Author Topic: P38 a super plane?  (Read 16728 times)

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #120 on: November 30, 2004, 07:09:30 PM »
Quote
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:

Quote

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
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #121 on: November 30, 2004, 08:14:15 PM »
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.

Quote
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.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #122 on: November 30, 2004, 08:18:47 PM »
Quote
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:

Quote
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.


Quote
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





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
« Last Edit: November 30, 2004, 08:34:16 PM by Crumpp »

Offline Meyer

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #123 on: November 30, 2004, 08:49:09 PM »
Quote
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~

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #124 on: November 30, 2004, 09:00:11 PM »
Quote
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
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #125 on: November 30, 2004, 09:46:56 PM »
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).

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #126 on: November 30, 2004, 09:55:29 PM »
Quote
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
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #127 on: November 30, 2004, 09:56:26 PM »
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
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #128 on: November 30, 2004, 10:09:48 PM »
Quote
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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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:

Quote
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!



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
« Last Edit: November 30, 2004, 10:13:08 PM by Crumpp »

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #129 on: November 30, 2004, 10:11:47 PM »
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.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #130 on: November 30, 2004, 10:18:15 PM »
F4UDOA,

I need your email address please.  Got some docs I need to send your way.

Crumpp

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #131 on: November 30, 2004, 10:29:19 PM »
Quote
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

« Last Edit: November 30, 2004, 11:36:23 PM by Guppy35 »
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #132 on: November 30, 2004, 11:22:10 PM »
Quote
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
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #133 on: November 30, 2004, 11:51:03 PM »
Quote
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.
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
P38 a super plane?
« Reply #134 on: December 01, 2004, 05:39:53 AM »
Quote
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