Jumpin on the P-38 bandwagon

[HoHun]

Hi Hilts,

>Consider that when Galland met John Lowell (a pilot of equal skill) in a later P-38, Galland said Lowell damn near killed him, and Lowell only broke off to go home for fuel.

Let me point out that I don't believe the Lowell story, at least as posted on several boards a year ago. A mid-1944, post-invasion date with Galland personally flying a Reichsverteidigung mission in a Fw 190D-9 before the type went into production, over a 500 ft deep open-cast mining pit in the North German plains is not excactly credible. (I guess it's probably based on a real event, but somehow got distorted or embellished with contradicting details.)

>If the atmospheric pressure were to drop so low that the there was not enough air available to create 64" of manifold pressure, then the load on the impeller would decrease, and the turbo would overspeed. So yes, it is possible to overspeed the turbo at high altitudes, but I find no mention of this with the P-38 or the P-47, though both did use the same turbocharger.

Glad we agree!

Overspeeding certainly was a possibility as the P-47 examined by the German test pilot Hans-Werner Lerche was fitted with an overspeed warning light. He was surprised to see that the aircraft relied on pilot inputs to prevent engine damage, which was a problem for the German sense of technical perfection. He admitted that the German mentality could prevent cutting-edge technology from becoming operational, though.

Oh, by the way, did you mean to suggest that 64" manifold pressure was an operational standard for the P-38? I almost forgot about this point.

>The dive flaps allowed the P-38 to chase in a dive

Even with the compressibility flaps, as Kelly Johnson called them, the critical Mach number of the P-38 was far below that of the P-47, the P-51, the Spitfire, the Me 109, the Fw 190, and most other contemporary fighters. Kelly Johnson himself made a list of the shortcomings of his design, and low critical Mach number even with the compressibility flaps was one of his points.

>The fact that the P-38 accounted for more Japanese planes than most other fighters combined should be enough to raise a few warning flags. As should the success of the P-38 over North Africa, Italy, and the Med., all with a different leadership than the 8th.

The mission of the 8th Air Force necessarily required high-altitude combat. In other theaters, and for the tactical mission of the 9th Air Force, high-altitude capability wasn't crucial. (Nevertheless, they had converted two of their three P-38 groups to other types before VE day.)

In general, that the P-38 was released for use in other roles and theatres where it could be successful seems like a very good decision to me.

>Now, Genreal Kenney and Colonel McDonald had Major McGuire write a manual to indoctrinate new pilots to the 5th AF and the Pacific theater of operations.

You're right that information sharing could be a big problem between the different US forces.

If you're talking about McGuire's "Combat Tactics in the SouthWest Pacific Area", however, it was only published May 1944, when the P-51 already outnumbered the P-38 7 to 4 groups in the 8th Air Force. Most of his advice is quite specific to the Pacific theatre anyway, and the rest is so general (like the description of the four-finger formation) that I don't think the 8th Air Force needed McGuire's write-up to teach it to their pilots.

>Like the guy said, we are generating way too much text here.

It might improve the situation if you'd erase two copies of your triple post.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Guppy,

Thanks for the quotes! That's good information :-)

>>This is probably not the answer you're looking for, but the truth may well be that nearly every other front line fighter was considered superior to the P-38. (That's not my personal opinion, but the USAAF leadership's!)

>Yes. In a very specific context--the high-altitude escort role, in the European Theatre.

Exactly! That's why I wouldn't totally agree with the 8th Air Force assessment - the P-38 has some strengths that make it an excellent aircraft in other roles. Especially in an online game's arena, where high-altitude performance means little, it's quite a competent fighter!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[gripen]

Hm... to be honest, I don't know what is going on here, I see several posts by Renegade Savage, some are old some are new...

Anyway, overspeeding turbo was possible, see the P-38 manual: "Above 25000 feet, turbo-supercharger overspeed is possible". And with a bit of technical knowledge it's easy to figure out that when air density decreases turbo needs to turn faster to keep given MAP. Also it is easy to figure out that overspeeding at (questionable) 64" MAP happens at lower altitude than at 60" MAP.

About comressebility it should be noted that it was not just a dive problem because the critical mach number decreased under increasing g load, see compressebility table on the manual or explanation in the America's Hundred thousand. So compressebility was not just a dive problem but it also greatly reduced maneuverability at high altitude. BTW all this is discused above.

gripen

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

The answer to my question was exactly the same tired B.S. I've come to expect.

 First, everyone quotes data taken from the already light P-51B, with less than a full mission load, approximately 1400 pounds light, and running on 150 performance number gas not often used in actual combat. Then they insist on comparing it to a fully laden P-38L (the heaviest of all P-38's), run on 130 performance number gas. Total B.S. comparison. Same story as always.

 What I said about 64" of manifold pressure and 1725 horsepower was that those were Lockheed and Allison numbers. The fact that the USAAF did not accept them is just another case of the USAAF screwing up.

  Then we have the 8th AF as the only group to complain about the P-38. Now all along the USAAF insists on equipping the P-38 with substandard props, holding up production of better versions, refusing performance enhancements at every turn, and then complaining about the result.

  Now, there is the issue of training and the 8th AF mission profile. Both the 20th AND the 55th FG's came to Britain with no experience in operation at over 27,000 feet. Why is it this happened when the 8th AF already knew for several months they were going to require these missions that the P-38 pilots and planes were never even trained or tested at all at altitudes above 27,000 feet.

 The 20th and 55th FG's entered service and went 100% operational in less than 30 days, with few experienced combat pilots and even fewer experienced leaders. Compare this to the P-51 groups of the same period which were comprised of or led by former RAF Eagle pilots who had long term combat experience in Merlin equipped Spitfires and Mustangs. Compare that to the P-47 groups that had over 700 planes and pilots and months of experience. Comparing pilot with no combat experience, and no high altitude training, in a plane never adequately tested by the USAAF at high altitudes, to an experinced group of combat veterans is absurd.

 I never meant that McGuire's booklet would have been useful to the 8th AF. What I meant, and you obviously completely missed, is that the 8th had experienced combat pilots, indeed, experienced P-38 combat pilots, who were quite successful, and yet completely failed to use the knowledge and experience to indoctrinate new P-38 pilots.

 I really do not give a damn whether you believe the Lowell vs. Galland story or not, that is your choice. It was told by a respected veteran pilot with no reason to lie, published, and never disputed by either pilot. Considering you are not a noted historian, a respected and published author, nor a veteran pilot who was there when it was told or when it happened, your opinion of the authenticity of the story is worthless to anyone but you. You have never been able to prove to anyone's satisfaction but your own that it did not happen.

  Once again, this turns into the same tired load of crap. I deleted the duplicate posts. Still a waste of time, and it takes 3 minutes to load this thread on dial up.

[gripen]

Renegade Savage,
I wonder how many times I should note that in the USAF test the P-51B-1 had full internal load (180 gallons of fuel+ammo+what ever) and the test was with standard fuel and authorized MAP 67". The P-38J-1 in the comparison was also with full internal load (300 gallons of fuel+ammo+what ever) and 60". So what's wrong in this comparison?

gripen

[Vermillion]

Nah Nah Westy  

I got an original hardcopy of that book, which believe it or not, I found on a dusty half hidden shelf at a Waldens book store in some mall somewhere in Atlanta a couple of years agoif I remember right.  Was there for a business trip, found it and screamed "COME to MOMMA!!"

[Guppy]

Exactly! That's why I wouldn't totally agree with the 8th Air Force assessment - the P-38 has some strengths that make it an excellent aircraft in other roles. Especially in an online game's arena, where high-altitude performance means little, it's quite a competent fighter!

We seem to share a lot of views in common.  

I'd say that the P-38J-25/L, with aileron boost, dive flaps and nearly all the bugs worked out, was a good high-altitude fighter. However, the P-51 (especially the B with critical altitude up near 30k) was a very good high-altitude fighter, and by most accounts the P-47 pretty much ruled the sky above 25,000 ft.

[ra]

The P-38 design looked good in 1940-41 when the USAAC was scrambling to find a fighter that could match European designs.  At that time it was believed that if you wanted long range you needed two engines, so the P-38 started to look good to Army planners who knew war was coming.  They knew the P-40 and P-39 wouldn't cut the mustard.

By 1944 there were single-engine planes that could do the same job as a P-38, so an expensive, hard to maintain twin was no longer warranted by the situation.  If the war had dragged on one more year the P-38 would probably have been phased out by the P-51H and P-47N, at least until jets became combat ready.

It doesn't matter how the P-38L performed compared to the P-51D.  Whatever the differences were between the two, a second engine was not justified anymore.

ra

[HoHun]

Hi Hilts,

>What I said about 64" of manifold pressure and 1725 horsepower was that those were Lockheed and Allison numbers. The fact that the USAAF did not accept them is just another case of the USAAF screwing up.

Well, let's assume the USAAF screwed up - do you have any documents supporting the 64" Hg number? Even if not operationally used, I think it would help your cause by emphasizing the unexploited development potential of the P-38.

>Now, there is the issue of training and the 8th AF mission profile.

I'm convinced the 8th Air Force dropped the P-38 because of its low critical Mach number. If the P-51 would have displayed teething troubles similar to the P-38, they probably would have stuck to it anyway - just think of the gun jam problem plaguing the P-51. No amount of training can make you exceed the critical Mach number.

>What I meant, and you obviously completely missed, is that the 8th had experienced combat pilots, indeed, experienced P-38 combat pilots, who were quite successful, and yet completely failed to use the knowledge and experience to indoctrinate new P-38 pilots.

I admit I missed that.

However, there were fresh P-51 groups with no experience either who weren't considered as problematic as the P-38 groups. If you'd be in command of the 8th Air Force, would you rather equip your groups with a fighter that requires expert mechanics and ace pilots to be successful, or with another fighter that does just as well with average ground and air crews while requiring just half the engines, spare parts, and fuel? This is a rethorical question of course, but if you'd try to see it with the eyes of the 8th Air Force staff, you might understand why they didn't decide in favour of the P-38.

>The successful P-38 pilots of the 8th knew how to beat the Germans, and had moves to conquer the dive problems, and tactics that worked at high altitudes.

Could you go into more detail here? This sounds quite interesting.

>I really do not give a damn whether you believe the Lowell vs. Galland story or not, that is your choice. It was told by a respected veteran pilot with no reason to lie, published, and never disputed by either pilot.

I felt obliged to point out three major contradictions in the Lowell story for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the story.

The three contradictions are:

- There was no open-cast mining near Hannover.
- Galland was completely tied up in organizing a Luftwaffe response after the Allied invasion and is highly unlikely to have flown operational missions with the Luftwaffe. If he did, he'd have mentioned it in his memoirs "Die Ersten und die Letzten", which he didn't.
- The Fw 190D-9 didn't enter production any earlier than late September 1944 and was not available in squadron strength at the date of the incident.

As long as these apparent contradictions aren't resolved, I'll consider the authenticity of the story doubtful. I'm entirely comfortable with you ignoring these contradictions, but I'm sure some of the readers of this thread are a bit more sceptical than you.

>Once again, this turns into the same tired load of crap.

To be honest, I think it's "the same" because you always leave the scene when facing serious opposition, just to start it over again at some later time.

How about showing a bit more patience now? We might actually learn something new! :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Guppy]

If the war had dragged on one more year the P-38 would probably have been phased out by the P-51H and P-47N, at least until jets became combat ready.

If that was so, why was a second P-38 manufacturing facility (Consolidated-Vultee) beginning production just as the war ended?

The twin-engine factor was specifically cited by Fifth Air Force as a reason why the P-38 was preferred to the P-51. The second engine wasn't "necessary", but on long-range missions with little prospect of rescue the pilot's morale was a lot better when he didn't have to sweat every time the engine coughed.

The longest fighter missions of the war (10+ hours, 2,000+ miles) were flown by Lightnings, just weeks before the Japanese surrender. I think that says something.

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Guppy ]

[bolillo_loco]

quote "Well, let's assume the USAAF screwed up - do you have any documents supporting the 64" Hg number? Even if not operationally used, I think it would help your cause by emphasizing the unexploited development potential of the P-38."

I do not know about the 64" MAP, but the 1,725 hp figure and 440 mph tas for the P-38L is stated in warren bodies book "the lockheed P-38 lighting on more than one occasion. he states that the second LO series of 38L production batch used this power as standard. not the first 38L series which used the same power limitations as the J series. he states in his book that the second batch had new turbo charger regulators that were improved. That is what warren bodie states anyway.

Tony levier states that mach .72 was completely safe with dive flaps for the P-38 and many manuals and pilots stated that recovery was effortless with dive recovery flaps. also dives from 20,000 ft are said to have been no problem for the 38 with or with out flaps. the P-51 series is stated to have a max safe dive speed of mach .75, is there that much of a difference? the P-38's pilots manual states as we all know mach .675 w/o flaps and it may be exceeded by 20 mph ias. how much is 20 mph ias at altitude? it could be a decent gain not?

climb rates, the three tests that I have seen for the P-51B gave data that stated

443 mph tas rear fuselage tank was removed
440 mph tas rear tank empty at take off
430 mph tas rear tank full at take off

initial climb rates for the mustang that are in the mid 3,500 fpm range are taken from mustangs that either had the rear tank removed or empty at take off. 3,000 fpm sticks in my mind for a mustang with rear tank full of fuel.

somebody stated that the P-38 was a J-5-LO and did not have the leading edge tank in place for the climb comparison. this would make the take off weight at 16,800 yet the test lists the a/c weight at 17,600. this is a 38 with the leading edge tanks in place and full at take off. The P-38H had a military power initial rate of climb at 3,500 fpm. The only difference for a climb comparison between a 38H and a 38J/L is the H is lighter than the J and the H series can only make 1,600 hp 60" MAP up to 10,000 ft.

also 3,800 fpm is the slowest rate of climb listed in the 3 books that I have for the P-38 while using WEP power.

3,800 fpm initial in americas hundred thousand

from martin caiden's book
3,900 fpm @ 5000 ft
3,600 fpm @ 15,000 ft
3,100 fpm @ 25,000 ft

warren bodies book says
4,000 fpm @ 5,000 ft and 23,000 ft was reached in 6.2 minutes.

[ra]

<<<If that was so, why was a second P-38 manufacturing facility (Consolidated-Vultee) beginning production just as the war ended?>>>

I don't know, but I'm sure it isn't because anyone wanted to increase the number of P-38 units operating.  The decision to build that plant was probably made a year earlier.  War situations can change much faster than plans can, so often existing aircraft were ordered in anticipation of future needs.  Even the Wildcat was being manufactured until May '45.  

<<<The twin-engine factor was specifically cited by Fifth Air Force as a reason why the P-38 was preferred to the P-51. The second engine wasn't "necessary", but on long-range missions with little prospect of rescue the pilot's morale was a lot better when he didn't have to sweat every time the engine coughed.>>>

Pilot's morale was not a factor in selecting aircraft, effectiveness was.  By late in the war it was clear that two engines did not increase effectiveness or survivabilty over single engine types.  The overwhelming majority of P-51 and P-47 combat sorties ended with a safe landing back home.

Over Fortress Germany a second engine did not guarantee the pilot would make it home.  War planners take those kind of things into consideration, as they did maintenance loads.
As the P-38's performance no longer exceeded that of single engine types, it found a niche flying long range missions over the Pacific, were the ocean was more of a threat to the pilot's chances of survival than Japanese planes were.  

<<<The longest fighter missions of the war (10+ hours, 2,000+ miles) were flown by Lightnings, just weeks before the Japanese surrender. I think that says something.>>>

B-29s were escorted to Japan mostly by P-51's, with P-47N's slated to begin escort duties at war's end.  That says something too.

[Guppy]

I don't know, but I'm sure it isn't because anyone wanted to increase the number of P-38 units operating. The decision to build that plant was probably made a year earlier. War situations can change much faster than plans can, so often existing aircraft were ordered in anticipation of future needs. Even the Wildcat was being manufactured until May '45.

That may well be true too, but a year earlier the Lightning had just been phased out of Eighth Air Force. Hardly what I'd call a spur for increased production.

I gather the reason the Wildcat was still in production in '45 was that it occupied much less volume than either the Hellcat or Corsair, and so was used to equip the smaller escort carriers.

Pilot's morale was not a factor in selecting aircraft, effectiveness was.

Pilot morale is directly related to effectiveness. Fifth Air Force realised this.

Over Fortress Germany a second engine did not guarantee the pilot would make it home. War planners take those kind of things into consideration, as they did maintenance loads.
As the P-38's performance no longer exceeded that of single engine types, it found a niche flying long range missions over the Pacific, were the ocean was more of a threat to the pilot's chances of survival than Japanese planes were.

I agree with your main points here. I simply wished to illustrate that there were circumstances in which the second engine was extremely useful. Over Germany, it was only a marginal improvement, if at all. On a long-range over-water mission with no SAR available, it was very important.

The P-38 did have another advantage in the Pacific, in that it could operate out of forward fields which neither the P-51 nor P-47 could handle.

B-29s were escorted to Japan mostly by P-51's, with P-47N's slated to begin escort duties at war's end. That says something too.

Yes, it does. The P-51 and P-47N were very fine long-range aircraft. However, a pilot who had to bail out or ditch in the water between Iwo Jima and Tokyo had at least some prospect of being picked up by friendly naval or flying-boat units. (Still a lot more dangerous than bailing out over France, though.)

I agree with most of your conclusions, ra. I don't think the number of P-38 units was set to increase by the end of the war, and I'm not disagreeing with the increasing use of the P-51 and P-47N. I'm simply saying that the production orders cancelled at war's end would have kept the Lightning rolling off the line for most of a year, and the evidence strongly suggests that at least one of the major Pacific US air forces would keep using them.

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Guppy ]

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I'm not really out of patience with the discussion. But one thing I take exception to is people who persist in questioning the honor and honesty of decorated combat veteran pilots. Now, I'm going to post the story we are talking about below, including the names of all involved. Now, you tell me why there is any reason to believe that Lowell, Galland, Gabreski, or Foss are either lying, or too stupid to have the foggiest idea what they are talking about. Once again, this story was told in front of a hundred witnesses, and was published in a well known and respected book.

"Came across it by accident in a book called Top Guns, by Joe Foss and Matthew
Brennan, that is sitting on my shelf."

This is John Lowell's account of his fight with Galland 38 vs 190D9. Scan at the
end is Lowell getting the DFC


"One of our last P38 missions was a flight to protect bombers on a mission near
Berlin. My squadron was flying top cover. We were attacked from above, out of
the sun by sixteen long nosed FW 190s. I was alerted by a flight leader in our
squadron. I saw a flight of four Focke-Wulfs coming in from too high to
effectively fire on my flight so I quickly slowed the flight as we opened up
laterally for a defensive break and a head on attack that the Germans never
wanted when they were fighting P38s. The lead German flight passed very close
over me with throttles back trying to slow down.

I looked up at the German plane. The pilot was looking down at me as he eased
ahead and close above me into sure death, unless he could take violent evasive
action. He split-Sed and I followed him. He nearly got out of my sight because
the P38 high-speed compressibility problem kept me from staying with him in a
vertical dive. I stayed out of trouble by doing a vertical barrel roll to pull
several Gs and keep my speed under control. Finally he turned to find me, and I
cut across to close with him. Then the fight started.

He was a fantastic, wild, talented pilot who pulled all the tricks I had ever
seen. But finally I got into a tight Lufbery with him and used my clover-leaf
surprise to get a few strikes. None of them harmed the power unit. The
long-nosed 190 had methyl injection that was usable for ten-second spurts. Then
a pilot had to quit using it for a while because the twenty-six percent added
boost to the engine would burn it up if used too long. This pilot used his
methyl injection very advantageously to keep me from shooting him down. When his
methyl was gone, he dived to the deck and dropped into a tar pit that was about
500 feet deep and wide enough to fly a fighter in a tight turn. I got a few more
strikes on him. A portion of his vertical stabilizer and one wingtip flew off.
Unfortunately I was getting low on gas and had to break combat and head for the
North Sea, and England. After two more circles in the pit I pulled up and flew
away to the west. I looked back over my shoulder to see the FW-190 going the
opposite way, waggling his wings as if to say, "I'll see you tomorrow and we'll
go at it again."

A few years ago the American Fighter Aces had their annual reunion at Maxwell
AFB near Montgomery, Alabama. The base commander invited five of the top living
German Aces. The first day I arrived in a large hall where over one hundred
Maxwell and AFA officers were gathered. Ace Gabreski, the highest scoring living
USAF ace, who is a friend and a man that I admire to the hilt, was talking with
the German Aces, along with several other US Aces. One subject was the German
attitude and tactics relating to the P38. Gabby saw me come to the opposite side
of room, waved and hollered for me to come over. He introduced me as the highest
scoring P38 Aces in Europe.

When I shook hands with German General Adolf Galland, I said, "Adolf, did you
ever shoot down a P38?"

He said, "Yah, I shoot down eight."

Then I asked him if any of his pilots told him about a fight in a long nosed
FW190 in late 44 against a P38 that wound up in a huge pit with water and two
crashed P38s on the bottom. I described what had happened and the strikes I got
on the long nosed 190, then told him that when I ran low on gas and had to
leave, the German pilot had waggled his wings as he flew away in the opposite
direction. I was using my hands and looking down as I talked and wasn't watching
Galland. When I looked up, he was pale white.

He said, "You son of a squeak! You dom neer keel me dat day!"

Holy Mackeral! All the pilots that heard our conversation bellowed their
surprise, including me. Adolf wouldn't let me out of his sight for the rest of
the day, asking me how I got the P38 to do what I had explained was my clover
leaf in a tight Lufbery "Fight to the death" tactic. He wanted to know how I
trained our pilots and had many other questions about tactics."

 Now, the three men involved here, Gabreski, Galland, and Lowell, are all decorated veteran combat pilots, held in high regard in the world of fighter pilots. What would any of the three have to gain by lying, when the truth had already made them heroes and legends? What reason is there to believe that they were too stupid to know what they were talking about?

 I am fortunate to know several World War II pilots, and hold them in the highest regard, in my experience they have more honesty and integrity than 99% of all people I've ever met. Maybe I'm an old fashioned hillbilly redneck, but I have no patience for anyone who questions the honor, intelligence and integrity of those men.

[gripen]

Hm... Well, I wonder if somebody here rates Martin Caidin's books better source than USAF documents? Also Bodie's book is a bit questionable specially in the case of the those high engine ratings.

The initial climb rates at WEP (67") for the P-51 are around (based on several tests):
P-51B without fuselage tank 3600-3900fpm
P-51B with fuselage tank 3500-3700fpm
P-51D with Fuselage tank 3400-3500fpm

And if we want fair comparison against the P-38 at 1725hp (grade 150 fuel, as rated by Allison and probably required by Lockheed too) then the P-51 had WEP +25lbs (80") and initial climb rate around 4500-4800fpm.

gripen