P47, P51, P38...the German view......

[Ossie]

Virgil, what I meant by the McGuire reference is that we can try things in AH and, instead of worrying about the consequences, we can learn from them. The reason I mentioned McGuire is because here's a guy that had enough confidence in the agility of his airplane that he would engage a smaller, lighter opponent, at low altitude, with drop tanks, in a manner which, from my impression, had less to do with energy management and more to do with knife fighting. I tried to tie that in because it would be plausible that he would be using his maneuvering flaps in that situation. This is all the kind of stuff that I could try to do over and over again in AH, and only get better at as I crash or get shot down. The pilots who fought for real didn't have that luxury. So as abstract as I could make it, that sentance was basically a justification for the 38's performance in Europe and subsequent comparison to how it handles in AH (perceived, in response to the thread at that point). My argument would be that, in terms of agility, the P-38 was up to snuff, but only for those willing to take it there. Everybody who plays AH can take it there whenever they want.

And exactly what is it that leads you to believe it takes more pilot effort to turn a P-38?

I think you misunderstood. In AH, the P-38 requires a more hands on approach to get the most out of the turn rate (flap and engine management, you can even throw in the dive flap). Basically you have to make more adustments if you expect that airplane to hang around with the smaller/lighter ones. Whether making those adjustments is seen as an effort or not depends on the pilot. Again, this is a reference to flying in AH, not real life, but for all I know it could hold true in the real thing as well. I was reminded of flying in AW and seeing a comment about the P-38's lack of maneuverability. Someone who would make that comment in that game had not discovered the potential of that airplane, and I feel the same holds true for someone who says the P-38 is too maneuverable in AH. I don't think it is easy to keep it maneuverable in a fight because it requires more micro-managment than most of the other planes.

[J_A_B]

"I think everyone MUST agree it was well known that the radiator was extremely badly positioned for a wartime fighter and it suffered because of it"

The P-51 radiator was fine for A2A work; it was in the ground attack role that the Musatang really suffered.   And trust me, in AH the Musztang radiator/oil system is really vulnerable.  The thing is in AH we only have to fly about 20-30 miles to get home; in reality home was hundreds of miles away and radiator/oil  damage over the target meant you weren't getting home.   As for the rest of the P-51, I find it to be tougher than the likes of the Spit and Zeke and such, but nowhere close to being as tough as the really tough airplanes like the P-38, P-47, F4U and similar airplanes.

Oh, and about this:

"So how does presenting actual wartime FW test data charts and graphs showing that the FW190A5 was some 20mph faster on the deck than in AH, then HTC not even thanking or even acknowledging this contribution for months on end fit into your
little story Oedipus? "

That was more or less proven to be an estimate related to an engine performance estimation.  It wasn't from an actual test and it most definately wasn't completely accurate.  Prove otherwise if you can, or give it a rest.  I'm all for improving aircraft when something seems broke, but you can't expect HTC to use fantasy numbers just to make your pet airplane "uber".

J_A_B

[akak]

Originally posted by Glasses
In 1944 all German pilots opened their chutes no less than 300m off the ground,some even lower, for fear of being shot by American fighters, they warned new pilots to do that when they were engaged by Americans .   So by all accounts it was no fable and it indeed happen regularly. Of course that little dirty secret is not told in many of the romantic allied "non-fiction" books.

 

I hope you are not trying to imply that the Nazis didn't do this themselves?  


ack-ack

[akak]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts


 Robin Olds, 2 Fw 190s while alone in enemy territory (gun camera film confirms two destroyed).
 

My squadron is in regular contact with the surviving members of the 479th FG and I'm sure we can get some first hand accounts Gen. Olds about that flight.  Interesting side note, when the 479th started transitioning to the P-51D, most of the 'Raiders' wanted to keep their P-38's.  


Ack-Ack
479th FG

[Urchin]

I don't think that the P-51 is super tough, myself.  I spent some time flying it this tour, it gets toejam up about as badly as a 109 or a 190, for the most part.  

I've actually been putting some thought into the Damage Modelling, because it does seem that some planes are more vulnerable to certain guns that other planes are.  For instance, Spitfires seem to go down awfully easy to .50 caliber fire, but they don't show any special vulnerability to 20mm as far as I've seen (like you can hit them with a quick shot of .50 and half the time they'll go down, but they aren't any weaker than other planes are to 20mm).  

I have noticed that the La5/La7 are incredibly tough, both to .50 (especially to .50) and 20mm, except for the Hispano, which knifes through everything like butter.

The P47,F4U,F6F, and F4F are also incredibly tough, but they had a reputation for being very tough.  I personally think the 190 is more than a bit frail, it isn't any tougher than the 109 is, despite its repuation for being more tough.

[MrLars]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
[BI think he was a murderous zealot and stupidly got killed.
[/B]

So, in a war you give a free pass to the enemy?

IF they were trying to surrender then OK, but in a war the enemy is the enemy wether he just got shot out of the sky or burned out of a bunker, unless there's a clear indication that he is done fighting for good and surrenders he's fair game.

Chivalry, IMO, has no place on the battleground especialy in a war where any chivalrious action could get one or more of your allies killed.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by MrLars
Chivalry, IMO, has no place on the battleground especialy in a war where any chivalrious action could get one or more of your allies killed.

I'll bet I read "Wing Leader" half a dozen times before it dawned on me that Johnson was trying to kill the pilots in the planes he shot down.

- oldman

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Oedipus
"Actually, it was a Halifax, which apparently crashed.."

 I have a scan of that one.

wow, I could care less about the 38, but that's an outstanding picture. Also, this thread need more "  "'s  That cracks me up.

-Sikboy

[hazed-]

Originally posted by worr


You are combining two separate discussions that are going on at the same time here, hazed.

I don't fly AH, but the 38 was a tough machine...but not notoriously so, like the P-47. The FW was also a tough little bugger. The 38 did have, however, liquid cooled engines. That made it more vulnerable that an air cooled engine in itself.

Worr, out

well isnt that the whole point? the first article i posted mentioned they were vulnerable.

I said the p47 was well known for being tough and the p38 wasnt.

In AH the p38 can take huge amounts of damage.I even flew one today and got 5 kills.I was shot up 3 times and i lost nothing/no damage.I was shot by an la7 a 190 and a 109(might have been a spit as both were on my 6).Now all im saying is this doesnt happen when someone hits me in the 190.Youre almost garenteed to lose a wingtip or some other vital part.

oed thanks for the link and the pic of the damaged p38 but i have to say it ive seen the same sort of damage on a hundred other planes including these:

[hazed-]

now im not saying these pictures tell us nothing and i must admit it does make me rethink the toughness of the p38 in terms of structural strengh and just maybe i can accept it is capable of recieving a lot of damage but was it truelly on par with the infamous P47? And i have to say the wingtip damage really didnt look that bad.Looks to me as though it was pure luck only the tip was damaged rather than pure strengh that held it together.It also states the 109 flew of with engine damage, wobbling as it went.This points to the 109 being just as strong if you use the same basis for the arguement.The 109 was obviously hit in the engine somehow but it still flew!.

also theres been mention here by people who i assume know their stuff that the 190 was well known to be tough.Same as what ive read.But you CANT tell me the 190 in AH is as strong as the p38 or p51.Ive taken 3 or 4 flak hits in p51s and p38s but i rarely survive more than 1 hit in a 190 or planes like 205s, spits even 110s which imo seem to lose wings/wingtips immediately or catch fire.

I can accept the common fires if the 110 was known for it but then id like to see this coolant/engine vulnerability in p38s too.Its only right, right???

This is obviously a very hard point to agree on , ie whether you consider the aircraft durable based on your AH experience but HONESTLY if you just take one up and fly through some ack its very simple to test.

like i said before the p38 stories did suprise me but even the 200 odd holes doesnt tell us much if they were not 20mm hits. If you look into the damage sustained during the battle of britain you will see similar stories.This doesnt mean they always take that sort of damage im sure you'll agree.It does however point toward a higher durability than id previously thought.Then again you guys go on to say its vulnerable in other ways so what was so wrong about the statement in the book i quoted?
strange lot you guys!
I still stand by the p51 being too tough/durable and the La7 i cant find anything written about it but its just as hard to shoot down as the p47 in AH.Ive unloaded loads of rds into them and Ive been amazed to see them sprout a fuel leak and carry on.were they really built like that? and were they really so much more durable than the La5?

[john9001]

hazed , i fly the P38 a lot , and when i get hit i get hit , eng out ,black smoke , pieces falling off, i respect you too much to call you a liar , so you must have been lucky or are exaggerating, the P38 is not a hard plane to kill, ask me

44MAG

[Glasses]

Originally posted by akak


I hope you are not trying to imply that the Nazis didn't do this themselves?  


ack-ack

If by "Nazis" you mean Luftwaffe pilots of  Heer(German Army)they did not (99.9%) shoot at pilots or any persons that surrendered it was not a policy  to do that ,infact they were strictly forbidden to do so,it was a break of Genova convention since it incurred the pilot,soldier, etc had surrendered,you may have forgot that they instilled an extrict discipline into German servicemen,which forbeyed them of such dispicable actions. Though, the same cannot  said  for the SS . Look up at accounts by British , Russian or by German  pilots to see if they(Luftwaffe) shot at parachuted (surrendering) airmen,in fact in some accounts they even aimed away from the cockpit area to not kill or wound the pilot. The term Nazi again is used to degrade them or make them seem less human ,I knew sooner or later it would be used to argue to justify the murder for the all rightous American Airmen,please.

Funny thing is the whole chute shooting phenomenon became common as the American Squadrons came active over Europe.

Again one thing is the total force of Germans on paper the other is the ones which were serviceable or were sent at any one time to intercept bomber and only a fraction a small fraction was being sent to escort both the twin and single engine bomber destroyers. Many of the "Experte''  Luftwaffe airmen who got shot and killed during those times were either hanging from parachutes or got bounced while attacking the bomber formations where you had enemy fire from all sides.

Again, this has nothing to do which what side won or lost,in fact it doesn't have to do with that is had to do with tactics,The fact that Galland was put into a position of high responsability didn't allow him to make great descisions in the air war without Goering approving them so in any case(of course you only read what YOU want to read,especially biased accounts) many of the steps he would take to improve or lessen the losses the German Air Arm were sabotaged by the higher ups out of rage and envy.

Again I prove my point you only read between the lines and did not the read the Full message I was trying to make. I didn't at any time call them liars, what I said that in the heat of the moment you guess and estimate or count so rapidly you make an estimation which in many cases proves that they saw more aircraft than there were and there are many accounts of that happening on both sides. I'm not calling him a liar ,he might aswell be telling the truth,the truth he thinks it is and what he saw.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by worr


Yes, I have sat in one too. Once with Blummer, whom you mentioned above who shot down 5 FWs in a day. He was in my home town shortly before he passed away..for our airshow. What a hot shot!

I've flown twins myself. The 38's cockpit could have been arranged better. Did you notice where the fuel tanks are? That is flat out wrong...out of sight out of mind. (Jeff Ethel?) And the yoke does block the panel....even though I'm pretty tall.

As for the fighter report...yes its exceptionally biased and inconclusive. But the coffee was paid for by the US governement. If you want more of it...I have a copy here in my library. Its comments about the 38 in combat are harsh to extreme.

BTW...allow me to introduce myself to you. I'm the head trainer over at Warbirds. I've been flying there for seven years....and know most of the people who came over to AH in the beginning. I have a lot of friends over here! I've done some writing, even on the P-38, and teaching aviation.

Sounds like you like your FTD. Love to meet up with you some day. We have a great air museum here in Fargo, ND. No P-38, however.

Worr, out



Worr, out

Yeah, I noticed the fuel switches, Ethel even commented on them. By the way, I talked to Bodie via email and he mentioned the Ethel crash. If you know Bodie, you know he and Ethel were at odds before Ethel died, and Bodie is still at odds with the family. On the other hand, Bodie said he felt the plane was on fire BEFORE it crashed, and Ethel was trying to escape the fire. He also felt the fire and the fact that the starboard (#2) engine shutdown, was due to a problem with the modified fuel system, and Ethel was desperately trying to find fuel to get the engine started. Bodie said the fire in the cockpit was due to a fuel leak and the dihedral caused the fuel to go into the cockpit.

I agree, the P-38 cockpit wasn't the perfect layout, but it was on the leading edge by far, and it was far enough ahead of its time to cause one to expect such problems. It could have been better, but it was not that bad either.

Stan Richardson was a good friend of Larry Blumer, and told me about Larry keeping a P-38 ready to fly, but often being to ill to fly it. It seems Larry suffered from Luekemia for more than a couple of decades. Stan did say that no amount of requests would get Larry to let him fly the P-38. Stan lives in Beaverton, near Tillamook, and goes to visit "Tangerine" regularly. I don't hear from him as much lately, but I do have a picture of Stan with "Tangerine".

Larry's civilian plane was crashed after he sold it, killing the pilot. The remains are reported to be at Kermit Weeks' museum, to be used to restore another P-38.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Ossie
Virgil, what I meant by the McGuire reference is that we can try things in AH and, instead of worrying about the consequences, we can learn from them. The reason I mentioned McGuire is because here's a guy that had enough confidence in the agility of his airplane that he would engage a smaller, lighter opponent, at low altitude, with drop tanks, in a manner which, from my impression, had less to do with energy management and more to do with knife fighting. I tried to tie that in because it would be plausible that he would be using his maneuvering flaps in that situation. This is all the kind of stuff that I could try to do over and over again in AH, and only get better at as I crash or get shot down. The pilots who fought for real didn't have that luxury. So as abstract as I could make it, that sentance was basically a justification for the 38's performance in Europe and subsequent comparison to how it handles in AH (perceived, in response to the thread at that point). My argument would be that, in terms of agility, the P-38 was up to snuff, but only for those willing to take it there. Everybody who plays AH can take it there whenever they want.




I think you misunderstood. In AH, the P-38 requires a more hands on approach to get the most out of the turn rate (flap and engine management, you can even throw in the dive flap). Basically you have to make more adustments if you expect that airplane to hang around with the smaller/lighter ones. Whether making those adjustments is seen as an effort or not depends on the pilot. Again, this is a reference to flying in AH, not real life, but for all I know it could hold true in the real thing as well. I was reminded of flying in AW and seeing a comment about the P-38's lack of maneuverability. Someone who would make that comment in that game had not discovered the potential of that airplane, and I feel the same holds true for someone who says the P-38 is too maneuverable in AH. I don't think it is easy to keep it maneuverable in a fight because it requires more micro-managment than most of the other planes.

Okay, I understand your point. As I said, I doubt flaps had anything at all to do with the McGuire crash.

The fact that you don't really die affects all planes and their learning curve. I agree with that too.

I agree completely that only a pilot truly devoted to getting everything the P-38 had could really fly it.

When you said pilot effort, I took it to mean actual resistance to control input, and the P-38 didn't have that problem. As far as the pilot being busy, while he did have to use the throttles to get the P-38 to roll really fast, or to get the ultimate turn out of it, he did not need to worry about trim, because the P-38 did not require constant trim input.

The pilots I talked to didn't complain that much about the cockpit being crowded and busy. They complained about the electric props, the fuel switches, and the lack of heat.

[Wilbus]

AS to the P38, it is WAY more durable then most planes in AH, every time I've flown it I've taken 20's after 20's and not lost anything, I was sleeping once, 109 came down and pinged the hell out of me, I got dammaged, engines smoking, 109 was usre it was a kill so he broke off, I returned to base.

last time I flew it I went through the town ack on a strafing run, obviously acks thing it's easy to hit as I took 10 20's the first pass (have it on film). All that happaned was that I got my engine #1 smoking.

Not sure why but everybody who flies the P38 regulary says it dies easily, everytime I fly it, it takes ALOT to make me go down.

As for the P47, it's not as durable as the P38, LA7 and F6F and F4F.

To me it has always seemed like the P47 should be tougher, atleast that's what combat reports say.