Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: fire_ant on March 03, 2001, 11:42:00 AM
-
Lately, every time I see some re-summarization of the air war in Europe, and they always give credit to the P-51 for saving the 8th AF daylight bombing mission and being the best fighter in the war, I'm always struck by the fact that the mustangs seemed to be fairly mediocre in all the sims I have played, while the P-38, given little if any credit for it's role in the ETO, seems to be so much better.
I ran this by my brother who is a big "bombing the riech" enthusiast, I asked him why he thought the 38 was essentially discontued as an escort for the 8th AF. This is what he came up with:
"From TARGET BERLIN by Jeffrey Ethell and Alfred Price:
During his time in europe Hub Zemke commanded units operating each of the
three fighter types used by the 8th air force, so his comments on how they
compared are especially relevant. He felt the Lightning was the least
effective of the escorts. "The turbo-superchargers were controlled by an oil
regulator and at altitude the oil had a tendency to congeal, which caused
serious problems. On two occasions I recall entering combat with enemy
single seaters and it became a matter of life and death to get away and
survive, though I had started with the advantage. On both occasions the
engines either cut out completely or over-revved, when the throttles were cut
or advanced." A further problem with the P-38 was that its airframe was not
strong and it had a relatively low maximum diving speed. If German fighters
broke off combat by diving steeply the Lightning could not follow"
I think the supercharger problems were fixed in later version, and the steep diving thing must have been about compressibility dangers, not air frame strength! But I'm curious what some of the experten around here could add to this discussion. I have a feeling maybe the P-38 has been a little unfairly maligned in the popular history...
DB
-
Because there is no way to model all the problems that bugged the P-38 (heat, engine spark plugs, etc) in a game. The P-38 did outperform the P-51 in everything except in speed issues.Edited/added:And in range of course.
"If German fighters
broke off combat by diving steeply the Lightning could not follow"
I thought that was the escort's job.. keep them away from the buffs. Enemy dives away, 38 does not follow, job done. The 38 would compress following a 109 or 190 diving, I believe thats why most of them didnt bother to follow (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Tac (edited 03-03-2001).]
-
"The P-38 did outperform the P-51 in everything except in speed issues"
Only at a few specific alts was the P-51 faster.
Oh Wiiiiiiiiidewing....!!!!!!!! ;D
-Westy
-
The P-51D was faster then the P-38L at all altitudes according to the charts I've seen. 345mph vs. 365mph at sea level, 380mph vs. 400mph at 10,000ft, 420mph vs. 437mph at 25,000ft. The P-51 also had a roll advantage at all speeds over unboosted P-38s, and at speed up to around 300mph against boosted P-38s(aileron boost makes no difference at lower speed when you can already produce full aileron deflection). Also, if one were to look at turning performance, the P-38 is far superior in one area ... sustained low speed turns. In higher speed manuevers(very common when you are in 400+mph fighters and engaging at 25-30,000ft) the P-51 was at an advantage due to it's manuvering flaps, which could be deployed at speeds up to 410mph. Once the speed bled down, the P-38 gained the upper hand. The P-51 had a hands down visibilty advantage, both in seeing, and in being seen. This means little in AH or WB or AW where there is an neon sign hanging over every airplane, but in RL 80-90% of kills were the result of suprise, so this is an important factor. They both had long range. Their firepower was about equivalent, but the P-38's was focused in one spot so it has an advantage there. The P-38 was better in acceleration, but the P-51 wasn't too far behind. The P-38 also had an advantage in rate of climb. In terms of dive performance, the limit speed for the P-38L was 440 indicated vs. 500 ias for the P-51D, dive acceleration was similar with the edge going to the P-38L.
If you break all this down, they are both about equal in range, and if we take reliability out of the equation they should be equal in terms of flying missions. Since we are talking fighter missions, additional payload doesn't matter. Now the P-51's advantages lay in speed, dive, high speed manuevering, roll, and visibility. The P-38's advantages being low speed turn, acceleration, climb, firepower. So basically the P-38 would be a better low speed, low alt dogfighter, which is primarily what happens in AH, WB, AW. However real life missions in the ETO were about suprise, high speed manuevering combats at high altitudes, diving etc. All these are areas where the P-51D is the better plane.
Here's an intersting statistic from an Air Force loss report:
Loss of Element Leaders and wingmen:
Basis: 100 aircraft lost to Enemy Aircraft
P-47 #1: 45 #2: 55
P-38 #1: 28 #2: 72
P-51 #1: 46 #2: 54
This would seem to indicate that the P-38s were getting bounced a lot, since their wingmen were being shot down at such a high rate, compared with the P-47 and P-51 units(this is based on 8th AF experience btw, and doesn't include losses to flak).
The report has a lot of interesting stuff in it. Here are some recaps of some of the statistics: P-38s seemed to get hit by flak a little more then the other types(probably due to their size). P-51's were far more vulnerable to flak then the P-38 or P-47, but suprisingly less vulnerable to E/A fire then the P-38. P-51's averaged the longest missions, and had a slightly higher loss/100 sortie rate then the P-38, and about 3 times higher then the P-47. However, the P-51s kill/100 sortie rate was 3 times higher then the P-47 and the P-38s was lower then both of these. Interesting stuff.
In summary, I'd say that both the P-51 and P-38 were good fighters, and the difference is that the P-51s strenghts were the ones that were more important in RL combat, while the P-38's strengths are more important in the "Arena" combat of online flight sims.
Sable
352nd FG
-
Forgot about the roll rate. Thnx for pointing it out.
"Only at a few specific alts was the P-51 faster"
What? then how come they always run away from me dangit! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Sable:
The P-51D was faster then the P-38L at all altitudes according to the charts I've seen. 345mph vs. 365mph at sea level, 380mph vs. 400mph at 10,000ft, 420mph vs. 437mph at 25,000ft.
There is one thing that virtually every book and report on the P-38L ignores. Actual WEP horsepower. The Allison V-1710 F-30 powering the L model was rated by Allison at 1,725 hp in WEP. The pilot manuals of the time (with the exception of a few hundred printed in mid 1945) specify max power at 1,600 hp. However, it was the AAF and its inherent conservatism that restricted power to the same rating as the F-17 engines in the P-38H and J. When we look at factory performance data that allows for the max rated output, we see that the P-51D loses its advantage except at low altitudes.
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/SpeedChart.JPG)
You will notice that the P-38L pushes into the 440 mph region.
Let's look at roll rate while we're at it.
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RollChart.JPG)
You will notice that the redesigned ailerons of the P-38L improved roll rate at all speeds, with the hydraulic boost giving a significant advantage at speeds from 325 on up.
Here's an intersting statistic from an Air Force loss report:
Loss of Element Leaders and wingmen:
Basis: 100 aircraft lost to Enemy Aircraft
P-47 #1: 45 #2: 55
P-38 #1: 28 #2: 72
P-51 #1: 46 #2: 54
This would seem to indicate that the P-38s were getting bounced a lot, since their wingmen were being shot down at such a high rate, compared with the P-47 and P-51 units).
Does this report define the time window used to compile the statistics? The reason I ask is that when the 55th and 20th FGs deployed, they were responsible for flying all the deep penetrations. This means that two seriously undersize groups were going all the way to the target and were the only escort after crossing the German border. When less than 50 Lightnings must face the entire Luftwaffe fighter force, they find themselves very busy.
Then there was the training issues. Mustang pilots were sent to a Clobber College where they learned how to fly and fight in the P-51. P-38 groups did not have any such system in place, nor was one put in place by the 8th's Fighter Command. Consider that the vast majority of pilots reporting to P-38 groups had never even sat in a P-38 prior to arriving at the unit.
Finally, we must look at the inherent complexity of the P-38. It took many more hours to become proficient in the Lightning than it did in the single-engine Mustang. These issues were brought directly to the 8th Fighter Command's attention by the skipper of the 20th FG in a letter which I posted here before. I'll post here again.
20th Fighter Group Headquarters
APO 637 U.S. Army
(E-2)
3 June 1944
Subject: P-38 Airplane in Combat.
To: Commanding General, VIII Fighter Command, APO 637, U.S. Army.
1. The following observations are being put in writing by the
undersigned at the request of the Commanding General, VII FC. They
are intended purely as constructive criticism and are intended in any
way to "low rate" our present equipment.
2. After flying the P-38 for a little over one hundred hours on
combat missions it is my belief that the airplane, as it stands now, is too
complicated for the 'average' pilot. I want to put strong emphasis on the
word 'average, taking full consideration just how little combat training our
pilots have before going on as operational status.
3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that
we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five
hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod,
penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along
with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM.
He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve
the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy
load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or
may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced",
what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power
and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down
and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop
tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two
separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold
pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot
possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this
point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things
wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing
RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets
to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature
with subsequent engine failure.
4. In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost as least
four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive action. The
logical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit, trying to get
organized that they were shot down before they could get going.
5. The question that arises is, what are you going to do about it?
It is standard procedure for the group leader to call, five minutes before R/V
and tell all the pilots to "prepare for trouble". This is the signal for
everyone to get into auto rich, turn drop tank switches on, gun heaters on,
combat and sight switches on and to increase RPM and manifold pressure
to maximum cruise. This procedure, however, does not help the pilot who is
bounced on the way in and who is trying to conserve his gasoline and equipment
for the escort job ahead.
6. What is the answer to these difficulties? During the past several
weeks we have been visited at this station time and time again by Lockheed
representatives, Allison representatives and high ranking Army personnel
connected with these two companies. They all ask about our troubles and
then proceed to tell us about the marvelous mechanisms that they have devised
to overcome these troubles that the Air Force has turned down as "unnecessary".
Chief among these is a unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold
pressure regulator, which will control power, RPM and mixture by use of a single
lever. It is obvious that there is a crying need for a device like that in
combat.
7. It is easy to understand why test pilots, who have never been in
combat, cannot readily appreciate what each split second means when a
"bounce" occurs. Every last motion when you get bounced is just another
nail in your coffin. Any device which would eliminate any of the enumerated
above, are obviously very necessary to make the P-38 a really effective
combat airplane.
8. It is also felt that that much could done to simplify the gas switching
system in this airplane. The switches {valve selector handles} are
all in awkward positions and extremely hard to turn. The toggle switches for
outboard tanks are almost impossible to operate with gloves on.
9. My personal feeling about this airplane is that it is a fine piece of
equipment, and if properly handled, takes a back seat for nothing that the enemy
can produce. But it does need simplifying to bring it within the capabilities of the
'average' pilot. I believe that pilots like Colonel Ben Kelsey and Colonel
Cass Huff are among the finest pilots in the world today. But I also believe
that it is difficult for men like them to place their thinking and ability on
the level of a youngster with a bare 25 hours in the airplane, going into his
first combat. That is the sort of thinking that will have to be done, in my
opinion, to make the P-38 a first-class all around fighting airplane.
HAROLD J. RAU
Colonel, Air Corps,
Commanding.
As you can see, the fighter groups were well aware of the P-38's shortcomings and were tirelessly trying to get them corrected. They were fully corrected with the introduction of the P-38L-1-LO which was a great deal easier to fly and manage.
I haven't touched on the reliability trouble experienced, but rest assured that I have a great deal of material on the causes and the changes made to correct them.
In summary, I'd say that both the P-51 and P-38 were good fighters, and the difference is that the P-51s strenghts were the ones that were more important in RL combat, while the P-38's strengths are more important in the "Arena" combat of online flight sims.
I would would write a different summary. I would state that a properly modeled, well flown P-38L will present the most serious of challenges to ANY World War Two fighter encountered, at any altitude. Granted, the P-38 truly excelled down in the weeds. However, at any height below 20,000 ft. it was the one of the best fighters on the western front, bar none. Above 20k, it was good enough to hold its own with anything that rose up to combat it.
Spend some time talking with pilots who flew both the P-38 and the P-51 in combat, and each and every one of them will say the same thing. If it came down to a knife fight, they would rather be in the P-38.
One point about acceleration: The P-38L accelerated faster than the P-51D by the same margin as the P-51D accelerated faster than the P-39Q. And that's only using the 1,600 hp rating, not the 1,725 hp rating (easily set by the crewchief with a screwdriver and two 7/16" wrenches, according to one pilot).
Perhaps, AH will revisit the P-38L modeling at some point in the future.
My regards,
Widewing
-
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38speedchart.jpg)
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38rollchart.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
[This message has been edited by Widewing (edited 03-03-2001).]
-
I truly hate F#*$&@# BBs software....
If I don't see it this time.......
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/SpeedChart.JPG)
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RollChart.JPG)
My regards,
Widewing
-
F&$# it!
Go to:
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-3.html (http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-3.html) and see the charts there.
My regards,
Widewing
-
UBB was invented by a sadistic engineer who I hope burns in hell (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) HTML so much easier =P
[This message has been edited by Tac (edited 03-03-2001).]
-
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38speedchart.JPG)
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38rollchart.JPG)
My regards,
Widewing
-
heh, guess you got it, deleting the pics of my earlier post (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
My grandfather flew both the -38J and the -51D with the 384th FS/364th FG. He had roughly 30 missions in Lightenings, including several to Berlin. (he had another 50 in Mustangs)
He prefered the Mustang to the Lightening. It was much easier to fly he said. About the only area where he prefered the -38 was its ability to get to cruising alt.
I've read several accounts of -38 and -51 pilots, from Osprey's excellent "VIII Fighter Command at War" to the history of my grandfather's own FG, "The History of the 364th Fighter Group".
The comments about the -38J range from "...I would say that anyone flying a P-38 should have no fear of any enemy aircraft - even dogfighting a single-engined aircraft at a decent altitude. I consider anything below 20,000 feet a decent altitude for a P-38", from Cpt Maurice McLary, 55th FS/20th FG.
to
"Nevertheless, it was known that if one initiated a steep dive in a P-38 above 20,000 feet, shock waves could blanket your tail, destorying elevator contorl...German fighters were wont to dive away from bomber formations they had just filled with innumerable holes. P-38's couldn't dive after them from 25,000 feet like P-47's and P-51's could." from Lt Robert Farely, 383rd FS/364th FG.
Of note is the fact that the 364th FG flew P-38J's from 2 Mar 44 to the first week of Aug 44 when they switched to P-51D's. This quote comes from the 364th's own history, "The importance of the change to P-51's for the 364th Group is shown in the fact that from March 2nd to August 1st, flying the P-38, our pilots destoryed 72 German aircraft. From August 1st to April 30th, while flying the P-51, they destoryed 383. This roughly is 16 planes per month with the P-38 compared to 42 1/2 per month for the P-51."
The 364th also survived better in the Mustang. In their almost 5 months in -38's they lost 55 pilots in combat. During 9 months of the Mustang they lost 76. This equals a k/d ratio of 1.3 for the P-38 and 5 for the P-51.
------------------
Col Dune
C.O. 352nd Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona
-
A couple of other things:
Service ceiling:
P-51D @ 42,000ft,
P-38J @ 44,000ft.
Above 30,000ft the turbos on the 38 give it some advantage in speed due to maintained horsepower.
Also, while the P-51's instantaneous turn rate above 400 mph was very good, it had the bad tendency to start popping rivits at higher air speeds. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Well, the only thing I really question is the 440mph speed given for the P-38L. For two reasons ... #1 I've never seen it listed in any other resource besides your document. #2, the top speed the P-38J/L at MILITARY power (1425hp * 2) is around 410mph. The top speed for the P-38J at WEP (1600hp * 2) is 420mph. Now this was an increase of 350hp, producing about 10mph difference. Now that chart lists the P-38L as doing 440mph using (1725hp * 2). This would mean that an addition of 250hp over the P-38J somehow produced an increase of 20mph. Now this makes no sense given that the force of drag increases exponentially with velocity. So there's why I don't believe the 440mph number.
Also, I was under the impression that the manuever flap setting for the P38 was the 8 degrees of fowler flap(at least that is what AHT lists).
Lastly, that report that I was talking about measured from August of '43 to May of 1944. As far as your point that the 55th and 20th were outnumbered, so were all the other FGs. None of them were doubled up this early in the campaign .. the 8th AF didn't have enough Fighter groups yet, especially of the long range variety to use multiple groups to guard the same section of a bomber stream at the same time. Bud Anderson comments about this in his autobiography(we had more fighters, but it seemed like we were always outnumbered because the LW would focus in one spot). Also, from december of 1943 until Feb 1944 the 8th AF only had the 354th FG flying Mustangs. The 357th became available in Feb '44, and the 4th didn't convert until the very end of Feb, after Big Week.
Please understand that I'm not trying to say that the P-38 sucked. It certainly proved itself in the Pacific and the Med. Just that the P-51 worked out much better in the ETO.
Sable
352nd FG
-
Once again, here's a "best plane" thread, which ignores economics.
The P-38 is an excellent plane. So is the P-51. Perhaps, in a 1 on 1, the P-38 might have a slight advantage over the P-51, however.....
A P-51D cost about $50,000
A P-38L cost about $125,000
So tell me--are two P-38L's going to be as effective as 5 P-51D's???
Not likely!
Also unmentioned is time required for construction--the P-51 took fewer than half the man hours to build, meaning losses could be replaced that much faster.
Further adding to the P-38's woes, the supply situation for the P-38 was a headache compared to that of the P-51. Each P-38 required two sets of parts for every major component, and these had to be shipped all the way from the USA. OTOH, the P-51 required just 1 set of major parts per plane, and these parts were mostly easily available in Britain.
In the pacific, where the supply situation was exactly the opposite of that in Britain (American parts were easier to come by in the PAC), and losses were nowhere as severe, the P-38 performed as the excellent fighter it was.
The P-38 was not well suited to the mission requirements in Europe. It cost too much and was too hard to keep operational. The P-51 was simply better suited to the conditions. Likewise, the P-38 was better suited to the conditions in the Pacific.
As for which was actually the better plane? Depends on whether you're in Europe or the Pacific (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
J_A_B
-
yep. not to mention the $#@$#@ pencilnecks that ditched the P-38K (which from what I read would OWN the P-51).
History is so cruel.. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by J_A_B:
A P-51D cost about $50,000
A P-38L cost about $125,000
So tell me--are two P-38L's going to be as effective as 5 P-51D's???
You mean 2.5 P-51s, right? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Your point is well taken, the P-38s performance did not justify its cost and much greater operational cost in dollars and manhours. This is primary reason that the P-38 was superceded by the Mustang in AAF service. Moreover, it is the only valid reason ever presented with anything close to a basis in fact.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Sable,
You have some great information there on loss per sortie data. Any chance of you posting this stuff somewhere??
Widewing,
Anychance of getting a look at the original docs that you have posted. I'm curious about fuel used and weather there was anything done to clean up the airframe.
-
Sure thing ... I'll try to scan them in the next few days. Btw, there are like 20 pages of analysis on B-17 and B-24 losses, talking about fighters vs. flak, fires, engine loss. Very interesting stuff.
Sable
352nd FG
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
Sable,
You have some great information there on loss per sortie data. Any chance of you posting this stuff somewhere??
Widewing,
Anychance of getting a look at the original docs that you have posted. I'm curious about fuel used and weather there was anything done to clean up the airframe.
-
Originally posted by Dune:
My grandfather flew both the -38J and the -51D with the 384th FS/364th FG. He had roughly 30 missions in Lightenings, including several to Berlin. (he had another 50 in Mustangs)
Could you tell me your grandfather's name? I know a few members of the 364th. I'm sure you know that John Lowell eventually took command of the 364th (he flew with your grandfather's squadron. George Ceuleers also flew with the 364th (383rd FS). If you'd rather not post that info here, you can send it to: editor@worldwar2aviation.com
Well, now I have to go out and shovel 16 inches of snow out of the driveway so that I can get into the office this afternoon.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing,
My grandfather's name is David W. Williams. He was a 1st Lt at the time. He is living north of Dallas now.
Yes, I know Col Lowell took over the 364th, although it was temporary. He relieved Col McManus (who'd taken over while Col Eugene Roberts was Z.I.) and was CO for about a month until Roberts returned. I have had the honor of writing to him on several occasions and even having my copy of the "History of the 364th Fighter Group" autographed by him.
BTW, here are two pictures of my grandfather that I sent to Peter Randall's 8th Air Force Fighter Groups Page (http://www.pyker.dircon.co.uk/index.htm)
(http://www.pyker.dircon.co.uk/pictures/364g/Williams.jpg)
(http://www.pyker.dircon.co.uk/pictures/364g/5Y-Wbar.jpg)
(although Mr. Randall incorrectly has him listed as a Cpt.)
------------------
Col Dune
C.O. 352nd Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona
-
you know when I am not drunk I am going to read the above!! ok ya me voy pa mexico porque hay muchas pinches viejas de alla! y todas me quieren!!!!!
-
Ok, your probably gonna kill me for this one Dune but...
I swear to god your dads flying a pregnant mare from looking at that photo and the angle it was shot from!
Honest to god, that has to be the ugliest picture of a Mustang I have ever seen.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
That's the funny thing about the Mustang...
From some angles, it's the most beautiful thing ever to have wings.
From others, it is a butt-ugly pregnant horse.
There's no in-between.
J_A_B
(shaddup right now all you LW types who are thinking up a witty reply!!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )