# P-38 vs. Me109 and FW190



## Ghostdancer (Mar 26, 2010)

I've heard different things about how the P-38 matched up to the FW190 and Me109. Some material states that the P-38 was inferior in most ways to both and others say the opposite.


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 26, 2010)

more of it depends on the pilot...... Richard Bong racked up a lot of kills in a 38 vs a zero. i would say he would have had the same success in the ETO. but you look on u-tube you will see kills both ways. i saw a show where a pilot in a grossly inferior aircraft (sby??? ) took on 2 zeros ( not by choice but desperation). he knew how to fly and the limitations of his aircraft and stuck by that and used the one and only advantage he had and knocked one off and that sent the other home. it doesnt always work that way but i would and will always give the advantage to the pilot...IF he knows the bird he is flying...what she can and cant do...


----------



## MikeGazdik (Mar 26, 2010)

I also think it depends greatly on the model of P-38. The earlier models that saw action in Europe, ( F,G,H models) were not nearly as good as the J or L models.

The early models, had plenty of technical issues dealing with the extreme cold of Northern Europe, and did not have the dive flaps that were so desperately needed.

I think the P-38 L , is one of the best fighters put in the air.


----------



## Ghostdancer (Mar 26, 2010)

bobbysocks said:


> i saw a show where a pilot in a grossly inferior aircraft (sby??? ) took on 2 zeros ( not by choice but desperation). he knew how to fly and the limitations of his aircraft and stuck by that and used the one and only advantage he had and knocked one off and that sent the other home.




Is this from Air Combat - where a pilot ( and not the rear gunner) in I believe a Dauntless managed to shoot down at least one Zero, and while is plane was damaged? I did see this episode.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 26, 2010)

A guy named Fred Arnold wrote a book called "Door Knob 52" about flying P38s in the Med during WW2. He was flying one of the earlier P38s and made ace flying it. A good book if you want to read further into it. He also did an interview that is on you tube.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C74bB3FP5u0_

Hope it helps.


----------



## davebender (Mar 26, 2010)

> depends greatly on the model of P-38. The earlier models that saw action in Europe, ( F,G,H models) were not nearly as good as the J or L models.


Late model Me-109s and Fw-190s were also improved. So it's not likely a P-38L will be encountering a Me-109E or Fw-190A3.

*1942. P-38E*. vs
Me-109F4 and early model Me-109G.
Fw-190A3 and Fw-190A4.

*1943. P-38F /G/H.* vs
Me-109G6.
Fw-190A5 and Fw-190A6.

*1944. P-38J and P-38L.* vs.
Late model Me-109Gs with engines producing up to 1,800 hp.
Fw-190A8.
Fw-190D9. Beginning September 1944.


IMO the P-38 would have been a great aircraft if Lockheed had gotten the bugs fixed within a normal 3 or 4 year development cycle. But it didn't happen. British and German aircraft developments were typically a step ahead of P-38 development throughout the war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2010)

davebender said:


> IMO the P-38 would have been a great aircraft if Lockheed had gotten the bugs fixed within a normal 3 or 4 year development cycle. But it didn't happen. British and German aircraft developments were typically a step ahead of P-38 development throughout the war.


And what "bugs" were these? Why didn't these "bugs" hamper Pacific operations? (Aside from the heating problems). There were ETO units who perfered the P-38 over the P-51.

The biggest "bug" that probably could be found was with early P-38s were the intercooler ducting in the wing leading edges. One bullet hole and you were loosing manifold pressue. Additionally if you overboosted the engine you could blow apart the leading edge, and that type of error is what I would call a "rookie error."

And ask this - why didn't the AAF go with the P-38K?

Although the P-38's performance in the ETO can be considered less than stellar, this myth about "bugs" were no different than "bugs" found in early P-47s and P-51s when they hit the tarmacs in the UK. Bottom line the ETO brass didn't like the P-38.


----------



## renrich (Mar 26, 2010)

The P38 in Europe initially had some problems, which when solved, made it a more desirable AC in the ETO. The early P38s did not have good cockpit heating. There were some engine reliability problems. The AC, in a dive, could get into compressibility and subsequent control problems. This was exacerbated over Europe because of the cold air over the continent, since the speed of sound varies according to air temperature. There were some characteristics of the P38 which could not be solved which hampered it. It had a poor initial rate of roll. It was pretty easily spotted and identified and it was a big target with a lot of vulnerable parts located all over the AC. I believe it was supposed to be difficult to bail out from without getting badly injured. With two engines, it was twice as likely to have engine problems as an AC with one engine and maintenance was intensified and fuel usage was high.


----------



## vanir (Mar 26, 2010)

Well there are significant differences between the ETO and PTO generally speaking. Excluding the MTO, combat altitude in the ETO was typically 5000 metres. In the PTO it was typically 3000 metres. Compressability issues are worse at high altitude and the P-38 is best used in a fast diving attack, always possible due to its great alt performance; then speed away and come around for another pass.

But in earlier models there was a cockpit heating problem, and the lack of airbraking compounded its inherently high compressability problems. Also there was no power assist controls on early models, was there? From the J they introduced electrically boosted elevators and some sort of spoilers?

Anyway the other thing then was of course a sortie cruise altitude is going to be much higher in the ETO than the PTO. In 1943 the high alt issues of the P-38 and in fact sustained high altitude operation of any aircraft was still a work in progress. Sure a Spit could zoom to 40,000 but it's just silly to think everyone was roaming about up there all day, it's really high for that time, like astronaut high. Even the mighty Thunderbolt had issues with its turbo at those heights (overspeeding iirc).
So considering you really want to dive on an enemy in a P-38, ca.1943 it's a bit dicey using one as the standard front line type where the enemy is routinely engaged at 5-7000m, that means what, you're cruising for a power on dive at 8500m?
Much safer in the PTO where you're cruising for a combat dive at more like 4500-5000m.

But, word has it in the PTO one of the primary reasons for the popularity of the P-38 was that its great speed performance, reasonable manoeuvrability as a single seater and wonderful range, was also supported by the simple RTB reliability of twin engines. When you're doing 1500km sorties over water with maybe one or two reachable airfields on the entire mission, and plenty of chances for a navigational error, the P-38 gave a certain extra confidence about making it home alive irrespective of how the sortie itself went in terms of combat.
Not quite so much of an issue in the ETO, but certainly not a bad bonus to have if can afford it. One notation I've been reminded of by an ex-P-38 pilot in the ETO was that the return rate of sorties flown was better for that type than the Mustang or any other fighter used, pro rata in the ETO. More came back home versus those sent out than any other fighter in the ETO.

In any case it seems the Thunderbolt and Mustang were genuinely preferred by pilots in the ETO, whilst the Lightning and Thunderbolt (particularly after the P-47N hit the scene) were preferred in the PTO. But I suppose when it comes down to it you fly what you're given.

In this sense I support FlyboyJ's sentiment that the brass were the deciding factor.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2010)

Both P-47 and P-51 experienced compressibility problems. The P-38 had a lower critical mach number so it encountered it quicker. Roll and climb rates were corrected on later models and again the P-38K would have addressed almost all the performance problems coming out of the ETO. It was a complicated aircraft, cost twice as much to operate and maintain and wasn't liked by "single engine" pilots.


----------



## vanir (Mar 26, 2010)

It used like a "steering wheel" bomber style to fly didn't it? I'd certainly feel more comfortable, more nimble in a traditional, single engine, column equipped fighter.

But still I'm thinking the brass may have had the typical combat height discrepency between ETO and PTO at heart when making this decision, in light of the inherently lower critical mach of the Lightning. What was it, 0.7 compared to say 0.8?
Doesn't seem like much but at ca.7500m compared to ca.5000m there's a difference worth considering from a strict engineer's advisory.
I mean, the brass work on advisory counsel?


----------



## davebender (Mar 26, 2010)

I expect they did. However you don't need an Uber fighter to defeat the relatively low performance A6M (Zero IJN fighter) and Ki-43 (Oscar IJA fighter).


----------



## timshatz (Mar 26, 2010)

vanir said:


> It used like a "steering wheel" bomber style to fly didn't it? I'd certainly feel more comfortable, more nimble in a traditional, single engine, column equipped fighter.
> 
> 
> 
> > You get used to it. Flown Yoke, Stick and now am using a Side Stick. It really doesn't matter after the first hour, you forget about it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2010)

davebender said:


> *I expect they did. *However you don't need an Uber fighter to defeat the relatively low performance A6M (Zero IJN fighter) and Ki-43 (Oscar IJA fighter).



Proof? In books like "Peter 38" and "Wings of Fire" nothing is never mentioned about P-38 ops being hampered because of maintence or design problems, in fact I believe it had a high MC rate, something like 90% or better.

If they did I see their problems no better or worse than any other new fighter of the period.

Keep in mind that the Oscar, although lightly armed was probably one of the most maneuverable fighters of WW2 under 300 mph.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2010)

vanir said:


> It used like a "steering wheel" bomber style to fly didn't it? I'd certainly feel more comfortable, more nimble in a traditional, single engine, column equipped fighter.


Actually it was more or less a desgin standard to equip multi engine aircraft with a yoke in lieu of a stick. both have advantages and disadvantages. I was at a Lockheed Management Club meeting back in the early 80s, Kelly Johnson was the guest speaker. he said that if he had more time and was able to convince some folks at Wright Patterson, he would have designed the P-38 with a stick.


----------



## vanir (Mar 26, 2010)

> Keep in mind that the Oscar, although lightly armed was probably one of the most maneuverable fighters of WW2 under 300 mph.



Oh totally, FlyboyJ. It's virtually RAAF lore, I remember being schooled on this type in cadets. It wasn't until late 1942 that an Oscar was finally rebuilt in New Guinea from several captured wrecks and comparatively tested, that effective air combat tactics could be developed to defeat them confidently, irrespective of the speed and dive advantages enjoyed by our Kittyhawks (which rumour has it, were using quite a bit of overboost for up to 1650hp from those Allisons under 5000ft).


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 26, 2010)

Ghostdancer said:


> Is this from Air Combat - where a pilot ( and not the rear gunner) in I believe a Dauntless managed to shoot down at least one Zero, and while is plane was damaged? I did see this episode.



very well could and probably is. i cant remember how bad his plane was beat up but if i remember correctly he was able to keep turning so the zeros had to make only head on passes and not able to get on his tail.


----------



## renrich (Mar 26, 2010)

Swede Vjetsa(sp?) was the pilot of an SBD that reportedly shot down a Zero or two or three in one engagement. He later transferred to a VF squadron. The are a number of instances where SBDs in formation managed to shoot down or damage attacking Zeros with their forward or rear guns.


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 26, 2010)

speaking of P 38s reminded me of a story dad told me of a flight of them forced to land in greenland (?) on a glacier. then many years later someone went and found them and started to recover them.... well this talks about 1.... i believe there are no less than 3 still there.

http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl-recovery.htm


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2010)

bobbysocks said:


> i believe there are no less than 3 still there.



they'll be a few more in a few more years. 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ai...g-serial-number-42-12652-nose-33-a-23480.html


----------



## Ghostdancer (Mar 26, 2010)

bobbysocks said:


> very well could and probably is. i cant remember how bad his plane was beat up but if i remember correctly he was able to keep turning so the zeros had to make only head on passes and not able to get on his tail.



Wish I remember the episode title; it's probably on YouTube. He did some kind of maneuver that put the Zero's right in front of him and were shot down, and this was a Dauntless, a dive bomber.


----------



## Ghostdancer (Mar 26, 2010)

renrich said:


> Swede Vjetsa(sp?) was the pilot of an SBD that reportedly shot down a Zero or two or three in one engagement. He later transferred to a VF squadron. The are a number of instances where SBDs in formation managed to shoot down or damage attacking Zeros with their forward or rear guns.



And this may have been the man that bobbysocks and I are referring to. I'm going to try and find this on YouTube.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 26, 2010)

Ghostdancer said:


> He did some kind of maneuver that put the Zeros right in front of him and were shot down, and this was a Dauntless, a dive bomber.


Haven't seen it
but I'll wager it was something to do with deploying his dive brakes


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2010)

Swede Vjetsa is friends with our own Dan (Les).


----------



## MikeGazdik (Mar 27, 2010)

davebender said:


> Late model Me-109s and Fw-190s were also improved. So it's not likely a P-38L will be encountering a Me-109E or Fw-190A3.
> 
> *1942. P-38E*. vs
> Me-109F4 and early model Me-109G.
> ...



I agree with what you are pointing out. The early model P-38 was not as good of a fighter vs the foes that it had to deal with at the same time from the Luftwaffe. But the later mark J and L models, were far superior to the earlier P-38, and were up to the challenge of the later marks of the Fw or Me fighters. 
The two key success pionts of the P-38 are: environment and altitude of engagement, and Japanese vs German advarsaries.
I don't think any of the Japanese planes were near the performance of the Luftwaffe aircraft, of the same time period. And in particular with the early P-38's, if the altitude at which the fight began was in the medium to lower altitudes, if was a much better aircraft. The Pacific theater put both of those two key points into the hands of the Lightning, and the Mediterranian theatre better favored the Lightning in altitude fought and temperature at which it flew, which I believe accounts for its better record as compared to fighting the Luftwaffe in Northern Europe.


----------



## scottmsw (Feb 17, 2011)

The USAAF did not use the P-38 K because they were concerned that Allison could not deliver the engines and so the USAAF went with the P-38 L instead. This is from a book on the Lightning by Jeff Ethell.


----------



## Nikademus (Feb 21, 2011)

Ghostdancer said:


> I've heard different things about how the P-38 matched up to the FW190 and Me109. Some material states that the P-38 was inferior in most ways to both and others say the opposite.



Based on my study of Shores, "Tunisia" book, the Germans were not initially overawed by the plane. Against just the 109/190 opposition i'm currenlty noting an approximate 3:1 exchange in favor of the Luftwaffe though in my opinion, I think the ratio is probably a tad bit below 3:1. The 38 drivers were agressive and listed many claims which made it seem like they were kicking a$$ and taking names.

kills i could confirm worked out as:

34 x 109 kills by P-38
3 x 190 kills by P-38

97 losses to 109's
13 losses to 190's


----------



## Nikademus (Feb 21, 2011)

davebender said:


> I expect they did. However you don't need an Uber fighter to defeat the relatively low performance A6M (Zero IJN fighter) and Ki-43 (Oscar IJA fighter).



ouch.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 21, 2011)

scottmsw said:


> The USAAF did not use the P-38 K because they were concerned that Allison could not deliver the engines and so the USAAF went with the P-38 L instead. This is from a book on the Lightning by Jeff Ethell.



The P-38K was not ordered because of worries about shutting down the production line because of mods to the spinner and cowl, there was not a great difference between the V-1750-75/77 and other marks being produced. With all due respect to Ethell, I think in later years this was established as the reason why the P-38L never went anywhere. There is also possibilities that politics had some play in it as well.


----------

