General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: FLOOB on June 23, 2015, 03:56:04 AM
Title: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: FLOOB on June 23, 2015, 03:56:04 AM
Talking 'bout how much it sucked in eto. Go to 12:00 in the video for the p38 parts.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: Randy1 on June 23, 2015, 08:57:46 AM
I still hope HTC will give the P-38L the field set higher manifold pressure setting the new engines deserved.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: bustr on June 23, 2015, 03:20:32 PM
From 28:00 on the narrator talked about gunsights.
1. - He called the N9 the K9 while the film showed a P47 with a NAVY Mk8 which at least was correct. In the ETO almost all AAF fighters were refitted with the RAF MKII until the P51D. P38 kept the N3 and subsequent L3 due to space constraints. Sperry made K9 which was an upper turret gunsight in B24. The N9 was initially fitted to P51-D from the factory, never B\C, and rapidly replaced with the K14 in late 44.
2. - The description of the K14 gyroscope not being able to work during high G maneuvering was correct. During high G maneuvering the 70Mil ring and dot fixed reticle on the early K14 was the same diameter as the reticle in the N3 gunsights that the AAF had taken out and refitted with British MKII for it's 100Mil ring. A 70Mil ring was found to be useless for deflection shooting at the higher speeds fighters maneuvered at.
One complaint by pilots of the K14, was the white reticle projection was lost against a background of white clouds. N3, L3, Mk8, MKII, and N9 had a yellow or orange diffuser.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: FLOOB on June 23, 2015, 08:42:49 PM
Yep the p38 was caca in real life.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 24, 2015, 12:04:39 AM
It did well in the Pacific War where the combat was generally at lower altitudes. And against a technologically inferior enemy.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 24, 2015, 12:08:58 AM
It did well in the Pacific War where the combat was generally at lower altitudes. And against a technologically inferior enemy.
It also did well in the MTO and ETO, the 8th AF was the only group to get rid of its P-38s and a lot of that was due to inner 8th AF politics than actual issues with the P-38.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: FLOOB on June 24, 2015, 01:07:02 AM
The p38 debacle.
Kelly Johnson should've been sent to the gallows for that one. What the hell were they thinking..
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: Randy1 on June 24, 2015, 06:35:25 AM
A bunch of Aces in the P-38, That is hard to overlook.
Keep in mind the P-38 was a design initiated in the 1930s. It was the only design that meet the Army's call for a new fighter if I remember right.
The problems the P-38 suffered were slow to be resolved but what we don't know is the source of the slow problem resolution. Was it the pressure from different sources to maintain production or was it Lockheed's failure to attack the problems with enough resources or lack of Army leadership? My guess is all three. Like the P-38L, the -30 engines being neutered back to the -17 engine specs after passing test at Allison and Lockheed. The why on that may have ties to the Mustang production and inter politics. Big Money has its dark side.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 24, 2015, 07:51:34 AM
Keep in mind the P-38 was a design initiated in the 1930s.
So were most WWII fighters. Even the 262. The P-38 was a newer design than both the spit and 109. The 109 was in production a year before the start of the P-38 design process.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: Randy1 on June 24, 2015, 01:58:54 PM
So were most WWII fighters. Even the 262. The P-38 was a newer design than both the spit and 109. The 109 was in production a year before the start of the P-38 design process.
Ya but the 262 did not prototype till the 40s. The specs for the 38 were above the 109s know of during late 30s during the spec development, design process and prototype stages. Apples and oranges here.
The P-38 spec wise would be the best performance fighter of the day. If near mach flow research had advanced far enough, the P-38 might have shortened the war by gaining air superiority earlier in the war. Of course if frogs had wings . . . .
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 24, 2015, 04:31:37 PM
I think you have your timelines mixed up. The P-38 was not an early-war fighter. The 109 was designed in 1933, so the P-38 had better be designed to higher specifications in 1937. However the P-38 did not enter service until early 1942, and even then only in a very limited role on the US mainland as the plane was not really ready for service. By that time there were 400+ mph 109G's, 190A's and Spit9's flying around in Europe. And the 262 prototype had flown a year earlier. The P-38 may have been revolutionary back in 1937 when it was conceived, but when it actually showed up in 1942 its performance had already been surpassed by newer models of the old planes it had been designed to beat.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 24, 2015, 04:37:53 PM
A bunch of Aces in the P-38, That is hard to overlook.
Keep in mind the P-38 was a design initiated in the 1930s. It was the only design that meet the Army's call for a new fighter if I remember right.
The problems the P-38 suffered were slow to be resolved but what we don't know is the source of the slow problem resolution. Was it the pressure from different sources to maintain production or was it Lockheed's failure to attack the problems with enough resources or lack of Army leadership? My guess is all three. Like the P-38L, the -30 engines being neutered back to the -17 engine specs after passing test at Allison and Lockheed. The why on that may have ties to the Mustang production and inter politics. Big Money has its dark side.
There were a bunch of aces in the Brewster too so thet doesnt really saying much. If u look at how many planes that actually saw combat Brewster was prob the best ace maker of the WW2, but that doesnt mean that the Brewster was a good plane.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: FLOOB on June 25, 2015, 11:57:00 AM
The brewster was a very good fighter plane compared to it's adversaries and the p38.
Compared to the p38: It cost less It cost less to maintain It cost less to fuel It required less maintenance It was lighter It had a radial engine It turned very tight It had a decent roll rate It handled well at any speed The pilot didn't freeze to death The pilot didn't have to do any acrobatics to bail out Spin recovery Ability to dive
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: Zimme83 on June 25, 2015, 12:13:40 PM
Yes but the Brewster was a pre war design and unlike spit and 109 a pretty limited one, against other pre war/EW planes it worked well but were too slow to be a real compeditor against most other planes. The Brewsters big luck was that plane performance is only a small part of aerial combat.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: FLOOB on June 25, 2015, 12:23:46 PM
Yes but the Brewster was a pre war design and unlike spit and 109 a pretty limited one, against other pre war/EW planes it worked well but were too slow to be a real compeditor against most other planes. The Brewsters big luck was that plane performance is only a small part of aerial combat.
I absolutely disagree with both of these sentence you wrote.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: Randy1 on June 25, 2015, 12:46:41 PM
I absolutely disagree with both of these sentence you wrote.
The problem with developing the Brewster is its small size, refitting it with an engine strong enough to give it a speed compeditive to for ex MW spit and 109:s would have been problematic, the small wings would also have problem to carry all that weight without loosing too much of the maneuverability.
But the Brewster was better than the reputation, an overweighted Brewster against zekes and Ki-43 is not a good idea but Neither Wildcats or Hurricanes did better. As for the Finns they haf and advantage in Pilot skill and tactic that helped them being compeditive even against La-5 and spit V. But The Brewster still had a hard time against them.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 25, 2015, 12:58:01 PM
The specs for the 38 were above the 109s know of during late 30s during the spec development, design process and prototype stages. Apples and oranges here.
I guess you could see it as apples and oranges in that one design was brilliant and game changing while, the other was an expensive dud.
The P-38 spec wise would be the best performance fighter of the day.
As I've shown it simply wouldn't have been, even without the Mach tuck problem. The P-38 performed poorly compared to contemporary single engined fighters, even against earlier 1930's designs like the 109 and Spitfire.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: Zimme83 on June 25, 2015, 01:43:58 PM
Really hate to say it but i agree w predator. :rofl
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 25, 2015, 01:45:19 PM
There's a first for everything. :)
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 25, 2015, 02:20:01 PM
I guess you could see it as apples and oranges in that one design was brilliant and game changing while, the other was an expensive dud.
As I've shown it simply wouldn't have been, even without the Mach tuck problem. The P-38 performed poorly compared to contemporary single engined fighters, even against earlier 1930's designs like the 109 and Spitfire.
How was the P-38 an expensive dud?
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: Mister Fork on June 25, 2015, 02:29:21 PM
I've never been a 38 fan (as you know from Bigweek, Ack-Ack), and so far as I'm concerned it was less effective in ETO and MTO than our other available plane, the P-47, would have been (and was). But in the Pacific the 38's range was decisive, and its lack of performance was less significant because it faced inferior planes, given the tactics used and the ability to fly higher and dictate the engagement.
Wonder what became of Savge, he was the best 38 apologist I've encountered.
- oldman
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: bustr on June 25, 2015, 05:31:53 PM
Out of the gate it was...required a lot of 'upgrades' and modifications. The versions delivered to the British were also a 'dud'.
The British ordered the fighter to be reduced to a DUDer dud by the removal of the supercharger and both engines right handed as part of the contract. With the supercharger installed during the British testing along with the proper handing of the engines in the ETO, who knows..... They may have changed their designation from :cry DUD :cry to :angel: dud :angel: and acknowledged it just needed a bit more TLC for prime time ETO.
The British ordered a DUD by speicifaction, Lockheed was producing evolving winners for the AAF off the same assembly lines. The standardization on right hand Allisons and no supercharger may have been due to wanting an ease of maintenance due to the large numbers of P40 in contract.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 25, 2015, 05:38:07 PM
It cost twice that of a P-51 and at least four times that of a 109G and whenever it met single engined German fighters in anything like a fair fight it got slaughtered. It was overly complicated and could easily kill inexperienced pilots if an engine lost power on take off, and it was difficult to bail out of. It did very well in the PTO against an inferior enemy, but not in Europe or North Africa. In Africa on 25 August 1943, JG 53 shot down 13 P-38 without losing a single 109. On 2 September they shot down 10 P-38 for the loss of one 109. 109 driver Kurt Buhligen who fought in North Africa says: “The P-38 fighter (and the B-24) were easy to burn. Once in Africa we were six and met eight P-38s and shot down seven." Adolf Galland: "It had similar shortcomings in combat to our Bf 110, our fighters were clearly superior to it."
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: pembquist on June 25, 2015, 06:34:28 PM
Still at 1250 for a brand new surplus one in 1946 it seems a hella bargain.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 25, 2015, 06:45:29 PM
Only until you need to fill it up. ;)
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 25, 2015, 07:11:02 PM
Out of the gate it was...required a lot of 'upgrades' and modifications. The versions delivered to the British were also a 'dud'.
The British received the Model 332B but lacked the counter-rotating props and turbo super charger. However, in 1943 the RAF AFDU (Air Fighting Development Unit) did some trials with the P-47C and the P-38F (AFDU Report #66) and in the test pilots conclusions (AFDU Report Addendum to AFDU Report #66) stated that if had a choice to choose between the P-47C and the P-38F to take into combat, the pilot would pick the P-38F.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 25, 2015, 07:35:12 PM
We all know that given the choice they would have picked the Spitfire over both. :old:
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: Zimme83 on June 25, 2015, 07:45:09 PM
P-38 had same advantage as the 110, longer range than the single engine fighters. So before there was enough P-47 and -51 aviable there was only the -38 to use for long range missions.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 25, 2015, 10:03:40 PM
Well, the early P-38D and E didn't have drop tanks, so they couldn't go very far. The first P-38 to carry drop tanks was the F model in the summer of 1942. The improved G model with more powerful engines didn't arrive until spring/summer of 1943. This is the earliest model P-38 available in AH and it is a complete dog compared to Spits and 109s.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: bozon on June 26, 2015, 10:27:42 AM
The British received the Model 332B but lacked the counter-rotating props and turbo super charger. However, in 1943 the RAF AFDU (Air Fighting Development Unit) did some trials with the P-47C and the P-38F (AFDU Report #66) and in the test pilots conclusions (AFDU Report Addendum to AFDU Report #66) stated that if had a choice to choose between the P-47C and the P-38F to take into combat, the pilot would pick the P-38F.
AFDU absolutely hated the P47. They said it would be no match for the ggerman fighters. They were wrong about many things.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 26, 2015, 11:07:44 AM
The P-47C that they tested in 1943 certainly wasn't a match for the109 and 190, except at very high altitudes. And while it didn't fall apart in the air like the P-47B, the C still had a number of issues with the fuel, oil and hydraulic systems and chronic engine overheating limiting the performance. It wasn't until the D model that the P-47 became a competitive fighter.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 26, 2015, 11:18:05 AM
The P-47D they liked well enough that they bought hundreds of them. Deployed as fighter bombers in the PTO mostly.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: Brooke on July 03, 2015, 01:54:14 AM
Most pilots I've heard or read comments from who flew the P-38 and the P-51 in combat preferred the P-51, but certainly not all.
There is a set of them who thought that the P-38 was an excellent fighter.
As mentioned already, it was a highly regarded and sought-after fighter in North Africa and the Pacific Theater. (It is not a solid argument to say "Sure it was valued in the Pacific because Japanese planes were inferior." The reason that is a fallacious argument is that that all US planes flew in the Pacific -- the P-38 in the Pacific was highly regarded when considering P-51's, P-47's, F4U's, etc. as well. It also is not a solid argument to say "Well, so and so's unit shot down a bunch of P-38's and didn't suffer any losses" or "so and so said that P-38's were easy to shoot down." Initial US forces were completely green. Green pilots flying anything would have had trouble vs. Galland or LW veterans. Some LW pilots didn't think the P-47 was a very good fighter either, yet it battled the LW at its height and acquitted itself well.)
It was also a fighter with enormous range.
It was an excellent fighter-bomber and ground-attack airplane.
There are about four reasons why a lot of pilots disliked the P-38 (poor training on engine failures, lots of engine failures at high altitudes, egregious cockpit heat, and compressibility problems above about 20k). Many of those things were not issues in North Africa and the Pacific, and even in the high-alt European setting, they were solvable without significant redesign (and in fact were solved, but just too late to change opinions that were already formed -- and P-51's were showing up in numbers by that time anyway while folks were screaming for every P-38 they could get in N. Africa).
The P-38 was a decent fighter in WWII, has a record that shows this, and was highly regarded by most US pilots in North Africa and the Pacific and even by some in Europe.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: Ack-Ack on July 03, 2015, 01:56:11 AM
AFDU absolutely hated the P47. They said it would be no match for the ggerman fighters. They were wrong about many things.
Soviets felt the same about the P-47, they felt it didn't meet their need as a fighter which is why they pushed them off to the Navy for the northern fleet.
Title: Re: Real p38 pilots video
Post by: Brooke on July 03, 2015, 02:15:37 AM