a great acceleration and quite fast. Depending on the pilot's skills, it can out turn a spit 5 and other great turning planes. Its can get to high altitudes quickly and still carry a large ordance payload of 2x1000 lbs and 10 rockets or the 2x150 gallon DT's giving it great range. Its only downfall its not a great plane to intercept planes coming in range to attack the base where most people grab 109s and spit 5s. Other than that, the P38 is basically a super plane.
Canaris
-
Originally posted by Wotan
You make the same mistake Widewing makes. The LW in the west weren't tasked with attacking allied fighter strength but to go after the allied bombers.
I just spent a few hours thumbing through Caldwell and Spick. There are many instances where the Luftwaffe specifically targeted escorts. Granted, the purpose was to clear the way for other fighters to attack the bombers, but the notion that the Luftwaffe simply ignored the escorts is a significant stretch. Spick goes into considerable detail on GAF tactics.
I also looked through several squadron histories and they also show many instances where they were attacked by large numbers of GAF fighters.
There's no doubt that the GAF wanted to kill the bombers as their first priority. However, they had to deal with the escort. To leave the escort unmolested was foolhardy, because the escorts would be all over them in short order.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Crumpp, why do you keep posting that advertizing propaganda chart? Where on that chart does it give the capacity of the dts supposidly fitted to the a/c?
It's hardly advertisement, Milo. Read gwshaw's post.
Crumpp
-
Widewing says:
Luftwaffe simply ignored the escorts is a significant stretch.
How in world do you get that concept from:
Wotan says:
The LW in the west weren't tasked with attacking allied fighter strength but to go after the allied bombers.
Only conclusion is your the one doing the stretching and selective reading. Or English is a second language and you failed hooked on phonics. Speaking of which, I am encouraged that your making an effort to at least research the other side before posting.
Not surprising. You've been long on wind and short on flight tested documentation this whole thread.
There's no doubt that the GAF wanted to kill the bombers as their first priority. However, they had to deal with the escort. To leave the escort unmolested was foolhardy, because the escorts would be all over them in short order.
Exactly. This should not be a surprise. Once Doolittle freed up the USAAF fighters in Dec '44 it was pretty much all over but the crying. USAAF fighters showed up with altitude over the fields and began bouncing the Luftwaffe on their climb out. This prevented an attack altogether or at the very least a cohesive one. With superior training and superior numbers, the USAAF was able to slaughter the Jagdwaffe. Interesting thing, If you examine the casualties, the pre-1943 trained pilots of the Jagdwaffe died at pretty much the same rate throughout the war. The Post-1943 pilots died like flies with an almost 98 percent attrition rate. If they survived their first 6 missions their chances of surviving the whole war went up astronomically.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by gwshaw
Well considering a stock, loaded F8F-2 set a climb record of standing start to 10,000 ft in 94 seconds in 1947 at the Cleveland air races, that doesn't sound to implausible.
Again, it all depends on the power ratings. 2100 hp would probably give right about 4800 fpm. I will see if I can find some starting data to do a workup on the F8F-1/2, but 5850 fpm is probably reachable on about 2500 hp.
Greg, I have serious doubts that the record setting F8F-2 was stock, or loaded to normal weight. Why? Because Lyle Shelton's modified F8F-2, Rare Bear, currently holds the time-to-climb record. Rare Bear reached 3,000 meters in 91 seconds, but it was powered by a 4,200 hp R-3350 with NOx injection! Moreover, it weighs about 500 pounds less than a stock F8F-2. As they say in the Fulton market, "there's something fishy here." If Shelton's monster can attain 542 mph @ 5,000 feet, I just don't see a stock F8F-2 climbing 10k just 3 seconds after the fastest piston aircraft on earth reaches 9,750 feet and do it on little more than 1/2 the horsepower.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Or English is a second language and you failed hooked on phonics.
LOLOLOL
Crumpp, please don't attempt to be witty, it only exposes a weakness.
By the way, you mentioned that you were a combat veteran. For some reason, I envision in my mind scenes of swinging purses and hair pulling. ;) Seriously, with what service did you serve and where?
Doolittle's order to release the fighters to pursue and interdict the GAF was issued towards the end of January, 1944.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It's hardly advertisement, Milo. Read gwshaw's post.
Crumpp
Yes it is, as it was produced by Vought,:)
Then there is, from the link you provided and I posted earlier which you have ignored.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/III/AAF-III-2.html
Since January, the range of the P-51 had been extended. Without external tanks that aircraft could escort to a point approximately 475 miles from base, a distance roughly equal to the maximum escort range of the P-47 equipped with two 108-gallon auxiliary wing tanks.
Says much for the Vought chart. Do you only use links when it suits your agenda? Would seem so.
Either Greg, who I respect because he is not BSer, or Baugher is incorrect.
The first block consisted of ten service test P-38J-1-LOs. These were quickly followed by 210 P-83J-5-LOs with two 55-US gallon additional fuel tanks in the leading edge space previously occupied by the intercoolers and thus restoring maximum internal fuel capacity to 410 gallons (1010 gallons with drop tanks).
On the P-47.
Production batches from the P-47D-20-RE onward were fitted with a "universal" wing which could carry a variety of drop tanks or bombs.
Underwing pylons were introduced on the D-15-RE and D-15-RA production blocks. These enabled a drop tank or a bomb to be carried underneath each wing in addition to the stores carried on the belly shackles. Fuel changes had to be made to incorporate plumbing for the underwing tanks.
At the time, early 1944 remember, the P-47 model could only carry a belly dt. The best range they could get was to Dummer Lake, a flying time of 3 hours. It is not til April '44 that the 56FG mentions a kill with a -15 plus a/c and they were still flying the older models.
You still have not answered how much fuel was in the dts in the Vought chart.
-
crump u do like the p38 was the only plane with compression.
take the 109 for instance ...guess what
it compressed too
and those dive flaps where mounted lateron on the p47
wich is known as an excellent diver.
ur comparisons with flu is way off but it shows ur hard headed ignorant luftwaffe groupy
but i love killing those types in the MA in my "super" p38
please get an german name that would statisfy me more
got one for u "arsloch" "shimmlippe"
or "sheiss gumpel "
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Greg, I have serious doubts that the record setting F8F-2 was stock, or loaded to normal weight. Why? Because Lyle Shelton's modified F8F-2, Rare Bear, currently holds the time-to-climb record. Rare Bear reached 3,000 meters in 91 seconds, but it was powered by a 4,200 hp R-3350 with NOx injection! Moreover, it weighs about 500 pounds less than a stock F8F-2. As they say in the Fulton market, "there's something fishy here." If Shelton's monster can attain 542 mph @ 5,000 feet, I just don't see a stock F8F-2 climbing 10k just 3 seconds after the fastest piston aircraft on earth reaches 9,750 feet and do it on little more than 1/2 the horsepower.
My regards,
Widewing
It is in this (http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/PART06.PDF) document. (Page 8, Nov. 20)...actually there could have been several factors in the "stock" (I use quotes because it is almost a certainty that this was not a stock plane - one could only expect that in going for this record they did everything possible to reduce it's weight) plane's favor, such as the 300lb weight advantage of having "only" a R-2800 engine. It would have required less fuel & oil that Rare Bear also. A stock F8-F has more wing area than Rare Bear & so might accellerate to Vy sooner (especially considering the F8F lifted off in 115' according to the Navy document). Met. conditions have a lot to do with an aircraft's climb performence....blah blah blah i go on on & never shut up, do i?
-
And who the fk are u with ur 13th post ??
Afraid to show ur real bbs name ??
-
I have only 0.03 posts per day less than you (oops maybe now I have exceeded you)...maybe I am 3years, 8 months younger also?
Why so angry, Dutch, I did something wrong?
Who am I? I'm a pilot who lives in Oregon & got bored recently of simulators without guns
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
And who the fk are u with ur 13th post ??
Afraid to show ur real bbs name ??
Who stuck the rasp up your bunghole to make you so rude and obnoxious?
Just as afraid as you ,who can't show his real name either, little insect.
-
ur comparisons with flu is way off but it shows ur hard headed ignorant luftwaffe groupy
Your trying to be funny, right? Cause this is funny...
Why so angry, Dutch, I did something wrong?
Yes you did. You slighted the P38 or at least helped someone who was slighting the P 38.
God forbid these guys ever a get a copy of:
http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0764304046
And see what the real deal is on the P 38. They will blow a gasket.
Says much for the Vought chart.
I imagine clawing the extra altitude out of the P47 in real mission ate up some gas. All that weight takes alot more energy to reach altitude. Only climbing to 15,000 feet probably put the P47 at an advantage.
That's one of the first links I posted, Milo Morani....
Shows how much you read peoples replys.
From the FIRST page:
Crumpp writes:
Way more than 1620 sorties you claim.
For a factual account of Operation Argument:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/III/AAF-III-2.html
In short, this has been another round of all hype and no facts posting. Please give some scientific evidence because the FACTS show:
1. The P 38 had poor accelleration due to high drag and low power loading.This is reflected in the Zeke tactical trials as well with the P38 coming in dead last between the P47 and P51.
P51:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037753_p51accelleration.jpg)
P47:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037823_p47accelleration.jpg)
P38, at the bottom of the heap compared to it's other USAAF brethern:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037906_p38accelleration1.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037958_p38accelleration2.jpg)
2. The P38's high drag and low power loading would have given it a crappy zoom climb. This is also reflected in the Zeke trials with the P38 dead last.
3. The P38's high wingloading would have made it a poor turner and it certainly did not have the Power to weight to compensate.
Looks to me like the Luftwaffe assesment of the P38 was spot on. Large target with poor manuverability.
Crumpp
Crumpp
-
The Joint Fighter Conference? That's your source?
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
As I stated, in the other thread:
Look at your own chart IDIOT.
It shows the P-38 power loading to be 5.1
The P-51 is 6.2
The P-47 is 5.4
Hardly the indictment you keep making. That is POUNDS PER HORSEPOWER, the LOWER number is BETTER. You know, when you have less weight power horsepower, you have more power to accelerate that weight. Oh, and if you spread that power between two props, you get more of it to the air more efficiently.
The drag difference between the P-47 and the P-38 is not a great margin. The difference between the P-51 and the P-38 is. But the P-51 lost almost 50% of its power by 29K feet, and the P-38 still had sea level power available. The P-47 also had sea level power available above 25K, but the difference in drag is not nearly so great.
Oh, and wing loading comparisons that ONLY include weight and area, but do NOT consider airfoil profile and type are USELESS. Using only weight and area completely ignores the aspect ratio of the wing, which tells you how much lift you get for the area you have.
-
Hardly the indictment you keep making. That is POUNDS PER HORSEPOWER, the LOWER number is BETTER. You know, when you have less weight power horsepower, you have more power to accelerate that weight. Oh, and if you spread that power between two props, you get more of it to the air more efficiently.
Exactly and with two highpower engines you would think it would be much better than that. Factor in the high drag it has to overcome and it is easy to see why the real world results leave the P38 behind.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Exactly and with two highpower engines you would think it would be much better than that. Factor in the high drag it has to overcome and it is easy to see why the real world results leave the P38 behind.
Heh heh.
- oldman (waives at Hilts)
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I imagine clawing the extra altitude out of the P47 in real mission ate up some gas. All that weight takes alot more energy to reach altitude. Only climbing to 15,000 feet probably put the P47 at an advantage.
That's one of the first links I posted, Milo Morani....
Shows how much you read peoples replys.
Lowered yourself to name calling Crumpp. Typical.
Just anther reason why the Vought test is bogus.:) The standard operating height for the P-47 was at least another 10,000ft higher in the ETO at the time, late 43/early 44.
You still have not told us what the capacity of those dts used in the Vought chart were.
You just can't say straight out, but do some weaseling instead, that you were wrong on the P-47s range for late 43/early 44.
You found some number for sorties flown and then you stopped reading.:( It is not a factual account but an overview because there is lots of facts left out.:) Like what P-47s FGs participated. What was their TO times? What was their redevue times with the bombers? Did all the P-47 FGs reach the German border or even penetrate into Germany? Lots more details left out of your link.
I would not comment on other people's reading ability with the lack of yours.:eek: No need to point them out as all can see then very easily.
-
You found some number for sorties flown and then you stopped reading. It is not a factual account but an overview because there is lots of facts left out. Like what P-47s FGs participated. What was their TO times? What was their redevue times with the bombers? Did all the P-47 FGs reach the German border or even penetrate into Germany? Lots more details left out of your link.
Milo,
You can't get around the FACT that the USAAF concedes that in the average fighter engagement in 1944 they had an 8 to 1 advantage. In fact they planned for it.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Milo,
You can't get around the FACT that the USAAF concedes that in the average fighter engagement in 1944 they had an 8 to 1 advantage. In fact they planned for it.
Crumpp
:eek: :eek:
What has your post have to do with the link that was a general overview of Big Week?
You have gone completely over the edge Crumpp. Yup, for sure, totally lost it. :D An example of your inabilities.
Confused still, eh Crumpp. :D Nothing new about that. Where have I disputed what you say above?
Now what was the average in the first week of 1944 and the last week of 1944. Do you understand averaging? Seems not. Another example of your inabilities.
Using your logic :rolleyes:, those ~60 fighters that penetrated deep[/b] into Germany during Big Week only engaged 7-8 German fighters while trying to protect those bombers they were escorting.:rolleyes:
Keep flip-flopping like a fish out of water. You learned your lessons well from Izzy.:)
-
Same old Milo.
Quit filling up the thread with junk and tell me why the P 38 was dead last in the accelleration test? In fact it is dead last in all the tested parameters.
You mean the link I posted on the first page of the thread? And you reposted??
With the numbers of fighters the USAAF launched to cover those missions they could easily have rotated squadrons and still maintained a numerical advantage. Half their number is more fighters than the Luftwaffe could launch on average!!
These missions are escorted by 67 P-38s, 535 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s, and 57 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s; the P-38s claim 1-0-0 Luftwaffe aircraft, 1 P-38 is damaged beyond repair and 6 are damaged; the P-47s claim 39-6-15 Luftwaffe aircraft, 8 P-47s are lost and 12 damaged, 8
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Same old Milo.
Quit filling up the thread with junk and tell me why the P 38 was dead last in the accelleration test? In fact it is dead last in all the tested parameters.
You mean the link I posted on the first page of the thread? And you reposted??
Crumpp
Dean's America's Hundred Thousand (you remember Dean, he compiled and edited the Joint Fighter Conference book you are so enamored with), page 604, Comparison of Level Flight Acceleration, table 105. Beginning at 250 mph at sea level, applying Combat power (WEP).
First place: P-38L
Second place: P-47M
Third place: P-51D
Fourth place: P-39Q
Fifth place (tie): F4U-4 and P-63A
Seventh place: F6F-5
Crumpp is fast running out of runway.. Better abort while he can still stop.
So, what unit did you serve with? You know, the one you saw combat with. You must have missed my earlier question.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Same old Milo.
Quit filling up the thread with junk and tell me why the P 38 was dead last in the accelleration test? In fact it is dead last in all the tested parameters.
You mean the link I posted on the first page of the thread? And you reposted??
With the numbers of fighters the USAAF launched to cover those missions they could easily have rotated squadrons and still maintained a numerical advantage. Half their number is more fighters than the Luftwaffe could launch on average!!
Crumpp
Come on Crumpp, answer the question for the ratio in Jan and Dec 1944.
from http://www.ww2.dk/ the LW had at least 770 se fighters opposing in the west. Now add the 2e a/c and it will be over 1000 a/c.
The only junk being posted is by you, for example, the Vought propaganda advertizing chart.
Yup that link which you did not read completely. When are you going clearly state you were wrong on the P-47's range?
Where have I stated the P-38 was an uber a/c? Another example of Crumpp's inabilities.:rolleyes: :(
Yup Widewing, Crumpp tends go off on tangents when it gets to 'hot' for him.:)
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes you did. You slighted the P38 or at least helped someone who was slighting the P 38.
Didn't mean to do that, my point had no ulterior motive. I actually like the Lightning quite a bit. It is an unusualy attractive aircraft & am very impressed with how it was maybe the 1st aircraft to be transsonic (even if that is only because it gets transsonic are relativly low speed). Any plane that is so fast it breaches as-yet understood area of phyisics is FAST[/b][/u]. Just now i was trying to think of the next plane (after the P-38) to be so fast that "weird stuff" starts happening in flight & all i can think of is maybe the "Mach jump" effect with the Bell X-1
-
After reading all of this crap - i've reached 1 conclusion. Crumpp - I don't care what you fly - but i'll take you in a 38 any day of the week, kick your bellybutton and still take #'s.
Wolf
P.S.
Keep in mind that no mother has an ugly baby and pilots are the same way about their aircraft. But there are ugly babies and many second rate fighters (i.e. F/A-18E).
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
crump u do like the p38 was the only plane with compression.
take the 109 for instance ...guess what it compressed too
The difference being that a 109 doesnt compress aerodynamically and can be pulled out of a dive by trim while the (pre- dive flaps) Lightning's only hope is to recover from compressibility with the help of higher mach speeds at lower altitudes before he lawndarts.
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
ur comparisons with flu is way off but it shows ur hard headed ignorant luftwaffe groupy
The ironic thing with your statement is that your blinders are also quite intact and your meltdown with subsequent swearing (in pretty abysmal german spelling btw) completes that picture. Not that this is a surprise but i believe it's a bit over the top when you're attacking someone who's completely new on these boards without any foundation.
-
Okay, professor von Klump, now that we have determined that you can't even read the power loading figures on the chart you make your claims from, or you don't understand what they mean, and that you cannot understand how wingloading REALLY works, not to mention you use the "Joint Fighter Conference":rolleyes: as reference material, is there anything else you want to use to exhibit your stupidity?
I wonder why Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand", a far more respected work than that drivel over the "Joint Fighter Conference" :rolleyes:, has results of the acceleration tests that are diametricly opposed to your "facts"?
Oh, I have something else for you:
Ratings for the P-38L engines, the REAL power settings:
[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
Note that these ratings show WEP for the P-38L, not found in most publications, which show METO for the P-38L to be the same as WEP for a P-38J, and no WEP rating at all for the P-38L.
Climb data, from Lockheed:
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.
Speed data, from Lockheed:
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.
Data courtesy of C.C. Jordan, and Warren Bodie, taken from the Lockheed document archives by Warren Bodie, noted author, an Lockheed engineer.
-
Since you seem to be so enamored with the Luftwaffe opinions of U.S. Fighters, as I posted in another thread, here's a little Steinhoff for you. And Steinhoff was so well respected he eventually became the commander of the West German Air Force, and NATO in Europe.
One of the Luftwaffe's top aces, when asked which American fighter he thought to be the most dangerous surprised many by not even mentioning the P-51 Mustang. Johannes Steinhoff's answer was, "At high altitudes, 8,000 meters or higher, the P-47 was the most dangerous foe. [cut] Below 4,000 meters, the Lightning was untouchable. You could not out-turn them, or out-run them. It was suicide to try to climb out of a fight because the Lightning could quickly overtake you. I did shoot down several P-38's. This was largely because the pilot was not aware of my presence. Had they seen my approach, I do not believe that I would have been able to achieve a suitable firing position before the American would have turned onto my tail. If I was detected, I would dive away to safety. The early models of the Lightning were dangerous to dive from altitude because they accelerated too quickly. I believe this problem was overcome in later models."
-
Originally posted by bunch
It is in this (http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/PART06.PDF) document. (Page 8, Nov. 20)...actually there could have been several factors in the "stock" (I use quotes because it is almost a certainty that this was not a stock plane - one could only expect that in going for this record they did everything possible to reduce it's weight) plane's favor, such as the 300lb weight advantage of having "only" a R-2800 engine. It would have required less fuel & oil that Rare Bear also. A stock F8-F has more wing area than Rare Bear & so might accellerate to Vy sooner (especially considering the F8F lifted off in 115' according to the Navy document). Met. conditions have a lot to do with an aircraft's climb performence....blah blah blah i go on on & never shut up, do i?
That about covers most of what I was going to say. I did have an email exchange with the pilot's son a few years ago. Unfortunately that was 2-3 mail clients ago and I didn't keep the messages.
IIRC it was a standard squadron aircraft, probably USNR. It wastn't stripped down, but was sans ammunition and light fuel load. That could easily drop 1000 lbs from normal loaded weight.
Climb is all about excess horsepower. Rare Bear's small wing is going to penalize it compared to a stock machine. Rare Bear is going to have to climb at a higher speed, lowering excess power due to the power requirements at that speed, as well as the 375/TAS hp > thrust equation dropping thrust(lbs) down.
Prop efficiency may come into play as well. If Rare Bear is still using a speed prop it could penalize climb substantially.
Good point on met conditions, a nice, cold November day in Cleveland could make a substantial difference in TO and climb rate as well.
Greg Shaw
-
Hey Milo:
THis thread:
http://www.ww2.dk/
Once I did some cross testing there. It's not 100% correct, so take it with a grain of salt....
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hey Milo:
THis thread:
http://www.ww2.dk/
Once I did some cross testing there. It's not 100% correct, so take it with a grain of salt....
Yes, that is why I said 'at least'. It was a quick check and could have missed some Gruppes.
-
Hey Milo.
The error I found was a wrong location, not numbers.
-
Oh, I have something else for you:
Hey can post figures on the BBS and have them be gospel with nothing to back them up?
Again I have posted FLIGHT TESTED FACTS and the DOCUMENTATION.
Hey the Me 262 broke the sound barrier in a dive from 27000 feet.
Source: JV 44 Pilots
Can you fix that Pyro??
Milo,
On your numbers...
Let me help you to understand a Military status report. The number "On Strength" is not the number a force can bring to bear at the tip of spear. That would be the number SERVICABLE. You can check just about any Luftwaffe status and see that the " On Strength" column generally runs about twice as many as the "serviceable" number after Barbarossa. The "servicable" aircraft are the ones that can fly...
752 single engine dayfighters for the entire Luftwaffe on this day in 1942...
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se28342.htm
If you will cross check the "On Strength" number for March 1942 with the chart I posted on page 1 of this thread you will see it compares very favourably.
Crumpp
-
Folks you are forgetting one very important thing, by the time americans joined the 2nd front, most German aces were shot down by Soviet pilots. And no p-38 wasnt the best plane. it was average, la-7 and Yak-9u were by far superior. In 44 the air was dominated by La-5, La-7, Yak-9 and american pilots were fighting 20-25 y.o fresh German noobs.
-
I told you what they were, and what they were from. If you can't grasp that concept, tough. I don't have a scanner, and I don't have the original documents anyway. Go look for yourself, they are Lockheed documents from their test pilot logs from the P-38 program. Don't believe it? Tough, I don't care. You can't even read and understand a chart you posted. Look around and you can probably find out how to reach Warren Bodie, he's a former Lockheed engineer, he has copies.
-
Originally posted by Dispair
Folks you are forgetting one very important thing, by the time americans joined the 2nd front, most German aces were shot down by Soviet pilots. And no p-38 wasnt the best plane. it was average, la-7 and Yak-9u were by far superior. In 44 the air was dominated by La-5, La-7, Yak-9 and american pilots were fighting 20-25 y.o fresh German noobs.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
If you can speak either German or Russian try looking up historical documents on internet, especially in their respective search engines. You will find plenty of evidence.
-
German air losses in the west was much higher.
-
Originally posted by Dispair
Folks you are forgetting one very important thing, by the time americans joined the 2nd front, most German aces were shot down by Soviet pilots. And no p-38 wasnt the best plane. it was average, la-7 and Yak-9u were by far superior. In 44 the air was dominated by La-5, La-7, Yak-9 and american pilots were fighting 20-25 y.o fresh German noobs.
So you are saying the Luftwaffe pilots the 38 drivers of the 1st, 14th and 82nd FGs were fighting in the MTO in 42 were noobs?
Dan/Slack
-
told you what they were, and what they were from. If you can't grasp that concept, tough. I don't have a scanner, and I don't have the original documents anyway. Go look for yourself, they are Lockheed documents from their test pilot logs from the P-38 program. Don't believe it? Tough, I don't care. You can't even read and understand a chart you posted. Look around and you can probably find out how to reach Warren Bodie, he's a former Lockheed engineer, he has copies.
Where is that whine meter I had laying around.......
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Dispair
Folks you are forgetting one very important thing, by the time americans joined the 2nd front, most German aces were shot down by Soviet pilots.
If you can speak either German or Russian try looking up historical documents on internet, especially in their respective search engines. You will find plenty of evidence.
Are you saying the Russians in 1942 had kicked German butt? :D :D Good joke.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Where is that whine meter I had laying around.......
Crumpp
No need for a meter, your stupidity and whining is deafening, no one needs a meter to know how bad it is.
-
Wow!
Way to rewrite history guys!!
1. First all of the acceleration results in AHT are calculated. There are many mistakes in those calcations. The Cdo is wrong on almost every single A/C. The HP on the F4U-4 is off amoung other thing but most of all they are calculations. I can show you completely different results based on different numbers. Also the weight of the P-38L is listed as 16,888lbs which is 600lbs underweight!
FYI I have spoken to Francis Dean, in fact I have been in his house and borrowed his things. Many of the documents I post came from him. He had a choice of numbers to use from a variety of sources. And some of those numbers don't match NACA records or stated Cdo, Clmax etc. FY he passed a couple of years ago and he was a very fine man with no bias toward any manufacture. He personally liked the P-40 from what I remember.
2. Captain Virgil Hills- Please provide a hardcopy report or source of your numbers. I have only seen those numbers in proto-type for the P-38.
Very import- you are claiming a top speed 444MPH TAS at 26,000FT. Did you know that the P-38 was limited to 440MPH TAS at 30,000FT? If you bank the airplane or nose down at that speed if would have been on the edge of compression right away.
3. The Vought document was retreived by me, scanned by me and posted by me. It was from the Vought archives and it was an internal reference. Why on earth would they use bogus information for testing? You really have to question yourself when you think Vought was conspiring with Republic to make the P-38 look bad 60 years later.
4. The JFC was contractors from every manufacture including Lockheed, AAF, RAF, Marines Navy etc. It was the third Joint meet of it's type and each aircraft was flown by experianced combat pilots from all services. And the report of the JFC was published by Francis Dean.
The aircraft flown was a P-38L-5-L0 rated at 60" MAP 3200HP at 17,488lbs.
The question of which was the best A/C under 25,000FT the ranks were
1. F8F-30%
2. P-51D- 29%
3. F4U-1D- 27%
4. F7F- 6%
5. F6F- 2%
6. Mosquito- 2%
7. F4U-4- 2%
8. F2G- 2%
Not one vote was registered for the P-38L. But of course we all know the P-38 was a high altitude interceptor right?
Best Fighter over 25,000FT
1. P-47D 45%<=== How about that!!
2. P-51D 39% <=== No suprise
3. F4U-1 7% <=== My beloved U-Bird
4. F6F-5 3%
5. F4U-4 3%
6. Seafire 2%
7. P-38L 1% <===== 1 vote!! Behind the Seafire!!
I am not saying anything about what was the best or worst. But that was reality in October 1944 and it doesn't matter what any of us think now.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Speed data, from Lockheed:
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.
Lockheed did their testing using the full power rating authorized by Allison. You won't find the 1,725 hp rating in the pilot's manual. This was due to the concerns the engineers at Wright Field about reliability. Nonetheless, former crewchiefs will tell you that they worked with the Allison tech reps to rig their fighters for the full rating. Tech reps even provided revised charts. While the P-38L could truly haul prettythang in WEP, at altitude it was nudging up close to its critical Mach in level flight. Tony LeVier mentioned mild buffeting at max speed during his test flights in early L-1s.
Regardless of performance, the P-38 was an expert's fighter. It was not an easy aircraft to master. Thus, many of the P-38 pilots converting to the P-51 found it a much less challenging ride. This is a good thing, that rank and file pilots had a new fighter that allowed them to explore its full limits with less required skill. Guys who never fired on a German fighter were now running up impressive scores. This should not be a surprise as twins always present a higher workload than a single. When used by the 9th AF, the P-38 flew most of its missions at medium and low altitudes. Down where compressibility was not an issue, the fast climbing, remarkably maneuverable P-38L was quite formidable.
In Aces High, we see that the P-38L is an extremely dangerous fighter down below 10k. And, like the real world, it's an expert's ride. When fighting in the vertical, only the Ki-84 can beat the P-38 on a regular basis. However, the P-38 accelerates a lot faster than the Hayate, and can disengage if the pilot avoids getting too slow. Taken lightly, the P-38 can surprise an over-confident enemy. Then again, so can the P-47, another fighter sadly under-estimated for its dogfighting ability
Lat week, while doing my trainer thing, I tangled with a squad training in the TA. There were about 6 P-38s. Plus, there were a few Ki-84s, 190s, Spits, a lone F4U-4 and P-40E all buzzing around the field. I grabbed a P-47D-40 from a nearby Rook field and with my red icon headed over to create some mayhem. Show up with a red icon and you are an instant target. My fuel was loaded at 50% and I added a belly tank to get me there. I also took the larger ammo load-out. Coming in at 12k I had to whack a pesky Me 163 first, and then I bounced the horde. I came down, throttle at idle with the speed boards out. I had little trouble painting the P-38s as they turned almost flat break-turns. I used my speed to keep the fight in the vertical plane. That quickly became boring, so I decided to furball with the P-38s. Apparently all of these guys were flying with Combat Trim on, because I was able to match them turn for turn. I was surprised that they flew as a group, not even trying to spit up. As long as I kept them corraled as a group, they weren't much of a threat. However, the Ki-84s, Spits and 190 forced me to turn away from the Lightnings and into their attacks. I clobbered each one of these on the merge, skidding the big Jug for the passing shots.
(too many guys assume that the enemy will just fly by) Another Ki-84 pulls hard for a nearly 90 degree deflection shot. I barrel-roll his way and pass close by, canopy to canopy. I look back and see a tail-less Hayate fluttering down. He must have collided with my Jug (yes, the collision model is turned on in the TA).
Meanwhile a mob of thoroughly annoyed P-38 drivers were seeking revenge and they were no longer being hounded. Soon, I found myself in a huge furball, dodging attacks from every angle. It wasn't long before the engine overheated, meaning that I had lost a significant amount of horsepower. Still, aside from a few minor pings, I had avoided getting hosed. I took shots at the 38s as they presented themselves usually getting hits. A lone Spitfire came in for a head-on shot. I barrel-rolled out of his path and stitched the Spit from nose to tail as he tried to reverse with too much E in his bank. But with that, my guns were empty. It was time to disengage. The engine was cooling somewhat, by I needed to save what WEP power I had for the break-way. By now, the brawl had drawn everyone away from their base, probably 10 miles southwest. The gaggle of P-38s had reformed to my rear, about 1,500 yards behind. All that is but for one P-38 which was off my left wing, oblivious to my presence. I barrel-rolled onto his six. That he did see or was warned by a squadie. The P-38 bunts over and races for the deck with me barely 200 yards behind. He tried to use clumps of trees for cover, whipping in and out between the treetops. I merely eased the nose up and flew over them. Seeing his predicament and not realizing that I had empty guns, he broke hard right towards his squadies. Too hard, as he snaprolled, hit some trees and crashed.
Now there are four P-38s (one augered diving too fast earlier), and a Ki-84 about 1.5 k behind me. Time to reverse. Chop power, coordinate rudder and aileron, haul around in a slightly nose high turn, flaps coming out as speed allows. Suddenly they have a Thunderbolt headed straight at them. As I burst through the gaggle, they scatter every which way, trying to turn around. Flaps all up, throttle into WEP, unload and accelerate. Within 30 seconds the range icons show 2.5k and it's opening fast. A text message appears: "How the hell did you reverse so fast??" I tell him to watch some of Leviathn's films. At around 5k distant they give up the chase. Good thing, I'm nearly out of gas. I check and see that I have 4 minutes of gas at full power. With the P-38s no longer a threat, I pull back power and adjust the prop for best range. 8 minutes later I deadstick the out-of-gas P-47 onto the field I had taken off from. A few minor holes in the wings, but not too worse for the wear.
There was a lot of chatter in the text box, salutes going back and forth. Everyone had great fun. The newbies gained some experience. The P-38 guys were dismayed, though. So, we held a brief class on flying the P-38. In that type of a fight, the P-38 should dominate the Jug. They didn't because they had no idea how to get full performance out of the Lightning. After about 20 minutes they improved considerably. I knew that if we fought the same engagement again, I would not have anywhere near the success that I did the first time. We also discussed breaking into elements and not flying as a gaggle. Three sets of two are a hellava lot tougher to deal with than a group of six flying follow-the-leader. They explained that they were practicing formation flying. LOLOL, someone should have explained that formation flying does not include combat!
What did they learn?
Turn off Combat Trim. Trim manually.
Wingmen should follow behind, in a lag pursuit off to one side.
Split into two plane elements, box in the enemy.
Conserve WEP power.
Avoid purely vertical reverses if other enemy fighters are nearby.
If bounced by a lone fighter, wingmen should break in opposite directions. Use "Thatch Weave" tactics to keep each other's tail clear. P-38s are lethal given a HO shot.
Use top rudder to avoid snaprolls.
Don't just dump the flaps, use them only when they can make a big difference or to avoid getting clobbered. Don't keep them out any longer than required.
Don't get too slow, slow means that they are easy tracking targets, giving the attacker easy angles.
Use zero g loading to enhance acceleration.
Whether or not they remember this stuff, I can't say. But these guys will do better in the MA now that they understand the P-38 more.
Last night, I flew another Jug sortie into the mob, with similar results, except that I landed at the enemy base having exhausted my fuel. The best training is always that which challenges. Tonight, I'll bring a P-38 to the party. :)
Those of you who post here but don't play, download the game. You're invited to the party.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Then again, so can the P-47, another fighter sadly under-estimated for its dogfighting ability
It was the P47 IMO that destroyed the Luftwaffe. The P51 just pulled security on the corpse, kicking it when it moved.
Lockheed did their testing using the full power rating authorized by Allison. You won't find the 1,725 hp rating in the pilot's manual.
That is not quite fair and is loading the data. I could show you a FLIGHT TESTED FW-190A5 using 1.65ata @2700U/min. The reality is no service FW-190A5 used that boost pressure. The dates even line up and it would be so easy to post it and say, LOOK WHAT I FOUND in the Smithsonian archives...
OR
How about a 24 M/S climb rate on an FW-190A5?? With the heads and blower from the BMW 801TS (BMW801TH motor) and the 12.6cm wide wooden prop....
OR
BMW 801D2 using 1.82ata @ 2700U/min. Tested but did not happen. The BMW801TS,TH, and TU could use 1.82ata @ 2700 U/min only.
It's a prototype. It would be decieving to post it as anything else.
Crumpp
-
I never said the Vought document was "cooked". I said professor Klump either can't read or doesn't understand that the P-38 has BETTER power loading in that chart, better than either the P-51 or the P-47.
I also said that the wing loading only accounts for weight and area, but not airfoil type. The aspect ratio of the airfoil determines how much lift you get for the amount of area you have. Meaning calculations based strictly on weight and area are inconclusive and misleading at best. So the area/weight wingloading data on that chart is not nearly so useful as you might think.
As I stated, I do not have hard copy of the Lockheed test pilot logs that produced that speed in hand. I was given the data in an email by Warren Bodie, who is a noted author, and who was also a Lockheed engineer, and as such had access to those documents. I got the same data from C.C. Jordan (AKA Widewing) later on. I KNOW Warren Bodie has seen the documents, and he said he has copies. I don't know if Widewing has seen the actual hardcopy documents.
Yes, I know all about compression and critical mach.
I have stated this many times, and I'll state it again here. The horsepower is not nearly so important for top speed as it is for the amount of power that is available to accelerate, climb, and maneuver. Air to air combat between piston engined propellor driven aircraft rarely, if ever, occurs at top speed. Only at the merge, or if one plane dives out does combat reach top speed. After the first turn or two, speed is often below 350. The power available in the engines of the P-38L at WEP was important not so much for top speed, but for acceleration, climb, and the retention of speed when maneuvering.
You can ask Widewing, I know at least a dozen veteran P-38 combat pilots who flew both the J and L models. To a man, when I asked them about power settings used in combat, they ALL said WEP for the P-38J and L that they flew was a power setting as follows: mixture to auto rich, MAP to 60"-64", and RPM to 3000 to 3200. This yields between 1725HP and 1750HP in the P-38L. This is a setting you will not see in 99% of the published data because it was not in the manual, but it was used by the pilots in combat.
They all said the P-38 was best below 25K. They all said the P-51 was not equal to the P-38 in ability until 25K or above. They all said the P-38 was by far the most "busy" plane to fly, but it was also the most capable, if the pilot was up to the task.
-
What you are talking about may be a prototype Crump, but what Widewing and I are talking about is the P-38L as it was when in service and in combat. As the pilots flew it. With the settings they used. Those are the engines, and those are the settings, just the way the pilots flew it.
With regards to the "Joint Fighter Conference", the biggest problem I have with their 'evaluation" is that it fails to take one thing into account. EVERY pilot I know (or knew to include those who have folded their wings) said that if you didn't have a minimum of 40 hours advanced flying time in the P-38, you had no business in combat, and could not know enough about flying it to have any sort of valid opinion. To have a pilot, or a group of pilots, fly the P-38 for a very few hours, when they are, by their own admission, devotees of the single engine fighter, and that is what they are trained in and have experience with, is pure folly.
ANY of the truly hot sticks who flew the P-38 in combat, like Ilfrey, Olds, Blumer, MacDonald, Dahl, or Lowell would tell you very quicky that a pilot trained on single engine fighters would have no clue how to REALLY fly a P-38, as it was by it's very design and nature an entirely different animal. As Art Heiden said about the P-51, its main advantage over the P-38 was not performance, but simplicity. The cockpit was not as busy, and you did not need to be an expert on the plane to get all it had to give.
The P-47, the P-38, and the P-51 are all GOOD fighters, none is reall head and shoulders above the rest.
The P-47 without a doubt had a greater role in the actual destruction of the Luftwaffe than the P-38, or the P-51.
The P-38 was the plane that allowed deep penetration raids to continue from late 43 through early 44, when it was either the ONLY long range fighter, or the most numerous of long range fighters.
The P-51 was the plane that allowed the P-47 and the P-38 to be released to do what may have been the most important thing any of them did, and that is general interdiction and close air support.
-
I never said the Vought document was "cooked". I said professor Klump either can't read or doesn't understand that the P-38 has BETTER power loading in that chart, better than either the P-51 or the P-47.
And you don't seem to get the FACT it has a small power loading advantage vs BIG DRAG disadvantage. This adds up and reflects in its TESTED accelleration, which is poor.
I also said that the wing loading only accounts for weight and area, but not airfoil type.
Correct. However the largest contributing factor is windloading. Compare the FW-190 to the Spitfire. The FW-190 has a larger aspect ratio advantage and very similar "e" factor. No way it turned like a spit. The P38 has large handicapp to overcome with it's wingloading. Only with assymetrical power application did the P38 turn well. Dicey move for most pilots.
This is a setting you will not see in 99% of the published data because it was not in the manual, but it was used by the pilots in combat.
I would not doubt it, Seriously. I am sure many a Luftwaffe pilot exceeded the limits of his Flugzeug-Handbuch. In fact, the FW-190 was routinely dove to speeds in excess of 1000kph. Pyro?? Can you get right on that for us? For that matter, RAF, VVS, IJNAF, or RCAF pilots, just pick your poison.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Are you saying the Russians in 1942 had kicked German butt? :D :D Good joke.
I was referring to the opening of the 2nd front on June 6, 1944. Yeah Russians were getting their bellybutton kicked by Germanls up to the med 1943, but they were mostly flying Laggs, Pes and early Yaks that were no match for German planes. Comapring to those early planes P-38 was a better plane.
-
1000 kph and yes ur talkin crap again
in the first place their equipment was not suited to measure that.
I bet u have sex in lederhosen.
-
It's time for some anecdotal stuff on the P-38. This was posted to Usenet, nearly 8 years ago.
"I'm offering the suggestion that the P-38L (and later J models) was the
best all-around fighter aircraft of World War II, not based on the numbers
or book references, but on the views of two WWII pilots who flew the
aircraft--and others--in combat. One was my father-in-law, Elliott Dent
(who posted once to this group when he was visiting me) and Sidney Woods,
a WWII buddy of my father-in-law who fought in both Europe and the
Pacific. I'll refer to them as Elliott and Sidney.
Elliott flew P-40s in combat with the 49 FG before switching to P-38s.
He liked the P-40. His only complaint, and it was a major one, was that
the model he flew mostly, the N, was a pig at altitude.
The P-38, however, was a vast improvement. Things he cited as making the
P-38 superior to other WWII fighters:
First and foremost (although usually overlooked by nonpilots) was its
tricycle landing gear. WWII fighters had landing speeds too high for
conventional gear. There was always that critical point in landing when
speed had dropped such that the rudder was ineffective, yet the tail was
still in the air and trying to use wheel braking to control direction
would collapse a gear or lead to a ground loop. Exhausted pilots
returning from multi-hour combat missions didn't need the final challenge
of a fast landing in a tail-dragger. 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. I'm sure everyone has seen the film
of that F4U landing at Guadalcanal that balloons and floats down the
runway forever. That sort of thing couldn't happen with a P-38.
Second, two engine reliability. Especially on long over-water flights,
the security of having a spare engine in case one quit, simply can't be
appreciated by a non-combat pilot. As much as he liked the P-40, Elliott
recalls that the tension of listening intently to the engine--what was
that noise? Was that a miss? Did it just stutter?--soaked his flight
suit with sweat. And many a compatriot who reported engine trouble and
broke out of formation was never heard from again.
Third, range. The P-38 could go where the action was, or trade range for
payload and carry a bomber's load. Only the P-51D and P-47N (which came
along very late in the war) were in its range playground.
Fourth, let's call steadyness. With engines turning in opposite
directions, the P-38 was stable in all maneuvers and could roll equally
well right or left. The big-engined, big-propped singles had torque and
P-factor problems that became increasingly pronounced as speed dropped, as
in a dog fight (which you shouldn't get into, of course, but sometimes you
do anyway). They always rolled faster one way than the other. The P-38
driver just rolled the way they couldn't to escape, On the ground this
made them genuinely dangerous to operate.
Fifth, firepower concentration and range. The P-38's nose gun arrangement
got rid of all the problems of wing guns, specifically the need to be
within a specific range for the fire to tell. Anywhere within 1,000 yards
would give you hits. Given the tendency for unexperienced pilots to open
fire too far away, the P-38 offered the greatest chance for strikes. Much
wing-gun fire was wasted, especially by low-combat time pilots who fired
at twice or three times nominal range. In head-on attacks, where it is
virtually impossible to hold your fire until you hit the "sweet spot"
where the wing guns converge, the P-38's advantage of pointing yourself at
the enemy and holding the trigger down was signficant.
Sixth, dive brakes. Any aircraft that could reach the vicinity of 400 mph
at 20,000 feet would have compressibilty problems in a dive. Only the
P-38J/L offered a solution.
Elliot was credited with six kills and five probables. Among other
medals, he was awarded the DSC, the DFC, the Air Medal, the Purple Heart.
He flew 251 combat missions.
He piloted the P-40 and P-38 in combat, the P-39 and P-51 stateside.
Sidney flew P-40s and P-38s with the 49FG. He participated in the Battle
of the Bismark Sea. He flew 112 combat missions with the 49th. After a
rest stateside, he went to the 4th FG in Europe. He flew 68 combat
missions in Europe in P-51s. I don't know what he may have flown
stateside.
Sidney shot down two Japanese planes with the 49th and 10 with the 4th
(one of these on the ground, as the USAAF in the ETO counted aircraft
destroyed on the ground as kills. The USAAF in the PTO did not). Five of
the air kills were FW-190s. Among the medals awarded him that I know
about, were the Silver Star, the DFC, the Croix de Guerre and the Air
Medal.
Sidney described the Mustang as a super P-40. He did not consider it in
the same class with the P-38. He often said that the P-40 and P-51
represented pre-war air combat thinking, and that the P-38 represented the
future. That's a broad statement, and I can't recall his specific reasons
for making it, but it does give you a sense of his feeling for the
aircraft.
Sidney said that were he flying the P-38 in Europe he could have shot down
more planes than he did. On more than one occasion, for example, he noted
that while he was closing in to wing-gun range an FW would execute one of
its fabulous snap-rolls and split-S away. Had he been in a P-38 he could
have opened fire seconds earlier, gained strikes for certain, possibly
destroying the aircraft.
Sidney believed the poor showing of the P-38 in the ETO was the result of
AAF brass, who, pre-war were wedded to the unescorted heavy bomber
concept, and didn't dare admit, in the face of terrible bomber losses,
that they had a perfectly capable figher capable of escorting their
bombers from day one to the farthest target they ventured to--but they
chose not to use it. Instead, they mutually, if unconsciously, fixed on
every reason they could find to discount the P-38 as a capable fighter.
They could then say they had no choice but to go unescorted until the P-51
came along. Had they said, Yeah, we had a good escort fighter in the P-38
but decided not to use it, congressional committees would have been
demanding to know who screwed the pooch (his phrase).
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.
He felt that the AAF made a mistake in not standardizing the P-38 as "the"
fighter and having Republic and North American build it as well as
Lockheed."
-
More stuff from same author:
"From: cdb100620@aol.com (CDB100620)
Subject: Re: P38 in Europe? A success?
Date: 17 Dec 1996
Thirteen P-38 FGs were deployed in Europe and Med Theaters:
1, 14, 20, 55, 78, 81, 82, 350, 364, 367, 370, 474, 479.
Photo recon versions of the P-38 (F-4 and F-5) served in Europe and the
Med in five PRGs:
3, 5, 10, 67, 68.
The 1FG and 14FG were first to receive P-38 in spring, 1941.
P-38s equipped a total of 27 FG and 10 PRG.
In Europe, the P-38 flew some 130,000 sorties. That compares with about
214,000 for the P-51 and 423,000 for the P-47.
Aside from about 20 F-4/5s given to the Free French air force, only the
USAAF used P-38s during the war (a handful of non-turbo, non-handed
versions went to and were rejected by the RAF). One of these proved the
coffin of Antoine de Saint Exupery, author of "Wind, Sand and Stars" and
other aviation literature standards, who disappeared on a flight over
southern France, 31 July, 1944.
The first German plane shot down by the USAAF in WWII is generally
credited to a P-38 on 14 Aug., 1942, an FW-200C downed by Elza Shaham of
342 Composite FG.
The first allied fighters over Berlin were P-38s of the 55FG on 3 March,
1944.
The 1FG was the only USAAF fighter group during the war to win two
Presidential Unit Citations in less than a week, for actions in the MTO.
On two occasions, once in the Pacific and once in the Med, a lone P-38
escorting a group of bombers succeeded in driving off numbers of enemy
fighters attempting to attack the bombers, in each case shooting down one
e/a that got too close. The Pacific incident involved a P-38 from the
475FG, which shot down a Ki-61 from a gaggle going after B-25s, and the
Med incident involved a P-38 from the 1FG that shot down an Me-109 from a
gaggle going after B-25s. In each case, the lone P-38 had been late off
the runway, missed the rendezvous and proceeded on alone hoping to catch up
to the rest of the squadron, which was, in each case, turned back by bad
weather that the late starter missed.
The leading P-38 aces in the Med were Micheal Brezas who shot down 12
German planes (2 Me-210, 4 Me-109, 6 FW-190) while serving with the 14FG,
and William Sloan, who shot down 12 German and Italian a/c (6 Me-109, 2
Mc-200, 1 Mc-202, 1 Re-2001, 1 Ju-88, 1 Do-217) while serving with the
82FG.
The 55FG began operations out of England on 15 Oct., 1943, one day after
Black Thursday when some 60 B-17s were lost on the second Schweinfurt
raid. First encounter with Luftwaffe on 3 Nov., shot down 3 Me-109 with
no loss to selves. On 5 Nov., down five Me-109s with no loss. On 13
Nov., in a sprawling, large-scale battle, shot down 3 FW-190, 2 Ju-88, 1
Me-109, 1 Me-210 but lost 5 P-38s shot down. Two more were lost due to
engine problems. On 29 Nov. 7 P-38s were shot down for the loss of no
German planes.
Problems that surfaced with the P-38 in northern European theatre included
its poor performance above 30,000 ft compared to the Me-109, caused by its
lack of high activity propellers able to make use of the power the engines
were delivering at that altitude. The F models used also had insufficient
intercooler capacity. Some indication that TEL anti-knock compound was
not being properly mixed into avgas as well (at this time TEL was still
blended by hand into fuel shortly before use rather than being blended
when produced. This was because in those days the compound tended to
precipitate out if left standing too long. This problem later corrected.
Others believed either too much (leading to plug fouling) or not enough
(detonation) TEL was being added, causing engine problems.
Another problem that was revealed by the Nov. actions was that 55FG pilots
were attempting to dogfight e/a. Their airplane may have been up to the
job, but the pilots weren't (many had as little of 20 hours total time on
the P-38, and little or no air to air gunnery training, and were
especially lacking in deflection shooting skills. Many after-action
contact reports tell of repeated bursts of fire at deflection angles with
no results. Most kills were the result of dead-astern shots). An 8th AF
report examining the failures of the 55FG noted one main problem was that
the P-38 as an airplane was simply too complicated and too demanding for a
low-time service pilot to fly skillfully, let alone dogfight in. It noted
that many pilots were afraid of the P-38. 55FG lost 17 P-38s in combat in
Nov., while being credited with 23 e/a destroyed in the air.
Morale in 55FG plummeted, and numerous pilots aborted missions claiming
mechanical problems--giving the a/c type a bad rep for mechanical
unreliability, although u/s reports reveal that in most cases the ground
crew could find nothing wrong with the aircraft. In many instances the
ground crews hinted that the pilots were merely cowards. In one u/s
report, the pilot had aborted the mission because he claimed the piss tube
was too short and he could not use it. The ground crew chief wrote in his
report: "Piss tube to spec. Problem is pilot's dick is too short."
20FG entered N. Euro. combat at the end of Dec, '43. Did not appear to
suffer from the morale and leadership problems of the 55FG. First
contacted Luftwaffe on 29 Jan. '44. Downed 3 FW-190, 3 Me-110, 3 Me-210,
1 Me-109. No P-38s lost. 3 FWs downed by Lindol Graham, who used only
his single 20mm cannon, 12 shots per plane. (Lindol later crashed and was
killed while attempting to kill the fleeing crew of an Me-110 he had just
forced down in a low-level fight. The two men were floundering across a
snow-covered field and it appeared that Lindol attempted to hit them with
his props. His plane seemed to hit the ground, then bounce back up,
soaring into a chandelle, then falling off on its nose and diving straight
into the ground.)
On 8 Feb. James Morris of 20FG downed 3 FW-190s in a single combat,
involving tight turns (in which the P-38's maneuvering flap setting [8
degrees extension] was used) and an Me-109 as returning home, the first
quadruple kill for an 8AF fighter. All kills were made with dead astern
shots. Morris missed all his deflection shots. Interestingly, two of the
FWs were first encountered head-on and Morris was able to reverse and
maneuver onto their tails while they tried with all their might to get on
his--and failed. Three days later he downed an Me-109, making him the
first P-38 ace flying out of England. (He would score a total of 8
victories before being shot down on 7 July, the highest score of any
UK-based P-38 pilot.)
364FG arrived in UK in Feb., '44. Led by Col John Lowell, who had helped
develop the P-38 at Wright-Pat, on its first mission over Berlin on 6
March, he downed 2 Me-109s, and two more on 8 March. On 9 March he downed
an FW-190. He was eventually to tally 11 kills in the P-38, but several
were downgraded to probables after the war.
Col Mark Hubbel took over the 20th on 17 March. He believed P-38
excellent fighter against Luftwaffe and proved it by promptly shooting
down 2 Me-109 and sharing a third with his wingman. He may have downed a
fourth Me-109 which he was seen pursuing as it streamed smoke in a dive.
He was last seen chasing yet another Me-109, this time through the door
of a church. Neither planes nor church survived the encounter.
During the late winter of 1944 occurred 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.
Ultimately 7 P-38 FG were operational in northern Europe. The 474th was
the only one to retain the P-38 till the end of the war. As pilots grew
used to the plane and developed confidence in it, it successes against the
Luftwaffe grew. On 7 July, '44, P-38s of the 20FG downed 25 out of 77 e/a
destroyed that day, the highest of any group.
The last UK-based P-38 ace was Robin Olds of the 479FG. On 14 Aug., '44,
while flying alone, he encountered two FW-190s and engaged them in a
dogfight, shooting both down.
On 25 Aug, P-38s from 367 encountered FW-190s of JG-6, a top Luftwaffe
unit. Wild, low-level battle ensued in which 8 P-38s and 20 FW-190s were
down. Five of the FWs were shot down by Capt. Lawrence Blumer. 367
received a Presidential Unit Citation as a result of this battle.
On the same day, P-38s from 474 shot down 21 FW-190s for the loss of 11
P-38s. The same day Olds' of 479 downed three Me-109s in a running battle
that saw his canopy shot off.
On 26 Sept., P-38s of the 479 downed 19 e/a near Munster. Shortly after
that most P-38s were gradually replaced by P-51s.
The last long-range bomber escort in northern Europe by P-38s was on 19
Nov. '44 when 367FG escorted bombers to Merzig, Germany. FW-190s
attempted to intercept. P-38s downed six with no losses. No bombers were
lost either. It was a good way to end the P-38s air-superiority role in
northern Europe."
-
Continued from previous:
"The cockpit heating problem was taken care of on the P-38L, the definitive
Lightning, which made up about half the production run. But that didn't
help pilots in the ETO or MTO in 1943 and early 1944. There were many
cases of pilots being forced to abort mission because their hands and feet
were frostbitten.
One problem the P-38 had in dealing with the Me-109, but not the FW-190
(which was more of a low and mid-altitude fighter) was the Me's high
altitude performace superiority. Above 25,000 ft., cooling or
supercharger impeller or turbine speeds became limiting for the Lockheed,
and high speed capability started to fall off. At low altitudes, the
plane could max out at about 330-340 mph. This rose to well above 400 mph
between 25,000 to 30,000. 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.
So, which plane would rather go into combat against the Luftwaffe in?"
-
Finally, from the same writer... and this is entertaining stuff.
"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 symmetrical
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 disturbances 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."
-
Time for some more facts on the P38. I always thought the P 38 was a steller diver. However, looking at the facts, it seems even this is another MODERN creation.
Lets look at those dive speeds and the effects of the dive flaps:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102168526_p38divelimits.jpg)
Now lets check out the opposition:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102168826_fw190_and_me109quirks.jpg)
Wow! The Luftwaffe fighters don't even start showing any symptoms until they are going over 100 mph FASTER than the P38 below 13,100 feet!!
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Time for some more facts on the P38. I always thought the P 38 was a steller diver. However, looking at the facts, it seems even this is another MODERN creation.
Lets look at those dive speeds and the effects of the dive flaps:
Crumpp
As we have seen before, Crumpp prefers to pick and choose his data, pulling it out of context to support his position. This time he has tampered with a document, erasing what he doesn't want you to see and leaving what he does want you to see. :rolleyes:
Here's the entire page 30 from the P-38 pilot's manual, scanned from my copy.
(http://home.att.net/~islandphoto/P-38page30.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Whooa, Honest mistake man. Got if off of Rings site. I will let him know someone passed a bad doc.
Crumpp
-
Time for some more facts on the P38. I always thought the P 38 was a steller diver. However, looking at the facts, it seems even this is another MODERN creation.
Lets look at those dive speeds and the effects of the dive flaps:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102176665_p-38page30.jpg)
Boy, a top speed of 440mph!
Now lets check out the opposition:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102168826_fw190_and_me109quirks.jpg)
Wow! The Luftwaffe fighters don't even start showing any symptoms until they are going over 100 mph FASTER than the P38 below 13,100 feet!!
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That document came right from PRO Rings site. I fail to see any relevant information that was removed?
Crumpp
Editing a document to suit one's agenda will be viewed as being disengenuous, if not outright dishonest. Post the whole document and allow readers to draw their own conclusions.
Here's an easier to read dive chart for the P-38L:
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RedLine.JPG)
How about a roll rate chart? Note the comparisons at high speeds.
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38rollchart.JPG)
Here's a speed chart. Note that this is Lockheed data, not that of the USAAF, who did not authorize full use of the Allison engine's rated power. I'm sure that I have a copy of the original somewhere in my files. I will look for it and scan it.
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38speedchart.JPG)
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I just posted the entire production series for the FW-190A (15186 units total). Do not know about 109's but I find 35000 to 39000 Bf-109s to be a little optimistic.
Forgot about this little bit of mis-deseption by Crumpp.
You will remember Crumpp I said, Fw190 with no model letter. What does Crumpp give us but 190 A and D, and 152H numbers. He completely forgets, for whatever reason, the F and G models. With these models the production is ~20k. The F and G were capable of shooting down enemy a/c and there was 'experten'(aces) in them.
Crumpp, 109 production was in the 35-36k range which included Hungarian production.
-
I had forgotten that I had scanned in the original roll rate document. Here it is. Note that this data was taken by Col. Ben Kelsey.
(http://home.att.net/~islandphoto/KelseyRoll.JPG)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Here's a dive chart for the P-47D-30. Test pilot Herb Fisher was doing a series of tests for the propeller division of Curtiss-Wright.
I literally have a stack of these. This was one I scanned for web use. Fisher routinely exceeded Mach .80 and reached Mach .83 on occasion. Fisher made in excess of 150 dives during the program.
(http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/DiveChart.JPG)
My regards,
Widewing
-
I just posted the entire production series for the FW- 190A (15186 units total). Do not know about 109's but I find 35000 to 39000 Bf-109s to be a little optimistic.
He completely forgets, for whatever reason, the F and G models.
Umm the F and G models are ground attack varients. The discussion was on fighters. On average an F or G with the ETC 50 or later ETC 71 racks is 30-40 kph slower than an FW-190A.
They're experten in them for sure. Guy's like Rudel for example.
Crumpp, 109 production was in the 35-36k range which included Hungarian production.
Since the comparison was USAAF vs Luftwaffe fighters we can now add in the RAF, RCAF, Free French, Russians, and don't forget the Brazilians!
Anybody got the numbers of Allied fighters vs Axis??
I am sure the Luftwaffe hordes will overwhelm them in numbers...
Editing a document to suit one's agenda will be viewed as being disengenuous, if not outright dishonest. Post the whole document and allow readers to draw their own conclusions.
1. I did not edit it. It came off of:
http://prodocs.netfirms.com/
2. The "edited" portion had NOTHING to do with my post.
3. I wrote Ring to let him know.
All in all it's your blustering that is disingenuous.
Again. The P38L was easily out dove by both Luftwaffe fighter types.
Here's an easier to read dive chart for the P-38L:
Did I miss something on the P38L chart you made up on Power Point. The POH cautions NOT to exceed the speed of 420mph by more than 15-20 mph. Yet you list 480mph as the fastest dive the P38L can do in the low speed band.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Umm the F and G models are ground attack varients. The discussion was on fighters. On average an F or G with the ETC 50 or later ETC 71 racks is 30-40 kph slower than an FW-190A.
They're experten in them for sure. Guy's like Rudel for example.
................
.............
edit: not relavent
..............
...............
Since many of the P-38, P-47 P-51, Spitfire, Typhoon, Hurricane, etc were all JUST used as fighter bombers many of their number should be deducted from their total numbers using your logic Crumpp. The F and G did provide escort for their mates, so were also used as just fighters. What that 'boost juic' they carried was not enough to compensate for the drag fixtures. Seem to recall you saying that is why the 'boost juice' was left in the a/c and taken out of the pure fighter.
A jabo or fighter-bomber is still a fighter.
Some other 'experten' were Dorffel who had ~30, Keenel with ~34, Seyffardt with ~30 and Dommeratzky with ~38 and all in F models.
Crumpp, if you can remember the 109 and 190 production number was posted in resonse to your BS post.
quote: The USAAF made more fighter aircraft in few months than Germans did the entire war.
my reply: Germany produced about 50-55,000 109s and 190s. Now American production was good but not that good.
-
A jabo or fighter-bomber is still a fighter.
Exactly and you will find the Jabo-einsatz's not only listed in the Flugzeug-Handbuch but will find them assigned to the Jabostaffel of the Geschwader. These are FW-190A's. These are fighters which can carry bombs and are equipped with the basic hardpoint and drop equipment standard on the FW-190A. They are included in the production figures I gave out. NONE of them have the ETC 50 or 71 wing racks, Grossebombenelecrik, or additional armour protection.
So including FIGHTER-bombers like the P38's transferred from the 9th AF against the FW-190A FIGHTER-bombers of the jabostaffels, which did participate routinely in interceptions, is very valid. These planes are included in the comparison.
What you will not find is FW-190F's and G's assigned to the Jabostaffel.
You will find FW-190F's and FW-190G's assigned to dedicated Ground attack units such as StukaGeschwaders, SchnelKampfGeschwaders, and SchlachtGeschwaders. These aircraft not only have different engine setups but loads of specialized equipment that increases their effectiveness as a ground attack platform but they trade pure fighter performance to do it.
Now in the early transition period you will find some jabo-einsatz's in these units. Once the ground attack varients were developed however the jabo-einsatz's disappear. By 1944 ground attack units were using ground attack aircraft, not fighters that could carry a bomb.
The F and G did provide escort for their mates, so were also used as just fighters.
Your wrong on this. The ground attack units were normally covered by a Jagdgeschwader. I know you have a copy of Bookie's book. Read it.
my reply: Germany produced about 50-55,000 109s and 190s. Now American production was good but not that good.
And is not a valid comparision for FIGHTER production figures. Additionally those numbers include, as you pointed out, airframes manufactured for other axis aligned nations and a few neutral countries. If we want to compare that then we need to include all the Allied nations fighter forces arrayed against the Luftwaffe as well.
Crumpp
-
Andrew's book does mention them being used as escort for their bomb laden brethern. It is you that has to re-read the book.
Hungarian production of the 109 was ~3000.
Even using your warped logic, your statement, "The USAAF made more fighter aircraft in few months than Germans did the entire war" is still BS. It took 4 years of P-51 production to equal Fw190 so called 'fighter' production. So ~48 months(4x12) is only a 'few months'?:rolleyes: Do you even remember what you wrote?
The US-GB should have re-designated their ground attack a/c A-47, A-51, Spitfire Bx etc, etc as well as re-designating the units BSs since all they did was haul bombs, using your logic.
Now tell me how those 4 mentioned, flying Fw190Fs became aces if they only were used for ground attack. Must have dropped their bombs on their 'kills'.
You should read the account of Buchner (58 total) of II./SG 2 who flew a pure fighter mission with possible Barkhorn** over Sevasopol. (** the a/c had 2 black chevrons) Then there is Lambert, a Schlachtflieger pilot who had 116 claims. Not bad for a 'pure' bomber/attack pilot. You still want to claim the F and G were 'pure' bomber/attack a/c?
OBW, I had a cousin check out that 190S. Yes there is a MW50 decal on it but was told that the a/c did not carry or have installed MW50, ever, as there was no room for it.
-
Milo says:
Andrew's book does mention them being used as escort for their bomb laden brethern. It is you that has to re-read the book.
Lets not be obtuse. The exception not the rule.
Crumpp says:
The ground attack units normally were covered by a Jagdgeschwader.
"The USAAF made more fighter aircraft in few months than Germans did the entire war" is still BS.
For just the P51 yes, it is a BS statement. The comparison is between fighter aircraft not just the P51. The USAAF had several different models of fighter remember?
You still want to claim the F and G were 'pure' bomber/attack a/c?
They were attack aircraft. Yes, Milo they were designed for the ground support role (FW-190F) or the long-range fast attack bomber role (FW-190G) NOT an Air Superiority Fighter role. Could they defend themselves IF NECESSARY from enemy fighters? Sure they could. Does not mean though they were designed or employed as fighters, NO.
Then there is Lambert, a Schlachtflieger pilot who had 116 claims.
Lambert was very much the exception. (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.luftwaffe39-45.historia.nom.br/ases/lambert.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3DLambert,%2Ba%2BSchlachtflieger%2B%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG)
Lambert is the only Sclachtflieiger pilot with a number of kills who did not serve in a JG.
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/tank.html
Remember Rudel got kills in a Stuka. Consider that a fighter?
Milo says:
Even using your warped logic, your statement, "The USAAF made more fighter aircraft in few months than Germans did the entire war" is still BS. It took 4 years of P-51 production to equal Fw190 so called 'fighter' production. So ~48 months(4x12) is only a 'few months'? Do you even remember what you wrote?
Crumpp says:
And is not a valid comparison for FIGHTER production figures. Additionally those numbers include, as you pointed out, airframes manufactured for other axis aligned nations and a few neutral countries. If we want to compare that then we need to include all the Allied nations fighter forces arrayed against the Luftwaffe as well.
We are not talking about just the P51. So your argument is that the Luftwaffe had a close to numerical parity with the allies?
OBW, I had a cousin check out that 190S. Yes there is a MW50 decal on it but was told that the a/c did not carry or have installed MW50, ever, as there was no room for it.
That is what I thought. Museums make mistakes. Saw the MW 50 sticker and went WTF?
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That is what I thought. Museums make mistakes. Saw the MW 50 sticker and went WTF?
Crumpp
You were rather insistant that MW50 was installed in the a/c.
-
You were rather insistant that MW50 was installed in the a/c.
No, Milo. I was insistant it had a MW 50 warning triangle on it.
Milo says:
Anyone can put a false decal, and this one is truly false, on the a/c. This type of error has been seen on many a/c to give them more 'glitz'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crump says:
As much as you would like to think so, I don't think you’re the only one who has come to this conclusion. Museum curators have caused quite a few historical errors. That is why I asked Furball about this particular aircraft in the first place.
I really appreciate your posting some good but well-known information.
However it does nothing to confirm or deny the facts of either this A/C setup or MW-50 use in the S8. The only way to do that is visit the Museum and get from the archives the history of this Aircraft, its restoration, and display history. Until then we are only making assumptions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134180
Your thinking and not reading again.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Lets not be obtuse. The exception not the rule.
Me obtuse? Never said it was the rule. It was you saying they were never used as 'fighters'.
For just the P51 yes, it is a BS statement. The comparison is between fighter aircraft not just the P51. The USAAF had several different models of fighter remember?
Yup they did. The US still did not build 50-60K 'fighter' type a/c in a few months.
They were attack aircraft. Yes, Milo they were designed for the ground support role (FW-190F) or the long-range fast attack bomber role (FW-190G) NOT an Air Superiority Fighter role. Could they defend themselves IF NECESSARY from enemy fighters? Sure they could. Does not mean though they were designed or employed as fighters, NO.
Now who is being obtuse? They still were used as 'fighters' when required to. The Allies used their 'fighters' as pure GA a/c in pure GA units but you want to dismiss them.
Lambert is the only Sclachtflieiger pilot with a number of kills who did not serve in a JG.
Remember Rudel got kills in a Stuka. Consider that a fighter?
I don't consider multi engined bombers as 'fighters' either but they shot down a/c as well.
We are not talking about just the P51. So your argument is that the Luftwaffe had a close to numerical parity with the allies?
The P-51 was just an example. How do you see I am claiming that the LW had numerical parity? You sure read funny.:rolleyes: The US factories delivered 99,465 'fighter' a/c during the war. The US was at war for 42 months. Monthly average was 2368 a/c. It would have taken ~20 months to produce 50k a/c (to make you happy, 5k less 190s) the Germans did during the whole war. Sure is more than a few months which you claimed. You got caught shoveling and are now squirming to get out of it
-
Yup they did. The US still did not build 50-60K 'fighter' type a/c in a few months.
The US certainly built more than a couple of thousand fighter planes a month. Looking at the operational strength of the Luftwaffe:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101664939_luftwaffe_strength2.jpg)
In Feb '44 the Luftwaffe had on hand between 1500 and 1600 fighters total. The United states could produce those numbers in a month.
Milo says US Fighter Production:
Monthly average was 2368 a/c.
There you go! See I knew you could see it.
Milo says:
They still were used as 'fighters' when required to.
Yes, to defend themselves!! Big Difference from the picture you want to paint of them being fulltime additions to the JG's, Milo.
Milo says:
I don't consider multi engined bombers as 'fighters' either but they shot down a/c as well.
Ok, I can play this game. My favourite color is red. Interesting tid bit of information that has nothing to do with the conversation.
This is what I said:
The USAAF made more fighter aircraft in few months than Germans did the entire war.
It would have taken JUST the United States 6 months to equal 4 years of German FW-190A production. In 18 months the United States could have equaled 6 years German fighter production.
Crumpp
-
From the 190S thread.
Crumpp, quote:
However, the pilots I have interviewed are very specific when it comes to MW-50. They had it and used it.
So you interview pilots of the 190S.
Yet dispite facts that it did not have MW50 installed, you insinuated that it had MW50 installed, since it had the decal. For such an expert on the 190, as yourself, you should have known that the decal was an error.
-
Milo,
Your jumping to conclusions that just are not there.
However, the pilots I have interviewed are very specific when it comes to MW-50. They had it and used it.
Yes they did . 6 months ago I would have sworn, as is the popular line that they did not have MW50 on the FW-190A. I now have solid documentation as well as pilot anecdotes to back that statement up.
So you interview pilots of the 190S.
Did I say that?? NO. Another instance of your ***-U-ME 'ing = assuming. Then you act like an idiot and jump for the throat.
Crumpp
-
This is what you said Crumpp. Read very carefully.
The USAAF made more fighter aircraft in few months than Germans did the entire war.
In the 42 months the USA was at war they made just under 100,000 'fighter' a/c. So if the 20 months(Jan 44 to Aug 45) it took to equal German production for the whole war is a FEW MONTHS you are correct. I don't consider 20 months as a few months. Neither does Webster.
......
quote: Big Difference from the picture you want to paint of them being fulltime additions to the JG's, Milo.
No I am not trying to paint a picture of the F and Gs as full timers but you sure want to see that I am trying to.
........
The thread was about the 190S, so why did you bring in other non related crud.:rolleyes:
You got a professional writer lined up for that book? You will need one.
-
He'll need more help with research and comprehension than anything. And he'll have serious trouble making the non fiction rack.
-
The thread was about the 190S, so why did you bring in other non related crud.
Only in your mind, Milo.
To me the thread was about Furball showing me a cool FW-190 pic and letting me know he lived near the museum. It just happenend to be one I knew had the MW 50 sticker on and wanted to CONFIRM it was a curator mistake.
You jumped in the middle with your cross to bear.
Standard Milo crap.
Right out of Websters, BTW:
{The few}, the minority; -- opposed to the many or the majority.
Crumpp
-
crumpp crap out.
-
OK, this has all been very interesting for anyone who has read through it.
I'll bet we can all agree that, notwithstandin their success in other theaters, the P-38 groups in the 8th AF did not do well, compared to their P-47 brethren or the early 51 groups. Regardless of paper performance, why do you think this was so?
- oldman
-
Because the P-38 is a piece of junk. It sucked so much that Lockheed was not allowed to produce a different fighter and was the only plane in production from the beginning to the end of the war.
See I learned a lot in this thread ;)
EDIT: Same goes for the 109. In production from the start to the very end. But we all know how crappy that plane is :D
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
OK, this has all been very interesting for anyone who has read through it.
I'll bet we can all agree that, notwithstandin their success in other theaters, the P-38 groups in the 8th AF did not do well, compared to their P-47 brethren or the early 51 groups. Regardless of paper performance, why do you think this was so?
- oldman
If you read Warren Bodie's stuff, he puts much of the blame on the Bomber COs of the 8th along with the Fighter CO of the time Monk Hunter. The bomber guys wanted to prove they could go it alone. The 1st FG and their 38s were some of the first USAAF fighters to reach England. They were promptly shipped off to North Africa where along with the 14th and 82nd FGs they performed well and stayed in 38s in the drive through Sicily and up through Italy never giving up the Lightning. They were in them at VE Day. 82nd and 1st Scored comparable kills to any of the 8th FGs in Air to Air combat.
One wonders what they might have done in the escort role with the 8th bombers had they stayed in England as they could have gone the distance where the P47 that did arrive in England was not equipped to carry any drop tanks. The P40 and P39 had this but not the Jug for some reason.
370th and 474th performed well in 38s with the 9th AF out of England and in France also.
Certainly, with the earlier model 38s there were mechanical issues as well as the heating issues, but they were not insurmountable.
Overall I'd say that the bombers go it alone doctrine didn't help. The desire wasn't there initially to solve the problems the 8th had with the 38. Looking at the scramble Cass Hough and company had to go through to get drop tanks for the Jugs, seems to speak loudly to this bomber's first motivation early on as well.
By the time Doolittle and company took over and made the fighters a priority, the Mustangs were on the way, The Jug was being modified with stronger wings and hard points to carry drop tanks as well as more internal fuel and the pipeline of replacement pilots, as mentioned by Widewing were single engine drivers.
I keep going back to the success of the first 38 groups fighting against the LW in the Med through the end of the war. They swore by the 38 and did quite well with it.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Right out of Websters, BTW:
{The few}, the minority; -- opposed to the many or the majority.
Crumpp
From a better Websters than yours.
adjective
amounting to or consisting of a small number
noun
an indefinately small number of persons or things; not many
-
Hi Oldman,
>I'll bet we can all agree that, notwithstandin their success in other theaters, the P-38 groups in the 8th AF did not do well, compared to their P-47 brethren or the early 51 groups. Regardless of paper performance, why do you think this was so?
In my opinion, the main reason was the thick wing root and the resulting Mach-induced problems. Before the advent of the compressiblity flaps (which were no dive brakes), the P-38 not only had the lowest tactically useful Mach number of all the fighters in the ETO, but it was also severely limited when it came to high-speed turns and at high-altitude actually lost turning performance at any speed, compared to fighters with the then-standard NACA 5-digit profiles. As high operating altitudes were the order of the day in the ETO, these effects combined to make the P-38 a rather unmanoeuvrable ship.
Contrary to what has been claimed here, the P-38 was not very manoeuvrable in the rolling plane either. Fully established roll rate might have been good (with hydraulically powered ailerons at least, which weren't initially available in the ETO), but the P-38 had a lot of mass out of the centreline - engines and turbosuperchargers -, so roll acceleration suffered terribly compared to a single-engined fighter. I'm sure you're aware that Shaw's "Fighter Combat" rates roll accelleration as more important than roll rate - rolls have to be quick to change the plane of the maneouvre, and you hardly ever roll more than 180° anyway.
In my opinion, these were the two main factors that made the P-38 a failure in the ETO (with Mach effects clearly ranking number one). General Doolittle called the P-38 "a second-rate fighter", and if you only look at its high-altitude capabilities, this verdict seems fully justified.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
1000 kph and yes ur talkin crap again
in the first place their equipment was not suited to measure that.
I bet u have sex in lederhosen.
I had to look it up, I just had to.
Check http://www.lederhosen.de
:D :D :D
-
Captain Verge says about throttle settings of the P38:
This is a setting you will not see in 99% of the published data because it was not in the manual, but it was used by the pilots in combat.
Crumpp replys:
I would not doubt it, Seriously. I am sure many a Luftwaffe pilot exceeded the limits of his Flugzeug-Handbuch. In fact, the FW-190 was routinely dove to speeds in excess of 1000kph. Pyro?? Can you get right on that for us? For that matter, RAF, VVS, IJNAF, or RCAF pilots, just pick your poison.
Bug replies with a tenuous grasp of the situation:
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322:
1000 kph and yes ur talkin crap again
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102257575_divestory.jpg)
Does anybody expect Pyro to rush out and change the dive speeds? Figure the odds....
On the Performance of the P38 vs. Luftwaffe fighters. Lets check out the FW-190A vs P38F.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102257144_p38f.jpg)
Well, That's not applicable say the P38 fans! The P38 L is a different plane. Yes it is, and so are the later versions of the FW-190A. They gained a large chunk of horsepower over the FW-190A3. The RAE says 150hp. It's a lot more than that.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102257237_deratedpotential.jpg)
And let's look at Faber's FW-190A3, WNr 313 performance on a "derated" motor using avaition gasoline the engine was not designed to burn. This aircraft is the one used for both the P38 performance trials and the above document:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102257492_fw190a3g.jpg)
No lets look at what a properly serviced "rated" FW-190A3 can do:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102257680_fw190a3graph.jpg)
BIG Difference getting that lost horsepower back! So when you factor in the design improvements on both aircraft it is easy to see why the P38 was dropped from the 8th AF roles.
Crumpp
-
Whatever biased lederhosen luftwhiner punk
oh and i never whined a thing about the p38
search for it
i just kill fw 190 with it where ever i can find them
ur precence on this board is like an annoying boy/kid who wants the last word
get lost and go play with ur lederhosen
-
Late war P38's in the ETO had powered ailerons and excellent rate of roll for your info.
The LW also became aware of that, for they captured one!
One LW pilot described it as such: "you could fly the plane with one finger"
-
Late war P38's in the ETO had powered ailerons and excellent rate of roll for your info.
Boosted roll rate chart has already been posted in this thread.
Crumpp
-
Really?
Drool....
BAck to browsing :D
-
An interesting article about p-38/39 (http://m2reviews.cnsi.net/reviews/allies/us/cleaverp39n.htm)
and another one (http://www.acepilots.com/planes/soviet_p39_airacobra.html)
-
The P39 isn't being discussed here...
-
I have been staying out of this, but a couple quick comments.
1000 kph dives:
Airspeed indicators were notoriously inaccurate as speeds got into the transonic range. I wouldn't put any more credence into a 1000 kph dive from a Fw 190 than I would a 700+ mph dive that both the early P-38 and P-47 were claiming.
P-38F vs Fw 190A:
I got into it with Barbarossa over this several years ago.
The P-38F was being flown at 2800 rpm and a little under 1100 hp, not 1150 or 1325 hp which was the rated power. I'll see if I can dig up the 2800 rpm hp curve for the F-5/10 to get a more accurate power figure. On 1150 hp the P-38F was a 395 - 400 mph fighter. On 1325 hp it was in the 415 mph range.
There were some very conservative intercooler limitations used in the testing apparently. In service, the hp was gradually increased from 1150 hp to as high as 1425 hp depending on altitude. Basically more power at lower altitude because the turbo wasn't heating the induction air as much at lower altitudes/turbine speeds.
Another thing to take into account when looking at the testing results is the differences in engine rating systems.
The US engines didn't have anything like the climb or climb and combat ratings of the european engines. So most of the US aircraft (climb) figures are at 2600 rpm normal power, roughly 1000 hp for the Allisons involved. Bump the US aircraft up to mil power, and the rather anemic (climbing) P-39, P-40 and P-51 are all in about the same range as a Fw 190A on C&C and Spitfire V on climb power.
(edited to clarify that I'm referring to climb performance)
Greg Shaw
-
Any relation to Bobby Shaw?
-
Airspeed indicators were notoriously inaccurate as speeds got into the transonic range. I wouldn't put any more credence into a 1000 kph dive from a Fw 190 than I would a 700+ mph dive that both the early P-38 and P-47 were claiming.
Absolutely.
The P-38F was being flown at 2800 rpm and a little under 1100 hp, not 1150 or 1325 hp which was the rated power. I'll see if I can dig up the 2800 rpm hp curve for the F-5/10 to get a more accurate power figure. On 1150 hp the P-38F was a 395 - 400 mph fighter. On 1325 hp it was in the 415 mph range.
Interesting information. So Looks to me like a rated FW-190A3 and full powered P38F would have similar results as the derated FW-190A3/underpowered P38F.
Wonder how the performance lines up with the later FW-190A's which developed 400 more horses and the wide chord props?
Good stuff, gwshaw.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Interesting information. So Looks to me like a rated FW-190A3 and full powered P38F would have similar results as the derated FW-190A3/underpowered P38F.
[/b]
Probably pretty comparable over all when both operating at full rated power. P-38 probably climbs better above about 1 km, climb fth for the BMW 801D. But given that the V-1710-F5/10 doesn't ever appear to have been allowed full power above about 15,000 fth, the Fw 190A was probably faster between about 18,000 and 22,000 ft. With the P-38 passing it up again somewhere between 20,000 ft and 25,000 ft even on 1150 hp.
Wonder how the performance lines up with the later FW-190A's which developed 400 more horses and the wide chord props?
[/b]
Problem with that is the Fw 190A only had that additional 400 ps right at SL in low blower. The P-38J gained 275 hp x 2 over the P-38F/G at low altitude, and 450 hp x 2 at high altitude, all the way to 25,000 ft. While the P-38L-5 gained 400 hp down low, 575 hp up high, up to 28,500 ft or so. The P-38 improved more between '42 and '44.
Unfortunately Lockheed was never allowed to build the P-38K, think 1475/1725 hp with four paddle bladed propellors. Would have easily exceeded VNE in level flight up high, but would have been scary at medium/low altitudes.
Greg Shaw
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Any relation to Bobby Shaw?
Had an uncle Bobby Shaw, but he died about 70+ years ago. 40 years before I was born. Probably not the same one you are thinking of.
Greg Shaw
-
The pre J model P-38's were limited by the intercoolers that were in the leading edges of the wings, which were not capable of efficiently cooling the intake charge for extended periods. This kept the power rating down, and shortened the period for which peak power was available.
The F model was not used much by the 8th AF, the 20th and 55th went into service in late 1943 with mostly G and H models, getting their J models later, and possibly getting SOME L models before transitioning to the P-51 around D-Day and later.
Regarding the P-38K, it only had THREE blade Hamilton Standard High Activity Paddle props, and not the four blade version produced later. It did however have engines even more powerful than the engines in the P-38L.
The K SHOULD have been produced instead BEFORE the J, and the J improved from there. Eventually, the P-38L should have had 13 or 14 foot four blade Hamilton Standard High Activity Paddle Props, and the engines that were developed in 1943 for the P-82 Twin Mustang. Those engines would have exceeded 2000HP with turbocharging. The P-38K performed better than either the J or L did. But alas, it never happened that way, due to the USAAF and the War Production Board screwing the pooch. Too bad.
As a side note Earl "Dutch" Miller flew the P-38, the P-39, and the P-47 during the war. He said the absolute worst prop made was the Curtiss Electric used on all three. Only the P-47 later had the Curtiss props replaced with the superior Hamilton Standard props. Earl said he always looked for a plane that DIDN'T have the Curtiss props, if given a choice.
-
Originally posted by gwshaw
Had an uncle Bobby Shaw, but he died about 70+ years ago. 40 years before I was born. Probably not the same one you are thinking of.
Greg Shaw
No, he's thinking of Robert L. Shaw, the author of one of the bibles of fighter pilots. The Book is called "Fighter Combat" by Robert L. Shaw.
One of the guys from AH is auctioning a copy here:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4509716098&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT
-
What versions of the P38 were in service from November 1943 thru Feb 44?
What version is in service in July 44 thru the end of the war?
Crumpp
-
In the 8th AF, the 20th and 55th (the first P-38 groups)were equipped with the G and H model when they went into action in late 1943, with SOME EARLY P-38J models reaching them in late 1943 and early 1944. The P-38L arrived in mid 1944, as most units in the 8th AF had already or were in the process of transitioning into the P-51.
The same basic timeline applies to the 9th AF.
New models of the P-38 were VERY slow to reach deployment. The USAAF and the War Production Board failed to adequately second source the P-38, despite the fact that they evidently felth the P-38 was so important and critical tro the war effort that NO production delays on the part of Lockheed were tolerated. The two week shutdown to switch to produce the P-38K was denied in April 1943. Yes, that's right, the P-38K should have entered service about the time the 20th and 55th went into combat with the P-38G and H.
Oddly, the ONLY plant that was chosen to second source produce the P-38 was Consolidated Vultee in Nashville Tennesse, near my home (I had family that worked there). However, Consolidated itself was a company experienced in and dedicated to production of large aircraft, where as the P-38 was builty nothing like such aircraft, and required an entirely different mode of manufacture.
Even MORE senseless was that Lockheed Burbank was tasked with building Boeing B-17 bombers, taking OVER half the plant capacity, and cutting P-38 production by more than 50%. In reality, had some of the idiots in charge gotten their heads out of their asses, the Lockheed Burbank plant could have been dedicated to production of the P-38 @ 100% capacity, and the P-38K could have been a reality. Lockheed could have produced twice as many much needed P-38's (many units flew War Wearies in combat far past their best lifetime) and brought new improved models to the front lines much faster. The last 12K of the 20K+ or so P-38's that would have resulted would have been P-38K or better models.
Consolidated Vultee would have done well building B-17s. As it was, they only produced 100 or so P-38's (113 I think). They'd have been better off making 5K or so B-17's.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No, he's thinking of Robert L. Shaw, the author of one of the bibles of fighter pilots. The Book is called "Fighter Combat" by Robert L. Shaw.
Yah, I figured thats who he was asking about. No, I'm not related.
But it is a great book, got my copy from the USNI a number of years ago.
Greg Shaw
-
In the 8th AF, the 20th and 55th (the first P-38 groups)were equipped with the G and H model when they went into action in late 1943, with SOME EARLY P-38J models reaching them in late 1943 and early 1944. The P-38L arrived in mid 1944, as most units in the 8th AF had already or were in the process of transitioning into the P-51.
Looking at the development of the P38 vs FW-190A I think the general conclusions of that tactical trial hold true until the introduction of the BMW 801TS equipped FW-190A8's in July '44.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The pre J model P-38's were limited by the intercoolers that were in the leading edges of the wings, which were not capable of efficiently cooling the intake charge for extended periods. This kept the power rating down, and shortened the period for which peak power was available.
[/b]
Yes, the original integral intercoolers in the wing were sized to cool the charge necessary for 1000 hp @ 20,000 ft. The turbos provided enough compression for 31 in Hg output, but to 25,000 ft vice 20,000 ft in the prototypes So there was more compression heating above 20,000 ft. But more importantly the mass flow, hence cooling load increased as engine powers did.
Power is proportional to how much charge is being consumed. So the F/G models had a 32.5% higher cooling requirements, and the H had 42.5% or 60% higher. All at 20,000 ft, at 25,000 ft the problem would be even greater. The original intercoolers just couldn't handle the increased load for very long.
The F model was not used much by the 8th AF, the 20th and 55th went into service in late 1943 with mostly G and H models, getting their J models later, and possibly getting SOME L models before transitioning to the P-51 around D-Day and later.
Regarding the P-38K, it only had THREE blade Hamilton Standard High Activity Paddle props, and not the four blade version produced later. It did however have engines even more powerful than the engines in the P-38L.
[/i]
Mea culpa, yes they were three bladed props. The engines were basically the same as the F17/F30, just having the reduction gear ratio increased to lower prop tip speed. Power would be the same 1475/1725 hp @ 3200 rpm as the F30 on the L-5.
The performance increase was due to the better props, the original props had a tip speed of 903 fps, the K dropped that to 831 fps @ 3000 rpm and 888 fps @ 3200 rpm. Compared to approx 857 fps for a Bf 109G/K and 828 fps for a Fw 190A for example.
That improved performance at high speed/high altitudes, while the higher AF paddle blades improved things at low/climb speeds.
The K SHOULD have been produced instead BEFORE the J, and the J improved from there. Eventually, the P-38L should have had 13 or 14 foot four blade Hamilton Standard High Activity Paddle Props, and the engines that were developed in 1943 for the P-82 Twin Mustang. Those engines would have exceeded 2000HP with turbocharging. The P-38K performed better than either the J or L did. But alas, it never happened that way, due to the USAAF and the War Production Board screwing the pooch. Too bad.
[/i]
Agreed that the K should have entered production in mid '43. But disagree about the engines. The P-82 engines had a variable speed aux stage blower, that wasn't necessary with the turbosupercharged P-38. The P-82 engine would have had more hp below about 10,000 ft, but the F30/B33 combo was better up high.
A better bet would have been to replace the 8.1:1 integral blower with the 8.8:1 from the F3R. At 3200 rpm that should have been treading pretty close to 2000 hp.
Or better yet adopt the larger blower from the new G series Allisons and keep the 8.1:1 blower drive. Again that would be about 2000 hp, and the turbo would have allowed that to be maintained to 25,000 ft.
As a side note Earl "Dutch" Miller flew the P-38, the P-39, and the P-47 during the war. He said the absolute worst prop made was the Curtiss Electric used on all three. Only the P-47 later had the Curtiss props replaced with the superior Hamilton Standard props. Earl said he always looked for a plane that DIDN'T have the Curtiss props, if given a choice. [/B]
Props were always a problem, with the Curtis electrics having the worst reputation. The early P-38 models only had one generator, and if it went out the props became fixed wherever they were at the time. Not a good thing for propellor efficiency or engine life. They were also very slow to adjust their pitch, not good for a fighter that needs to adjust power quickly over a wide range.
The Hamilton Standards seemed to be the best, as long as you had engine oil to adjust pitch with. Of course if you don't have engine oil you have bigger problems than the prop pitch.
Greg Shaw
-
Here is the P38L setup for the flights:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102467228_p38lsetup.jpg)
Here are the Pilots who flew it opinions:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102467287_p38opinions.jpg)
From Francis Dean's "Report on Joint Fighter Conference"
Crumpp
-
From what I have read the P-38 had only two real assests. Rudundancy and top-end speed.
In the ETO it was quickly out matched by later war 109s and 190s. It's get away speed no longer held an advantage and half the moves you guys make in the MA would never be attempted in RL, so its manueverability was never a saving grace.
In the PTO however, its speed advantage still held it's own and the just the fact that having two engines made it worth it's weight in gold.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
From Francis Dean's "Report on Joint Fighter Conference"
I have the book and I've talked to two of the pilots that attended the conference.
This was what we in the Navy would have called a boondoggle. You have a considerable group of non-combat flyers commenting within the context of their limited experience. These are the factory pilots, most having never flown in combat. Plus, they have their built-in bias' and a loyalty to their employer. Many of the military pilots were also non-combat types. If I remember correctly what Corky Meyer stated, only about 10% of the pilots had combat experience and only a couple of those within the previous 18 months.
Single engine Navy pilots will not care for the P-38, regardless of how it performed. The few USAAF pilots who had combat experience in the P-38 (Tom Lamphier being one of them), lauded the big twin. They knew how it performed in combat, and it's in combat where theory and opinion are tested, not at Wright and Eglin Fields, or at NAS Anacostia.
Also, have a look at the responses in general. For almost any given aircraft, two guys may write "very maneuverable" and two others jot down "maneuverabilty is poor." How does one reconcile such diverse opinions? Well, one doesn't. You take the comments within the context of the people involved. Very, very few historians accept the JFC as anything more than personal opinion. No one can evaluate a fighter with 30 minute hops in a peacetime environment. Did you notice that some pilots rated the F4U-1D superior to the F4U-4 at high altitude combat? That's patently absurd, considering the F4U-4 does everything markedly better than the F4U-1D. These guys also didn't generally like the F6F-5. How odd, considering that it destroyed more Japanese aircraft than the P-38, P-47, P-39 and P-51 combined!!!! When Japanese fighter pilots were asked after the war what American fighters they feared most, they responded with the Hellcat and the Lightning. F4Us, P-47s and P-51s were considered far less lethal. Why do you think that is? Perhaps because the F6F and P-38 were more agile than the others, yet they were still very fast (there's a lot of data supporting the TAIC testing that showed the F6F-5 to be a 400+ mph fighter, well above the "official" 385 mph).
Also coming out of this "conference" with a so-so rating was the P-63. One pilot wrote that it climbed too slow! Rather rediculous when considering that the P-63 was the fastest climbing fighter in the USAAF inventory by a wide margin. Another pilot wrote that the P-61 had excellent acceleration. A remarkable statement in light of the P-61's 28,000 pound weight giving it by far the worst power loading of all 1944 vintage planes tested during the conference. There's damn little credibility to be found in the JFC.
While the JFC is an interesting read, it is also massively flawed as a test document. Objectivity was almost nonexistent. Not everyone flew everything. Nothing was instrumented. Pilots with no multi-engine experience were evaluating complex twin-engine fighters (P-38, P-61 etc). Navy pilots who had no previous experience in liquid cooled fighters were whining about coolant temps... Well, of course they were! Talk to the veterans who flew both the P-51 and P-38 during their combat tours and you'll find them about equally divided as to which one was the better fighter. Pilots who flew one or the other exclusively will have a bias towards that type, it's only natural to like what you are familiar with.
Most pilots liked the F7F and XF8F, which is no surprise as these were almost in a class by themselves.
So, my point is this: Enjoy the book, but don't accept the opinions on face value. Talk to the combat veterans instead. Why? Because it was the combat vets who took theory, concept and the hardware out of the isolated arena of test pilots and went into harms way. They, more than anyone, are qualified to offer valid opinions on any combat aircraft.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing says:
These guys also didn't generally like the F6F-5.
Read the second sentenance under "Combat Qualities". I can't find the words Manuverability is good for a fighter, and P-38 together anywhere in the book.
If pilot anecdotes are the standard then:
Great! I have a Luftwaffe veteran who outran 5 P51D's on the deck in an FW-190A8 during the Ardennes Offensive? Can we make that happen, Pyro?
Crumpp
-
NO WAY !!!!!!!! Not in this sim.
The allied fliers would not like that.;)
-
So it seems JFC burns well in the fire place
u can pull as any red lines under text that suits u, but i won't buy that crap
burn it
-
So it seems JFC burns well in the fire place
What's the matter, don't like the truth?
Guess you would rather push it off on the standard excuses for P38 performance, "should have's", "would have's", and more P38 "if only's".
JFC is engineers and combat pilots who have no stake in any of the fighters. Their focus is getting the best plane to the tip of spear. The P38 was not a steller performing fighter in the USAAF lineup especially in the European Theater.
How odd, considering that it destroyed more Japanese aircraft than the P-38, P-47, P-39 and P-51 combined!!!!
Of course! There where more P38's in the Pacific than any other fighter. The JFC notes that the P38 is a good fighter when paired against the much slower Zeke.
Crumpp
-
Something out of curiouslity.
I somewhere read that the P38 could do 300 mph+ and climb at the rate of 1500 fpm while at it. This was told to be an evasive maneuver against the Zeke, since it would be left behind very rapidly.
Any info on this?
Oh, and for Crumpp, I also knew a pilot who caught 190's in his P51C, be it uphill, diving or turning. They could of course roll around better, but not get away :D
-
Oh, and for Crumpp, I also knew a pilot who caught 190's in his P51C, be it uphill, diving or turning. They could of course roll around better, but not get away
I would not doubt it, Angus. Talking to the Focke Wulf pilots it took skill and experience to get maximum turn performance out of it. You have a copy of that Luftwaffe memo I provided you. It directs Focke Wulf pilots to get out and practice level turns for this very reason. Main thing was to be calm and be able to read the subtle hints and back off the stick pressure not apply it at the correct times as the FW-190 tended to "self tighten" any turn.
The P51 and the FW-190 had very similar turn performance. Allied fighter pilots with less than 5 hours in the type could turn it almost as well as the P51B. The advantage would definitely lay with the P51 as it was a more "honest" airplane and gave much better warning when it was on the edge.
Many FW veterans turn fought P51's and were consistently successful.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
JFC is engineers and combat pilots who have no stake in any of the fighters. Their focus is getting the best plane to the tip of spear. The P38 was not a steller performing fighter in the USAAF lineup especially in the European Theater.
Must have missed this Crumpp
You have a considerable group of non-combat flyers commenting within the context of their limited experience. These are the factory pilots, most having never flown in combat. Plus, they have their built-in bias' and a loyalty to their employer. Many of the military pilots were also non-combat types. If I remember correctly what Corky Meyer stated, only about 10% of the pilots had combat experience and only a couple of those within the previous 18 months.
The SOP for USAAF pilots in the MTO and ETO was not to turn more than 1/2 a turn in combat. Then there was the vector roll, which the P-47 used to advantage, when chasing their 190 and 109 victims.
-
You have a considerable group of non-combat flyers commenting within the context of their limited experience. These are the factory pilots, most having never flown in combat. Plus, they have their built-in bias' and a loyalty to their employer. Many of the military pilots were also non-combat types. If I remember correctly what Corky Meyer stated, only about 10% of the pilots had combat experience and only a couple of those within the previous 18 months.
There is a complete list of participating pilots, the USAAF pilots covers almost three pages of small print. The front jacket exclaims "Combat Pilots, engineers, and manufacturers".
Sounds like someone is attempting to minimize the scathing reviews the P38L recieved by combat pilots and engineers both.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The P51 and the FW-190 had very similar turn performance. Allied fighter pilots with less than 5 hours in the type could turn it almost as well as the P51B. The advantage would definitely lay with the P51 as it was a more "honest" airplane and gave much better warning when it was on the edge.
I agree 100% with your statement on turn performance, however I doubt it would be the P-51 "honest" behaviour in turns that made the difference in turns, rather it was the 'redflag' pilot`s inexperience with the FW 190.. from all records, the P-51 seems just as bad in stall behaviour as the 190, ie. absolutely no warning was given, stall was sudden, vicious and fierce, often accompanied by a 180 degree snaproll and so big hit on the stick that it ripped itself out of the pilot`s hands..
No1 reason why I prefer the 109 over the 190 despite armament and ruggedness... the former tolerates even the most blatant mistakes, and stall characteristics are excellent.
-
From what I've read, the 190's stall was very vicious.
The 51 would give you enough warning to pop a notch of flaps.
But very experienced 190 pilots learned their ride well enough to become confident enough for some turnings.
BTW, there were quite some RAF 51's around. Their Pilots grew up with the doctrine of turnfighting, so.........depends of pilot...
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
There is a complete list of participating pilots, the USAAF pilots covers almost three pages of small print. The front jacket exclaims "Combat Pilots, engineers, and manufacturers".
Sounds like someone is attempting to minimize the scathing reviews the P38L recieved by combat pilots and engineers both.
Crumpp
As usual Crumpp, you are full of baloney. Read the list and note their ranks and titles.... 80% pencil pushing senior officers who were generally flying desks for a living.
So, on what pages are those "scathing reviews by combat pilots and engineers both"?
Oh, and once again I'll ask this: With what unit and where did you see combat? You've ignored that question twice already, leading me to suspect that you were not completely truthful (collective gasp from the audience, having never suspected that Crumpp might exaggerate)..... You surely remember this statement: "However as a combat veteran myself (Army)"
If you would look a the P-38 card, only 3 pilots had negative comments about its combat performance. When writing about the JFC, Corky Meyer thought it was a first class fighter, and he worked for Grumman. Remember, only 28 pilots who flew the P-38 actually filled out the flight cards, and most of these were reported to be factory pilots, who wanted to fly everything the competition showed up with, like Mercedes engineers drive BMWs.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I have 17 years in Widewing with 3 more to go until retirement. What do I actually do......
I am a field sanitation specialist in the Third Messkit Repair Battalion. I proudly empty the Port-a-johns on post. It's a big responsibility with over 5000 units scattered over a large area. Sometimes I get to drive the truck. When those soldiers sit down on a fresh, clean, port-a-john, my heart swells with pride.
One day I will retire and I hope to fly the Fuji Film blimp. Now that is job that chicks dig....
As for the Pencil Pushers:
The US Armed Forces had a very well known rotation policy. According to the book these pilots ARE combat pilots. Once more these are not only experienced combat pilots, but we have test pilots, manufacturers, and folks like Charles Lindberg present to give commentary. You argument is rather weak and consist's of "he said, she said" with no documentation to back it up. Frankly it is whining and nothing more.
If you would look a the P-38 card, only 3 pilots had negative comments about its combat performance.
You need to get your glasses checked. Their are only 3 GOOD comments about the P38's combat abilities.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
As for the Pencil Pushers:
The US Armed Forces had a very well known rotation policy. According to the book these pilots ARE combat pilots. Once more these are not only experienced combat pilots, but we have test pilots, manufacturers, and folks like Charles Lindberg present to give commentary. You argument is rather weak and consist's of "he said, she said" with no documentation to back it up. Frankly it is whining and nothing more.
Crumpp
A couple of years ago, shortly after I ordered and received this book, I ran about 30 names of the USAAF officers listed thru Olynyk's victory lists to see if any showed up. Only one did, and that was a no-brainer; Lamphier with 4.5 victories and his claim of shooting down Yamamoto (which he didn't, Rex Barber gets that kill).
Not one of the names listed is from an active duty combat unit, not one. Engineering units are well represented. Test facilities and overhaul commands sent people. Many of the attendees were senior officers. Senior officers whose specialty was engineering. For every combat pilot there were 10 guys pushing the pencils. It is important work, but "it ain't fightin'."
Lindburgh was a great pilot, but was a liability to the 475th when they encountered the enemy. Why? Because they had to guard Lindburgh continuously because it seems the Japanese were always on his six. Even so, Lindburgh thought very highly of the P-38.
Combat leaders were in the field, either commanding or training new leaders, very few went to desk jobs, mostly those who failed at combat command found themselves flying desks and getting their flight time in trainers. I knew many desk jockies in the Navy who got their "flight time" by getting another pilot to add their name to the "yellow sheet" while they napped in the back of a transport on a logistics hop. Gotta get that flight pay....
I've said it before and it's been said by some of the attendees; this was a boondoggle. You want input from fighter pilots, then send fighter pilots to the conference. Guys from active duty combat outfits. Navy and Marine combat units rotated to and from CONUS all the time. Why do I not see any of the CAGs? Where are the aces? Where are the people who best know what they need? The answer is and was, nowhere. Where was George Welch? North American wanted to send Welch, a 15 kill ace recently hired as a test pilot. They were told, and I know this because I was told by a Welch family member, that they didn't want hot-shot fighter aces at the event. NAA ended up sending Steppe and Virgin, neither of whom were former combat pilots. Lockheed almost didn't go at all. They received their invitation two weeks before the meeting and didn't even have a P-38 to bring, they borrowed a P-38L test mule from the AAF. Martin was the factory pilot for Lockheed. According to Bodie, the Navy specifically asked that Tony LeVier NOT be sent to represent Lockheed. God forbid! That lunatic would have upset the apple cart for sure. LeVier wouldn't have gone anyway, he was neck deep in the P-80 program. By the way, Lockheed was asked to provide a YP-80 for non-flying orientation at the JFC. Lockheed said "Hell no!" Their existed but just one flyable YP-80 and that baby had only about 4 hours on it. I'm quite certain that the AAF would have gone nuts had they known of the Navy's request.
What about Republic? They had Dupoy and Jernstedt, both combat veterans with the AVG on staff as test pilots. Nope, they weren't invited. Well, at least C. Hart Miller came.
This was a Navy show. It was not taken very seriously by aircraft manufacturers whose loyalty resided with the AAF. Grumman and Vought sent their top people. Republic sent only one senior manager. Lockheed and NAA sent low level reps. Bell sent Woolams, who wanted to impress the attendees with the P-63 in hopes of getting a decent contract. They didn't have a chance. What no one remembers is that the P-63 was without doubt, the best low to medium altitude fighter in the inventory. Unfortunately, high alt, long range fighters were what the AAF wanted, not low level monsters like the King Cobra, which offered performance remarkably similar to the Soviet La-7.
This book provides a look at an engineering boondoggle, with little emphasis placed upon combat capabilities of any fighter. It's just what you say has no credibility, a "she said, he said" document where opinions varied wildly and inter-service rivalry is clearly evident.
The Late Erik Shilling read this book and posting to usenet summed the up the JFC as "pure garbage, a waste of tax payer money. Nothing beneficial came out of these meetings, other than evening cocktail parties." Who is Erik Shilling? Probably one of the best aviators this country ever produced. He was an original member of the AVG and a former Army test pilot at Langley. When the AVG disbanded, he moved from Tomahawks to C-46s and flew the Hump for two years for CNAC. Later, he flew the last aircraft out of Dien Bien Phu, Erik piloted the last relief flight in and had his French owned C-119 shot to pieces in the effort. He flew spy flights over Red China for the CIA. In the late 60s and early 70s, Shilling flew several hundred covert missions into Laos, Cambodia and even into North Vietnam while employed by the CIA's Air America. With his recent passing, we lost one of the greatest unsung heros and amazing characters ever to strap himself into an American airplane.
In short, even if I had never read the book, Erik's opinion would have been enough for me. But I did read it. All of it. And I came to a similar conclusion. Its interest resides in the engineering discussions. But, even so, these are of little value other than getting a look into the mindset of the time. I'm an engineer and I found it as dull as dirt. Money wasted that could have been better spent on something at least entertaining.
So, if this "document" is the best you have to offer that the P-38 was a crap fighter, then you're swimming upstream in the BS river. Use a snorkle.
And, you still haven't answered my other question. With what units and where? It's not a hard question. I've never known a combat vet who wouldn't tell me what his unit was and where he saw combat. Most of 'em will tell you even if you don't ask, but merely hint interest. They're justifiably proud of their service.
Maybe you're just overly modest.....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Krusty
However It does NOT turn well. Screw the flaps. If you get flaps out more than 1 notch you're dead. It does NOT roll well. You roll much over 400mph you won't be going 400mph for long. Then you're stuck with the normal - read bad - roll rate. It is NOT fast, unless you dive (see alt monkey comment :P ) and it does dive well with those dive flaps.
A P-38 driver that knows how to get everything out of his plane can turn with most other turn fighters in AH2. I have no troubles out turning Spitfires, N1K2, or Ki-84's.
While not fast as planes like the P-51 or La7, it is faster than the Spitfire and N1K2. And it's roll rate is quite good above 300mph IAS. I don't know what P-38 you flew in AH2 but it's definitely not the one that I fly.
ack-ack
-
I have no troubles out turning P-38, Spitfires, N1K2, or A6Ms too. ;)
-
I am Spartacus.
Scherf
-
@Crumpp:
You have a copy of that Luftwaffe memo I provided you
Crumpp, could you forward that memo to me too? Sounds to be very interesting stuff.
-
I've said it before and it's been said by some of the attendees; this was a boondoggle.
Been on many a boondoggle. Does not mean the purpose is not important.
I ran about 30 names of the USAAF officers listed thru Olynyk's victory lists to see if any showed up. Only one did, and that was a no-brainer; Lamphier with 4.5 victories and his claim of shooting down Yamamoto (which he didn't, Rex Barber gets that kill).
The vast majority of the USAAF and USN COMBAT Pilots did not get even one kill their whole tour. Nothing special here.
Combat leaders were in the field, either commanding or training new leaders, very few went to desk jobs,
Again. the USAAF and USN had well documented rotation polices. Even the Aces were rotated back. Only those who volunteered to extend their tour stayed.
You have a very "Hollywood" view of the military.
This book provides a look at an engineering boondoggle, with little emphasis placed upon combat capabilities of any fighter. It's just what you say has no credibility, a "she said, he said" document where opinions varied wildly and inter-service rivalry is clearly evident.
Most of the emphasis is on the combat capabilites. That was the whole purpose of the conference. Inter-service rivalry is a part of life in the US Military. I can post the P47 and P51 reviews. They recieved very good ratings.
Your attempt to debunk a well documented event designed to evaluate the best fighters in the US inventory is rather weak. Nice excuses though.
So, if this "document" is the best you have to offer that the P-38 was a crap fighter, then you're swimming upstream in the BS river.
Funny this is just one in a series of FLIGHT TESTED documentation I have produced on this aircraft showing the same conclusions. Collecting P38 documents is not even in my line of research, yet you are unable to produce any hard facts disputing them. Only stories.
Crumpp
-
Ok, so back to the ground.
The P38's performance, for what we know:
Speed equal or better than a Spitty.
Climb: medium, (good flat climb?)
Turn: Better than a 47 or a 51?
Roll rate: With boost, very very good.
Range: with DT's very good
Firepower: Nice nosepack
Ordnance: Wholy cow, it's a mean one!
Durability: Well, it has 2 engines and can fly on one....
Weaknesses: Well, bad sideways view? Dive compressions. And it's a big target.
Agree on this list? Add and edit at will.
Regards.
Angus.
P.S. I choose P38 for dogfighting rather than the 190. The same goes for ground attack. But that's AH.....
-
another crap quote
Of course! There where more P38's in the Pacific than any other fighter. The JFC notes that the P38 is a good fighter when paired against the much slower Zeke.
like the zero always flew low and slow and was the only type around
the weren't much p38 squads in the pacific compared to other plane types
but they made a big impression
what's ur problem with the p38 and why do u hate it so much??
-
You forgot manuverability and accelleration which the P38 is not very impressive.
I think the comment is "Manuverability racking is low as to preclude it's use as a modern fighter".
As for accelleration, the P38 was tail end charlie for the USAAF fighters. No big mystery though with it's high drag and average powerloading.
It's roll rate looks impressive at first but when you start checking out the degrees a second it's not that impressive.
Basically the P38 is not a dogfighter. It does pack some ordinance!
Crumpp
-
it was just pure crap flying that p38
somehow it made 2 usa top aces
they must have been very lucky to get there in that crap plane.
now take the 190 its mostly undermodelled and should turn way better
every lw plane shot down by it was just pure cherry pickin gangin and not by fighting the dogfight because all statistics just show it couldn't
:rolleyes:
-
I think we need to look at F4UDOA's last post as the P38 fandom "flood of propaganda" has buried it:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F4UDOA says:
Wow!
Way to rewrite history guys!!
1. First all of the acceleration results in AHT are calculated. There are many mistakes in those calcations. The Cdo is wrong on almost every single A/C. The HP on the F4U-4 is off amoung other thing but most of all they are calculations. I can show you completely different results based on different numbers. Also the weight of the P-38L is listed as 16,888lbs which is 600lbs underweight!
FYI I have spoken to Francis Dean, in fact I have been in his house and borrowed his things. Many of the documents I post came from him. He had a choice of numbers to use from a variety of sources. And some of those numbers don't match NACA records or stated Cdo, Clmax etc. FY he passed a couple of years ago and he was a very fine man with no bias toward any manufacture. He personally liked the P-40 from what I remember.
2. Captain Virgil Hills- Please provide a hardcopy report or source of your numbers. I have only seen those numbers in proto-type for the P-38.
Very import- you are claiming a top speed 444MPH TAS at 26,000FT. Did you know that the P-38 was limited to 440MPH TAS at 30,000FT? If you bank the airplane or nose down at that speed if would have been on the edge of compression right away.
3. The Vought document was retreived by me, scanned by me and posted by me. It was from the Vought archives and it was an internal reference. Why on earth would they use bogus information for testing? You really have to question yourself when you think Vought was conspiring with Republic to make the P-38 look bad 60 years later.
4. The JFC was contractors from every manufacture including Lockheed, AAF, RAF, Marines Navy etc. It was the third Joint meet of it's type and each aircraft was flown by experianced combat pilots from all services. And the report of the JFC was published by Francis Dean.
The aircraft flown was a P-38L-5-L0 rated at 60" MAP 3200HP at 17,488lbs.
The question of which was the best A/C under 25,000FT the ranks were
1. F8F-30%
2. P-51D- 29%
3. F4U-1D- 27%
4. F7F- 6%
5. F6F- 2%
6. Mosquito- 2%
7. F4U-4- 2%
8. F2G- 2%
Not one vote was registered for the P-38L. But of course we all know the P-38 was a high altitude interceptor right?
Best Fighter over 25,000FT
1. P-47D 45%<=== How about that!!
2. P-51D 39% <=== No suprise
3. F4U-1 7% <=== My beloved U-Bird
4. F6F-5 3%
5. F4U-4 3%
6. Seafire 2%
7. P-38L 1% <===== 1 vote!! Behind the Seafire!!
I am not saying anything about what was the best or worst. But that was reality in October 1944 and it doesn't matter what any of us think now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Post F4UDOA.
Looks to me like the "Navy guys" sure liked the USAAF fighters!
Crumpp
-
Reasons why the JFC should be believed over some disgruntled fans of the P-38.
1. I do not believe that 40 or 50 pilots from various manufactures and services got together to conspire against the P-38.
2. The F4U-4 was not selected because if you look at the flight cards cards it was only flown by 3 people.
3. The F2G was not selected because nobody flew it.
4. There were indeed combat pilots and qualified pilots such as Ken Walsh, Charles Lindberg, Boone Guyton and Corkey Meyer. I have never flown any of these aircraft but these men have. I do not pretend to know what they know.
5. If WW is correct about the "Mustang Mafia" pushing the P-38 out of the AAF then why would independant contractors, Navy, Marine and RAF pilots all arrive at the same conclusion?
Also the thing about the P-38 being the most feared by the Japanese is the first time I have ever heard that. In fact I have read quotes that claim it was easy to shoot down and the "tail would snap right off".
In both catagories of best fighter plane under 25K and over 25K only 1 pilot cast a vote for the P-38 in either catagory. You can do what ever you like with that information.
In TAIC test the P-38 was slower that both the P-51D (at mil power) while the P-38 was at combat power and the P-47D. It also accelerated slower than either the P-47D or P-51D in level flight and dive acceleration.
How is it possible that all of these independant sources are wrong and Lockheed is right?
-
LOL, Bug your funny. Sure the P38 made a couple of Aces out of US pilots, but the 190 made a couple of hundred aces out of Axis pilots.
And yes, it's is argued that somewhere around 90% of fighters shot down never saw what hit them.
I would never argue that the P38 was a bad plane, however by 1942, it was clearly losing the battle in the ETO. In the PTO it was still very effective even up to the end of the war.
-
Originally posted by JB42
LOL, Bug your funny. Sure the P38 made a couple of Aces out of US pilots, but the 190 made a couple of hundred aces out of Axis pilots.
And yes, it's is argued that somewhere around 90% of fighters shot down never saw what hit them.
I would never argue that the P38 was a bad plane, however by 1942, it was clearly losing the battle in the ETO. In the PTO it was still very effective even up to the end of the war.
By 1942 it was losing the battle in the ETO? The first mission of the 8th wasn't until August 18, 1942.
The first 3 P38 Groups sent to England started arriving in the Summer of 42 and were promptly shipped off to fight in North Africa in October 42. They never got into the fight in the ETO.
The 55th FG was the first P38 Group to get into Combat with the 8th and that wasn't until the Fall of 1943. They had the first 8th AF aircraft over Berlin on March 3, 1944.
20th FG with P38s flew their first mission with the 8th on December 28, 1943.
364th FG in 38s flew their first mission on March 3, 1944.
479th FG with 38s flew their first mission on May 26, 1944.
Those same P38 groups that went to North Africa fought the Luftwaffe in P38s until the end of the war.
It should also be noted that the 82nd FG claimed 548 air to air kills, and the 1st FG claimed 440 air to air kills.
I'd say that compares favorably to the highest scoring 8th AF Group the 357th FG flying P51s who claimed 609 air to air kills.
So explain to me how 3 P38 Groups that didn't arrive in England until late 42 only to be sent to support Operation Torch in North Africa shortly after arriving, and 4 P38 Groups that didn't arrive until 43-44 had already lost the battle in the ETO in 1942?
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ok, so back to the ground.
The P38's performance, for what we know:
Speed equal or better than a Spitty. what mark?[/i]
Climb: medium, (good flat climb?)
Turn: Better than a 47 or a 51?
Roll rate: With boost, very very good.
Range: with DT's very good
Firepower: Nice nosepack
Ordnance: Wholy cow, it's a mean one!
Durability: Well, it has 2 engines and can fly on one....
Weaknesses: Well, bad sideways view? Dive compressions. And it's a big target. damn ugly MOFO :D [/i]
Agree on this list? Add and edit at will.
Regards.
Angus.
P.S. I choose P38 for dogfighting rather than the 190. The same goes for ground attack. But that's AH.....
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Just think about that for a moment. That's about 45 min out and 45 min back. A shorter mission than most of the Luftwaffe pilots.
The time period of the conversation is Feb '44. Could the Allies fix a leaky tank in 8 months? Of course...
No Milo. The Allies produced the document. I just found it in Wright Patterson's archives.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101778289_manuverflaps.jpg)
As for the P38 / P47. I will believe a flight data over the POH any day. Got plenty of examples of how the manual is wrong at work. Takes the Military forever to get a supplement out and they love to combine things that are different into one book.
Either way data is out there to support both arguments and the facts are the P47 reached about were the "E" is in GERMANY on this map. I don't think the P38 went much farther. 50 P38's facing two hundred Luftwaffe fighters is pure exaggeration in Feb '44. One year earlier and it would be believable.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101688571_aaf-iii-1.jpg)
So back to the P 38 and its performance.
Anybody care to see the complete report on the P38 vs. FW-190 from the RAE trials? Yeah I know it's a P38F. It's also a "de-rated" 801D2 that only reaches 375mph top speed. Or the Official Luftwaffe assessment of the P38 perhaps?
Crumpp
IIRC, the British trials with the P-38 was the Mark 322 series which was a little different from the F model flown by the USAAF. It lacked the superchargers and had two right rotating props instead of counter rotating ones.
ack-ack
-
IRC, the British trials with the P-38 was the Mark 322 series which was a little different from the F model flown by the USAAF. It lacked the superchargers and had two right rotating props instead of counter rotating ones.
Got the trials. It is an F.
Crumpp
-
Here's an interesting tidbit from one of Crummp's "sources".
MANEUVERS
Production hops, acceptance flights, and occasional delivery flights are pretty dull compared to the combat action you fellows get. We know there's little comparison, but daily flights in each new plane off the assembly line enable us to become thoroughly familiar with the qualities and the limitations of the Lightning.The P-38's maneuverability is a much discussed subject in ready-rooms on every fighting front. The best way to get the answer for yourself is to take a 38 up and practice, practice, practice. As you become morefamiliar with the plane, the more amazed you will bewith its ability to climb, bank, and pull out, even with one engine feathered. Only through practice and repetition of Immelmans, slow rolls, and stalls can you truly learn what is meant by the 38's maneuverability.
Usually the individual's physical and mental limitations - not the plane's limitations - are factors that govern combat maneuverability. In many cases the plane will "take" a lot more than you as the pilot can stand; therefore, recognize your own limitations-know how many G's you can stand, and for how long; be so familiar with your plane that .you automatically react to a situation despite the gray haze that creeps before your eyes in a sharp pull out.
From reading this article, it sure sounds like the P-38 was a maneuverable aircraft.
ack-ack
-
The Mark 322B Lightning I that the British ordered and ran trials on is not the same as the P-38F. The Mark 322 Lighting I did not have a supercharger nor counter rotating props. This was from the belief of the RAAF that since the Mark 322B would be operating at primarily medium altitudes, a supercharger would not be needed. The Mark 322F and B are were the "castrated P-38s". When the British cancelled their order after the trials, the USAAF then converted the remaining planes back to the F but without superchargers and became the RP-322 variant used for training.
The only real benefit that came from the trials was the name the Brits gave the P-38, otherwise it would have been stuck with the rather lame name of "Atlanta".
ack-ack
-
It's a USAAF P38F and not an RAF A/C in the trials.
Only through practice and repetition of Immelmans, slow rolls, and stalls can you truly learn what is meant by the 38's maneuverability.
Yeah if your a great pilot you can learn to maneuver any aircraft. That is what this says Ack Ack. This is Lockheed saying, "Our airplane works, you just don't know how to fly it. Really, it does, I swear."
Usually the individual's physical and mental limitations - not the plane's limitations - are factors that govern combat maneuverability.
Besides it's really the pilot that has to be manuverable, not the plane....
Crumpp
-
crump crap out
-
The Mark 322B Lightning I that the British ordered and ran trials on is not the same as the P-38F. The Mark 322 Lighting I did not have a supercharger nor counter rotating props. This was from the belief of the RAAF that since the Mark 322B would be operating at primarily medium altitudes, a supercharger would not be needed. The Mark 322F and B are were the "castrated P-38s". When the British cancelled their order after the trials, the USAAF then converted the remaining planes back to the F but without superchargers and became the RP-322 variant used for training.
Nice Story but once again it is just part of the "Modern Creation" of great P38 performance.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102637744_usaafp38f.jpg)
Just out of curiousity? If I am a "Luftwhiner", doesn't that make the P 38 crowd a "Lightning Lamenter?". And a few just "Lightning Liars"….
Crumpp
-
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/no_glasses.jpg)
It wasn't my fault!
Really, it wasn't!
An old friend came in out of town!
The car ran out of gas!
I got a flat tire!
I didn't have enough money for cab fare!
The tux didn't come back from the cleaners!
There was an earthquake!
A terrible flood!
Locusts!
It wasn't my fault I swear to God!!!
-
I have to agree with Widewing here. If you read the JFC thru, you will find amazing examples of stuff casting doubt on the general reliability of the evaluation cards. For example, conference spokesman wonders how the F4U-1D and FG-1D get so different evaluation. At one stage, he has to remind that Mustang´s tailwheel is unlocked by pushing the stick forward on neutral position. How a pilot who doesn´t know the basics of the aircraft he is supposed to evaluate can do it honestly and fairly? For the same aircraft you find one commenting "a long take off run" while another comments "short". One descibes stall as poor, another describes it good. These evaluation charts have so many inconsistencies that I wouldn´bet my head on just those comments. And Widewing is right, vast majority of the pilots are non-combat guys. This is apparent if you read the report thoroughly, not just the first and last few pages. BTW, if you check the 3g stalling speeds, you note that the Corsair and the Lightning have almost the same figure and Mustang´s figure is only 11 mph slower, indicating that the P-38 can´t be that bad in turn. And Crumpp, you make much fuss about acceleration. Basically every report mentions that the Spitfire has poor acceleration, yet most people don´t condemn it for that. Smells like double standards to me.
Jukka
-
This is apparent if you read the report thoroughly,
Read the report throughly. Please point out where? What page?
Widewing and a many other P 38 fans have just produced "stories" that when you examine the facts, don't hold water.
The accelleration test's where in response to the modern creation of the P38 outstanding accelleration.
On the Stall Speeds under G. Read an EM. Most planes under G are very close. Least all the real EM I have a copy of in my collection.
Crumpp
-
What is an EM? For EM means to me an Erection Manual and afaik those manuals have no info on stall speeds or characteristics. If you look at the same JFC report, you will find that e.g. 3g stalling speed varies considerably between the aircraft present. You wrote that "most planes under g are very close" which is total BS.
You are asking me for page refs. This indicates that you have not read the report as those two comments, i.e. re Mustang tailwheel and variance for comments on F4U and FG, are easily remembered. And do you deny that several aircraft get mixed views, i.e. some says "bad", another "good". From such a report you really cannot draw any realistic conclusion. The value of the JFC lies elsewhere. To me the report´s discussion part itself is far more important than the basically flawed evaluation.
-
Crumpp must be angry he can't beat lightnings in his fockewulf.
Ask for help maybe ask wilbus he can help u.
:aok
I never doubt the P38 was a good plane not a superplane u just needed to learn to fly it.
anyway tell me why it climb so good with full ordnance.
there is more than wingloading and horsepower
i have to find my book p38 aces over the pacific it quoted there weren't that much p38's operating over the pacific.
it had trouble with the tony it could chase it longtime and didn't have that much more speed over the tony.
The tony also killed most of the lightnings
but the pilots liked it to fight with as it was less nimble as the zeke/zero/oscar
they did mention dogfighting
-
pasoleati,
Nobody is saying that the JFC is the gospel or that everything is 100% fact. I can find flaws and contradictions in most authentic documents. But you don't "throw the baby out with the bath water".
If you want to know why the stall speeds don't match just the fact that the weight, power setting and flap condition are not listed combined with different CAS erros in each A/C makes those results skewed. By the way those are the 3G stall speeds Mr.Dean used in AHT turn tables if you want to know why they came out the way they did. If you plug in the Clmax from NACA into his turn index calculations you get something completely different. Stall data is listed in the POH, even 3G stalls are in the Vn diagrams.
The JFC was a quanititative analysis not qualitative. In other words you get a consenses of the feeling about these A/C in 1944/45 from a group of dissimilar pilots.
The problem I have is people trying to rewrite history with the "Super P-38" which it clearly was not in late 1944/45. IMHO it was at it's peak in 1942/43 and by the end of 1944 it's time was up as a front line fighter.
-
What is an EM? For EM means to me an Erection Manual and afaik those manuals have no info on stall speeds or characteristics.
That is the problem. You don't know what your talking about yet you are very willing to hop in and offer an uninformed opinion.
EM is an Energy Manuvering diagram. Depending on the set up of the aircraft and conditions, as F4UDOA explains, those stall speeds can change.
Check out some of Badboys EM diagrams on AH aircraft. Matter of fact I can post one done by the RAE on the Spit I and Me-109E. The Spit outturns the Me-109E under certain conditions, however under other portions of the "edge" of the envelope this is not the case.
Here are some examples.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/defaultframe.html
Hope that helps you to understand.
Crumpp
-
MHO it was at it's peak in 1942/43 and by the end of 1944 it's time was up as a front line fighter.
ok that's ur conclusion
but it was still at the frontline
now consider all german planes where me 262's
than all allied planes time's up
i mean the majority that's encountered wasn't just that .
It still did a superb job at the fighterbomber role (in wich u can encounter nme fighters too)It also could carry more load than a mustang.
The plane thought was very modern it was very allround modern planes are very allround.
Germany would still have a big problem if the USAAF would be bounced by numerical P38's in 1945.
numbers that's what counted we all learned that in the MA
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
The problem I have is people trying to rewrite history with the "Super P-38" which it clearly was not in late 1944/45. IMHO it was at it's peak in 1942/43 and by the end of 1944 it's time was up as a front line fighter.
I don't think it is people trying to 'rewrite history with the "Super P-38" ' but with some people claiming that it was a dog, which it clearly was not.
-
I don't think it is people trying to 'rewrite history with the "Super P-38" ' but with some people claiming that it was a dog, which it clearly was not.
What it could and could not do are clearly documented in the Flight Test reports. When people begin claiming that things are otherwise and are unable to produce documentation to back up those claims, then yes, claims of "super P38" are being made.
Crumpp
-
so what's the claim
super is a very relative term
to Bong and other PTO/CBI P38 aces (about 100) it was a "super" plane
to them and the to nazi luftwaffe
-
P38 aces (about 100) it was a "super" plane
That is a poor standard to measure a fighters performance. If that was what AH was using, just imagine the Luftwaffe fighter performance.
Two or three Experten from the Luftwaffe combined shot down down more planes than 100 P38 pilots.
to them and the to nazi luftwaffe
You seem to want to put this in a flag waving context. It is not. It's about correct facts to reproduce a "simulation" of World War II combat.
No politics involved. Frankly it is pathetic to even attempt to put it into that context. The Nazi's were evil.
Crumpp
-
Read the report throughly. Please point out where? What page?
I asked you to provide page references and you didn't, because you haven't read the book thoroughly. Do your own research, read the book!
Widewing and a many other P 38 fans have just produced "stories" that when you examine the facts, don't hold water.
I provided annecdotal references from pilots who had hundreds of hours in the P-38 IN COMBAT. Naturally, you can't accept the testimony of the men who logged hundreds of combat hours in the plane, you prefer that of desk jockies who flew a 30 minutes hop. Now there's logic for you. You are relying upon a seriously flawed document where the majority of the people that flew the P-38, did so for the first time. On top of that, very few of these pilots were combat pilots and none were from active combat units. If a lawyer presented evidence of this quality, the case would be dismissed and the lawyer admonished.
The accelleration test's where in response to the modern creation of the P38 outstanding accelleration.
I can show testimony of pilots where a P-38L and P-51D took off side by side. Tha P-38 simply left the Mustang in its propwash... More often than not, the better climbers also accelerate faster. Climb comparisons between the P-51 and P-38 show that the P-38 is considerably superior. And it should be with a much lower power loading. In AH2 they're modeled such that actual fuel load determines the better of the two at sea level from 200 mph to 300 mph. Start at 150 and the P-38 wins. Start at 300 and the P-51 wins, barely. Probably not perfect modeling, but close enough for game play.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
The problem I have is people trying to rewrite history with the "Super P-38" which it clearly was not in late 1944/45. IMHO it was at it's peak in 1942/43 and by the end of 1944 it's time was up as a front line fighter.
Honestly, the JFC is largely worthless for anything but conversation.
No one has ever stated or implied in this thread that the P-38 was "super fighter". It was at least as capable as the -1 Corsairs, and superior in some important areas of the flight envelope (range, climb and acceleration being but 3). Yet, no one has referred to the F4U-1 as an inferior fighter, because it wasn't.
If the P-38 was past its prime in late 1944, then the F4U-1 series must have been "over the hill" as well. By late 1945, the P-38 could be classified as being out of date. But, what did you expect from a design dating back to 1938?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Nice Story but once again it is just part of the "Modern Creation" of great P38 performance.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102637744_usaafp38f.jpg)
Just out of curiousity? If I am a "Luftwhiner", doesn't that make the P 38 crowd a "Lightning Lamenter?". And a few just "Lightning Liars"….
Crumpp
The Model 322 was erroneously labeled as a P-38F in that report. You can easily look this up yourself, the British flight tested the Model 322-61 (Lightning I) that was powered by two 1,150-hp Allison V-1710-C15 (R) engines without turbochargers. Think the flight report has them redlining at 300mph. The USAAF then took over the rest of the order and confirmed the British flight test of the Model 322 and then converted most of them to the F model by putting back the counter-rotating props and turbochargers. Those that only received the counter-rotating props and not the turbochargers were designated the RP-322 and used for flight training.
You have to keep in mind that the Model 322 that the British and French ordered were not the same as the P-38 the USAAF flew. It did not have turbochargers nor counter rotating props.
Again, the only USAAF unit that had difficulties with the P-38 was the 8th AAF. All other units that flew it did so successfully and at great cost to the German pilots that had the unfortunate luck to run across one. I wonder how long it took Galland to clean his drawers after Lowell bounced him in one.
More USAAF aces flew the P-38 in the PTO/CBI than any other USAAF fighter. Another interesting side note, most of the USAAF fighter pilots that were transfered from the PTO/CBT to the ETO/MTO considered the Japanese to be far tougher foe than the Germans. Some pilots that were considered 'average' by their unit commanders in the PTO/CBI had great success once they transfered over to the ETO, like G. Preddy. Maybe because the opposition Preddy faced wasn't as skilled in dogfighting as the Japanese were?
ack-ack
-
Hmmm. Not sure if that's accurate Ack-Ack. From Roger Freeman's book "The Mighty Eighth"
"At the end of July, the Group Commander of the 1st, Colonel John Stone, flew his P38F to the Royal Air Force Establishment at Farnborough to match it against a captured FW190A. The results showed the twin engined Lightning came to come up well in turns and manoeuvers at lower altitudes, but unable to achieve the 190s rate of climb or accelleration."
No doubt this was the Arnim Faber 109A3 he flew against.
The 1st was not yet operational at that time and Stone had just taken over as CO.
Dan/Slack
-
WW,
I do not discount the JFC as you do. Again there were to many quality pilots and combat vets there for me to make that decision.
Comparing the F4U-1 and the P-38 is like comparing an apple to a shoe. Not only not the same ballpark but not even the same sport. The F4U-1 was in service in combat in Korea and not just the -4,-5 and AU-1. Because it had utility above and beyond the role it was designed for.
The P-38 lost it's utility late in the war because it became to complicated to maintain compared to aircraft that could do the same job at least as well with less training at a lower cost. Hence obsolete. The F4U-1 actually became cheaper and easier to train while doing as good if not a better job than the Jets that were to replace it at least up until the early 1950's as far as range endurance, ability to absord damage and bomb load.
Name one thing a P-38L could do better than a P-47D-30 in late 1944?
The P-47 could take more damage while delivering huge amounts of ordinance and still be the best high altitude escort available.
What could the P-38L do better than the P-51D as an escort fight?
The P-51D more economical, greater range, less training.
So the AAF said why maintain three when we can have two to do the same job while we develope the P-80.
Which one would you have replaced logically not emotionally?
FYI, the F4U-1 had enormous range with DT's while being able to deploy from a carrier. And I would argue the acceleration as well.
-
I don't think the choice to choose stangs and P47's over P38's in the ETO is unlogic
In the PTO they served very well from the beginning on.
So Most of the L's where sended out to that area.
Somehow "nobody" was waiting for stangs and P47's in the PTO either.
Except for the extra longrange high altitude B29 escort missions.
All industrial efforts could be focussed on the ETO with with large build ups of P51's and P47's wich i wont say are crap planes either.
But it still seems the P38 is pretty underestimated by some folks.
Its far from crap
and its sexy
-
Its far from crap
It's performance speaks for itself. I for one would much rather have been in a P47 going against the Luftwaffe than a P38. Kinda feel sorry for those guys who had to fly the P38 back then.
Brave men.
Crumpp
-
Its far from crap
and its sexy
Agreed!!
-
I asked you to provide page references and you didn't, because you haven't read the book thoroughly. Do your own research, read the book!
Pages are posted for all to see!!
I can show testimony of pilots where a P-38L and P-51D took off side by side.
And that means what? I can show some really outstanding testimony on the performance of the FW-190. Anybody who studies a fighter in service can find great testimony on it. What can you prove? So far, nothing.
There are a million unknowns in "stories" which makes them useless for determining known performance parameters.
Crumpp
-
Well if I tear 3 pages off the phone book and don't find the name "Frank", - does it mean there aren't any?
-
Hi Widewing,
>Also, have a look at the responses in general. For almost any given aircraft, two guys may write "very maneuverable" and two others jot down "maneuverabilty is poor." How does one reconcile such diverse opinions? Well, one doesn't.
In that point, I actually agree with you. However ...
>Talk to the combat veterans instead. Why? Because it was the combat vets who took theory, concept and the hardware out of the isolated arena of test pilots and went into harms way. They, more than anyone, are qualified to offer valid opinions on any combat aircraft.
Here I strongly disagree. Combat veterans' opinions are just as varied as those of the Joint Fighter Conference test pilots, and the only reason the subjectivity of the latters is so obvious is that they submitted them in a formalized way while veterans' quotes are picked up in a fairly random manner.
Fighter pilots are focused on the strengths of their rides, and on keeping a strongly positive look at their chances of success (and success means survival for them). If they don't, you can consider their morale cracked - which rarely happened. Biased towards their regular mounts, ignorant of the exact performance of the opposing fighter, un-trained in the finer point of aeronautics, they are not in a position to speak the final word on combat performance. Not even their perception can be trusted - 50% overclaiming was normal thoughout the war, and as we know that situational awareness is a weapon as well as a target in air combat, that's entirely inevitable.
It's important to understand that the combat pilots of WW2 were in a much more difficult position than the simulator pilot today. One fatal mistake was enough to kill you, and death was permanent for them. They knew next to nothing about the performance of the planes they were up against, and if they had intelligence data at all, it was likely to be wrong, or outdated at best. Often, they didn't have the slightest idea what they were up against, and what it was capable of. Fighting an unknown enemy is much more difficult than fighting against a plane you have piloted a thousand times, and died in a hundred times. A fighter's strengths appeared exaggerated in non-controlled environment commonly called "real life", and weaknesses might never be discovered by the enemy simply because he doesn't suspect their existence.
Combat veterans' statements can be incredibly valuable if you fully understand them, along with all the context, but that is much harder than many people realize. To properly understand a fighter's strengths and weaknesses, the first priority is to get data on performance and handling that was derived from flights in a controlled environment. Combat veterans can greatly add to the understanding of the tactical situation if you manage to match their statements to the relevant bit of test data - which can be difficult. Not because the combat veterans don't make sense, but mainly because you need a lot of data on the exact context that often missing in their quotes.
Combat veterans are often quoted on this forum, which is a good thing. However, I think they are too often quoted because they make the poster's favourite aircraft look good, and too rarely with a real appreciation of the combat veteran's perspective and history.
Some Luftwaffe aces' quotes I've seen here simply show that the guys, whilst being great combat pilots, didn't know a thing about aerodynamics. They flew (and won) by concepts that worked for them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that these concepts that were scientifically correct. They were not trained to be test pilots, so no one should expect them to deliver objective quotes like we'd expect from test pilots.
(Not that we should expect perfect objectivity from WW2 era test pilots - flight testing was just beginning to progress from art to science during WW2, and was a fairly subjective business throughout the war. That brings me back to the Joint Fighter Conference after a long digression :-) The incoherent test results we were observing there are just what should be expected as state of the art at the time. The test pilots there didn't do a poor job - the results were as good as they could be at that time using that methodology. In fact, I actually suspect that the Joint Fighter Conference was at least partly motivated by the realization that the flight testing process still was less than perfect, and an attempt to average out the different opinions, preferences, techniques and biases by employing a large number of test pilots with different backgrounds. I'd say that while this method has its limitations, it's not without merit :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Kinda feel sorry for those guys who had to fly the P38 back then.
They where the pioneers of bringing the fighter war over germany.
don't forget that it was a learning curve with alot to learn or relearn.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
WW,
I do not discount the JFC as you do. Again there were to many quality pilots and combat vets there for me to make that decision.
Comparing the F4U-1 and the P-38 is like comparing an apple to a shoe. Not only not the same ballpark but not even the same sport. The F4U-1 was in service in combat in Korea and not just the -4,-5 and AU-1. Because it had utility above and beyond the role it was designed for.
I can't find a single reference that states that anyone was flying the F4U-1 in Korea. The first F4U units to see combat in Korea were VMF-214 and VMF-323. They were flying the F4U-4B/C.
As to comparing the F4U-1D to the P-38L (similar vintage), where does the Corsair do better than the Lightning? Climb? No, not even close. Standard bomb load? Nope, the P-38Ls were certified for 4,000 pounds on their hardpoints. Range? Forget it... A P-38L with 310 gallons under each wing could stretch its legs to over 3,000 miles. Milo Burcham flew a P-38F that far, and it carried 110 gallons less than the L model. Speed? Slight edge to the Corsair down low... P-38L wins from 20k on up. Roll rate? F4U below 300 mph, P-38L above 300 mph. Handling? P-38L wins hands down at low speeds, give the F4U the edge above 400 mph. Generally speaking, the F4U is outclassed in a dogfight vs the P-38L.
The P-38 lost it's utility late in the war because it became to complicated to maintain compared to aircraft that could do the same job at least as well with less training at a lower cost. Hence obsolete. The F4U-1 actually became cheaper and easier to train while doing as good if not a better job than the Jets that were to replace it at least up until the early 1950's as far as range endurance, ability to absord damage and bomb load.
LOLOLOL Obsolete? Utter nonsense. P-38s were STILL the preferred fighter in the Pacific when the war ended. Gen. Kenney stated that pilots lost a measure of confidence and effectiveness when their units switched to the P-51 and P-47. There's no doubt that the P-38 was more expensive to maintain than a single-engine fighter, but that's a no-brainer. P-38s could go places that land based F4Us would never get to. Lindburgh was sent out to the Pacific by United Aircraft to teach F4U units how to stretch their fuel (Vought was a UA company). He ended up flying with the 475th FG in the P-38. He preferred the P-38, due its range and twin-engine dependibility.
Name one thing a P-38L could do better than a P-47D-30 in late 1944?
Fly further, climb faster and below 15,000 feet, kick the living hell out of the P-47D in a dogfight.
The P-47 could take more damage while delivering huge amounts of ordinance and still be the best high altitude escort available.
What makes you think the P-47 could absorb more damage than the P-38? I know of one instance where a P-38 collided with a Halifax. That Halifax went down. However, the P-38 flew home and landed normally WITH AN ENTIRE VERTICAL STABILIZER OF THE HALIFAX EMBEDDED IN ITS WING!
If a P-47 should suffer engine failure (and it wasn't that uncommon), it was down, no ifs ands or buts. Not so the P-38.
Yes, the P-47 was unmatched as a high altitude escort. As long as the mission radius was relatively short. It took the P-47N to finally match the P-38L in terms of range.
What could the P-38L do better than the P-51D as an escort fight?
Get home. The 15th AF, who flew as many P-38s as P-51s saw more Mustangs lost to mechanical issues than P-38s. In the ground support role, the P-38 was superior.
The P-51D more economical, greater range, less training.
True, but only if the P-38 is restricted to 160 gallon drop tanks. Using 310 gallon tanks, the P-38 out-ranged the P-51D by about 400 miles.
So the AAF said why maintain three when we can have two to do the same job while we develope the P-80.
Which Air Force? The P-38 remained in production until late August 1945. P-38s were still being delivered in October of 1945. Indeed, Kenney never had as many as he wanted.
Which one would you have replaced logically not emotionally?
Considering that the P-38 was not replaced anywhere but in the ETO, I don't understand your point.
FYI, the F4U-1 had enormous range with DT's while being able to deploy from a carrier. And I would argue the acceleration as well.
Enormous range? Compared to what? Even the P-47D-25 out-ranged the F4U-1 series.
As to acceleration, the P-38 would leave a -1 series Corsair behind like it was tied to a tree. I doubt that the F4U-4 could accelerate faster than the P-38L, much less its far less energetic and older sibling. Look at Dean's calculations (you seem to like referring to him), he puts the P-38L well ahead of the F4U-4 and likewise, the P-38F well ahead of the F4U-1. If he's right (and he probably isn't far off), its no contest.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Hmmm. Not sure if that's accurate Ack-Ack. From Roger Freeman's book "The Mighty Eighth"
"At the end of July, the Group Commander of the 1st, Colonel John Stone, flew his P38F to the Royal Air Force Establishment at Farnborough to match it against a captured FW190A. The results showed the twin engined Lightning came to come up well in turns and manoeuvers at lower altitudes, but unable to achieve the 190s rate of climb or accelleration."
No doubt this was the Arnim Faber 109A3 he flew against.
The 1st was not yet operational at that time and Stone had just taken over as CO.
Dan/Slack
But the trials the British ran that led them to cancel their order of the P-38 was the one they did with the Model 322. That was the trial that Crummp was alluding to.
ack-ack
-
But the trials the British ran that led them to cancel their order of the P-38 was the one they did with the Model 322. That was the trial that Crummp was alluding to.
No it is not. Are you blind? I posted the trial twice.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
But the trials the British ran that led them to cancel their order of the P-38 was the one they did with the Model 322. That was the trial that Crummp was alluding to.
ack-ack
Hmmm, still not positive. The RAF refused any more Lightnings based on reports from the RAF evaluation pilot at Burbank if Warren Bodie's book is to be believed.
One RAF model 38 did get to RAE Farnborough, AF107 in March of 42, but only 3 total RAF model Lightnings reached England. One to Cunliffe Owen, one to Boscombe Down and AF107 at Farnborough. AF107 was given back to the USAAF in December 42.
Is there something you've seen showing that AF107 was flown against the 190? Only thing I can find is the 1st FG P38F in that time frame.
Dan/Slack
-
I've only ever seen the larger-volume tanks referred to as ferry tanks.
Scherf
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
20th FG with P38s flew their first mission with the 8th on December 28, 1943.
For some reason, this is often overlooked. Many people seem to think that the P-38 was flying escort missions long before the P-51 arrived, and, of course, that's not so.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Scherf
I've only ever seen the larger-volume tanks referred to as ferry tanks.
Scherf
310 gallon tanks were used by the 5th AF for combat missions to Formosa and other distant targets. There were speed restrictions for releasing empty tanks as at speeds above 200 mph, they could strike the tail plane. Typically, the P-38s would take one 310 gal. tank and one 160 gallon tank. They would burn off the bigger tank first, and then drop it while retaining the 160 gal. tank as long as it had fuel. Other set ups included one 310 gallon tank and a 2,000 pound bomb. This allowed them a combat radius of 700 miles. They could bomb the target, engage enemy aircraft and have plenty of gas remaining for the flight home.
I have photographs of both set ups in use with the 475th FG.
My regards,
Widewing
-
"At the end of July, the Group Commander of the 1st, Colonel John Stone, flew his P38F to the Royal Air Force Establishment at Farnborough to match it against a captured FW190A. The results showed the twin engined Lightning came to come up well in turns and manoeuvers at lower altitudes, but unable to achieve the 190s rate of climb or accelleration."
The combat trials speciifically list Col. Stone as the Pilot of the P38F. It is on the page listing the A/C set up and engine settings.
Some Luftwaffe aces' quotes I've seen here simply show that the guys, whilst being great combat pilots, didn't know a thing about aerodynamics. They flew (and won) by concepts that worked for them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that these concepts that were scientifically correct. They were not trained to be test pilots, so no one should expect them to deliver objective quotes like we'd expect from test pilots.
Absolutely. I have an interesting Luftwaffe document attempting to explain to pilots aerodynamically some of the aircraft behavior they experience in the air and ways to prevent unwanted traits.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
For some reason, this is often overlooked. Many people seem to think that the P-38 was flying escort missions long before the P-51 arrived, and, of course, that's not so.
- oldman
Well, not long before. Six weeks before the first P-51B group flew an escort mission, the 55th FG was escorting bombers in their P-38H fighters.
It wasn't until early November that the 354th FG began organizing in England. Near the end of the month they flew their newly assembled P-51Bs to Boxted. They began hurried training and flew their first escort mission on December 12, 1943. In contrast, the 55th had been flying sweeps in early October and began escorting bombers on the 22nd of October.
Down in the MTO, P-38s had been flying bomber escort for nearly a year before the first Lightnings were operational in Britain. You could certainly say that this was long before the Mustangs arrived.
My regards,
Widewing
-
"Combat veterans' statements can be incredibly valuable if you fully understand them, along with all the context, but that is much harder than many people realize."
The above statement can be illustrated with example found in Robert Shaw's book Fighter Combat.
Now, before I move on. Before I continue posting on this board. I would like to map out what is going to happen. This will happen again here, as it will inevitably do, because we are people.
I am going to post stuff. Other readers are going to have a problem with the stuff I post and they are going to attack me personally.
I already see this going on with Milo and Crumpp.
Moderators do not step in; the law of the land is driven by the least common denominator. Negative perfection reigns supreme.
Communication is not the object of participation.
These are the weapons of the anti-information demons:
1. The straw man argument.
The object of the straw man argument is to pick something out of the undesirable information from the victim and make something up about it (change the words around) so as to appear as if the poster says something obviously wrong and then attack this imagined message.
The attacker appears (in his mind) to be a winner. He defeats the straw mans erroneous message.
This can go on for years.
2. Hyperbole.
Exaggerate a victim’s message with absolute references; always, never, impossible, etc. to highlight specific desired misdirection away from the actual message being communicated. This method is well suited to compliment the straw man argument. Repeating a victim’s message in hyperbolic terms can serve to construct a straw man where in all actuality the original message was meant as a question or subject of inquiry. The straw man makes absolute statements while the victim of hyperbolic reference meant only to spark reasonable discussion. The attack is then made upon the straw man who was so stupid as to make such wild claims. Hyperbole can also be used defensively to highlight any inquiry into a point of contention. One could take this post as my use of hyperbole in defense of future points of contention aimed at me. We can see about that later. If my person is attacked then this is not hyperbole. If the content of my messages are the only thing contended with here in this forum by other members then this post, by me, is an example of preemptive defensive hyperbole.
3. Attack the messenger.
This is the basest form of political discourse. The idea is to simply misdirect any consideration of data being transferred by directly insulting the poster who is so bold as to post such undesirable text. In person such conduct is likely to end in violence. This, my friends, is the desired result of those prone to resort to insults.
Back on topic:
Pilots are human beings and therefore they are prone to error. Test pilots suffer from this condition as well as combat pilots.
I really would like to continue posting on flight sim boards. The exchange of information is valuable. Unfortunately there is a cost.
What is it going to be?
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Widewing,
(Snipped)
The incoherent test results we were observing there are just what should be expected as state of the art at the time. The test pilots there didn't do a poor job - the results were as good as they could be at that time using that methodology. In fact, I actually suspect that the Joint Fighter Conference was at least partly motivated by the realization that the flight testing process still was less than perfect, and an attempt to average out the different opinions, preferences, techniques and biases by employing a large number of test pilots with different backgrounds. I'd say that while this method has its limitations, it's not without merit :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hey Henning,
I do agree with much of what you said. Nonetheless, test pilots generally lacked even an inkling of an idea what combat flying was really about.
Remember Tony LeVier, Lockheed's Chief Test Pilot? Tony was a successful racer in the pre-war years, having won the Greve Trophy race and finishing second in the Thompson Trophy race twice (2nd time in 1946 flying a P-38L, behind a very fast P-39Q, but well ahead of a horde of P-51s and an F2G Corsair). LeVier was one of the most technically savvy test pilots alive during WWII. He could do amazing things in the P-38, and he toured England in 1944, demonstrating the P-38 to Fighter Groups assigned to fly them. Despite his tremendous piloting skill and his countless hours flying the Lightning, Tony discovered he was overmatched against the combat pilots. In mock dogfights with veteran pilots of the 364th FG, Tony had his backside kicked all over the whole of southern Britain by guys with less than 300 hours in the P-38. He was devastated at how roughly he was handled. What he didn't understand was that his opponents had been trained in aerial combat tactics and that their skills had been honed against the Luftwaffe. LeVier could fly the P-38 inverted with an engine feathered just 15 feet above the ground. Impressive stunt to be sure, but it won't help you in combat.
LeVier quickly found out that while he would occasionally push P-38s beyond their normal limits as part of the test flight card requirements, the guys flying the P-38 were pushing the plane beyond its normal limits almost every day! These guys were doing things that would leave the engineers stammering in horror. LeVier returned to Los Angeles with tales of P-38s returning from missions with wrinkled skin and bent main spars. First hand accounts of engines burned-out with just 6 hours on them left both Lockheed and Allison engineers shaking their heads in disbelief.
Test pilots of the era knew how to push their aircraft beyond design limits under controlled conditions. However, they would never subject an aircraft to the abuse that combat pilots did, and did so almost on a mission basis. I'm convinced that flight testing as we know it today was more the result of combat pilots transitioning to test pilots in the later stages of the war, through the late 1940s. Guys like Welch, Yeager and Brown had far greater insight into what a combat plane needs to be capable of than any test pilot whose experience was limited to non-combat flying.
My problem with the JFC is that virtually all of the factory pilots were without combat experience, as were the majority of the military pilots present. Most of these guys had no idea what "really" was important in a combat aircraft and wouldn't recognize some qualities even if they saw them. This and the fact that they specifically asked manufacturers NOT to send combat vet test pilots indicates that they felt that these pilots lacked the engineering skills that they erroneously thought were paramount. NAA's 15 kill ace test pilot, George Welch Graduated Purdue University with an Engineering Degree prior to the war, but that was apparently overlooked.
My regards,
Widewing
-
do agree with much of what you said. Nonetheless, test pilots generally lacked even an inkling of an idea what combat flying was really about.
Most test pilots ARE former combat pilots. How did Richard Bong get killed?
While the "limits" a combat pilot pushed his aircraft too are debatable one thing is a fact in this thread:
Widewing your arguments are hardly quantifiable in terms of AH.
It seems to be:
All Flight Tested documentation that does not show the results we want is null and void because of testimony you have simply typed on the BBS.
Imagine the shoe on the other foot and this was someone making the same arguments for the 109's performance? Would you let this standard fly??
Crumpp
-
Here we can see the Pilot of the P 38F and the climb and combat power setting of the A/C. Sorry it is a crappy copy. The ink is over 60 years old and has ran somewhat.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102790581_p38fvsfw190.jpg)
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Most test pilots ARE former combat pilots. How did Richard Bong get killed?
While the "limits" a combat pilot pushed his aircraft too are debatable one thing is a fact in this thread:
Widewing your arguments are hardly quantifiable in terms of AH.
It seems to be:
All Flight Tested documentation that does not show the results we want is null and void because of testimony you have simply typed on the BBS.
Imagine the shoe on the other foot and this was someone making the same arguments for the 109's performance? Would you let this standard fly??
Crumpp
Crumpp, perhaps you missed JG14's point. He stated: "The object of the straw man argument is to pick something out of the undesirable information from the victim and make something up about it (change the words around) so as to appear as if the poster says something obviously wrong and then attack this imagined message."
Bong wasn't at the JFC and during the time period in question, most test pilots were not combat veterans.....
As usual, you are attributing statements or conclusions to me that YOU created out of thin air. But, thanks for playing anyway.
Other business: That last document you posted is, unfortunately, 90% unreadable. It does show that the power settings used for the P-38 climb test was at just the "normal power" rating. 37.8 in/hg and 2600 rpm. I assume that military power at 47.0 in/hg @ 3,000 rpm wasn't used. Of course, if it were the P-38 would have climbed a great deal faster. Since I can't read most of the document, can you tell me if the Spitfire and Fw 190 also used power settings well below their Military rating? And if they didn't, do you know why the test unit elected not to use the full Military rating of the P-38F?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Crumpp, perhaps you missed JG14's point. He stated: "The object of the straw man argument is to pick something out of the undesirable information from the victim and make something up about it (change the words around) so as to appear as if the poster says something obviously wrong and then attack this imagined message."
OMG! And here we see a GREAT demonstration of this argument technique!
Bong wasn't at the JFC and during the time period in question, most test pilots were not combat veterans.....
Please point out where I say Bong was at the JFC??
Bong was a COMBAT pilot that became a TEST pilot. Most TEST Pilots ARE former COMBAT pilots!!
I assume that military power at 47.0 in/hg @ 3,000 rpm wasn't used. Of course, if it were the P-38 would have climbed a great deal faster
Except that is not the climb and combat rating of the P38F. If the FW-190 had used 1.42ata @ 2700U/min it would have climbed better as well.
In fact it would have climbed significantly better with the cooling gills closed but that is not point. Just check out the Spitfire site and see how cooling gills effect it! Blew my socks off to come across FW-190 climb graphs with cooling gills closed. Should that be the climb rate? NO. Not unless we get the option to manipulate the gills and the consequence of blowing an engine from overheating. Of course I do have graphs of the tempature rise for HTC should they ever decide to model them.
Since I can't read most of the document, can you tell me if the Spitfire and Fw 190 also used power settings well below their Military rating?
Climb rating was used for the P38F. Just as it was for the Spit IX and FW-190. What you are seeing is the engine setting for climb only. Level Speed runs were made at emergency power rating for each aircraft for 2 minutes.
Yes the FW-190 uses it's climb and combat 30 minute rating for the climb test. Not it's full military power rating, sort of. USAAF power settings and Luftwaffe power settings are not exactly congruent 1 for 1.
Crumpp
-
This derating issue will give the LW geeks a headache.
Why?
Well, they had fuel problems late war and had to put up with all sorts of *****...
Anyway, Crumpp bro, I am saddened by your dogfight with Widewing, for I consider Widewing to be a very good and careful source of information.
Regards
Angus
-
Anyway, Crumpp bro, I am saddened by your dogfight with Widewing, for I consider Widewing to be a very good and careful source of information.
I don't either as long as he is putting out correct information that is verifiable. I certainly have a problem when pilot stories become the basis for aircraft performance.
Combat is not a controlled enviroment. There are just too many variables to make a concrete conclusion especially when only sides point of view is taken into consideration.
Just look at the results of all the fights we analyzed.
Well, they had fuel problems late war and had to put up with all sorts of *****...
Yes they had fuel shortages no doubt. the quality issue was not nearly as bad though as the early war. They learned as they went and got better.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
OMG! And here we see a GREAT demonstration of this argument technique!
Please point out where I say Bong was at the JFC??
Bong was a COMBAT pilot that became a TEST pilot. Most TEST Pilots ARE former COMBAT pilots!!
Bong was not a test pilot. He was still in the USAAF and was assigned to fly acceptance tests of Lockheed aircraft. Lots of pilots were assigned to factories to fly acceptance tests. This does not make them "test pilots". Acceptance testing is routine stuff, the same type of flying that any combat unit does when receiving new aircraft before they sign off the acceptance sheet. They are certifying that they received the aircraft in air worthy condition. That's what Bong was doing. Routine flying, only to die when the fuel system malfunctioned. He wasn't the first to die to that flaw in the early P-80As, and he wasn't the last either.
YOU stated that Bong was a TEST PILOT. He wasn't.
I stated: "I'm convinced that flight testing as we know it today was more the result of combat pilots transitioning to test pilots in the later stages of the war, through the late 1940s. Guys like Welch, Yeager and Brown had far greater insight into what a combat plane needs to be capable of than any test pilot whose experience was limited to non-combat flying."
You replied with, "Most test pilots ARE former combat pilots." So, you essentially agreed with me. Note that the operative term here is "are". Back in 1944, most test pilots were not combat pilots. Many may have been ex-military, but in what war would they have gained combat experience? At best, they were children at the end of America's previous war. Are you following this?
Now as to that test document, can you explain how it relates to combat performance when combat power wasn't used to measure climb? Let's face it, in combat no pilot is going to be climbing at "normal rated climb power". No, they're going to firewall the throttle(s) and keep them there until the danger is past.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Wide Wing says:
Bong was not a test pilot.
What?
The couple honeymooned in California for several weeks where their stops included Hollywood and the Sequoia National Park before reporting to theFlight Test Section of the Air Technical Command at Wright Field (Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio). Dick began training for a new assignment in Burbank, California: testing the plane that would take the Air Force into the jet age - the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star.
http://usfighter.tripod.com/bong.htm
After his PR trip, he returned to Wisconsin, and married Marge on February 10, 1945. After their California honeymoon, he went to work at Wright Field as a test pilot, helping to develop the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star.
http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_bong.html
He went to work at Wright Field as a test pilot, helping to develop the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star. He studied jet propulsion theory and learned the engineering details of the new plane for two months, before flying one. After being checked out in the P-80, he flew it 11 times that summer.
http://www.af.mil/history/person.asp?dec=1940&pid=123006479
Results 1 - 10 of about 9,270 for Richard Bong Test Pilot. (0.36 seconds)
Google it....
Bong died on a transfer flight but he certainly was a test pilot.
Crumpp
-
Now as to that test document, can you explain how it relates to combat performance when combat power wasn't used to measure climb? Let's face it, in combat no pilot is going to be climbing at "normal rated climb power". No, they're going to firewall the throttle(s) and keep them there until the danger is past.
Ohh come on.
What do you figure the odds Col. Stone would have said, "Wait, that is not representative of my airplane!".
Facts are these are trials are performed NOT to sell a particular aircraft or advance any hidden agenda.
The only agenda these trials have is figuring out a way to destroy the FW-190 in the air to defeat the Luftwaffe.
So stop with your whining.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
What?
Google it....
Bong died on a transfer flight but he certainly was a test pilot.
Crumpp
I don't need to Google it, I have the facts in front of me. Bong reported to Wright to be trained as an Acceptance Test Pilot. That's it. According to Lockheed's Chief Test Pilot, Tony LeVier: "Bong, assigned as the acceptance pilot for P-80s at Burbank, was killed when his engine failed on takeoff." Bong was to have had nothing to do with the development of the P-80A. He was an Acceptance Test Pilot, one of many hundreds that went through Wright's program during the war. LeVier is perfectly clear as to Bong's role in the P-80 program in his writings. LeVier ought to know since he was running the P-80 test program at the time Bong died.
Instead of "Googling it" and relying on dubious info without any listed sources or bibliography, I suggest you go to a reliable source, like the P-80 program manager. See if you can find a copy of LeVier's book, "Pilot". It was published in hardcover in 1954. My copy is on the shelf, next to my desk.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Bong reported to Wright to be trained as an Acceptance Test Pilot.
Point Made.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Point Made.
Crumpp
Crumpp, as you continue to swim upstream in the BS river, you ignored my advice to use a snorkle. But please, have the common sense to swim with your mouth closed.......
My regards,
Widewing
-
Crumpp, as you continue to swim upstream in the BS river, you ignored my advice to use a snorkle. But please, have the common sense to swim with your mouth closed.......
You demonstrate maturity beyond your years.
What does an acceptance Test Pilot do:
The Empire Test Pilots' School (ETPS) is established to provide The UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) with Service pilots for employment as test pilots for acceptance testing duties and for aerodynamics and systems research. The School also trains Flight Test Engineers (FTE) from the MOD and both pilots and FTEs from Commonwealth and other friendly nations. Graduate test pilots and FTEs may go on to contribute to Service equipment programmes as combined test team members, procurement managers, operational requirements staff or in the increasingly crucial 'intelligent customer' role in liaison Aerospace contractors.
http://www.qinetiq.com/home_etps.html
Being a US Navy veteran Pilot as you claim, I would have thought this was a no brainer for you. Being an acceptance test pilot is very much a test pilot. It is an important and very dangerous part of the acquisition of new Military Aircraft types.
Crumpp
-
sigh crumpp
stop the crap trying to be" the" scientific simulator elitist pilot.
u surely made up ur mind and noone is gonna change it
-
Hi Widewing,
>Despite his tremendous piloting skill and his countless hours flying the Lightning, Tony discovered he was overmatched against the combat pilots.
But it speaks for his test pilot qualities that he cooly accepted the fact and rationally analyzed the reasons :-)
There's a similar story told by Adolf Galland, who had a test pilot with a Bf 109 visiting their airfield on a ferry flight before the war when they were still flying He 51 biplanes. The test pilot agreed on a staging a mock fight and had his Bf 109 outflown by the obsolete biplanes! Galland of course admits that this was only possible because this test pilot had no training in air combat and didn't know how to use the strengths of the Bf 109.
>Nonetheless, test pilots generally lacked even an inkling of an idea what combat flying was really about.
Well, at the Joint Fighter Conference, the situation was a bit different from the mock fight mentioned by Galland. The Bf 109 vs. He 51 encounter took place in the pre-war era, when ideas on air fighting were vague and untested, and the Bf 109 as a fast monoplane designed with little regard for manoeuvrability represented a paradigm change, so the test pilot would not only have had to match the fighter pilots tactical skills, but actually to exceed it to make full use of the new monoplane. Additionally, military pilot training was a bottle neck in Germany owing to the Versailles treaty, so few test pilots had any military background.
When the Joint Fighter Conference took place, techniques and tactics had been long established, the aircraft manufacturers had been in continual contact with the services who were using their products in combat, and exposed to their demands and design requirements for several years. The aircraft manufacturers and their test pilots might not have known how exactly to use their products to win an actual fight, but they certainly knew very well what the combat pilots expected from a successful fighter aircraft, and so the test pilots' votes still carry considerable weight.
In fact, if I compare the results of the JFC to professional (business-to-business) customer satisfaction surveys, it shows the same vagueness with regard to the individual questions, but modern-day surveys generate quite significant results anyhow, and I'd view the Joint Fighter Conference in a similar way. Only one vote for the P-38 as "best fighter" is highly alarming - we'd have to check how many pilots actually flew the P-38 to how relevant the number is, but if it was flown by more than a handful, there's a message in it.
Of course, the focus of the Joint Fighter Conference was the future development of fighters - they were not assessing how the types performed in service, but rather how they were expected to perform from 1945 onwards. Still, the P-38 was not the only 1943 fighter evaluated at the conference, and the balance in ranking compared to the P-47D and the P-51D is not just a bit in favour of the latter two, but quite dramatic.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi JG14,
Good meta comments :-) But I believe it's the BBS structure that encourages confrontation - I'm quite optimistic about the Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wiki) concept which makes a step towards collaborative rather than confrontative communication. The Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org) is a great example, proving that the concept really works :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Of course, the focus of the Joint Fighter Conference was the future development of fighters - they were not assessing how the types performed in service, but rather how they were expected to perform from 1945 onwards. Still, the P-38 was not the only 1943 fighter evaluated at the conference, and the balance in ranking compared to the P-47D and the P-51D is not just a bit in favour of the latter two, but quite dramatic.
Good points HoHun.
The P38 was flown by:
Army - 1
Navy - 9
British - 5
Contractors - 13
The P47 was flown by:
Army - 1
Navy - 14
British - 4
Contractors - 10
P51D was flown by:
Army - 1
Navy - 19
British - 3
Contractors - 15
Interesting to note that with so many Navy pilots flying the USAAF fighters rated as high as they did.
Crumpp
-
From Crumpp:
"I certainly have a problem when pilot stories become the basis for aircraft performance. "
Well, Crumpp, I remember someone on these boards who tried with calculations and a graph, to prove that the 109 was a better turner than the Spitfire.
I decided to rather belive the 95% of the pilot stories who claim otherwise.
The point of the story; 100 stories vs a couple of documents, well.......uhh, hmmmm??.??
In my mind the P38 (after reading this thread) stays as a fine fighter with some unique qualities and no Achilles heel....
-
Well, Crumpp, I remember someone on these boards who tried with calculations and a graph, to prove that the 109 was a better turner than the Spitfire.
Exactly. I have a nice EM diagram from an actual flight test that definitely shows the Spitfire as the better turner.
They were close and under portions of the envelope equal so it is easy to see how pilots "outturned" one another from the diagram.
I have yet to see a single pilot stories that when pressed for details could not be explained scientifically.
Including Luftwaffe veterans "outturning" Yaks in an FW-190A8.
In my mind the P38 (after reading this thread) stays as a fine fighter with some unique qualities and no Achilles heel....
It was a very innovative fighter and the only twin engine fighter to successfully compete with single engine fighters on performance alone.
It certainly had some well-documented flaws. If these were Axis documents attempting to show P38 performance then I would be suspect. You cannot expect someone not trained on a type to effectively service and fly it to it's full potential. These are however:
1. Flight test examining all parameters of flight, Speed, climb, range, drag, power loading, etc...
2. This information lines up perfectly with both a tactical trial of the Zeke when the P38 is compared to it's USAAF contemporaries AND a flight test conducted to determine the best way for the P 38 to destroy the FW-190.
3. A collection of informed opinions from a wide knowledge base of US Fighters to determine which is the BEST performing fighter under a variety of missions (escort, attack, free, etc...). To say the P 38 was not rated high is a vast understatement. In fact experienced pilots rated it miserably short of the required performance.
It's size and maneuverability preclude it from being a premier fighter in the US inventory.
It's huge level speed advantage over the Japanese fighters did allow it success in the Pacific.
Crumpp
-
WW,
Like I said it is not a very good comparison but you made some points that are not correct based on solid documentation.
You said
Enormous range? Compared to what? Even the P-47D-25 out-ranged the F4U-1 series.
Do you have a copy of the F4U-1 POH? Because of the lower drag of the F4U-1 even with almost half the fuel of the P-38L with two 300 gallon DT's the F4U-1 had almost exactly the same range. And this is not the maximum F4U-1 capicity for takeoff.
From the P-38L POH
Two 300Gallon DT's 1,010gallons of total fuel on board.
maximum range one way using 950 gallons (the rest for takeoff and climb)
2200miles
From the F4U-1D POH
Two 170 gallon DT's 577 total gallons of fuel.
Total range on 560 gallons
2,080 miles.
The F4U could travel the same distance on half the external gas.
You said
As to acceleration, the P-38 would leave a -1 series Corsair behind like it was tied to a tree. I doubt that the F4U-4 could accelerate faster than the P-38L, much less its far less energetic and older sibling. Look at Dean's calculations (you seem to like referring to him), he puts the P-38L well ahead of the F4U-4 and likewise, the P-38F well ahead of the F4U-1. If he's right (and he probably isn't far off), its no contest.
Based on what? The P-38 acceleration claims are as bad as the lockness monster claims. It just didn't exist. The TAIC report shows the P-38L at full combat power was beaten by a P-47D30(that could not out accelerate a F4U-1) and a P-51D.
Lets check the facts
P-38L power loading
3200HP
17,500LBS
Power loading= 5.468
F4U-1D Power loading
12,175lbs
2250HP
Power loading= 5.411 <=Winner, later F4U-1D was rated a 2300HP by wars end
P-38L Cdo= .0278
F4U-1D= .020<=winner
Well how about instant acceleration like take off from a short distance? The P-38 should be able to take off and fly circles around the F4U like the Mustang right?
Takeoff from hard surface runway mil power 0 wind From the POH's
P-38L 17,400lbs- 1030FT
F4U-1D 11,700lbs- 680ft <==========Winner
F4U-1D with a 2,000lbs bomb 14,200LBS= 1,110FT <=only 80 ft more than the P-38L empty?
This clearly does not look like the F4U-1 is tied to a tree?
I know you will claim 1725HP from the P-38L however any WW2 aircraft could be overboosted. I also know for a fact the R2800 was overboosted regularly and could run at high boost levels at least as well as an Allison could. So we should both stick to the manufactures recomendations for output HP espicially since there is nothing to show the P-38 doing any better than listed performance except homemade charts and graphs.
You may also quote Francis Dean's AHT.
Well he list the loaded weight of the P-38L at 16,880LBS the Weight of the F4U-1D through the book at 12,289LBS and the Cdo at .0267. Where these numbers come from I don't know but I do know they are all wrong based on Vought and NAVAIR docs detailing weight and drag.
You may say that the P-38 outclimbed the F4U-1 by a wide margin so why would it not accelerate it?
Well first climb only takes place in a very small area of the power curve were Cdi is most important at speeds around 150MPH. However acceleration crosses the entire speed range and is most important at combat speeds above 200MPH.
Also and even more importantly from the document I retreived from Vought shows the P-38J climbing to 20,000FT in 5.9 minutes. If this was the performance of the P-38J then how can the P-38L have the same climb rating with 1,100lbs more lbs and the same HP. I know that subtracting 1,000lbs from the F4U-1 reduces climb to 20K by 1 minute. So would the addition of 1,000lbs to the P-38L increase the time to climb by 1 minute. Test against the P-51D and P-47D would seem to show just that.
You said
I can't find a single reference that states that anyone was flying the F4U-1 in Korea. The first F4U units to see combat in Korea were VMF-214 and VMF-323. They were flying the F4U-4B/C.
I am researching my sources, standbye.
Then you said
As to comparing the F4U-1D to the P-38L (similar vintage), where does the Corsair do better than the Lightning? Climb? No, not even close. Standard bomb load? Nope, the P-38Ls were certified for 4,000 pounds on their hardpoints. Range? Forget it... A P-38L with 310 gallons under each wing could stretch its legs to over 3,000 miles. Milo Burcham flew a P-38F that far, and it carried 110 gallons less than the L model. Speed? Slight edge to the Corsair down low... P-38L wins from 20k on up. Roll rate? F4U below 300 mph, P-38L above 300 mph. Handling? P-38L wins hands down at low speeds, give the F4U the edge above 400 mph. Generally speaking, the F4U is outclassed in a dogfight vs the P-38L.
I have to dig my source for the F4U-1D in Korea but never the less it was in active service long after the P-38 was on the airshow circuit.
2. Loadout, the F4U-1 took off in combat with up to a 17,000lbs load. That is 5K or external stores. I have never seen anything to show the P-38 carrying more than 4K.
3. Speed- The F4U-1D was faster up to 25K, slower to 30K and then even from 30K up. This can be proven by many different sources
4. Dive - The F4U-1 was rated much faster allowable speeds in a dive even with P-38L dive break the posted restriction on the P-38L was 420MPH IAS, 460TAS where as the F4U was limited to 410Knots IAS/480MPH IAS or 576MPH TAS at 10,000FT.
So the P-38L was limited to 116MPH slower diving than the F4U-1. Also it was also only rated for 6G's from the POH. as to 7G's for the F4U-1 at 100% weight.
5. Turn ability- The F4U-1 Vn diagram from the POH indicates a 3G stall at approximately 165MPH CAS at 12,000lbs. The P-38L shows a 3G stall at approx 165MPH CAS with no weight listed. For reference the P-51D manual Vn diagram is shown at empty weight. This may mean the same for the P-38 in which case the best the P-38 could hope for would be a tie.
6. Roll- The F4U outrolls the P-38L up until 400MPH where a restriction on the F4U ailerons lowers the allowable rollrate. This was common Navy practice and the same restriction is listed on the F8F and F6F at even slower speeds. Also the P-38 had horrible roll inertia cause by it's twin boom engines. An object in motion tends to stay in motion.
7. Low speed handling- The F4U outhandled any of it's Army couterparts at low speed hence the lateral control rating at the JFC of second best ailerons at 100MPH. It also had the best elavator, best harmonzation of controls and best stability in a dive. You can't compare a land based A/C to a carrier based one in low speed handling.
8. Climb- P-38L no question.
Other than climbing away I cannot see an advantage for the P-38L.
You also mentioned Lindberg prefering the P-38 to the F4U. I would love to read that if you have it or know the source. I have a quote from Rex Barber P-38 pilot of Yamamoto fame where he claims if the US could build only one fighter/Bomber in WW2 it should have been the F4U. And he was a AAF pilot.
Anyway it's late and I'm exhausted.
Nighters
-
But the AH P38 keeps beating down the corsair.
Somehow u couldn't convince them .
So how good is ur proof.
Seen them been angry about ur statements.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
WW,
Like I said it is not a very good comparison but you made some points that are not correct based on solid documentation.
(Some snipping of post was required to meet length limits)
The documentation may be solid, but the selective application of data is not... I'll demonstrate below a tendency to apply only favorable data without defining altitude or application or mention that data may exclude some important facts.
Do you have a copy of the F4U-1 POH? Because of the lower drag of the F4U-1 even with almost half the fuel of the P-38L with two 300 gallon DT's the F4U-1 had almost exactly the same range. And this is not the maximum F4U-1 capicity for takeoff.
From the P-38L POH
Two 300Gallon DT's 1,010gallons of total fuel on board.
maximum range one way using 950 gallons (the rest for takeoff and climb)
2200miles
The Manual also deducts for warm-up, climb, 15 minutes at MIL power, 5 minutes at WEP, and a 45-60 minute reserve and cruising at 12,000 feet. Maximum practical range (ferry range) for the P-38L was 2,550 miles. Actual maximums could exceed 3,000 miles when employing the fuel conservation methods used by Milo Burcham and Lindbergh. However, this was not for anything but demonstration, but was demonstrated many times. Obtaining maximum range entailed leaning the mixture manually, rather than simply pushing the mixture into the autolean detent which is what the manual indicates. This is why you find the 49th and 475th FGs flying combat missions of 1,900 to 2,000 miles round trip with just two 165 gallon drop tanks. Prior to Lindbergh, these Groups were flying missions of no more than 1,400 miles round trip and landing on fumes. By the way, Lindbergh did teach F4U and P-47 units the same thing.
From the F4U-1D POH
Two 170 gallon DT's 577 total gallons of fuel.
Total range on 560 gallons
2,080 miles.
Is this not ferry range, discounting warm-up, climb-out, MIL power, Combat power and no reserve whatsoever, as well as flying at just 5,000 feet? This is a theoretical maximum, not what a pilot could expect. Read Dean's notes on the F4U-1 range on page 512 of AHT.
The F4U could travel the same distance on half the external gas.
Two interesting statements...
1) No, the F4U-1D cound not come close to the same radius of action as the P-38L
2) The second half of that statement is kinda silly. The P-38 had two engines. ;)
Based on what? The P-38 acceleration claims are as bad as the lockness monster claims. It just didn't exist. The TAIC report shows the P-38L at full combat power was beaten by a P-47D30(that could not out accelerate a F4U-1) and a P-51D.
If you have a copy of the TAIC test, please post it. I have serious doubts as to power settings or state of tune.
Lets check the facts
P-38L power loading...
P-38L Cdo= .0278
F4U-1D= .020<=winner
Dean shows drag coefficients of .0270 for the P-38 and .0267 for the F4U-1D. You state .020 for the Corsair, which is considerably less than the P-63. Better check that again. Dean shows that the P-38 and F4U-1D have very similar drag... Nice try though.
As to power loading, you are making a strawman argument by being data selective using sea level numbers only. Who is the winner at 10k, 20k, and 30k? The P-38L is, by an ever widening margin as you climb. As it is, the lowly FM-2 has a better power loading that the F4U-1D at sea level. Would it be fair to imply that the FM-2 generally has a lower power loading than the F4U-1D based upon sea level data? No, because the F4U has the advantage as altitude goes up. Sorry, this one doesn't wash either.
Well how about instant acceleration like take off from a short distance? The P-38 should be able to take off and fly circles around the F4U like the Mustang right?
Takeoff from hard surface runway mil power 0 wind From the POH's
P-38L 17,400lbs- 1030FT
F4U-1D 11,700lbs- 680ft <==========Winner
F4U-1D with a 2,000lbs bomb 14,200LBS= 1,110FT <=only 80 ft more than the P-38L empty?
Please, we should compare things that relate to combat capability. Using your implication, the FM-2 should accelerate better than the F4U-4, because it can get airborne in 1/4 the distance.
I know you will claim 1725HP from the P-38L however any WW2 aircraft could be overboosted. I also know for a fact the R2800 was overboosted regularly and could run at high boost levels at least as well as an Allison could. So we should both stick to the manufactures recomendations for output HP espicially since there is nothing to show the P-38 doing any better than listed performance except homemade charts and graphs.
Are you insinuating that the chart is bogus? Allison rated the V1710-111/113 at 1,725 hp. It was the USAAF that derated the engine to reduce wear. In the field (please locate and ask any P-38L Crew Chief), the engines were rigged for full rating courtesy of Allison field reps. This is borne out by both Lookheed and Bodie, who discusses this in his book.
(snipped)
I have to dig my source for the F4U-1D in Korea but never the less it was in active service long after the P-38 was on the airshow circuit.
Both P-38s and F4Us raced for the Thompson Trophy. P-38s were competitive, F4Us never were. However, the F2G did win twice, before the F8Fs and P-51s took over for good.
No F4U-1s were aboard carriers in 1950.
2. Loadout, the F4U-1 took off in combat with up to a 17,000lbs load. That is 5K or external stores. I have never seen anything to show the P-38 carrying more than 4K.
Like the F4U, the P-38L could carry 2,000 pounds on each under-wing pylon, and rockets on the zero-length rails. Max load is virtually the same.
3. Speed- The F4U-1D was faster up to 25K, slower to 30K and then even from 30K up. This can be proven by many different sources
Overlaying speed charts shows P-38 advantages at several altitudes, not just above 30k.
5. Turn ability- The F4U-1 Vn diagram from the POH indicates a 3G stall at approximately 165MPH CAS at 12,000lbs. The P-38L shows a 3G stall at approx 165MPH CAS with no weight listed. For reference the P-51D manual Vn diagram is shown at empty weight. This may mean the same for the P-38 in which case the best the P-38 could hope for would be a tie.
Dean calculates a slight edge for the P-38. Of course, this discounts the P-38's fowler flaps, which alter things greatly in favor of the Lightning. In AH2, I'd be happy to demonstrate the P-38's turning ability against you in the F4U-1D. But be advised, it'll be a short and ugly demo. ;)
6. Roll- The F4U outrolls the P-38L up until 400MPH where a restriction on the F4U ailerons lowers the allowable rollrate. This was common Navy practice and the same restriction is listed on the F8F and F6F at even slower speeds. Also the P-38 had horrible roll inertia cause by it's twin boom engines. An object in motion tends to stay in motion.
I have seen only one reference to F4U roll rate and that one stops at 280 mph. At that speed it was rolling at 90 degrees/sec. At 280 mph, the P-38L rolls at 80 degrees/sec, and that's not much of a difference. At 350 mph the P-38 is at 92 degrees/sec and continues increasing up to 98 degrees at 450 mph. If you have some other F4U data, please post it.
7. Low speed handling- The F4U outhandled any of it's Army couterparts at low speed hence the lateral control rating at the JFC of second best ailerons at 100MPH. It also had the best elavator, best harmonzation of controls and best stability in a dive. You can't compare a land based A/C to a carrier based one in low speed handling.
Low speed handling??? LOLOL Yeah, the Ensign Eliminator was the king of stability at low speeds! Aileron effectiveness is nice, but won't keep the Corsair from rolling on its back if you apply full power at 100 mph. Look again at the JFC and read what it says about handling 5 mph above stall. Your F4U-1D is at the bottom of the list. The torqueless P-38 was the best handling fighter at low speeds by a significant margin. That's indisputable.
8. Climb- P-38L no question.
Other than climbing away I cannot see an advantage for the P-38L.
You also mentioned Lindberg prefering the P-38 to the F4U. I would love to read that if you have it or know the source. I have a quote from Rex Barber P-38 pilot of Yamamoto fame where he claims if the US could build only one fighter/Bomber in WW2 it should have been the F4U. And he was a AAF pilot.
I read the Lindbergh comment somewhere, but I can't recall exactly, except that it was in a biography. I believe he told this to McGuire.
You might be surprised that I tend to agree with Barber. If only one fighter could have been made, the F4U was likely the best choice. Not because it could replace the P-51, P-47, P-38, and F6F, because each of those was a stellar aircraft within its designed use. The F4U was at least adequate for every role, except high altitude escort where a different supercharger would have been needed. Adding to its utility was it being a carrier fighter. I have stated many times that the F4U-4 was the best fighter-bomber of WWII, bar none. Had the demand been there sooner, the F4U-4 could have been in service up a year prior to its actual service introduction. Neither Vought or the Navy seemed to get in a hurry until the Japanese kamikazi problem arose.
In terms of facing the Luftwaffe, the F4U-1 would have difficulty with the higher flying Bf 109s. I believe the F4U was a match for the Fw 190A series fighters, but they could never meet the 109s on even terms at 30k like the P-47s and P-51s could. Again, it wasn't designed to either.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
But the AH P38 keeps beating down the corsair.
Waiting for you to ask Pyro to fix the P38: max of 15 mins military power.
-
The documentation may be solid, but the selective application of data is not... I'll demonstrate below a tendency to apply only favorable data without defining altitude or application or mention that data may exclude import facts.
Where is the selective data? The documents are posted for all to see and if you were not so blinded by your fandom could see they do show the P 38 has having good points. It did very well against the FW-190A3 and IMO the planes match up evenly. You wish to have a double or triple superiority which did not exist.
Are you insinuating that the chart is bogus?
Come on. It's a power point slide.
Not quite proof of anything other than someones skill with powerpoint. It is pretty, though.
you are making a strawman argument
Is that your word of the week? Post it enough and it becomes the truth?? WTF!
f you have a copy of the TAIC test, please post it. I have serious doubts as to power settings or state of tune.
It's already been posted.
Guess it must be another P 38 conspiracy going on.
The P-38L shows a 3G stall at approx 165MPH CAS with no weight listed.
Then the document is worthless and any conclusions drawn off it are crap.
What was that strawman thing you were harpin on earlier??
Please, we should compare things that relate to combat capability.
They did at the JFC and the P 38 did not make the mark. It was a great fighter bomber they said.
Crumpp
-
Widewing:
Thank you for your information about the drop tanks, as it puts a number of points into perspective, especially the loadout used, and in which theatre.
Cheers,
Scherf
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Where is the selective data? The documents are posted for all to see and if you were not so blinded by your fandom could see they do show the P 38 has having good points. It did very well against the FW-190A3 and IMO the planes match up evenly. You wish to have a double or triple superiority which did not exist.
Crumpp
Crumpp, just so that you don't continue to be confused, when I'm responding to YOUR posts, I'll add into the subject line, "Hey Numbnuts!" (see above)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Crumpp, just so that you don't continue to be confused, when I'm responding to YOUR posts, I'll add into the subject line, "Hey Numbnuts!" (see above)
Don’t cloud the issue. You accused anyone who is not in the P 38 click as posting "selective" data. Just as you accused every engineer, manufacturer, Military Officer or Organization who has said anything against the P 38 as being a member of some "conspiracy" to keep the P 38 down.
So answer the question put to you fairly. You made the accusation Now Back it up or retract it!!
Where is the selective data? The documents are posted for all to see and if you were not so blinded by your fandom could see they do show the P 38 has having good points. It did very well against the FW-190A3 and IMO the planes match up evenly. You wish to have a double or triple superiority that did not exist.
I have the right to respond to your blatant accusation that information in this thread was somehow slanted against the P 38. That is a huge untruth. You should thank F4UDOA for adding to your, what must be meager, document collection.
Looks better than a few PowerPoint slides too!!
If things are as you say Widewing then it should be very easy to find a wealth of documentation from flight test's to back it up. So……
We are waiting….
Crumpp
-
F4UDOA:
I saw your comparison of power loadings.
Well, there are other things to bear in mind in that category, some of who may be in the P38's favour.
Now, just pointing out some variants, this thread is already flamy beyond a Spit-109 threadfest, and I didn't think that had been possible. :D
Ok, here goes. Some factors for the fighter:
1. The P38 has no torque trimming drag. Contra-rot you see.
2. The Span loading. Check it out. (I didn't but...)
3. Wing loading.
All affect the flight. Always bear in mind that it depends on wingloading + power how well an aircraft accelerates until the parasite drag factor overcomes the induced drag. So, that from-the-runway thingie boggles me, and I guess that is why so many acceleration tests were done by opening up at cruising speeds, already airborne.
Anyway, just some coins into the debate, hope I didn't step on somebodys tail.
Regards
Angus
-
Snipped Crumpp's lies in the interest of his own mental health...
Let me pose a question: Were you elected Village Idiot by popular vote, or did you rise to that position through experience, hard work and dedication?
Clearly, you will fabricate anything, say anything and lie about anything rather than face the fact that your entire contribution in this thread has been devoid of substance. You're a black hole, you suck the life out of any thread you infect. Now do us a favor and revert to your speedbump existence and let those of us who can disagree without fabricating attributions enjoy the give and take of honest discussion.
Widewing
-
Snipped Crumpp's lies in the interest of his own mental health...
Clearly, you will fabricate anything, say anything and lie about anything rather than face the fact that your entire contribution in this thread has been devoid of substance. You're a black hole, you suck the life out of any thread you infect. Now do us a favor and revert to your speedbump existence and let those of us who can disagree without fabricating attributions enjoy the give and take of honest discussion.
Lying is a huge accusation. One I don't take lightly at all. Prove it or I will call you on it.
Clearly when the facts do not go your way you resort to the above behavior. Pathetic.
All you have to do is produce some actual documentation to back up your claims. Since you cannot you blow a gasket.
Crumpp
-
1. The P38 has no torque trimming drag. Contra-rot you see.
No but it does have both the lift bonus from the prop vortex's AND the drag penalties they incur. The P38 also has twice the cooling drag.
Remember the power of induced drag is like a wall.
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/4forces.html#fig-power-ias
Once the "wall" is breached, it is an inconsequential force. It's is not as "steady" an application of force as the form drag of the P38. We are talking a large surface area.
Wing loading.
Wingloading is horrible on the P 38. It is a heavy airplane. Now the flaps do give it some advantage in overcoming this but even Lockheed recognizes that they are a trade off. Flaps down = high drag = big energy bleed.
The P38 has by far the best flap design you can have to make this trade off.
The Span loading. Check it out. (I didn't but...)
I would have to see a chart but being that it falls in the design timeline after the spitfire but before the FW-190 I would be surprised to see major innovations over other US fighter designs. The designer's were fully aware of the benefits of elliptical distribution and how to manipulate the airfoil to achieve it.
So, that from-the-runway thingie boggles me, and I guess that is why so many acceleration tests were done by opening up at cruising speeds, already airborne.
I think it is pretty applicable acutally. It shows the time from the stalled realm to speed. Aircraft can have different accelleration in different parts of the power curve. Using the FW-190 as an example since I am most familiar with it, it has excellent accelleration to around 250 IAS. After that it is unremarkable. I have a measurement of it somewhere at different altitudes...
I don't see anything that aerodynamically calls to question the findings of the JFC.
Crumpp
-
Slot conclusion:
The P38 beated the crap out of a FW190 in a close dogfight.
Just like in AH i'm sorry that is the way it is.
I bet u can't change it,so now stop the war on the P38 since u really like to talk/tune it down.
If u fair go post a thread and say HTC screwed the P38.
Show me some guts.
-
Bug,
Pyro is already redoing the FW-190 FM's.
It will probably fall more in line with the tactical trials.
Crumpp
-
I'm not worried i will still beat the crap out of it.
-
F4UDOA:
I saw your comparison of power loadings.
Well, there are other things to bear in mind in that category, some of who may be in the P38's favour.
Now, just pointing out some variants, this thread is already flamy beyond a Spit-109 threadfest, and I didn't think that had been possible.
Ok, here goes. Some factors for the fighter:
1. The P38 has no torque trimming drag. Contra-rot you see.
2. The Span loading. Check it out. (I didn't but...)
3. Wing loading.
All affect the flight. Always bear in mind that it depends on wingloading + power how well an aircraft accelerates until the parasite drag factor overcomes the induced drag. So, that from-the-runway thingie boggles me, and I guess that is why so many acceleration tests were done by opening up at cruising speeds, already airborne.
Anyway, just some coins into the debate, hope I didn't step on somebodys tail.
Regards
Angus
Yes this thread has taken a life of it's own.
Your right about the acceleration from cruise instead of from climb speed. I always find it interesting when real world testing varies from beliefs based on generic assumptions like climb=acceleration and other cliches. There are so many variables such as when you climb in a radial A/C your cowl flaps are open and not when accerating, prop efficiency, altitude ect.
The span loading peice I don't really get because I don't really understand the concept of span loading or at least it's application in a dogfight.
The P-38 definitely has it's advatages, climb, docile stall, no torque. The P-38 is by far the most contraversial WW2 aircraft. There seems to be no middle ground.
WideWing,
I agree on your point about the F4U-1 having trouble against the 109 above 25,000FT. It is a shame in my mind that the F4U-1 did not participate in Europe on a large scale. It would have forced Vought to step up the use of the Turbo-Supercharger and the R2800C in the F4U-3. I can only imagine what would have resulted. Even in AH the last thing you want in an F4U is a higher 109 making repeated attacks then climbing away out of reach.
Bug,
I don't worry about P-38's in AH. In fact I run to them as fast as I can. It is always a very quick verdict. I usually have no problem with them unless I get a real pro like TAC. He has waxed me a couple of times but I usually have no problem with the 38.
BTW, The P-38 has good numbers against the F4U-1D because it is used as a bomb truck. The F4U-1 has a very good K/D against the P-38. And everyone knows what the F4U-1C does in AH proving a point that even an accurate simulation is still just a game.
If you think AH is an accurate reflection of reality then the F4U-1C was the F-15 of it's day.
-
With respect of ur corsair wich is not an easy plane to fly. (only a few really know how to fly it)
The P38 is used alot as a bombtruck either.
The P38 has advantage over all cv planes except the perked one.
If cv's didn't have ack i would drool allover it.
-
The P38L has this tour
139 Kills 99 deaths vrs F4U-1D
104 Kills 130 Deaths vrs F6F-5
38 Kills 115 deaths vrs F4U-1C
30Kills 51 deaths vrs F4U-1
182 Kills 234 deaths vrs Seafire
26 Kills 25 Deaths vrs FM2
I would tend to disagree.
-
Its alot used to kamikaze kill the cv
and not many know how to really fly it
So u could disagree still it outclimbs or outspeeds cv planes.
-
I think we are a half inch away from the part of the arguement where you run out of ammo and throw the gun.
Either that or we just start saying nanernanerneenerneener.
So in the best interest of the message board I will concede climb if you give up the speed.
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Its alot used to kamikaze kill the cv
and not many know how to really fly it
So u could disagree still it outclimbs or outspeeds cv planes.
That is true. A lot of people use my 38 to pad their scores with :D
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Don’t cloud the issue. You accused anyone who is not in the P 38 click as posting "selective" data. Just as you accused every engineer, manufacturer, Military Officer or Organization who has said anything against the P 38 as being a member of some "conspiracy" to keep the P 38 down.
So answer the question put to you fairly. You made the accusation Now Back it up or retract it!!
Where is the selective data? The documents are posted for all to see and if you were not so blinded by your fandom could see they do show the P 38 has having good points. It did very well against the FW-190A3 and IMO the planes match up evenly. You wish to have a double or triple superiority that did not exist.
Oh pleeeze. I almost responded to your post previous to this one. If anyone is clouding issues it seems to be you. WW wasnt even addressing you, or your posts. He presented his analysis of where he did not believe data was being refered to in an encompassing manner (ferry range vs combat range, results varying over different altitudes, ect.) regarding points not made by you. By the way I dont see the respective POHs where a good part of the references are being made "for all to see".
By all means, take on WW for his jab at you. But please stop with the high indignation that every word in the thread pertains to you or a reference you posted. If WW has a "straw man complex", you are the "red herring king".
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>I always find it interesting when real world testing varies from beliefs based on generic assumptions like climb=acceleration and other cliches.
That's not a generic assumption, that's a law. If you don't believe it's a law, you simply haven't understood it.
Any apparent contradictions resulting from the application of this law are your own fault and can be resolved by widening your horizon.
>The P-38 is by far the most contraversial WW2 aircraft. There seems to be no middle ground.
Try starting a thread "Me 109 a super plane?" just to see what happens ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
That's not a generic assumption, that's a law. If you don't believe it's a law, you simply haven't understood it.
Any apparent contradictions resulting from the application of this law are your own fault and can be resolved by widening your horizon.
Dude chill,
Does a P-38L accelerate faster from 200MPH to 300MPH than a P-51D?
The climb/acceleration link is only at a very narrow speed range. Acceration takes place over the entire range. Also radial A/C have cowl flaps deployed during climb where as they are retracted otherwise. The P-51D gets thrust from it's radiator, weight variation, Rammed air etc.
Does that widen your horizon?
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>The climb/acceleration link is only at a very narrow speed range.
The climb/acceleration link is a universal law that is true for any flight condition.
It doesn't transfer between different flight conditions, which is what you fail to understand. If you draw conclusion based on that misunderstanding, you should not be surprised that the results appear illogical - they are.
Don't blame it on "generic assumptions and other cliches" if the truth is that you can't handle the math.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
But please stop with the high indignation that every word in the thread pertains to you or a reference you posted.
Did not think it did reference but when you blatantly ignore the facts as WideWing does you can expect someone to harp in.
Gonna repost the docs because they have gotten lost in the BS of this thread.
First the claim about the P38's accelleration. Let's compare it to it's USAAF brethern when flown against the Zeke:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037906_p38accelleration1.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037958_p38accelleration2.jpg)
The P51:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037753_p51accelleration.jpg)
The P47:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037823_p47accelleration.jpg)
The aircraft with the smallest amount of lead over the zeke is the P 38. The P 38 was easily outaccellerated by the other USAAF fighters.
Why? Well lets check out it's drag:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101873588_p38drag.jpg)
The highest of the USAAF fighters and with unremarkable powerloading it is easy to see why the P 38 lagged behind.
As for it's Manuverability. Lets check out what the competition has to say about the P 38:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101782014_gafopinions.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101782240_baropinion.jpg)
It had two engines, good guns, and was fast.
It lacked sufficient manuverability and was a big target.
Luftwaffe fighter pilots ALWAYS attacked the P 38 in preferrence to other USAAF fighter.
Speaks volumes about the plane.
Now let's see what US Combat Pilots, engineers, and Test Pilots had to say about the P 38:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102467287_p38opinions.jpg)
Kind fits exactly what the Luftwaffe pilots say about the plane.
Well, we know it does not accellerate very well and it's manuverability is not very good. Let's see if it can dive pretty good!
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102176665_p-38page30.jpg)
Nope. It was restricted to 480mph TAS MAX IF it exceeded the placard limits by 20mph.
That means it was almost 100 mph SLOWER in a dive than the Luftwaffe fighters.
gwshaw brought up a good point with the tactical trials of the P 38F and the FW-190A3. After reviewing the Power restricitons on both A/C, which is listed about 4 pages back in this thread, these tactical trials probably hold true for all models of the FW-190A vs P38 as each plane was operating at reduced power output and gained substantial power during their lifecycle.
These are the trials where the USAAF is trying to develop the best way for the P38 to destory the FW-190 in the air.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102257144_p38f.jpg)
The P38 was an good fighter in the Pacific against the much slower Zeke's. It had a much harder time against the Luftwaffe.
In the end we can find no big mystery or conspiracy against the plane. The facts speak for themselves.
The P38 was not a premier fighter in the USAAF lineup. Removing it from the air superiority fighter role and placing it in ground attack duties was the correct call both tactically and technically.
Crumpp
-
Call me silly on a clear day, but I can't see much bad about the P38. Nothing spectacular either, except it being the finest twin engine fighter of WW2 perhaps...
I mean, this thread turned mean and ugly, which was not necessary, and shall change no results.
A storm in a glass of water....:(
-
Call me silly on a clear day, but I can't see much bad about the P38. Nothing spectacular either, except it being the finest twin engine fighter of WW2 perhaps...
I totally agree Angus. The P 38 was not only the finest twin engine fighter it was the only successful twin engine fighter that could even compete with single engine fighters of the day.
If you read the documents it has it's strengths no doubt.
Crumpp
-
Where is the selective data? The documents are posted for all to see and if you were not so blinded by your fandom could see they do show the P 38 has having good points.
Ok well only having select snipits of the TAIC narrative report that you have posted, and the partial intelligence summarys that I have, I would say here is an example.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Well let's check it out Captain!
Looking at the Zeke tactical trials and comparing the P38 against it's USAAF brethern we see:
P51:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037753_p51accelleration.jpg)
P47:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037823_p47accelleration.jpg)
P38 hanging in the back dead last:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037906_p38accelleration1.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037958_p38accelleration2.jpg)
Once again. Facts vs hype. To coin a phrase, the P38's "outstanding" abilities as a fighter are a MODERN creation.
Crumpp
"the Zeke tactical trials"? Which one? Hmm well Tadayoshi Koga's Model 21 was flown aginst the P-38F model so that obviously isnt the one since your images state a P-38J. So its a safe bet we are looking at the Siapan Model 52s. Looking at the Intelligence Summary here, I see the F4U-1D, the F6F, and the FM2 were flown aginst the Model 52. Of course I do not have the narritive report or an intelligence summary for every US plane the Model 52 was flown with, but when you say "P38 hanging back at dead last". That means what?
"Dead last" among the ones you -sniped- to post? Oh "Dead last" among Army fighters only. We are left to assume, I guess that the other Army fighters tested against the Model 21 were all excluded for the Model 52 tests? Hard to tell without further references as only "select" parts of the narrative reports have been shown.
As for it's Manuverability. Lets check out what the competition has to say about the P 38:
Ok lets do
Johannes Stienhoff, kommodore of JG 77 in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, flying Bf 109s.
I had encountered the long-range P-38 Lightning fighter during the last few days of the North African campaign. Our opinion of this twin-boomed, twin-engined aircraft was divided. Our old Messerschmitts were still, perhaps, a little faster. But pilots who had fought them said that the Lightnings were capable of appreciably tighter turns and that they would be on your tail before you knew what was happening. The machine guns mounted in the nose supposedly produced a concentration of fire from which there was no escape. Certainly the effect was reminiscent of a watering can when one of these dangerous apparitions started firing tracer, and it was essential to prevent them manoeuvring into a position from which they could bring their guns to bear.
Oberleutnant Franz Stiegler (28 victories) said:
The P-38s could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make an attack and then pull up. The P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly that there was little one could do except roll quickly and dive down, for while the P-38 could turn inside us, it rolled very slowly through the first 5 or 10 degrees of bank, and by then we would already be gone.
-
Johannes Stienhoff, kommodore of JG 77 in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, flying Bf 109s.
You should check out II/JG 2's record in North Africa. They did rate the P38 the best fighter of all the Allied fighters they encountered. P40's, Hurricane IIc's, and Spit Vc's made up the allied competition against the P 38.
They finished the tour 119 enemy aircraft destroyed, 2 probable, and 18 damaged.
The lost 8 killed, 3 missing, and 11 wounded.
They flew FW-190A5's.
That means what?
Look at the distances the P38 was ahead of the Zeke compared to the other USAAF fighters in the above accelleration test. The P38 had the worst accelleration of the three.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102986354_p38comparison.jpg)
We can see the P 38J-25 is the slowest of the USAAF fighters in level speed as well.
Crumpp
-
Oh, for your interest, I have some excellent account of P38's being jumped by 109's over Tunisia/Algeria.
I don't have to ask if you want it, cos you do, hehe.
Will post it in the morning.
Goodnight
Angus
-
Crumpp,
Included in the scope of your book project will you have room to explain the contradiction between simulated combat effectivenss and the historical documentation recording combat effectiveness of the Focke-Wulf FW190?
Will you be able to explain how the FW's were adept at energy fighting tactics. How this plane did manage to dominate as a dog fighter in history much to the contradition of contemporary opinion generated by errors in similation?
Will you be able to manage this task?
Is my assement in error?
Is it better to start a new thread on such a change in subject matter?
HoHun,
Thanks for the links. That is a interesting stuff, kind of like this
Open Source (http://www.futureofmoneysummit.com/open-source-currency.php) stuff.
-
HoHun,
Don't know what crawled in your shorts today.
But since I am obviously to stupid to do the math I would natually assume that you had done the math.
So please explain why the "math" doesn't prove your point. And no it's not my spreadsheet (It is Zigrats formally from these boards) so you can call me names if you want to but use small words so I don't get to confused.
Here is the P-38L at 16,000lbs, 3200HP stalling at 112MPH CAS all data from the POH power off. The speeds are right from the AH charts.
And BTW 16,000LBS is a VERY, VERY light P-38L at 40% fuel and it should accerate like a rocket.
P-38L Spreadsheet (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/P38L.xls)
Here is the F4U-1D 11,300lbs also 40% fuel, 2300HP, Stall power off 98MPH CAS all data from the POH speed from NAVAIR and the AH charts with external stores pylons. FYI 11,300LBS is the interceptor loadout used by the Navy.
F4U-1D Spreadsheet (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/F4U1D.xls)
Notice the P-38L neither climbs or accelerates better than the F4U-1D at any speed. The climb of the F4U I believe is artificially high due to the fact that cowl flaps are 1/3 open during climb reducing climb somewhat relative to accelleration. Never the less when the "Math" is done it certainly doesn't agree with common perception which is the point I was trying to make.
Maybe someone of higher intellect could please show me what all this means. But type slowly because I don't read very fast.
-
"It outran 109's and 190 on the deck "
Why didn't u quote this either crummp ??
u getting selective?
strange.
because i don't believe that either.
-
It is exactly the same stuff posted before Bug!! You P 38 fans have selective reading skills.
Now I will say that I don't see where the P 38J-25 does 365mph on the deck.
Crumpp
-
Is it better to start a new thread on such a change in subject matter?
Start a new thread and I will be glad to chime in.
Crumpp
-
Nice way to talk around the question.
-
from Dev update (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=137813)
we also plan on introducing the P-38G and P-38J
Why do I imagine some people shaking and salivating ?
:p
-
Its gonna be the best patch ever.
:D
-
Bug,
Would you rather see the F or the G?
What does the J give you that the L doesn't?
I have seen it listed at a higher top speed than the L at alt but not the whole speed range.
-
I am waiting 3 years for any new type
no complaints here
i thought the G was more builded as the F so G is ok
not sure dough
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>But type slowly because I don't read very fast.
You're the fastest learner on this forum, and I think very highly of you. Your open-minded move to bring in that spreadsheet to keep this discussion rational has completely restored my faith in you.
I'm sorry if my comment appeared offensive - it was not meant to be. It was meant to challenge what I saw as resignation into a serious misunderstanding, but despite my apparent eloquence in what is a foreign language for me I sometimes lose control of the emotional message of my words.
To sum it up, the spreadsheet you provided looks like a great new tool and it might actually be that we're just a small step from reaching complete agreement now :-)
So, if you're ready, let's have another look at the issue:
Take either of the spreadsheets and on the sheet "Data Entry" change the cell "Z12" containing the acceleration formula by appending "*v". Copy the new formula down the entire column.
Look at the (former) acceleration vs. climb rate over speed chart.
The former acceleration graph and the climb rate graph are identical now except for a constant factor.
"v", the factor we just applied to acceleration, is the airspeed. It's not an independend variable but a constant since for comparison, we deliberately pick a specific airspeed.
What the identically shaped but differently scaled graphs show us now is that - as long as we stick to our arbitrary comparison airspeed - acceleration and climb are linked by a constant factor.
Thus, same aircraft that has the better climb at any given speed also out-accelerates the other aircraft at that given speed by the same factor.
(It only gets complicated when you begin to compare acceleration/climb at different speeds. Acceleration/climb are a pair of Siamese twins at any constant speed, though.)
How does it look now? :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
"acceleration and climb are linked by a constant factor"
Hmm. So a tip-to accelerator from say 160 mph would be a Spit VIII?
-
It only gets complicated when you begin to compare acceleration/climb at different speeds. Acceleration/climb are a pair of Siamese twins at any constant speed, though.)
Different Speeds is different best climbing speeds?
Crumpp
-
Hohun,
Thanks for coming back to discuss this as usual. You surprised me with your post, I wasn't expecting that from you. Anyway glad your back;)
Your statement
Thus, same aircraft that has the better climb at any given speed also out-accelerates the other aircraft at that given speed by the same factor.
I absolutely agree-unless-something changes in the condition of the aircraft in one state and not the other. For example if one aircraft were to lower it's landing gear while climbing but now when accelerating the results are no longer constant.
For example I have a chart from Vought that shows the effect of opening the Cowl flaps 1/3, 2/3 and full open has on climb rate. It is as much as several hundred FPM. Then if you compare the climb to the corresponding rate of acceleration when the cowl flaps are closed the acceleration will be better relative to the loss of drag.
So I agree with your statement but I would amend it to say Thus, same aircraft that has the better climb at any given speed also out-accelerates the other aircraft at that given speed by the same factor as long as the conditon of the aircraft remains the same in both states.
-
So much has been made of the lackluster performance of the P-38 with the 8th AF, I thought it might be nice to have an inside look at what went wrong.
Below is a copy of Levier's report on his time in Europe.
Report on P-38s in the ETO, by Tony Levier.
“Having just returned from a four month mission to England on 29 May 1944 where I had been testing and demonstrating some of the new improvements on our P-38J’s, I filed the following report:”
Immediately upon arriving in England, I proceeded to the 55th FG HQ at Nuthamstead, an airbase in East Anglia, north of London, where conditions were pretty grim as far as their P-38’s were concerned. They had just received their first P-38J’s, and had no operational information on them. Their lack of information concerning correct power combinations was appalling.
For combat missions some pilots were using anywhere from 2000RPM to 3000RPM with whatever manifold pressure that would giver them their desired air speed. Some of these pilots were blowing up their engines with high manifold pressure and critically low RPM, while others were running out of gas and failing to complete missions because of such power combinations for continual cruise at 2800RPM with 24” of manifold pressure. Many returned with hardly more than a cupful of gas remaining in their tanks, while others were forced to bail out over enemy territory.
The reason they were cruising at 2600, 2800 and even 3000RPM was that somewhere along the line they had been taught to use high RPM and low manifold pressure. They were under the impression that should they get jumped by a Jerry they could get their power faster if they already had their engines running at high RPM.
The fact is you can get your power quicker if you have low RPM and high boost which gives you a high er turbosupercharger speed. With turbochargers putting out high boost you only have to increase your engine RPM to get your desired power.
Rather than add to their confusion with power curves and range charts we devised the following rule of thumb for their long range missions. It is simple and easy to remember and insures maximum engine efficiency/fuel economy: USE 2300RPM AND 36” MANIFOLD PRESSURE AS THE MAXIMUM FOR AUTO LEAN AND CRUISE CONDITIONS. IN REDUCING POWER FROM THIS SETTING, REDUCE ½” TO 1” FOR EACH 100RPM; FOR GOING ABOVE THIS SETTING PUT YOUR MIXTURE IN AUTO RICH AND INCREASE THE MANIFOLD PRESSURE 2” FOR EACH 100RPM.
After using this rule the boys marveled at their increased range. Some were returning from 4 hour missions with as much as 150 to 200 gallons of fuel left. Quite a bit more than the cupfuls they had been returning with.
The day after I arrived at another base in England some P-38 pilots who had been escorting Forts over mainland Europe reported a “sort of engine trouble”.
When pinned down they said their engines had been surging and momentarily cutting out while they were flying at altitude under reduced power. The passed it off saying, “it’s probably caused by some extra low octane gas.”
But after further discussion with the boys I suddenly remembered a series of tests we had run back home during flight test operations for proper turbosupercharger settings. As I recalled, the symptoms were very similar.
So I obtained permission from the 55th FG CO to test a P-38 at altitude for proper turbosupercharger operation, and sure enough, the turbosupercharger on the left engine was so rigged that the resulting backpressure and high turbosupercharger wheel speed caused the airflow to the engine to surge, resulting in erratic operation and inability to pull power.
Upon landing, I reported the trouble and recommended that each Lightning driver be given the following procedure for checking his ’38 at altitude for proper turbosupercharger operation: At 30K feet set your RPM at 2600RPM and 37” manifold pressure and back off slowly on the power down to 10 to 15” manifold pressure. While doing this, fix your eyes on the manifold pressure and note if there is the slightest engine failure or surging. Record the exact manifold pressure at which this surging occurs.
Now repeat the process beginning with 2300RPM and 37” manifold pressure , and again record the boost at which surging occurs. (At this lower RPM it should occur 2 or 3” higher.)
If, after you’ve completed this procedure, either of the recorded manifold pressures are above 22”, it indicated the turbosupercharger regulator is set improperly. Tell your mechanic the boost at which the roughness occurred and he will make the necessary adjustments.
[/i]
Read the above carefully, and remember what happened to those units, and how they performed. This is not an indictment of the pilots, or the mechanics. It is not even an indictment of the 55th FG HQ and staff really. This IS an indictment of the 8th AF command staff, and the USAAC. It is ultimately the responsibility of the command staff to ensure that units they send into combat are properly trained and well informed. The above report goes a long way to explain why the 8th AF did so poorly with the P-38, while other units performed quite well with it. At the time of this report, and during Levier's visit, the 8th AF had been using the P-38 in combat for about 6-8 months, and had no better grasp on how to operate and maintain it than the above report shows. That is without a doubt inexcuseable. But much of what the USAAC, and especially the 8th AF command staff, along with the War Production Board, did was intolerable and inexcuseable. The lack of information didn't just apply to the new P-38J, but to the P-38 from the very beginning. I really don't think appaling is a strong enough word.
-
In the words of Ricky Ricardo, "Joo got some 'splainin' to do!"
Anywhere I can find an explanation of what the charts on the sheets mean?
Cheers,
Scherf
Dang scientific folk, with your high-falutin' theories....
-
Verge,
We are beyond storytime.
For example I have a chart from Vought that shows the effect of opening the Cowl flaps 1/3, 2/3 and full open has on climb rate. It is as much as several hundred FPM. Then if you compare the climb to the corresponding rate of acceleration when the cowl flaps are closed the acceleration will be better relative to the loss of drag.
I noticed the same thing in the FW charts.
Crumpp
-
Wonder how the 38 would have done with a pair of Merlin 66's +25 :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Wonder how the 38 would have done with a pair of Merlin 66's +25 :D
Terribly. The Merlins were heavier, had less power at sea level, and less power at altitude. The P-38 would have been slower and had a lower rate of climb.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Verge,
We are beyond storytime.
Crumpp
It's Virgil, pofessor von Klump. Evidently you aren't beyond story time, you should probably be getting ready to be put down for your nap.
And that isn't a story. It is an official report by a Lockheed test pilot on what he found during a tour of the 8th AF units equipped with the P-38. It is fact. It is taken from the P-38 pilots logs and reports, official Lockheed documents, and found published in several books, such as "Lockheed P-38 Lightning" by Steve Pace.
-
What was the Power of the Allison?
And weight for comparison?
-
Interesting thing about those cowl flaps, they remind me of a comment from a test pilot report.
According to Lockheed test pilot Ray Meskimen, if you were not climbing, you could close the doors to the intercoolers atleast partially, and gain up to 15MPH in top speed. You could not do it during a power climb because the air volume through the intercoolers would drop enuogh to cause detonation and reduced power.
It is interesting what a small reduction in drag will do for you.
-
Originally posted by Angus
What was the Power of the Allison?
And weight for comparison?
The Allisons in the P-38J were rated at 1600HP at WEP. In the P-38L they were rated at 1725HP at WEP. THE USAAC downrated the P-38L by disallowing WEP (see the report from Levier above for their reasons) settings on its engines, but the Lockheed and Allison officials gave the ratings to units in the field anyway, and showed them how to achieve them. The P-38 maintain sea level power to nearly 30K feet, something only the P-47 could do among single engine fighters. It was VERY important.
I don't have the weight handy, but it is around 1000 pounds. Lockheed engineer Warren Bodie (not an engineer on the P-38, but later an author of a book on the P-38, who had unlimited access to the P-38 data from Lockheed and Allison) said that the Merlin was heavier by more than 200 pounds, and the installation would have "dirtied up" the airframe aerodynamicly. The Merlin was also not designed to be turbocharged, meaning that it would have given up considerable power above 20K.
A FAR better addition to the P-38 would have been the Hamilton Standard High Activity Paddle prop. It was far more efficent and reliable than the Curtiss Electric props used on the P-38. Lockheed spec'd the P-38 to have better props several times, but the USAAC and the War Production Board had the ultimate decision, and denied their use. Lockheed and Allison built the P-38K-1-Lo, which had a more powerful engine and the Hamilton Standard props (only one was built). Do a search for "P-38K" and find out how good it was.
All you really have to do to see what the P-38 would have gained by the use of the Hamilton Standard props is to look at the difference in performance of the P-47 when equipped with both the Hamilton Standard and the Curtiss Electric props. One model change of the P-47 consisted only of the change in props. The difference in performance was DRAMATIC. Later, even more performance was gained by going from a 3 blade Hamilton Standard to a four blade version. I don't have my P-47 data handy, but I'm sure one of the P-47 guys will have the data. The change from the Curtiss Electric to the Hamilton Standard came somewhere close to the P-47D-11 model. The P-47 guys have been asking for this change for a long time here.
-
It is an official report by a Lockheed test pilot on what he found during a tour of the 8th AF units equipped with the P-38. It is fact. It is taken from the P-38 pilots logs and reports, official Lockheed documents, and found published in several books, such as "Lockheed P-38 Lightning" by Steve Pace.
So it is a report blaming the Military for the planes performance by the company, Verge?
It is interesting what added drag will do the performance. I don't know how small it is though.
Professor Von Clumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
So it is a report blaming the Military for the planes performance by the company, Verge?
It is interesting what added drag will do the performance. I don't know how small it is though.
Professor Von Clumpp
No, it is a report STATING FACTS about the lack of information and training in the 8th AF. The 8th AF is the only AF that had serious problems with the P-38, and the fact that they simply were not following proper procedure was the cause. It is obvious that Levier found the causes of the problems they had, and that the problems were with the 8th AF and procedures, not with the plane itself. Levier showed them how to resolve their issues by showing them that they were not properly trained and did not have the correct information. ANY piece of equipment will have serious problems if used and maintained that far from the way it was designed. The report states the problems that existed, the causes for the problems (obviously the 8th AF was screwing the pooch), and the resolution. It really is simple if you read and comprehend.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
So it is a report blaming the Military for the planes performance by the company, Verge?
It is interesting what added drag will do the performance. I don't know how small it is though.
Professor Von Clumpp
Oh, and by the way, I find it VERY interesting that you want to use Lockheed RECOMMENDATIONS as the gospel on flap usage, but you want to ignore what Lockheed and Allison said about the 8th AF, and their ratings for the P-38L. But then, I'd expect nothing less from you. You seem to love to pick and choose that which you think supports your arguement, and vehemently deny the rest, even coming from the EXACT same source. You can't even differentiate between a recommendation and an absolute limit.
-
Hmm
" The Merlin was also not designed to be turbocharged, meaning that it would have given up considerable power above 20K. "
Spitfires were cruising at 43K in 1942.
Not designed for a turbocharger? By 1942 the RR had 2 with an intercooler between, so power was quite good at high alt.
Merlin 66 or 70 could peak out at close to 1700 hp.
It looks as if there is quite enough space in the Nacelles.
And if there had been a drag penalty, well, it's a different setup anyway with the air intake.
Wonder instead how a Griffon powered P38 would have performed, hehe 2200 horses grrrrrrr...
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hmm
" The Merlin was also not designed to be turbocharged, meaning that it would have given up considerable power above 20K. "
Spitfires were cruising at 43K in 1942.
Not designed for a turbocharger? By 1942 the RR had 2 with an intercooler between, so power was quite good at high alt.
Merlin 66 or 70 could peak out at close to 1700 hp.
It looks as if there is quite enough space in the Nacelles.
And if there had been a drag penalty, well, it's a different setup anyway with the air intake.
Wonder instead how a Griffon powered P38 would have performed, hehe 2200 horses grrrrrrr...
Angus, the Merlin had a two speed two stage crankdriven centrifugal supercharger, it was not turbocharged. The Merlin had to be specifically tuned for a certain altitude. If tuned for low altitude, it gave up power at high altitude. If tuned for high altitude, it gave up power at low altitude. Further, the crankdriven supercharger absorbed huge amounts of power when shifted into high gear. The P-51 was down to around 700HP at 30K. There is a distinct difference between a crankdriven centrifugal supercharger and a turbocharger, which is exhaust driven. And the Merlin was NOT turbocharged. At least no Merlin I've ever seen in 30 years, as a factory installation in an aircraft.
The Griffon was huge, and would not have fit the P-38 any better than the Merlin.
If you want power, try taking the Allison used in the P-82 Twin Mustang (not turbocharged) and installing it in a P-38 with the turbocharger. This could have been done in 43-44, it was a bolt in swap.
-
Angus,
TURBOcharging: using exhaust gasses to spin a turbine that turned the compresser wheel
SUPERcharging: using a mechanical/fluid coupling to turn the compresser wheel
There was an attempt to put 60/70 series Melins in the P-38 but massive lobbying in Washington and elsewhere by GM, the parent company of Allison, had the idea dropped.
It should be noted that the Unlimited hydroplanes used both Allison and Roll-Royce TURBOcharges engines. The R-R engines even using some parts from the Allison engine. Technical specs for the engines can be found here, http://www.unlimitedexcitement.com/
I see Virgil has made a post, but I leave mine as is.
Virgil, the Griffon was not as massive you think it is. It was slightly longer than the Merlin but fit into the cowling area of any Merlin powered Spit with only a slight enlargement of the bulges already there for the Merlin.
-
2 stage turbochargers could be optimized at will in regards of altitude, and don't tell me that the Merlin61 did not develop power at high alt....
Now for the size, the only time I've seen the Allisons was in P40 and P63. Can't really say that they look smaller. Do you have any dimensions and weigh numbers for those?
Now the Griffon is a wee bigger than a Merlin, but the power is just massive. Can't remember where the final ones peaked out in operational use, - 3000 hp contra rot?
-
Ah, thanks Milo, so I am corrected.
In my language we always call it a Turbine, regardless the method how to drive it.
I run a turbo engine every day BTW. 4 liter perkins diesel. ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
2 stage turbochargers could be optimized at will in regards of altitude, and don't tell me that the Merlin61 did not develop power at high alt....
Now for the size, the only time I've seen the Allisons was in P40 and P63. Can't really say that they look smaller. Do you have any dimensions and weigh numbers for those?
Stages have nothing to do with optimizing at different altitudes, multiple gear ratios do. You can only provide so much compression per stage, multiple stages allows higher overall blower compression ratio, about 6.5:1 for a V-1650-7 compared to about 3.5:1 for a V-1650-1.
Having multiple gears only allows you to optimize at multiple altitudes, ie 2 speeds allows a V-1650-7 to peak at about 8500 ft and again at about 21,400 ft. A turbosupercharger doesn't have peaks and valleys like a mechanical supercharger, flat power curve from SL to 25,000 ft for a P-38J.
In addition a mechanical supercharger is sucking up power from the crank, around 400 hp for a Merlin 61/63 in high gear. The Merlin 61 could manage a bit over 1300 hp at about 23,000 ft, the V-1710-F17R/L - B33 in the P-38J could manage 1600 hp to 25,000 ft, the V-1710-F30R/L in the P-38L could do 1725 hp to 25,000 ft or 1600 hp to 28,700 ft.
Greg Shaw
-
And ceiling?
Was the P38 then simply so heavy?
-
Here is the Pot calling the Kettle black....
Oh, and by the way, I find it VERY interesting that you want to use Lockheed RECOMMENDATIONS as the gospel on flap usage, but you want to ignore what Lockheed and Allison said about the 8th AF, and their ratings for the P-38L. But then, I'd expect nothing less from you. You seem to love to pick and choose that which you think supports your arguement, and vehemently deny the rest, even coming from the EXACT same source. You can't even differentiate between a recommendation and an absolute limit.
Verge,
It's about standards. Which standard is AH going to use? If they pick the very best data for some aircraft and do not use it for others then the results (modeling) will be skewed. You cannot scream to have Lockheed data used and then pounce on someone for posting Vought, supermarine, Messerschmitt, or any other manufacturer.
Nor can you artificially inflate performance off of "stories".
Talk to Pyro. That is one reason individual plane models are great in AH but the combat results are skewed. They simply do not have good data on some of the planes.
As long as the standard are maintained it makes little difference which data set is used.
Crumpp
-
Here is a peice of the Wright Patt test between the P-51B and P-38J-5.
The turning circle of the p-51B is smaller than that of the p-38J-5, at all altitudes. It has a far faster rate of aileron roll through all speeds. The p-51B accelerates rapidly away from the p-38J in a dive, after reaching speeds of 325 I.A.S. With both planes in formation at cruising speed in level flight, when full power is applied, the p-38J will pull several hundred feet out in front before the p-51B can reach maximum acceleration and overtake the p-38J. With slight advantage in altitude, the p-51B can jump the p-38J successfully and engage in combat, due to its superior diving and top speed. The p-51B can evade being jumped by the p-38J, if it is seen in time, by dropping the nose and diving away. If the p-38J has built up its speed in a dive and is not seen in time, the p-51B can turn sharply into the p-38J and evade its fire. The p-38J cannot follow the p-51B at high diving speed at altitude, due to its lower limits of allowable diving speeds. At high speed, it is impossible for the p-38J to keep its sights on the p-51B due to the p-51B's rapid rate of aileron roll, allowing it to reverse its direction of turn faster than the p-38J can follow.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Here is a peice of the Wright Patt test between the P-51B and P-38J-5.
Very interesting, but note that it is a pre-aileron boost J-5.
As for dive speed, without knowing what altitude it was the 325 mph IAS doesn't help much. We need to know what Mach number it corresponds to. The P-38J initially accelerates away, then then Pony runs it down, about what I would expect if above 20k or so and the P-38 is hitting the drag rise about 40-60 mph before the Pony does.
(Misread that part: doesn't say P-38 initially gained edge, comments are still true however, the Pony doesn't gain an advantage until after 325 mph IAS)
Level accel, again the P-38J pulls away initially, then the Pony catches and passes it. Again, about what I would expect, the Pony has lower drag as speed increases, the P-38 lower induced drag at low speeds.
Note, we need to know what cruising speed was, the P-38 cruised 30-40 mph slower than the Pony. The P-38 is going to have better results starting at its cruising speed than it will at the Ponys. It won't make as much difference for the Pony if it starts slower.
Don't get me wrong, those are precisely the type of documents I like seeing, but what they don't tell you is just as important as what they do.
Greg Shaw
-
With both planes in formation at cruising speed in level flight, when full power is applied, the p-38J will pull several hundred feet out in front before the p-51B can reach maximum acceleration and overtake the p-38J
Very interesting and just as I thought. I have yet to see an instance where the science does not back up what the pilots say. Here we have the basis of the pilot claims of the P38's great accelleration and the engineer data which contradicts the pilots. Both are correct.
Murdr says:
Ok well only having select snipits of the TAIC narrative report that you have posted, and the partial intelligence summarys that I have, I would say here is an example.
F4UDOA has posted this report on numerous occasions. I do not have the webspace to host the entire report but would be glad to email it to you. All the pertinant information as to aircraft type, engine settings, etc... has been posted.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Angus
And ceiling?
Was the P38 then simply so heavy?
The P-38 routinely reached altitudes of 44K. In the MTO, it was retained in at least small numbers by groups that replaced them, because the P-38 was the best plane for climbing up to intercept the various German recon planes.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Here is the Pot calling the Kettle black....
Verge,
It's about standards. Which standard is AH going to use? If they pick the very best data for some aircraft and do not use it for others then the results (modeling) will be skewed. You cannot scream to have Lockheed data used and then pounce on someone for posting Vought, supermarine, Messerschmitt, or any other manufacturer.
Nor can you artificially inflate performance off of "stories".
Talk to Pyro. That is one reason individual plane models are great in AH but the combat results are skewed. They simply do not have good data on some of the planes.
As long as the standard are maintained it makes little difference which data set is used.
Crumpp
I didn't jump on anyone for using data for planes from the company that manufactured the planes. I did question the use of one manufacturers data for planes they did not manufacture.
There is no artificial inflation of performance from "stories". It is well documented that BOTH Lockheed AND Allison certifed the engines in the P-38L at 1725HP. It is also well documented that the USAAC arbitrarily decided to remove the WEP rating from the L model for "reliability" reasons, when in fact the report from Levier proves beyond a doubt that the reliability issues were due to 8th AF procedures and nothing else. Finally, it is also true that both Lockheed and Allison sent engineers and pilots into the "field" and they informed both mechanics and pilots of the 1725HP WEP rating and how to get it.
Of course, you can choose to follow Lockheed's "recommendations" on flap usage, and ignore their certified ratings of the P-38L engines. Nothing about that would surprise me.
What really is funny is that despite the fact that there is no WEP rating for the P-38L except that provided by Lockheed and Allison, the AHII P-38L HAS WEP. But the WEP speed is actually the speed that the P-38L was certified to as Military Power.
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>Thus, same aircraft that has the better climb at any given speed also out-accelerates the other aircraft at that given speed by the same factor as long as the conditon of the aircraft remains the same in both states.
Roger that! I knew we'd reach agree complete agreement :-)
With regard to radiation drag, I recently found an interesting bit from a pre-war Messerschmitt speech: He praised the Junkers radiators for requiring a constant power to overcome drag regardless of the airspeed and thus contribruting significantly to solving the problems of high-speed flight.
Though Junkers worked with liquid cooling, I think to a certain degree air-cooled engines benefitted from that, too. I'm not sure why the cowl flaps were such a bad speed brake anyway - maybe it's because they projected into the free airstream and caused a lot of turbulence there.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Hilts,
>So much has been made of the lackluster performance of the P-38 with the 8th AF, I thought it might be nice to have an inside look at what went wrong.
Quite interesting, but it really touches only one aspect of performance: Range.
("Sort of engine trouble" doesn't seem to be very serious - or maybe the pilots just had a lot of confidence due to engine redundancy :-)
With regard to the turbocharger RPM: The British test of the P-38F mentioned the turbos spun up from idle to full take-off boost in about 10 s. That spin-up time was considered a serious issue tells us a lot about how fast-paced the fights must have been ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Hilts,
>THE USAAC downrated the P-38L by disallowing WEP (see the report from Levier above for their reasons) engines
Hm, you're not referring to the same report in which Levier solves the range issues, I guess? That one seems to be about boosts in the cruise range entirely.
>The Merlin was also not designed to be turbocharged, meaning that it would have given up considerable power above 20K.
Well, the Merlin 61 was a pretty good high-altitude engine anyway. I've not looked at the weights, but I'd be surprised if the Merlin outweighed the Allison if you feature in the latter's turbo-supercharger. However the Merlin's weight distribution would have been all wrong since it was all in front of the firewall, while the turbo-superchargers brought back the centre of gravity nicely. In my opinion, it would have required a major redesign of the P-38 to fit the Merlin.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
This still boggles me a bit, so forgive me....
"same aircraft that has the better climb at any given speed also out-accelerates the other aircraft at that given speed by the same facto"
Does that apply at any speed or just at exactly that climb speed and upwards for a bit?
Say a slow steep climber meets a faster speed climber.
The slow guy will then outaccelerate the fast guy initially, but eventually the curves cross??
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hilts,
So much has been made of the lackluster performance of the P-38 with the 8th AF, I thought it might be nice to have an inside look at what went wrong.
Quite interesting, but it really touches only one aspect of performance: Range.
("Sort of engine trouble" doesn't seem to be very serious - or maybe the pilots just had a lot of confidence due to engine redundancy :-)
Actually, if you read it more closely, Levier touches briefly on the reliability issues as well, speaking of pilots who were running too much RPM and too little manifold pressure blowing up engines. Remember that much of the 8th AF's complaint with the P-38 and the Allison was that they "burned valves, threw rods, and blew up". That was a direct result of the improper engine power settings. Most all of the ills the 8th AF experienced were directly related to those power settings.
The low manifold pressure caused the engines to run too cold, which dropped cockpit temperatures, congealed the oil in the oil coolers, caused malfunctions in the turbo regulators, caused serious problems in the intake tract (backfires routinely wrecked intakes, intercoolers, and ductwork), and caused the engines to fail when full power was suddenly called for in combat (think about starting your car at -40 degrees and immediately pulling out into high speed traffic, and what happens when you stomp the throttle). The problems caused and damage done by those settings would take far too long to adequately cover here.
With regard to the turbocharger RPM: The British test of the P-38F mentioned the turbos spun up from idle to full take-off boost in about 10 s. That spin-up time was considered a serious issue tells us a lot about how fast-paced the fights must have been ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
The P-38F had VERY long and complex ductwork, and going from idle with no load to take off run up would certainly take a long time. Turbocharged drag cars take twice as long to stage because they have to build boost as they stage to get ready for the light. The P-38J and later models were vastly improved. However, running at low boost means running at low load. The engine had to be loaded hard before it would build boost, and loading a cold engine that hard that fast was an open invitation to disaster. No doubt the combination of those incorrect settings and the complexity of the controls cost many pilots their plane, and their lives. Lockheed did their best to solve the problem, but the USAAC just couldn't get their feces cohesive.
-
Hi Hilts,
>Actually, if you read it more closely, Levier touches briefly on the reliability issues as well
Not that I missed it, but I was looking for hints on performance issues.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Say a slow steep climber meets a faster speed climber.
The slow guy will then outaccelerate the fast guy initially, but eventually the curves cross??
That is. Think that usual speeds for substained climbs go from 150 to 180 mph, quite slow (with the exception of Me 262). Past the "cross" point, the faster plane will outaccelerate and outclimb to the slow climber.
As an example, 190A8 vs SpitV, Spit will have the advantage below 250 mph, while 190A8 will start gaining from that point.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hilts,
>THE USAAC downrated the P-38L by disallowing WEP (see the report from Levier above for their reasons) engines
Hm, you're not referring to the same report in which Levier solves the range issues, I guess? That one seems to be about boosts in the cruise range entirely.
>The Merlin was also not designed to be turbocharged, meaning that it would have given up considerable power above 20K.
Well, the Merlin 61 was a pretty good high-altitude engine anyway. I've not looked at the weights, but I'd be surprised if the Merlin outweighed the Allison if you feature in the latter's turbo-supercharger. However the Merlin's weight distribution would have been all wrong since it was all in front of the firewall, while the turbo-superchargers brought back the centre of gravity nicely. In my opinion, it would have required a major redesign of the P-38 to fit the Merlin.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Levier wasn't just solving range issues (even lower RPM with higher manifold pressure would have yielded even greater range) he was solving reliability issues as well when he spoke of "pilots blowing their engines with too much RPM and too little manifold pressure". That was an extremely common thing with the 8th AF due to their improper use of power settings. Those problems are what drove the USAAC to downrate the P-38L engines.
Regarding the Merlin and altitude, please refer to Greg Shaw's post above.
I'll expand on it here. As he stated, the Merlin had a two speed two stage crankdriven centrifugal supercharger. Supercharger speed was tied directly to crank speed. As such, the Merlin models were each design for a specific maximum altitude at which peak performance was to be achieved. The two speeds created two bands of peak performance, each with an altitude range of about 4K feet. The choice of the high altitude determined BOTH gear ratios, and as such, the location of both ranges. If the high altitude desired was for example 27K feet, you'd get your peak there, and decent performance between 25K and 29K. After that, you only lose, in either direction. The further outside that range, the worse performance is degraded. So you had two good performance ranges of 4K feet each, with as much as 10K to 15K in between that had relatively poor performance. Finally, once the centrifugal (actually ANY crank driven supercharger) supercharger reaches a certain speed, the faster you spin it, the less power it makes, and the more it takes to spin it. It also overheats the air causing detonation and mixture problems.
For performance at a wide range of altitudes, especially if you need sea level performance at very high altitudes, the crank driven supercharger is VERY inferior to the turbocharger, in piston engines.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hilts,
>Actually, if you read it more closely, Levier touches briefly on the reliability issues as well
Not that I missed it, but I was looking for hints on performance issues.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
With the Allisons, performance and reliability were directly related. That is quite common with complex compound supercharged engines. What they were doing was causing the engine to use its power to destroy itself, rather than to propel the plane.
-
Hi Hilts,
>Those problems are what drove the USAAC to downrate the P-38L engines.
Interesting - what were the relative USAAF and Lockheed WEP ratings?
>For performance at a wide range of altitudes, especially if you need sea level performance at very high altitudes, the crank driven supercharger is VERY inferior to the turbocharger, in piston engines.
Well, the two-stage Merlin gave the Spitfire IX and the P-51B excellent high-altitude performance. However, you might be right that they wouldn't have sufficed for the P-38 - it seems to have been a bit more power-hungry than the P-51 at least.
By the way, do you happen to have a power-over-altitude chart for the turbocharged Allison? I believe the Vought diagrams F4UDOA posted are a bit generic when it comes to turbocharged engines.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hilts,
>Those problems are what drove the USAAC to downrate the P-38L engines.
Interesting - what were the relative USAAF and Lockheed WEP ratings?
>For performance at a wide range of altitudes, especially if you need sea level performance at very high altitudes, the crank driven supercharger is VERY inferior to the turbocharger, in piston engines.
Well, the two-stage Merlin gave the Spitfire IX and the P-51B excellent high-altitude performance. However, you might be right that they wouldn't have sufficed for the P-38 - it seems to have been a bit more power-hungry than the P-51 at least.
By the way, do you happen to have a power-over-altitude chart for the turbocharged Allison? I believe the Vought diagrams F4UDOA posted are a bit generic when it comes to turbocharged engines.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
The USAAC does not give WEP ratings for the P-38L-1-Lo or the P-38L-5-Lo, that's why the P-38L is SUPPOSEDLY several MPH SLOWER than the P-38J. Lockheed and Allison rate the Allisons in the P-38L series at 1475HP Military and 1725HP WEP. Lockheed logs show a top speed of 442MPH at WEP. Note that the P-38J is rated at 1600HP at WEP, with a top speed of 421MPH. The P-38L is rated at 1475HP at Military Power at 414MPH.
The Spitfire and the P-51 performed well at least as much due to weight and aerodynamics as due to the Merlin. If you look closely, their area of advantage is much narrower than the P-47 or the P-38. Neither could maintain sea level power at high altitudes.
I do not have a chart handy, and I have not yet acquired a scanner any way. The J and L models were however able to maintain sea level power up to around 25K, and did not lose power nearly so quickly as Merlin powered planes above that.
-
Henning,
the effects of the position of the cooling flaps on airspeed was also tested for the FW190D9. Dunno if you have the complete Rechlin flight test for Wk.-Nr. 210 006, but it contains a small graph illustrating this effect at 3000rpm.
Interestingly the best position for the D9 was not fully closed, but "slightly open" at Position 2. (The cooling flap positions very equaly devided into 10 Steps, with 0 being fully closed and 10 being fully opened).
All speed/climb charts of this test also have a note on the cooling flap position used during the measurement flights.
-
I'm working on a more detailed engine posting, but this is a rough differences from earlier Allison engines in the P-38J.
The P-38L engines were basically the same as the P-38J, just incorporating all the improvements Allison had made up to that time.
They both still retained the 5.5 in bore x 6.0 in stroke, the same 6.65:1 compression ratio and the same 8.1:1 blower ratio. For all important particulars they were the same engine, and would produce the same amount of power at the same rpm/map settings.
They did have the new venturi intake manifold, that prevented the fuel from separating out of the charge due to too efficient aftercoolers. Most importantly they had the new 12 counterweight crankshaft, vice the 6 counterweight one standard in earlier engines.
Right there is the reason for the higher power ratings. The new crankshaft allowed for 3200 rpm vice 3000 rpm as the max sustained rpm allowed. The earlier 3000 x 8.1:1 x 9.5 inch blower provided enough compression for just over 60 in Hg & 1600 hp when fed slightly over SL static pressure by the turbosuperchargers. The new 3200 x 8.1:1 x 9.5 in blower generated compression for approx 65 in Hg instead.
Since hp = rpm * torque (manifold pressure is easiest approximation for torque) the increased map and rpm generated more power for the P-38L.
1425 * 3200/3000 * 54/54 = 1520 hp mil
1600 * 3200/3000 * 65/60 = 1850 hp wep
But you are going to lose a chunk of that additional power to the blower and other accessories, they requires more energy at 3200 rpm than they did at 3000. I'll see if I can calculate the mass flow and get the blower power requirements. But it was likely about 50 hp, putting it at around 1475 hp mil, and about 1800 hp wep. My guess is that the 1725 hp figure actually comes from 62.5 in Hg & 3200 rpm, giving 1777 - 50 = 1725 hp. I have seen both figures listed, although the 1725 hp figure is most common.
That was the big difference between the L-5 and the earlier models. But, as has been mentioned, the USAAF didn't authorize the 3200 rpm settings, keeping the 3000 rpm * 60 in Hg max from the earlier models as the wep figure, and 3000 rpm * 54 in Hg as the mil power. Lockheed and Allison did, and thats why their figures are higher than the 415 mph mil/ 425 mph wep that that the J was capable of.
Greg Shaw