# Could the later model P38 establish complete control of air over Germany without P51



## gjs238 (May 28, 2012)

Could or would the P38 Lightning have eventually taken complete control of German skies without the aid of the P51 Mustang?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 28, 2012)

fast answer, probably not. But it may have allowed the daylight bombing to continue which is not the same as complete control. The P-38 may not have been available in numbers to do the job.


----------



## davebender (May 28, 2012)

Why not? P-38 production cost was only slightly more then the P-47.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 28, 2012)

davebender said:


> Why not? P-38 production cost was only slightly more then the P-47.



this is true but cost 80% more of 51 in '43, and 88% in '44


----------



## pinsog (May 28, 2012)

Cost didn't matter to the US. We made aircraft carriers a dime-a-dozen like cupcakes at a kindergarden party. No one was going to say "Oh, we can't finish off Hitler, the P38 costs too much". We had the B29 and Manhatten Project rolling right along. Cost did not matter.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 28, 2012)

the money (notes) is not a matter but that money represent a true value, i've many doubt that US can substitute P-51 with P-38 in 1:1 ratio w/o change in others productions


----------



## davparlr (May 28, 2012)

They never seem to have the performance to have any advantage over the German fighters but did have enough to defeat them en masse. I would not doubt that large amounts of P-38s could be built, especially if no P-47s or P-51s were being built. USAAF losses would have been greater.


----------



## davebender (May 28, 2012)

What does the P-51 have to do with a decision to produce 15,686 additional P-38s ILO the P-47?

As for the P-51, the war was almost over before it arrived in large numbers. Any fighter aircraft can defeat the Luftwaffe after RAF Bomber Command destroys the German hydrogenation plants during the spring and summer of 1944.

Of course The History Channel would need to select a different "best fighter aircraft of all time".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 28, 2012)

Part of the problem is *WHEN* the decisions have to be made and *HOW LONG* it takes to implement the decision. If you want 15,000 more P-38s the decision has to be made by 1941 or so, no later than the beginning of 1942. If you want just 8,000 more P-38 the decision can be be made later but the planes won't show up until later in the war. 
It can take 12-18 months from breaking ground on a factory (to produce an existing design) till more than 2-3 are rolled out the door and another 6-9 months to get the first 500. A few months after that you may get 300-400 a month. You need how many thousand fighters in the Spring of 1944 for bomber escort missions? You had to "pick your winner" when it's "A" model was flying and hope the "C", "D" or "G-H-J" version would do the job (and a different job at that from the original specification) 2 years in the future. To get thousands more P-38s you not only need a second (or third) production line for airframes, you need a second source for Allison engines. And again the decision had to have been made in in 1941 at the latest to really affect the bomber campaign in 1944. 

The P-38 had the range, It might have even suffered lower losses being able to get home on one engine at times. The question is wither it could inflict the same losses as the P-51 on the Luftwaffe and here it may be a bit lacking. 

Keeping the Germans from shooting down a prohibitive number of bombers per mission is not the same as destroying the Luftwaffe in the air.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2012)

Forget the money thing - if it "would have" been able to do the job, the money "would have" been spent.

The bigger question - What later model P-38 are we talking about? The J or L? How about the P-38K?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (May 28, 2012)

davebender in this thread the 38 replaces the 51, "Could or would the P38 Lightning have eventually taken complete control of German skies without the aid of the P51 Mustang?"

Sr6 i'm agree with your but we need take in the count that all the resources used for the factory of 38 and the allisons (and all other component) are probably more and different of that used historically for the 51/merlin production


----------



## wuzak (May 28, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Part of the problem is *WHEN* the decisions have to be made and *HOW LONG* it takes to implement the decision. If you want 15,000 more P-38s the decision has to be made by 1941 or so, no later than the beginning of 1942. If you want just 8,000 more P-38 the decision can be be made later but the planes won't show up until later in the war.
> It can take 12-18 months from breaking ground on a factory (to produce an existing design) till more than 2-3 are rolled out the door and another 6-9 months to get the first 500. A few months after that you may get 300-400 a month. You need how many thousand fighters in the Spring of 1944 for bomber escort missions? You had to "pick your winner" when it's "A" model was flying and hope the "C", "D" or "G-H-J" version would do the job (and a different job at that from the original specification) 2 years in the future. To get thousands more P-38s you not only need a second (or third) production line for airframes, you need a second source for Allison engines. And again the decision had to have been made in in 1941 at the latest to really affect the bomber campaign in 1944.
> 
> The P-38 had the range, It might have even suffered lower losses being able to get home on one engine at times. The question is wither it could inflict the same losses as the P-51 on the Luftwaffe and here it may be a bit lacking.
> ...



Another issue relating to the question of _when_ the decision had to be made is that the USAAF hierarchy did not believe a long range escort fighter was necessary. IIRC drop tanks were developed by Lockheed for teh P-38 as a private venture, the AAF not requesting them.


----------



## wuzak (May 28, 2012)

What's next? 

*Could the later model Spitfire get extended range and establish complete control of air over Germany without P51?*


----------



## wuzak (May 28, 2012)

davebender said:


> As for the P-51, the war was almost over before it arrived in large numbers. Any fighter aircraft can defeat the Luftwaffe after RAF Bomber Command destroys the German hydrogenation plants during the spring and summer of 1944.



The USAAF 8th AF was still quite willing to send bombers to target in daylight without escort.

But if losses continued, they may have been forced to switch to night attacks. They would then utilise the RAF PFF Mosquitos and electronic aids.


----------



## GregP (May 29, 2012)

The early P-38's suffered from intake manifold issues and running on European gasoline, which had a LOT more aromatic percentage than American gasloine. American gas ahd 4% aromatics and Europeam fules had up to 40% aormatics. So ... our engines detionated a bit relative to European engines. When we figured that out amd fixed the intake manifold issues, the Allison were cured. European engines also had a hard time running American fuels, read the fighter conference proceedings and see.

By the time they FIXED the P-38's, the P-51 was there and there was NO point in maintaining two logistical chains into Europe. 

So, we transferrred the P-38's into the PTO and flew them against the Japanese. Our two higherst-scoring Aces flew P-38's.

The issues were fixed about when elected to move them from the ETO to the PTO. We could just as easily have moved the P-51's into the PTO, but didn't in large numbers.

The P-38 could easily have done the job. By the end of the war, it was the fastest-rolling figher in any theater with hydraulic aileron assist, turned pretty well, too, had devasting armament and a very fast rate of climb.


----------



## Njaco (May 29, 2012)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...ntrol-air-over-germany-without-p51-32808.html


----------



## Vincenzo (May 29, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Forget the money thing - if it "would have" been able to do the job, the money "would have" been spent.



Many times in the forum is writed tthat US can built all that want but this is wrong, US had not unlimited resources, also if was the largest and most advanced economy in the world, so a sum of money had a true value (if you coin more notes this change that value), sure they can build up the factories for the P-38s but if you used more resources in this you've less for other oh yes probably some resources were not full used in the war but probably some were full used (bottle necked trouble).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 29, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> Many times in the forum is writed tthat US can built all that want but this is wrong, US had not unlimited resources, also if was the largest and most advanced economy in the world, so a sum of money had a true value (if you coin more notes this change that value), sure they can build up the factories for the P-38s but if you used more resources in this you've less for other oh yes probably some resources were not full used in the war but probably some were full used (bottle necked trouble).


 Disagree - look what was spent on the B-29 and Manhattan project and there was still plenty of money and resources left over. No, it wasn't unlimited but for some of the hypothetical situations presented here, there were more than enough resources as far as manpower, capital and raw material to make it happen.


----------



## Njaco (May 29, 2012)

Just as an example....

from the "WWII Data Book" by John Ellis.....

Aircraft production in Units - 1944

USA - 96,318

Germany - 39,807

Thats not taking into account UK and USSR production numbers. USA definately had enough resources to wage a two-front global war.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 29, 2012)

none here has writed that that programs were deleted so just put trials that there were plenty of resources inutilized in US, and the right resources for built P-38. at example manpower was a scarce resource, there was sure a limited unemployment in the war years but that manpower was the right manpower for the need?


----------



## Vincenzo (May 29, 2012)

Njaco said:


> Just as an example....
> 
> from the "WWII Data Book" by John Ellis.....
> 
> ...



actually US did, so what your point?


----------



## Njaco (May 29, 2012)

The point was a counter-point to your assertion that the US didn't have enough resources - at least that is what I get from your earlier post (post #17). If I am mistaken, so be it....


----------



## Vincenzo (May 29, 2012)

Njaco said:


> The point was a counter-point to your assertion that the US didn't have enough resources - at least that is what I get from your earlier post (post #17). If I am mistaken, so be it....


my point that us can not change P-51 with P-38 in 1:1 ratio w/o other changes in production (less production of others "things" also if less that proportionally to historical difference in price)


----------



## MikeGazdik (May 29, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> my point that us can not change P-51 with P-38 in 1:1 ratio w/o other changes in production (less production of others "things" also if less that proportionally to historical difference in price)



Actually, in this circumstance I think we can. If the P-38 was deemed to be THE plane for the 8th A.F, there would be no P-51. No Mustangs mean that Packard in the U.S, would be building more Allison V-12's perhaps, rather than the license built Rolls Royce Merlin. 

My take on this scenario is I think the P-38J/L would certainly do job. But I'm not so sure if would have been handled as quickly as the Mustang took care of the Luftwaffe in the end. The Lightning would handle the escort part with no sweat. Would be just as good or better when down low, free hunting ground targets. I don't think it would have had as many air to air kills as the Mustang though.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 29, 2012)

packard can built allison but you need 2 allison for a P-38 (and so more spare engines) the airframe of 38 is larger and so


----------



## gjs238 (May 29, 2012)

If no P-51, wouldn't P-38 deployment priority be given to ETO?


----------



## davebender (May 29, 2012)

Early P-47s had plenty of problems too. Not to mention poor aerial performance.

Development of the P-38 began during 1937 and Lockheed had a prototype flying during January 1939. If the USAAC decide to build the P-38 in large numbers that's when the decision should be made. Which allows plenty of time for design development and construction of production facilities. An aircraft somewhat similiar to the P-38J could be operational before the end of 1942. No need for the P-51 so the Mustang remains only an RAF program. Perhaps the RAF will fit Packard built Merlin engines to a few P-38s as an experiment....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 29, 2012)

davebender said:


> If the USAAC decide to build the P-38 in large numbers that's when the decision should be made. Which allows plenty of time for design development and *construction of production facilities*



Actually Lockheed had the facilities available to open another P-38 production line. Remember Lockheed was a subcontractor building B-17s at the Vega facility located at Plant A1. If that contract wasn't awarded to Lockheed and they were dedicated to increased P-38 production, the space was available.

Lockheed's Burbank Plants


----------



## muscogeemike (May 29, 2012)

I think late model P-38’s could have done the job. I’ve read that the Lightning was hard to mass produce, could be we wouldn’t have been able to produce too many more than we did.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 29, 2012)

muscogeemike said:


> I think late model P-38’s could have done the job. I’ve read that the Lightning was hard to mass produce, could be we wouldn’t have been able to produce too many more than we did.


 By opening up a second or third propduction source, it "could have" been done if the AAF wanted it too happen.


----------



## JoeB (May 29, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> my point that us can not change P-51 with P-38 in 1:1 ratio w/o other changes in production (less production of others "things" also if less that proportionally to historical difference in price)


I agree with this as a general idea. It's not reasonable to just assume an a/c requiring more resources can be built in the same numbers and nothing else would change. The US still had unused resources (for example consumer spending in the US in WWII was only a little below 50% of the economy, v around 70% now, but it's low 30's-~40% in the Chinese economy now in peacetime, depending whose figures you accept; the lower range of Chinese figures is official, but some think it's subject to significant undercounting). But in actual history the US only brought to bear a certain amount of resources, and not as a result of a conscious decision 'this is a pretty easy war, so let's relax and not throw our full resources at it'. There were various political, bureaucratic, cultural etc limits on how much the country could mobilize. Of course Germany was worse than the US at marshalling its limited resources even in face of a much more dire threat once the war in Russia was not an immediate success. the German economy wasn't on a real war footing until 1944, when it was way too late.

However, the extra resources required to fully equip 8th and 15th AF's with P-38's rather than P-51's wasn't that large an amount in the whole US effort. The USAAF always had plenty of extra less desireable a/c in depots or prematurely discarded, or even still on the production lines. For example the P-40N only finished production in November 1944. While the US couldn't just do *anything* with 'unlimited resources' it might have done a more efficient job phasing out the production of obsolescent fighter types sooner, or keeping them in frontline units longer (in the tactical AF's in ETO/MTO or defensively positioned AF's in the PTO and ZI). Tied to that, it might have sent fewer fighters to Allies under Lend Lease, which is where a lot of later P-39/40/63 production went. And, the USAAF had massive numerical superiority in certain theaters which it could have reduced (eg. 9th and 12th AF fighter units v German fighter units committed to France and Italy) to build up numbers more in 8th and 15th. Likewise the availability of P-38's in the Pacific was often an important factor in planning offensive operations not supported by carriers, because of the 38's range. But such operations could have been slowed down to send more P-38's to Europe, if absolutely necessary.

Joe


----------



## drgondog (May 29, 2012)

My perspective is similar to Joe's. The USAAF high command could have re-allocated P-38 units globally to compliment P-47s - which was original plan until the 'potential' of the newly arriving P-51B displaced the concept of building with more P-38 units. The 474th and 479th, ETO bound, were in training in the States and the 364th arrived in january, 1944. 

Arnold could have decided to strip two P-38FG, say 1st and 14th or 82nd and sent them from MTO to 8th AF. Would have hurt the 15th, but the 8th was the key to ETO in early to mid 1944.

The P-38 was easy to spot but still very dangerous to 109 and 190 and even with 1:1 would have tangibly reduced 8th BC losses.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 29, 2012)

JoeB good reply,
i want just add, if it's true that "the extra resources required to fully equip 8th and 15th AF's with P-38's rather than P-51's wasn't that large an amount in the whole US effort", it's also true you for built the P-38s you need specific resources and on this probable the amount is not negligible


----------



## tomo pauk (May 29, 2012)

wuzak said:


> What's next?
> 
> *Could the later model Spitfire get extended range and establish complete control of air over Germany without P51?*



Yes, on both accounts (for the suggestion of the new thread and as the answer for the question it would rise 



GregP said:


> The early P-38's suffered from intake manifold issues and running on European gasoline, which had a LOT more aromatic percentage than American gasloine. American gas ahd 4% aromatics and Europeam fules had up to 40% aormatics. So ... our engines detionated a bit relative to European engines. When we figured that out amd fixed the intake manifold issues, the Allison were cured. European engines also had a hard time running American fuels, read the fighter conference proceedings and see.
> 
> By the time they FIXED the P-38's, the P-51 was there and there was NO point in maintaining two logistical chains into Europe.
> 
> ...



USAAF have had more issues to fix, in order to make P-38 function well - re-teaching the pilots to cruise on high manifold pressure and low RPM. The better intercoolers of the P-38J were 'too efficient', compared with earlier installation, and, flying at 28000 ft on low MAP cooled the charge too much, leading to engine problems malfunctions. Another issue was poor cabin heater (blame laying to Lockheed here), fine for ops at 15000, but severely lacking in ETO winter, 25-30000 ft.


----------



## wuzak (May 29, 2012)

MikeGazdik said:


> Actually, in this circumstance I think we can. If the P-38 was deemed to be THE plane for the 8th A.F, there would be no P-51. No Mustangs mean that Packard in the U.S, would be building more Allison V-12's perhaps, rather than the license built Rolls Royce Merlin.



Except that Packard's licence production of the Merlin was done for the British, not the USAAF. Contracts were in place for the engine supply, so switching to Allison production would not have been simple.

However, without the P-51 it may be that Don Berlin's wish to have a 60-series Merlin in a P-40 comes to fruition, and more Merlin P-40s are built, freeing up V-1710s for the P-38. Similarly, the P-39 and P-63 may also be fitted with Merlins.


----------



## wuzak (May 29, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Yes, on both accounts (for the suggestion of the new thread and as the answer for the question it would rise



I have little doubt that a Spitfire VIII, IX or XIV, in sufficient quantities, with the range to escort to Berlin and beyond would establish complete control of teh skies over Europe. The question is could teh Spitfire be provided the range?

The PR.XIX had a range of around 2000 miles, but no guns. The XIX is basically the same airframe and engine as the XIV, so on the surface it would appear possible.


----------



## davebender (May 29, 2012)

So was the P-47. That's why these fighter aircraft cost so much. But the USA can afford them as we weren't supporting 200+ army divisions in continuous combat from 1941 onward.


----------



## MikeGazdik (May 30, 2012)

DOUBLE POST


----------



## MikeGazdik (May 30, 2012)

Wuzak, A Merlin engined P-39 sounds wonderful!! And thanks for saving my thought!!

After reading this more, others have touched on a concern I had and that is the need of the Lightning in the Pacific theatre. The 15th AF could have utilized other aircraft easier, but the long legs of the P-38 were a must in the Pacific. What aircraft would have been on the Yamamoto mission if the P-38's weren't available? That mission was long before the longer ranging P-47's, and I believe before the F4U was engaged in battle and likely outside its range.


----------



## wuzak (May 30, 2012)

MikeGazdik said:


> Wuzak, A Merlin engined P-39 sounds wonderful!! And thanks for saving my thought!!



Which would it be?

The two stage engines would likely be too long, so perhaps a 45/50 or maybe a 20-series?

A Merlin 60-series was under consideration for a version of the P-63, but since the USAAF needed all its Packard allocation for P-51s the project was shelved.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (May 30, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Which would it be?
> 
> The two stage engines would likely be too long, so perhaps a 45/50 or maybe a 20-series?
> 
> A Merlin 60-series was under consideration for a version of the P-63, but since the USAAF needed all its Packard allocation for P-51s the project was shelved.



"Packard allocation". But that would imply a shortage of resources. And we have been assured that the US had plenty of everything. 

It would seem the rules of economics do apply, even to the US.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2012)

KiwiBiggles said:


> "Packard allocation".


That indicted the engines allocated to a manufacturer by the government. Things like engines, radios, avionics and in some cases oxygen equipment was known as "Government Furnished Equipment" (GFE) which meant the prime contractor did not order these items direct from the manufacturer on contracts let by the US government, the government allocated these items based on contract. If an airframe manufacturer was working on a private or non-lend lease contract it was then they purchased the engine. The US DID have plenty of everything but it was obvious there were some limitations but those limitations did not hamper the allied supply line, the proof of this was the excess aircraft left in country after the war.


----------



## drgondog (May 30, 2012)

MikeGazdik said:


> Wuzak, A Merlin engined P-39 sounds wonderful!! And thanks for saving my thought!!
> 
> After reading this more, others have touched on a concern I had and that is the need of the Lightning in the Pacific theatre. The 15th AF could have utilized other aircraft easier, but the long legs of the P-38 were a must in the Pacific. What aircraft would have been on the Yamamoto mission if the P-38's weren't available? That mission was long before the longer ranging P-47's, and I believe before the F4U was engaged in battle and likely outside its range.



The installation of a merlin in the P-63 probably means extending the fuselage and/or pulling the wings back to offset aft cg.

The 15th AF, prior to May/June 1944, wasn't able to fly continuous escort with the P-38 and didn't quite have enough combined P-47/P-38 groups to fly Penetration, Target and Withdrawal escorts to Munich, Regensburg, etc. The P-38 could sweep to those targets but not linger, the P-47s couldn't get close.


----------



## wuzak (May 30, 2012)

KiwiBiggles said:


> "Packard allocation". But that would imply a shortage of resources. And we have been assured that the US had plenty of everything.
> 
> It would seem the rules of economics do apply, even to the US.



Not all of Packard's engines were destined for US aircraft.

Packard Merlins went into Lancasters, Mosquitos and Spitfires (the Mk XVI) as well.

What I meant by "allocation" are those ordered for US aircraft.


----------



## wuzak (May 30, 2012)

drgondog said:


> The installation of a merlin in the P-63 probably means extending the fuselage and/or pulling the wings back to offset aft cg.



The P-63 was designed to fit a two stage Allison V-1710, which is longer than a two stage Merlin.

Wiki has the V-1710 at a length of 85.8", which is less than 3" shorter than a 2 stage Merlin and considerably longer than a single stage Merlin. 

A single stage Merlin should fit comfortably inside the P-39's engine bay, but it would need a scoop underneath for the intake, or a down draft carby. A two stage may fit, though I thought earlier that they would be much longer than a V-1710 single speed engine. The weight may be the problem, though the engine woul dtheoretically be on the CoG anyway.

Just remembered, the two stage Griffon is shorter than the two stage Merlin, and shorter than the V-1710!. It is wider and deeper, however, and 300lbs heavier than a 2 stage Merlin.


----------



## drgondog (May 30, 2012)

wuzak said:


> The P-63 was designed to fit a two stage Allison V-1710, which is longer than a two stage Merlin.
> 
> Wiki has the V-1710 at a length of 85.8", which is less than 3" shorter than a 2 stage Merlin and considerably longer than a single stage Merlin.
> 
> ...



Wuzak - wasn't referring to length but added weight which might move cg further back after nose ammo depleted..


----------



## wuzak (May 30, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Wuzak - wasn't referring to length but added weight which might move cg further back after nose ammo depleted..



The two stage Allison was very close to the two stage Merlin in weight - depending on versions and accesories.


----------



## Timppa (May 30, 2012)

wuzak said:


> I have little doubt that a Spitfire VIII, IX or XIV, in sufficient quantities, with the range to escort to Berlin and beyond would establish complete control of teh skies over Europe. The question is could teh Spitfire be provided the range?
> 
> The PR.XIX had a range of around 2000 miles, but no guns. The XIX is basically the same airframe and engine as the XIV, so on the surface it would appear possible.



Fuel:
Spitfire Mk. VIII: 123 Imp gal = 148 US gal.
"Quill mod": 75 Imp gal tank in rear fuselage =90 US gal. (manageable with slight instability)
Slipper tank 170 Imp gal = 204 US gal.

Total: 238 gal of internal fuel
204 gal of external fuel.

More than a Mustang with full internal fuel and two 75 gal drop tanks.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 30, 2012)

Timppa said:


> Fuel:
> Spitfire Mk. VIII: 123 Imp gal = 148 US gal.
> "Quill mod": 75 Imp gal tank in rear fuselage =90 US gal. (manageable with slight instability)
> Slipper tank 170 Imp gal = 204 US gal.
> ...



170 slipper tank was not available only for PR?
and can not fly combat mission with fuel in the rear tank, you can not drop it


----------



## drgondog (May 30, 2012)

Timppa said:


> Fuel:
> Spitfire Mk. VIII: 123 Imp gal = 148 US gal.
> "Quill mod": 75 Imp gal tank in rear fuselage =90 US gal. (manageable with slight instability)
> Slipper tank 170 Imp gal = 204 US gal.
> ...



The VIII would have been a very effective long range escort with the Quill Mod - more (range) than the P-47D up to -23 without the modification and nearly same as P-38. Would probably have to burn down at least 1/2 of the 90 gallons internally to be combat ready which (if true) would compromise range a little bit when forced to drop external tank (IF AVAILABLE).


----------



## merlin (May 30, 2012)

I think not. The effect of not having the P-51 B/C/D available would've been the loss of much much more B-17/B-24 bombers and their crews. German fighters would've had the luxury of being able to queue up and take their shots with their heavy calibre cannon, even the twin-engined fighters would be up - out of the range of the P-38s P-47s.
Please note too it's not just the fuel carried but the fuel consumption that makes a difference. The Mustang was such a 'clean' aircraft - 'its normal internal fuel tanks held 183 (269 with a full rear tank) compared with 99 for the Spitfire, and it consumed an average of 64 gallons per hour compared with 144 for the P-38 and 140 for te P-47'.
'Colonel H Zemke, who operated with all three, considered the P-51 by far the best air to air fighter below 25,000 ft: above that thugh he thought the P-47 slightly better, despite its high fuel consumption. The P-38's combat effectiveness was severely restricted by its maximum diving spedde of 375 mph IAS.
Despite their range the Mustangs were much faster and more nimble at all heights than the Me109s and FW 190s that opposed them, and had the endurance to chase them all over Germany'.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 31, 2012)

Re. 'LR Spitfire':
-170 imp gal slipper tank was droppable,
-rear hull tank would be, perhaps, half empty once the fighters are over Continent, just like it was the case for the P-51s w/ hull tanks,


----------



## Vincenzo (May 31, 2012)

where are references that Spit can combat with half empty rear tank?


----------



## davebender (May 31, 2012)

The Lancaster Bomber probably did more to cripple the Luftwaffe from Spring 1944 onward then all other factors combined by destroying German hydrogenation plants. So how can anyone claim the P-51 was crucial to the Allied war effort?


----------



## Milosh (May 31, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> where are references that Spit can combat with half empty rear tank?



Pilot Notes iirc.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 31, 2012)

Milosh said:


> Pilot Notes iirc.



i have not the notes for VIII but in notes for the others variant is indicated if there is any fuel in the rear tanks aerobatics are prohibited


----------



## Milosh (Jun 1, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> i have not the notes for VIII but in notes for the others variant is indicated if there is any fuel in the rear tanks aerobatics are prohibited



Spit IX Notes
Part II, 45, (i)

Aerobatics are not permitted when the rear tank contains more than 30 gal of fuel..... not recommended when containing any fuel.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 1, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Wuzak - wasn't referring to length but added weight which might move cg further back after nose ammo depleted..



Just had a thought...

The heavier, more powerful engine may need a heavier, stronger nose mounted gearbox. This may redress some of the weight balance lost when using a heaier engine.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 1, 2012)

Milosh said:


> Spit IX Notes
> Part II, 45, (i)
> 
> Aerobatics are not permitted when the rear tank contains more than 30 gal of fuel..... not recommended when containing any fuel.



Spit XIV part II, 55, (II) and Spit XIV&XIX
Aerobatics are not permitted when carryng any external stores (except the 30-gallon "blister" type drop tank) or when there is any fuel in the rear fuselage tank

Spit XVIII part II, 51 (III)
Aerobatics are not permitted when carryng any external stores (except the 30 gallon blister type drop tank) or when there is any fuel in the rear fuselage tanks


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2012)

Vincenzo - as the question was whether the Spit VIII could be an effective escort aircraft - absent the P-51B, there is no real difference between them with regard to aerobatics with fuselage tanks or external tanks. I do not know if there was a 'level' of internal fuselage fuel that was deemed 'safe', but the P-51B recommendation was 25 (of 85) gallons.


----------



## Juha (Jun 1, 2012)

Hello
IMHO the problem with Spit VIII was that RAF didn’t see urgent need to deploy them in ETO, all produced were sent to MTO or to Burma/India/Australia. So the impulse to deploy them in ETO should have come from USAAF, IIRC correctly it was in Summer 43 when USAAF began seriously look for VLR fighters for ETO (historically P-47 with drop tanks, P-38 and P-51B and soon decided that P-51B would be the best solution) so without P-51B and with willingness to use again British fighter in ETO it would have been during late Summer 43 when USAAF would have begun press UK to change a) the way they deployed Spit VIIIs and b) how they split production between Mk VIII and Mk IX, probably also between LF and HF versions. So how long it would have taken to switch production from F/LF IXs to F/HF VIIIs? IMHO probably Spit VIIIs would not have been able to make similar impact on LW fighter force before June 44 as P-51B did historically.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2012)

I agree Juha. Simply the production line was set up and in full speed at Inglewood and the Dallas Plant scheduled on line for first releases in fall 1943 IMO, there was no practical way for the Spit VIII to be prioritized and produced in the numbers of the P-51B/C during June 1943.

From perspective the question was 'could it have been effective" and my answer is yes subject to priorites for production, as well as political questions. From the perspective "could the P-38J and particularly the J-25 performed? Yes but even worse problem than Spit VIII posed as the J production priorities would have to be shifted away from MTO and PTO destinations for an 'all in' deployment to the ETO, starting in mid 1943 to establish both the numbers, as well as designate Fighter Groups for either conversion from P-39/P-40 and P-47 then re-directed to ETO - or pull units from MTO and re-direct PTO FG's to 'head east'

As we often say "what couldda happened - Did happen' - the Mustang was in Theatre in time with full production operations behind them.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 2, 2012)

The answer is yes the P-38 could have won n air superiority over the Luftwaffe.

The issue in Northern Europe was the 8th AF put a bunch of single engine pilots with no combat experience into P-38s. There was no time for them to learn both how to fight and fly the P-38 at its best. 

Flown by pilots familiar with the 38 this is how a German pilot saw it comment Herbert Kaiser _"P-38s could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to a climb almost instantaneously. we lost quite a few pilots because the tried to attack then pulled up,the P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly that the that there was little one could do was to roll over and dive, for while the P-38 could turn inside us it rolled very slowly through the first 5 or 10 degrees of bank"._

In the Med with pilots familiar with the 38 they were very effective, this is what Johann Stienhoff told Galland " _The Luftwaffe no longer has the qualitative nor quantitative advantage . The fact that the Lightning could and would turn up anywhere or anytime was very troubling. Moreover the clear superiority of the Lightning, in both speed and maneuverability, was especially disconcerting".
_ From his diary 'Messerschmidt's over Sicily'

Performance was not an issue the Late J and L models had power ailerons that eliminated the slow roll complaints and the dive break that not only allowed steep dives but could raise the nose 15-20 degrees for that tough shot. 

The question was production, the second factory did not start until very late 1944 and the first P-38 out of that plant was in 1945!

The P-51s advantage was easy to build, easy to train for, lots of them, low cost and with comparable performance with the enemy. In a war of attrition like WWII it
was was perfect. The availability of the P-51 also allowed the P-38s to go to the Pacific where they were flying missions of 850 mile radius - missions only P-38s could fly.

Bill


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 2, 2012)

P-47D-28 did come close, 835 miles. Achieved by using a 310 gal drop tank under one wing, 165 gal under another, 75 gals belly tank. The quirk was to fight with the belly tank - not the brightest idea vs. German opposition of late 1944, but it was done at the PTO, Oct 1944. 
source: America's hundred thousand, pg. 293.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 3, 2012)

wmaxt said:


> The answer is yes the P-38 could have won n air superiority over the Luftwaffe.
> 
> The issue in Northern Europe was the 8th AF put a bunch of single engine pilots with no combat experience into P-38s. There was no time for them to learn both how to fight and fly the P-38 at its best.
> 
> ...



Bill - simply, the P-38s could have possibly been a factor pre-D Day in ETO by stripping all 15th AF FG's from the 15th and transferring to 8th - leaving the 15th high and dry over Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia as well as leaving major Ploesti attacks un-escorted during 1st half of 1944.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 3, 2012)

dragondog 

The 20th was formed in August 44, the 55th in July 44. According to Ben Kelsy AAF P-38 program officer and Tony LeVier Lockheed test pi.lot these pilots were running their engines at far to high RPM and to low MAP causing low oil temps and high fuel consumption. The low temp caused engine failure when combat power was used because of lubricating issues.

I agree that the required numbers of P-38s were not available prior to D-Day - I mentioned that production was a major issue in my earlier comment.

After the war the AAF did a study which concluded the P-38 was the most effective escort in WWII (I'm sure that only applied to the AAF) Admiral Mischer said the 475th provided the best top cover he ever had over the Philippines. They went on to conclude that size and close escort was primary reasons thy were the best.

The 475th was Never in the ETO. 

The P-38 did have issues - so did the P-51

Art Hieden, talked about the blown head gaskets and cracked heads. Another commander groused about a 30% abort rate and called his P-51s experimental! these issues lasted until about the middle of march - about when most of the issues with the P-38s were taken care of.

Of course you are correct about dive and roll issues however when the missions are close escort those don't really matter. J-25s with power ailerons and dive brakes and heat for the pilot were starting to show up about the time the 8th went to free escort but by that time the P-38s prime mission was ground attack in preparation for D-Day.

You are also right that the major fighters were close in performance the "Best Fighter" is largely a matter of opinion. With a good pilot the P-38 was effective from about 30,000ft down and very effective from 20,000ft down with options no single engine fighter had.

My main point is the theoretical question whether the P-38 could win arial superiority over Germany without the P-51 and the answer is if the P-38s production equaled the P-51s yes it could have done the job.

Bill


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 3, 2012)

Tomo

According to the Smithsonian and a couple of other sources the longest mission by a WWII era aircraft was a P-38 mission from Biak to the Dutch East Indies a 2,300mi round trip!

The P-47Ns were getting into the same ball park, if they had been asked to go that distance with proper leaning procedures they could have. They had more internal tankage than the P-47D models and could carry 3 165gal P-38 drop tanks for an estimated 2,600mi predicted flight - the same as the P-38 after Lindbergh. Lindbergh made a great deal of difference in the pacific with F4Us, P-38s and P-47s when it comes to range issues.

Of course the P-38 had the option of 300gal drop tanks too. In 42 Milo Burcham flew 3,000 miles with a P-38F and 165gal drop tanks to prove the long range capability of the P-38.

Bill


----------



## Juha (Jun 3, 2012)

Hello wmaxt
according to Olynyk’s Stars and Bars 20th FG was activated on Nov 15 1930, 55th Jan 15, 1941 etc. 475th was a great FG, no doubt on thta, but as you wrote it operated in PTO.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Jun 3, 2012)

wmaxt said:


> dragondog
> 
> The 20th was formed in August 44, the 55th in July 44. According to Ben Kelsy AAF P-38 program officer and Tony LeVier Lockheed test pi.lot these pilots were running their engines at far to high RPM and to low MAP causing low oil temps and high fuel consumption. The low temp caused engine failure when combat power was used because of lubricating issues.
> 
> ...



But it didn't have the production and it would have required stripping the rest of the theatres to get them


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 4, 2012)

Dragondog,

I don't have the source for the study it was an AAF study conducted after the war I picked up the info from a book by Stanaway.

Doolittle wanted a single fighter for several reasons 
1. Planing the various aircraft had different flight envelopes that affected mission planning.
2. inventory it was a nightmare to supply 3 totally unrelated aircraft.
3. The P-38 was in demand everywhere for its unique capabilities.
4. The P-51 was available in the numbers he needed and could do the job - the P-51 was almost tailor made for the war over Germany.

The dates I gave for the 55th and the 20th were according to the history of war web site apparently those were the dates they were set up in England.

My point with the problems with the P-51 were just to halite the fact that the P-38 had no more issues that any other fighter in the ETO.

The P-38s in the 55th went operational in the ETO in October I believe right after the second Schwinefurt raid. the 20th sometimes had aircraft flying with the 55th on missions. At that time October/November 1943 the average loss rate of bombers was 9/10% of the total bomber stream 3/4% of the bomber shot down were by AAA. By the middle of November with the 55th escorting the overall loss rate had dropped to 4/5%, this loss rate was never bettered.

One thing to be remembered was that the P-51 outfits were also more experienced with combat as most were operational with other aircraft before they received their Mustangs.

As we both mentioned identifiablity was a major issue with the P-38, Donald Caldwell while researching his book JG-27 interviewed many German pilots about how they felt about the various fighters on the P-38 their comments were that they could choose when or if they wanted to attack. P-51s and P-47s were similar enough that the German aircraft often were committed before they realized the other planes were ours. The miss identification allowed for more kills.

Where did you find the date for the release of the fighters from close escort? I've looked for it for a long time.

As for dives in the P-38 from above 20,000ft the pilot could dive but he MUST close the throttles, go to a flat pitch on the props and if needed roll the plane back and forth - unfortunately few pilots had the experience or will to do this. P-38s made up more than half the long range fighters in the ETO until late April 1944 so the P-38 still had a large part of the winning of aerial superiority over Germany. 

One other thing neither the 55th or the 20th did much better with the P-51 in fact one group actually did worse!

In Warren Bodies book P-38 Doolittle comments that the P-38 was "on the balance the P-38 was ahead of all but 1 or 2 of the most outstanding fighters of the war. It was certainly the most versatile. Which is one reason he phased out the P-38s.

Yes a second factory should have been set up in 1942 at the latest which would have also allowed the P-38K to be produced which was a very capable fighter. A second factory would also have allowed dive flaps approved for production in April to be installed on H and J model P-38's.

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Jun 4, 2012)

wmaxt said:


> Dragondog,
> 
> I don't have the source for the study it was an AAF study conducted after the war I picked up the info from a book by Stanaway.
> 
> ...



And the USAAF could have had the wisdom to buy the P-51, engage with Rolls Royce for license to Packard Merlin and had the P-51B in full combat operations by late 1942, and upgrade to Merlin 61/65/66 etc. - at 1/2 the cost, longer range until the very latest P-38L, faster, nimble and easy to fly.. most would pick the 51 even playing 'what if'


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 5, 2012)

Dragondog,

I got the numbers of P-51/P-38s directly from the AAF statistacal digest.

We could go on like this forever on which plane was best and which facts are pertinent. The P-38 was able to win air superiority over German aircraft in the MTO it played a significant part of, and could have won it over Germany. As the situation was at that time with availability of the P-51, and demand elsewhere for the P-38, Doolittle went with the P-51. 

The P-51 did a fine job in the ETO it could have been designed for that job, It didn't do as well in the Pacific.

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Jun 5, 2012)

wmaxt said:


> Dragondog,
> 
> I got the numbers of P-51/P-38s directly from the AAF statistacal digest.
> 
> ...



*It did fine in the MTO, becoming primary long range escort fighter for the 15th AF. It did fine even as P-51A in CBI before the P-51B arrived. It did fine in the PTO, just arrived late because it wasn't needed until the B-29s needed them to go to Japan. *

No matter how hard it is to accept - the P-38 never completely lived up to the bright future of 1940. It was buggy for years, it was too expensive, it used twice the resources to maintain and fly combat ops. It had a low air to air and air to ground combat record when compared to the P-51 and P-47. It had more accidents in Training command per 1000 sorties.

The RAF didn't want it P-38), but they loved all versions of the P-51 AND HAD THEM IN COMBAT IN THE ETO seven months before the P-38 even though the P-38 flew for the first time 22 months before the first Mustang flight. It took the P-38 almost twice as long from first flight to first combat mission. The P-51 in all versions fought from April 1942 through the end of WWII

When it finally became bug free and capable of performing to expectations the air war on the greatest stage had passed it by. If the P-38L was available in 1942 it would have been great. If it had been available in 1943 it would have been very important, if available in February 1944 it would have been grand. It did pretty well in all respects - just not what it was potentially capable of until mid to late 1944.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 6, 2012)

Dragondog

The AAF Statistical Digest is on line and details the numbers of aircraft and other supporting data. It shows several things

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/aircraft_and_equipment.htm

1. the P-38 never had the most accidents and was usually near the middle, and in 1945 had the lowest with 78 per 100K while the P-51 had 79 per 100K
2. 2,300 P-38s were sent to the ETO/Mto over the course of the war. There were over 5,000 P-51s sent to the ETO/MTO in what a year and a half. This does not include Allison P-51s
3. Until March 1944 P-38s fought with odds of up to 8/1 with a more experienced adversary
4 in March with P-51s the numbers of US aircraft reached Parity with the Luftwaffe fighter arm never again did US aircraft fly into Germany with less fighter than the Germans had available.
5 In April 44 According to Adolf Galland the German experienced pilot pool was drastically reduced and from that time on US pilots were more experienced
6 in July there were twice as many P-51s in the ETO as German Fighters. Not including aircraft in Italy. 

Last the Definition of Air Superiority is the ability of US aircraft to operate in enemy air space sustainably. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy

By that paraphrased definition P-38s won air superiority in the Med and in the ETO by lowering the loss rate in November 43 in spite of smaller formations and shallower penetrations into German Territory! The warding off of enemy aircraft was effective in allowing operations in enemy territory and that meets the definition of air superiority.

The P-51 extended that to allow bigger formations and deeper penetrations and eventually Arial supremacy a whole different thing. Arial Supremacy is complete dominance of enemy airspace. This was done by sheer numbers. 

Highest Score by the P-51 was more from smothering the Germans with more experienced pilots and aircraft than anything else. 

P-38s flew and fought under a whole different situation than the P-51 did Including a far higher percentage of ground attack missions. Using just Kills is not a valid comparison. The P-38 was a very effective fighter as attested by its overall record.

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Jun 6, 2012)

wmaxt said:


> Dragondog
> 
> The AAF Statistical Digest is on line and details the numbers of aircraft and other supporting data. It shows several things
> 
> ...



"_The P-38 was a very effective fighter as attested by its overall record."_Yes it was. But with respect to defeating the Luftwaffe, it was not as effective as the P-51 or the P-47. With respect to defeating Japanese airpower, or close air support, it was not as effective as the F6F


----------



## drgondog (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill - a brief apology. Bovine Fecal matter not such a great response. The vexing issue is that you ignore many facts and present references which often contrdict your points... hence my frustration at re-reading history back to you on the issue of P-51 versus P-38 in the ETO.

I can recommend many sources that I believe would be beneficial. 

Kent Miller's Fighter Units and Pilots of the 8th AF is good, getting USAF 85 or accessing USAFHRC website for aerial victory credits is imperative if you want to debate air combat as the USAF defines it. *th AF Victory Credits Board is available on microfilm from HRC and defines ground credits and was basis for final review for USAF Study 85 for 8th AF scores. Frank Olynyk has taken it farther by including USMC and USN.

9th and 15th hard to get but you can extract and match to aircraft flown from USAF 85 and use other references for aircraft deployment (like Olynyk)

You will have to break out deployments and re-training via Miller, Freeman, Maurer per dates of operations, but Olynyk's Stars and bars is an excellent cross reference. Any and all of the Group Histories are useful but Miller's tome on the 8th is a single point of consolidation. Errors - yes but not big ones. 

If you are Not drawing from these, you are dealing from 'rumor' and hearsay. Bodie's P-38 or Ethell's P-51, etc etc is NOT a good source for foundation facts on combat achievements at all levels of detail.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 8, 2012)

Drgondog,

You are obviously a P-51 advocate, your bias shows, as does mine. However Bodie and others are factual. Victory credits alone are not a valid sole criteria if the aircrafts missions differ as much as the P-38/P-51s did.

As for victory credits the AAF credits the P-51 with 5,243 not 5900+. The P-51 enjoyed much better airfields so documentation was much better preserved that the P-38s which operated from unimproved strips in the MTO and PTO through much if not the entire war. The P-38 also had a poor location for it camera that produced poor and often unusable shots losing many victory credits. When the AAF redid the victory awards and required all the documentation a large number of P-38 kills were reversed.

My information is substantially correct whether or not you have found information contrary to that - histories involving war often are contradictory because they are written by people with opinions themselves.

Part of my info on P-38s/P-51s came directly from pilots themselves like Olds, Yeager, and Anderson. The Air force Diaries, and Fighter Group Histories.

The 8th AF disliked the P-38 many of the pilots fell that it was because the P-38 was available, could have reduced the bomber loss rate to an acceptable level but did not use it when the Congress was asking why the losses were so high. They belive the P-38 became the fall guy.

I will check out those sources you have provided.

I guess we can now agree to disagree.

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Jun 9, 2012)

wmaxt said:


> Drgondog,
> 
> You are obviously a P-51 advocate, your bias shows, as does mine. However Bodie and others are factual. Victory credits alone are not a valid sole criteria if the aircrafts missions differ as much as the P-38/P-51s did.
> 
> ...



Bill - it was good to chat


----------



## davparlr (Jun 12, 2012)

davebender said:


> The Lancaster Bomber probably did more to cripple the Luftwaffe from Spring 1944 onward then all other factors combined by destroying German hydrogenation plants. So how can anyone claim the P-51 was crucial to the Allied war effort?


According to you,


> 3 September 1939. First RAF Bomber Command operation against Germany.
> *12 May 1944*. First effective RAF Bomber Command attack on hydrogenation plants.


(bold emphasis mine), 
the Brits did not successfully attack the hydrogenation plants until mid May, 1944, only three weeks prior to D-Day. By that time the P-51Bs had been sweeping the skies over Germany of the Luftwaffe aircraft, shooting down nearly 1171 with many experienced pilots lost. Had these resources been available at D-Day, and the upcoming weather, it is easy to imagine valuable time being provided by the Luftwaffe for Panzer Group West to fully deploy and thus greatly impede the breakout and possibly pushing the invasion back to the beach. Months could have been added to the war and 10s of thousands dead.


----------



## chris mcmillin (Jun 28, 2012)

You guys know a lot of details of the airplanes and war. I'm kind of a general knowledge guy, just a pilot really.

A couple of points;
If there were no P-51's and the P-38 were to be the front line fighter, there were a lot of factory airfields here in SoCal to fit the bill of building more. Not only the Vega plant in addition to the Burbank plant, but if the airplane were needed in the 20,000 count instead of the 10,000 count, NAA, and Douglas, as well as Vultee and Northrop were here as well. Plenty of know how and area in which to build them.

Anyone that believes the economy of the USA during that period could not sustain P-38's instead of P-51's is just biased. Sorry guys, this country was committed.

The engine point is that other auto and marine plants could've built the Allison, as I recall the Indy plant was pretty slow at getting stuff out and development was slow as well, at first. Once good service was being achieved the engine could've been built by Packard or some other factory constructed for the task very easily.

It was all possible, just as the Packard built Merlin and Dallas plants happened, so could have additional production. Possibly better, faster engineering innovations had the additional engineering and production personnel come to fruition, too.

Glass half full for the Lightning, always kinda liked them. Those of us in Los Angeles have two favorites, you know.

Chris...

P.S. Had the Army ordered as many Lockheed drops as could be produced early in the war, the long range techniques which make an airplane much more flexible, could have been developed to make the P-47 and the P-38 able to do deep escort. Pylons on early P-47D's and Lindbergh-type cruise power settings and it's a different ball game. The Army was out it's butt for some time on the subject... Doolittle and other bright operational minds were more responsible for doing well late in the war as any machine.


----------



## NiceShotAustin (Jun 28, 2012)

The biggest problems the P-38 faced in the ETO was the very poor training pilots received for twin engines aircraft, and the poor initial roll rate and compressibility problems encountered by the P-38 models the 8th air force used.

Quoting former 20th FG Capt. Arthur Heiden in regards to the training:
"The quality of multi-engine training during World War II bordered on the ridiculous. I am convinced that with training methods now in use we could take most of civilian private pilots who might be about to fly the Aztec or Cessna 310, and in ten hours, have a more confident pilot than the ones who flew off to war in the P-38. A P-38 pilot usually got his training in two ways. The first way, of course, was twin-engine advanced training in Curtiss AT-9s, which had the unhappy feature of having propellers you couldn't feather. After sixty hours of this, the student received ten hours of AT-6 gunnery, although he might get his gunnery training in the AT-9, since AT-6s were in short supply."

"At this point he had his chance to fly the RP-322 for another twenty hours. The 322, as you know, was the British version of the airplane, and they came with assorted equipment and things on them that nobody could predict. Upon graduation from the RP-322 he was assigned to a P-38 Replacement Training Unit (RTU) or an Operational Training Unit (OTU) for 100 hours or more of fighter training. A second way to get into the P-38 was to transition from single engine fighters. In this event, someone probably took him up in a multi-engine transport or bomber and demonstrated engine shutdown a couple of times after skimming the tech order, a blindfold check, and then Ignoring the check list (not for real fighter pilots!), he blasted off. More than one neophyte has described his first "launch" in a P-38 as being hit in the ass with a snow shovel."

"Either method of training, probably, made little difference as neither guy knew that much about multi-engine operations and procedures. True, he had been warned about the magic number of 120 miles per hour his Vme (editor:Vmca) or single-engine control speed. He had swam in glue during a couple of prop featherings while in formation with his instructor. He was, also, warned never to turn into a dead engine, never put down the gear until he had made the field, and never to go around with one caged. That was about it until shortly thereafter the old Allison time bomb blew up, and he was in business the hard way. Right on takeoff. "Some people lucked out if the runway was long enough. Some overshot or undershot and they bent the whole thing. Some tried a single-engine go-around anyway, usually with horrible results. Such happenings would make a son of a bitch out of any saint."

After listing a multitude of issues encountered by the P-38 models used in the ETO, many involving complaints with the Allisons at high altitude, initial roll rate, and compressibility, Heiden went on to say:
"Every one of these problems was solved with the introduction of the P-38L."

Capt. Heiden made some further interesting observations:
"The P-51 was a new airplane and we were eager to fly it and were happy with it. It was so easy and comfortable to fly. The P-38 had kept us on our toes and constantly busy--far more critical to fly. You never could relax with it. We were disappointed with the 51's rate of climb and concerned with the reverse stick, especially if fuel was in the fuselage tank, the rash of rough engines from fouled plugs, and cracked heads which dumped the coolant. With the 38 you could be at altitude before landfall over the continent, but with the 51 you still had a lot of climbing yet to do. The 38 was an interceptor and if both engines (were healthy), you could outclimb any other airplane, and that's what wins dog fights. When you are in a dog fight below tree tops, it is way more comfortable in a 38 with its power and stall characteristics and, for that matter at any altitude."

"The 8th was, at last, being flooded with Mustangs and well trained pilots. The Mustang was a delight to fly, easier to maintain cheaper to build and train pilots for, and had long legs. In those respects you can rightfully call it better, but it could not do anything better than a P-38J-25 or L. Just remember who took the war to the enemy and held on under inconceivable odds. Enough of the crap."

I will admit, my opinion is far from non-biased. I am definitely a P-38 fan. But, let me re-quote Heiden again: "In those respects you can rightfully call it (P-51) better". For what was wanted in the ETO, the P-51 was definitely the better choice than even the late model P-38s, and that's coming from a P-38 fanboy such as myself. But, there is no doubt in my mind that the P-38 could've very well done the P-51's job. After all, which USAF aircraft held the long-range bomber escort role when the Luftwaffe was at its peak with superior numbers and skill?


----------



## drgondog (Jun 29, 2012)

NiceShotAustin said:


> The biggest problems the P-38 faced in the ETO was the very poor training pilots received for twin engines aircraft, and the poor initial roll rate and compressibility problems encountered by the P-38 models the 8th air force used.
> 
> *This is true, but add a couple of issues in the air to air role. It was easy to spot - and recognize - and the first guy who sees the other first has a tactical advantage. It had an advantage in climb rate but a.) because of poor roll and high wing loading it was at a disadvantage in manuevering fight before manuever flaps and dive brkae/flap and boosted ailerons were equipped in the J-25 and above, and b.) limited in pursuit because of the extreme conversion to compressibility at .62M and above. More important to this discussion is that none of the critical mods were in ETO until post D-Day. *
> 
> ...



He forgot to mention that the 51 not only out accelerated the 38 in a dive but it could out dive its opponents - which the P-38 could never do in the ETO. The 51 was faster at all _operational_ altitudes. It out rolled the P-38J throughout and even the P-38L w/boosted ailerons until 335mph, and didn't lose much after that It had far more range on internal fuel which meant the half range after dropping tanks prematurely was greater.

And, roll the drums - it was half to cost in purchase and about half the cost to operate and maintain. Reverse drums - the P-38 could do more things well when considering fighter bomber, night fighter capability - but if you compared the best P-38 to the P-51H and P-82, well...

My points earlier were a.) if the USAAF ONLY had the P-38 as the escort option and committed to it in the ETO rather than send them to Africa and MTO, then in my opinion it could have done well in the ETO prior to D-Day, but b.) that didn't happen and the P-38 build up in the ETO was far too slow to make much difference over deep targets in Germany - relative to the 51 - before the Invasion. 

It very clearly did not compete against the FW 190 and Me 109 as well as the Mustang during WWII. Even in the MTO, the arrival of the Mustang in May 1944 - with less than a year in operations - it was only ~ 400 credits short of the combined P-38 operations from November 1942 to EOW.

In any case or consideration the P-38 was not as good an air superiority fighter as the 51 - but, in great enough numbers, it could win air superiority..

If you consider Zemke as credible as Capt Heiden relative to the merits of the P-47 vs P-38 and P-51 - look to page 188 Zemke's Wolfpack

"While not having the firepower of the P-47 and P-38, it was superior on nearly every other account. The P-51 couldn't outclimb a 109 or outroll a 190 but it could out run and out dive them at every altitude and usually out turn them too"


----------



## eagledad (Jun 29, 2012)

Hello,

From my studies, the 8th AF did not use any P-38L's in the fighter role. However, the 367th, 370th and 474th all used some P-38L's in the 9th, and as Dragondog said, the L's were also used by the 1st, 14th, and 82nd fighter groups in the MTO.

I do not believe that any fighter group in the ETO/MTO was completely equipped with P-38L's, but all flew a mixture of J's and L's. 

Eagledad


----------



## NiceShotAustin (Jun 29, 2012)

Let me restate myself: For what was wanted in the ETO, the P-51 was definitely the better choice than even the late model P-38s. Both planes had advantages over eachother. The P-51s had a better roll rate, high speed pitch, smaller size, level top speed, dive speed, and lower production cost/maintenance (the most important advantage of all). The P-38 on the other hand had better firepower, armor, low speed maneuverability, acceleration, climb rate, and two engines to help get you back home. For what was needed in the bomber escort role in the ETO, the P-51 almost seemed custom tailored for the job and rightfully was used as the bomber escort. But, if I recall correctly, the subject is "Could the later model P38 establish complete control of air over Germany without P51?". The simple answer is definitely. As I said, which plane held the role of long range bomber escort while the Luftwaffe was at its peak? But I should add, the P-38 wouldn't do it as effectively as the P-51. The P-51s were more numerous, and were far easier to train for. Those are the two big reasons the P-51 was superior to the P-38 in the discussed role. Greater numbers and better prepared pilots will often show better statistics and results than even a superior fighter with few numbers (an example of that would be the ME-262). Whether each side of the argument will admit it, both the P-51s and the late model P-38s were completely capable of fighting a 109 or 190. The P-38 had a number of areas it performed better than the P-51, and vice versa. But it's the logistics and other not-so-glamorous details that made the P-51 the better plane for the job, not because it could do "X" better than the P-38


----------



## Milosh (Jun 29, 2012)

Why all this P-51 _talk_? The thread is suppose to be about *NO* P-51s.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 1, 2012)

Hi, Bill (drgondog), just a small nitpick: P-38 did have maneuver setting, 8 deg, for it's flaps as early as 1942 (in P-38F-15 subtype). Per ATH.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 1, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Hi, Bill (drgondog), just a small nitpick: P-38 did have maneuver setting, 8 deg, for it's flaps as early as 1942 (in P-38F-15 subtype). Per ATH.



Actually my brainfart was worse than that as the G and F also had manuever flap settings.. the important aspect however was that roll rate reamined sluggish until J-25 with boosted ailerons.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 1, 2012)

The P-38H would have been available in the fall of 1943 and since more P-38s were built than P-51s in 1943 and 1944, it is obvious that this version and the follow-on Js could be fielded in adequate quantities similar to the P-51B/C. However, other aircraft would have to replace it in regions where the aircraft were already used, which could hamper other operational areas. A better idea would be to build more P-38s.

The H and the J versions of the P-38 were competent performers relative to the Bf 109G and the Fw 190A-8, being faster and climbing better than either over entire performance envelope. If flown well, it would probably out turn both. It did have some performance problems, one of which is that I don’t think these P-38 versions had fixed the high altitude problems, and another is that it had a slow roll rate, and worse, they also had a limited dive speed. The former was fixed in later models. By far, the biggest problem was the limited fuel available when external tanks are jettisoned. These versions only had 300 gallons of internal fuel feeding two powerful engines. The P-51B had about 190 gallons usable for one engine on a much cleaner aircraft. According to the Tactical Planning Characteristics and Performance Chart for the P-38J through dash 10, the max cruise range at 25k ft. is 600 miles on 300 gallons of gas, or, about the distance from Berlin to London. The plane would barely make it home if it was not engaged in combat until over Berlin (actually, probably not since it would use valuable gas in combat). If it was engaged before Berlin, it would have to turn back, leaving the Bomber stream to its fate.

My conclusion, the aircraft could be made available and they performed well. The high altitude problem had to be fixed pronto and more internal fuel was desperately needed. Without these changes, many P-38s and bombers would be lost until the summer of ’44 when upgrade P-38s were available. Most likely more Luftwaffe aircraft would have been available on D day. With the P-38 versions fielded by the fall of ’43, I believe the Western Front battles of ’44 would be significantly different.


----------



## chris mcmillin (Aug 2, 2012)

More to the point on a thread about P-38's.

Build more airframes and fix problems. Essentially the challenge is to optimize the good performance of a 1937 design by ironing out systems problems as well as aerodynamic problems.

Train pilots better. Seen over time by better training manuals and curriculum.
Heating of pilot, windshield and guns were a problem, fix it. Bleed off of hot turbos as well as manifold muffs?
Oil temperature, waste gate control problems, make it work by simplification. Farm out solution to another manufacturer, maybe? 
Dive compressibility, fixed with dive flaps.
Turbo development, slowly worked out by GE.
Range, build more 175 gallon drops. Find more room for internal fuel, build more 250 gallon drops. Adopt Lindbergh range techniques for lean best economy power.

What happened in reality of the design was that the systems never caught up to the aerodynamics. 
Good things; Power to weight was good, it was easy to fly, it went pretty fast up high, it did well enough down low, it had good firepower, roll rate was fixed with hyd boost, dive controllability was fixed with dive brakes.
Bad things; cold guns, frosted windshields, cold pilot, Rube Goldberg interface between throttle/prop/mixture in regard to controlling the wastegate with oil pressure/electricity/power lever position. 
Military powers just relocated the airplane to climates where the temperature problems didn't cripple it's operation.

Just a general perspective, but trying to refer to the basics of the OP's question, could it be dominant, and how?

Chris...


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 3, 2012)

I don't doubt for a moment that late models of the P-38 could have done the P 51's job had the latter not been available, as could the P-47. In fact, given American industrial might and resources, I suspect they could have won the European air war with Sopwith Camels. The thing is though, it was never going to happen (the 38 still being the USAAFs premier fighter at the end of the war, that is). Economic and enginering imperatives alway meant that the relatively light, single engined fighters were going to the the best choice in the air superiority role circa 1945. If the Lightning hadn't been supplanted by the Mustang, it would have been supplanted by something pretty similar. 
In fact the whole idea of twin engined fighters matching single engine fighters during WWII in any area seems to be marginal. The P-38 closest but at it's relative best it was only ever 'as good' as the best single engined opposition in combat, with the drawback of all the extra costs of production. For a while it had the best range of any fighter in the ETO but it wasn't long before that advantage was pegged back. Maybe if the war had lasted a bit longer we would finally have seen a twin engined fighter that could have matched the single engined opposition in performance, range and economics, or at least been better in any of these areas to a degree that a defficiency in others was balanced. The de Haviland Hornet maybe?


----------



## hurricane55 (Aug 3, 2012)

Assuming P-40s and 47s were still used, it's highly possible, although it may delay the advance a few weeks to a few months, and bomber losses would be higher.

Also, if there was no P-51, other fighters like the P-47 would probably be produced in increased numbers, most likely the Lightning as well.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 4, 2012)

Dave, The P-38H's of the 1st fighter group flew 1,600 mi escorts with combat at the target area in the summer of 1943. This happens to be the same distance of the longest range mission by P-51s (it was by the 339th FG) in WW2. The trip from England to Allegria in 1942 by the 1st FG was 1,500mi. The lower CD of the earlier P-38s made them capable of almost as much range as the later P-38s with the leading edge tanks according to pilots.

According to General Doolittle commander of the 8th AF "The P-38 way not have been the best fighter of WW2, but concedes that this can probably be attributed to factors unrelated to the aircraft's capabilities. strategic and tactical doctrine proved to be a severe handicap to utilization of the type at the timethe first groups were deployed in northern Europe first in the fall of 1942 and again in 1943. The mode of operation left much to be desired. Early P-47Ds and P-51B/Cs would have fared poorly under the rules prevailing, but it is necessary to recognize that neither type was developed or mass produced until later. (Warren Bodies conversations with Doolittle) I encourage anyone who likes aviation to read his books as they have won acclaim as well researched and well written and cover the P-38 , P-47 and other subjects associated with aviation.

The range of P-38s in the ETO was increased after Tony LeVier demonstrated the proper throttle settings in the early spring of 1944 but this was never reflected in the 8ths planning of missions. Its also rarely mentioned that the first fighters over Berlin were P-38s of the 55th FG on March 3rd, 1944.

As to performance a well flown P-38 could easily out turn the Bf-109 or Fw-190 according to a number of German pilots. The issue was in the pilots hands, a good aggressive pilot that knew his aircraft was effective.

The second biggest issue for P-38s is recognition, In Donald Caldwell interviews with German pilots he was told that they could identify the P-38s from a distance and choose whether to attack them or bypass them so they were not feared as much as the P-47/P-51. They said they got into more fights with the P-51/P-47s because of their similarity to the Bf-109/Fw-190 they would be committed by the time they made positive id. Id also had some benefits in the MTO/PTO the P-38 flew close escort and according to one AAF report the P-38 turned in the best performance in escort by keeping loss rates low.

Major General Kepner commander of the 8th AF fighter command said that In his Opinion P-38s did a superior job, one that no other fighter available to the Allies was capable of performing in a period of feverish pre-invasion assaults on Germans industrial might. there can be no doubt that the crucial period for success or failure of strategic bombing in Europe - at least for daylight precision bombing - was in the year preceding June 6, 1944. ( This comes through Warren Bodie's book on the lightning).

Here is a very interesting site with info about pilot training, aircraft crash rates and loss records of the 8th AF. I encourage you all to take a look there is a lot of info either presented or attached through links that pertained to the ETO in '43 to '45.

http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

Bill


----------



## NiceShotAustin (Aug 8, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> I don't doubt for a moment that late models of the P-38 could have done the P 51's job had the latter not been available, as could the P-47. In fact, given American industrial might and resources, I suspect they could have won the European air war with Sopwith Camels. The thing is though, it was never going to happen (the 38 still being the USAAFs premier fighter at the end of the war, that is). Economic and enginering imperatives alway meant that the relatively light, single engined fighters were going to the the best choice in the air superiority role circa 1945. If the Lightning hadn't been supplanted by the Mustang, it would have been supplanted by something pretty similar.
> In fact the whole idea of twin engined fighters matching single engine fighters during WWII in any area seems to be marginal. The P-38 closest but at it's relative best it was only ever 'as good' as the best single engined opposition in combat, with the drawback of all the extra costs of production. For a while it had the best range of any fighter in the ETO but it wasn't long before that advantage was pegged back. Maybe if the war had lasted a bit longer we would finally have seen a twin engined fighter that could have matched the single engined opposition in performance, range and economics, or at least been better in any of these areas to a degree that a defficiency in others was balanced. The de Haviland Hornet maybe?


If the war had lasted longer, I think we definitely could've seen some big twins outperform the single engined fighters. The Hornet and F-7F are definitely some good examples of such. But let's not forget about how close the P-38 was to surpassing contemporary fighters by a considerable margin. The P-38-K out climbed (4,800 fpm on Military Power; expected to be 5000 fpm on WEP), outran (432 mph on Military power; expected to go 450+ mph on WEP), had longer legs (range expected to increase by 10-15%), and had a higher max altitude (48,000 feet) than any USAAF fighter at the time. It's a shame the War Production Board never let it enter production


----------



## davparlr (Aug 8, 2012)

NiceShotAustin said:


> If the war had lasted longer, I think we definitely could've seen some big twins outperform the single engined fighters. The Hornet and F-7F are definitely some good examples of such. But let's not forget about how close the P-38 was to surpassing contemporary fighters by a considerable margin. The P-38-K out climbed (4,800 fpm on Military Power; expected to be 5000 fpm on WEP), outran (432 mph on Military power; expected to go 450+ mph on WEP), had longer legs (range expected to increase by 10-15%), and had a higher max altitude (48,000 feet) than any USAAF fighter at the time. It's a shame the War Production Board never let it enter production


 
I see where you got this information but I think it over estimates performance of this plane. In March, 1944, the USAAF tested a P-38J using 150 octane fuel. With this fuel, the engines produce 2000 hp at WEP or 200 hp more than the XP-38K at WEP. Performance of this aircraft showed a top speed of 420 mph at WEP and a climb rate of 4050 ft/min. The tested aircraft had a base weight of about 500 lbs over the G (the base aircraft of the K) and was also a bit heavy at test. However, it did have 400 more hp than the K. I don't think the K was going to hit 5000 ft/min at WEP nor make the 432 mph at WEP much less 450 mph. It should be noted that Lockheed estimates show a max airspeed of 431 at WEP and a rate of climb of 4640 ft/min. however, estimates are estimates and test are test. This test also shows a 100 ft/min ceiling of about 39k ft. which maybe a little low but not near 48k. I know there is an issue with P-38 performance but this is a test and carries much weight and, until more data is provided on the higher performance, must rule. 

The same test show the P-51B capable of about 445 mph and a climb rate of about 4300 ft/min. 100 ft/min ceiling was shown as about 40,000 ft. The P-47N had a ceiling of 43k ft.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html


----------



## NiceShotAustin (Aug 8, 2012)

davparlr said:


> I see where you got this information but I think it over estimates performance of this plane. In March, 1944, the USAAF tested a P-38J using 150 octane fuel. With this fuel, the engines produce 2000 hp at WEP or 200 hp more than the XP-38K at WEP. Performance of this aircraft showed a top speed of 420 mph at WEP and a climb rate of 4050 ft/min. The tested aircraft had a base weight of about 500 lbs over the G (the base aircraft of the K) and was also a bit heavy at test. However, it did have 400 more hp than the K. I don't think the K was going to hit 5000 ft/min at WEP nor make the 432 mph at WEP much less 450 mph. It should be noted that Lockheed estimates show a max airspeed of 431 at WEP and a rate of climb of 4640 ft/min. however, estimates are estimates and test are test. This test also shows a 100 ft/min ceiling of about 39k ft. which maybe a little low but not near 48k. I know there is an issue with P-38 performance but this is a test and carries much weight and, until more data is provided on the higher performance, must rule.
> 
> The same test show the P-51B capable of about 445 mph and a climb rate of about 4300 ft/min. 100 ft/min ceiling was shown as about 40,000 ft. The P-47N had a ceiling of 43k ft.
> 
> 150 Grade Fuel


Interesting. Surprises me how low the J's top speed was as it seems that it's speed on standard fuel was 414 mph. I'm also surprised as to it's RoC. But as you said, tests are tests. And that also means that the K's WEP estimates are far from the law as they are just estimates. But, the K's military power performance was also found via testing, and Lockheed's testing results have proven to be accurate and reliable throughout history. Keep in mind, the K made use of broad chord props which really helped the P-47-D's performance, especially in climb rate. Have I flown the P-38-K? No, VERY few people have. But as you said, tests are tests and the P-38-K demonstrated the military power figures. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe the given military power ratings


----------



## davparlr (Aug 8, 2012)

NiceShotAustin said:


> Interesting. Surprises me how low the J's top speed was as it seems that it's speed on standard fuel was 414 mph. I'm also surprised as to it's RoC. But as you said, tests are tests. And that also means that the K's WEP estimates are far from the law as they are just estimates. But, the K's military power performance was also found via testing, and Lockheed's testing results have proven to be accurate and reliable throughout history. Keep in mind, the K made use of broad chord props which really helped the P-47-D's performance, especially in climb rate. Have I flown the P-38-K? No, VERY few people have. But as you said, tests are tests and the P-38-K demonstrated the military power figures. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe the given military power ratings




I can't really argue with you as I have read others say the same. However, I would certainly like to see those performance test results.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2012)

wmaxt said:


> Dave, The P-38H's of the 1st fighter group flew 1,600 mi escorts with combat at the target area in the summer of 1943. This happens to be the same distance of the longest range mission by P-51s (it was by the 339th FG) in WW2. The trip from England to Allegria in 1942 by the 1st FG was 1,500mi. The lower CD of the earlier P-38s made them capable of almost as much range as the later P-38s with the leading edge tanks according to pilots.
> 
> *Bill - what source for the mission length and mission profile? As to Mustang longest 'escort' range, I believe any of the Shuttle missions from East Anglia to Piryatin (4th, 352nd, 355th, 357th) were all at or greater than 1600 miles. With escort picked up at Ruhland below Berlin and Stettin NW Warsaw.. in the last one the route was the longest. My father led it and the track was east to Stettin, R/V with B-17s there, escort Stettin over Warsaw to the SE into Ukraine and split when 100 miles from Piryatin and Poltava. .*
> 
> ...



Bill - as spendid as the P-38 was in the PTO it did not achieve the same impact to the LW in the ETO. The thread asks the question "could the P-38 establish control of air over Germany? Yes, but at a higher cost to 8th BC, higher losses to 8th FC, lower losses of LW prior to D-Day and far more fighters and experienced pilots to fight the Allies over Normandy... or strip all the P-38s from all the theatres to try to match the numbers needed to achieve air supriority over Germany by 6 June.

The Mustang destroyed 1145 German fighters in the air between 1/1 and 6/6 1944. In the same timeframe the P-38 destroyed 135. Net advantage to P-51 pre D-Day was 1010 more German fighters still flying by D-Day, plus about 450 more pilots. Useful to German defense of Normandy? This does not even compare the 3:1 ration P-51-38 for ground destruction. Source USAF 85 for air to air and 8th AF VCB for ground credits.


----------



## NiceShotAustin (Aug 10, 2012)

davparlr said:


> I can't really argue with you as I have read others say the same. However, I would certainly like to see those performance test results.


In all honesty, I don't think the "official" document has been published. I believe the main article most pull info from is Whatever Happened To The P-38K ?. Now don't get me wrong, I think that believing a single source (and others citing that single source) is naive, but considering ausairpower.com (which I find to be a pretty reliable site) has the same Military Power specs as the previous site without having said site in the references, I at least feel that the Military Power specs are plausible if not accurate


----------

