# P-38 Lightning vs P-51 Mustang: Which was the Better Fighter?



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 25, 2006)

Which was the *better* fighter? Which plane had the superior capabilities and chance to win a battle over any fighter in WWII? Which plane would have the best chance to win if they fought each other? 

Not just as a long range escort fighter. Remember, the P-38 Lightning had just as far a combat range as the P-51 Mustang. They both could go over 1,100 miles. 

So don't vote for the Mustang because of it's main role in escorting the US bombers long distances. The P-38 Lightning could do it too. 

The P-38 Lightning intercepted and shot down Admiral Yamamoto in his Betty Bomber after flying 850 miles. In the Pacific, the P-38 was the long range fighter. Not the P-51.

So this poll is not about range but about fighter abilities.

I am really not sure how this poll will turn out. On this board I have heard several people list the P-38 as the superior fighter. Still, because the P-51 is such a popular plane it often does pretty well in the other fighter polls. 

So I guess I'll see how this turns out. And vote all you can to back your fighters choice. You can also vote to say neither was superior.

Here are some videos from an air show of the P-38 and P-51.
http://www.stevesairshow.com/videos/dayton03/sunday/dayton03-sun-p-38-p-51d-2.rm

http://www.stevesairshow.com/videos/dayton03/sunday/dayton03-sun-p-38-p-51d-1.rm


----------



## d_bader (Apr 25, 2006)

I do not see how there can be an argument here. The mustang wins easily. Yes, although it wasn't used in the pacific, it could match the German fighters, that the lightnings avoided becuase they were inferior. As a question, the mustang is the better fighter, and although Yamamoto's betty was shot down, it was a bomber!


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 25, 2006)

P51's were use din the PTO and CBI, although not untill late in 1944. P51's were also used to escort B29's after Iwo Jima was taken.

I would say the P51 was better simply because it was easier to build and maintain.

For the fighter bomber role, the P38 was superior.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 25, 2006)

d_bader said:


> I do not see how there can be an argument here. The mustang wins easily. Yes, although it wasn't used in the pacific, it could match the German fighters, that the lightnings avoided becuase they were inferior. As a question, the mustang is the better fighter, and although Yamamoto's betty was shot down, it was a bomber!


well, even the books that i read which state that the Mustang was the best say that the P-38 was unfairly overshadowed, from reading the other posts it says that more P-51s were lost in training accidents than P-38s, P-38s were also (i think) in service way before the P-51

the P-51 was used in the Pacific, my grandfather told me numerous stories of P-51s strading nearby airfields in the Philippines, and has also seen a long dogfight between a P-51 and a Zero, and guess what, the Mustang came home, with Damage while the Zero escaped

If the Mustang DOES win so easily, why bother putting up a poll here?

and btw, P-38s werent inferior to German planes


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 25, 2006)

P38's were in service in 1940.

The P38 was origionally designed as a bomber interceptor, while the Mustang (A-36 model) was origionally designed as a dive bomber.

The P38 was thrust into the fighter role, simply because in 1942 - (first part of) 1944, there were no alternatives.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 25, 2006)

P-38...


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 25, 2006)

I agree CC, I will go with the P-38.


----------



## Erich (Apr 25, 2006)

what theater ? it is all important actually. from 44-45 the P-51 without a doubt due to long range, the P-38 was indeed the better ground strafing-type craft


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 26, 2006)

This poll is about which plane is the better fighter. That means mainly fighting other planes. Of course you can take into acount how well the plane could defend a bomber from an enemy fighter or attack another bomber. I suppose grounding straffing is also good trait in a fighter.

Both planes could perform these jobs. But could one do it overall better? 

Looks like the P-38 is winning.


----------



## Wurger (Apr 26, 2006)

Taking into consideration all yours opinions guys I have to say that it is hard to decide which one was the better.Both P38 and P51 were enough to shot down German or Japanese planes and it doesn't matter if Admiral Yamamoto was on board.Personally,I prefer P51 to P38 because P51 the cadilac of the sky looks better.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2006)

_"while the Mustang (A-36 model) was origionally designed as a dive bomber."_

The Mustang was not designed as a dive-bomber. The NA-73X was designed as a fighter to provide the RAF with a new fighter, instead of just producing the P-40 for them. It just so happened that the Allison F3R engine was supercharged for optimum performance at low-levels, which provided the RAF with a fighter capable of low-level fighter sweeps and fighter-bomber missions. This was then known as the Mustang I, and it achieved it's first air-to-air kill (Fw-190A on 19th August, 1942) before the A-36 'Apache' had even entered service. 

The A-36 entered service with 27th Fighter-Bomber Group in April 1943 at Rasel Ma, their first sortie was on 6 June, 1943. This, however, is before the first P-51A sortie which was Thanksgiving Day (November 23rd), 1943. 

The fact remains, the Mustang was designed as a fighter from day one. The NAA knew they could produce a better fighter for the RAF than the P-40, or P-39 so they did. The Mustang I was produced and saw service first, the A-36 was second and the P-51A third.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 27, 2006)

If it was designed as a fighter, why was it given the A-36 designation?

A = Attack

P = Pursuit


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2006)

It wasn't. The development 'Mustang' was called the NA-73X under North American designation, and then became the XP-51 when delivered to the USAAC at Wright Field. Remember that the RAF used what became the Mustang first, and it was the Mustang Mk.I. 

As I stated previously, the Mustang I, the A-36 second and P-51A third.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2006)

The first 'Mustang' was the NA-73/Mustang I, the only difference between the production type and prototype was the addition of armament to the RAF models. These were completed with the Allison V-1710-F3R engine. The fourth and tenth Mustangs off the line went to the USAAC at Wright Field, these were the NA-83/XP-51. The Mustang I first entered squadron service in No.26 Sqdn. in February 1942. 

The USAAC found the XP-51 tests favourable but did not put a production order down for the P-51. Instead the RAF had ordered an up-gunned Mustang, which was the NA-91/Mustang IA. 150 of these were to be built and sent to the RAF, but the USAAC held 57 back for themselves. All but two were delivered to operational units as the P-51. These Mustangs had four 20mm Hispano-Suiza cannon in the wings. They were all modified in US service to carry two K-24 cameras, and were redesignated the F-6A or P-51-1. The 68th Observation Group in Tunisia were equipped with the F-6A and performed the USAAFs first Mustang mission of the war. 

The first order from the USAAF was for the NA-97 which was to be developed as a ground attack platform with dive-bombing capability. It had an uprated V-1710-F21R engine. This became the A-36A in USAAF service, and entered service in April 1943 with the 27th and 86th Fighter-Bomber Groups. The sole 'Apache' evaluated by the RAF was designated the Mustang I (Dive Bomber). 

The NA-99 was the first model ordered by the US Army for fighter service. This was completed with a V-1710-F20R rated for medium-altitude performance. In service these became P-51As, and converted versions with K-24 cameras were F-6Bs. In RAF service these were the Mustang II. 

As you can see, the NA-73 was developed as a fighter. The NA-97 which was first ordered by the USAAC was developed as a dive-bomber.


----------



## Airdale (Apr 27, 2006)

Back to point. The Mustang was more maneuverable than the P-38 and had a higher top speed. The P-51 didn’t suffer from tail-flutter in a high-speed dive as the P-38 did. The P-38 didn’t function as well in a cold environment, Its cockpit was famously cold, so it functioned better in the PTO than the ETO in the air superiority role. Richard Bong, the highest scoring ace of the war, made his record in a P-38 flying in the PTO. The Lightning’s high speed and high altitude performance left a greater impression when used for boom and zoom tactics employed in the PTO against the more nimble medium altitude fighters of the Japanese. However these features were less effective in the ETO because German fighters also had good altitude and speed performance while being less nimble than the A6M2 and the Hiyate found in the PTO. The P-38 had the best weapons package of the two with all the firepower concentrated in the nose, whereas the P-51 had wing mounted guns which relied on setting the weapons to converge at a point in front of the plane. This meant that only at a specific range, I’m not sure what perhaps 200-400 meters, all the rounds would strike in roughly the same place; fire too close and some wouldn’t hit or fire to far and some wouldn’t hit. This was not an issue with the Lightning with it's nose mounted package. As long as the pilot fired within the effective range of his weapons the the rounds would strike where they were aimed. And of course we can’t overlook the fact that the P-38 was the only successful USAAF air superiority fighter that employed a cannon as part of its weapons package. I agree with the earlier comment regarding the P-38 being the better of the two in the ground attack roll, however I would prefer the P-47 myself because of it’s remarkable ruggedness and air-cooled engine. The twin Allison engines of the P-38 give a greater safety margin against a holed radiator, since it could fly on one engine if need be. The mid-ship radiator was a major weakness of the P-51 in the ground attack roll. Additionally the P-38 could lift more ordinance than the P-51. But if I were going into a dogfight I would rather be in a P-51 than any of the other aircraft mentioned. So measured by the air superiority roll I go with the Mustang hands down.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 28, 2006)

Oh boy. Looks like the Mustang is running loose again.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 28, 2006)

Another point for consideration:
Mustang $54,000 each (P51D)
Lightning $114,000 (P-38L)

When you get right down to it, it's all about the money.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 28, 2006)

nice info, but more mustangs are lost to accidents than lightnings too


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 28, 2006)

timshatz said:


> Another point for consideration:
> Mustang $54,000 each (P51D)
> Lightning $114,000 (P-38L)
> 
> When you get right down to it, it's all about the money.



EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## timshatz (Apr 28, 2006)

Bunch of other prices for Aircraft (in thousands):
P36A- 23
P35A- 22.5
P39Q- 46
P40E- 45
A-36A (Allison Mustang Version) 49
P47D- 85
P-61C 170

Bombers:
B-17G 276
B-25B 96
a-20G 74
A-24A (Douglas SBD) 38.2K
B-24D 336
B-26G 227
C-47D- 138
C-46D- 223
B-29 639

All the prices came from the US Air Force Museam page. Here's a link:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap.htm


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 30, 2006)

I would say neither, because what models of the P-51 and the P-38 Lightening are we talking? A P-38J Lightning had a pretty long range with tanks. A P-38 Lightning actually had more fire-power mounted in it, for actually blasting away at the enemy. So chances are most of the time it didn't get to be a dog-fight. Plus two engines to get you home. In Europe though the P-51 had an advantage. However, a lot depends on what sort of pilot we are talking about. The Germans were obviously interested in the P-38 design as I have photos of them in German Colours. It is the same with various marks of the P-51. Obviously the Germans regarded both types as very deadly to go to the trouble of fixing some examples and repainting them in German Colours.


----------



## Hot Space (Apr 30, 2006)

P-51 I guess


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 1, 2006)

d_bader said:


> . Yes, although it wasn't used in the pacific



Acutally thats not true, there was 100 P-51's that saw action between The Netherlands and China against the Japanese in the Pacific, this was all due to the lend-lease act.


----------



## wmaxt (May 1, 2006)

A couple of things to consider.
Jack Ilfry felt the P-51 was the better escort fighter.

The P-38 fought in all theaters and even more importantly was the AAF air superiority fighter in all of them when it arrived on scene. When it arrived it was out numbered, lacked tactical experience, and had green pilots and support crew. When follow on aircraft arrived P-47 P-51s control of the air had been won (the ETO was 2/3 P-38 1/3 P-51 during this period).

The P-51 did not make a significant contribution anywhere but the ETO, in fact in the Pacific a little ditty ran "Don't give me a P-51...you'll run out of sky" There were still reports of P-51s losing tail sections in maneuver fights in April, '45.

Art Haiden makes a point of saying that the P-51 was easier to train pilots and got the job done (escort) but for dogfighting, he (and many others who flew both) wanted a P-38. On another forum a nephew of a P-51 pilot related this piece of advice about a P-38/P-51 match-up. "If your going to fight (a P-38) with a P-51 you better start a lot higher and faster to have a chance" The P-51 had the advantage in a turning fight above 250mph. Climb, initial dive, high speed roll, and acceleration were P-38 advantages. Speed in an L model was close, and the P-38 had an effective gun package out to 1,000yrds making it very diffucult to get away.

In '44/45 the P-38 cost ~$98,000, P-47 ~$87,000 and the P-51 ~$54,000.

I want the P-38

wmaxt


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (May 1, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> Acutally thats not true, there was 100 P-51's that saw action between The Netherlands and China against the Japanese in the Pacific, this was all due to the lend-lease act.


damn it my grandpa saw hundreds of mustangs in the Philippines


----------



## syscom3 (May 1, 2006)

Id say the argument is about the P38L vs the P51D


----------



## timshatz (May 1, 2006)

Spoke to a guy once who was the head of the Warbirds association. Was thinking about getting into high performance piston engined (1,000Hp+) and wanted to know if I was heading in the right direction. Told him I was thinking of doing AT-6 and then heading into P51s. Asked him if he though the Mustang was the easiest to fly. He said he though the F4U was the easiest and that the Mustang was pretty advanced. 

Not sure if I remember what he was flying but he had something similar. Said flying the P51 was very tricky, had to be retrimmed every time you changed a throttle setting. Also, landing was tough and people were taught to land on two wheels as apposed to three pointers. The Corsair was evidently easier to fly.

Also have heard from others that the P38 was a bear to keep running and also tricky to fly. 

Anyway, that's my .02. Not interested in flying warbirds anymore but once was.


----------



## syscom3 (May 1, 2006)

Ive never heard about the P38 being hard to fly. Contra rotating props added to stability and the tricycle nose gear made landings and take off easy.

Keeping it in tune was tough though. Those cramped engine compartments with a maze of ducting for the turbocharger did give the mechanics some fits.


----------



## HealzDevo (May 1, 2006)

I still maintain my point that the P-38 Lightning was a better plane for the Pacific because depending on the mission you could cut off power to one engine and cross-feed fuel. This would evidently extend its patrol radius even further. Also because you can get the enemy at 10,000 yards chances are if you were a good shot you could kill an enemy before a dog-fight occurred. Also with regards to needing to constantly trim the aircraft every time you changed a throttle-setting, how useful would that be in a dog-fight situation? I think, that the P-38 Lightning was actually more in trim with changing power settings so I have seen on other aircraft discussion forums, and needed less pilot work at a time when the pilot was devoting a lot of attention to achieving a kill. Also you had the speed to actually force the enemy to hang around. A P-51 Mustang couldn't outrun you let alone any of the Pacific Theatre aircraft. Also someone mentioned interestingly enough that as a pure fighter in sufficient quantities to be useful, it came after the P-38 Lightning had done all the hard work in the European Theatre and also later in the war the P-51 Mustangs would have been rarely seriously challenged due to fuel shortages for German Aircraft which would have severely affected the training of their pilots as well. Therefore it would seem this is leading to the P-38 Lightning. Although later on in the Korean War the P-51 Mustang did prove itself very capable. So I really don't know. I suppose they were designed for different purposes.


----------



## pbfoot (May 1, 2006)

at 10000yds you would be hardpressed to even see the other guy


----------



## syscom3 (May 1, 2006)

I'd agree about the P38 being the superior plane in the PTO. Those twin engine saved many a pilot.

The P47N and P51H might have been superior to the Lightning, untill their engine (and/or radiator on the P51) was damaged and they were 700 miles from base.


----------



## HealzDevo (May 1, 2006)

I might have accidently added a few too many zeros but still the point stands that a cannon is able to shoot further most of the time and do more damage. The P-51 was armed with in-wing machine guns. Therefore it didn't really work for its purpose.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2006)

> Ive never heard about the P38 being hard to fly



you gotta be kidding me, everyone says she's a tricky aircraft to fly.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 2, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> you gotta be kidding me, everyone says she's a tricky aircraft to fly.........


 It actually wasn't - the problem was during WW2 comprehensive multi engine aircraft training only went to bomber pilots, especially early in the war...

The P-38 was actually simple to fly as far as multi engine aircraft go - it had no "critical engine" which meant if you knew what you were doing, engine out procedure on take off were relatively easy....


----------



## syscom3 (May 2, 2006)

Flyboy is correct. Most of the problems with flying the P38 were due to inexperienced pilots not given correct training. Once the training doctrine was figured out, it was a easy plane to fly.

Flyboy, a girl I used to date many years ago, her mom and dad grew up in Torrance/Lomita in the WW2 years. theyr emember seeing the Torrance airport full of fresh P38's right from the factory. They recalled a couple accidents involving the P38's. One had an engine failure on approach and crashed right into a home pretty much where the main runway intersects Pennsylvania Ave (in Lomita). Her dad remembers seeing a P38 in a power dive crash right off of Palos Verdes. he saw a parachute but never found out what happened to the pilot. he said the scream of that plane was a sound few people can ever forget.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Flyboy is correct. Most of the problems with flying the P38 were due to inexperienced pilots not given correct training. Once the training doctrine was figured out, it was a easy plane to fly.
> 
> Flyboy, a girl I used to date many years ago, her mom and dad grew up in Torrance/Lomita in the WW2 years. theyr emember seeing the Torrance airport full of fresh P38's right from the factory. They recalled a couple accidents involving the P38's. One had an engine failure on approach and crashed right into a home pretty much where the main runway intersects Pennsylvania Ave (in Lomita). Her dad remembers seeing a P38 in a power dive crash right off of Palos Verdes. he saw a parachute but never found out what happened to the pilot. he said the scream of that plane was a sound few people can ever forget.


 Great info Sys!

The big "killers" on the P-38 were engine out take off and landings (Especially the take offs) which are killers on any twin. Additionally many green P-38 drivers would get their aircraft in termanl dives and never pull out becuase of compressibility, especially on early P-38 models. I'm convinced becuase of this lockheed and the AAF always "lowballed" the P-38's top speed....


----------



## wmaxt (May 2, 2006)

A few excerpts from a AAF tactical test of the P-38F compared with P-40F, P-51, P-47C, and P-39D.

Flight testing @ Eglin Field, Florida. Tactical suitability of the P-38F. 6 March 1943.

For a general combination of climb, range, endurance, speed, altitude and firepower, the P-38F is the best production line fighter tested to date at this station.

The P-38F is very hard to stall power on and will fly until almost vertical. 

Turn is slightly inferior below 10,000ft, equal from 10,000ft to 15,000ft and superior above 15,000ft.

The test report also has many criticisms of the P-38, including intercooler capacity, cockpit heat, dive speed/controllability, etc. The report is at
www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38f-tactical-trials. The forum keeps truncating the site, go to spitfire.com and check the bottom P-38 performance page and you will find this report.

As for difficulty flying the P-38 had one of the best accident rates in '45, 58% of P-51 accident rate and only 26% of P-47 accident rate, after training on effective engine out procedures was implemented.

The P-38J-25/L models had no maneuvering restrictions.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (May 2, 2006)

There were two events that really improved the P38's reputation and performance.

First was Tony LeVier going to England to demonstrate to the P38 pilots you could roll the aircraft into a dead engine and not lose altitude. That was a morale booster and the pilots began to believe in their plane.

Second was Col. Lindberg going to the SW pacific and teaching the pilots cruise control. It must have been unnerving to the Japanese (and Allied pilots) to see fighters fly 2000 mile missions.


----------



## wmaxt (May 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> There were two events that really improved the P38's reputation and performance.
> 
> First was Tony LeVier going to England to demonstrate to the P38 pilots you could roll the aircraft into a dead engine and not lose altitude. That was a morale booster and the pilots began to believe in their plane.
> 
> Second was Col. Lindberg going to the SW pacific and teaching the pilots cruise control. It must have been unnerving to the Japanese (and Allied pilots) to see fighters fly 2000 mile missions.



Those are important points, there were a lot of prejudice and rumor about the P-38 in the ETO. I think that was the primary problem with the P-38 in Europe. 

Mr Saki, and Stienhoff both made the point that one aspect of the P-38 that they hated was its ability to show up anywhere or anytime and still have the advantages.

wmaxt


----------



## lesofprimus (May 3, 2006)

No matter how good a combat pilot is, or how well he can fly his specific crate, combatting with dual engines is way more difficult than a single engine... There were 2 handfuls of guys that flew the -38 with the balls required to make it a superior combat aircraft.... A large % of P-38's were easy pickings for the German Aces in the ETO....


----------



## syscom3 (May 3, 2006)

I wouldnt say "easy pickings" as the P38's shot down quite a few german fighters themselves.

I would say though that the FW190 was the superior to the P38, with the -109 equal.

Of course if the P38 (with dive brakes) refuses to get into a maneuvering fight and attacks with dive and zoom tactics, then theyre going to be successfull.


----------



## wmaxt (May 3, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> No matter how good a combat pilot is, or how well he can fly his specific crate, combatting with dual engines is way more difficult than a single engine... There were 2 handfuls of guys that flew the -38 with the balls required to make it a superior combat aircraft.... A large % of P-38's were easy pickings for the German Aces in the ETO....



Actually only 451 P-38s were lost to ALL causes by the 8th AF (90% of all aerial encounters with German aircraft). The remainder were lost on Ground Attack missions (something less than 1,300, which also includes losses to all causes including accidents and PR missions). The loss rate was 4 German fighters for every P-38 lost in air to air combat in the ETO. It was 5:1 in the MTO. There are also many recorded instances where the German fighters bypassed bomber groups escorted by P-38s.

Stienhoff made an issue to Galland that the P-38s were superior in speed and maneuverability to his aircraft over Sicily/Sardinia (reference: Stienhoff's book "Messershmitts over Sicily".

This is in spite of the fact that the German pilots had both the experience and numbers up to 5 German fighters for every P-38 fielded in '43 and early '44.

The twin engines had some advantages to, if used properly like they did in the Pacific.

wmaxt


----------



## HealzDevo (May 4, 2006)

As I said consider this, the Germans must have considered the aircraft potentially deadly to pilots to be bothered to caputre it and paint it in their colours so that it could be used for training demonstrations, etc. Both the Mustang and the P-38 Lightning were captured in different marks and used by the Luftwaffe for training. I would suggest that this training could have led to losses in some of the encounters as the enemy pilot may have been aware in his mind of the capabilities of his opponent. It is unknown though, how wide-spread this training may have been in the Luftwaffe. As Sun Tzu said, 'Know Your Enemy' and the Germans certainly made an attempt to carry out this tactical saying.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2006)

The fact that Germany captured the Lightning, or the Mustang for that matter, make no point on either aircraft's effectiveness. The Luftwaffe would have taken any oppurtunity to take an Allied or Soviet machine to test it. You never pass up something like that. 

Every nation took every oppurtunity to capture the opponents machines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (May 5, 2006)

We did that to the Zero fighter, and learned a lot.


----------



## wmaxt (May 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Flyboy is correct. Most of the problems with flying the P38 were due to inexperienced pilots not given correct training. Once the training doctrine was figured out, it was a easy plane to fly.
> 
> Flyboy, a girl I used to date many years ago, her mom and dad grew up in Torrance/Lomita in the WW2 years. theyr emember seeing the Torrance airport full of fresh P38's right from the factory. They recalled a couple accidents involving the P38's. One had an engine failure on approach and crashed right into a home pretty much where the main runway intersects Pennsylvania Ave (in Lomita). Her dad remembers seeing a P38 in a power dive crash right off of Palos Verdes. he saw a parachute but never found out what happened to the pilot. he said the scream of that plane was a sound few people can ever forget.



That sound is reputedly from the props hitting the air from unusual directions and happened when the tails seperated from the aircraft. The really sad thing is that if you ran the engines to idle and went to flat pitch on the props the P-38 would drop out of compressability and accept control again.

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (May 9, 2006)

You know its a tough call. Jack Ilfry thought the P-51 was a better escort fighter, and in fact that was the only place the P-51 shined. Performance wise

P-51D - best climb is at 5,000ft - 3,320ft/min (7.5 min to 20,000ft)
P-38J - best climb at SL - 4,000ft ave climb to 20,000ft - 3,724ft/min I have a P-38L graph that matches this 5.37min to 20,000ft) 'Planes and Pilots of WWII' site. An AAF test puts it at 4.91min to 20,000ft, I don't have it so Its just a possible at this time.
P-51D - Top speed - 443mph
P-38L - Top Speed - 442mph (I have a Lockheed graph and have been told there is an AAF test confirming this) however I think until more solid data surfaces (the AAF report) I'll go with 431mph.
P-51D - Acceleration - 2.2mph/sec @ 15,000ft from cruise
P-38L - Acceleration - 2.8mph/sec @ 15,000ft from cruise
P-51D - range - 2,200mi
P-38L - range - 2,300 mile mission carried off in early '45 (see Smithsonian site) 
P-51D - gun package - 6 .50 M2 guns - sited at 250yards
P-38L - gun package - 4 .50 M2 guns, 1 cannon 20mm - effective to 1,000yrds.
P-51D - load - 2,000lbs
P-38L - load - 4,000lbs - 5600lbs reported from the field.
Maneuvering capability. the AAF considered the F model as good from 10,000 to 15,000ft and the P-38F better that the P-40, P-47, P-39, and P-51(the best handling Mustang model) above 15,000ft.The L was reported better, and with maneuvering flaps deployed was reputed to be able to turn with anything, check the John Tilley story where he out turned a Zero at 90mph and 1,000ft. The L model had compressability slats deployable at any speed and could momentarily pop the nose up 20deg at any speed, and could dive after anything. With the aleiron boost could out roll anything above 350mph (I can post a graph) or its available at the 'Planes and Pilots of WWII' site.

The P-38 out performs the P-51D in all but top speed, and cruise speed, and cost. Cost was not an issue durring the war, they made ~18,000 P-47s which ranged from $500 less to ~$8,000 less and wasn't up to the job until the D model was introduced.

wmaxt


----------



## elmilitaro (May 9, 2006)

Good info.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 9, 2006)

A P-51 could out turn a P-38 at higher speeds. High speed actually increased the Mustang's manuverability, not stiffened it, it flowed with energy. The P-38 was naturally slowed down in a high speed turn because of it's twin engines. 

Even the Spit lost some of it's manuverability at high speeds. So if the Mustang stayed fast it could fight very well and in some ways outperform other fighters who were designed for slower dogfighting. 

Could the P-38 out roll a FW?


----------



## MacArther (May 9, 2006)

P-38, no question in my mind. As per the "Bong being the top scoring ace of the war" from the post above, I cite the fact that Bong was only the top scoring ace for America. Some of Germany's pilots ran up scores exceeding 300 planes shot down. Anyway, I would take the P-38 because I could line up the guns more readily when aiming through the sites, especially because I didn't have to worry about a given range at which all of my bullets would be hitting the target together. Also, to the point that the P-51 was the cadillac of the skys, that could just as easily be said of the P-40, the P-39, or any other plane, its all personal preference. Besides, why chose a cadi when you have a good Elky SS or Camaro SS. But I digress, the P-38 also excelled in the bombing role, especially whe instituted with the "Droop Snoot" lead bomber. And, once the normal fighters with out the "Snoot" had dropped bombs, they could take out enemy fighters for their friends.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 10, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> You know its a tough call. Jack Ilfry thought the P-51 was a better escort fighter, and in fact that was the only place the P-51 shined. Performance wise
> 
> P-51D - best climb is at 5,000ft - 3,320ft/min (7.5 min to 20,000ft)
> P-38J - best climb at SL - 4,000ft ave climb to 20,000ft - 3,724ft/min I have a P-38L graph that matches this 5.37min to 20,000ft) 'Planes and Pilots of WWII' site. An AAF test puts it at 4.91min to 20,000ft, I don't have it so Its just a possible at this time.
> ...



Great data, but just a quibble: the USAAF Inglewood and Dayton tests show the P-51D top climb at 3600 feet/minuteat ~5000 feet and climb to 20,000 feet in around 7 minutes. Doesn't put it ahead of the P-38, but it's more than a 10% improvement.


----------



## wmaxt (May 10, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> Great data, but just a quibble: the USAAF Inglewood and Dayton tests show the P-51D top climb at 3600 feet/minuteat ~5000 feet and climb to 20,000 feet in around 7 minutes. Doesn't put it ahead of the P-38, but it's more than a 10% improvement.



Could you post those tests? 

As for the earlier post about the Mustang turning tighter at high speed. Most comparisons I've read place them about even. Two engines is actually an advantage the thrust is spread out over a wider area (2 Props) more efficiently transferring that energy. Also for savvy P-38 pilots throttle differential can enhance the turn, though more effective at slower speeds. Three more things affect the aircraft at high speeds: 
1. a tight 360deg turn started at 400mph will often end at ~300 - 325mph.
2. The P-38F was rated as the superior aircraft in turns above 15,000ft even at 10,000ft to 15,000ft and slightly behind below 10,000ft to a P-51A. The extra power at altitude of the Merlin will help the P-51 but the P-38J/L had more power, dive flaps and boosted ailerons added to. 
3. The stick (aileron) forces on a P-51 in a 5g turn are 86lbs giving the pilot a lot to overcome. The P-38J-25/L had great stick (wheel) forces even at top speed though aileron forces were very high in earlier models.

wmaxt


----------



## JohnnyL (Jul 21, 2006)

The P-38 was the better plane. Everywhere else but the northern ETO, it was pretty much everyone's favorite plane. It would also have been the primary plane in the northern ETO had it not been for a few factors:

1. The British ordered a few hundred lightnings that came without the turbosupercharger, and whose engines turned the same way, negating the handling advantage of having two engines. Needless to say, the RAF was less than impressed, and this created a bad first impression for the Lightning, which, by the way, they so-named.

2. The kind of turbosupercharger that was used in the P-38 did not react well to the cold conditions of the northern ETO. Apparently they failed more often there, in part due to this and...

3. Inferior british gasoline. When the first American Lightnings showed up in Britain, the British used an inferior quality of gasoline to that which was used in the U.S. The Allison engines and the turbosupercharger did not like it. This was later rectified, but by then another bad impression had formed.

4. Early models of the P-38 had an inferior cockpit heater. As this was a particularly important piece of equipment in the northern ETO, the Lightning was not the favorite aircraft for long missions. By the time the unit was upgraded, the heavy-duty strategic bombing of the continent was well under way and everyone was using P-51s by then.

The P-38 had superior manuverability characteristics in all areas but roll rate. It was capable of turning inside even the Japanese light-fighters. That plus its ability to climb like a rocket, dive like a lead rake, and the neutral behavior permitted by the contra-rotating props made it a superior plane to just about everything. Factor in the lack of need for convergence, long legs, and the ability to haul nearly as much load as a B-25, and you have a heck of an airplane.

It did require extra training and experience to fly well, due to the twin-engine aspect. Another reason it wasn't as popular. But it really was a better plane.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 21, 2006)

If I was flying any type of long range mission over the ocean, The P38 would be for me!


----------



## davparlr (Jul 21, 2006)

A couple of comments.

The Fighter Conference book report on the P-38L (I believe the Army planes were flown by Navy pilots and contractors) was not very complimentary. Comments were mainly against weak directional stability and visibility from the cockpit. One said that it was not a "modern" airplane. They seemed less antagonistic on the P-51 complaining again about directional stability. Of course the only thing Navy pilots hated more than the Japanese pilots were Army pilots (and planes). And the P-38 was more of a direct competitor of the Navy planes. So take that for what it is worth.

More distrubing is the apparent discrepancy of the flight test data generated for the Army TOs for the P-38L and P-51D as found on the spitfireperformance.com site and what is reported above. My reference source is consistant with flight test results. This is what I gleaned from that.

P-38L max airspeed, Max power SL-342 mph, 26K ft-416 mph
P-51D max airspeed, Max power SL-375 mph, 26K ft-442 mph

Someone needs to address this. Specific tail numbers were identified.

One area where I am sure the P-51D held an edge was in reliability. The P-38L, with two engine systems had to have a lower availability rating. Reliability is a force multiplier.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 21, 2006)

davparlr said:


> ....
> One area where I am sure the P-51D held an edge was in reliability. The P-38L, with two engine systems had to have a lower availability rating. Reliability is a force multiplier.



Once the logistics pipelines were running, availability wasnt much of an issue.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 21, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Once the logistics pipelines were running, availability wasnt much of an issue.



I am sure that there were times when availability and man hours spent were an issue.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 21, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I am sure that there were times when availability and man hours spent were an issue.



That was in 1942 and 1943 when the P51 wasnt around.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 21, 2006)




----------



## wmaxt (Jul 23, 2006)

Heres another aspect that is rarely looked at, According to the web page of 8th AF losses 8th Air Force Combat Losses in World War II ETO Against the AXIS Powers there were 451 P-38s and 2,201 P-51s lost to all causes by the 8th AF over Europe (data credited to the AF Statistical Data Files). The P-38 flew 127,000 sorties over Europe. Of those the 9th AF had 3 P-38 FGs the 474th, 367th and the 370th. The 474th flew from April '44 to April '45 having flown just shy of 14,000 sorties, the others were disbanded in September and October I don't have sortie numbers yet but they would have flown approximately half of the sorties of the 474th. That would leave the 8th AF with ~100,000 sorties.
The P-51 losses of the 8th AF were 2,201 (same source). The P-51 flew 214,000 sorties over Europe. The 9th AF also had some P-51s but I will ignore the added sorties here giving the benefit of the doubt to the Mustang.

To put it simply the P-38 lost 451 aircraft to all causes to 100,000 sorties (loss rate of .0045). The P-51 lost 2,201 aircraft in 214,000 sorties (loss rate of .01). There were more than twice the P-51s lost per sortie as P-38s over Europe by the 8th AF.

Now lets factor in conditions: 
1. The P-38 flew escort alone for 2 months, Nov - Dec '44
2. The P-38s teething problems for the first 3-4 months.
3. Pilot and ground crew learning curve. New tactics, mission profiles, location etc.
4. The best German pilots
5. Outnumbered 5:1 by the Germans initially
6. From May '44 on a high percentage of pure G/A missions
7. Close escort period

The P-51 program benefited directly from all that when it came into service.

wmaxt


----------



## hhuberr (Jul 28, 2006)

Id have to go with the P-38. But thats what my grandfather used to fly so im more than a little bit biased.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 28, 2006)

I would still want the P51 to go air-to-air with the fighters.

The P38 to go after bombers, and for ground attack missions.

And of course in the PTO, the P38 for any mission over water.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jul 28, 2006)

I think that the Mustang is overrated


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 28, 2006)

JohnnyL said:


> The P-38 was the better plane. Everywhere else but the northern ETO, it was pretty much everyone's favorite plane.


Well, there are several Aces that would disagree with u, including Hub Zemke, who rated the -51 AND the -47 better than the -38, and he flew em all...


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jul 28, 2006)

it would probably been his favorite planes cause he gets to paint more victory bars on the rudder, i read on another post about the P-38 being the favorite target


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2006)

What are you talking about looma? Zemke was US 56th FG CO.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jul 29, 2006)

oh, mybad


----------



## JohnnyL (Jul 29, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Well, there are several Aces that would disagree with u, including Hub Zemke, who rated the -51 AND the -47 better than the -38, and he flew em all...



Like I said, everywhere but the ETO...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 29, 2006)

The location of his usage was not a consideration, it was about airplane performance and combat worthiness... Did the compressability issue only happen in the ETO???

No....

Was the poor visibility only an issue in the ETO???

No...

Was the easily identifiable profile and issue only in the ETO????

NO...

What are the pilots in the PTO supposed to compare the P-38 to???? The Warhawk??? The Aircobra???

Ur whole argument is hogwash, and it starts right here pal....


> The P-38 had superior manuverability characteristics in all areas but roll rate. It was capable of turning inside even the Japanese light-fighters.


U think every Second John could do it??? How bout every cowboy with Captains bars??? There were a select few pilots whose mastery of the -38 was of such a high level that they could make it do what they wanted...

and another thing...


> That plus its ability to climb like a rocket, dive like a lead rake


A lead rake??? More like a tombstone.... U have any idea how many pilots died holding that steering wheel in their hands as the plane passes 425 mph strainght down into the ground???

U need to spend some time here and read some of the older posts and educate urself pal, cause ur obviously just another opinioned P-38 fan cause it looked cool with its double booms....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2006)

I voted for the P-38 because I think overall it was a better aircraft and I think the P-51 was overated.

Now having said that. Both had qualities over the other that made either one better and the P-51 probably has the edge due to the fact that a novice pilot would be able to fly the P-51 easier and make things happen with it quicker than they could with a P-38.

The P-51D was better suited for what it was up against than the P-38 because it was easier to fly.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I voted for the P-38 because I think overall it was a better aircraft and I think the P-51 was overated.
> 
> Now having said that. Both had qualities over the other that made either one better and the P-51 probably has the edge due to the fact that a novice pilot would be able to fly the P-51 easier and make things happen with it quicker than they could with a P-38.
> 
> The P-51D was better suited for what it was up against than the P-38 because it was easier to fly.



Agree 200%



lesofprimus said:


> and another thing...A lead rake??? More like a tombstone.... U have any idea how many pilots died holding that steering wheel in their hands as the plane passes 425 mph strainght down into the ground???


Tony LeVier and a former co-worker Joe Melicki (who flew the P-38 in the MTO) said the same thing. There was also folklore around Lockheed (In the Burbank days) that the P-38s top speed was actually much faster than advertised and was kept a but suppressed because it was so easy to slip the aircraft into a terminal coffin.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 30, 2006)

There is a lot of truth there! It took an experienced pilot to get the most out of the P-38, then it was really remarkable. For a new 20 hr pilot the Mustang was great. While the P-38 actually did better in the ETO than the P-51, at least in the 8th the P-38s win/loss rate and aircraft return rates were both better than the P-51. The P-51s niche was high altitude escort in the ETO where team work enabled it to do the job. Together with large numbers of aircraft built in two factories, the more plentiful P-51 became the prime escort fighter simplifying maintenance, training, inventories and mission planning. 

The really sad thing about the P-38 and compressability is that by retarding the throttles and going to flat pitch on the props it would stay just shy of the critical speed and remain in control of the pilot.

I read that Zemke's problem with the P-38 was its cold cockpit, not its performance. Preddy's diary "The P-38 flies wonderfully, The P-47 an excellent flying plane .... getting tired of the P-47, the P-51 is a good flying ship". Sidney Woods states the P-51 was just a super P-40 and not in the same class as the P-38. Sidney flew in both the ETO and the PTO and felt that he would have shot more German aircraft down if he had a P-38.

Of course those are opinions, everybody has them and they cover the whole range from hate to love.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> There is a lot of truth there! It took an experienced pilot to get the most out of the P-38, then it was really remarkable. For a new 20 hr pilot the Mustang was great. While the P-38 actually did better in the ETO than the P-51, at least in the 8th the P-38s win/loss rate and aircraft return rates were both better than the P-51. The P-51s niche was high altitude escort in the ETO where team work enabled it to do the job. Together with large numbers of aircraft built in two factories, the more plentiful P-51 became the prime escort fighter simplifying maintenance, training, inventories and mission planning.



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 1, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> My thoughts exactly.



The funny/sad thing about it all, and in spite of it actually being the better fighter with the better record, it was considered a failure in Europe by many people.  Just think what could have been if the P-38K had been produced by two or three factories starting in Spring '43 and better twin engine training!

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Aug 2, 2006)

As a fighter the P-51 is better than the P-38, despite what the service record might tell you.(Remember the tally includes ground-targets) 

By German fighter pilots the P-38 was considered easy prey, eventhough in most engagements the German pilots were more concerned about blowing bombers out of the sky. (That was afterall the goal of the intercept)

*Adolf Galland*:
_P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true. _

PS: This isn't an attempt to bash the P-38, cause it was a good overall airplane, which it proved in the PTO, just not a particularly good fighter, esp. not in the ETO. - Unless flown by an expert pilot ofcourse..


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 2, 2006)

Soren said:


> As a fighter the P-51 is better than the P-38, despite what the service record might tell you.(Remember the tally includes ground-targets)
> 
> By German fighter pilots the P-38 was considered easy prey, eventhough in most engagements the German pilots were more concerned about blowing bombers out of the sky. (That was afterall the goal of the intercept)
> 
> ...



Very true and good point, I said the samething earlier. Whether the P-51 or P-38 was better it was viewed by USAF brass that the P-51 was better. Perception is often as real or more important or just as relevant than reality is.

The P-38 were not looked upon by German pilots as a difficult opponent, they did think that the P-38 was inferior plane. German pilots respected the P-51 and feared it when it filled German airspace.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 2, 2006)

Soren said:


> By German fighter pilots the P-38 was considered easy prey, eventhough in most engagements the German pilots were more concerned about blowing bombers out of the sky. (That was afterall the goal of the intercept)



The P-38 had a 3:1 kill ratio in the 8th AF, and in air to air encounters 4:1 If 4 out of five encounters with P-38s resulted in a downed German aircraft that was a very missguided consideration! 



Soren said:


> *Adolf Galland*:
> _P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true. _



In the Book "Top Guns" authors Joe Foss and Mathew Brennan (both respected for their honesty) at a Pilots convention with Galland present were regaled with this story: "When I shook hands with German General Adolf Galland, I said did you ever shoot down a P-38?" "He said Ya, I shoot down eight." I asked him if any of his pilots told him about a fight in a long nosed Fw-190 in late '44, against a P-38 that wound up in a huge pit with water and two crashed P-38s in the bottom. I described what had happened and the strikes I got on the long nosed 190, then told him when I ran low on gas I had to leave, the german pilot waggled his wings and flew off in the other direction. I was using my hands and looking down as I talked and wasn't watching General Galland. When I looked up, he was pale white.

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

This was in front of a group of pilots and confirmed for the book.



Soren said:


> PS: This isn't an attempt to bash the P-38, cause it was a good overall airplane, which it proved in the PTO, just not a particularly good fighter, esp. not in the ETO. - Unless flown by an expert pilot ofcourse..



I respect your opinion. The record just doesn't support it. The P-51 had certain advantages in numbers, training, logistics and timing that allowed the AAF in Europe to dodge the political bullet - of why escorts weren't used sooner, while simplifying the mission profiles and planning.

BTW: In the 8th (the P-51 was primarily escort in the other commands to) the only aircraft with a high percentage of G/A missions was the P-38 from late April on. Around D-Day the others had some G/A missions but not nearly to the extent the P-38 did, also "Targets of opportunity" on the way home, including even cows, were much safer than dedicated G/A missions where the targets were picked because of their strategic value - and defended accordingly. One last thing the escort/target of opportunity missions also had the air-to-air encounters where those instances were much more rare on G/A missions. 

Someone made the comment that the P-38 was alone in the pacific thats not correct.

Date yr - P-38 - P-47 - P-51 
Dec '43 - 356 -- 391 -- 100
Apr '44 -- 414 -- 941 -- 293
Jul '44 --- 652 - 1,116 - 202
Dec '44 -- 694 - 895 --- 681
Mar '45 -- 895 - 887 --- 1,149
Jul '45 -- 1,156 - 1.226 - 1,557

As you can see they weren't even the majority class a fighter. The P-51 was low until late '44 but again had the plum scoring assignment of escort over Japan. The P-38s missions were still about 60/40-50/50 G/A/Escort missions for higher risk less opportunities.

My intent is not so much to declair the P-38 the very best ever, just to make sure its record and accomplishments are truly taken into account judge it from there!

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 2, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Very true and good point, I said the samething earlier. Whether the P-51 or P-38 was better it was viewed by USAF brass that the P-51 was better. Perception is often as real or more important or just as relevant than reality is.
> 
> The P-38 were not looked upon by German pilots as a difficult opponent, they did think that the P-38 was inferior plane. German pilots respected the P-51 and feared it when it filled German airspace.



The ETO tally originally included ground targets the adjusted target count did not. The numbers I showed above were posted by Jank from the AAF Statistical Digest as were the losses I showed above but from the "Combat Losses of the 8th AF" page the P-38 shot down 3 German aircraft for each P-38 lost (it was 4:1 in A/A combat) by the 8th AF by contrast the P-51 the ratio was 2:1. The P-38 came home more than twice as often as the P-51. Do you really want to fly the P-51?

Your comment on revelency is astute, for more insite into this matter I recommend the book by Warren Bodie in it he has a discussion of the reasons of his (and it was his decision) decision to go with the Mustang. It was not based on performance, in Doolittle's own words "The P-38 was ahead of all but one or two fighters in WWII". Production quantities were the biggest single reason.

Your statement about fearing the P-51 because it filled their airspace is true. 4 out of 5 German aircraft that met a P-38 thought the P-38 was not easy, only the lucky German pilots got to walk home.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 2, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> ......
> ......again had the plum scoring assignment of escort over Japan. .....
> ...



By the time the P51 was escorting B29's over Japan in the spring of 1945, there hardly was a Japanese airforce around.

The P38 was the premier fighter of the PTO, simply because range was the most important factor.

In Europe, I dont think it was as good as some of you are making it out to be.

By the way, those P51 losses in the ETO, where they due to "all causes" or just air-to-air?


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 2, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> The ETO tally originally included ground targets the adjusted target count did not. The numbers I showed above were posted by Jank from the AAF Statistical Digest as were the losses I showed above but from the "Combat Losses of the 8th AF" page the P-38 shot down 3 German aircraft for each P-38 lost (it was 4:1 in A/A combat) by the 8th AF by contrast the P-51 the ratio was 2:1. The P-38 came home more than twice as often as the P-51. Do you really want to fly the P-51?
> 
> Your comment on revelency is astute, for more insite into this matter I recommend the book by Warren Bodie in it he has a discussion of the reasons of his (and it was his decision) decision to go with the Mustang. It was not based on performance, in Doolittle's own words "The P-38 was ahead of all but one or two fighters in WWII". Production quantities were the biggest single reason.
> 
> ...



If you look carefully at my post, I did not choose either plane as being better. They were both good planes for different choices. Then your comment about 4 out of 5 German planes....... Again I am just related what I know best and that is German pilots opinions on the matter. I will leave all the technical information to the numbers wizards around here (and there is a lot of them), they can produce those numbers all they want and better than I. But, like Erich on the different matters, I will tell you what German pilot's opinions are, that I know. They lived it, they fought the war, they know best. Remember the old saying those who cannot do....teach and use numbers and books to lie (not saying you are lying). Stats can lie as I am sure you know, believe what actually happened. 

Having all the numbers and stats to back you up does you no good when you are at 30,000 and you see BF-109 flying at you. Then it comes down to just the pilots and the planes, no BS, no stats, no paper just man machine vs man machine. German testimony states that they considered P-38 not fit for operations in ETO and they were "easy" meat. Know if you think you know better than the actual pilots who flew vs the P-38 and accumulated at times scores of kills doing it.....well ok. Did P-38 shoot German planes? yes

I just state what I know and that is German testimony on the subject. I do not enter into any private opinions or crusade to "try" and prove one plane is the best of all time. That would be a waste of my time. We know you are a huge fan of the P-38 and that is fine. But what are you trying to prove? Yes the P-38 was a good plane, can't you leave it at that. Just seems you are trying your best to prove something to everyone for no reason. P-38 was good, so was the P-51. 

Like you said the P-51 was chosen for a reason, cost. Ok I would ask you this when the P-38L cost $114,000 and the P-51 cost $54,000 (prices posted early on in thread) could the USA still produce as many P-38's as P-51's when considering cost and longer manufacturing times of the P-38? Remember how big a factor the USAF numbers in ETO played in their favor, what if they had half as many P-38 as they did P-51 in the air. What would of happened then?

I am not trying to argue with you over it b/c I don't get involved in trying to prove one plane better then the other. Both planes were good bottom line. Would you sooner trust your life based of real life facts or stats??? In this case facts and stats say different things in a sense. Your stats suggest the P-38 has better performance (you notice I did not say better) than the P-51. But the P-51 was picked to do the job instead of the P-38. The P-51, by many top USAF pilots who flew both planes, was picked to be the better fighter and for that matter picked as the best "all around fighter in WW2". I know I know we know that the P-51 was not the best but so many "experts" think it was.  Then you add to the fact that German pilots who fought vs both planes think that the P-51 was the much better plane also. You have to start putting some stock into their experience and less stock into stats. 

Like Dan said when USAF ace Hub Zemke (and other USAF aces) and German aces and pilots who fought or flew both planes say that the P-51 was better than the P-38. You, in my mind, have to believe those men, they are the experts. Stats lie all the time, numbers lie all the time. Believe the men who flew the planes and who fought vs the planes, they know better. I will end it there.

I hope you get some value from my post and do not just discount it. Food for thought.


----------



## MacArther (Aug 3, 2006)

I would like to cite the fact that 4:1 or 3:1 return ratio would definately have something to do with the caliber of the pilots and the machines they were using. From this perspective, it would seem that the P38 was doing a pretty respectable job over Europe. Yes, in combat things will be different, but stats are meant to represent the MAJORITY of the instances NOT the smaller amount of instances. So yes, there were bad times for the P38, just as there were bad times for pretty much any fighter. But it would seem that the P38 was doing a better Air to Air job than the P51 was at the time.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 3, 2006)

I would like to know the P38's kill ratio against the -109 and -190.

In early 1944, the German twin engined fighters were on its platter, and those were generally easy kills.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I would like to know the P38's kill ration against the -109 and -190.
> 
> In early 1944, the German twin engined fighters were on its platter, and those were generally easy kills.



I agree.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 3, 2006)

MacArther said:


> I would like to cite the fact that 4:1 or 3:1 return ratio would definately have something to do with the caliber of the pilots and the machines they were using. From this perspective, it would seem that the P38 was doing a pretty respectable job over Europe. Yes, in combat things will be different, but stats are meant to represent the MAJORITY of the instances NOT the smaller amount of instances. So yes, there were bad times for the P38, just as there were bad times for pretty much any fighter. But it would seem that the P38 was doing a better Air to Air job than the P51 was at the time.




Whether (big if) the P-38 "appeared" on paper (in kill to lost record) to be doing a better job or not, that kill to lost record is not the only determining factor whether a plane is to be used or not.

Example: If the P-38 costs twice as much as a P-51 to make and takes twice as long to manufacture and the P-38 achieves a better kill to lost record. Which plane is better? The P-51 does still a outstanding job......mmmmm

So if you could have 1000 P-51 or 500 P-38 what would you do?? I know what the Germans would of perferred to see.....the P-38. I know what the USAF choose to do in WW2. I know what I would of done.

Now do I know for a fact what manufacture times for both planes are? no But it would make sound sense if a plane has two engines and a much larger fuselage then it not only costs twice as much to make but also takes more time to make. But if anyone here can confirm the different times to make both planes then please share that information with us all. The prices for both were already provided (P-38L cost $114,000 and the P-51 cost $54,000).

Just more to think about.


----------



## MacArther (Aug 3, 2006)

Eh, do we need time factoring in? By that time in the war, Germany was on the defensive, so more planes could be brought in from other theatres to back up the 500 or so P38s, along with the ones already in operation in that theatre. Personally, I think the P51 gets a little too much acclaim, yet our top scoring ace never sat in a Mustang. This may be a mute point, but the fact is that quality can be a good thing if the war no longer depends on making massive amounts of planes to stem the tide of iminent defeat.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 3, 2006)

MacArther said:


> Eh, do we need time factoring in? By that time in the war, Germany was on the defensive, so more planes could be brought in from other theatres to back up the 500 or so P38s, along with the ones already in operation in that theatre. Personally, I think the P51 gets a little too much acclaim, yet our top scoring ace never sat in a Mustang. This may be a mute point, but the fact is that quality can be a good thing if the war no longer depends on making massive amounts of planes to stem the tide of iminent defeat.



Yes I think time and cost is a factor (that is why the P-51 was picked). I do agree with you 100% that the P-51 does get too much acclaim, but it did do a good job.

Your top ace never sat in a P-51 true, and he did get almost all his kills in a P-38. But he was up against inferior opponents and planes. Just like the German aces on the Eastern front had it alittle easier with the Russians when compared to those poor Germans who had to fly vs the UK and USAF pilots. Bong killed as many Japanese I would say based on the fact that they were easiers kills (when compared to German pilots) and less b/c he flew a P-38. I am not saying Bong wasn't a good pilot, but do you actually think he would of been able to shoot down 40 Germans in the same amount of time? I think not.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 4, 2006)

The P38 in the Pacific was a totally different warbird as compared to the P38 in the ETO.

Different strategy, different tactics, different foe, different planes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Chief (Aug 4, 2006)

It's like desiding between a Tiger Tank (P-38L) and a Sherman Tank (P-51D).

Tiger Tank-Heavy Tank
Pros: Heavy armor and armament. 
Cons: Slow, broke down often do to heavy weight

Sherman Tank- Heavy Tank
Pros: Faster, lighter, Easier to maintain,
Cons: Thinner armor, lighter armed
Power vs. Preformance

P-38L Lightening Twin Engined Medium Fighter/Bomber (Excellent plane only for the expert pilot)  
Pros: Heavy firepower, better turning at slower speeds, holds large fuel load, could hold a large Bomb load, underestimated.
Cons: Problematic, Hard to pilot, Cold/Cramped Cockpit, Hard to pull out of High speed dives, expensive
You get what you pay and train for.

P-51D Mustang single engine Escort Fighter ( Extremely good plane even to beginner pilots) 
Pros: Fast, Well armed, holds small bomb load, Easy to Fly, Handles better at faster speeds, easier to maintain (Interchangeable parts do to abundance of aircraft), holds a Large Fuel load, relatively cheap to make.
Cons: Vulnerable behind the cockpit, gun range limited, Capabilties dependant on pilots weight, overestimated. (Don't know the mechanical problems.) 
Plane for the Replacement, Pilot is deadly the moment he takes off. 

Both planes are extremely good. The P-51D Mustang is a beginners plane (within reason of course. P-38L Lightening is ment for experienced pilots and aces.

It's based on your skills as an aviator. Still both planes contributed emensely and both tend to result in aces. But, it's the heart of an aviator makes the soul of an aircraft deadly. Personally, I say simple is better so I'll take the P-51.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 4, 2006)

Good comparison but I could tell you the P-38 cockpit was far from being cramped.....


----------



## JohnnyL (Aug 4, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> The location of his usage was not a consideration, it was about airplane performance and combat worthiness... Did the compressability issue only happen in the ETO???



You think that the Lightning was the only aircraft that suffered from compressibility? Not by far.



> Was the poor visibility only an issue in the ETO???



The lightning did have less-than-perfect visibility, but it wasn't poor, and it's visibility was by far better than the P-51B, the P-47C, or any spitfire. True, the B and C versions of the P-51 and P-47 were not the definitive versions, but they represented over a third of total production of each aircraft, not an insignificant amount.



> Was the easily identifiable profile and issue only in the ETO????



You think that the Lightning was the only aircraft with an easily identifiable profile? How about that fat radiator hanging under the Mustang? One flies over my house every once in a while, and while my eyes aren't great, it's pretty damn obvious.




> What are the pilots in the PTO supposed to compare the P-38 to???? The Warhawk??? The Aircobra???



The Hellcat, the mustang, the Jug, need I go on?



> Ur whole argument is hogwash, and it starts right here pal....U think every Second John could do it??? How bout every cowboy with Captains bars???



The words you're searching for are "your," and "You," I believe.

It was far easier with a Lightning than other American aircraft to turn tight because the aircraft was not subjected to the massive tourque effects of single-engine aircraft, particularly at low speed. The throttle could be advanced far more quickly. Furthermore, MANY pilots reported the ability to out turn the zero and Hayabusa.



> There were a select few pilots whose mastery of the -38 was of such a high level that they could make it do what they wanted...



What is a better definition of a "great" plane? How easy it was to be good with it, or how good it was in the hands of a master?

And the P-38 was not nearly as difficult to deal with as you seem to think it was. It simply was an unfamiliar aircraft to many pilots because they were not properly trained in twin-engine operations.



> and another thing...A lead rake??? More like a tombstone.... U have any idea how many pilots died holding that steering wheel in their hands as the plane passes 425 mph strainght down into the ground???



You know how many spitfire pilots died because their wings twisted off at high speed due to ailerons that were too powerful? You know how many Bf-109 and A6M2/5 pilots died because they got going too fast in a dive and didn't have the sheer strength to pull out of it? Compressibility was EVERYONE'S problem, friend. It's just that the Lightning ran into the problem more often because of it's higher speed and better dive capability. Furthermore, the compressibility problem was more or less solved by early 1943.



> U need to spend some time here and read some of the older posts and educate urself pal, cause ur obviously just another opinioned P-38 fan cause it looked cool with its double booms....



I spend my time reading first-hand accounts and technical information. The only real weakness that you've pointed out to me was it's less-than-superior visibility. And that was only in comparison to the two bubble-canopied american fighters.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 4, 2006)

JohnnyL said:


> The lightning did have less-than-perfect visibility, but it wasn't poor, and it's visibility was by far better than the P-51B, the P-47C, or any spitfire. True, the B and C versions of the P-51 and P-47 were not the definitive versions, but they represented over a third of total production of each aircraft, not an insignificant amount.



The P38 did have some unique visibility problems. I would have to say that the rearward visibility was horrible due to the booms. The P47 and P51 definatley had better visibility (all around)



> You think that the Lightning was the only aircraft with an easily identifiable profile? How about that fat radiator hanging under the Mustang? One flies over my house every once in a while, and while my eyes aren't great, it's pretty damn obvious.



Some early P51's in the ETO were shot down by mistake simply because it looked like a -109. The P38's shape is very unique and visible even at great distances. All the other aircraft look alike from afar.




> The Hellcat, the mustang, the Jug, need I go on?



We did have a thread comparing the P38 to the Corsair and it seems they were quite similar. When the P38 is compared to the Hellcat, Mustang and Thunderbolt for PTO condintions ONLY, its the superior of the bunch.



> It was far easier with a Lightning than other American aircraft to turn tight because the aircraft was not subjected to the massive tourque effects of single-engine aircraft, particularly at low speed. The throttle could be advanced far more quickly. Furthermore, MANY pilots reported the ability to out turn the zero and Hayabusa.



At low to medium speeds, any attempted turning with the Zero and Oscar was almost a sure bet to loose big time. Very few and I mean VERY FEW pilots had the capability of turning their aircraft inside those Japanese fighters at those speeds. The Allies didnt tell their pilots to avoid turning fights with any Japanese fighters without reason.



> What is a better definition of a "great" plane? How easy it was to be good with it, or how good it was in the hands of a master?
> 
> And the P-38 was not nearly as difficult to deal with as you seem to think it was. It simply was an unfamiliar aircraft to many pilots because they were not properly trained in twin-engine operations.



Agree




> Compressibility was EVERYONE'S problem, friend. It's just that the Lightning ran into the problem more often because of it's higher speed and better dive capability. Furthermore, the compressibility problem was more or less solved by early 1943.



The US planes seemed to have had the worst experience about it for one reason or another. In 1943, compressability was still a poorly understood phenomoena, and it wasnt untill sometime in 1944 that dive brakes for the P38 were incorporated in production models or field kits.


----------



## JohnnyL (Aug 4, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> At low to medium speeds, any attempted turning with the Zero and Oscar was almost a sure bet to loose big time. Very few and I mean VERY FEW pilots had the capability of turning their aircraft inside those Japanese fighters at those speeds. The Allies didnt tell their pilots to avoid turning fights with any Japanese fighters without reason.



See, the thing was, the reason they told their pilots that was because, until the -38, no U.S. plane could turn inside those fighters. However, in order to do so, you had to use the throttles seperately, i.e. powering up the outside engine and trailing the inside one, as well as trust the docility of the twin engine design. Alot of pilots didn't, because they were used to single-engine designs, and it didn't occur to them to manipulate the throttles that way. But some did, many more than you think. It wasn't done alot, because the speed and armament of the Lightning was more conducive to zoom and boom tactics. But once again, it comes down to whether a plane is great because it is easier to master, or the level of its abilities in the hands of a master.





> The US planes seemed to have had the worst experience about it for one reason or another. In 1943, compressability was still a poorly understood phenomoena, and it wasnt untill sometime in 1944 that dive brakes for the P38 were incorporated in production models or field kits.



I was unclear in my statement. I meant that the dive brakes were added to the lightning design in early 1943, and mass production of that model began in mid-1943.

And I surmise that U.S. planes had the worst compressibility troubles because we tended to design these big, heavy iron-works designs that would dive like frat boys when the fat chicks walk in.

So far, the only real disadvantages that anyone has pointed out to me are the visibility, and possibly the profile.


----------



## JohnnyL (Aug 4, 2006)

"...[P-38s] could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make an attack and then pull up. The P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly that there was little one could do except roll quickly and dive down, for while the P-38 could turn inside us, it rolled very slowly through the first five to ten degrees of bank." -- Franz Steigler, JG 27, 28 victories.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 4, 2006)

JohnnyL said:


> See, the thing was, the reason they told their pilots that was because, until the -38, no U.S. plane could turn inside those fighters. However, in order to do so, you had to use the throttles seperately, i.e. powering up the outside engine and trailing the inside one, as well as trust the docility of the twin engine design. Alot of pilots didn't, because they were used to single-engine designs, and it didn't occur to them to manipulate the throttles that way. But some did, many more than you think. It wasn't done alot, because the speed and armament of the Lightning was more conducive to zoom and boom tactics. But once again, it comes down to whether a plane is great because it is easier to master, or the level of its abilities in the hands of a master.


P-38 pilots didn't normally use "Differential Throttle Control" because back in that day (the early part of WW2) there were no firmly established procedures for flying twin engine aircraft, not only in combat but under normal operations and the P-38 did not have a "critical engine" because of its propellers turning int he opposite direction. Several PTO pilots picked up on using differential throttle control in combat but for the most part they were far and few, probably the more experienced P-38 drivers, and did not advertise doing this on a grand scale as it was contrary to all normal P-38 combat procedures. If you read some of the information in "Twelve to One" Twelve to One nothing is mentioned about differential throttle control in any area of operation.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 5, 2006)

Johnny, the next time u decided to cop an attitude with me, Ill break it off in ur @ss...

U understand???


----------



## JohnnyL (Aug 5, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Johnny, the next time u decided to cop an attitude with me, Ill break it off in ur @ss...
> 
> U understand???



I return in equal measures that which is first dispensed to me.



lesofprimus said:


> just another opinioned P-38 fan cause it looked cool with its double booms...



I don't like being referred to that way. Noone would. I think it's rude for you to threaten me when you were the one who was antagonistic in the first place.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 5, 2006)

Well the P38 DID look cool.

According to Kelly Johnson at a 1977 P38 symposium, here are 15 bad points about the P38. (I will post his 15 good points tomorrow)

1 Engine problems including backfiring that damaged the wing intercooler

2 Wing intercooler was good for 1000HP, but not enough cooling for higher power.

3 Compressibility in the mach .68 to .7 range due to wing shape (among others)

4 Insufficent cockpit heat

5 High aileron forces untill power boost

6 Tail clearance for pilot bail out

7 Engine accesibility in the booms was poor. And the eqmt in the booms was crowded

8 Sun heat effect on Curtiss propellor circuits

9 Turbosupercharger over revving

10 Difficulty in using a turbine hood to get exhaust thrust. The supercharger wouldnt take any back pressure

11 Two different types of engines due to the desire for contra rotating propellors

12 Insufficent rear vision

13 Difficult pilot entrance and exit provisions

14 Hard to build!!!!

15 Sensitivity of the wing fillets ..... difficult to maintain


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2006)

I think it sums up this way as I said in my earlier post.

The P-51 was a better for the younger pilots but once you had top notch pilot who could get the most out of the P-38 he could make that P-38 do things that the P-51 could only dream about.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 5, 2006)

> I return in equal measures that which is first dispensed to me.


U really wanna get in a pissing match with me boy-toy???


> I don't like being referred to that way. Noone would. I think it's rude for you to threaten me when you were the one who was antagonistic in the first place.


Did I hurt ur whittle feelings there??? Awww, Im sorry, why dont u go get a box of tissues... Pussies like u make me sick.... Grow a set of balls and act like a man, not some some [email protected] girl whose feelings are soooo very important to the ways of the cyber galaxy....

For the record, I am rude.... And antagonistic, egotisical, short tempered, and above all else, an @sshole.... And Im also a Moderator, which means I have the ability to control this argument... U can either go with the flow here, grow a few extra layers of skin, and watch ur fu*kin mouth to the more senior people around here, or have me slam ur @ss into next Tuesday.... Im not the Moderator u wanna pick a fight with pal....

Trust me...


----------



## Chief (Aug 5, 2006)

JohnnyL said:


> I return in equal measures that which is first dispensed to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like being referred to that way. Noone would. I think it's rude for you to threaten me when you were the one who was antagonistic in the first place.



JohnnyL
I understand completely. I'm exactly the same way. However, getting kicked out of here is not the way to do it. You have to learn to pick you fights buddy. 

Les can be a jerk, but he does work on this site so he has earned that right. And I'm sorry, but if you don't like. Well than you're gonna have to live with it and if you don't well than don't let the door hit you on the way out.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think it sums up this way as I said in my earlier post.
> 
> The P-51 was a better for the younger pilots but once you had top notch pilot who could get the most out of the P-38 he could make that P-38 do things that the P-51 could only dream about.



Agreed 100%


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2006)

Cheif, you're learning!


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 6, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think it sums up this way as I said in my earlier post.
> 
> The P-51 was a better for the younger pilots but once you had top notch pilot who could get the most out of the P-38 he could make that P-38 do things that the P-51 could only dream about.



Agreed 100% Chris,

Like we have said before an airforce is built around your average pilot in your airforce, not a few aces. Germany knows this well, they had perhaps the most experienced core of aces on the planet in WW2 and the world will never see another group of aces (that many) like that again. But still they lost. One by one even those elite aces cannot not take down the hordes without being picked off one by one. So many German aces died when the war was already lost, it was a shame.

My point being that the USAF needed a plane to do the job at hand. The plane needed to be long range, competitive in a dogfight, easy enough and cheap enough to make, but just as important as all that it needed to be easy enough to fly by your "average" pilot. Your average pilots needed to be able to fly this plane and be competitive (in a fight) when it reached the target, that was the P-51.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 6, 2006)

Adler, that's a great way of putting it!

Sys, Those 15 points are valid, however several of them apply only to pre-J models, the intercooler especially.
1) Engine Problems (compounded by British fuel)
2) Wing Intercooler
3) Compressability (any model could stay out of compressibility if throttles were closed and prop to flat pitch). J-25s and Ls had slats for compressibility ~5,000 planes.
4) insufficient Cockpit heat true but corrected in J-25s and Ls.
5) Aileron forces J-25 on corrected this.

There were almost 7,000 P-38J/L models so those limitations only applied to ~25% of the planes. I know you are fully aware of these but I thought that others might want to see the counterpoint to.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 6, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Adler, that's a great way of putting it!
> 
> Sys, Those 15 points are valid, however several of them apply only to pre-J models, the intercooler especially.
> 1) Engine Problems (compounded by British fuel)
> ...



Unfortunatly, these problems existed on the planes that made the first impression on the AAF and pilots.

By the time they were corrected, the P51's were available in quantity and it didnt have a fraction of those problems.

By middle 1944, it was also obvious that the P38 airframe was a dead end design and the P51's still had potential to evolve.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I would like to know the P38's kill ratio against the -109 and -190.
> 
> In early 1944, the German twin engined fighters were on its platter, and those were generally easy kills.



The majority of that stat is primarily in the winter/spring '43/'44 when the P-38 was doing escort primary job. Not only did it include 109's and 190s the percentage of the experienced "Old Hand" German pilots but they were flying with 5:1 odds in the German pilots favor. The first three months there were less than 100 escorts on some missions.

The 82nd FG has a great web page that details both losses and kills by pilot name, date and aircraft shot down. They indicate a very wide range of aircraft up to Me-262s Though most of those were probables because they were not seen to crash. The site is Official 82nd Fighter Group website .

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 6, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> The majority of that stat is primarily in the winter/spring '43/'44 when the P-38 was doing escort primary job. Not only did it include 109's and 190s the percentage of the experienced "Old Hand" German pilots but they were flying with 5:1 odds in the German pilots favor. The first three months there were less than 100 escorts on some missions.



Those are the stats I'm wondering about. When the Luftwaffe still had lots of great pilots.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Unfortunatly, these problems existed on the planes that made the first impression on the AAF and pilots.
> 
> By the time they were corrected, the P51's were available in quantity and it didnt have a fraction of those problems.
> 
> By middle 1944, it was also obvious that the P38 airframe was a dead end design and the P51's still had potential to evolve.



Your right about first impressions. In this case quantity and timing counted for everything.

The early P-51 were called "Experimental" by some of their unit commanders because they did have some real problems, cracked heads, fouled plugs, etc. Another web page pointed out they had a 30% abort rate until about Feb. '44. 

The P-38K was still an option and except for raw top speed still outperformed the P-51H. The P-51D was a dead end to - every part was redesigned for the P-51H, only the basic shape remained. Your right in a way, though, piston powered aircraft were a dead end after '44 and the operational introduction of the Me-262.

I know I'm quibbling over very minor points - I just had to, ya know?  

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Those are the stats I'm wondering about. When the Luftwaffe still had lots of great pilots.



Check out that link, the 82nd FG was in Italy but was flying through that period. I think you can get what you want there. I took a quick count once and came up with about 543 kills and 240 lost pilots about 70 of which were flying accidents. Also the 82nd was hitting G/A missions at least as often as escort so the raw loss rate is not indicitave of the ariel kill:loss ratio, I don't know if that exists anywhere.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Aug 11, 2006)

Hmm.. I seem to have forgotten all about this thread...



wmaxt said:


> In the Book "Top Guns" authors Joe Foss and Mathew Brennan (both respected for their honesty) at a Pilots convention with Galland present were regaled with this story: "When I shook hands with German General Adolf Galland, I said did you ever shoot down a P-38?" "He said Ya, I shoot down eight." I asked him if any of his pilots told him about a fight in a long nosed Fw-190 in late '44, against a P-38 that wound up in a huge pit with water and two crashed P-38s in the bottom. I described what had happened and the strikes I got on the long nosed 190, then told him when I ran low on gas I had to leave, the german pilot waggled his wings and flew off in the other direction. I was using my hands and looking down as I talked and wasn't watching General Galland. When I looked up, he was pale white.
> 
> He said, "You son of a bit**! You dom neer keel me dat day!"
> 
> This was in front of a group of pilots and confirmed for the book.



wmaxt, that was just another one of Galland's jokes, he's well known for his sarcastic remarks - and you would have known that if you studied the guy a little more. 

My quotation and opinion still stands firmly.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 12, 2006)

Soren said:


> Hmm.. I seem to have forgotten all about this thread...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The statement was verified, Foss wouldn't put his name to it or to the later reporting where Galland asked the P-38 pilot how he was able to do it, unless it was verified. BTW: jokers don't have the color drain from their face or question the flight techniques required to make a P-38 capable of the maneuvers, as the book relates. Also it was reported that during the making of the film "Battle of Brittan" in 1969 where he was an adviser, that Galland stridently argued that the BoB was won by the Germans. He was dead serious. It was/is well known that Galland rarely admits to ever being caught short, though he was shot down several times. When confronted though often he would admit to the truth or at least the facts. Another item to be considered, Galland claimed that he shot down 8 P-38s, however a look through his score list shows many Spits and Hurricanes but not one P-38. The British aircraft can be explained because his major flight time was before he became General of Fighters. With no offical P-38 kills how would he know (yes, I know he flew "under cover" missions)? On top of that he is described as an "Apologist", "Self Serving" and a "Braggart" by many WWII historians. I have read several of his books and even own one of them so I'm not unfamiliar with his statements, both comments are in character for Adolf and his reaction makes me tend to belive the story was/is true.

By the way I don't belive Galland was a liar or anything else derogotory - he's a typical fighter pilot. I read once about a P-51 ace who went down in Italy, when asked what happened he replied "I ran out of gas!" everyone broke out in laughter. When he asked about it he was told every fighter pilot in the camp said the same thing!

I to, stand by my statements. Your certainly entitled to yours.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Aug 23, 2006)

wmaxt, you might want to check Gallands score list again, he actually got confirmed P-38 kill. But despite this he shot down many more, not confirmed however because of the very strict confirmation policy of the LW. Because of the huge numerical disadvantage the LW suffered from 44-45 many a LW fighter pilots often found themselves completely alone against hordes of allied fighters - often succeeding in making it out of the engagement alive and even shooting a couple of allied fighters down in the process, however because these types of successes were achieved singlehandedly the kills could not be confirmed. (Unless the a/c was equipped with a gun-camera)


----------



## redcoat (Aug 23, 2006)

The Lightning had a poor record in the ETO. It is credited with destroying 1,771 enemy aircraft for the loss of 1,758 P-38s, almost an even ratio, and its loss rate of 1.35% in the theater was by far the highest of any USAAF fighter, including the P-40 and P-39!


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 23, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> The statement was verified, Foss wouldn't put his name to it or to the later reporting where Galland asked the P-38 pilot how he was able to do it, unless it was verified. BTW: jokers don't have the color drain from their face or question the flight techniques required to make a P-38 capable of the maneuvers, as the book relates. Also it was reported that during the making of the film "Battle of Brittan" in 1969 where he was an adviser, that Galland stridently argued that the BoB was won by the Germans. He was dead serious. It was/is well known that Galland rarely admits to ever being caught short, though he was shot down several times. When confronted though often he would admit to the truth or at least the facts. Another item to be considered, Galland claimed that he shot down 8 P-38s, however a look through his score list shows many Spits and Hurricanes but not one P-38. The British aircraft can be explained because his major flight time was before he became General of Fighters. With no offical P-38 kills how would he know (yes, I know he flew "under cover" missions)? On top of that he is described as an "Apologist", "Self Serving" and a "Braggart" by many WWII historians. I have read several of his books and even own one of them so I'm not unfamiliar with his statements, both comments are in character for Adolf and his reaction makes me tend to belive the story was/is true.
> 
> By the way I don't belive Galland was a liar or anything else derogotory - he's a typical fighter pilot. I read once about a P-51 ace who went down in Italy, when asked what happened he replied "I ran out of gas!" everyone broke out in laughter. When he asked about it he was told every fighter pilot in the camp said the same thing!
> 
> ...



Whether historians or anyone else want to call him self serving or braggart or whatever else he was one of the best pilots in WW2. You ask any German or British pilot (there were many) that befriended him after the war, he was a ace pilot by anyones standards and a gentlemen with a flare for life. 

As far as Germans winning BoB.....well that depends of your point of view. Did the German win the Fighter vs Fighter war that Galland was involved most in, yes. Did the Germans win the whole Bob ? no Did the British win the Bob decisvly? no they more prevented the Germans from winning victory but did they do enough win to call it a victory for them, nope.

IMHO


----------



## plan_D (Aug 23, 2006)

_"Did the British win the Bob decisvly? no they more prevented the Germans from winning victory but did they do enough win to call it a victory for them, nope."_

Hunter, I do not understand that last statement. I would be interested in hearing what a descisive victory for the RAF would have been in the Battle of Britain. Great Britain can, and will, call the Battle of Britain a victory. Our aim in the assault was to hold off the enemy, secure British air superiority over Britain and shoot down as much of the Luftwaffe as possible. That was achieved. The Germans never gained air superiority, never landed on the beach, and lost more planes than the RAF. 

What would make a descisive victory, if the true victory wasn't one?


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 23, 2006)

plan_D said:


> _"Did the British win the Bob decisvly? no they more prevented the Germans from winning victory but did they do enough win to call it a victory for them, nope."_
> 
> Hunter, I do not understand that last statement. I would be interested in hearing what a descisive victory for the RAF would have been in the Battle of Britain. Great Britain can, and will, call the Battle of Britain a victory. Our aim in the assault was to hold off the enemy, secure British air superiority over Britain and shoot down as much of the Luftwaffe as possible. That was achieved. The Germans never gained air superiority, never landed on the beach, and lost more planes than the RAF.
> 
> What would make a descisive victory, if the true victory wasn't one?



Sure I will explain more no problem PlanD,

The reason why I said that is the following points (which you might agree with 100%)

- German lost 2698 planes give or take a few, most were none fighters (1800 or so)

- UK lost 1547 (or so) planes most were fighters (if you have the exact number that would be great, I don't have it handy right now)

- Thats a 1.74 loss ratio in UK favor overall

- Thats 1.72 loss ratio in German's favor when talking single seat fighters. I know you are going to say that UK fighters were not trying to kill German fighters but I am just throwing out facts to think about is all.

- UK lost civilian dead 27,450 and further 32,138 wounded.

Now you could say for sure that UK did win the battle (considering everything you have said in your post, I agree) but to say they won a descisive victory might be more then I am willing to say.

For me to say descisive victory by UK it would of had to have been one more sided is all I am saying. Example would of been a descisive victory by German airforce over the Russian airforce in the opening stages of WW2. Or even Allied air victory over France in 44.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 23, 2006)

The United Kingdom could not hope to achieve a victory like that gained by the Luftwaffe over the VVS in June, 1941. As the aim was always to destroy any hope of a German invasion. 

The RAF didn't just defend it's airspace through standing patrols and interceptions. Remember that Bomber Command attacked captured airfields and various other tactical targets during the Battle of Britain. Also, the German invasion flotilla suffered very heavy loss at the hands of Bomber Command. While many combat vessels and supply vessels of the Kriegsmarine fell victim to British bombs. 

2 Group, for example, continually attacked France and Holland throughout the battle. They also attacked ships in the Channel and North Sea. I shall try to give some more information on this in due time, but I would like to say don't just think about the British defensive actions during the battle. Even those were on the British favour - but the RAF also fought back across the Channel at this time. Which would add kills, and losses, to their count.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 23, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The United Kingdom could not hope to achieve a victory like that gained by the Luftwaffe over the VVS in June, 1941. As the aim was always to destroy any hope of a German invasion.
> 
> The RAF didn't just defend it's airspace through standing patrols and interceptions. Remember that Bomber Command attacked captured airfields and various other tactical targets during the Battle of Britain. Also, the German invasion flotilla suffered very heavy loss at the hands of Bomber Command. While many combat vessels and supply vessels of the Kriegsmarine fell victim to British bombs.
> 
> 2 Group, for example, continually attacked France and Holland throughout the battle. They also attacked ships in the Channel and North Sea. I shall try to give some more information on this in due time, but I would like to say don't just think about the British defensive actions during the battle. Even those were on the British favour - but the RAF also fought back across the Channel at this time. Which would add kills, and losses, to their count.



Good points I just want to add that in my first post not only did I make typos but I said that UK could not call BoB a victory, which is wrong of me. Your have to excuse me for that I am sick as a dog and on 3 different meds right now. Not thinking 100% straight. Been off work for two days now.

But you do have good points and I would love to see those numbers that you are referring to.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 23, 2006)

I have just read also that the Hurricane's Brownings were lined up straight to inflict the most damage over a wide area of the target plane rather than actually destroying it. The theory was that excessive damage to the airframe would allow the plane to fly home, but would take it out of action for days. This would, apparently, allow the Hurricanes to take more bombers out of action by damaging more bombers in one sortie than destroying less. 

_"...where as the Hurricanes eight Browning machine guns, were each directed to fire in a straight line producing a much wider spread across the surface area of the target, the aim was to inflict as much damage to the target as possible rather than achieve all out destruction. Obversely better if a target was destroyed but given the amount of damage a two second burst could achieve, perhaps to an engine or another part the airframe, it could ground a bomber for a few day's. Strategically it would mean fewer bombs reaching their targets."_

If this were the case, then it would be a reason for the kill count not being higher. I believe that it would always be better to destroy the bomber though, this would bring the plane and crew down. Also, it's costing more resources for Germany to build new planes rather than just repair one. On top of that I don't think many RAF pilots would just aim to damage an enemy plane.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 23, 2006)

Yes I have heard that also. I have also read about one famous UK ace saying how he would rather strafe a bomber leave it smoking and damaged to fly home. Then when it landed full of wounded, bloody and dead crew it would demoralize the rest of German's pilots.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 24, 2006)

Probably the opposite happened.

Instead of being demoralized, the aircrews wanted revenge and even the score.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 24, 2006)

Hunter no matter how you look at it, it was a British Victory. Who cares about number of aircraft destroyed or civilians killed. It was a victory for the British. 

Did the British prevent the Germans from destroying the RAF? Yes. 

Did the British prevent the Germans from destroying the British factories? Yes.

Did the Germans invade England? No.

Therefore it was a British Victory.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 24, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hunter no matter how you look at it, it was a British Victory. Who cares about number of aircraft destroyed or civilians killed. It was a victory for the British.
> 
> Did the British prevent the Germans from destroying the RAF? Yes.
> 
> ...



I agree with you Chris, thats what I said. The first post was a mistake, I said that in later post. I have been very very sick this week, on several meds right now. My mind is alittle foggy these days, I am sorry.

What I did say was I didn't think it was a one sided decisive victory for the UK. Victory...yes but not a one sided decisive victory for UK.

The other night I asked my wife where the pizza was I am hungry. She said what pizza? I said the pizza we had last night for supper. She said .....Mark we have not eaten pizza in a week. I went back to bed to get more sleep and rest. Yikes


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 25, 2006)

Hope you recover soon, Hunter!


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 25, 2006)

Getting better, only one day left of the meds. Thanks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> I said that in later post.



Oops sorry missed that.



Hunter 368 said:


> I have been very very sick this week, on several meds right now. My mind is alittle foggy these days, I am sorry.



Hope you get better.



Hunter368 said:


> What I did say was I didn't think it was a one sided decisive victory for the UK. Victory...yes but not a one sided decisive victory for UK.



Most victories are not completely one sided anyhow...



Hunter368 said:


> The other night I asked my wife where the pizza was I am hungry. She said what pizza? I said the pizza we had last night for supper. She said .....Mark we have not eaten pizza in a week. I went back to bed to get more sleep and rest. Yikes


----------



## Erich (Aug 25, 2006)

Meds, meds ? did someone say meds..........

yes I know the crap feeling, Hunter get better. and my sig says it all, smooth to cut the air, aerodynamic as can be it's a Mustang if you see ..........Blue nose bastards to rip the air, good grief I've got little hair !


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 25, 2006)

Thanks guys, I am starting to feel better after the meds have kicked in and had a chance to do their magic. Feeling much better ......about 75% now.



Chris I agree not alot of battle are clear one sided decisive victory. Thats all I was saying, BoB was not one for UK. I feel that the German air victory over Russia in 41 was decisive victory, as was the Allied one over the Germans in France in 44. USA was one in South Pacific in 43-44 was also one. But there is not many of them in WW2.


----------



## Chief (Aug 25, 2006)

Still though the British inflicted more losses to the germans and the invasion never occured. In my opinion thats decisive enough because it just as easily have been a loss and the invasion could have occcured. Whether the invasion would've succeeded we'll never know, thankfully.


----------



## nosredna (Feb 28, 2007)

is it before the new engine in the mustang or after?


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 28, 2007)

U know ur questioning a post that was written 10 months ago???


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 28, 2007)

And I thought that you were going to change your Carlin quote.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 4, 2007)

I think that the P-38 Lightning and the P-51 Mustang were approximately equal in Fighter characteristics. The only reason the P-38 Lightning was not really used in Europe was that when the US entered WW2 they had Britain as a base for their P-51 Mustangs to act as escorts from. Also the P-38 Lightnings were needed more in the Pacific theatre where they needed a long-range escort fighter. Therefore that is why the P-38 Lightning was a rarity in the war against Germany, however some did participate it seems as I have a photo of a P-38 Lightning done in yellow underbody and greenish brown top-coat with a Nazi symbol on it as a captured P-38 Lightning by the Germans. Germans must have thought it had some good combat characteristics to repaint and repair such a rare aircraft from their perspective, and also we have the wanted posters about the P-51 Mustang so both of these aircraft seem to have struck fear into the Germans. The P-38 Lightning remarkably so considering that everything I have seen seems to indicate that they were in very few numbers in the Western theatre of WW2...


----------



## Erich (Mar 4, 2007)

I would not call it a rarity as the 15th AF 1st, 14th and 82nd fg's had some pretty dang good scores with the 38 in the MTO/ETO. they even tangled with 262's in December 44 and February 45 damaging several. the 474th fg from the 9th AF was a pretty good outfit as well .......... the 370th fg also flew the 38 till late in the war then flying P-51's


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 4, 2007)

Okay, I hadn't found out that they were flown much in the European theatre and therefore assumed that they were rare. Anyway, must remember when I get the chance to post some images of captured P-51 Mustangs and P-38 Lightnings I have.


----------



## Erich (Mar 4, 2007)

captured examples run by the mobil team of Zirkus Rosarius which also included RAF and US bombers/fighters for purposes of teaching Luftwaffe single and twin engine fighters and NF's crews on ways/means of attack and the weak points of Allied a/c. From November 43 till wars end the 15th AF was running right up the butt of the Reich - Südfront in Yugoslavia, Austria and Bavaria even up into Central Germany

post away


----------



## MAV_406 (Mar 8, 2007)

I SAY P-38 BECAUSE IT TOOK ON THE ZERO WITH ALOT OF SUCCSES


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2007)

The P-51 would have taken on the Zero with the same successes. The Zero was not as good as everyone thinks it was. I am not discrediting the Zero because it was a fine aircraft but more of a myth than what it is made out to be.

Having said that I too think the P-38 was a better fighter but P-51 does have a lot of advantages too. The P-51 was easier for a newer pilot to fly for the most part.

However the P-51 would have slaughtered the Zero as well. I would go as far as saying that most of the modern (WW2 era modern that is) were better overall than the Zero to include the Fw-190, Ta-152, Spitfire, Bf-109 etc. The Zero had good range though.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 8, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The P-51 would have taken on the Zero with the same successes. The Zero was not as good as everyone thinks it was. I am not discrediting the Zero because it was a fine aircraft but more of a myth than what it is made out to be.
> 
> Having said that I too think the P-38 was a better fighter but P-51 does have a lot of advantages too. The P-51 was easier for a newer pilot to fly for the most part.
> 
> However the P-51 would have slaughtered the Zero as well. I would go as far as saying that most of the modern (WW2 era modern that is) were better overall than the Zero to include the Fw-190, Ta-152, Spitfire, Bf-109 etc. The Zero had good range though.



I agree 110% Chris, but the Zero did fill their needs for a long range carrier based fighter. Not all other modern fighters filled that role. I am not saying by anymeans that the Zero was as good or better than any of the planes you listed but they all could not full fill the role that the Japanese needed. Not to mention the Zero was being used in 1940 for the first time.

The Zero allowed the Japanese to do or wage war where it could not with a short range fighter. But tatics quickly developed by the allies over came the Zero, plus better planes, better trained pilots, all meant the death of the Zero. It was a "good" plane for the role it was developed for at the time it was developed, but nothing more. Poor armor, poor guns, no self sealing tanks, no radios, poor high speed performance. 

It could not fight evenly vs the planes you listed I agree. It was out matched and should of been replaced in 1942 at the latest.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2007)

I completely agree. I was only stating that if that was the reasons why the P-38 was considered the best that there were other aircraft that would have scored the same successes. I agree with you though.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 9, 2007)

The P-38 definately had advantages but as always, my money is on the pilot not the plane. Take an "average" pilot on a high altitude bomber escort mission and I'll bet on the P-51.

I've read a ton of unflatering things about the p-38. Here is an example from Wiki:

>> Although the P-38 had gained an enviable reputation in North Africa as the "fork-tailed devil," the P-38 did not have as much success over Germany. In this northern climate, it was an "ice-box" on high-altitude missions, and it was out-performed by the Fw 190 and the later marks of the Bf 109. The main reason for the P-38's relative failure in high-altitude operations in the European Theatre was due to engine failures experienced above 20,000 feet. Frequent engine failures were attributed to failing spark plugs and other parts that could not use the European, rain-drenched fuel. Many of the aircraft problems were addressed by the P-38J variant, but by September 1944, all the Lightning groups in the 8th Air Force had converted to the P-51. The Eighth did continue to operate the F-5 recon variants with more success.

The P-38's service record shows mixed results. On the negative side, most variants were certainly harder to fly than the best single-engine fighters and in early models, pilots suffered badly from the cold in northern climates. Also, the twin turbocharged Allisons had problems – a good portion of Lightnings were lost during the war due to engine difficulties rather than by enemy gunfire, which contributed to the plane's relatively low kill-ratio. Up until the "J-25" variant, P-38s were often "sitting ducks" to Luftwaffe fighters because of the problematic engines and the lack of dive flaps to counter compressibility in dives. German fighter pilots would often go into steep dives because they knew that the Lightnings would be reluctant to follow.<<

Once they changed the engine on the Mustang, it was a terror.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2007)

The Fork Tailed Devil is actually just a myth. That was discussed here a while ago. It is true that a soldier may have said it in N. Africa but that was just his personal opinion. The Germans never actaully nick named the aircraft the Fork Tailed Devil.


----------



## renrich (Mar 9, 2007)

In Europe, the P38 had 129,849 sorties for 1758 losses or one loss for every 74 sorties. The P51 flew 213,873 sorties for 2520 losses or one loss every 85 sorties. (the P47 was superior to both in that matter) Some of the reasons for the P38 problems were, as mentioned by other members, engine problems caused by high altitude operations, poor cockpit heating, early P38s had a generator on only one engine so if that engine failed you had to come home on only a battery, the airplane was large and easy to see and identify(an advantage on D-Day), it was a big target and had a lot of critical parts to be hit by enemy fire, it had a very poor initial roll rate,( you can't turn if you can't roll), it's compressibility problems were aggravated because the air temperatures above Europe are colder than in the Pacific or California,(the speed of sound varies only with air temperature) so the pilots could not dive the airplane from high altitudes until it got dive brakes, the pilot work load was high because of twin engines and because of poor cockpit layout,( the fighter conference in 1944 voted the P38L as having the worst cockpit), it was a difficult air plane to maintain. Some pilots said that the P38 had to have two engines so it could come home on one. In the Pacific, the P38 came into it's own(more or less) because of warmer air temperatures and less high altitude fighting and because it's long range was useful in the great distances of the Pacific war. It could wrap up in tight slow speed turns in the hands of an experienced pilot by the use of it's Fowler flaps and because of the contra rotating props taking away the torque problems of a single engined fighter. However Tommy McGuire killed himself maneuvering that way against a Japanese fighter. Energy tactics were really the P38s forte. There were situations in the CBI when the P38 was not appreciated because it used a lot of fuel and every drop of fuel at certain airstrips had to be flown in. The P51 was superior when fuel shortages and primitive maintenance conditions were the norm. On balance it would seem that the P51 was the superior fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 9, 2007)

Ya know it's funny, with all the ETO talk of the poor heating of the P-38, the aircraft was operated in the Aleutians - never heard much of those guys complaining of the heater.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 9, 2007)

I think that in the hands of an expert pilot, the P-38 was a formidable fighter. In the hands of a less than expert pilot, the P-51 was a fomidable fighter. That is the difference. Also, the provable top speed of the P-38 was not up to par with the P-51 and late-war piston powered German aircraft.

The P-51 was the best selection for long range fighter escort and long range air-to-ground interdiction.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 10, 2007)

I agree Dave. I like the P-38 better than the P-51 but as you say the P-51 was easier for a novice pilot to fly.


----------



## renrich (Mar 10, 2007)

The cockpit heater problems were solved by the time the P38 served in the Aleutians and it was said that the P38 was a shirt sleeve airplane there.


----------



## Hollywood (Mar 10, 2007)

Far too many issues for a clear cut "winner" between the two aircraft.....
Adolf Galland said the P-38's were "no problem" in air to air combat, whereas the P-51's gave him the biggest headaches. Personally, I like the P-38 because so many people seem to promote the P-51 as the "best" and outside of roll rate I just don't think it was a BETTER aircraft, simpler and easier to maintain OK, but BETTER?


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 11, 2007)

Is that because they solved the problem of a heater that didn't work by transferring the plane to a hotter climate?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2007)

renrich said:


> The cockpit heater problems were solved by the time the P38 served in the Aleutians and it was said that the P38 was a shirt sleeve airplane there.


Was it? There were P-38s in the Aleutians in 1942 - 43, and they were flying P-38Es.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 11, 2007)

That was the question I'm asking, whether it was transferred there to solve the problems by the climate being warmer...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> That was the question I'm asking, whether it was transferred there to solve the problems by the climate being warmer...


And that it did - there is no denying there were heating problems with the P-38 but in my opinion this was part of a wider ranging excuse of some 8th AF brass who just didn't like the aircraft. What's colder, a P-38E cockpit, or the open waist of a B-17?!?!


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 11, 2007)

Good question that one I suppose.


----------



## renrich (Mar 15, 2007)

The source I am quoting said " all problems concerning heating and defrosting were entirely cleaned up on the P-38L-5. It was a shirtsleeves aircraft in the Aleutians." The first combat deployment to Alaska takes place on May 29, 1942. They are P38Es and the planes are winterised and equipped with drop tanks. 25 aircraft of the 54th Sdn. 343rd FG, 11th AF go to Elmendorf Field at Anchorage. Maybe the pilots had electrically heated shirt sleeves.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2007)

renrich said:


> They are P38Es and the planes are winterised and equipped with drop tanks. 25 aircraft of the 54th Sdn. 343rd FG, 11th AF go to Elmendorf Field at Anchorage. Maybe the pilots had electrically heated shirt sleeves.


Or supply chain of these shirt sleeves didn't reach the ETO.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Mar 16, 2007)

P-38L-5 of 1944 solved the heating problem. Like bombers, the pilots had electrically heated suits. The window defrost system was also a little better b/c of the electrical heating but not by much. In the warmer theatres, pilots often just stripped down into their skibbies since opening the side windows would cause severe buffeting. 

As an overall fighter, I'd say the Mustang wins by a small amount. The P-38 Lightning's fowler flaps allowed it to turn almost as tight (some say even tighter) than Mustangs and then some believe even late Bf 109's. The P-38 had 2 engines and would climb better. Firepower was better b/c of the convergence. The P-38 was far more versatile and its counter-rotating props opened up a whole new world of dogfighting techniques for its pilots. The Lightning even had a longer maximum range.

The main reason the spam can wins IMO is b/c it was cheaper, easier to maintain, consumed up to 80% less fuel for a given distance and it was much easier to learn to fly in. As a dogfighter though, I'd say that the P-38 wins given that the pilots know anything about EVERYTHING in their respective planes.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 18, 2007)

With these electrically heated suits, could the crews actually get burnt by their suits?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> With these electrically heated suits, could the crews actually get burnt by their suits?


No easier than you would in an electric blanket...


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 18, 2007)

I have heard the suits were very tempermental and prone to short circuits . They would get hot spots. Can't find any proof but I've read it and heard it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2007)

If you ever seen one, just wearing one would of done the trick.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2007)

Damn I would not want to be in that spot. I know how cold it can be sitting behind an open window on a gun in an aircraft and we flew at 50 ft but damn it can get cold.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 19, 2007)

Yep! But I think a P-38 driver just wearing that set up in their "inadequately heated" P-38 should be plenty warm....


----------



## renrich (Mar 19, 2007)

There were quite number of times the waist gunners and the radio gunner ( while they still used the radio gun) were hospitalized for frostbite.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 19, 2007)

This is true, due to shorted out wires and whatnot, or if they had to unplug to help a crewmember...


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2007)

German pilots were kept warm using electrically heated suits as-well (All the way out into the gloves), however short circuits were rare it seems.


----------



## renrich (Mar 21, 2007)

Yes, the electric suits in the heavy bombers did have malfunctions but sometimes it was just a case of trying to operate too high and when the weather was exceptionally cold. That breeze blowing through the radio gunner's position out through the waist gunner's openings was mighty stiff.


----------



## HaWk3r T3mP3sT (Mar 29, 2007)

Its a very hard decision to chose between the P-38 Lightning and the P-51 Mustang because they were both great but in different areas. But I finally decided to go with the P-51 Mustang purely because of the supercharger 12 cyclinder engine and its great maneuverability.


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Apr 7, 2007)

I voted for the mustang. because it was a great all round fighter, it is my fave warplane and it had nitrous!


----------



## Dragontech64 (May 20, 2007)

d_bader said:


> I do not see how there can be an argument here. The mustang wins easily. Yes, although it wasn't used in the pacific, it could match the German fighters, that the lightnings avoided becuase they were inferior. As a question, the mustang is the better fighter, and although Yamamoto's betty was shot down, it was a bomber!



HUH??? Mustang not used in the Pacific? - Lightnings avoiding German fighters? Since when? The Lightning was not used as much in the ETO due to limitations in colder climates, and poor cockpit heating in early models, but they were used to great effect in the Med againsts the Germans and Italians before the 8th started their work in Europe. And the Mustang was used extensively for escorting B-29s over Japan. In their element BOTH are excellent planes. I'd much rather have the advantage of two engines over all that water in the South Pacific. I'd be very happy with the warmer cockpit of a 'stang in Europe, but I would not refuse either in the opposite place. Over-all, I'll take the Lightning, excelled in the desert and dominated the Pacific, and later varients still did well in Europe. Not to mention the ONLY truly successful fighter in Aleutians.


----------



## Dragontech64 (May 20, 2007)

Another point to mention, people have often mentioned in this post that the P-38's "larger" profile was a disadvantage. Profile, meaning the image as seen frfom the side, on a P-38 actually is SMALLER than a P-47 or P-51. It's largest, most visable shape was the plan-view, ie: from above or below. See P-38 Profile for more on this. At a distance, were target aquisition begins, the side or front view of a P-38 makes a very slim image. The plan view would far more telling from the ground or at large altitude differences. True, pilots would try to have an altitude advantage, but as both sides were trying to get the high ground, I think this would be less difinative, so this shape (dis?)advantage would mostly count from AA gunners. THe stats are the stats as far as kill rato, loss ratios, performance etc but those numbers are not the whole story. As has been mentioned here before, statistics can be made to say anything you want. I had a good friend who was a proffessor of statistical mathmatics at McGill University,who also voiced that same sentiment, and I think he'd know. The fact is, BOTH are excellent fighters-bombers and which is better often comes down to personal preferance. Personally, the scarecity of the Lightning today makes me like it all the more, but watching 6 Mustangs doing acrobatics over Manchester New Hampshire in the 80's left a lasting impression of its grace and beauty.


----------



## renrich (May 29, 2007)

The P38 was large in plan view but slim in profile but one handicap was that it was easy to identify for what it was. The 109 and P51 looked somewhat alike and the P47 and FW could be confused but he P38 was instantly identifiable. It also presented a target with a lot of vital spots. Two engines, two turbochargers, two radiators with liquid coolant. Of course it is not the same as the P38 could come home on one engine but the reason that Lindberg chose a single engined Ryan to cross the Atlantic was that he knew that having two engines doubled the chance of having an engine failure. It was said that the P38 had two engines so it could come home on one.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Also you had the speed to actually force the enemy to hang around. A P-51 Mustang couldn't outrun you let alone any of the Pacific Theatre aircraft. Also someone mentioned interestingly enough that as a pure fighter in sufficient quantities to be useful, it came after the P-38 Lightning had done all the hard work in the European Theatre and also later in the war the P-51 Mustangs would have been rarely seriously challenged due to fuel shortages for German Aircraft which would have severely affected the training of their pilots as well.
> .



Consider another point of view. First the 51D and B were faster than All of the other USAAF and USN and JAF and JNAF fighters with the exception of the P-47N above 30,000 feet - then consider the P-51H which was 900 pounds lighter than the D and better in every manuever aspect than either the 51D or P-38 or P-47N with exception of Dive and Roll for 47N and Roll for the 38L. It was in production and delivered to USAAF units stateside in March 1945.

The P-38F and J fought hard but the high altitude issues w/superchargers leading to 'blown' Allisons, no heated cockpit and 'instant' compressibility due to lack of dive brakes made it easy for the 109 and 190 to evade it - so it was inefective as a long range escort until the 38L's were delivered in June 1944. By that time the 51s had decimated the Luftwaffe in the Target areas and the long range P-47Ds were now making Target escort missions with the Mustangs.

The fuel shortages were largely the result of Mustangs enabling repeated attacks on the German Petroleum industry and the combination of Mustangs and P-38s on Ploesti in the May1944-November 1944 timeframe. Two P-38 Groups remained in 8th at the beginning of that campaign but were not a major factor against the Luftwaffe over Germany.

Dragontech made some excellent points also but I believe the 'question' was about which one you would want to fly fighter versus fighter and the 51 easily gets my vote - although defeating a P-38L with a P-51D isn't a slam dunk

Regards,

Bill


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 10, 2007)

renrich said:


> ...It was said that the P38 had two engines so it could come home on one.



Incorrect.

The P38 had two engines because of its origional mission requirements , which was to be a bomber interceptor, required two engines to get the rate of climb necessary to meet contract specs.


----------



## renrich (Jun 11, 2007)

Syscom, that quote was from some pilots in the ETO who were being facetious because of the engine problems the P38s had early on. It was not meant to be serious. Of course you are right about the 2 engines needed to meet the Army specs.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Jul 29, 2007)

Was it not true however even with the upgraded Alisons that it still had not reached it's full potential. Say if the P38 was given the british Rolls Royce Merlin that was in pretty much every british fighter and in some cases bomber for most of the war. Was it not true that the Alison was inadequet due to cooling systems ?


----------



## drgondog (Jul 29, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> Was it not true however even with the upgraded Alisons that it still had not reached it's full potential. Say if the P38 was given the british Rolls Royce Merlin that was in pretty much every british fighter and in some cases bomber for most of the war. Was it not true that the Alison was inadequet due to cooling systems ?



Actually, the primary engine failure was supercharger failing due to oil freezing as I recall. The L model solved the high altitude cold issues and the compressibility/dive issues (underwing dive brakes).

The Merlins would have given the 38 more reliability but very little addional speed


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jul 30, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> Was it not true however even with the upgraded Alisons that it still had not reached it's full potential. Say if the P38 was given the british Rolls Royce Merlin that was in pretty much every british fighter and in some cases bomber for most of the war. Was it not true that the Alison was inadequet due to cooling systems ?



There are quite a few people who have pointed out that the Lightning might have been a world-beater if only it had had Merlins installed in place of the "tempermental" Allisons; such a proposal was put forward, but quickly shot down since all Merlin production was going to much-needed Spifires and Mosquitos (Rolls-Royce Merlins in the UK) and P-51B's (Packard Merlins in the US). At that time, there was no excess production capacity of Merlins for the P-38, though some suspect there was a bias in favor of the Mustang and against the Lightning for installing Merlins in the US (from _The Lockheed P-38 Lightning: The Definitive Story of Lockheed's P-38 Fighter_, by Warren M. Bodie). The Allison was inadequate, from a technical point of view, due to it's single-speed turbo-supercharger; the Merlin had a two-speed supercharger, which performed better at higher altitudes. The P-38 performed better at low- to medium-altitudes.

All in all, however, I would have to choose the P-38; at low- to medium-altitude, it could actually turn inside a Mustang at lower airspeeds (< 300 kts), and most Luftwaffe fighters. Plus, it had devastating firepower up front, with four (4) 0.50 cals and a 20mm Hispano-Suiza cannon up front. Every other fighter with wing-mounted guns had to be "harmonized", meaning the guns had to be aimed to converge out in front of the fighter somewhere for maximum effectiveness (usually about 1000 yards out); not so the P-38. The close grouping of the nose armament meant that the bullets always stayed together, whether the target was 100 feet away, or a mile away. I'll put my money on the -38.

And, finally, the P-38 was in service with the US a full three years before the first P-51A entered USAAF service and, at that time (1942), the in-service P-38 was actually faster than the in-service P-51 (until 1943 when the Merlin-engined p-51B began to appear).


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 18, 2007)

The Merlins weren't really practical since they required an extensive redesign of the nacelles and boom arrangement, this required new toolin and other additions to the assembly line, and thus would have stopped production for several months! In addition it wasn't nearly as easy to reverse rotation on a Merlin, opposed to a V-1710 in which the crankshaft simply had to be installed backwards.

Many of the reliabillity problems of the P-38 were adressed in the J model, chin radiator and intercooler improved cooling, reliabillity, power rating, and damage resistance. Late J models included dive-recovery flaps to deal with compressibility, as well as hydrolicly boosted ailerons which gave the plane the best roll-rate of all USAAF fighters! 

The K model was another improvement, offering better performance than any other lightning and smoked the best service P-51's and P-47's in all categories in fly-offs. The already unmatched 4,700+ ft/min of the P-38 was increased to ~5,000 ft/min with 1,800 hp WEP. The main improvement of this craft was the "high activity" Paddle Props similar to those wich the P-47's had been improved with. The craft exceeded 430 mph at ~30,000 in early tests on the test muel. Over 450 mph was projected in the final version. The craft topped out at 45,000 ft on a very hot day, and max ceiling was expected to be 48,000 ft! The increased efficiency of the new props gave a 10-15% increase in the already outstanding range!
see: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9AcY_ 
This also shows that the P-38 pilots were anything but afraid of Me 109s! 

I also like that the P-47 and P-38 have the related Thunderbolt and Lightning names. If the P-47 was a choice the decission would be tougher, but with this pair, it's easy: the P-38!

And don't forget that the P-38 performed significantly better and more reliably on the higher grade American fuel used in the PTO, and remember that the P-38 shot down more planes then any other USAAF fighter, and only lost out to the Navy's Hellcat and Corsair iirc. 
I also rember a case where several P-38's engaged a group of Japanese fighters (Zeros i think) and after shredding an enemy plane one of the P-38s was impacted with a mass of weckedge. A whole boom and half the tail was repped off and he lost control, amazingly he managed to regain control of the Lightning (before fully realizing what had happened) and was able to RTB and land safely, though the Lightning had to be scrapped...


----------



## renrich (Dec 18, 2007)

I might be a little skeptical that the P38 was the only AC in history to score a kill without engine power. In the ETO the sorties/loss ratio of the P38 was nothing to brag about, being the worst of all US fighters engaged. Wonder why that was what with having the extra engine to come home on. I would bet the kill/loss ratio of the P38 was not as good as the 51 or 47. Out of every 74 sorties, one P38 was lost. Since the Jug's sortie to loss ratio was 138 to one, it sounds like you had almost twice as good a chance to come home with a plane that had only one engine.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 18, 2007)

Maby it was just the only recorded kill...

In fact, I remember thet one of the P-51's Me-262 kills was in the same situation. He say the jet (far below) dropped tanks and dove to the target an blasted the 262 full of incendiary rounds, but forgot to switch to internal fuel. The only difference is that the P-51's props were still spinning until after he'd shot-down the jet and until then he hadn't even realized what he'd done.

So maby this was the only kill with engines at full stop...

And on the sortie, kill to loss ratio, many were lost in ground attack missions,(which resulted in few ariel kills) and many were lost early-on before adequate twin-engine training had been available to fighter pilots. Rember this was losses to all causes, and the P-47 was a much better choice for the Ground-attack role due to the radial engine and high damage resitance. I'd bet the Mustang's losses would have been even worse had they been posted to grount attack. (the A-36 was also failrly volnerable, though not so much as the Merlin-Mustangs as seen in the Horrible loss rate to ground fire in Korea)

Even so, if you compare the actual Victories to Lightnings shot-down were realitively high (at least 2:1) and if you compare the %loss of the P-51 to the P-38 per sortie, they were about the same. (and this was with all the pilot problems and poor tactics of the P-38 used early on, plus the Air-ground losses later on) Plus rember the P-38 served most air combat duty early in the war in the ETO, where they were badly outnumbered and the Germans still held air superiorety.

Just watch that video I posted, just 2 P-38s on a long-range mission, attacking 20-40 Me 109's!


----------



## drgondog (Dec 18, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> And on the sortie, kill to loss ratio, many were lost in ground attack missions,(which resulted in few ariel kills) and many were lost early-on before adequate twin-engine training had been available to fighter pilots. Rember this was losses to all causes, and the P-47 was a much better choice for the Ground-attack role due to the radial engine and high damage resitance. I'd bet the Mustang's losses would have been even worse had they been posted to grount attack. (the A-36 was also failrly volnerable, though not so much as the Merlin-Mustangs as seen in the Horrible loss rate to ground fire in Korea)
> 
> *The P-47 would have surely done better than P-51 in the role of Fighter Bomber but Korea was a different threat environment. A-36's and the replacement P-51A's flew a long distinguished career with 27th and 86th in NA and Italy - then went to P-40s and P-47s as the attrition on the A-36/P-51A was no longer replaceable.
> 
> ...



The latter is probably a situation in which they were flying J's and no dive issues were prevalent or at low to medium where they performed well - and the natural aggressiveness of the US pilot was not tempered.


----------



## renrich (Dec 19, 2007)

The sortie/loss ratio of the 51 was 85 versus 74 for the 38. To me the negatives on the P38s were: Easy to identify, big target with a lot of vulnerable spots to hit, poor initial rate of roll, early cockpit heater problems, early engine turbocharger problems, early compressibility problems, high initial cost, high cost of maintenance and operation(two engines to fuel), steep pilot learning curve. The positives were good overall performance, long range and good armament system.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 19, 2007)

> The latter is probably a situation in which they were flying J's and no dive issues were prevalent or at low to medium where they performed well - and the natural aggressiveness of the US pilot was not tempered.



This is not the case, high-alt, early in the war, long-range, and he did go into a compressibility dive while trying to help an outnumbered lone Mustang (probably a P-51A) and barely recovered! (w/out dive-flaps) 

Watch: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9AcY_

And on the % loss, it was mentioned earlier on one of the first few pages, this is the % of craft lost per sortie, not how much damage they did, and these numbers are virtually the same, if not lower for the P-38. As for the number of a/c ground kills, perhaps the P-51 just attacked more airfields than the T-bolt or Lightning. Do you have a comparison of other ground-kills or figures, or amount of ordinance delivered to targets?

And on that 262 story with the almost gliding Mustang, here it is: "Bolt from Above" - Robert Winks - P51D Mustang - Me262 Jet


And renrich, once the Lightning got boosted ailerons, almost nothing could roll faster, especially at high-speed. 
It's really too bad that the P-39K was overlooked, the only difference from the L model was the props, and the performance difference (as with the Paddle-prop P-47s) was astounding! It would have only taken 2-3 weeks longer to start production than did the L model, but this was somehow unacceptable to the war production board so it was refused...

Also the P-38 was more fuel efficient than the P-47, and technically, one engine could be turned-off, prop feathered and fuel cross-fed to the running engine to increase range and fuel-efficiency even more.

And of the ease of identification, this would only be true for the plan view, plus this can sometimes be an advantage to ward-off friendly-fire, though it would certainly be a disadvantage against enemy ground implacements...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 19, 2007)

Though I think the Lightning was probably best suited to the PTO, due to long-range and 2 engines, plus she was quite a match for Japanese a/c, and could even out-turn a Zero in certain circumstances. Se could effectively dogfight Zeros and other Japanese planes while the Jug and many other planes had to resort to dive and zoom tactics.

There were also several ways to recover from compressibility w/out dive-flaps, unfortunately most pilots didn't know this. One of the best is to drop to idle, switch props to flat-pitch (to break) and lower maneuvering flaps to increase lift and counter pitch-down and even regain some elevator control. (lower flaps to combat position) Rolling back and forth and sliding with rudder would also help slow to recover.


----------



## renrich (Dec 19, 2007)

In 1944, 28 test and combat pilots rated the P38L on maneuverability, two rated it good, ten said fair, while the rest rated it poor. In best all around fighter above 25,000 ft the P38L came in 6th, behind P47D, P51D, F4U1D, F6F5,F4U4. In best all around fighter below 25,000 feet, it was not even mentioned. In worst cockpit, P38L came in first. It did come in in third place in best ailerons at 350 mph. It did not seem to be well liked by those pilots.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2007)

renrich said:


> In 1944, 28 test and combat pilots rated the P38L on maneuverability, two rated it good, ten said fair, while the rest rated it poor. In best all around fighter above 25,000 ft the P38L came in 6th, behind P47D, P51D, F4U1D, F6F5,F4U4. In best all around fighter below 25,000 feet, it was not even mentioned. In worst cockpit, P38L came in first. It did come in in third place in best ailerons at 350 mph. It did not seem to be well liked by those pilots.


I think its because you were dealing with dedicated single engine pilots or very low time twin engine pilots.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 19, 2007)

plan_D said:


> What are you talking about looma? Zemke was US 56th FG CO.



As I was reading the thread I didn't see this one answered. 

Hub took over the 479th FG August 12, 1944 when it still had P-38s until transition in mid to late September. When he went down in the T-Storm my father, who was then 355FG Exec, was approached to take over the 479th but declined because he was about to go home after end of his first tour.

Robin Olds flew with 479th, liked the 38, liked the 51 better - and he flew P-38J before the transition to 51D's. Olds was one of a very select group that had five or more kills in both the 38 and the 51. Others like Landers (and Jeffrey 4-P38/10-P51) came close with 4 (P-38) and 4.5 (P-51) to go with his six P-40 scores.

I don't know about Jeffrey but Landers preferred the 51 also. Both of them focused on ETO combat when making the remarks.

I'm doing some research on 8th AF ops to take a real look at P-47, P-51 and P-38 statistics but not ready yet. So far, for 8th AF however P-38 had by far the lowest air to air victory ratio of the three fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 20, 2007)

The Maneuverabillity depends on the Model too, w/out the boosted ailerons initial roll was slow, and they got stiff at high speeds iirc.

Still I think I'd rather be in a P-47 than either plane... Asside from the speed and Ruggedness, she also had one of the most comfortable cockpits of any WWII fighter, with heat, A.C., and a well padded seat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Robin Olds flew with 479th, liked the 38, liked the 51 better - and he flew P-38J before the transition to 51D's. Olds was one of a very select group that had five or more kills in both the 38 and the 51. Others like Landers (and Jeffrey 4-P38/10-P51) came close with 4 (P-38) and 4.5 (P-51) to go with his six P-40 scores.


Great infor Bill - here's something for ya.....

For the benefit of the newer guys, I'll repeat an earlier post.

I had a former neighbor named Mike Alba. He flew P-38s and P-51 in the ETO during WW2 with the 338th FS, 55th FG. He perfered the P-38 despite the heating and other reported problems. He said the P-38 was far more stable as an aircraft and gun platform when compared to the P-51, but the P-51 was a lot more maneuverable. Later in the war his squadron took on many ground sorties and they suffered many losses, he told me that they wished at that point they kept their P-38s....

He scored 3 kills, all in the P-51.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great infor Bill - here's something for ya.....
> 
> For the benefit of the newer guys, I'll repeat an earlier post.
> 
> ...



Joe - Zemke had same observations about stability and gun platform as Alba.

I'm not quite finished yet but my research is showing a much lower ratio of German a/c destroyed on the ground per P-38 loss to flak... which suprised me. Of course not all flak losses due to strafing airfields - particularly post D-Day till end of August...

The Mustang has a far higher air to air ratio, but again what does that tell us about the relative merits.

All the statistics are interesting but..I'm not finished yet. I went back into the 8th AF units and started breaking out everything by month, a/c, unit and type a/c... only the 357 and 56 have no real changes from my prior stuff because they didn't change equipment - but the other 13 did.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2007)

Always great info Bil!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 20, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great infor Bill - here's something for ya.....
> 
> For the benefit of the newer guys, I'll repeat an earlier post.
> 
> ...



And on a technical note . . . .

Flyboy, is that the armored headrest I see by Mike's right arm? I've never seen a good picture of the armored headrest before.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Flyboy, is that the armored headrest I see by Mike's right arm? I've never seen a good picture of the armored headrest before.


Yes....


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Always great info Bil!



I just finished the study on the 20th, 55th, 364th and 479th as they were only P-38 groups to convert to Mustangs. Some really suprising results statistically. I used USAF 85 and Kent Miller's "Fighter Units and pilots of 8th AF. They don't correlate 100% on awards but are pretty close, particularly on air awards.

Ther is judgement on Cause of Loss. If a guy went down for unknown reasons near an air battle - I assigned air to air. If he hit the ground strafing an airfield I assigned 'flak' to differentiate from an engine prob, etc.. so possibly the air to air and air to ground Losses are slightly overstated for both the 51 and the 38 - meaning the ratios will be conservative (lower)

The first P-38 units converted to Mustangs from late July (20, 55 and 364) to late September (479). The longest span of combat ops was 55th FG from Sep 43 through Jul 44. The shortest was May 44 through Sept 28 44... and it was best performer (I suspect Zemke was the difference)

Here is the aggragate result 
P-38
awards = 278.6 air, 133 ground ---- 
losses = 101.0 air, 106 ground ----

P-38 award to Loss Ratio = 2.75:1 air, 1.26:1 ground

When these guys converted to Mustangs to finish the war

P-51
awards = 661.5 air, 790 ground
losses = 44 air, 119 ground

P-51 ratios (from converted P-38 groups) = 15:1 air, 6.63:1 ground.

I suspect the ridiculous air ratios of the new Mustang drivers had a lot to do with rapidly shrinking LW quality - while the early 38 drivers had their hands full with Allisons and Messerschmidts.. 

Some interesting and puzzling 'stuff' 
1. In general the Ops/Acc losses in P-38 groups are slightly less than the flak losses while strafing.
2. In general the Ops/Acc losses in P-51 groups are slightly more than the flak losses - implying that maybe that second engine was useful.
3. When the Mustang Groups were going wild destroying a/c on the ground in March and April 1944, the P-38 groups were barely scoring - but losing a lot of guys to flak. The 55th only scored 7-5 through July! while losing 25 to flak.
4. The 479th was head and shoulders above the other 3 in holding its own in the P-38 with only 4 losses air to air in getting its 52 awards - just barely improving in the Mustang.
5. As near as I can tell the P-38s shot down 5.4% of total 8AF FC while losing 16% of losses air to air.. This had a lot more to do with Doolitle's decision than 2x price.

I wish the MTO data was better - it is clear that the P-38 was much better in MTO than ETO.

I am in process of dissecting the P-47 ratios in a similar manner plus making some corrections and will post when complete.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 20, 2007)

But for those ground "awards" are you just counting a/c, 'cause there was a hell of alot more than that they hit elswhere. I'd immagine that if ground vehicles, rail cars, buildings, etc were included the results would be different...

How about comparing amount of ordinance delivered?

Still I think the P-47 was probably the best Fighter-Bomber the USAAF, and perhaps all the allied forces, had...

Short of that, either the P-38, Allison-engined Mustang (A-36/P-51A), or maby the P-39 though bombload was somewhat low as was range, the P-63 would have been an excelent Fighter-Bomber, but it never saw USAAF service. (apart from the target role in training)


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> But for those ground "awards" are you just counting a/c, 'cause there was a hell of alot more than that they hit elswhere. I'd immagine that if ground vehicles, rail cars, buildings, etc were included the results would be different...
> 
> *True - which make this type comparison difficult. But, at the end of the day, if a 38 group is coming home on the deck it just means they hit trains etc, more than airfields.. but thinking it through the losses to flak are less impressive if you are NOT hitting airfields*
> 
> ...



This whole exercise on my part is to sort out relative air to air ratios between the different fighter groups (which I have) but also withing type (which I am working on).

The 38 was a relative dog air to air at high altitude, because it could not follow the German in a dive (until J arrived), for the 8th but still EXTREMELY important for protection of bombers because they were so easy to spot the LW often avoided them. They did such a much better job in the MTO because the 12th and 15th FC did so much more starfing proportionately than the 8th, and they were engaging more in altitudes that weren't compromising their performance.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 21, 2007)

A little off topic, but how do you think the P-39 would have stood up in comparison had the turbo not been deleted? 

Though I don't think range would have been sufficient for escort inless they could have put under-wing racks and plumbing for drop-tanks...


The P-47 was decent as an escort too, it was just a bit fuel greedy though.


----------



## ETO_RULES (Feb 11, 2008)

Some simple stats.

The number one scoring fighter group in the US army during WWII was the 354th fighter group. They had 701 air-to-air kills confirmed kills. That was more than the 56th fighter group. They were the first mustang outfit flying the Merlin powered mustang and started ops in Nov of 1943. The 354th group was assigned to the 9th air force in the ETO. The 56th was the highest scoring group in the 8TH AIR FORCE in the ETO (Excluding ground kills). The 56th group started flying missions in April of 1943 and had 600 air-to-air kills.

The mustang had the most army pilots to become aces flying a certain type. 275 pilots become aces flying the mustang. The Navy Hellcat is the number 1 ace maker in US history. Over 300 pilots become aces flying the Hellcat.

The following fighter groups started ops in the ETO in the same timeframe

354th(MUSTANG) NOV 43
20th(P-38) NOV 43
357th(MUSTANG) FEB 44
55th(P-38) FEB 44

By July of 1944 the 354/357 had obtained about 40 air-to-air aces. The 20th and 55th totaled 5! The P-38 outfits starting in August began checking out in mustangs. All 4 groups in the 8th air force flying p-38s (20th, 55th, 364th and 479th) would be flying the p-51 in the fall of 44.

The top ace of the 364th fighter group Lt/Col. George F. Ceuleers (10 kills) flew both the p-38(1 kill) and the p-51(9kills) preferred the mustang in dogfighting.


Kill totals do not lie. Short of a dog eating their homework I have seen every excuse for explaining the lack of success of the p-38 in the ETO. It wasn't cost or a conspiracy that caused the ETO to go with the P-51. It was RESULTS.


By the way didn’t someone win the Medal of honor flying the P-51 in the PTO. William Shomo scoring 7 kills in a single misson. The P-51 started late in the PTO but had a nice impact in just a few months of combat. Due to demands in the ETO and MTO the mustang was not available in numbers in the PTO till Apirl of 1945.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Feb 12, 2008)

Ligtning for me.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 12, 2008)

ETO_RULES said:


> Some simple stats.
> 
> The number one scoring fighter group in the US army during WWII was the 354th fighter group. They had 701 air-to-air kills confirmed kills. That was more than the 56th fighter group. They were the first mustang outfit flying the Merlin powered mustang and started ops in Nov of 1943. The 354th group was assigned to the 9th air force in the ETO. The 56th was the highest scoring group in the 8TH AIR FORCE in the ETO (Excluding ground kills). The 56th group started flying missions in April of 1943 and had 600 air-to-air kills.
> 
> ...



But a lot of P-38 and F4U pilots in the PTO. Only one MoH winner in 51 in ETO (James Howard, 354th FG, attched to 8th AF when he got his)..

A lot of guys that DSCs in the ETO had feats as great or greater than theri counterparts in PTO - so go figure the process?

I say Mustang unequivocally for ETO/MTO post 1943, P-38 through 1943 all theatres and PTO for entire war... the 51 would have been even more important had we invaded Japan, but didn't have the same impact the 38 had for the entire war in the Pacific.


----------



## renrich (Feb 12, 2008)

No way the P39 would have ever been a premier fighter in WW2. Turbo or not. Too small and if provisions for more internal fuel could have been made (doubtful) the performance would have been even worse. Besides there may not have been enough 5 foot 8 inch or less pilots to go around. To me one cannot really understand what WW2 and fighters is all about unless one gets his arms about the roles of the various air forces. Germany and Britain designed fighters ( in the beginning) to be used as interceptors and air superiority weapons. The idea of fighter bombers or escort fighters was not provided for in their thinking with the Hurricane, Spitfire , BF109 and even later the FW190. Plus those aircraft were designed when there were no engines available with the requisite HP to enable them to carry a lot of fuel and still have good performance. It was a tribute to their inherent design excellence that later they were able to accept engines with twice the HP of the original power plants. Nevertheless they were still range limited. The P39 was of a similar design. Get a lot of performance because of being small and light. The P40 went a little larger but was still range limited partly because of drag. The P38 got range, performance and bigness by using two engines. The P51 got range by being fairly large(so it could carry a lot of fuel) but also was very low drag and when it got the Merlin it could get high and really motor and still go a long way. The Corsair, Hellcat and to a lesser extent P47 got decent range, carrying a lot of fuel because they were big and had lots of HP(all having 2000 HP at first) I don't know if the AAF and USN necessarily had good crystal balls about having good range built into their premier fighters but that is the way it turned out. The P39 was like a 1933-34 European design with short range except it could not get high and still have good performance.


----------



## renrich (Feb 12, 2008)

Not to take anything away from the Hellcat, it's pilots or records but the Hellcat came on scene when the highly skilled IJN pilots were beginning to be depleted. Plus if you look at the record many of it's kills were not against fighters but bombers and later kamikazes flown by fledglings. The many kills by Mustangs, P38s and Jugs were mostly against fighters although the skill of the LW pilots gradually eroded on average.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 12, 2008)

Renrich, dont forget that the P38 was designed to be a bomber interceptor from the onset.

The fact that it could also be used as a decent fighter and fighter-bomber speaks volumes on its basic design.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 12, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Renrich, dont forget that the P38 was designed to be a bomber interceptor from the onset.
> 
> The fact that it could also be used as a decent fighter and fighter-bomber speaks volumes on its basic design.



Syscom - I wonder how the remembrance of the P-38 in ETO would be different if the prototype had not crashed on the Army cross country stunt - and the Lockheed team had that lost year to sort out compressibiliy, engine, dive performance and boosted ailerons by 1943 instead of mid 1944?

I had a hard time getting either Olds or Landers to give a decisive edge to the P-51 as the 'clear' best fighter. They favored the Mustang as a high altitude fighter but felt the 38L could hold its own with anything at medium to low altitude. Having said that both agreed that if the 8th AF had to have just one fighter it would have been the Merlin equipped Mustang for their choice.

Landers flat out said the 38L would have been his choice for 'beginning to end' in ALL US theatres...if only one possible - because of PTO... but not for Europe in Bomber escort role

IIRC correctly he got 6 w/P-40 and 49th, 4 w/P-38 and 55th and 4.5 w/P-51 and 78th, including a 262. Nearly an ace in three different ships


----------



## renrich (Feb 12, 2008)

Of course Sys, and when the P38 was designed in 1937 the Allison engine that was the only feasible engine to be used put out only about 1000 HP. Around 1600 Hp was needed in a single engine fighter, unless you went really small and light. Bell went that direction and Lockheed went the two engine path which resulted in an airplane with a lot of wing which gave it good high altitude handling and also a lot of load carrying capacity which meant a lot of fuel could be carried which meant a long range. I guess the long range the AC could manage was a by product of the need for more power and was a bit of an accident. Inspired design that resulted in the best twin engined fighter of the war.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 12, 2008)

renrich said:


> Of course Sys, and when the P38 was designed in 1937 the Allison engine that was the only feasible engine to be used put out only about 1000 HP. Around 1600 Hp was needed in a single engine fighter, unless you went really small and light. Bell went that direction and Lockheed went the two engine path which resulted in an airplane with a lot of wing which gave it good high altitude handling and also a lot of load carrying capacity which meant a lot of fuel could be carried which meant a long range. I guess the long range the AC could manage was a by product of the need for more power and was a bit of an accident. Inspired design that resulted in the best twin engined fighter of the war.



And the big hog that became the L would out climb, out roll and out accelerate a 51D (and an F4U) in most altitudes and speed ranges...


----------



## renrich (Feb 12, 2008)

I know I am prejudiced but all considered: performance, maintainability, survivability, versatility, cost effectiveness, length of time for pilot proficiency, short field take off and land capability, etc. I will take the Hog, the U-Bird, the Ensign Eliminator, it's big it's blue it's the F4U in it's various iterations for the one fighter concept. I believe Rex Barber who did some good in the P38 felt the same way about the Corsair.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 28, 2008)

Just some notes on the P-39: the original P-39 had longer wings giving more wing ares and room for internal stores. (and easier to add external stores, plus higher wing area means more room for weight growth and better climb and turn rate) Had a larger canopy-- so more head room and better visibillity. Had a turbo (obviously). And had a shorter rear fusalage wich provided better stability. And of course the turbo...

The USAAF went crazy with streamling- the only positive thing to change was a larger tail fin for better control and stability. The longer fusalage causing COG problems, the new canopy having pooer vision and head room, wing area deopping etc.

Plus the P-39D-2, N, and Q (and a few others) wre not underpowered with a WEP of 1,320 to 1,480 hp.

The P-39 never received a Merlin like the P-40 did (albeit only 1,300 hp with a crit alt of ~19,000 ft for 1,120 hp) or the V-1710-81 of the P-40M and P-51A with 1,480 WEP at 10,400 ft and 1,120 ho at ~18,000 ft.

The XP-76 corected some of this (long wings with square tips and 236 ft2 area, and better engine-- 2-stage Allison with nearly 386 mph at 21,000 ft)

Though the P-63 was a more promising a/c with performance similar to the P-51 in range (with 3 drop tanks), climb slightly lower, speed similar and better at low altitude (P-63C had a WEP of 1,800 hp with water injection) and a critical altitude of ~23,000 ft (higher on some models). Armament was as good as the P-51A/B/C and better with a 20mm cannon with ~170 rounds. (the 37mm cannon being debatable while the 20mm was an alternate).




On the range of the P-40, it could range farther than the Mustang when wing tanks were used, though these were only avaiable for the P-40N iirc and mostly used for ferrying (max 3,100 mi at minimum cruise settings) ~1,400 miles was usual with a 141 gal drop tank. And it had the P-39 beat in range armament (by most standards) and climb (comparing the P-40M to the P-39N/Q). 


The P-47D could range 2,100 mi at 206 mph with 780 US gallons total. (note this is with the 70 gal increased main tank, and not considdering the 200 gal conformal paper tank used only early when no wing plumbing was stansard, or the 215 gal steel belly tank, or the "big and ugly" 200 gal wing tanks used in the PTO)


And the P-38L could only out roll the P-47D (~86 degrees/sec at 250 mph) above 300 mph and late model F4Us (~100 degrees/sec at 250 mph) above 350 mph and the P-47N even later (108 degrees at 250 mph with less degredation at higher speeds than the D model or the F4U). The P-38L's roll kept increasing up to its redline speed and was faster than the P-51 at all speeds. It didn't exceed 80 degrees/sec until ~300 mph and did ~90 degrees at 400 mph iirc.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 28, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> And the P-38L could only out roll the P-47D (~86 degrees/sec at 250 mph) above 300 mph and late model F4Us (~100 degrees/sec at 250 mph) above 350 mph and the P-47N even later (108 degrees at 250 mph with less degredation at higher speeds than the D model or the F4U). The P-38L's roll kept increasing up to its redline speed and was faster than the P-51 at all speeds. It didn't exceed 80 degrees/sec until ~300 mph and did ~90 degrees at 400 mph iirc.



http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-3 

It would be hard to validate the roll statements against the P-51B/D and impossible against the P-51H. Interestingly enough if Lockheed's performance figures are correct the crossover point for the P-38L with boosted ailerons crossed over the 51 along with the Fw 190 at 350MPH. 

The P-38J w/o boosted ailerons stayed below both the P-51B and Fw 190A at all speeds.

Having said that, I've often wondered about these charts as none of the aircraft models, including the P-38L, ever did 450mph in level flight.. Only the P-51H ever tested at that speed or above..so I would like to see something like these charts as a function of altitude as well as versions. It is also interesting that the climb performance charts and speed chart comparisons by Lockheed were carefully selected for the model of 51 (i.e P-51D vs P-38L for climb and dash speed instead of the B and H - both of which were faster and climbed as well or better).

Also interesting is that the redline dive speed for the P-38L was .68 Mach - which would imply stability and controllability but the 109G, Fw 190A and D, P-47D and P-51B/C/D/F all would excced that by .10 mach. I am assuming that is redline w/dive brakes -----> implying structural red line not aerodynamics.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 28, 2008)

Anything greater than 442 mph for the P-38L would be in a dive. The P-38K probably could Best 450 mph (as long as it wasn't exceeding .68 mach) if it had been tested in WEP.

What I've wondered about the P-38K's propeller is why they didn't make kits for retrofitting new cowling and paddle props to P-38Ls in the field, as this wouldn't have caused any cease in production (the War Production board not even allowing the 2-3 weeks needed for retooling. 

Or why not use a 4-bladed propeller like late-model P-39Qs did, the spinner and prop-diameter would be the same so there would be no need for new cowling and there would be more clearance for the props. (the paddle-props having a larger diameter as well) A 4-bladed prop would also be easier to fit in the field as no new cowling would be needed.

One big drawback that the P-38 never fully solved was high-speed dive capabillity, it could dive decently but even with the recovery flaps (allowed another 30-40 mph TAS to be aceived safely iirc) it was not much better than the P-51 in this category (depending on how much a pilot was willing to push the a/c), though at those speeds it would roll much better. Although it could dive about as well as 190's and 109's as well, nothing could out dive a P-47 (even a Me-262 would have trouble out accelerating a fully loaded P-47D in a dive) a late P-47D could safely dive to Mach .80 (~.82 critical) and even more with recovery flaps. The P-38's critical mach was increased to ~.75 with the dive-flaps, though the safe limit would be closer to .70.

In this respect the P-38 and P-47 were complete opposites, the P-47 easily escaping a P-38 in a dive (as long as it has decent altitude to work with) and the P-38 outclimbing the P-47 at almost any situation, except maby a P-47M or an N in clean configuration with empty wing tanks, though a P-38 with paddle props (or 4-blade) could beat this.


The 440+ mph figure for the P-38 was achieved with 100/150 fuel and high manifold pressures (either 65" Hg or 70" I can't rember) where WEP was boosted to just under (or possibly exceeding) 1,800 hp. On the same note the P-47D's R-2800-63 (or -59, wich was nearly identical) was cleared for 2,600 hp with 70" Hg (although it was limited to 2,535 hp with 65" for climb) with which it could achieve 444 mph at ~23,500 ft. (the critical altitude for 70" Hg)

The P-51 had been cleared for up to 90" Hg with 100/150 AvGas which it could exced 450 mph without wing racks, with racks (~10 mph drop in speed) it too could do ~444 mph. However the P-51 could not hold this power for long w/out having to open the radiator to full which dropped speed significantly, the P-47 and P-38 could maintain this power longer without overheating iirc due to their cooling systems and since the boost pressure was ~20" less. The P-47 could probably run the longest like this due to it's tough engine. (the R-2800-57C of the XP-47J, and P-47M/N was tested to 3,600 hp at extremly high boost pressures without failure, though there was much wear on the engines; the WEP of these engine was 2,800 hp at 2,800 rpm)


----------



## drgondog (Feb 28, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Anything greater than 442 mph for the P-38L would be in a dive.
> 
> *Actually - they were very close to critical Mach at 25,000 feet at 425mph in level flight - I'll have to check for STP. I don't believe any P-38 was rated to exceed .68 Mach. Without dive brakes they immediately went into compressibility between 430 and 440 mph at 25,000 feet. With Dive brakes they immediately hit .68 but it was controllable.*
> 
> ...



P-51 Mustang Performance
P-38 Performance Trials

441mph is a good number for P-51B at 75". It would help in the discussion if you referred to specific models and flight conditions so I knew what your were making comparisons against?

It is not a good number for the P-51H. The factory got 480+ w/o rack, but full combat load and wing tanks - only 25gal in fuse tank. at 9450 pounds 

The NAA calculated performance had 487mph at 22K+ w/o racks in same condition at 9450 pounds

USAAF tested at Wright Pat with an a/c picked at random and got 451+ at 90inches at 21,600 at 9544 pounds (extra weight and drag for racks)..

If Mike's figures are right for the December 1945 test of the P-38L, it was 30mph slower than the P-51H at 26,000 feet and 60 mph slower at SL.

The climb of the H was 4680 with full combat load from SL through 4200 feet and got to 35,000 feet in 9.4 minutes, 16,000 in 4 minutes. W/O racks and the extra 100 pounds, the initial climb rate was 5,000fpm +..

The P-38L had some advantages over a P-51B, some over a D, few over an H.

Perhaps the bottom line is that in comparisons of P-38J and P-38L in air to air combat in ETO, the 51B and D had a huge edge in awards and air to air award to actual loss ratios. One can debate accuracy of awards but the process was same for 8th AF independent of the fighter.

I have no idea regarding either the MTO or PTO for similar comparisons - but the German opposition was in general far better than the Japanese.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## chuckn49 (Feb 28, 2008)

For what it is worth, my brother frequently talked about a P-38 pilot who put a 38 through sound barrier in a dive and lived to talk about it. The plane was a total loss because of structural damage to wings and tail. Also, instrument panel was pushed in due to pilot's feet on it.

He was an aeronautical engineer and believed the P-38 could exceed sound barrier and survive. I don't know how many others did that but this is the only one I ever heard of.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 29, 2008)

chuckn49 said:


> For what it is worth, my brother frequently talked about a P-38 pilot who put a 38 through sound barrier in a dive and lived to talk about it. The plane was a total loss because of structural damage to wings and tail. Also, instrument panel was pushed in due to pilot's feet on it.
> 
> He was an aeronautical engineer and believed the P-38 could exceed sound barrier and survive. I don't know how many others did that but this is the only one I ever heard of.



Chuck - there are a lot of tribal legends about the first a/c and pilot to break the 'sound barrier'... all mostly from "visible evidence" of an airspeed indicator.

The airspeed instruments worked on stagnation pressure readings and did not account for compressibility - said issue becoming noticeable near .75-.80 Mach and increasingly divergent from freestream airspeed until it was worthless. 

Beyond that point, the me 262 was probably the cleanest aerodynamic airframe of all the notable aircraft until the F-86.

The Me 262 in most likelihood came as close as maybe .88-.9 in a dive before the transonic shock wave moved the Center of lift too far aft or disrupted airflow over the horizontal stabilizer to the point that it couldn't recover from a nose down pitch.

The F-86 flown by Welsh probably exceeded Mach 1 in a dive and my guess that it was the 'actual' first.

As to the P-38? It was far less likely than say a Spitfire with a very thin wing or even a P-51H... both faster in a dive and far behind a Me 262. 

Most ships that exceeded the mfr's recommended limits by a little too much ultimately were not able to bring it back for a refund

A claim was made for a Spit also and my belief systems are strained entirely too far to contemplate a prop driven a/c whose blade tips can't go supersonic, much less create sufficient thrust through the blade plane of the rotating prop, or have an elevator system capable of pitch control after transonic flow separtion ultimately occurs on the wing.

I would be shocked if the P-38 could get to .82 Mach straight down at full power, and even more shocked if the wings didn't come off in the dive if it made it past that point. 



Regards,

Bill


----------



## chuckn49 (Feb 29, 2008)

I have no proof one way or the other and, from my own experience in the military, I know how legends get started. I am trying to recall conversations I had with him from 30 or 40 years ago so, it is possible that my memory is faulty but, somehow, I don't think so as to what he believed because it impressed me so at the time. Anyway, as I remember the story, the dude in question was an aeronautical engineer type who, for some reason, wished to be a pilot. The legend goes he was transitioning into 38s and, of course, they were warned about the compressibility problem in a dive, etc. I know my brother said it was a not unheard of disaster for a pilot to not be able to pull out of a dive in the 38. Long short, he calculated the 38 could be pulled out of a dive through some maneuver or other and, without authority, deliberately went beyond the limits imposed for safety in a dive. Result, he exceeded speed of sound, allegedly but, managed to get aircraft out of dive by standing on control panel.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 29, 2008)

chuckn49 said:


> I have no proof one way or the other and, from my own experience in the military, I know how legends get started. I am trying to recall conversations I had with him from 30 or 40 years ago so, it is possible that my memory is faulty but, somehow, I don't think so as to what he believed because it impressed me so at the time. Anyway, as I remember the story, the dude in question was an aeronautical engineer type who, for some reason, wished to be a pilot. The legend goes he was transitioning into 38s and, of course, they were warned about the compressibility problem in a dive, etc. I know my brother said it was a not unheard of disaster for a pilot to not be able to pull out of a dive in the 38. Long short, he calculated the 38 could be pulled out of a dive through some maneuver or other and, without authority, deliberately went beyond the limits imposed for safety in a dive. Result, he exceeded speed of sound, allegedly but, managed to get aircraft out of dive by standing on control panel.



Chuck - he could easily be an aero and at that time not have much insight on compressible flow. Practicing aeros at the leading/bleeding edge of high speed aeo were just getting clues with the compressibility issues and the P-38/P-47 were leading indicators of a problem they didn't understand.. 

Wind tunnels weren't doing supersonic studies either.

So, in his mind I suspect he looked at the evidence, high IAS at high altitude (and they could do Temperature, density calculations based on altitude) based on his airspeed, the compressibility evidence on based on stick force, and the relative shambles of wrinkled skin and popped rivets. 

What they didn't have is a pitot tube/airspeed system that also measured temperature and therby missed on the effect to Density in the Pressure calculations leading to freestream airspeed.

The reality for that airplane is that you could start out at 500,000 feet in a terminal dive, go well past the surface speed of sound, but during the coarse of flying that P-38, never exceed .80+ mach. The aerodynamics of first the wing, then the wing center body, then the prop fan interface are going to (all) act like drag brakes.. I suspect the first big Drag component would be the huge spike in wake drag during the transonic transition.

But simplistic as the concept is, all those drag factors added up to a drag chute effect at the high mach number to prevent it from going much past .75-.80 Mach. The reason (I suspect) that Lockheed posted the Dive Limit on the website I referenced - is they wanted to prevent the P-38 from going compressible - Period and the dive brakes on the P-38L did just that..


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 29, 2008)

Sorry the .75 mach figure was the wind tunnel speeds the P-38 was tested in that finally allowed Lockheed to find a solution. Another note is that very early on there was also buffeting problems around the cockpit but wing fillets solved this.

I,m not sure but I think the P-47 was able to better withstand the aerodynamic forces at high speeds (600 mph, possibly more, depending on altitude) than the P-51 or F4U, especially the later models with stronger wings and improved "blunt nosed" ailerons introduced on the D model and recovery flaps were also added to later D models.


There was a study on the Me 262 and it was found (with mathematical models) that it could exceed the sound barrier and recover under the right conditions. (a very steep dive from high altitude was required) The 262 had a trimmable tail-plane that would allow sonic dive recovery, though speed would have to decrease significantly before pulling up to prevent mechanical failure. And even so it was more than likely the wings would be warped to hell.

See: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/sound-barrier-10422.html

The most accurate way to document braking the sound barrier is a sonic boom, but in a war zone this could be confused with an explosion. Welch's dives (one several weeks prior to Yeager and another less than an hour prior to Yeager's flight in the XS-1) resulted in sonic booms being heard by the locals, the second one actually shattering some windows, this was followed by the much more docile boom of the XS-1 ~30 min later. Of course many thought the loud boom was from Yeager... (according to The Amazing George Welch: Part two )


----------



## drgondog (Feb 29, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I,m not sure but I think the P-47 was able to better withstand the aerodynamic forces at high speeds (600 mph, possibly more, depending on altitude) than the P-51 or F4U, especially the later models with stronger wings and improved "blunt nosed" ailerons introduced on the D model and recovery flaps were also added to later D models.
> 
> *The failures associated with 'aerodynamics' would be lift loads on pullout, or rudder loads causing torque on the epennage/fuselage area. You could get a catastrophic failure from either of those situations when exceeding manufacturer's Limit Loads..
> 
> ...


----------



## renrich (Feb 29, 2008)

Don't know where the numbers you all are quoting on P38 L are coming from but I have two sources that give Vmax of the L as 414 mph at 25000 feet. Dean says that it was placarded in the cockpit that dive speeds were restricted to the equilavent of Mach 0.65. That was when the AC began to get into compressibility and buffeting commenced at Mach 0.675


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 1, 2008)

I've seen the 440+ figure several plases around here, aparently the 414 figure was at normal WEP, but 100/150 Avgas with increased boost and improved strength of the engines of this model aparently allowed these higher speeds. I honestly havent seen documentation of this though...

But one thing that doesn't make sence is that the P-38L's figure is slower than the P-38J's figure (422 at 25,00 ft mph iirc) at the same altitude. The L wasn't that much heavier and had more power.


The P-47D could do 444 mph at 23,400 ft (critical altitude for 70" hg for the D's turbo) with 2,600 hp at 2,700 rpm and 100/150 fuel.

See: P-47 Performance Tests
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/24june44-progress-report.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/p-47-66inch.jpg


----------



## renrich (Mar 1, 2008)

I just found a third source(these are all books in my library) that says P38 L Vmax was 414 mph @ 25000 feet. Another source, one I quoted earlier has the performance figures on P38J and it it has Vmax of 414 mph also. This source says the additional HP given the L was diluted by the additional weight(500 lbs) To me the P38 fits in that category of AC that at a certain point additional HP cannot yield additional speed. I don't know the technical term for that but it looks like the P38 being as large as it is there is a lot of drag and the faster it goes the more drag is generated so you reach the point of diminishing returns.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 2, 2008)

I found out where those guys got the speed figures: http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-3.html (just search for P-38L + 441 or 442 or 443 mph on the forum and you'll find several threads mentioning it)

It demonstrates the 414figure at Millitary power and ~442 mph figure at WEP. And this is very close to the P-38's limit.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 2, 2008)

I was told by some old timers when I was at Lockheed that because WEP speeds were so close to maximum dive speeds at certain altitudes that speeds at WEP were just not advertised. Some of them also said that the top speed of the P-38L was actually 425 mph. Again take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## renrich (Mar 2, 2008)

Flyboy, I have a tablespoon of salt ready but your point is well made. According to Dean the Mach number do not exceed of 0.65 of the P38 corresponded to 440 mph TAS(290 mph, IAS) at 30000 feet. Reminds me of a story that the P80 had a problem at 40000 feet in that the stall speed was almost as high as it's Mach number. A little slower and it stalled, a little faster and it was in compressibility.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 2, 2008)

renrich said:


> Reminds me of a story that the P80 had a problem at 40000 feet in that the stall speed was almost as high as it's Mach number. A little slower and it stalled, a little faster and it was in compressibility.


Actaully that is true with the U-2 - a 9 knot stall/ Vne window.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Mar 2, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actaully that is true with the U-2 - a 9 knot stall/ Vne window.



Confirmed - The pilots I talked to described the flying the U2 at extreme altitude as a razor thin edge between flight and stall.

Also true that the P-38L was on ragged edge of compressibilty at Vmax and 30,000 feet so when the 38 pilot pushed the wheel forward he needed to quickly deploy dive brakes


----------



## chuckn49 (Mar 2, 2008)

It is clear from this site and other research I've done that a P-38 could not have broken the sound barrier as my brother thought, though there were lots of claims, apparently, that it had or had come close.

I did learn, however, that in a dive wind did go supersonic over the upper wing surface of the P-38. Also, allegedly, its aerodynamics made it experience much worse compressibility problems than the P-47 or P-51 since many pilots, to their eternal dismay, learned that a P-38 could dive like a bullet all the way into the ground despite reaching denser air in which the 47 or 51 could recover.

As I read this, I remembered another conversation with my brother, albeit, imperfectly, I'm sure, in which he indicated that they were taught not to fight the controls in such a dive but, rather, to allow the plane to go inverted slightly or something of that nature. 

I'm sure others here will understand and explain that better than I can. All I remember is that he mentioned the fear when trying to pull out only to have the plane fall back into the dive each time he pulled back on the control. I wish he were still alive so I could explore this more fully with him.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 3, 2008)

The Bell P-59 and Westland Welkin had similar problems at high altitude where there was very little window between shock-stall (compressibility) and normal stall. Although the P-59 could still fly well enough at an impressive 47,000 ft.


Here's an interesting example of a P-38 in compressibility: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9AcY_ Though it was probably aerodynamic forces and not G's that ripped out the canopy window, any ideas? Also the wing pylons shouldn't have come off with the drop tanks and the props should be rotating outward not inward.... (In fact the pylons were integral to the airframe and not removable iirc, and only the XP-38 had inward rotating props)


----------



## renrich (Mar 3, 2008)

A number of WW2 AC, when they got into compressibility, experienced the nose tucking under and attempting to correct using the elevators or trim tabs on the elevators usually was futile and could result in structural failure. The best means of dealing with compressibility and the resulting uncontrollable dive was to throttle back and wait for the airplane to get lower and into warmer air. Since the speed of sound varies only with air temperature, when the AC reached the warmer air it automatically came out of compressibility and became controllable. The problem with the P38 was that a number of them experienced structural failures during dives above 0.65 Mach.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 3, 2008)

renrich said:


> A number of WW2 AC, when they got into compressibility, experienced the nose tucking under and attempting to correct using the elevators or trim tabs on the elevators usually was futile and could result in structural failure. The best means of dealing with compressibility and the resulting uncontrollable dive was to throttle back and wait for the airplane to get lower and into warmer air. Since the speed of sound varies only with air temperature, when the AC reached the warmer air it automatically came out of compressibility and became controllable. The problem with the P38 was that a number of them experienced structural failures during dives above 0.65 Mach.


The area most prone to failure was the tail - That came from Tony LeVier.


----------



## renrich (Mar 3, 2008)

Intuitively, not being an engineer, the tail section(s) of the P38 looks like where a failure would happen.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 3, 2008)

renrich said:


> Intuitively, not being an engineer, the tail section(s) of the P38 looks like where a failure would happen.



The failure mode was in two areas - rudder loads for a roll or turn and elevator for pull out


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 3, 2008)

One of the first failures occurred over Burbank in 1940. Lockheed test pilot Ralph Virden was killed when the tail came off a YP-38. If I'm not mistaken part of the wreckage came down in a area known as 5 points which separates Burbank from the city of Glendale. I remember an ole timer at Lockheed told me the tail actually landed in the intersection as day shift was letting out of the Lockheed B-1 facility. Luckily no one on the ground was injured.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 3, 2008)

renrich said:


> A number of WW2 AC, when they got into compressibility, experienced the nose tucking under and attempting to correct using the elevators or trim tabs on the elevators usually was futile and could result in structural failure. The best means of dealing with compressibility and the resulting uncontrollable dive was to throttle back and wait for the airplane to get lower and into warmer air. Since the speed of sound varies only with air temperature, when the AC reached the warmer air it automatically came out of compressibility and became controllable. The problem with the P38 was that a number of them experienced structural failures during dives above 0.65 Mach.



Rich - Strictly speaking I think you meant to say density is a function of temperature and pressure and varies with altitude.

The 'nose tuck' was usually caused by the turbulent flow interfering with elevator control as the Center of Lift moving rearwards during transonic flow conditions.

In most cases the use of elevator trim was specifically recommended against.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 3, 2008)

Of course the P/F-84 Thunderjet didn't nose down when it exceeded its .82 mach limit at low altitude! It went into a violent pitch-up stall!


----------



## p-51 mustangman (Mar 3, 2008)

Chuck Yeager opined once that you had to pay attention to your trim when in a turn with the fuel tank behind the pilot full. However I can't imagine a plane with the mass of a P-38 turning with a Me109 or FW-190. the 38 may have been faster. Also think about the Me-110 the "Zerstorer" twin moter "fighter" which got mobbed during the Battle of Britain. The Luftwaffe had to send fighters to escort fighters.


----------



## renrich (Mar 4, 2008)

Bill, are you saying that the warmer the air the less dense it is and therefore the air plane has to go faster in warm air to encounter compressibility than it would in cold air? Was that not the reason the P38 encountered compressibility in the ETO more often than it did in the Pacific? The air was colder over Europe than over most of the Pacific. Would not the air at 30000 feet over Texas in August be warmer than the air over the Antarctic at 30000 feet in August?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 4, 2008)

Warmer= less dense, colder=denser, lower pressure=less dense, greater=denser

The less dense the air, the lower the speed of sound, however the higher humidity in the PTO may also have had an effect, or the pilots could have been better acquainted with their a/c.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 4, 2008)

renrich said:


> Bill, are you saying that the warmer the air the less dense it is and therefore the air plane has to go faster in warm air to encounter compressibility than it would in cold air? Was that not the reason the P38 encountered compressibility in the ETO more often than it did in the Pacific? The air was colder over Europe than over most of the Pacific. Would not the air at 30000 feet over Texas in August be warmer than the air over the Antarctic at 30000 feet in August?



KK is correct

The formula for density (rho) =1.325x Pb/Ta where Pb is barometric pressure in inches mercury and Ta is degree F (absolute - Rankin)..

The constant works for that lower portion of the atmosphere where the slope of Pressure vs altitude is a straight line..

So, for a surface temp of zero F versus 100 F the relative density is seen by comparing the denominator (460+0) versus (460+100) - i.e more dense at same altitude in colder surface area.

The compressibility then could intuitively occur at lower airspeeds on a cold German winter day than the same altitude over Dallas in summer... conversely the Temperature also affected oil coolers, etc.


----------



## HoHun (Mar 4, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>Since the speed of sound varies only with air temperature ...

Quite right.

Though ...

c = sqrt (kappa*p/rho)

... the basic relationship ...

rho = p / (R*T)

... leads to the elimination of density from the equation ...

c = sqrt (kappa * R * T).

With kappa (isentropic expansion factor) and R (universal gas constant) being constant, the speed of sound in a gas is temperature-dependend exclusively.

Note: Kuchling's Taschenbuch der Physik warns this is only valid "within wide limits", as it relies on the usual idealizations for (a mix of) ideal gases.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (Mar 5, 2008)

Rich - as your questions are related to the very complicated flow characteristics associated with 'near sonic' velocities the answer is not simple.

First the flow is moving from the theoretical fluid mechanics of incompressible (like water with low viscosity), say at .5 Mach, into the compressible fluids of near sonic flow through increasingly compressible fluid characteristics of free stream flow accelerated over an airfoil to forming a shock wave .

Actually the mere discussion of shock wave formation, boundary layer growth, and boundary layer separation as local velocity over the airfoil moves from just below Mach 1 to just past it was beyond the theoretical knowledge while I was in school.

Point one. The shock wave didn't instantaneously 'start' at Mach = 1.000, it starts a 'little bit' past that for reasons explained below.

Second point. The shock wave at that point doesn't 'penetrate' the local boundary layer at that point, but as the pressure differential changes past the initial shock wave, the complex flow down stream of the shock wave slows below supersonic and it is in this region that there is a 'backwash' if you will, that causes an increase to a separation of the boundary layer, and often the separation location moves forward of the shock.

We were actually looking at Chaos theory to predict the effects as the 'flow tubes' used in the theory exhibited subsonic in one versus supersonic in the other. I won't bore you with the details because I never 'solved' the problem analytically. We even used calculus of variations to attempt to use wind tunnel pressure distributions as the boundary conditions for solving for the theoretical velocity and airfoil (including boundary layer) relationships.

As far as I know this is still very difficult field to try to 'solve' for anything other than thin, symmetrical airfoils in a limited range of Angle of Attack

Net - At the transonic velocity REGION a test pilot will frequently describe a shimmering effect above the wing.

After that is where the next set of complex relationships need to be explored to PREDICT (rather than observe) wing/body interaction, effect to Center of Lift as shockwave moves aft, and interference with elevator as boundary layer starts and proceeds though separation.

Blah, blah blah - The Net-Net is that Local Mach is Temperature dependent at the altitudes you are interested in because given a same surface temp, the density of the air over Germany at 25,000 feet will be the same as over Dallas at 25,000 feet.

It gets considerably more complicated as the altitudes get considerably higher and you have to look at drag characteristics for orbital decay of a low orbit satellite. At that point average mean distance between molecules and surface variations and distribution of the earth's atmosphere over an oblate Spheroid (not a spher) is critical.


----------



## renrich (Mar 5, 2008)

This discussion reminds me a little of the discussion about how a wing creates lift. I had always thought it was Bernoulli's Principle until I read "Stick and Rudder" Was in an airliner one day and was sitting next to a pair of(I think) young aero engineers and I mentioned that lift was created by a wing pushing down on the air and the air pushing up. They looked at me like a heretic and started talking about Bernoulli and the air having to speed up over the airfoil and creating low pressure over the top. I then asked them how a wing created lift when the airplane is inverted. We had a lot of fun.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 5, 2008)

renrich said:


> This discussion reminds me a little of the discussion about how a wing creates lift. I had always thought it was Bernoulli's Principle until I read "Stick and Rudder" Was in an airliner one day and was sitting next to a pair of(I think) young aero engineers and I mentioned that lift was created by a wing pushing down on the air and the air pushing up. They looked at me like a heretic and started talking about Bernoulli and the air having to speed up over the airfoil and creating low pressure over the top. I then asked them how a wing created lift when the airplane is inverted. We had a lot of fun.



Roll on your back with slight forward pressure to give a freestream angle of attack on the 'original upper/now lower' airfoil.

Same principle as a curve ball. The original airfoil design approach is the Theodorsen Transformation in which the freestream flow velocity around a rotating cyclinder is mapped via complex variables to and airfoil shape.

The velocity on the rotating side which 'adds' rotational velocity vector to the freestream, is higher than the velocity over the opposite side in which the rotational velocity vector is subtracted from the freestream velocity.

Vtop = Vfs + Vr, Vbot =Vfs - Vr

The difference in Pressure is then 1/2 x rho x (Vtop>>2 - Vbot>>2) and multiply that by the cross sectional area of the ball gives you the force vector perpendicular to the freestream.. in the direction of 'lowest' pressure.

Strike! unless not enough rotational velocity is imparted by the curve-baller - in which case Home Run on the 'hanging (and slow) curve ball'

The kids were basically right.


----------



## firstflight (May 9, 2008)

One thing we have to remember in the difference between the two fighters. First the ability of performance at altitude. For the P-38 there are manuvering altitudes that hender this great bird. Below 10,000 ft the aerobatics needed to servive this combat arena kept the pilot on his toes. not to say the plane could not handle the fight but the pilot had to stay sharp, much sharper. at 30,000 ft the operation at this altitude was much harder to get the power delevoped for the engagement. not to say it could not fight, but rather a better performer at a lower altitude. Plans for a better supercharger was in the works but much to late for the P-38.

The mustang however was a much better fighter to replace the p-38, because it hade the upgrade in power performance. This gave the 51 the advantage in the fight at any altitude. 

Which is the better fighter? the question was asked?

The P-38.............Still shot down more planes in any sky.
You got to love those numbers.

Firstflight


----------



## renrich (May 9, 2008)

Don't know where your numbers come from but I believe if you are saying the P38 had more kills than P51, you are misinformed. It was third in the PTO and way back in ETO.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 9, 2008)

The power problems at altitude were due to the intercoolers in the wing LE on the P-38. This was solved in the J model and the P-38 had more power available at altitude than the P-51. (the turbochargers maintaining power better better as they didn't absorb engine power lake a mechanical supercharger)

The P-38G also introduced maneuvering flaps that (combined with ~100 hp increase/engine over the F) allowed the G to gain 180 degrees on the F in a 360 degree turn! (double the turn rate)
P-38 Performance Trials

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/fighter-comp-chart.jpg

See also:
P-38L Climb Chart
P-38L Roll Chart
P-38L Speed Chart


----------



## ccheese (May 9, 2008)

Renrich said:


> Don't know where your numbers come from but I believe if you are saying the P38 had more kills than P51, you are misinformed. It was third in the PTO and way back in ETO.




P-38 Lightning’s would be credited with more enemy kills in the Pacific Theater than any other aircraft type, which is impressive considering the amount of carrier-based battles occurring throughout the war. 

Lockheed P-38 Lightning - History, Specifications and Pictures - World Military Aircraft

Sounds impressive to me....

Charles


----------



## renrich (May 9, 2008)

According to my sourcesTO-F6F--5257 kills, F4U--2155 kills, P38--1700 kills, F4F--1408 kills. This has been discussed on other threads, specifically best Pacific fighter and these numbers seem to be authentic. In ETO-P51--4239 kills, P47--2686 kills, P38--497 kills, F6F--8 kills, F4F--2 kills. Med- P38, 1431 kills, P51--1063 kills. I am pretty sure that USN did not give credit for kills on ground, not sure about USAAF. All theatres together- P51--5944 kills, F6F--5265 kills, P38--3785 kills. Seems pretty clear from a kill point of view. The P38 in ETO had a much worse loss/sortie ratio also than P51.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 9, 2008)

The P-38 was the highest scoring USAAF a/c in the PTO.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 9, 2008)

renrich said:


> According to my sourcesTO-F6F--5257 kills, F4U--2155 kills, P38--1700 kills, F4F--1408 kills. This has been discussed on other threads, specifically best Pacific fighter and these numbers seem to be authentic. In ETO-P51--4239 kills, P47--2686 kills, P38--497 kills, F6F--8 kills, F4F--2 kills. Med- P38, 1431 kills, P51--1063 kills. I am pretty sure that USN did not give credit for kills on ground, not sure about USAAF. All theatres together- P51--5944 kills, F6F--5265 kills, P38--3785 kills. Seems pretty clear from a kill point of view. The P38 in ETO had a much worse loss/sortie ratio also than P51.



Interesting.


----------



## renrich (May 9, 2008)

There were some kills in the CBI I did not publish if you are wondering why totals don't jibe. It is interesting to look at the data and compare kills versus sorties and how long the AC was operational in a theatre. Another interesting point is to compare kills of fighters versus bombers although the only AC I have that data for is the Hellcat and Corsair. My opinion is that on this forum, because of the almost mythical reputation the P51 has enjoyed in the popular media, our members, in an attempt to bring reality to the views of the P51, have overshot the mark somewhat. In other words, we have denigrated the P51 perhaps in excess of reality. I know I get tired of seeing a TV program that says the P51 was the greatest this that or whatever. Same for books and periodicals. It wasn't the best at every job or in every condition. However, it was a war winner, and an inspired design. It's airframe combined with the Merlin and flown by the intrepid USAAF pilots accomplished some great deeds. I marvel at the thought of those, mostly twenty something, aviators setting out to fly the Mustangs deep into Europe to bring the war to the door steps of the enemy. They truly were a great generation and it was a great aircraft.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 9, 2008)

Agreed


----------



## Messy1 (May 9, 2008)

I in the end think it always came down to the skills of the pilot flying either one of these planes, both planes are proven designs. both have strengths and weeknesses.
Look at Richard Bong or Thomas McGuire. They knew exactly how to get the most out of their planes, to fight using the strengths the P-38 possesed. There were many P-51 aces who did the same.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 9, 2008)

The only performance advantages the P-51D had over the P-38L at any altitude was roll rate (up to about 300 mph) and diving speed. The P-38, even with dive flaps, was limited to .68 mach the P-51 about .8 mach depending on how close the pilot wants to push it.


----------



## drgondog (May 9, 2008)

renrich said:


> According to my sourcesTO-F6F--5257 kills, F4U--2155 kills, P38--1700 kills, F4F--1408 kills. This has been discussed on other threads, specifically best Pacific fighter and these numbers seem to be authentic. In ETO-P51--4239 kills, P47--2686 kills, P38--497 kills, F6F--8 kills, F4F--2 kills. Med- P38, 1431 kills, P51--1063 kills. I am pretty sure that USN did not give credit for kills on ground, not sure about USAAF. All theatres together- P51--5944 kills, F6F--5265 kills, P38--3785 kills. Seems pretty clear from a kill point of view. The P38 in ETO had a much worse loss/sortie ratio also than P51.



I'm still WIP on my final 8th AF ETO (to include 354 and 363FG while they were TDY to 8th AF through 21 June 1944)

The totals I have - dominantly sorting 8th AF VCB with USAF 85 'corrections' (read reductions) and by a/c type..

P-51 = 3328 air 3213 ground plus 350+ from 363 and 354 total air ~3600 air for 8th AF.

P-47 = 1550 air 739 ground

P-38 = 278 air 161 ground.

The 354FG and 363rd continued to score in Mustangs (another 500+) as well as RAF Mustangs (which I don't have) scores. I also don't have the total 9th AF P-47 scores and P-38 scores to round out the ETO

Interesting note in the strafing department. The P-51s scored 5.6 destroyed on ground for every loss strafing, the P-47 scored 3.7 (usually considered more rugged) and the P-38 scored 1.5:1 ratio for highest ratio of strafing LOSSES (all with 2 engines).

There could be a lot of resons for that - namely a lot more 51s roaming the back yards of Germany where in the early days flak defenses may not have been as high as those airfields in P-47 range.. but the 38 got its ass shot off strafing in comparison - and of course this is all about airfield Scores versus losses to ALL kinds of 8th AF strafing so that ratio must be looked at with greain of salt


----------



## drgondog (May 9, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The only performance advantages the P-51D had over the P-38L at any altitude was roll rate (up to about 300 mph) and diving speed. The P-38, even with dive flaps, was limited to .68 mach the P-51 about .8 mach depending on how close the pilot wants to push it.



You would need to compare the two as closely as possible with focused attention to the loading conditions, the various altitudes at WEP vs MP, to draw judgements like that.. Also, the Flight test versus Factory specs need to be compared.

An example is the P-51H which was tested at NAA (w/o external racks) at 487MPH TAS but the tests by USAAF in 1946 got only 450+ with external racks and combat load of internal fuel and guns ... leaving questions for both results. I have yet to see what the take off gross weight was for the NAA test in Feb 1945

I have yet to see any turning or acceleration comparisons between the two but I would expect the 51 to accelerate slightly less in the 51D and not climb as fast. I would expect the 51 to turn easily with the 38L as the W/L was slightly less, Drag a LOT less, but the 38 had a higher AR to help restore the balance.

Speculating, the two should be very close.


----------



## fly boy (May 9, 2008)

p-51


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 9, 2008)

The P-38 also had the high lift airfoil (23000 on inner wings, 4400 outer) and the twin propwash. And don't forget the fowler flaps.

And the chart doesn't show 450+ mph it shows ~440 mph at ~26,500 ft for the P-38L at 1,725 hp WEP.

And I was wrong, the P-51 does have a small top speed advantage between 5,000 and 14,000 ft. (most pronounced at ~11,500 ft where the P-51D has a ~20 mph speed advantage)


And iirc the trials were done with full main tanks with LE wing tanks dry. (300 US gal total)

I don't know the P-51's condition (probably fuse tank empty, 184 gal), but the charts shows a max speed of ~435 mph at 25,000 ft. And an initial climb of ~3,300 ft/min.


----------



## drgondog (May 10, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The P-38 also had the high lift airfoil (23000 on inner wings, 4400 outer) and the twin propwash. And don't forget the fowler flaps.*Interesting, and perhaps important for either landing speeds or lift calculations*
> 
> And the chart doesn't show 450+ mph it shows ~440 mph at ~26,500 ft for the P-38L at 1,725 hp WEP.
> 
> ...



No, the 51B/C/d and H tests on Mike Williams site were performed with full internal fuel including fuselage tanks.. you need to compare the P-38L at the same tactical load to maintain perspective.. the 3,330 fpm is probably close from Sl area.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 10, 2008)

Thanks for the correction.

But wan't it unsafe to carry much more than a 1/2 full fuse tank due to stability (CoG) problems?



> In service, however, the directional instability caused by the presence of a full fuel tank behind the pilot's seat was a hazard for new or inexperienced pilots, and the tank was usually restricted to 65 US gallons. This extra tank, nevertheless, still made a crucial difference in combat radius, and it was standard equipment in all future production versions.



And on the pylons, according to FLYBOYJ, the P-38's pylons were integral to the airframe.


Agree on the load, to compare you'd need figures with the full LE wing tanks. (2x 62 US gal) and the P-51 with the max safe fuel limit. (around 250 US gal) In which condition both would have very similar range.


And on the roll rate, the P-38's boosted ailerons meant roll rate kept increasing as speed increased. In the chart a roll rate of just over 90*/s is shown at 350 mph and ~95 degrees/s at 400 mph.



But another advantage of the P-51 is that it cruised well at high speed, making cruise speeds aproaching 400 mph practical. (and above 400 w/out drop tanks) At ~410 mph the P-51D could still manage almost 800 mi. (granted, with a full fuse tank, so practical closer to 700 mi)
Try that with the P-38 (with 425 gal) and it's down to less than 500 mi at ~380 mph.

as seen here:


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Thanks for the correction.
> And on the pylons, according to FLYBOYJ, the P-38's pylons were integral to the airframe.


When did I post that?


----------



## drgondog (May 10, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Thanks for the correction.
> 
> But wan't it unsafe to carry much more than a 1/2 full fuse tank due to stability (CoG) problems?
> 
> ...



The charts above are the same Lockheed Charts I posted for you several months ago. The thing about them is that we know nothing about the test conditions. I have known Marketing and Sales to occasionally Not disclose everything in test comparisons against a competitor - which is why I tend toward believing Flight Tests with no axe to grind or impression they want conveyed. For example - where did they get the Fw 190 test data? or how was the P-38L loaded relative to internal wing tanks.. take a couple of hundred gallons out and the rolling inertia will be improved.

The post war tests against Fw 190D's for example always leave you wondering how the tests would have been run if say a Focke Wulf factory team with spares and new engines had been pitted against North American and Lockheed and Vought factory reps - and the all the aircraft flown by factory test pilots?

Actually I trust the war time tests more than post war simply because I believe the USAAF, RAF and USN for example - really cared about conveying to the combat operations the strengths and weaknesses of the respective a/c? We can always debate whether the engines were at Spec or the controls properly rigged - but I doubt that the intentions were to 'sell' one aircraft over another in the case of enemy a/c performance.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 10, 2008)

That was a quote from wmaxt:


> BTW: The P-38s racks/pylons were structural components of the aircraft and not removable in normal terms. Even Yippee, the show plane, kept its racks.


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/interesting-p-38-comments-4970-4.html



However you're right Bill that doesn't make much sense, and there was another argument here:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-pacific-fighter-444-11.html (anonymous is RG Lunatic)



And I cant find the condition for testing now, someone listed it on an old therad, but I can't seem to find it. (pertaining to the planes and pilots of WWI site's climb speed and roll charts)

So I'm not totally sure on the testing conditions. (climb and roll would be the most affected by weight changes, speed would a little but not nearly as much)
But I'm almost certain it said pylons were on.
The wing tanks thing might not have been for that chart, but I though it was.


wmaxt hasn't been on in a while (2 years) though.

Maybe syscom3 knows about it.


----------



## merlin (May 12, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> If it was designed as a fighter, why was it given the A-36 designation?
> 
> A = Attack
> 
> P = Pursuit



Because of '*politics'*! The USAAC already had the fighters they wanted, they didn't need a British inspired aircraft to enter the ring. It was a case of - 'all right I suppose we could use it as a dive-bomber'. And again after that, it was a struggle, with a lot of lobbying, to get the US to order the Mustang with the Merlin engine in quantity.

The P-38 with its allison engine, I believe, had problems with the cold air over northern Europe, so the Pacific was a better place where it could be more effective, and where the extra engine gave a better safety margin over the long stretches of ocean.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 12, 2008)

It had nothing to do with the allison engine, the main engine problem at high alt was due to inadequate intercoolers, this was solved on the J model with the chin intercoolers. The major problem with cold was the lack of adequate cockpit heating on early models, also solved on the J.

There were some less frequent at high alt, some with overcooling of the engines, and sometimes the turbochargers freezing up iirc. These were also solved on the J model. 


That quote from syscom3 is very old and has already been answered (if you read through the first couple pages) but:

The Mustang wasn't inspired By the Brits, NA already had it on the drawing board as a private project when they were asked to build P-40's, that's why the prototype was made so fast. The political issue with the USAAC/AAF was that it was a private project, not built to compete in one of there specifications, so it was ignored at first. It was the Brits' request for export P-40's which spurred development though, but they had nothing to do with the actual design of the airframe.

See: North American P-51 Mustang

And the A-36 wasn't the first version of the Mustang to see service with the USAAF and the A designation wasn't a political move. The A-36 was a dedicated GA aircraft, it even had dive breaks for dive bombing! It was capable of dogfighting below 15,000 ft though. The P-51/F-6A (NA-91, Mk.1A in British service) North American P-51/F-6A Mustang armed photo-recon a/c was the first to see service and they were direct conversions from the Mustang I.

And before that several Mustang I's (NA-73's) were taken by the USAAF as XP-51's North American XP-51 Mustang

And also on that page the political/bureaucratic problems:


> At that time, the Army was overloaded with other test programs, the Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Bell P-39 Airacobra, and Republic P-47 Thunderbolt being thought to meet all the Army's requirements for fighter aircraft. Furthermore, the Mustang was a "foreign" type not built to any American specification, and was therefore way down on the Army's list of priorities. ... The Mustang may have been the victim of the "Not Invented Here" (NIH) syndrome, in which the Army looked askance at an upstart aircraft which had not been designed in response to any of its official requirements.


----------



## renrich (May 12, 2008)

Don't forget the P38 "problem" withe cold air over Europe and the compressibility situation.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 12, 2008)

I did address the cold problem at the beginning of my post.



> It had nothing to do with the allison engine, the main engine problem at high alt was due to inadequate intercoolers, this was solved on the J model with the chin intercoolers. *The major problem with cold was the lack of adequate cockpit heating on early models*, also solved on the J.
> 
> There were some less frequent at high alt, some with overcooling of the engines, and sometimes the turbochargers freezing up iirc. These were also solved on the J model.


----------



## renrich (May 17, 2008)

KK, what I am talking about is the problem the P38 had where at high altitudes in the cold air over Europe the P38 could exceed it's Mach limit(compressibility) if it went into a dive, become uncontrollable and possibly suffer structural failure. This was not as much of a problem in the Pacific as the air was warmer. As you know the speed of sound varies with the air temperature. That problem was solved to a great extent in the late models by the addition of dive brakes.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 17, 2008)

Technically they weren't just dive breaks though, but I get the point. (the flaps changed the pressure distribution of the wing, reducing the shock wave, and both improoved the lift distribution in compressibility and allowed some elevator controll to be regained)


Hoever the compressibility problems were the main limting factor in the P-38's development, as it would hit compressibility at just over 450 mph at 30,000 ft, so it couldn't compete with the level speed of the P-47N/M, and P-51H (and 109K, 190D-13, Ta-152, late model Spits etc) let alone the dive speed.

The only way to fix that would be to redesign the wing to a new airfoil, which couldn have been possible to do without altering most of the wing structure its self, and it shouldn't have been unduely difficult. (the simplest way would be to keep thickness and main wing structure and increase the chord allong with altering the airfoil type)

But there my have been other Issues I don't know of.


----------



## drgondog (May 18, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Technically they weren't just dive breaks though, but I get the point. (the flaps changed the pressure distribution of the wing, reducing the shock wave, and both improoved the lift distribution in compressibility and allowed some elevator controll to be regained)
> 
> *ouch. the only solution for the P-38 was to keep the dive (and level) flight speed below .75+ Mach. It is true that flaps increase the CL but really has nothing to do with shock wave or compressibility 'reduction'. To deploy flaps of any kind at those kinds of speeds would mean you intended to make a lot of connected parts 'disconnect'.*
> 
> ...



Compressibility and 'masking' the elevator as well as the elevator flutter issues were the dominant problems preventing it from being a superb high altitude fighter. They solved the flutter issues with the 38J IIRC and the dive/speed brake kits, then the factory 38L solved the 'instant compressibility' issue when entering a dive at high speed and altitude

- but only by keeping the airspeed to .68-.7Mach where it really could not catch up to a 109 or 190 - which did not have the compressibility issue at higher speeds - at least not until they were doing maybe 50-75mph faster speed

The engine/supercharger problems pre 38L were high altitude reliability issues

the cockpit heating issues made for extremely uncomfortable flying and increased fatigue for the pilot on long range, high altitude escort


----------



## syscom3 (May 18, 2008)

I saw the P38 and P51 fly at Chino yesterday.

No doubt about it, the P38 looked better.

Therefore, the P38 is better than the P51.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 18, 2008)

> ouch. the only solution for the P-38 was to keep the dive (and level) flight speed below .75+ Mach. It is true that flaps increase the CL but really has nothing to do with shock wave or compressibility 'reduction'. To deploy flaps of any kind at those kinds of speeds would mean you intended to make a lot of connected parts 'disconnect'.



No, I didn't mean the normal flaps, I was talking about the dive recovery flaps, located under the wing just outboard of the nacelles.
(similar ones later fitted to the P-80's wingroots, and also used on late P-47D's and P-47M/N's)

Lockheed P-38J Lightning


> The problem was eventually traced to a shock wave that formed over the wings as the Lightning entered the transonic regime, the shock wave preventing the elevators from operating. In order to counteract this problem, starting with the P-38J-25-LO (Model 422-81-23) production block, a small electrically-operated dive flap was added underneath each wing outboard of the engine nacelles and hinged to the main spar. These dive flaps would change the characteristics of the airflow over the wing, offsetting the formation of the shock wave and permitting the elevators to operate properly. This innovation largely solved the problems encountered by diving P-38s.



Also (wikipedia)


> In February 1943, quick-acting dive flaps were tried and proven by Lockheed test pilots. The dive flaps were installed outboard of the engine nacelles and in action they extended downward 35° in 1½ seconds. The flaps did not act as a speed brake, they affected the center of pressure distribution so that the wing would not lose its lift.


Republic P-47D Thunderbolt


> The high diving speeds of which the Thunderbolt was capable pushed the aircraft into the edge of compressibility, and new blunt-nosed ailerons were fitted to improve controllability at these high speeds. In order to help in dive recovery at these high speeds, an electrically-operated dive recovery flap was fitted on the undersurfaces of each wing.


----------



## drgondog (May 18, 2008)

KK - you will note that I posed 'inboard wing body' considerations re: shock wave and or 'masking the elevator'.. out board of nacelle should not be much of an issue regarding the elevator issues?

You will also note I passed on your 'Flap' comments and focused on the dive/speed brake.. virtually the same approach used on the F7F.

NOBODY deploys flaps at high speed although a 51 could deploy 10 degrees at high speed to a.) lose a lot of energy, and b.) cut a turn - but it better get the result the pilot was looking for because it negated a lot of energy maueverability advantage it may have had..


----------



## renrich (May 20, 2008)

My reference states that the P38 was limited to the equivalent of a dive speed of .65 Mach and that was placarded in the cockpit.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 20, 2008)

And I think it was raised to .68 Mach with the dive flaps intalled.


----------



## HJERIA (May 23, 2008)

P 51 Was faster and more maneuverable, The Lightning was stronger and had better volume of fire, with its guns in the nose.... I guess always the hands make the difference, but I think the Mustang was a little superior.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 24, 2008)

Maneuverability depends on the context and models each having advantages, though overall maneuverability of the pre-G P-38 had mediocre maneuverability in every respect. (the G model received combat flaps which nearly doubled the turn rate)

And initial roll rate was rather poor until the boosted ailerons on the late J models.


----------



## parsifal (May 28, 2008)

one thing that does not appear to be brought up in this thread. The P-38 cost, on average about $91000 US dollars to build, wheras the P-51D only cost $51000. For comparison, the P-47 cost about $67000 per unit.


----------



## trackend (May 28, 2008)

P51 for me, one lump, lower maintenance time, easier to keep flying, easier to manufacture these go towards IMO making it a better fighter. a fighter on the deck and not in the air is not a fighter Impressive though the Lighting undoubtedly was I believe the Mustang to be more suited to the task.


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

parsifal said:


> one thing that does not appear to be brought up in this thread. The P-38 cost, on average about $91000 US dollars to build, wheras the P-51D only cost $51000. For comparison, the P-47 cost about $67000 per unit.



And that reflects 1945 unit costs. The 51 went from 12,000 hours to build the A-36 to 2200 hours for the P-51.

IIRC the P-38 in 1943 was around 111K and the 51 was near 59K? The P-47 was around 80K in 1943 I think. 

Syscom had the actuals on all three by tables on one of the other posts.


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Maneuverability depends on the context and models each having advantages, though overall maneuverability of the pre-G P-38 had mediocre maneuverability in every respect. (the G model received combat flaps which nearly doubled the turn rate)
> 
> And initial roll rate was rather poor until the boosted ailerons on the late J models.



The P-38L was the only version that finally approached manuevering equivalency in several, better than some, and worse than a few factors vs P-51


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 28, 2008)

Yeah, the roll rate was a major limiting factor (which had continually degraded up to the J model, particularly with full LE tanks, until the boosted ailerons were added)

And Bill, you do understand I was talking about dive flaps (dive recovery flaps) which are mounted outboard of the nacelles under the main spar. They obvioulsy would have a significant drag effect, but the main purpose was to prvent the pitch-down behavure iirc. Granted that earlier statement about shock-wave reduction/delay doesn't make sense.

And AFIK the P-38 never had actual airbrakes/dive-brakes.

Wikipedia seems to have gotten it right:


> The dive flaps were installed outboard of the engine nacelles and in action they extended downward 35° in 1½ seconds. The flaps did not act as a speed brake, they affected the center of pressure distribution so that the wing would not lose its lift


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Yeah, the roll rate was a major limiting factor (which had continually degraded up to the J model, particularly with full LE tanks, until the boosted ailerons were added)
> 
> And Bill, you do understand I was talking about dive flaps (dive recovery flaps) which are mounted outboard of the nacelles under the main spar. They obvioulsy would have a significant drag effect, but the main purpose was to prvent the pitch-down behavure iirc. Granted that earlier statement about shock-wave reduction/delay doesn't make sense.
> 
> ...



KK - I DO realize that. That is why I call them dive brakes instead of flaps - based on loaction. And I do agree (not that it matter what I agree) that it was to keep the dive speed in the .68 to .70 range - where the P-38 was both manueverable and still controllable.

Now, controlling the pitch down tendency is all about preventing compressibility which in turn masks the elevator, which in turn, prevents the pilot to offset the pitch down effect by pulling back on the stick (meaning an 'up' elevator deflection). He needs to have effective 'up' elevator to give negative lift force at tail (relative to wing positive lift). 

At that speed (>.72-.75mach) the pitching moment of the airfoil/body combination tends to pitch down and the elevator cannot help because it is 'masked' by the turbulent flow between the nacelles during compressibily turbulence. This is why early recovery and nose up capability started with trim tab being the first control surface small enough for normal strength to move.. but very dangerous loading at that high speed.

Does that make sense?


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 28, 2008)

I know the "tuck under" was a result of the shockwave/tyrbulent flow causing the tailplane to lose downward pressure ("inverted lift"), but I also think that the dive flaps forced pitch up if control had been lost by increasing lift w/out changing AoA. (granted they would also have a braking, or speed limiting effect)


See what was mentioned here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/elevator-trim-during-combat-13155-3.html


buzzard's comments also said that the tailplane actually exhibeted a positive lift, forcefully pitching the a/c down, and attempts to pull up on the elevator (if you had the strength) resulted in further pitch down, a kind of "control reversal."


----------



## drgondog (May 29, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I know the "tuck under" was a result of the shockwave/tyrbulent flow causing the tailplane to lose downward pressure ("inverted lift"), but I also think that the dive flaps forced pitch up if control had been lost by increasing lift w/out changing AoA. (granted they would also have a braking, or speed limiting effect)
> 
> 
> See what was mentioned here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/elevator-trim-during-combat-13155-3.html
> ...




The P-38, without an elevator at all, would pitch down due to the Center of Lift and Pitching Moment of the wing body combination relative to CG. 

If masking the elevator by the turbulence caused by separation 'blanked' the elevator, from creating either positive or negative lift at the tail, it would pitch the nose down.

I haven't looked at the Force Diagrams for the P-38 but this would be common design practice. 

Think of it this way - if the natural tendency for the P-38 was to pitch up when elevator control was lost during compressiblity, it would start to recover from the dive 'hands off'


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 29, 2008)

Blanking would make more sense (I haven't seen mention of control reversal elswhere either, except for accounts of pilots mistaking the "tuck under" for control reversal)

I do believe the dive flaps forced a pitch op though.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 29, 2008)

from the site buzzard posted in the elevator trim thread:

Research in Supersonic Flight and the Breaking of the Sound Barrier


> The general aeronautics community was suddenly awakened to the realities of the unknown flight regime in November 1941, when Lockheed test pilot Ralph Virden could not pull the new, high-performance P-38 out of a high-speed dive, and crashed. Virden was the first human fatality due to adverse compressibility effects, and the P-38, shown below, was the first airplane to Suffer from these effects. The P-38 exceeded its critical Mach number in an operational dive, and penetrated well into the regime of the compressibility burble at its terminal dive speed, as shown by the bar chart on page 80 .35 The problem encountered by Virden, and many other P-38 pilots at that time, was that beyond a certain speed in a dive, the elevator controls suddenly felt as if they were locked. And to make things worse, the tail suddenly produced more lift, pulling the P-38 into an even steeper dive. This was called the "tuck-under" problem. It is important to note that the NACA soon solved this problem, using its expertise in compressibility effects. Although Lockheed consulted various aerodynamicists, including Theodore Von Kármán at Caltech, it turned out that John Stack at NACA Langley, with his accumulated experience in compressibility effects, was the only one to properly diagnose the problem. The wing of the P-38 lost lift when it encountered the compressibility burble. As a result, the downwash angle of the flow behind the wing was reduced. This in turn increased the effective angle of attack of the flow encountered by the horizontal tail, increasing the lift on the tail, and pitching the P-38 to a progressively steepening dive totally beyond the control of the pilot. Stack's solution was to place a special flap under the wing, to be employed only when these compressibility effects were encountered. The flap was not a conventional dive flap intended to reduce the speed. Rather, Stack's idea was to use the flap to maintain lift in the face of the compressibility burble, hence eliminating the change in the downwash angle, and therefore allowing the horizontal tail to function properly. This is a graphic example of how, in the early days of high-speed flight, the NACA compressibility research was found to be vital as real airplanes began to sneak up on Mach one.36
> 
> Indeed, it was time for real airplanes to be used to probe the mysteries of the unknown transonic gap. It was time for the high-speed research airplane to become a reality. The earliest concrete proposal along these lines was made by Ezra Kotcher, a senior instructor at the Army Air Corps Engineering School at Wright Field (a forerunner of today's Air Force Institute of Technology). Kotcher was a 1928 graduate of the University of California,
> ---------------------------------------
> 36. The "tuck-under" problem, and its technical Solution, is described in John D. Anderson, Jr., Introduction to Flight (New York, NY. McGraw-Hill Book Co., 3rd ed., 1989), pp. 406-08.


----------



## drgondog (May 30, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Blanking would make more sense (I haven't seen mention of control reversal elswhere either, except for accounts of pilots mistaking the "tuck under" for control reversal)
> 
> *I haven't seen this but could be true prior to compressibility airflow, ditto flutter.*
> 
> I do believe the dive flaps forced a pitch op though.



I haven't seen any data on that. Dive flaps are placed to primarily slow the bird down, usually along a stress line where the load can be absorbed w/o torquing the wing in any way.

Remembering that dive flaps are used primarily to Keep you out of compressibility, designing them in such a way as to cause the a/c to pitch up means I have to screw more with stick or trim to stay on target in a below compressibility dive..

On the other hand it would tend to pull me out of a dive if I blacked out..


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 30, 2008)

What about the NASA article I posted? (the one buzzard posted on the elevator trim thread)

Research in Supersonic Flight and the Breaking of the Sound Barrier


> The general aeronautics community was suddenly awakened to the realities of the unknown flight regime in November 1941, when Lockheed test pilot Ralph Virden could not pull the new, high-performance P-38 out of a high-speed dive, and crashed. Virden was the first human fatality due to adverse compressibility effects, and the P-38, shown below, was the first airplane to Suffer from these effects. The P-38 exceeded its critical Mach number in an operational dive, and penetrated well into the regime of the compressibility burble at its terminal dive speed, as shown by the bar chart on page 80 .35 The problem encountered by Virden, and many other P-38 pilots at that time, was that beyond a certain speed in a dive, the elevator controls suddenly felt as if they were locked.* And to make things worse, the tail suddenly produced more lift, pulling the P-38 into an even steeper dive. This was called the "tuck-under" problem*. It is important to note that the NACA soon solved this problem, using its expertise in compressibility effects. Although Lockheed consulted various aerodynamicists, including Theodore Von Kármán at Caltech, it turned out that John Stack at NACA Langley, with his accumulated experience in compressibility effects, was the only one to properly diagnose the problem. *The wing of the P-38 lost lift when it encountered the compressibility burble. As a result, the downwash angle of the flow behind the wing was reduced. This in turn increased the effective angle of attack of the flow encountered by the horizontal tail, increasing the lift on the tail*, and pitching the P-38 to a progressively steepening dive totally beyond the control of the pilot.* Stack's solution was to place a special flap under the wing, to be employed only when these compressibility effects were encountered. The flap was not a conventional dive flap intended to reduce the speed. Rather, Stack's idea was to use the flap to maintain lift in the face of the compressibility burble, hence eliminating the change in the downwash angle, and therefore allowing the horizontal tail to function properly.* This is a graphic example of how, in the early days of high-speed flight, the NACA compressibility research was found to be vital as real airplanes began to sneak up on Mach one.36
> 
> Indeed, it was time for real airplanes to be used to probe the mysteries of the unknown transonic gap. It was time for the high-speed research airplane to become a reality. The earliest concrete proposal along these lines was made by Ezra Kotcher, a senior instructor at the Army Air Corps Engineering School at Wright Field (a forerunner of today's Air Force Institute of Technology). Kotcher was a 1928 graduate of the University of California,
> ---------------------------------------
> 36. The "tuck-under" problem, and its technical Solution, is described in John D. Anderson, Jr., Introduction to Flight (New York, NY. McGraw-Hill Book Co., 3rd ed., 1989), pp. 406-08.


----------



## drgondog (May 30, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> What about the NASA article I posted? (the one buzzard posted on the elevator trim thread)
> 
> Research in Supersonic Flight and the Breaking of the Sound Barrier



what is your question?


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 31, 2008)

It disagrees with the flaps simply being airbrakes, I was asking your oppinion of the article, if it changes what you were saying and if the explanation is valid.

It also says that the tailplane wasn't just "blanked" but that the wing lost lift and the tailplane's lift increased further increasing tuck-under.
(see the bold portions)


----------



## otftch (May 31, 2008)

I was under the impresion that in order to supply an aircraft under lend-lease,that the aircraft had to be in production for the US.I remember reading somewhere that the powers that be in the Army Air Force did not really want another fighter(they were commited to the P-40) but by designating the Mustang as a ground attack aircraft they could get it into production and thus into the hands of the RAF.Sounds kind of wierd but these were the same people who took the superchargers off of the P-39.
Ed


----------



## drgondog (May 31, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> What about the NASA article I posted? (the one buzzard posted on the elevator trim thread)
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 31, 2008)

That makes a lot more sense, particulalr on the tail "lift" issue. (that was a particularly confused part)


But don't you think by the angle of deployment, and the positioning under the wing the dive flap would cause a pitch up? (not act as a high-lift device, but forse the wing to a higher AoA if elevator remained neutral, and I don't think it would have been used at takeoff because it wouldn't act to increase lift, in fact it would probably disrupt airflow and decrease actual lift at a given AoA)

Other dive brakes had similar effects, so as to continue a dive pull-out after the pilot had blacked out, the a/c pitching up with stick neutral, so the plane had to be held in a dive. (most dive bombers for example)


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 31, 2008)

otftch said:


> I was under the impresion that in order to supply an aircraft under lend-lease,that the aircraft had to be in production for the US.I remember reading somewhere that the powers that be in the Army Air Force did not really want another fighter(they were commited to the P-40) but by designating the Mustang as a ground attack aircraft they could get it into production and thus into the hands of the RAF.Sounds kind of wierd but these were the same people who took the superchargers off of the P-39.
> Ed



That's not really correct, the P-51 was designed and built as a fighter, and the USAAF tested it as a fighter. The RAF was the first to use it, the Mustang I (4x .50 and 4x .303) and IA (4x 20 mm cannon) on variousl low level missions. 

The USAAF's first operations were with the P-51/F-6A, Mustang IA's modified as photo-recon a/c. And before that the USAAF had the XP-51.

The political problems were true on the part of the USAAF not being enthused about another fighter, but not in the same way you're making out. (it was considered due to the "not invented here syndrome" of the USAAC, as it hadn't been built to any Army specification)



And the reason for the P-51's low altitude limitation was due to the RAF wanting a liquid cooled engine, and no turbocharging, so it got the same V-1710-F3R (-39 in USAAF) engine as the P-40D/E.


North American P-51 Mustang


And the thing about the lend-lease is untrue, firstle the Mustang (as were P-40's) had been purchaced by Britain before lend-lease started, and those that were "lent" of the Mustang I and IA were designated P-51's with USAAF serial numbers for those contracts. (also note that the A-36 was a different a/c than the Mustang I or IA, and was designed later, with different armament, engine, and added dive brakes and bomb racks)

Mustang I/IA for RAF


> On March 11, 1941, the Lend/Lease Act was passed by Congress, permitting the "lending" of American-built aircraft to nations deemed "vital to the security of the United States". On September 25, 1941, the US Army ordered 150 Mustangs under the provisions of Lend-Lease for delivery to Britain.* All previous RAF Mustangs had been direct purchases by Britain. *These Lend-Lease Mustangs were designated Mustang Mark IA by the RAF and NA-91 by the factory. The RAF serial numbers assigned to this lot were FD418/FD567. For contractual purposes, these aircraft were assigned the *US designation of P-51*, and the Allison V-1710-F3R engine was given the US Army designation V-1710-39. The P-51s were assigned the USAAF serials 41-37320/37469.



This was after receiving over 300 Mustang I's.


----------



## drgondog (May 31, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> That makes a lot more sense, particulalr on the tail "lift" issue. (that was a particularly confused part)
> 
> 
> But don't you think by the angle of deployment, and the positioning under the wing the dive flap would cause a pitch up? (not act as a high-lift device, but forse the wing to a higher AoA if elevator remained neutral, and I don't think it would have been used at takeoff because it wouldn't act to increase lift, in fact it would probably disrupt airflow and decrease actual lift at a given AoA)
> ...



In most cases, with or without dive brakes, a pilot changed elevator trim before the dive (or even high speed strafing run) so that there was a slight 'nose up' force on the controls for that reason. In the case of the strafing run it was a slight safety margin to keep from over fixating on a target and fly the ship into the ground.

I am not saying this dive brake could not change an AoA, I just can't think how it would be designed for that... when back pressure on the stick in sub transonic speed would do that for you. In a steep transonic dive you want to slow down first, get nose up second - because of the pull out loads on the tail or the wing root.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 31, 2008)

Ok Bill.
---------------------------------------------

And on the Mustang (on *oftch's* comment) again; from my post on pg. 18:



kool kitty89 said:


> The Mustang wasn't inspired By the Brits, NA already had it on the drawing board as a private project when they were asked to build P-40's, that's why the prototype was made so fast. The political issue with the USAAC/AAF was that it was a private project, not built to compete in one of there specifications, so it was ignored at first. It was the Brits' request for export P-40's which spurred development though, but they had nothing to do with the actual design of the airframe.
> 
> See: North American P-51 Mustang
> 
> ...





And on the comment of the USAAC ruining the P-39, that's anoher story in its own right. (note it was a turbocharger that was elliminated, and that's not the only thing they messed up, there were a couple positive changes, but far too many resulting hinderances)


----------



## buzzard (Jun 2, 2008)

drgondog,

The AoA issue as it relates to the P-38's compressibility problem seems to me to concern the altered flow of air coming off the wing, and it's interaction with the tailplane.

I'll try to explain it as I understand (or perhaps, mis-understand) it:

In normal flight, the air-flow from the wing goes straight back to the TP, or possibly with a slight downwash, so that raising the elevator forces the tail down, increasing the AoA of the wing. In the compressibility 'burble', the turbulent flow off the wing actually strikes the TP from underneath, resulting in a positive angle of attack as the TP relates to the disturbed airflow. This lifts the tail and steepens the dive. Even when the elevator is raised, it is still at a positive AoA to the airflow. The dive flap forces the air downwards, increasing the lift to the wing, and the airflow on the upper surface, no longer compressed upwards by the disturbed flow from beneath, restores the negative AoA to the TP/elevator, and pitch control of the a/c is regained.

On second thought, since the dive flaps are outboard of the TP, it's more likely that the increased lift of the mainwing simply overpowers the lift generated by the TP. And of course, the dive flap also adds considerable drag, slowing down the a/c. But the most vital function is to restore lift to the wing, increasing its AoA without also increasing the AoA of the TP . At least as I semi-understand it  

JL

EDIT: I guess I should have read your post first...


----------



## drgondog (Jun 2, 2008)

buzzard said:


> drgondog,
> 
> The AoA issue as it relates to the P-38's compressibility problem seems to me to concern the altered flow of air coming off the wing, and it's interaction with the tailplane.
> 
> ...



They should never use the manueveing flap in a high speed dive - I may be wrong about that but it would not only add a lot of stress but it would also tend to pitch the nose down..


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 3, 2008)

I don't think he was talking about the maneuvering flaps Bill. He said "dive flap"


----------



## drgondog (Jun 3, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I don't think he was talking about the maneuvering flaps Bill. He said "dive flap"



I understand that.. I have made distinctions between dive brakes and manuevering flaps, including locations and what I think were the design purposes.

My opinion is that the electrically operated manuevering aerodynamic surfaces designed to increase AoA with what, 8 degree deflection?, is all about CL increase and will have the effect of a.) slowing the 38 down slightly , and b.) decreasing the radius of turn. I call this 'part', in this application, the manuevering flap - even though IIRC it was simply a stop setting on the total flap control - I think at that stop it was 8 degrees. 
"It" was part of the entire fowler flap system, inboard and outboard of the nacelles.

This was NEVER designed to be opened to increase AoA and 'slow the airplane down in a high speed dive'

My opinion is that the electrically operated plate like feature outboard of each nacelle at 30% chord was designed to deploy at .65 to .70 mach and slow the P-38 down to a controllable dive at a speed below compressibility. Secondly, my opinion is that is does not increase lift per se. If it did at .68 Mach, that should increase the airflow over the top surface and in turn increase the velocity - defeating the purpose... a point of speculation is that it COULD increase lift in that local region by disrupting the boundary layer behind it - thereby increasing the local pressure underneath the wing while the top surface is undisturbed in the higher velocity region on the top surface of the wing.. 

Would the latter case help the P-38 Pitch Up? I have no idea. - it would depend on whether the aerodynamic center moves back or forward.

If so, it was a bonus, not an intent. The intent of the dive brake is to slow it down and keep the speed below .68 Mach in a dive.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 3, 2008)

Ok, and the P-38 manual does specifically state that maneuvering flaps should not be deployed durring high-speed dives due to risk of structural failure.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 4, 2008)

Found an interesting article on the P-38's compressibility problems, haven't finished it yet. Service Testing Compressibility | Air Classics | Find Articles at BNET.com


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 5, 2008)

Finished it, and pg. 4 and 5 have the most interesting info.

Service Testing Compressibility | Air Classics | Find Articles at BNET.com


> "*The only time the dive flaps would pitch the P-38 nose upward would be at Mach number under critical. *Every time I dove a P-38 at critical Mach number I had to pull, sometimes hard as hell! During the final dive test that I made in about July 1943, I started pulling out of my 60-degree dive angle at 20,000-ft. At 19,000-ft 1 had only gained one degree. 1 finally got it under full control at about 10,000-ft but all six red warning lights were on and 1 thought the plane's parts were just barely holding hands!




And an interesting and surprising comparison: Service Testing Compressibility | Air Classics | Find Articles at BNET.com


> "I don't think another pilot in the history of the P-38 has had more experience with compressibility as I have had. From the time MiIo and I started doing the dive tests together, I didn't stop doing them as long as I had those special dive flaps, including doing them with my own P-38.
> 
> Most Popular
> Articles in Home Garden
> ...



I'd read about such problems on the P-47B with fabric control surfaces, and that the superceding metal ailerons of the late/retrofitted B's and the P-47C had a similar problem, albeit at a much higher speed.

That was fixed with the addition of "blunt nosed" ailerons into the D production series.

Late D models (as well as M and N's) got underwing dive recovery flaps as well.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 5, 2008)

KK - I found the last comment interesting because he seems to have made the same initial (wrong) assumption about the 'blanking effect' of the trubulent flow that I did.

"When the P-38 wing developed a supersonic enclosure at the critical Mach number, the center of pressure moved aft, causing the nose to tuck down. The shock-stall aft of the shock wave caused a turbulent wake which impinged on the tail and caused buffet effect and reduced down load helped to tuck more and reduce control effectiveness. 

The reduced control 'effectiveness' seemed to be far more that the airflow had such a high dynamic pressure due to the near Mach velocities over top and bottom surfaces - equally - that the pilots just didn't have the muscle (pre-boosted tab) to make ANY control deflection..

He didn't separate the reduced downwash (due to loss of lift in the 'bubble') from the two conditions he described. True - it lessened the local AoA of the HS which in turn reduced the down load on the tail leading to a little more nose under pitch. False - it reduced control effectiveness..

In my opinion the reduction in control effectiveness was the massive dynamic pressure 'pushing' on the elevator whether you were trying to get it to deflect up or down.

I did have to laugh a little as I visualized him thumping his chest on the 'beat their asses' comment..

And you are right about the metal elevator kits sent to UK in the August, 1944 timeframe although the fabric covered rudder retained on all the 51's. They helped a little bit and the D changed horizontal stabilizer incidence slightly 'up' to reduce a slight tuck issue. The 51 was more prone to a yaw force to the right in a critical mach dive than a tuck under.

ALL of these ships experienced 'extreme stick force' issues while in the Mach crit velocity range - I would expect the 51 to experience it longer simply because of far less airframe drag - but I don't know that for sure.

As both the P-47D and 51B-D entered Mcrit at speeds > .07-.12 higher than any P-38 built, one wonders a little about his recount of 'staying with them' and what they were doing in the manuevers. The 51 placard 'Do not Exceed' is .75 versus the P-38 (with or w/o dive brakes) is .68. which is about a 50+ mph separation without stretching it to ultimate load limits.

When was the date of the 'test'? sounds like pre conversion days for the 55th so before June-July, 1944? And I wonder if the 51 couldn't get into high blower at 22,000, what else was wrong with that particular ship?


----------



## buzzard (Jun 5, 2008)

I'm somewhat perplexed by your insistance that the dive flap functions primarily as a speed brake given that all the literature states that it works by restoring lift to the wing. I'm certainly no aerodynamicist, but I have some grasp of Newton's 3rd law of motion, and it seems to me that if the airstream encounters the forward chord (ahead of the most violent compressibility-induced turbulence) mounted dive flap at at 30 degree angle, the air will be pushed downward...and the wing upwards, with the result that the a/c will pitch up (a 4-G hands-off pitch-up, from what I've read) and the tailplane will return to a negative AoA to the airflow, thus restoring elevator control.

While the dive flap necessarily increases drag, it does not prevent the P-38 from reaching its Mach limit. Here's a quote from Tony LeVier's 'Pilot'...

"Although I had completed my test on that flight I decided to dive to low altitude at the critical mach number, for no reason except that 'Nosey' dove so well.

This time I really hung on. I held the plane right at the mach limit at an extremely steep angle, reaching a top speed of 530 miles indicated, which was 100 over the maximum allowed for that airplane at low altitude."

This would seem to indicate that the flap allowed control to be maintained regardless of rate of speed...

Here's another link on the subject:

A Complete Waste of Space Forums-viewtopic-Compressibility Thread--Corky Meyer flys the P38 at JFC


JL


----------



## drgondog (Jun 5, 2008)

buzzard said:


> I'm somewhat perplexed by your insistance that the dive flap functions primarily as a speed brake given that all the literature states that it works by restoring lift to the wing.
> 
> *B- Believe what you will. I say it restores lift to the wing by slowing it down under Mcrit. I say that it, by itself is designed as a Brake, not a lift device.
> 
> ...



BTW - interchanging flap with brake is constantly confusing because the 'flap ran along the trailng edge (inboard and outboard of the nacelle) and the 'brake' was at the 30% chord line - outboard (only)..and about 3 ft in length.

What you have from me is the best reasoning I can apply to the aerodynamic issues that plagued the P-38 - namely 'flutter' and compressibility.

From those two issues three stability and control issues arose - 1.) namely HUGE stick forces required to muscle the P-38 out of a compressibility dive, and 2.) annoying to dangerous stick response to rapidly oscillating elevator due to the wake turbulence and, 3.) an increased pitch down moment.

From those three stab/control issues Lockheed used two approaches 
Compressibility Dive/Stick Forces/Loss of Pitch up control
a.) dive brakes
b.) boosted elevator tabs (worked but also sometimes destroyed the a/c structurally)

For Wake Turbulence/Flutter
a.) balance horns (didn't work)
b.) Wing Body Fillets (did work to reduce turbulence behind fuselage)
c.) Keep it out od compressibility ( see above)

You have all I can contribute verbally? If you want to argue aero, I'm fine with that, but -

Unless you can show me a tech report from an engineer test pilot (Degree NOT required) that shows what they were testing for, what the test profile they used and the post flight results summary - all the anecodotal discussions don't mean very much. The above description is a classic example of a lot of words not conveying much fact.

I'm not perfect Buzzard. Show me facts to support the 'brake/lift/pitching moment solution' and I can learn something.


----------



## buzzard (Jun 5, 2008)

Your condescension doesn't bother me much; I'm quite aware that my understanding of aero is trivial compared to your own  That said, it doesn't follow that you are necessarily a priori correct in your assessment.

Re; LeVier: In answer to your queries, all I can answer with are the his own words following the previous quote... "A recording camera in the nose of the airplane had faithfully photographed the test instrument panel throughout my dive. We watched the altimeter drop at an extremely high rate, with the speed going up and the altitude going down until it dropped under ten thousand feet and suddenly i realized what I had done. Milo (Burchham) started to take on a queer look and make unpleasant glances at me, and when the film showed I dove to one thousand feet and pulled 71/2 G's getting out, he blew his top."

LaVier was testing the dive flaps at the time, so I think it's safe to assume he was using them. As for his TAS, I have no idea. In any case, use of the dive flaps and the addition of the fillet to the fuselage wing juncture (to reduce buffet, not 'flutter') raised the Mcrit of the P-38 from .65-.68 to .725. That being the case, it seems improbable that the dive recovery flaps (I call them that because that is how the literature almost unanimously designates them) function by reducing speed below the clean Mcrit of M .65-.68...

"...later called the dive recovery flaps, increased the P-38's trim lift coefficient by 0.55 at a Mach number of 0.725."

"The reduced lift curve slope of wing center section also reduced the rate of change of the downwash at the tail with AoA, accounting for the static longitudinal stability increase."

These two quotes are from taken from a book on the history of aerodynamics, complete with charts and figures, available in pdf from this link:

Airplane Stability and Control: A ... - Google Book Search

JL


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 6, 2008)

But were the flaps deployed only durring pullout, or before entering the dive? (the latter should have severely limited max dive speed due to added drag)

Note also that the P-80's belly airbrakes were referred to as "dive flaps" as well in the manual.

As to the pitch up behavure, my quote from previous:


> "*The only time the dive flaps would pitch the P-38 nose upward would be at Mach number under critical.* Every time I dove a P-38 at critical Mach number I had to pull, sometimes hard as hell! During the final dive test that I made in about July 1943, I started pulling out of my 60-degree dive angle at 20,000-ft. At 19,000-ft 1 had only gained one degree. 1 finally got it under full control at about 10,000-ft but all six red warning lights were on and 1 thought the plane's parts were just barely holding hands!



And 72 G's


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 6, 2008)

And on the servo tabs, they did allow pull-out with normally very high stick forces, but as mentioned could cause structural failure. (namely with Virden)

However the failure wasn't due to the reason I'd thought. I had initially thought the failure was caused by pulling too hard or too quickly on the stick while using the servo tab, thus overstressing the tail, however this seems not to be the problem. According to the article, the conclusion was that the coupling to the spring loaded servo tab must have failed, and it then rapidly deployed to full deflection. This in turn resulted in tremendous leveredge on the elevator deflecting it very quickly and thus overstressing the tail assembly.

Service Testing Compressibility | Air Classics | Find Articles at BNET.com


> After hundreds of hours of hard work, Kelly Johnson came up with the most logical answer to Virden's crash when, after examining the wreckage and data, he concluded that linkages to the larger elevator tabs failed, causing them to go into extreme deflection which probably resulted in a sudden, and catastrophic, force traveling through the tail boom. This, in turn, caused an immediate structural failure of the units.





Also, I never mentioned the fabric surfaces on the P-51 I was refferring to the P-47. (which only the B model ever had, and it was only used for testing and training iirc) 
And I was refferring to the limiting factor of the early P-47's diving ability being due to the aileron flutter pummelling the pilots thighs to black and blue. This was improved with metal ailerons, but still a significant problem until the "blint nosed" ailernons were introduced on the P-47D line. (flutter effectively limited the models with the early metal ailerons to ~.73 mach where it got really bad, the blunt nosed ailerons increased this to ~.83 iirc, though the late D models also got "dive recovery flaps" increasing max recovering speed further, such speeds were above the limiting mach number)

I think the term "dive recovery flap" refferred to it as they were flap like devices in apearance, and could be deployed at high speed to recover. (actual "dive brakes" ie on dive bombers, were to be deployed only at loer speeds, before entering the dive)
Als they deployed at angles much different from most contemporary "dive brakes."







ch3-5


> Langley's answer to the P-38 dive problem was the addition of a wedge shaped dive recovery flap on the lower surface of the wings. Aerodynamic refinement of the dive recovery flap was continued in a coordinated program with Lockheed engineers and the new Ames Aeronautical Laboratory, just south of San Francisco, in the latter's new 16-foot high speed tunnel. The dive recovery flaps ultimately saw service on the P-47 Thunderbolt, the A-26 Invader, and the P-59 Airacobra, America's first jet aircraft.




And further info on the operation and actual effect of the device:
jug and I flying the P-47, The | Flight Journal | Find Articles at BNET.com


> I had heard that Republic test pilot Parker Dupouy-another decorated AVG ace I had met at Republic in 1943-had dived the P-47 vertically to its maximum Mach number of .868 and made a very successful dive recovery-flap pullout. His dive also disproved several USAAC combat pilot's reports that they had dived the jug supersonic. Dupouy's dive was 61mph faster than the P-47's compressibility entry Mach number. To be sure of their operational availability, I checked out the extension and retraction of the dive-recovery flaps several times during the climb. I then fearlessly pushed over into a 60-degree dive and ran the combined Mach number/airspeed indicator rapidly up to .80-well past its compressibility limit Mach number. The stick expectedly became immovable, and the aircraft rapidly pitched nose-down. *Extending the dive recovery flaps provided an instant drag increase and a stick-free 4G pullout that brought the aircraft back below its airspeed limit within a few easy seconds.*



and
P-38 the legend explained | Flight Journal | Find Articles at BNET.com


> The NACA High Speed Wind Tunnel team under John Stack's direction had been working on this problem and had devised a small pair of 6x40-- inch, electrically operated dive-recovery flaps to be installed on the P-38 wing's underside and outboard of the engine nacelles; they could be extended to 40 degrees. *That action would rapidly pitch the aircraft up to 4G and enable the pilot to regain full control. *Although Lt. Kelsey evaluated and approved this dive-recovery flap in February 1943, Lockheed did not incorporate it into production for another 14 months! By that time, 5,300 P-38s-more than half the number eventually produced-had been delivered to the USAAF.
> ...
> 
> In 1943, I experienced compressibility in a Hellcat; I wonder how many of those P-38 pilots in the pursuit of the enemy dived too steeply-well beyond the critical Mach limit and into compressibility-in the heat of combat and disappeared into oblivion. At the Joint Army/Navy Fighter Conference on October 16, 1944, I tested the P-38L dive-recovery flap well in excess of its 0.65 Mach-number limit. *Upon actuation, they instantly provided a smooth, 4G recovery without pilot effort. Immediately after I evaluated these "jewels," they were installed on all Grumman 17817-1 Bearcat fighters. *


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 6, 2008)

And some other intereting documents:
NASA Technical Reports Server http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030066111_2003072771.pdf

AERADE
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1954/naca-tn-3127.pdf


----------



## drgondog (Jun 6, 2008)

buzzard said:


> Your condescension doesn't bother me much; I'm quite aware that my understanding of aero is trivial compared to your own  That said, it doesn't follow that you are necessarily a priori correct in your assessment.
> 
> *I agree on the latter comment - my prior comments are really that you challenge my thoughts with anecdotal evidence - and sometimes when you do, the 'evidence' is out of context, or incomplete and you expect rebuttal from me to 'prove' my points.
> 
> ...


 You further realize that the two statements have nothing to do with each other?

And last, since you are referring to the Trim Lift Coefficient would you care to explain a.) what that is, and b.) relate that to the 'dive brake/flap' aerodynamics? You personally, not some reference you have found?


----------



## drgondog (Jun 6, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> And on the servo tabs, they did allow pull-out with normally very high stick forces, but as mentioned could cause structural failure. (namely with Virden)
> 
> However the failure wasn't due to the reason I'd thought. I had initially thought the failure was caused by pulling too hard or too quickly on the stick while using the servo tab, thus overstressing the tail, however this seems not to be the problem. According to the article, the conclusion was that the coupling to the spring loaded servo tab must have failed, and it then rapidly deployed to full deflection. This in turn resulted in tremendous leveredge on the elevator deflecting it very quickly and thus overstressing the tail assembly.
> 
> ...



I just read these - good find.

It easily explains Lockheeds recommendation to deploy before the dive - suggesting that stick forces forward can be applied steadily to keep the P-38 'on line' without the resulting steady but rapid pitch up as the dive (flap) deploys.. also because of the small size (59 1/2 "? - i guessed three feet)
it isn't enough to actually Keep it out of Mcrit speeds if the 38 goes into say, a 60 degree dive)

I noticed in the other article the author references a P-38 in frontal view with the Dive (flap) brakes both inboard and outboard of the nacelles but I have never seen a p-38J/L with inboard flap/brake so I wonder if that was a wind tunnel 'mod' that never made it to production.

I also noticed that the pitching moment chart as function of CL between .6Mach and .75Mach showed the .25 change (to negative) that I estimated several posts back as a function of moving the aero center from .25 to .50 due to transonic shock wave. (mine was a 'guesstimate'.

I am very skeptical of the measured reference of the DC-4 reaching .75 Mach in the plot below the P-38, however. That was power off test threshold for a P-51 without a prop. It is inconceivable that a DC-4 could attain that a.) in a terminal velocity dive, and b.) attain it in one piece.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 6, 2008)

I havent't read through those articles yet. Just skimmed over the points.

Could you be specific about which ones those statements were in? (the fron view with 4x dive flaps, and the DC-4)


And also in the quotes I reffrenced, it seems that the dive flaps were extended to recover only, not before entering the dive. (inless the pilot wanted to limit the dive speed in the first place, probably helpful for dive bombing, especially with the flap already allowing a hands-free pull-out)


and on the actual dementions of the dive flaps (from my previous quote)
P-38 the legend explained | Flight Journal | Find Articles at BNET.com


> The NACA High Speed Wind Tunnel team under John Stack's direction had been working on this problem and had devised a small pair of *6x40-- inch*, electrically operated dive-recovery flaps to be installed on the P-38 wing's underside and outboard of the engine nacelles; they could be extended to 40 degrees.


And there are also the 2 NACA doccuments (.pdf) to look at on the topic.

BTW I found all those articles on a google search for "dive recovery flap"


----------



## drgondog (Jun 6, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I havent't read through those articles yet. Just skimmed over the points.
> 
> Could you be specific about which ones those statements were in? (the fron view with 4x dive flaps, and the DC-4)
> 
> ...



I went through P-38 Dive Flaps to get some more.

In the following (incomplete) article on P-47 Dive characteristics I noted it's pitching moment contribution had an interesting explanation, because they clearly plotted the 'Deflection' of the elevator in the dive as it went past vertical. - This would be an illustration of the 'blanking' phoenomena I assumed about the P-38 (but was wrong) also as it too reached compressible flow... 

implying that the 47 pilot could actually move the stick enough to get elevator deflection but the deflection did not result in vertical tail forces to take it out of the dive - because it was immersed in turbulent flow and had no stream tubes to speak of that were running smoothly over the HS..

further implying that only when the Jug reached a point where the drag exceeded the powed on weight of the airplane and denser air slow it down, did the a/c wing go subsonic, the shock wave stop, normal lift airflow restored steady airflow over the HS and enable the pilot to get control.

So, the implication of flow separatin is the same - but the effect to the Horiz.stab/elevator system was different between the two ships.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 6, 2008)

That diagram of the P-38's flaps (nose on view) apears to be mistakenly placed, and actually depicting the trailing edge flaps.

Particularly seeing as the outer flaps are labeled 11 1/2' and the dive recovery flaps spanned only 40 in. (the inboard ones are labeled 8 1/2')


----------



## drgondog (Jun 7, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> That diagram of the P-38's flaps (nose on view) apears to be mistakenly placed, and actually depicting the trailing edge flaps.
> 
> Particularly seeing as the outer flaps are labeled 11 1/2' and the dive recovery flaps spanned only 40 in. (the inboard ones are labeled 8 1/2')



I totally agree - leading to several questions about the author's interpretation of other sources and then driving his conclusions. He (IMO) garbled more than a couple of translations from the data

The one thing I really did learn from the articles is that my first assumption about turbulent flow blanking the P-38 elevator (similar to P-51 and P-47 with conventional tails in turbulent flow) was simply not the case.. at least based on initial 'effective but dangerous' use of elevator tab.. for it to work the HS had to have coherent flow over the HS. That will teach me to do a little more research before 'pontificating'

The P-47 Report showing deflection of elevator - but no recovery initially - says just the opposite - and we are back to Me 282, P-47, etc type discussion for compressibility dives and negative pitching moments experience with conventional tails. That shows that despite high aero loads, that the stick and elevator were responding..

But Tony L's account talks about 1 degree despite pulling with all his strength diring the first 10,000 (?) feet of his compressibility dive in one of his reports (pre brake/flap P-38) - meaning the elevator wasn't budging until it slowed down..


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 7, 2008)

Or a combination of slowing down and reaching warmer air at low altitude where the speed of sound is higher.


But in the case of the P-38 out-diving the P-47 (obviously early metal ailerons) must have had the dive flaps retracted untill the pull-out.



And that account form Buzzard about the 72 G??? pullout at 1,000 ft, while lacking pertinance, is something interesing on its own.



> "A recording camera in the nose of the airplane had faithfully photographed the test instrument panel throughout my dive. We watched the altimeter drop at an extremely high rate, with the speed going up and the altitude going down until it dropped under ten thousand feet and suddenly i realized what I had done. Milo (Burchham) started to take on a queer look and make unpleasant glances at me, and when the film showed I dove to one thousand feet and pulled 71/2 G's getting out, he blew his top."


----------



## drgondog (Jun 7, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Or a combination of slowing down and reaching warmer air at low altitude where the speed of sound is higher.
> 
> 
> But in the case of the P-38 out-diving the P-47 (obviously early metal ailerons) must have had the dive flaps retracted untill the pull-out.
> ...



I believe Buzzard meant 7.5 Gs


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 7, 2008)

Ok, (that makes a whole lot more sense). And that's an excerpt from _Pilot_, LeVier's biography, right?


----------



## Bigxiko (Jun 22, 2008)

I believe we can't compare this two planes
because the P-38 served longer than the P-51 (in the WWII),
but the p-51 was a pretty good fighter but came late in the war


----------



## drgondog (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigxiko said:


> I believe we can't compare this two planes
> because the P-38 served longer than the P-51 (in the WWII),
> but the p-51 was a pretty good fighter but came late in the war



?? It (XP-51) flew in October 1940 about a year before US at war.

Mustang I was test flown by Brits October 1941, assigned to RAE for performance trials Jan, 1942 and first mission in July 1942.

The first P-51B (RAF mod with -61/65 Merlin) in Oct 1942(?).

The P51A's and A-36s went to Africa in mid 1943

The first P-51B-1 were shipped to England in August 1943.

The P51B/C/D destroyed nearly 2x the number of German aircraft as the P-38, had a far better air to air ratio in the ETO/MTO

It is true that the P-38F was in combat operations longer than the Merlin Mustang P-51B) - but about the same time as the RAF Mustang I.

So, why not compare them?


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 22, 2008)

If P-51Bs were in England by August 1943, why is it they were not in action until December 1943..? Makes very little sense, Mustangs napping in England while B17s and B24 getting butchered over Schweinfurt and Ploiesti..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> If P-51Bs were in England by August 1943, why is it they were not in action until December 1943..? Makes very little sense, Mustangs napping in England while B17s and B24 getting butchered over Schweinfurt and Ploiesti..



During that period the aircraft were assembled, test flown, deficiencies corrected, mods completed and then eventually turned over to squadrons who began training - could this have been done quicker? Possibly. Was it prudent to work in this manner, yes - and I think the end results are evident.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 22, 2008)

Kurfurst .....

Just as the Germans had "political" problems, the USAAF also had theirs.

For them to use long range fighters in the summer of 1943, would have been an admission of the failure of the doctrine of unescorted bombing bringing about victory.

Too many generals reputations were on the line at that time. 

And untill massive losses were inflicted, the doctrine wasnt going to chnage.


----------



## Juha (Jun 22, 2008)

And IIRC P-51Bs went first to 9th (tactical) AF. After the heavy bomber losses they were, 354? FG, allowed to protect 8th AF heavy bombers and eventually switched to 8th AF which gave one of its P-47 Groups to 9th in the bargain. Or something like that.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 22, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> During that period the aircraft were assembled, test flown, deficiencies corrected, mods completed and then eventually turned over to squadrons who began training - could this have been done quicker? Possibly. Was it prudent to work in this manner, yes - and I think the end results are evident.



Dead on. They had designated a whole new Service group and some time was spent training to assemble, put on the wings and tail, etc as well as familiarize ground crews for engine changes, etc.

..and while the first P-51B-1 left the factory for England in late August, the first batch was shipped by sea IIRC and were not assembled and ready to go until late October. The 354th FG started their familiarization with A-36's in early November and the real thing in mid November.

There were a lot of nagging issues with the radios and coolant leaks, etc which delayed full group deployment until just before theri first combat ops under Blakeslee on Dec 1, 1943


----------



## drgondog (Jun 22, 2008)

Juha said:


> And IIRC P-51Bs went first to 9th (tactical) AF. After the heavy bomber losses they were, 354? FG, allowed to protect 8th AF heavy bombers and eventually switched to 8th AF which gave one of its P-47 Groups to 9th in the bargain. Or something like that.



True and immediately subordinated under Kepner until May 1944, along with the 363rd FG which started ops in February, 1944.

The 8th AF 'swapped' the combat ready 358FG (P-47s) for the 357FG (great trade) to get its first Mustang Group also in February, 1944


----------



## Chameleon (Jan 18, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Her dad remembers seeing a P38 in a power dive crash right off of Palos Verdes. he saw a parachute but never found out what happened to the pilot. he said the scream of that plane was a sound few people can ever forget.



The first generation p-38s were prone to air compressability problems which rendered controls useless in excessive-speed dives. Air brakes were fitted to later models to correct this. This is probably the cause of the power dive crash your dad witnessed.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 19, 2009)

There is a passage in Spike Milligans war memoirs where a P-38 pilot was 'showing off' over the British soldiers in Italy during 1943 and Milligan shook his fist at it shouting "I hope you bloody well crash!" at which the Lightning dived straight into the ground.

This became known as the 'Milligan Plane Curse', but only briefly, as when he tried it again on a Bf 109 it let him down


----------



## HoHun (Apr 16, 2009)

Hi Welch,

>Which was the *better* fighter? 

Since I have generated the data anyhow for some other threads, here is a performance comparison ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Amsel (Apr 16, 2009)

P-51 is the best fighter ever, except for the Dora.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 21, 2009)

Thanks Ho Hun for the graph. The planes seem pretty well matched. 

The P-38 did have a great zoom climb.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 21, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Welch,
> 
> >Which was the *better* fighter?
> 
> ...



Which dash number J are you using? The P-38J-25 had the manuever flaps, the boosted ailerons, and the improved performance due to cooling modifications - making this the fastest, the best rolling, best turning version of all the P-38s.

Mike Williams test reports on the J's are for -1(5/43), -10(10/43), -15(7/44) and P-38L-5 (11/45). If you wish to use the top performing P-38 the P-38J-25 was a couple of hundred pounds lighter than the P-38L-5 with same engine performance, same boosted ailerons, same manuver flaps.

Equally the P-51B (either -5 with 1650-3 Merlin for high altitude optimization or 51B-10/15 with 1650-7 Merlin for low to medium high altitude optimization would be a better choice against the P-38J-25 (or P-38L) based on period introduced into combat 

How did you perform your turn performance calculations when you need to account for a.) NACA 23016 airfoils (inboard) with an 8 degree fowler flap in manuever, b.) a NACA 4412 airfoil outboard of the nacelles, and c.) improved roll due to boosted flaps.

If you did not account for these factors, your results for turn performance are very questionable. Ditto climb and top speed for 'best versus best' of combat Mustangs and Lightnings.


----------



## Timppa (Apr 22, 2009)

drgondog said:


> How did you perform your turn performance calculations when you need to account for a.) NACA 23016 airfoils (inboard) with an 8 degree fowler flap in manuever, b.) a NACA 4412 airfoil outboard of the nacelles, and c.) improved roll due to boosted flaps.



a) You don't have to care about airfoils. All you need to know is power on stall speed at known weight and altitude, flaps up or down. The P-51 had combat flap setting also.

b) see a)

c) Calculation is for sustained turn rates. Banking into turn (where roll rate and inertia comes into play) is a different matter altogether.


----------



## Soren (Apr 22, 2009)

Incorrect. Basing turn performance on stalling speed is very misleading. If we were to do so then the Bf-110 B-17 were excellent turn-fighters, both having a stalling speed below that of many fighters. So do you believe they were great turn fighters ?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 22, 2009)

Timppa said:


> a) You don't have to care about airfoils. All you need to know is power on stall speed at known weight and altitude, flaps up or down. The P-51 had combat flap setting also.
> 
> *Timppa - not true in this case for the reasons I stated. In the case of the P-38J-25 for example, you not only have two airfoils to look up for Clmax but also note that the Clmax for the 23016 with 8 degrees of manuevering flap deployed is CONSIDERABLY more than for the NACA 4412. Sooooooo - how do you calculate and plug 'CL' for the Entire wing into your induced drag calcs? *
> 
> c) Calculation is for sustained turn rates. Banking into turn (where roll rate and inertia comes into play) is a different matter altogether.



Correct and irrelevant to my questions - the improved roll rate was only my way of illustrating that the P-38J-25 and beyond not only had good sustained turn rates but could, in reality, play in the horizontal for real - insted of a flight test entering into a turn in one direction and staying there.


----------



## Timppa (Apr 22, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Timppa - not true in this case for the reasons I stated. In the case of the P-38J-25 for example, you not only have two airfoils to look up for Clmax but also note that the Clmax for the 23016 with 8 degrees of manuevering flap deployed is CONSIDERABLY more than for the NACA 4412. Sooooooo - how do you calculate and plug 'CL' for the Entire wing into your induced drag calcs?



Cl = L / (A * .5 * r * V^2) 
Clmax = L / (A * .5 * r * Vstall^2)

L=W at stall speed
It is actually hard me to believe that you don't know this already. You really dont need to know the airfoils when you know the stall speeds.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 22, 2009)

Timppa said:


> Cl = L / (A * .5 * r * V^2)
> Clmax = L / (A * .5 * r * Vstall^2)
> 
> L=W at stall speed
> It is actually hard me to believe that you don't know this already. You really dont need to know the airfoils when you know the stall speeds.



I do know this. 

L=W at all speeds  to maintain the same altitude. For turning flight it is the lift vector in the opposite direction from the gravitational weight vector - and hence a function of the bank angle.

I have a problem with your simplistic approach to CLmax when discussing this P-38 with manuevering flap model - unless you KNOW what Clmax is for the P-38 with manuevering flaps deployed. I have not found these values for the P-38 with just manuevering flaps deployed in either power on or power off level flight. All I have seen are stall values in Level flight for a.. ) clean, and b.) full flap deployment conditions. 

If you have it (Vstall with manuevering flap (only) deployed) then your approach is a very good place to start but you also need the drag contribution for the free body force model.

If you don't, then here are some issues.

Namely 1.) where can you find CLmax values for the NACA 23016 airfoil with fowler flap at 8 degrees deflection (my copy of Theory of Wing Sections - Abbot and Doenhoff, didn't have it), and 2.) how are you going to factor in all additional parasite/trim drag for a high turn manuever (different for level approach landing) including the significant addition of drag due to the deployed flap?


Absent the data there is an approach but I am not sure how elegant it would be
For the calculated analytical pre-design approach having only airfoil section/flap data (no wind tunnel or flight test data) you have to look at the NACA 23016 airfoil, the NACA 23016 w/fowler flap, and the NACA 4412 data and ask a couple of questions.

First questions - Are they both going to stall at the same time in a turn? Independent of which stalls first (hopefully inboard), will the actual stall break point be the same for high G turning flight as it proved in level flight? The two engine/two wing section model is more difficult to analyze.

If not, where this AoA occurs to cause one or the other part of the wing to stall is a major 'point' of interest.

Second question - given the assymetrical forces on the P-38 in a turn versus the same wing/flap config in a level flight condition, how much parasite drag is added to that particular summation of level flight CDinduced and CDparasite force balance to result in an increase in stall speed - and how many less degrees AoA will that be? The known factors to increase the parasite drag over level flight are the rudder trim drag, the elevator trim drag, the aileron trim drag. 

The wild card is change of spanwise and chordwise velocity vector changes - particularly around wing/boom area - which affect Lift/Drag how in comparison to say a 109?

CLmax as a function of AoA for a specific airfoil may be found in the sectional plots, then extrapolated from 2 D to 3 D by taking into effect AR and form factor or it may be obtained in flight tests under controlled conditions - but published CLMax for your example under those conditions are usually obtained for a.) LANDING conditions, or b.) level flight clean stall - power on and off. 

Now that we have that behind us - lets go back to manuevering flight with the P-38J-25/L with Manuevering flaps deployed?

1. So, what is Vstall in level flight for the P-38 with maneuvering flaps deployed (only-not in landing configuration with full flaps) and how do you know this? I have not been able to find a source on this and that is why I asked the question. If it isn't available from a reliable source it has to be calculated.

2. What is the induced drag and parasite drag increase in value at say 250kts (or 300 or 220) when the manuevering flap is deployed in a minimum radius and/or max turn rate turn? Assume power required does not fall below power available for the model.

3. What is the total drag of the P-38 at each step in the velocity profile as either the bank angle changes or speed changes as the 38 bleeds energy and trim drag increases with rudder and elevator deflections?

Granted, this discussion does not need to be as complicated when the P-38 is clean as reasonable extrapolations are obtainable by published flaps up/flaps down data for stall speeds for a particular weight and power on/power off condition.

To repeat - I have not been able to find the P-38 wind tunnel or flight test data to get just the level flight Clmax for deployed manuevering flaps. If that were available then your second equation would be a good place to start to figure out where in the turn the P-38 could turn no tighter/faster.

Do you have these handy? If you do, then you have what you need to do this model.


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2009)

There is a lot of good detail here but the real question is how does Henning do his calculations. He is the one who is quick to produce the charts for this and other threads and must do some calculations to arrive at those charts but no one knows how he does them.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 22, 2009)

Glider said:


> There is a lot of good detail here but the real question is how does Henning do his calculations. He is the one who is quick to produce the charts for this and other threads and must do some calculations to arrive at those charts but no one knows how he does them.



There is that.

One has to start with Thrust = Drag to maintain equilibrium for a stated condition. For level flight L= Weight.

Looking to various flight test docs, published data sheets etc will get you conflicting info but if you have the following:

Velocity at a specific Hp/Boost condition then you can obtain Thrust.

CDo (Parasite drag for level flight), then you can combine with Thrust and Lift to arrive at Total Drag (Induced and Parasite)

When you have that you can start with Power available versus Power required to test whether Thrust available is adequate to maintain equilibrium in the model.

The tricky parts are that a.) you must have the available HP at the altitude you are modelling for (not a constant) and Hp is density/altitude related, b.) the Cl max will be tested at low airspeds/high AoA as the bank angle increases and the Lift must be adequate to offset the weight (always vertical), c.) the change to drag components (induced drag increases in contrast to parasite drag at lower speeds, opposite in higher speeds) and as elevator and rudders deflect in a high G turn, their individual drag components change from level flight conditions.

Soren and I used to go round and round on the importance of each factor but he understands they are present.

So, as you have noted in your usual razor sharp questions - where is the HoHun's math? 

Gene Davidson (Crummp) definitely knew what he was talking about. I quit screwing around because too many factors like reliable HP to altitude and Boost charts aren't 100% available for all the ships that everyone wants to compare, nor is Cd0 and now in the question of the P-38J-25/P-38 L, is the actual ClMax for the wing/manuevering flap data available. Trim drag is another tricky factor - and a potentially major one for high g/large deflection turns.

As usual Glider, you put your finger on the sore spot.


----------



## Timppa (Apr 24, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I have a problem with your simplistic approach to CLmax when discussing this P-38 with manuevering flap model - unless you KNOW what Clmax is for the P-38 with manuevering flaps deployed. I have not found these values for the P-38 with just manuevering flaps deployed in either power on or power off level flight. All I have seen are stall values in Level flight for a.. ) clean, and b.) full flap deployment conditions.




Check this link

The Math Behind Turning


----------



## drgondog (Apr 24, 2009)

Timppa said:


> Check this link
> 
> The Math Behind Turning



Timppa - excellent link - good foundation tutorial. Wrong to apply universally without careful understanding of significant variations between aircraft that are accounted for by 'rough estimates' and 'assumtions' in his model.

I will give some detailed thoughts perhaps tomorrow when I have time to discuss specifics (if you wish).

Here are some immdediate observations.

Thrust based on Hp. The equation is correct for Thp for sea level but does not include exhaust thrust, or if applicable - Meredith effect'. Not so important for SL, very important for 30,000 feet.

I scanned the report so may have missed whether he not only introduces the Hp contribution from max available at the altitude point where the supercharger can no longer supply 100% requirements, but also the mass flow rate through the propeller disk as density reduces with height.

I did not take particular note regarding fundamental comparison of Hp vs altitude differences between different engines as a function of supercharger/turbo efficiency. 

His tutorial regarding the factors and approach at Calculating Thrust available from a prop/engine/gear standpoint from the view of a preliminary design standpoint is very good - and necessary when a significant body of flight test data across an entire altitude/hp/boost and speed results are not available.

In this forum, neither flight test nor manufacturer specs are 100% reliable, nor are all the aircraft data available for the ships we wish to compare.

Drag = He correctly balances Total Drag with the Thrust. 

He illustrates Cd0 and IIRC used 'about .020' for the P-51D. It may be off a little but the important point is that Total Drag = Induced plus Parasite (sum of all non lift components) Drag. He is able to manipulate the relative contributions at each point in the velocity and Lift range correctly as long as he is in level flight. He correctly obtains Induced Drag (for the wing) as a function of CL.

I take issue that this is adequate for the full range of CL's from straight and level flight to max bank/max CL flight for maintaining altitude - as we are trying to do with these equations. I may have missed where he factors in Trim Drag.

Cd0, as presented, is the level flight clean Parasite Drag which, for this build up for a Mustang, is Cd0 of the clean wing/body/tail combo. This means no elevator or rudder or aileron (or manuevering flap or full flap) deflections to incrementally provide lift(and drag) forces to the system. 

Before we get tangled up in semantics I realize 'delta CD' for the flap/manuevering flap deployment is not an add to parasite drag - but it is an add to the total drag of the system offsetting available Thrust to reach equilibrium.

Skip the transition however and go straight to CLmax. 

For the clean (no flap, manuevering flap - elevator, rudder or aileron deflection) configuration the Cd0 is still useful - but not of itself enough as the a/c is in a max bank angle with necessary rudder, elevator, aileron deflection - all contibuting measurable and significant drag incrementally to the clean configuration Induced and Parasite Drag. So, you have to calculate Trim drag. 

In the case of a P-38J-25, when only manuevering flaps are deployed, you have to determine the contribution to Total CL max, as well as the extra drag, of this new wing body combination because it a.) should slow the a/c down (some), and b.) tighten the turn (some) in contrast to clean turn configuration. 

You will not know until you have introduced the new factors into the free body force balance whether the P-38 has improved turn performance relative to max turn rate of turn... but you cannot insert level flight 'clean' - and flaps down Vstall in these equations for a P-38 with 8 degree manuevering flaps down..

I did this overview in a hurry - I will come back and edit the brainfarts later.


----------



## mach driver (May 12, 2009)

i would pick the mustang due to this one the mustang has more aces in the than the P-38 and two the had the k-14 gyro sight which was user friendly three the mustang can pull higher g loads than the p-38 now the p-38 was the premiere USAAC fighter in the pacfic in the early stages of the war and the mustang at that was starting to show it's protential now when the late stages of the war was going on we where going higher into the stratosphere we needed a fighter that can keep with the b-29 well the p-38 has the range but not the alt perfomance so the only plane that can do and it had a great track record was the P-51D mustang which proved it self agianst german aircrafts even though they were not as manouverable was the jap planes but there on thing that jap suffer the most compressability the P-38 couldnt do it becuase it had horrible compressability like the Jap planes did. Mustang Pilots use to joke about who would win in a compressability fight between a Zero and a P-38 neither they both have to bail out. People tend to forget the mustang was a high speed turning aircraft and the mustang did get alot of kills in the pacific due to the fact that the japanese would follow the into a high speed dive and then the mustang with it have a great Zoom climb after the dive which is it's energy retention the p-38 could never do this becuase of the compressability issue the later p-38's had a dive break but there has been reports that the dive break would rip right off if speed are too high ruffly around 480 mph TAS which at that speed compressablilty hasnt touch the mustang compressability hits the mustang until 600 IAS the mustang has a max dive speed of 615 mph IAS with full compressability the mustang has a safe pull dive of 505 mph IAS which had a red line now the saying about the tail section ripping off that was becuase they would be comming out of high dive around 520mph IAS and yank the stick back hard the mustang was be pulling an agonizing 9.5 g's which is beyond structural limits the max safe g limit is 8 g's and can push -2.5 g's. which would be phsyically impossible for the p-38 to achieve now the mustang has near laminar flow wings not pure laminar becuase the matanance would be to much. the mustang has better lift to drag ratio than the p-38 and the mustang has a better roll rate than the p-38 93 degrees a second vs to the p-38's 74 degrees a second but the p-38 does have a slight atvanges in acceleration with it 2.4 mph a second vs the mustangs 2.2 mph but it doesnt matter when your in a sustain turn it the fighter with the best e bleed will win and the mustang will beat every time at any speed and any alt. the mustang wins by far why else would other country's would want the plane that was a war winner and why would we keep it in service well into the 1950's remember the mustang fought in three wars WWII Korea and Vietnam yes the mustang Fought in Vietnam with the Thai Airforce


----------



## drgondog (May 14, 2009)

mach driver said:


> i would pick the mustang due to this one the mustang has more aces in the than the P-38 and two the had the k-14 gyro sight which was user friendly three the mustang can pull higher g loads than the p-38 now the p-38 was the premiere USAAC fighter in the pacfic in the early stages of the war and the mustang at that was starting to show it's protential now when the late stages of the war was going on we where going higher into the stratosphere we needed a fighter that can keep with the b-29 well the p-38 has the range but not the alt perfomance so the only plane that can do and it had a great track record was the P-51D mustang which proved it self agianst german aircrafts even though they were not as manouverable was the jap planes but there on thing that jap suffer the most compressability the P-38 couldnt do it becuase it had horrible compressability like the Jap planes did. Mustang Pilots use to joke about who would win in a compressability fight between a Zero and a P-38 neither they both have to bail out. People tend to forget the mustang was a high speed turning aircraft and the mustang did get alot of kills in the pacific due to the fact that the japanese would follow the into a high speed dive and then the mustang with it have a great Zoom climb after the dive which is it's energy retention the p-38 could never do this becuase of the compressability issue the later p-38's had a dive break but there has been reports that the dive break would rip right off if speed are too high ruffly around 480 mph TAS which at that speed compressablilty hasnt touch the mustang compressability hits the mustang until 600 IAS the mustang has a max dive speed of 615 mph IAS with full compressability the mustang has a safe pull dive of 505 mph IAS which had a red line now the saying about the tail section ripping off that was becuase they would be comming out of high dive around 520mph IAS and yank the stick back hard the mustang was be pulling an agonizing 9.5 g's which is beyond structural limits the max safe g limit is 8 g's and can push -2.5 g's. which would be phsyically impossible for the p-38 to achieve now the mustang has near laminar flow wings not pure laminar becuase the matanance would be to much. the mustang has better lift to drag ratio than the p-38 and the mustang has a better roll rate than the p-38 93 degrees a second vs to the p-38's 74 degrees a second but the p-38 does have a slight atvanges in acceleration with it 2.4 mph a second vs the mustangs 2.2 mph but it doesnt matter when your in a sustain turn it the fighter with the best e bleed will win and the mustang will beat every time at any speed and any alt. the mustang wins by far why else would other country's would want the plane that was a war winner and why would we keep it in service well into the 1950's remember the mustang fought in three wars WWII Korea and Vietnam yes the mustang Fought in Vietnam with the Thai Airforce



This was the hardest post I ever had to follow based on total lack of punctuation and structure.

Hopefully you will read enough of ithis thread that you will find many fact based rebuttals to several comments, all of which are well documented by reliable sources.

Don't take my word for the arguments but pause and think about what has been said in various debates. 

You may correct some of your misconceptions regarding structure, design versus ultimate loads, failure modes which cause the airframe to fail, etc.

Regards,

Bill

Welcome to the forum and looking forward to engaging in debates with you.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 24, 2009)

P-38's first flight was 1/27/1939.
P-51's first flight was 10/26/1940.
Yet both entered service April/May 1942 and made their first kills in August 1942.
- The P-51 could have entered service and made kills earlier if more support were provided by the US Army.
- The P-51 could have been flying with the Merlin engine earlier as well.
- The P-38 had the support it needed, but suffered a long protracted development with many many issues that needed to be worked through.

10,037 P-38's were made.
15,875 P-51's made, even though it was a later design with a later first flight.

P-51 cost less.
P-51 was easier to produce.
P-51 was easier to maintain.
P-51 consumed less fuel.
P-51 service continued into Korean war, and beyond.

P-38 development plodded on for so long.
One could say the P-38 was "ahead of its time" and encountered phenomena that took more time to work through than anticipated. If the P-38 hadn't taken so long to develop, it's quite possible there never would have been a need for the P-51.
However, if P-51 development had been given priority earlier, it's quite possible there wouldn't have been a need for the P-38.

Now if the P-38 had been available for combat right after Pearl Harbor, or had it's bugs worked out in time to support European strategic bombing from the get-go, I might be swayed to support the P-38 instead of the P-51.

Put it another way...
If we could wave a magic wand and make all the P-38's problems disappear...
And make both the P-38 and P-51 available on the same day and made their combat debuts on the same day...
Which would be the overall better plane?

It would still be the P-51 for the reasons listed above.
We could build more and fly them with less logistical strain.


----------



## RawkSaint (Dec 8, 2009)

The North American Aviation P-51 Mustang was a long-range single-seat World War II fighter aircraft. Designed, built and airborne in just _117_ days, the Mustang first flew in RAF service as a fighter-bomber and reconnaissance aircraft before conversion to a bomber escort, employed in raids over Germany, helping ensure Allied air superiority from early 1944.[2] The P-51 was in service with Allied air forces in Europe and also saw limited service against the Japanese in the Pacific War. The Mustang began the Korean War as the United Nations' main fighter, but was relegated to a ground attack role when superseded by jet fighters early in the conflict. Nevertheless, it remained in service with some air forces until the early 1980s.
As well as being economical to produce, the Mustang was a fast, well-made, and highly durable aircraft. The definitive version, the P-51D, was powered by the Packard V-1650, a two-stage two-speed supercharged version of the legendary Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, and was armed with six .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns. :l The Mustang was a revolutionary and an invaluable addition to the Americans as well as the British who made thier version,which I believe was the Mustang 1.Also,kudos to Soren and SoundBreaker Welch? ;good points.And,finally,if i had to pick the best non-American plane,I'd pick the bf-109 or the Junker Stuka(sorry,just some random opinions...)
So...yeah...Mustang for me too... :]


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Jul 11, 2010)

It's the P-51 for me. I remember reading that the P-38 had to watch its airspeed in a dive because it had more trouble pulling out than a P-51 did. Something about the flow of air over the wings and tail at higher speeds that made the P-38 less manueverable.


----------



## JayK58 (Jul 25, 2010)

It was not just a case of which aircraft was better, it was a case of how was it used. Agreed the P-51 had the range, UNTIL the work of Lindbergh and the P-38. Both AC had good armament, but the P-38's bullets shot straight forward, where the P-51s had to shoot past that big glorious prop, therefore along with the 20mm canon on the P-38 the shooting range was not limited to where the bullets crossed. Both AC had good ceilings and good mannueverability, but the P-38 had the telltale double contrail compared to the P-51. The P-51 was squirley down low, that wonderful maneuverability becoming deadly at low altitude. 

As far as the dive question goes. The P-38 was originally designed for Bomber Interception. Kelly Johnson never considered it for real dogfighting. So when dogfighting in Europe, early in the war, going into a dive at high altitude, the shockwave from the leading edge would essentially lock the elevator (actually, a power assist here would have worked but I have never seen it applied) so that until speeds dropped in the lower atmosphere it would become impossible to come out of the dive. Dive brakes were finally created, but the AC carrying them to the European theater (a DC-6 or 7) was shot down by a Spitfire and the plane was taken out of service in the Eighth Airforce. 

The P-38 worked in Africa, the Pacific, and in Europe when the fuel question and the dive brakes were fully worked out in the P-38J model. The P-51 with the Allison engine was failure, but once they put the Merlin Engine in the body of the P-51 with it's newer wing design and it's increased fuel carrying capability the P-51D was a great AC. So both AC had their strengths, did a good job and had a great career. The P-51 won the after war question primarily due to the single engine vs double engine fuel quesiton...and the f-82, double mustang might prove where the p-38 could have gone... Still I love the p-38 for it's excellent gun platform, symmetry, and smoothness for recon and a fire platform. I love the p-51 for it's looks and it's maneuverability at altitude.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 25, 2010)

JayK58 said:


> The P-51 was squirrelly down low, that wonderful maneuverability becoming deadly at low altitude.
> 
> The P-51 with the Allison engine was failure...


In fairness, the Merlin P-51's best altitude was that at which it escorted the bombers, at lower altitudes closer to ground level, it was arguably no more than a match for the Fw190. If he allows too much of his airspeed to get sucked off in a knife-fight then the better low-speed handling characteristics of the Bf109 will also land the P-51 driver in trouble.

That's a little harsh, the Allison P-51 was an exemplary aircraft at ground level up to about 16,00ft where the all too well defined limits of the V-1710 pegged all things Allison-powered. The installation of the Merlin certainly realised the P-51's full potential but didn't in the process make the Allison P-51 an outright failure.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2010)

If the P-51 with the Allison was a failure the P-40 must have been a total waste of time and good aluminium.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 25, 2010)

JayK58 said:


> The P-51 was squirley down low, that wonderful maneuverability becoming deadly at low altitude.
> 
> *Exactly what are you referring to?*
> 
> ...



Both great airplanes - as you pointed out the P-38 was easier for the Germans to spot and Identify before being spotted so it gave them a tactical edge to decide to fight or flee depsnding on tactical situation.


----------



## renrich (Jul 25, 2010)

Bill has explained the dive problems of the early P38s in engineer terms but for us laymen, the early P38s got into trouble in dives in Europe because they started getting into compressibility, ( "the sound barrier") which caused the airplane to become uncontrollable and sometimes the tail came off. That problem was not as prevelant in the Pacific or Africa because the air over Europe was colder and the speed of sound varies according to air temperature. (the colder the air the lower the speed of sound)

The P38 early on had other issues such as engine reliability, poor cockpit heating and it took a while for a pilot to become proficient in the airplane. It was always a big target with a lot of places a bullet could disable it. It's early initial roll rate was poor. Some pilots said that it needed two engines so it could come back on one. One reason Lindberg picked the Ryan to cross the Atlantic is that two engines doubled the probability of having engine problems over one.

The P51 had much fewer problems to deal with and in almost every respect was superior to the P38.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Aug 12, 2010)

P38! Always! 

Imagine 2 apposing air-forces. Each air-force have only one type for ALL TYPES OF MISSIONS (intercepting, ground attack/bombing, air-superiority etc) which would you use?

Also...I have read somewhere in one of my thousands of WW2 aviation books,  , that during training of fresh pilots, after the P38's instructor told the students about the P38 wonderful qualities, the P51 instructor told the class to disregard everything the '38 instructor had said. Naturally the '38 instructor heard this and immediately challenged him to a dual.

The two planes were lined up next to each other. 

On take-off the 38 destroyed the 51 as you could almost instantly apply full power in the 38, not so on the 51(excessive torque) 

P38 - 1
P51 - 0

So...as 51 were getting to altitude the 38 already started to Boom Zoom

P38 - 2
P51 - 0

Only when they started from the same altitude the odds were even. I will go and check toningt for that snipped and post it here

edd


----------



## drgondog (Aug 12, 2010)

eddie_brunette said:


> P38! Always!
> 
> Imagine 2 apposing air-forces. Each air-force have only one type for ALL TYPES OF MISSIONS (intercepting, ground attack/bombing, air-superiority etc) which would you use?
> 
> ...



"Imagine" pilots of equal skills. 

"Imagine an Air Force that only has a limited budget and has to spend twice as much for the P-38's as the Mustangs to acquire and support.

"imagine 1000 Mustangs to 500 P-38s in the theatre, and imagine the 500 P-38s may only fly half the sorties in contrast to 500 Mustangs. Now the 1000 plane Mustang force can put four times as many fighters in the air on a given day. Say you need 500 Mustangs or P-38s to escort the bombers on a given day. You either send up 250 on the same day for mission one, and none the next day while 500 more Mustangs escort again?

Bomber crews happy?

Ditto strafing mission sortie count, or recon, or ground support.

P-38 can clearly carry more bomb weight so that is one mission factor it will excel in - and with max fuel have slightly more range...

But that is about it. The Mustangs were FAR more effective in bomber escort, far more effecive in air superiority and far more effective in destruction of enemy aircraft on the ground, had fewer training accidents, cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate - plus or minus the same performance - harder to see.

Even with twin engines the P-38 had a terrible ratio for aircraft destroyed on the ground to the number of aircraft (P-38) lost while strafing - while the twin engines offered some reliabilty when an engine was lost to mechanical reasons, a coolant hit or fuel/fuel fuel line was curtains for both of them - an the P-38 was an easier target to see and hit by flak crews.

Just a few thoughts on the subject.


----------



## Erich (Aug 12, 2010)

I think for one the change over from the 38 and 47 to the 51 has to say something about endurance/range and this was what the 8th AF needed for bomber protection, same can be said for the US forces in the southern sphere the 15th AF. Bill has covered this in some detail previously


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 12, 2010)

Dead on!


----------



## Erich (Aug 12, 2010)

well the thought pattern came from a few the 8th AF chaps like Jack Ilfrey, Jack told me in a similar paragraph autographed in his book to me, loved the P-38 for the ground attack actions but maneuverable it was not in a dog fight if pressed closely besides having to turn back when the 17's were going farther and farther into the interior of the Reich


----------



## drgondog (Aug 13, 2010)

Erich said:


> well the thought pattern came from a few the 8th AF chaps like Jack Ilfrey, Jack told me in a similar paragraph autographed in his book to me, loved the P-38 for the ground attack actions but maneuverable it was not in a dog fight if pressed closely besides having to turn back when the 17's were going farther and farther into the interior of the Reich



Erich - Interesting comment from Cactus Jack. I have noted during my many perusings that P-38J escort line of radius seemed to be as far as Berin or Leipzig but haven't uncovered any to Brux or Posnan (or Munich for that matter), and certainly not any of the various Shuttle Missions when the 479th and 364th were still flying P-38s.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 1, 2010)

Fighter Pilot University: P-51 vs P-38

A Robin Olds interview on the P-38 vs P-51..


----------



## drgondog (Dec 1, 2010)

N'other Olds interview - worth the time to listen to it..
Fighter Pilot University: Robin Olds Defines Fighter Pilot


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 1, 2010)

nice site! i like it! thanks...


----------



## Milosh (Dec 3, 2010)

I put drgondog's post to a P-38 fanatic and this was his reply:



> Imagine 2 apposing air-forces. Each air-force have only one type for ALL TYPES OF MISSIONS (intercepting, ground attack/bombing, air-superiority etc) which would you use?



Left out a few mission types: What about photo/recon, torpedo attacking, dive bombing, strategic level bombing, coastal-shipping attacking, night fighter, strike fighter? There is not one of these roles that the Mustang even comes close to performing as well as the P-38.



> "Imagine" that cost is important - both acquisition and spares, crew training and maintenance, operating cost (fuel, oil)..
> 
> Advantage - by 2:1 ratio aquisition cost ------> Mustang
> Advantage - by 2:1 ratio operating expense---> Mustang



Although the P-38 did cost more than the P-51, The above 2:1 ratio is an exaggeration. By war's end, the P-38's price was a little over $97,000 while that of the P-51 was a little less than $51,000. Also, the P-38 had nowhere near twice the fuel consumption of the P-51, nor had it twice the oil consuption. Maintenance on those two engines probably approached the 2:1 mark, but two P-51s had twice as many radios, twice as many instruments (except engine istruments), twice as many control surfaces with their controls, one third more landing gear (not counting the P-51's tail wheel), twice as many cockpit controls/canopies, and one third more propeller blades (not to mention twice as many constant speed propeller systems). All of these required maintenance, regardless of which airplane they were associated with.




> "Imagine" the P-38 losing and engine during take off - big torque roll with split seconds to recover - and visualize big hole at the end of the runway killing pilot and totally destroying the P-38. P-51 pilot bellies it in, minimal damage to P-51 and pilot OK.



Losing an engine on takeoff was certainly a problem with the P-38, but a manageable problem. And whereas every takeoff in a P-51 was threatened by high torque and P-factor, there was none of this with a normal takeoff in the P-38. And, once proper corrective action was taken by a properly trained pilot, the P-38 could make a go-around and execute a safe landing. Not so with a P-51.




> Imagine P-51H which climbs about the same as a 38J, depending on weight, runs faster, dives faster than best P-38.. booming and zooming



One point here: Even though the P-51H had begun delivery at the very end of the war (I think it didn't fly until Feb. 1945), there were only 555 built, and it was no more a WWII fighter than the F7F, F8F, F-80, or the F4U-5 or F4U-7.

Also, the P-51H's main claim to fame was speed. When compared to the P-51D, it had less range, lower ceiling, the same armament, and was not as rugged. The P-38 could fly higher, and farther than the P-51H, and it could carry twice the bombload. It could climb as fast, and, even though its maximum diving speed was lower than that of the P-51H, it could accelerate into a dive faster.




> Imagine P-51 pilot able to spot P-38 farther away than P-38 pilot can spot Mustang (same eyesight assumed), which puts the Mustang in a position to decide whether it can attack from a superior tactical position or leave if not favorable



This is true, but during the war, there were instances where Luftwaffe fighters did not attack American bombers because they could see from a distance that they were escorted by P-38s. What better protection could a bomber crew want?



> "Imagine an Air Force that only has a limited budget and has to spend twice as much for the P-38's as the Mustangs to acquire and support.



Adressed above.



> The Mustangs were FAR more effective in bomber escort, far more effecive in air superiority and far more effective in destruction of enemy aircraft on the ground, had fewer training accidents, cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate - plus or minus the same performance - harder to see.



Again an exaggeration. The use of the word "far" is not appropriate here. Also, if, and that is a very big if, the P-51 destroyed far more enemy aircraft on the ground, it would have been in the 8th Airforce where the P-38s were restricted from leaving the bombers whereas the Mustangs were later released to attack targets of opportunity on their way home. And their were far more P-51s in the Eighth than there were P-38s. For a more fair comparison, consider the performance of the P-38 as a ground attack fighter in the 9th, 12th and 14th Airforces in the Med and over the Continent (not to mention the 5th Airforce in the Pacific).



> Even with twin engines the P-38 had a terrible ratio for aircraft destroyed on the ground to the number of aircraft (P-3 lost while strafing - while the twin engines offered some reliabilty when an engine was lost to mechanical reasons, a coolant hit or fuel/fuel fuel line was curtains for both of them - an the P-38 was an easier target to see and hit by flak crews.



The P-38 was a far better ground attack/close support fighter than the P-51. Its concentrated firepower, which included a 20 mm cannon, was more effective against all types of targets--including light armor. It could carry 4000 pounds of bombs and ten rockets as opposed to 2000 pounds for the P-51D/H. And the P-51s could only carry six rockets when they were carrying any bombs.

As far as surviveability on ground attack missions is concerned, both fighters were susceptible to ground fire, but, in the abscence of engine fire, the P-38 was the more surviveable of the two. It had two engines to be knocked out, and those two engines provided good protection for the pilot from all but head-on fire; those guns up front helped from that angle. Also, the late-model P-38s had fire sensors and extinguishers, so they had a chance even with an engine fire. And if the plane was doomed, the Lightning, with one good engine, had the possibility to leave the immediate area and climb high enough to allow the pilot to parachute to safety. Not so the P-51.

So, when comparing the P-51 to the P-38, things are not so cut-and-dried. Although I understand P-51 fanboy's enthusiasm for "his" plane, he tends to exaggerate the qualities of the Mustang while underestimating those of the Lightning


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 3, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Left out a few mission types: What about photo/recon, torpedo attacking, dive bombing, strategic level bombing, coastal-shipping attacking, night fighter, strike fighter? There is not one of these roles that the Mustang even comes close to performing as well as the P-38.



Funny, he did not leave any missions out. See the "etc." at the end of his post. That means Et cetera, which means "other things", "other types", "among other things", etc. 

See how I used etc. at the end of that last sentence? 





Milosh said:


> Although the P-38 did cost more than the P-51, The above 2:1 ratio is an exaggeration. By war's end, the P-38's price was a little over $97,000 while that of the P-51 was a little less than $51,000.



That would make it approx. 2:1 would it not? Not quite, but about 2:1, correct?

$97,000/$51,000 = 1.9 

Not quite an exaggeration is it?

So who is the fanboy now?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2010)

> Imagine" the P-38 losing and engine during take off - big torque roll with split seconds to recover - and visualize big hole at the end of the runway killing pilot and totally destroying the P-38. P-51 pilot bellies it in, minimal damage to P-51 and pilot OK



Engine out procedures were developed for the P-38 and it’s obvious that your contact knows nothing about twin engine aircraft operation. The P-38 had no "critical" engine (or two critical engines if you like the glass half empty) because the propellers turned opposite of one another. Engine out procedures gave you the same result on either side and you actually had to reduce power on the good engine when going through emergency procedures on the bad engine.


----------



## renrich (Dec 3, 2010)

Engine trouble was a big bug a boo with those big recip engines. Having two engines meant that engine trouble was twice as likely to happen. One pilot in WW2 said of the P38, "it needed two engines so it would have one to come back on". Perhaps that helps explain the following in the ETO:

P38 sorties per loss-74
P51 sorties per loss-85


----------



## Milosh (Dec 3, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Engine out procedures were developed for the P-38 and it’s obvious that your contact knows nothing about twin engine aircraft operation. The P-38 had no "critical" engine (or two critical engines if you like the glass half empty) because the propellers turned opposite of one another. Engine out procedures gave you the same result on either side and you actually had to reduce power on the good engine when going through emergency procedures on the bad engine.



FLYBOY, that is drgondog's text.

Adler, would say fanatic = fanboy? I agree, but sometimes Mr. P-38 only reads what he wants to read.  He is, afaik, USAF in Germany.

The AAFSD only lists costs for 1944 for both a/c,

P-38 - $97,147
P-51 - $51,572

P-51 1945 - $50,985


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 3, 2010)

Milosh said:


> FLYBOY, that is drgondog's text.
> 
> Adler, would say fanatic = fanboy? I agree, but sometimes Mr. P-38 only reads what he wants to read.



That was my point... 



Milosh said:


> The AAFSD only lists costs for 1944 for both a/c,
> 
> P-38 - $97,147
> P-51 - $51,572
> ...



Still about 2:1...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2010)

Milosh said:


> FLYBOY, that is drgondog's text.



Really? 

He knows better than that!


----------



## drgondog (Dec 3, 2010)

Milosh said:


> I put drgondog's post to a P-38 fanatic and this was his reply:
> 
> Left out a few mission types: What about photo/recon, torpedo attacking, dive bombing, strategic level bombing, coastal-shipping attacking, night fighter, strike fighter? There is not one of these roles that the Mustang even comes close to performing as well as the P-38.
> 
> ...



If the gentleman in question is referring to me as 'fanboy' I would simply offer him facts and let him check his own..

Not missing the qualities of the Mustang versus Lightning at all - neither did the USAAF and USAF planning leaders post war when they chose the Mustang over the Thunderbolt and Lightning...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2010)

Shazam!


----------



## drgondog (Dec 4, 2010)

Milosh - back to the final points not addressed above - quotes are mine and your P-38 guy's comments are _in italics_
Quote:
Imagine P-51 pilot able to spot P-38 farther away than P-38 pilot can spot Mustang (same eyesight assumed), which puts the Mustang in a position to decide whether it can attack from a superior tactical position or leave if not favorable 

_This is true, but during the war, there were instances where Luftwaffe fighters did not attack American bombers because they could see from a distance that they were escorted by P-38s. What better protection could a bomber crew want?_

*The point was the disadvantage to a P-38 against the Me 109 or Fw 190 when the P-38 could be spotted and identified. The LW pilots could, and did, select a tactical approach to attack the 38s with favorable advantage of altitude (for example).* 

Quote:
The Mustangs were FAR more effective in bomber escort, far more effecive in air superiority and far more effective in destruction of enemy aircraft on the ground, had fewer training accidents, cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate - plus or minus the same performance - harder to see. 

_Again an exaggeration. The use of the word "far" is not appropriate here. Also, if, and that is a very big if, the P-51 destroyed far more enemy aircraft on the ground, it would have been in the 8th Airforce where the P-38s were restricted from leaving the bombers whereas the Mustangs were later released to attack targets of opportunity on their way home. And their were far more P-51s in the Eighth than there were P-38s. For a more fair comparison, consider the performance of the P-38 as a ground attack fighter in the 9th, 12th and 14th Airforces in the Med and over the Continent (not to mention the 5th Airforce in the Pacific).

*The fair comparison is the most hostile environment and theatre during WWII - namely the ETO - as far as Allied fighters strafing Axis airfields. Second point re: ETO numbers of P-51s versus P-38s. True that after March 1944 there were more P-51s than P-38s in the ETO, but from October, 1943 through March, 1944 the P-38s exceeded or equaled the P-51s in the 8th AF. (Three operational groups each.)

Having said this, The first LW a/c destroyed on the ground following Doolittle's order was by the 78th on 6 February, 1944. (A P-47 Group). The three primary 8th AF P-38 Groups (20th, 55th, 364th and 479th destroyed a grand total of 57 LW aircraft on the ground through the end of July 1944 when they then converted to P-51s. The 479th went on to destroy 102 on the Ground during September to outscore the other three P-38 FG's combined.

Contrast those numbers with the ground totals of the 4th and 355th just for March and April, 1944 (4th-158 Destroyed on Ground, 355th- 134 Destroyed on the ground. Each of the two P-51 groups alone, in just those two months, nearly exceeded ALL of the combined P-38 groups for ALL of their 8th AF history. For those two months the 20th, 55th and 364th destroyed a combined 29.5 on the ground. 

Both the P-38 and Mustang groups were flying the same missions to the same targets at the same time. *


Quote:
Even with twin engines the P-38 had a terrible ratio for aircraft destroyed on the ground to the number of aircraft (P-3 lost while strafing - while the twin engines offered some reliabilty when an engine was lost to mechanical reasons, a coolant hit or fuel/fuel fuel line was curtains for both of them - an the P-38 was an easier target to see and hit by flak crews. 

The P-38 was a far better ground attack/close support fighter than the P-51. Its concentrated firepower, which included a 20 mm cannon, was more effective against all types of targets--including light armor. It could carry 4000 pounds of bombs and ten rockets as opposed to 2000 pounds for the P-51D/H. And the P-51s could only carry six rockets when they were carrying any bombs.

*Their record with the 8th AF did not reflect that relative to strafing airfields. As they 8th didn't do much CAS it is hard to say relative to ETO - maybe some statistics are available for MTO or PTO. 

Neither the Mustang or Lightning groups in the 8th, except during the Normandy campaign, flew CAS. The P-38 had two external racks capable of 1600 pounds each, for either the 300 gallon ferry tank or the bombs but rarely carried either. For Ground support role in 8th the load out was either 2x500 or 2x250, occasionally 2x1000, for most missions for both fighters - although the P-38 clearly had a greater load capacity. *

As far as surviveability on ground attack missions is concerned, both fighters were susceptible to ground fire, but, in the abscence of engine fire, the P-38 was the more surviveable of the two. It had two engines to be knocked out, and those two engines provided good protection for the pilot from all but head-on fire; those guns up front helped from that angle. Also, the late-model P-38s had fire sensors and extinguishers, so they had a chance even with an engine fire. And if the plane was doomed, the Lightning, with one good engine, had the possibility to leave the immediate area and climb high enough to allow the pilot to parachute to safety. Not so the P-51.

*Logic would point to your statement being true - Howver the P-38 survivability, statistically, relative to aircraft lost strafing per aircraft destroyed was significantly less than the 51 in the 8th AF... There are no known statistics which can point back to the reasons the 51 was more effective in this category so one can only speculate that a.) the 38 was an easier target to hit because of the size and ability to spot and prepare for, and b.) was more prone to fire because of the many fuel tanks in the wings - but that is speculation. Facts are that the P-38s lost twice as many ships per a/c destroyed on an airfield when compared to Mustang. 
*

Milosh - pass this statistical set to your friend._


----------



## drgondog (Dec 4, 2010)

Some additional thoughts;
The October 1944 Fighter Conference at Patuxent River brought in fighter pilots from all services to evaluate and compare the US fighter inventory across a wide range of attributes including climb, accleration, turn manueverability, range, etc

Here are some of the results contrasting P-51D-15 and P-38J-25..
Profile Drag - P-51D=.0176 or 4.1 sq ft; P-38J=.0270 or 8.84 sq ft
L/D - P-51D= 14.92; P-38= 14.28 
Range (max internal fuel) P-51D =1250; P-38J/L=1170 @10,000 ft/most economical power
Turning Performance- no flaps
P-51D speed for 3G stall = 159mph; P-38J/L= 170mph (both ranked better than P-47D-30 and F4U-1D)
P-51D minimum radius (compared to FM-2 index of 12.) = 21.5; P-38J/L= 24.6

Note - the 51D was ranked behind the FM-2 (best), P-63A-9, P-61B-1 and FF6F-5 in that order 
Acceleration starting from 250mph and applying Military Power
P-51D =3.85; P-38J/L=4.13 ft/sec/sec - By contrast F4U-1D=3.33 and F6F=2.60
Limit Dive Speed
P-51D =505mph IAS, 1G; P-38J/L=440mph IAS; P-47D-30= 505mph IAS; F4U-1D=443mph
Initial Dive acceleration for P-38 slight better than P-51 at nose over, but caught and passed quickly by P-51.
The P-38J/L climbed significantly better than the P-51D, slightly better than the P-51B and less than the P-51H.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 4, 2010)

Good posts drgondog.

My own take on this is that while the P-38 was, in some cases, not allowed to reach it's full potential that potential was not going to equal the Mustangs potential or actual performance. This is hardly surprising as the Mustang, being about 3 years newer, is at least a half a generation (if not a full generation) ahead of the P-38. In structure as well as aerodynamics. 

As far as some of the capabilities of the P-38 go, it is a larger airplane, and in even the early versions it was a 2300hp airplane. It should be able to do certain things better, like carry bombs. 
The torpedo carrying ability however is a bit of a stretch, the widely published photos a one or two experimental planes carrying torpedoes (or mock ups) is not the same as operational capability. 

A different take on the ground strafing thing comes from the CBI theater. There it has been said for every P-38 lost in strafing missions there would be 3 P-47s lost or 4 p-51s lost on comparable missions. The magazine article offers no other statistics and considering the number of P-38s in theater (two squadrons?) there may not have been a big enough data base to draw a valid conclusion, hanger tales aside. P-38s were known to have returned from missions on one engine for distance of over 600 miles. 

Given the age of the P-38 I would say that is amazing the two planes are as close as they are, but the nod has to go to the Mustang even if the P-38 goes to what ifs like the "K" model.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 4, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Good posts drgondog.
> 
> *Thanks SR.. I'm often wrong but never uncertain.. Lol*
> 
> ...



Shortround - I think the great intangible between the two ships was the benchmark aerodynamics, including a laminar flow wing that proved a delay in transonic drag rise and shock wave movement from the first prototype to the last.

Given the great drag capabilities and a damned fine airframe the 51, particularly as manifested in the P-51H, had room to grow into a damned fine twin with phoenomenal speed and range - giving it much better performance than the P-61 as well as greater payload than the P-38.

In this debate I have always focused on the Fighter and not the Weapons System and readily agree that if you could only pick one fighter for your inventory of land based fighters (and resources are no issue), I would choose the P-38L (or K), P-47N and F4U-1D and P-51H at the end of the war and have to spend a lot of time thinking about the likely missions going forward.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 4, 2010)

Great discussion guys, if a little emotive


----------



## renrich (Dec 5, 2010)

It does not take a genius to determine that the P38 is going to be easier to hit with flak or MG fire than a much smaller single engine fighter. Bigger target! Also many more vulnerable places that can bring down the airplane. A mallard is easier to get hits on than a teal, given the same range and same speed.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 6, 2010)

At the very end of the discussion, as the jet age arrived and the USAA/USAF was facing severe budget contraints and had to make a decsion which few piston engine fighters were desirable to compliment US warmaking capability - the USAAF/USAF picked the P-51D/H and the P-82 - which replaced the P-38L, the P-47D/M/N, the P-61 for all the missions the P-38 (and P-47 and P-61) was tasked to do.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 6, 2010)

drgondog said:


> At the very end of the discussion, as the jet age arrived and the USAA/USAF was facing severe budget contraints and had to make a decsion which few piston engine fighters were desirable to compliment US warmaking capability - the USAAF/USAF picked the P-51D/H and the P-82 - which replaced the P-38L, the P-47D/M/N, the P-61 for all the missions the P-38 (and P-47 and P-61) was tasked to do.



Don't know about the P61/P38 mix but I do know the P51 was a lot cheaper to make than the P47 (even though the P47 was more rugged and the P51 was being kept for ground attack).


----------



## drgondog (Dec 6, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Don't know about the P61/P38 mix but I do know the P51 was a lot cheaper to make than the P47 (even though the P47 was more rugged and the P51 was being kept for ground attack).



Very true Tim, and the P-47 was a closer contender as a 'keeper' primarily because of the long range performance of the N and the much better economics of both the 51 and the 47 over the 38.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 6, 2010)

drgondog said:


> At the very end of the discussion, as the jet age arrived and the USAA/USAF was facing severe budget contraints and had to make a decsion which few piston engine fighters were desirable to compliment US warmaking capability - the USAAF/USAF picked the P-51D/H and the P-82 - which replaced the P-38L, the P-47D/M/N, the P-61 for all the missions the P-38 (and P-47 and P-61) was tasked to do.



The USAF held large stocks of P-47s, particularly Ds but some Ns as well. 

Most went to the Air National Guard on the East coast. Twenty-six ANG fighter squadrons, primarily in the East, South, Puerto Rico and Hawaii, were assigned P-47s.

One of the reasons that the P-51 was used in Korea over the P-47 was that the P-51 ANG units were stationed on the West coast, so had better positioning for spares, transport, crew rotations ect, ect. Forty-one squadrons, generally in the West and Midwest, operated P-51Ds. 

Five ANG units operated P-80s. 12 operated B-26s (Invaders, not Marauders).

My knowledge of US geography is a little hazy, but I believe that the P-47/P-51 allocations generally broke down on grounds of proximity to production plants. Republic had plants in New York and Indiana, whereas North American had plants in California and Texas.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 7, 2010)

Jabberwocky said:


> The USAF held large stocks of P-47s, particularly Ds but some Ns as well.
> 
> Most went to the Air National Guard on the East coast. Twenty-six ANG fighter squadrons, primarily in the East, South, Puerto Rico and Hawaii, were assigned P-47s.
> 
> ...



Difficult to establish that connection. For example the 56th FG became the 56th Fighter Interceptor Group under SAC, post war and transitioned to P-51H in 1946 - then later P-80 - based at Selfridge MI. The 'South' would be generally closer to Texas, Ditto Puerto Rico.


----------



## Josh64 (Dec 17, 2010)

It's hard to make a comparison like this, with any two types of WWII fighters. To compare the P-51 and P-38 is hard unless you largely narrow down the categories. The P-51 was a better all round fighter (air to air), but the P-38 was definitely a force to be reckoned with. The P-38 had very good turning and climb performance at altitudes above 20,000 feet, but could not dive as well as anything due to problems with compressibility in most variants. The P-51 was a "better" performer than the P-38 at all altitudes, but above 20,000 ft as mentioned this gap shrunk considerably. The achievements of the mustang in the ETO were nothing short of amazing but again you have to look at all the factors involved. Rather than write a book here, I will say that both fighters along with the P-47 were outstanding, and any one of them was capable of winning the war. I look at combat experience, and achievements when comparing fighter aircraft types (at least when discussing war topics) and its hard to choose one over the other in such a large envelope of categories.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 20, 2010)

And in what category was the P-38 significantly superior to the P-51 (Merlin-engined)? I can't think of many and I doubt that these will make up for the economical advantages of the P-51.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 20, 2010)

In the category of availability - P-38 made it's mark on WW2 way before P-51B/C/D did.


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 20, 2010)

I wonder if the better question might be...
Which plane, would the absence of, have had the most effect on the war?

If there was never a P51 vs. if there was never a P38.


----------



## Josh64 (Dec 28, 2010)

riacrato said:


> And in what category was the P-38 significantly superior to the P-51 (Merlin-engined)? I can't think of many and I doubt that these will make up for the economical advantages of the P-51.



This is a very broad topic as I mentioned before. If you are just considering air to air combat then one trait the P-38 had that was superior to the P-51 was it's gun emplacement. Placing the guns directly on the nose reduced jamming tendancies when compared to guns on the wing of a fighter, and the fact that it had a 20mm cannon gave it some advantage in firepower. It's not all just about flight performance when compaing two fighters (IMO). I totally agree the P-51 had higher performance, that's a given. But other aspects of a fighter can give it an advantage over an aircraft with higher flight performance, and all aircraft have some sort of performance advantage over another, even if it is small. I mean the P-51 and P-38 were inferior to the P-47 in rate of dive, the P-38 and P-51 were superior to the P-47 in a climb, the FW-190 and P-47 were superior to the P-51 in roll rate, the Japanese A6M, Ki-43, etc. were superior to almost anything in rate of turn at most altitudes, even the P-51, the Bf-109 was superior to the Spitfire in a dive, the P-47 was more rugged than pretty much anything, I could go on and on, and I'm sure you already know this anyways. The P-51 had the best overall combination of speed, acceleration, and range I agree,but all aircraft can explot their advantages either large or small to gain a victory. The P-51 was able to defeat the Luftwaffe because it's range enabled it to go anywhere the bombers went (which is where the Luftwaffe normally was). However even though it had superior performance in most areas, those BF-109's and FW-190's still fought well, and took their toll of P-51's, P-38's and P-47's etc. Just nowhere near enough to win the war. But there are so many aspects you have to consider which really makes it hard to compare any two aircraft types in combat, to determine which one was really "better". However like I said if you are just considering flight performance with no combat performance or ability, then the P-51 is of course the overall winner.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 29, 2010)

One could argue that the P-51 was the better fighter and the P-38 was the better weapons system - but if the question was what WWII a/c was the best weapons system I would argue for the P-47 series over the P-38.


----------



## III/JG53_Johann (Dec 31, 2010)

absolutly the P51. Becouse the P38 was not able to preform the same turn caractrics of the P38. Not that the P51 is a Stuntplane.. but it could counter evry evasive move from the P38 easely in a virtual fight.. AND can outturn the P38 when he is on his 6's o clock.

Why i know that.. i love aircraft like meany of us. I'm an online combat pilot, and quite good @ what i do as a hobby.

I'm inlisted in 3 virtual squadrons. And verry active in the dogfight world.

for example:

JG53 johan

so i do know what i'm talking about. i dont fly with only german aircraft.. i like the ally's plane's as wel. IL2 sturmovik with mod's, Rise of flight and so on and on..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2010)

III/JG53_Johann said:


> absolutly the P51. Becouse the P38 was not able to preform the same turn caractrics of the P38. Not that the P51 is a Stuntplane.. but it could counter evry evasive move from the P38 easely in a virtual fight.. AND can outturn the P38 when he is on his 6's o clock.
> 
> Why i know that.. i love aircraft like meany of us. I'm an online combat pilot, and quite good @ what i do as a hobby.
> 
> ...



Johan - you cannot base your "hobby" on what it takes to fly a "REAL" aircraft - I don't care how good you think you are, unless you can show us that you had some REAL flight training, you don't have a clue about flying a real high performance aircraft. I've taken little know-it-all putzs' like your self up for an initial flight lesson and watch them chuck their lunch during a simple stall in a Cessna 172, so as a bit of advice please spare us your delusional self-proclaimed flying antics, there are some of us on this site who really do fly and been around all types of aircraft for many years and don't appreciate an "armchair" blowing out a lot of hot air based on what he experienced while playing a "game."


----------



## drgondog (Dec 31, 2010)

<smile>


----------



## riacrato (Dec 31, 2010)

Josh64 said:


> I totally agree the P-51 had higher performance, that's a given. But other aspects of a fighter can give it an advantage over an aircraft with higher flight performance,


Totally agree, but concerning P-38 vs P-51 the latter trumps the former in most non-performance aspects as well: simplified pilot training for a single engine aircraft, much lower production and maintenance costs, fuel consumption... I guess the P-38 gives some more tactical options when it comes to carrying ordinance or attacking ground targets (with cannon) but I don't think the empirical evidence shows a significant difference. Another advantage especially over water will be the ability to fly home with a shot-up engine, but it's very debatable if that is so much of a plus in the big picture or more of a psychological relief for the pilot.

Of course the P-38 is available much earlier in the war but once the P-51 is there, it becomes pretty much obsolete as a fighter,


----------



## wells (Jan 1, 2011)

Both aircraft are equally capable of destroying targets that are in front of them. I'd even give the P-38 the slight advantage in that situation, being more stable in yaw. The ability to survive being outnumbered and live to fight another day, has to go to the Mustang, with its greater level and dive speeds, in addition to better situational awareness for the pilot ( visibility ). That gives the Mustang the overall edge.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 1, 2011)

III/JG53_Johann said:


> absolutly the P51. Becouse the P38 was not able to preform the same turn caractrics of the P38. Not that the P51 is a Stuntplane.. but it could counter evry evasive move from the P38 easely in a virtual fight.. AND can outturn the P38 when he is on his 6's o clock.
> 
> Why i know that.. i love aircraft like meany of us. I'm an online combat pilot, and quite good @ what i do as a hobby.
> 
> ...



Mighty arrogant post, especially in the company that you are in. I have flown flight sim dogfights, and flown real aircraft at Air Combat USA where the airplanes and the flying are real, as are the G's , the high cockpit temperature, etc.

Having flown in both, I can tell you that they are not the same, not even close. It is quite easy to sit in your comfy chair with your joystick in your hand and a soda nearby, you can pause the game to go pee, etc. Get into the cockpit of a Marchetti SF260 to dogfight an Extra 300 when the cockpit temperature is 117 degrees F. G loads of +6 to -4 Gs couple with dehydration and high temperatures are factors that cannot be simulated in a computer. Statistically, the Extra 300 should beat the pants off an SF-260 and 2 times it didn't, 3 times it did.

Statistics, flying in a simulator, performance characteristics all mean nothing once you get in the sky. Often times, it is who sees who first. If the fight gets into a turning fight, it is a matter of who makes the first mistake that the opponent can capitalize on. 99% of real dogfights one on one will be over in less than 2 minutes. 

There are folks here that have way more knowledge and experience than I do who will agree that flying a flight sim, no matter how "good" or "realistic" it is cannot give you the real experience.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2011)

III/JG53_Johann said:


> absolutly the P51. Becouse the P38 was not able to preform the same turn caractrics of the P38. Not that the P51 is a Stuntplane.. but it could counter evry evasive move from the P38 easely in a virtual fight.. AND can outturn the P38 when he is on his 6's o clock.
> 
> Why i know that.. i love aircraft like meany of us. I'm an online combat pilot, and quite good @ what i do as a hobby.
> 
> ...



You are not flying. You are playing a video game. 

Can not compare the two. Sorry...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## III/JG53_Johann (Jan 1, 2011)

sorry but dit you ever fly a IL-2 game on full realistic? the flight data is quite realistic. So i have something to compare.

oke, its not the real deal.. but if you think of it logicly.. what i'm telling has a lot of truth in it.

First of all, my post isn't meanth arraogant, its just my opinnion. I want you to know that i do this game for about 10 years. A learn a read a lot about aircraft and just love it. I'm flying in tree squadrons, 1 axis and 2 ally. Just to learn more about flying. And get as close as i can to realisme.. 

In my oppinion the P38 is a good aircraft. But as a fighter it would not be my personal choice. As a ground attack aircraft its more than suitable.. IF you have an Airbrake.. the P38 without is less good becouse you have to put in a shallow dive.. @ the cost of airspeed and suppress. I like to do aggressive flying when i engage ground targets. pick out target, DIVE, take airspeed.. evade flak drop bombs.. and get the hell out of the range of flak.. BUT if you have a P38 with an air-brake.. you get more options..if you dont the airflow would take out the use of your elevators. And you risk pounding in to the ground with a to steep dive.

Speed is the key in a good low bomb run, to slow.. your a great target.. to fast in a P38 without an airbrake.. (in a dive) its almost sertain death.

I would like to invite all of you thinking i'm talking non realistic business to fly the game.. full realistic.. and ONLINE. no AI.. AI -> easy.. human players.. a hell of a lot realisme -> what i do like..


So think of it what you want, its just my oppinion i look at aircraft at the capacety's of that aircraft.. learned that if you want to be good at flying it online.. is knowing the flawnes of the aircrafts you fly with.. that you dont try somthing stupid.. like for example trying tight turns with a P38 , or trying to dogfight with an aircobra OR trying to outturn a spitfire with an ME109.. 

and what you say about G loads and temperature.. its absolutely true.. that can not be simulated.. and believe me.. sometimes.. i want to have a time machine.. to have my shot with an actual aircraft.. i do this simulation for my passion about aircraft.. and to test what i have read about the aircraft.. not everything can be simulated. but it is not so that it is easy to take down an other aircraft. you have black outs red outs.. except you dont FEEL it.. you see it.. and thats absolutely true.. Its just the closed way i get back to that period.

OW and if you have a great computer.. and want to test what i just told. I recommend the simulator Rise of Flight.. -> full realism.. on dogfight server.. have a TRACK IR and good joystick with rudders and throttle like i do have.. and experience the closed you can get to WW1 period.

happy new year, and if i offended any of you with my post in this topic it was not meant this way..


----------



## renrich (Jan 1, 2011)

Actually, if the US had concentrated it's development and production efforts on only two fighters for ALL uses during the war from 1942 on, with the exception that the F4F and P40 would need to be built until the two all around best were ready, the F4U and P51 would have done quite nicely.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## III/JG53_Johann (Jan 1, 2011)

> Actually, if the US had concentrated it's development and production efforts on only two fighters for ALL uses during the war from 1942 on, with the exception that the F4F and P40 would need to be built until the two all around best were ready, the F4U and P51 would have done quite nicely.



agree. But the fact is that war is a business.. you can not oversee the fact that there was a lot of money involved in war. So i can see why there where more than one variant of aircraft available. One variant better than the other.. but it took lives to find out faults in aircraft. And thats the bad side of it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2011)

III/JG53_Johann said:


> sorry but dit you ever fly a IL-2 game on full realistic? the flight data is quite realistic. So i have something to compare.
> 
> oke, its not the real deal.. but if you think of it logicly.. what i'm telling has a lot of truth in it.
> 
> ...



Dude - straight up - I have flown Il-2 (it a friggin game!!!!) and I have flown *REAL HIGH PERFORMANCE AIRCRAFT *T-33s, F-4s, Fouga Magister, T-34s, L-29s and L-39s you your game *IS NOT*realistic to what one would experience in real flight, and I don't care what type of computer you have and how long you been doing it. Even if you had a full motion sim you're not experiencing the environmental characteristics that you would in a real aircraft. By playing these *"games"* the designers have provided graphics and animation performance that in theory should show the user what they would experience in the real aircraft, again lacking the environmental characteristics (G loading, the feel of acceleration, smells and changes in temperature, etc., in other worlds all the physical things that you don't experience sitting on your @ss in front of a monitor in your confortable home)

You're delusional, and if I sound insulting its meant to be. You are not a *REAL* pilot and just because you're in "3 squadrons" doesn't mean jack sh!t to me. The day you can show me a pilot's certificate with some kind of REAL high performance aircraft experience, then you'll have my attention, until then I suggest you cut the crap. As I stated earlier, I would take folks like you who claimed to me to be "Flight Sim Gods" up on a flight in a simple light aircraft and they would puke their last 3 meals out by the time we're 200 feet in the air. So again, stop the crap, you're not a fighter pilot, you're not a pilot, you're an armchair gamer living in a dream world and you're really pissing me off!!!!


----------



## renrich (Jan 1, 2011)

To me, having been in a light plane a lot, as a passenger and with about 10 hours solo in a 172, I wonder how pilots in fighters in WW2 were able to see enemy fighters and at the same time fly their own plane and sometimes fly formation. A small plane at any distance at all is really hard to see and some of the fighters really did not have good visibiity out, especially anywhere in the aft 180 degrees. As mentioned once before, I got a ride in an L39 once and during all the aerobatics, it was really hard to keep straight where we were in the sky,(situational awareness) and when I made a few turns in it and flew it through a cloud(my first time to pilot an AC through a cloud) and finally did a couple of aileron rolls, I was not sure where all this was happening. It was a kick in the rear but there is a lot more to it than meets the eye.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 1, 2011)

I would have loved Sims when I was first learning to fly.. but i'm reminded that even something as 'reasonably simple' as a level 360 turn takes on a new dimension at SL in a fight for your life and you are flying on the ragged edge of a stall - with one eye on needle and ball, all your senses focused on how the airplane 'feels' and watch your oponent gain on you... and oh yeah taking 3+ G's in the process.. while knowing a mistake a.) gets you shot down, or b.) you slip intao an accelerated stall and die with a snap roll being the last acrobatic manuever of your life.

My time in a 51 gave me enormous respect for the number of ways you can screw up. ALL high performance fighters by their nature are pushing the envelope in one way or another - when you get out of an envelope you either die or deposit a couple of pounds of fecal matter in your shorts

In the limited experience I had with aerobatics it is one thing to perform a manuever like a dnace step - it is quite another to have a three dimensional situational awareness in which you a.) see the other guy and b.) force your bird to react to you without conscious thought.

I flew the LTV simulator against my father with me flying A-7 and F-8 against MiG-17, 19 and 21. He whipped my ass all the time - no matter what I flew - simply because situational awareness and unconscious response was not burned into my by years of experience and actual air combat... you can't teach it by simulation IMHO


----------



## evangilder (Jan 1, 2011)

"Full realism" is only a euphemism for no computer assist on flying the game. I remember playing Red Baron with "full realism". Hmmm, no G load, no freezing your butt off in the cold European weather with the open cockpit, and when you die, you just restart the game...

The flight sim can do some things, but you are still flying something that is at the mercy of a computer programmer who is programming inputs with no experience flying these old aircraft, full realism or not.

It is good that you are learning about something you are interested in with this, however, you cannot base what a real aircraft can do based on a simulator. There are several people here that have flown the real thing, and *they* know what these aircraft are capable of.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2011)

Ren, Bill, and Eric, all true. Add in the smell, heat, G forces, sweating in your flight suit, trying to fly precision maneuvers while your stomach is getting queezy after pulling 4 or 5 Gs all the time talking on the radio and looking out for traffic.

PC sims have given a good perspective of WW2 aircraft performance and situations but in the end you're playing a game and when I hear these knuckleheads trying to base a discussion here and what they "experience" in their toy sim, well it just sickens me.


----------



## III/JG53_Johann (Jan 1, 2011)

DUDE, i'm not your DUDE.. comprendre? and the fact is.. that its getting CLOSE to realism for the 1.000.000 time.. In my opinion when you put the flight caractrics of the P51 to the P38 the P51 for me wins. PERIOD. 

AND, i say once again that the real flying is different because you have some extra influences.. but you have the input of the caractrics of the planes where you can enjoy your combat flight simulator. Oke you dont feel G's and oke you dont smell you own sweat and other fluids from pullings those G's.. but hey.. that is no influence to the AIRCRAFT.. but the influence on the PILOT. 

Your flying, and can for example pull 6g's easily.. but my granny could fly and would not take 4g's for example.. to me thats the example of the deference of taking punishment on a person's body.. and then i'm not counting braveness or foolish reactions of a pilot. Lets say pulling so many g's that you are knocked out-> pilot error..

Goddamn, than they respond i'm acting arrogant.. but the unwillingnes to accept a man's oppinion bothers me a lot. I have great respect for real pilot's.. but accept the fact that the new simmulator's are getting verry verry realistic.

AND. one other thing.. IL2 is the only old simulator i play. BUT with the latest graffic and sound mod's.. becouse the original version of the game is verry verry out of date.


----------



## III/JG53_Johann (Jan 1, 2011)

> but in the end you're playing a game and when I hear these knuckleheads trying to base a discussion here and what they "experience" in their toy sim, well it just sickens me.



toy game.. obvious you dont have a clue what i'm talking about..

I'm comparing in game data, witch is verry verry VERRY close to the actual performance of the aircraft.. without counting pilot's mistakes/abilities and strength. and then i respond in what way these planes are good and bad for me (in my oppinion).. and then again.. you insult me.. 

you know.. leave it.. it would safe you some 'sick' time.. DUDE


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 1, 2011)

I got one of these so I know EXACTLY what a woman is like:
Realdoll, The World's finest Love Doll

all the curves are there and she looks at me with lust in the eyes so I KNOW what love is. I've "logged" many hours with her so I'm an expert when it comes to women.

Not exactly.. but kinda


----------



## evangilder (Jan 1, 2011)

Oh believe me, flyboyj knows what you are talking about, and he has flown a LOT of aircraft, REAL aircraft. 

What you are failing to understand is that basing your opinions on flight characteristics by experience playing a game are not realistic. They are not the same, at all.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2011)

III/JG53_Johann said:


> DUDE, i'm not your DUDE.. comprendre? and the fact is.. that its getting CLOSE to realism for the 1.000.000 time.. In my opinion when you put the flight caractrics of the P51 to the P38 the P51 for me wins. PERIOD.
> 
> AND, i say once again that the real flying is different because you have some extra influences.. but you have the input of the caractrics of the planes where you can enjoy your combat flight simulator. Oke you dont feel G's and oke you dont smell you own sweat and other fluids from pullings those G's.. but hey.. that is no influence to the AIRCRAFT.. but the influence on the PILOT.
> 
> ...



I was going to play with you for a while but I just decided you're too stupid to be here. You say you have great respect for REAL pilots, I am one, so if you want you can start kissing my @ss. I've spent more time peeing on a tarmac then you'll ever see being the stick of a REAL airplane, not some kids game that gives you delusional visions of grandeur. Its evident you're NOT a pilot, you're basing your whole aviation eduction on a video game, and putting mildly you're totally full of sh!t. I'm giving you a gift, wear it well because its quite evident you're too stupid to realize there are some of us here who have been to where you can only dream of.

BTW - use a spell checker dipsh!t *Comprendre?*


----------



## parsifal (Jan 2, 2011)

I'm not a pilot, but Ive flown in military aircraft as a passenger. Ive flown flight as a training aid for RC aircraft, and have logged about 300 hours on those things. When I was serving, I got to try my hand at some of the real flight simulators at the tac Warfare School at HMAS Watson. 

I have about 100 hours on RC aircraft,, and none on real aircraft. I can tell you, my friend, that in comparison to the "real" (ie RC) models, there is no comparison in the difficulties you can encounter. There may be localised atmospherics, the model may not be trimmed properly, the engine may lose power, you may get a loose or broken control rod.....your elevators may warp, because of excessive flutter, or 10 other things the flight sim cannot prepare you for.

Dont get me wrong...flight sims, even game sims, can be useful as a training aid, but they cannot compare to the real deal. Flying RC is a sttep above flying computers, and I believe flying for real would be about 50 steps above that.

I suggest you listen to these guys....they know what they are talking about.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (Jan 2, 2011)

Bill, your post reminds me of a time I was on a long final, along with several other AC, solo in our 172, landing to the North at Addison Airport. I was over the Dallas North Tollroad with all those cars and office buildings below me and the tower told me to start doing S turns to open up the interval. I had never heard about that before although it was obvious what he wanted so I cautiously began "S turns" I was scared to death, sweating like a pig, shaking like a dog passing peach seeds and thinking, "I am going to stall this sucker and go down into all that concrete and traffic and kill myself and all these people." It is comical now but serious then. He finally told me to pull out and go around again and I thankfully did. It must have felt a little like encounter at low altitude like you talked about. No way a flight sim can imitate that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2011)

parsifal said:


> IDont get me wrong...flight sims, even game sims, can be useful as a training aid, but they cannot compare to the real deal.



I've used MS Flight Sim to train for my instrument rating and sometimes pull it out to refresh some basic instrument procedures - it's excellent for that.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 2, 2011)

III/JG53_Johann said:


> toy game.. obvious you dont have a clue what i'm talking about..
> 
> I'm comparing in game data, *witch is verry verry VERRY close to the actual performance of the aircraft.*. .......



I'm curious - with all the flying you do, whats 'mach tuck" and how does it affect the 'air brake'?

Comiso, great one!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2011)

III/JG53_Johann said:


> Your flying, and can for example pull 6g's easily.. *but my granny could fly and would not take 4g's for example*.. to me thats the example of the deference of taking punishment on a person's body.. and then i'm not counting braveness or foolish reactions of a pilot. Lets say pulling so many g's that you are knocked out-> pilot error.



I think that's the dumbest statement ever made by anyone on this forum!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2011)

III/JG53_Johann I think you are missing the point that Joe is trying to point out. That game is a model and nothing else. You are not flying, you are playing. 

1. The game can not simulate factors (both human and environmental) that will effect the pilot which in turn can effect the outcome of the fight. 

2. If you get shot down, you hit the restart button...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2011)

Njaco said:


> Comiso, great one!


----------



## drgondog (Jan 2, 2011)

comiso90 said:


> I got one of these so I know EXACTLY what a woman is like:
> Realdoll, The World's finest Love Doll
> 
> all the curves are there and she looks at me with lust in the eyes so I KNOW what love is. I've "logged" many hours with her so I'm an expert when it comes to women.
> ...





Does it have "G" Spot installed??


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Does it have "G" Spot installed??



OK, that was funny.


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 2, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Does it have "G" Spot installed??




Oh ya,,, I pull Maximum G's with her all the time. Do you understand? I know!



.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 2, 2011)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2011)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2011)

I can't wait until B-17 Engineer clicks on that link...


----------



## III/JG53_Johann (Jan 2, 2011)

for adults i was hoping that you had more brains... match tuck? if you go to fast.. your elevators may not work properly like the most know fact is the P38.

and you loose your lift..

If you apply air brake.. you reduce airspeed so you get grip again and apply lift to your aircraft.

Ow and for adults i was hoping people would not play with my account.. obvious some guy's wont accept an other form of truth.. and act with childish behavior. Shame on you so called pilots with an attitude that smell's bad..

I like my hobby, will never stop liking it.. i compare data and facts.. not surplus facts those are human error.. 

OW and sucking up your ass? rather not.. your attitude smells like ****.. so i dont want to know how the rest smell you hillbilly. 

You suck. Big time!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2011)

III/JG53_Johann said:


> for adults i was hoping that you had more brains... match tuck? if you go to fast.. your elevators may not work properly like the most know fact is the P38.
> 
> and you loose your lift..
> 
> ...





> *not surplus facts those are human error.. *



So I bet that means you probably sh!t yourself every time you get into a REAL airplane....



Yep - too stoopid to be here - bye bye @sshole - shove your joystick up yor @ss!

And since you're so into simulation, here's a gift for you!






BTW nice Avatar!

OK FOLKS, TIME TO GET THIS THREAD BACK ON TRACK!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 2, 2011)

Uh, didn't see that coming....


----------



## Njaco (Jan 3, 2011)

for adults at least we're literate and can use spellcheck.

what exactly are the parameters when comparing these two planes?


----------



## parsifal (Jan 3, 2011)

what a boofhead.......


----------



## Marcel (Jan 3, 2011)

Njaco said:


> for adults at least we're literate and can use spellcheck.


And English is your native language, unlike others on this forum. 

But I'm a little disappointed with the attitude of Johan. You should know better then using an old simulation game as an argument against aeronautical engineers and real pilots. While I agree it's a great game (used to play it, too) I never believed it was anything close to real aircraft flying. In fact I have a few hours (under guidance) on a C172 and it definitely flew different than the one in MSFS for instance.

Anyway, enough on this: Which was the best fighter? For what mission and why compare, they were two different beasts all together.


----------



## Maximowitz (Jan 4, 2011)

Dear oh dear... bringing shame on the "Pik A's" like that....


....did I tell you about the time I did 200 mph around the streets of Rome in my Viper? Hang on, that was on Grand Turismo...


----------



## javlin (Jan 5, 2011)

It didn't take long for that one.First comment on the board kinda slammed Al49 alittle on his techniques without researching his builds and methods.I saw this com'in a week ago!Now back to that regular schedule program the 38 or the 51?  Cheers


----------



## futuredogfight (Jan 11, 2011)

Wurger said:


> Taking into consideration all yours opinions guys I have to say that it is hard to decide which one was the better.Both P38 and P51 were enough to shot down German or Japanese planes and it doesn't matter if Admiral Yamamoto was on board.Personally,I prefer P51 to P38 because P51 the cadilac of the sky looks better.


 just because it dosen't look good dose not mean it was better. the p-38 could take a hit in an engine and still fly on if the prop was feathered.


----------



## scottmsw (Jan 25, 2011)

The P-38 was better then the P-51 because of its superior performance in both the PTO and MTO. The P-38 shot down more enemy aircraft then the P-51 in these theatres of war. The P-38 shot down more then 1400 in the MTO and over 1800 in the PTO. The P-38 was rated as the third highest scoring US fighter of WWII behind the P-51 and the F6F. The P-38L with its dive breaks and advanced controls made it a superior fighter to the P-51D. Plus it was a better looking plane. The P-38 flew regular high altitude missions in the MTO and PTO ie more then the P-51. It was very successful as both an air superiority fighter and a ground attack plane. It's overall performance was superior to the Bf109 and FW190 as well as the Oscar and Zero and other Japanese planes such as the Frank and George fighters.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 25, 2011)

scottmsw said:


> The P-38 was better then the P-51 because of its superior performance in both the PTO and MTO.



So those were the only two theatres that counted in the war????

Also when did how an aircraft looks have anything to do with whether it was the better fighter?

Also would you care to elaborate how its performance was superior to the P-51D and Bf 109 as well as the Fw 190. Please discuss at which altitudes and conditions as well.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 25, 2011)

scottmsw said:


> The P-38 was better then the P-51 because of its superior performance in both the PTO and MTO. The P-38 shot down more enemy aircraft then the P-51 in these theatres of war. The P-38 shot down more then 1400 in the MTO and over 1800 in the PTO. The P-38 was rated as the third highest scoring US fighter of WWII behind the P-51 and the F6F. The P-38L with its dive breaks and advanced controls made it a superior fighter to the P-51D. Plus it was a better looking plane. The P-38 flew regular high altitude missions in the MTO and PTO ie more then the P-51. It was very successful as both an air superiority fighter and a ground attack plane. It's overall performance was superior to the Bf109 and FW190 as well as the Oscar and Zero and other Japanese planes such as the Frank and George fighters.



You will find that bold claims by all of us have a tendency to be challenged regarding facts and sources.

You are woefully short of published facts so far..

Care to comment regarding the assignment of the P-51D to be the primary escort to B-29s attacking Japan?

Care to comment regarding why 'dive brake/manuevering flap' was a required mod for the P-38 and how long it took Lockheed to solve the dive problems?

Care to comment on the relative cost between the P-51 and P-38? as well as the relative operational expenses for training and combat?

Care to comment on the decision by the Air Force to retire the P-38 immediately following WWII and retain the P-47 and P-51? Then retain only the P-51?

Care to comment on the relative 'fear factor' the Luftwaffe pilots held for the P-38 versus the P-51?

Care to comment regarding why our Allies bought and flew P-51s but not the P-38?

Having said the above, the P-38 was an excellent fighter and made great contributions across all theatres - but don't mistake lack of earlier presence (of the P-51B/C/D/K) in the MTO/PTO as a choice by the Theatre commanders - simply, beating the Luftwaffe before D-Day was the highest priority for fighter aircraft in the US and there weren't enough P-51B/C/D/K's available to send more to MTO and PTO.

The Mustang was ~ 200 enemy aircraft destroyed below the F6F against arguably much more consistent capability inherent in the LW... and it destroyed far more enemy aircraft on the ground as well as made significant impact to deep rail and barge and road logistics strafing on the way back to England and Italy in the West.

In the ETO the Mustang had the same amount of enemy aircraft destroyed as the P-38 and the P-47 combined - despite the in-theatre presence of both in advance of the Mustang. 

Against the Me 109G and Fw 190A the P-38F/G through early J was inferior for a couple of reasons - first, it was less manueverable in almost all altitude ranges to 25,000 feet (it would out climb a 190) and only reached horizontal manuever parity in mid 1944 with introduction of boosted controls. Second, the 109 and 190 could easily escape at high altitude with a quick roll and split S and escape as the P-38 entered compressibility.

The P-38L was the best derivative and probably was a better fighter than the Me 109G and Fw 190A in most situations, but the Fw 190D and Me 109K then have to be considered in the equations and they were formidable against all Allied fighters. But by the time the P-38L reached Europe it was relegated to the fighter bomber role in the ETO although it was very successful in the MTO along with the P-51 in the escort/air supremacy role.

Last and not trivial - it was so big that pilots of both the German fighters could often spot the P-38 and have the benefit of deciding whether to manuever for attack or simply evade.

You will have to explain how the P-38L was a 'far better' or even 'better' fighter than the Ki 84 and 100 or the late model JNAF fighters in altitudes below 25,000 feet. Those were also formidable fighters because of extremely capable manuever performance, even if slower... pilot quality not considered.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 25, 2011)

scottmsw said:


> The P-38 shot down more then 1400 in the MTO.



I suggest you look into the differencebetween "claims" and confirmed kills. Additionally I suggest you investigate the P-38s kill/ loss ratio in the ETO. The P-38 is one of my favoriate aircraft and did offer "a few" advantages over the Mustang, but you're very short of facts my friend.
I suggest starting here..

United States Army Air Forces in World War II


----------



## eagledad (Apr 3, 2011)

Drgondog, I will take a crack at these!

Care to comment regarding the assignment of the P-51D to be the primary escort to B-29s attacking Japan?
I have never read any statements on why the P-51 was used for escorting B-29s and not the P-38. With that said I offer the following response:
*The 21st Air Force was commanded by Gen Curtis LeMay, who while with the 8th Air Force saw what the P-51 could do as an escort, so I theorize that he probably preferred the Mustang as an escort for the B-29s. Secondly, if I read my charts correctly from the P-38 and P-51 handbooks, I believe that The P-38 would be at the limit of its range escorting B-29s from Iwo Jima to targets in Japan, especially Tokyo and north. The P-51 would have a greater margin of safety, range wise. (Calculated using 2- 165 gal tanks for P-38 and 2- 110 gallon tanks for P-51, tanks dropped in target area and 5 minutes at war emergency and 15 minutes at military power.) So it may have been range considerations and personal preference that kept the P-38 from escorting the B-29’s.
I would appreciate your take on the reasons!*

Care to comment regarding why 'dive brake/maneuvering flap' was a required mod for the P-38 and how long it took Lockheed to solve the dive problems?
*As you know, the P-38 was designed as a fast climbing high altitude interceptor. The wing used for the design was picked to help the P-38 climb quickly. Unfortunately, that same profile was not optimal if the aircraft traveled at speeds approaching the speed of sound. The P-38 entered the region of compressibility at Mach.67. The P-38 was one of the first if not the first fighter to enter the world of compressibility. Throw in the fact that the Air Corp lost a year’s worth of development with the destruction of the one and only prototype (per Brodie) and we see part of the reason for the delay. Once Lockheed figured out the problem, they came up with a fix, the dive flaps. The Air Corp did not want to disrupt P-38 production, so it wasn’t until the J-25 that the flaps were standardized. Dive flap kits for field installation were produced but the first batch sent to England was lost when the C-54 transport was shot down by a British fighter (Caiden p162/Brodie p 208). So design considerations (high rate of climb), lack of testing prototype, a new phenomenon, and bad luck combined to delay the introduction of the dive flap. 
I would appreciate your take on the reasons!*

Care to comment on the relative cost between the P-51 and P-38? as well as the relative operational expenses for training and combat?
*No argument here, a twin engine aircraft will cost more to build and maintain then a single engine aircraft. As for training, as O B Taylor former commander of the 14th fighter group stated it took longer for the average pilot to master the P-38 compared to a single engine fighter, but once mastered a P-38 pilot could well be unbeatable. Although there were P-38 pilots in the MTO in 1943 that had NO twin engine pilot experience yet successfully flew the Lightning in combat, (Mullins, page 87) it would appear that training someone to pilot a twin engine plane would take longer and be more expensive then a single. I do not fly. Perhaps you would enlighten me on the relative costs? *

Care to comment on the decision by the Air Force to retire the P-38 immediately following WWII and retain the P-47 and P-51? Then retain only the P-51?
*See first part of the previous response.*

Care to comment on the relative 'fear factor' the Luftwaffe pilots held for the P-38 versus the P-51?

*Adolph Galland (104 victories) stated that the P-38 was no match for the German fighters. Heinz Baer (220 victories) thought that the P-38 was a sure kill and easy to out maneuver. However Baer added (after comments about the P-47, P-51, and Spitfire) that “A very good pilot in any of these aircraft was tough to handle and if he had the tactical advantage, he had a good chance to win the fight” (Constable and Toliver page 346-347). On the other hand, Franz Stigler (28 victories) felt that the P-38 could turn inside of a Me-109G, had an amazing climb, and that it was suicidal to fight a P-38 head on. (Christy, page 81). Herbert Kaiser (68 victories) stated “The P-38 Lightning was equal to our Me-109G in performance, far superior in range and was a much more difficult adversary in a dogfight.” (Compared to the P-40) (Christy, page 91). Hans Pichler (75 victories) indicated that “the P-38 was more maneuverable and faster than our Bf-109G-6, especially since the latter was equipped with the two cm (20-mm) under wing gondola weapons. I had never been keen on dogfights with the P-38,” (Caiden page 103). Johannes Steinhoff (176 victories) when asked what plane was the most difficult to handle with a good pilot behind the controls responded: “The Lightning. It was fast, low profiled and a fantastic fighter, and a real danger when it was above you. It was only vulnerable if you were behind it, a little below and closing fast, or turning into it, but on the attack it was a tremendous aircraft. One shot me down from long range in 1944. That would be the one, although the P-51 [Mustang] was deadly because of the long range, and it could cover any air base in Europe. This made things difficult, especially later when flying the jets.” (World War II magazine, February 2000) So based on the above, I would say that the P-38 was generally respected and considered a worthy opponent by the Luftwaffe. 
Part 1of 2*


----------



## eagledad (Apr 3, 2011)

Part 2 of 2

Care to comment regarding why our Allies bought and flew P-51s but not the P-38?

*As stated before, a twin engine aircraft is more expensive to operate and maintain than a single engine aircraft.
*
Having said the above, the P-38 was an excellent fighter and made great contributions across all theatres - but don't mistake lack of earlier presence (of the P-51B/C/D/K) in the MTO/PTO as a choice by the Theatre commanders - simply, beating the Luftwaffe before D-Day was the highest priority for fighter aircraft in the US and there weren't enough P-51B/C/D/K's available to send more to MTO and PTO.

*Agreed*

The Mustang was ~ 200 enemy aircraft destroyed below the F6F against arguably much more consistent capability inherent in the LW... and it destroyed far more enemy aircraft on the ground as well as made significant impact to deep rail and barge and road logistics strafing on the way back to England and Italy in the West.

*Agreed*

In the ETO the Mustang had the same amount of enemy aircraft destroyed as the P-38 and the P-47 combined - despite the in-theatre presence of both in advance of the Mustang. 

*No argument, the numbers speak for themselves. Actually, according to Wagner the P-51 had slightly more air to air and air to ground claims in the ETO/MTO than the P-47 and P-38 combined. This excludes the A-36.*
Against the Me 109G and Fw 190A the P-38F/G through early J was inferior for a couple of reasons - first, it was less maneuverable in almost all altitude ranges to 25,000 feet (it would out climb a 190) and only reached horizontal maneuver parity in mid 1944 with introduction of boosted controls. Second, the 109 and 190 could easily escape at high altitude with a quick roll and split S and escape as the P-38 entered compressibility.
I* definitely agree that the 109 and 190 could escape the early P-38’s with a quick roll and a split S. As for the more maneuverable than a P-38 before mid-1944…
Tests of a FW-190A (Faber’s) and a P-38F in August of 1942 showed that at indicated airspeed of 140 the P-38F could out turn the FW. Agreed above that speed the FW was superior (Price page 50). I don’t know for sure, but I believe the P-38F did not have the maneuver flap setting as the P-38F’s were pre P-38F-15s, the first ones with the maneuver settings. As related above, we have examples of Me-109G pilots who felt that the P-38F’s and G’s were as maneuverable and/or could turn inside of them. O.B Taylor commanded the 14th Fighter group from Oct 1943 through mid July 1944. He wrote: Generally we found that the 38 could out-maneuver anything, friend or foe, between 18,000 and 31,000 feet (5490-9450 meters). Below 18,000 it was sort of a toss-up except that very near the ground we could run (the Axis) right into the dirt, since he apparently couldn’t get quite such a fast pull-out response as we could. From “A History of the 8th Fighter Command” by Lt Col Waldo Heinrichs, Oct 1944, it is stated that pilots who flew the P-38’s said that below 18,000 feet the P-38 can catch the “Hun” in a dive, out climb them, out zoom them and out turn them. The P-38 was at least as fast as the German fighters also. However, it also stated that above 18,000 feet, the P-38’s could not get above the Germans, and had mechanical difficulties at those altitudes and above. I believe that these statements refer to the J model in the first half of 1944.
Interesting, in the MTO an opinion that the P-38 was more maneuverable 18,000-31000 feet, and in the ETO, just the opposite.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on that one.
*
The P-38L was the best derivative and probably was a better fighter than the Me 109G and Fw 190A in most situations, but the Fw 190D and Me 109K then have to be considered in the equations and they were formidable against all Allied fighters. But by the time the P-38L reached Europe it was relegated to the fighter bomber role in the ETO although it was very successful in the MTO along with the P-51 in the escort/air supremacy role.

Last and not trivial - it was so big that pilots of both the German fighters could often spot the P-38 and have the benefit of deciding whether to maneuver for attack or simply evade.

*I totally agree with you on this point. I believe that the distinctive profile of the P-38 allowed the Germans to engage or evade before the Lightnings had a chance to spot their opponents. To me, this may mean that when the P-38 was engaged, it was usually at a tactical disadvantage. When the P-38 had the tactical advantage, it demonstrated that it could more than hold its own as it did on July 7th 1944 (Caiden page 187) when 2 P-38 Groups accounted for 27 of the 75 aerial victories credited to the 8th Fighter Command that day. (Miller Vol 1 page 103) *
You will have to explain how the P-38L was a 'far better' or even 'better' fighter than the Ki 84 and 100 or the late model JNAF fighters in altitudes below 25,000 feet. Those were also formidable fighters because of extremely capable maneuver performance, even if slower... pilot quality not considered. 
*Agreed, the Ki 84 and Ki 100 were formidable opponents, and could not be taken lightly by a P-38 (or P-51 in my opinion) The P-38 was generally faster than the Ki 84, may have had a slight climb advantage but could not roll or turn with it. (Freeman page 34).
*
I went through your questions, in a spirit of learning and sharing knowledge. The P-38 was a fine ship, as you said. However the P-51 was also a fine ship, being easier to fly, with a longer range, faster, and with more development potential. I think as much as cost, these last 4 reasons maybe the main reasons that the P-51 was in service longer than the P-38 and P-47. 

The sources used in this response include:
Combat Profile, Mustang, by Roger Freeman, 1989
Luftwaffe Combat Planes and Aces, edited by Joe Christy, 1981
The Fork Tailed Devil, by Martin Caiden, 1971
American Combat Plane 3rd Edition, by Ray Wagner, 1982
Focke Wulf 190 at War, Alfred Price, 1977
Luftwaffe Fighter Aces, by Mike Spick, 1996
Horrido! by Trevor Constable and Raymond Toliver, 1968
The Lockheed P-38 Lightning, by Warren Bodie, 1991
An Escort of P-38’s, by John D Mullins, 1995
P-38 Lightning, by Jeff Ethell, 1983. 
Pilot Manual for the Lockheed P-38 Lightning
F-51D Mustang Handbook
Fighter Units and Pilots of the 8th Air Force, Kent Miller 2001

May God fly your wing and protect your six!

Eagledad


----------



## drgondog (Apr 6, 2011)

eagledad said:


> *No argument, the numbers speak for themselves. Actually, according to Wagner the P-51 had slightly more air to air and air to ground claims in the ETO/MTO than the P-47 and P-38 combined. This excludes the A-36.*
> 
> _Actually, the P-51 totals for WWII - all theatres combined - were about the same as the P-47 and P-38 combined and far above both in a/c destroyed on the ground. Having said this the actual totals were only kept for the ETO/8th AF_


 
*The 21st Air Force was commanded by Gen Curtis LeMay, who while with the 8th Air Force saw what the P-51 could do as an escort, so I theorize that he probably preferred the Mustang as an escort for the B-29s. Secondly, if I read my charts correctly from the P-38 and P-51 handbooks, I believe that The P-38 would be at the limit of its range escorting B-29s from Iwo Jima to targets in Japan, especially Tokyo and north. The P-51 would have a greater margin of safety, range wise. (Calculated using 2- 165 gal tanks for P-38 and 2- 110 gallon tanks for P-51, tanks dropped in target area and 5 minutes at war emergency and 15 minutes at military power.) So it may have been range considerations and personal preference that kept the P-38 from escorting the B-29’s.
I would appreciate your take on the reasons!*

_I would discount Lemay choosing the 51 because of ETO experiences. He was both an innovator and a results driven pragmatist. Remember that when Iwo Jima was taken, he could have easily brought the P-38 (or the P-47N) there if he believed they would support the mission better than the P-51. If rowboats had served his purpose better he would have put them into action._

Care to comment regarding why 'dive brake/maneuvering flap' was a required mod for the P-38 and how long it took Lockheed to solve the dive problems?

*As you know, the P-38 was designed as a fast climbing high altitude interceptor. The wing used for the design was picked to help the P-38 climb quickly. Unfortunately, that same profile was not optimal if the aircraft traveled at speeds approaching the speed of sound. The P-38 entered the region of compressibility at Mach.67. The P-38 was one of the first if not the first fighter to enter the world of compressibility. Throw in the fact that the Air Corp lost a year’s worth of development with the destruction of the one and only prototype (per Brodie) and we see part of the reason for the delay. Once Lockheed figured out the problem, they came up with a fix, the dive flaps. The Air Corp did not want to disrupt P-38 production, so it wasn’t until the J-25 that the flaps were standardized. Dive flap kits for field installation were produced but the first batch sent to England was lost when the C-54 transport was shot down by a British fighter (Caiden p162/Brodie p 20. So design considerations (high rate of climb), lack of testing prototype, a new phenomenon, and bad luck combined to delay the introduction of the dive flap. 
I would appreciate your take on the reasons!*

_The factors for high rate of climb include the airfoil CLmax, but are more dependent on Power available vs Power Required and the Weight. For best rate of climb, the CL of the wing is far less than the CLmax. For an easy illustration visualize and F-15 climbing straight up - with very low to zero CL required - its all about Thrust to Weight. Net - the pick of the wing airfoil had nothing to do, presumably, with its design role as a fast climbing interceptor.

Totally agreed regarding the factors delaying a traditional test program. Both Lockheed (didn't have the funding to build production tooling in anticipation of a contract) and USAAF desparately needing publicity to get the funding for the P-38.

Compressibility was relative unknown outside academic circles and absolutely unknown regarding stability and control effects of a shock wave... so it took Lockheed a long time to separate observed flutter characteristics from the pitch issue created by transition to shock wave as the P-38 entered Mcrit velocities in a dive. The underwing flap destined for the P-38J-25 solved the issue of delaying the shock wave tuck under (Change in Moment coefficient) issue and also allowed the P-38 to reduce acceleration during the dive so that it could stay with a 109 or 190 without 'locking up'.

The P-38 always turned well because it had a decent Wing Loading and acceleration. Its issues versus the FW 190 and Me 109 were about roll rates to enter the turn, then achieving a higher CLmax to maintain a 3G+ sustained turn. The Fowler flap on the P-38 enabled better low speed turn capability.

The combination of boosted ailerons solved the quick (vs slow) roll into a turn but even then it was no match for an FW 190 (nor was the P-51 or Spit (until the Mk XIV) or even the P-47).

I believe that from the J-25 forward that the P-38 was a superb air to air fighter and comparable or better manueverability to the P-51 at low to medium speeds. Because the P-38 was turbo supercharged it did not have 'sawtooth' performance from the Allisons that the Mustang had with the Merlin two stage supercharger so there were mid range altitudes where the P-38 was as fast or faster and certainly at altitudes above the P-51 high blower critical altitudes it would outclimb and get close in top speeds.

Which then led back to the other points above.

It was (~2x) more expensive and maintain. It was very late in the war to solve critical reliability and performance issues and there were fighters in numbers and capability that were in theatre in the most critical theatre (the ETO) that proved more capable when the capability was required. 

The P-38 in both the 9th AF and the 15th AF had as much a ground support role as air to air and in my opinion were a better choice if only one could be chosen... but the P-51 equipped groups in the MTO gradually assumed escort duties because they got the quantities by May 1944 and all the previous P-47 and Spitfire equipped groups converted to Mustangs (rather than standardize on the P-38)_

There is no value in engaging dialogue based on anecdotal accounts by different pilots as few of the opinions are based on aircraft to aircraft comparisons with a wide range of tests and objective evaluations. In these cases, whether you believe subjectivity creeps in - you have to respect Rall (deeming the Mustang as the best all around Allied fighter based on his Luftwaffe Fighter School leadership), Brown based on his wide range of tests, USAAF and USN and RAF tests at points in time and even the Fighter Conference at Patuxent River cited in Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand"

Even these are often contradictory but they are the best available.


----------



## scottmsw (Apr 16, 2011)

In Jeff Ethall's book the P-38 Lightning, Jeff states that the P-38 was available for service 75% of the time versus 72% of the time for the P-51 in the MTO. The three P-38 groups in the MTO used the Lightning the entire time that the groups were in the MTO. The 82nd Fighter Group had a score of over 500 enemy planes shot down in the MTO. The Lightning Groups in the MTO and ETO did not score many victories after late 1944 because the Luftwaffe was being destroyed by the Allies forces. The MTO and the PTO were just as important as the ETO. The ETO got most of the press compared to the other theatres. Martin Caidan said that the P-38 was in screaming demand from all of the theatres of war including the 9th Air Force except the ETO that was surprized by the excellent showing of the P-38 in its last months of combat with the 8th Air Force.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2011)

scottmsw said:


> In Jeff Ethall's book the P-38 Lightning, Jeff states that the P-38 was available for service 75% of the time versus 72% of the time for the P-51 in the MTO. The three P-38 groups in the MTO used the Lightning the entire time that the groups were in the MTO. The 82nd Fighter Group had a score of over 500 enemy planes shot down in the MTO. The Lightning Groups in the MTO and ETO did not score many victories after late 1944 because the Luftwaffe was being destroyed by the Allies forces. The MTO and the PTO were just as important as the ETO. The ETO got most of the press compared to the other theatres. Martin Caidan said that the P-38 was in screaming demand from all of the theatres of war including the 9th Air Force except the ETO that was surprized by the excellent showing of the P-38 in its last months of combat with the 8th Air Force.


 
10 to 20% of "confirmed" kills were over claimed depending where and when you're talking and this includes ALL WW2 combatants. Martin Cadin pushed the truth extensively in many of this books including the "Forked Tailed Devil" (a name the Germans NEVER used to describe the P-38 ).

As far as stating the 75% vs 72%, I assume you're talking "mission capable." If so, what are the comparative numbers? At what time frame was that taken or was that a comparative number taken through out the war? Depending on numbers the difference could be only 4 or 5 aircraft.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 17, 2011)

scottmsw said:


> In Jeff Ethall's book the P-38 Lightning, Jeff states that the P-38 was available for service 75% of the time versus 72% of the time for the P-51 in the MTO.
> *Meaning what? "effective sorties to planned (i.e a measure of aborts), "percent 'available' to 'inventory' status". "by theatre comparison or global based on operations %".
> 
> Also remember that the bulk of P-38s was distributed to PTO where the operating conditions (except for Aleutians) were much more benign based on operating temps and altitudes.
> ...



The 479th FG did very well with the P-38J in August and most of September. The 20th and 55th had two good days in July. That about sums up the P-38 'excellent showings' in comparison with the P-51s. Caiden is correct that the P-38 was in high demand - so was the P-47 and P-51. Far more P-51s were built from mid 1943 through the end of the war than P-38s. Your point?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 17, 2011)

In the 8th AF, weren't the P38's held in close to the bombers while the P51's could roam around? That in itself hamstrung the P38 groups since they couldn't go to where the action was. It protected the bombers, but they couldn't break free to run up the scores.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 18, 2011)

Yes - and no Syscom. 

Prior to Doolittle's 'go get em' in early January, all escort fighters including the P-38 groups were constrained to close escort with exception of the Group assigned to sweep. The P-38s with the range, were only ones even with the bombers past Koblenz/Munster area (20th and 55th), as they became operational in November, 1943. In January and February they combined with 354th, then 357th to continue to provide escort deep into Germany when all the P-47s turned back.

It was in March that Sweeps became part of the menu and both the 20th and 55th P-38s started incorporation into sweep role along with the Mustangs and the new 364th 'tutored' in escort role during March. 

Had the P-38J-25 been available in late 1943 it may have made a difference vis a vis 'switching' when the Mustang came into theatre. But there is a subtle personal influence to Doolittle via Col Tommy Hitchcock (a 10 goal hockey player in peacetime) who was responsible for liason with Brits on the Merlin adaptation and the early in-theatre tests in July timeframe. There is evidence that Doolitle was pre disposed toward the Mustang before he even took over 8th AF based on 'private feedback' from a trusted advisor. - even after Hitchcock was killed in a P-51B doing limit dive tests in late 1943.

As to 'breaking away' much touted by various accounts on the Military and History Channel - there was no such latitude for a Group CO to dispatch the Group on a few German fighters. Tactics evolved from all fighters escorting high and front/back to assigned bomb wings in close escort but only a few were foolish enough to abandon the bombers altogether - it did happen and usually the 4th FG would be mentioned in this context but they also 'adapted'.

The evolving tactics were to dispatch relative force packages (i.e a section of eight wouldoften bounce 20+ German fighters and call for help if they got in trouble, or a flight of four would chase a single). Woe to the Group CO that permitted his squadrons to 'just leave and hunt' and find out that he was suckered and the bomb group being excorted got hammered when the LW 'filled the vacuum'.

It wasn't until April/May timeframe when even the sweep Group (usually one assigned) got 40+ miles out but all the rest were still performing escort. What distinctively changed in January was that fighter flights and sections that intercepted a German force were encouraged to continue and pursue - but those units that did not get in the scrap were chartered to continue the escort.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2011)

If ther p-38s were being assigned the 'bomber escort ' role, whilst the P-51s were being assigned the Free ranging, fighter killing role, that would be consistent with most airforces. The aircraft with the lesser ability to take on enemy fighters would be assigned the role of final defence, to add firepower to that inner ring defence zone. It may also have something to do with the distinctive shape of the p-38....hard to mistake the profile for an Me 109....just my two cents worth


----------



## drgondog (Apr 18, 2011)

parsifal said:


> If ther p-38s were being assigned the 'bomber escort ' role, whilst the P-51s were being assigned the Free ranging, fighter killing role, that would be consistent with most airforces. The aircraft with the lesser ability to take on enemy fighters would be assigned the role of final defence, to add firepower to that inner ring defence zone. It may also have something to do with the distinctive shape of the p-38....hard to mistake the profile for an Me 109....just my two cents worth


 
By the time the 8th AF had enough long range fighters to permit 'free ranging sweeps' in force packages of one per five fighter groups in a Wing (i.e 65th, 66th and 67th) the P-38s were gone. In the October - December timeframe the 353rd, the 78th and 356th P-47 groups converted to Mustangs and the P-47Ms were equipping the 56th FG. It was only in that timeframe when say the 65th FG comprised of 4th, 56th, 355th, 361st and 479th had enough fighters to both protect the 2nd BD as well as send one Group out in front.

Your comment about the distinctive profile/plan view of the P-38 is dead on but they did in fact fly Sweeps - and their most notable day in the ETO was July 7 when Landers led the 55th out in front of the 3rd BD and clobbered 19+ north of Leipzig - then converted to 51s a week later.


----------



## scottmsw (Apr 21, 2011)

The Lightning was the number one fighter in the MTO. The P-38 first flew combat in the MTO in December of 1942. It flew more escort missions with the 15th Air Force then the Mustang. The 15th Air Force was responsible for destroying the Luftwaffe in their area of operations. I have read a book about the history of the 15th air force. This book details P-38 escort missions. The book states that the P-38 would win air battles with the Luftwaffe and other enemy air forces. I would like someone to comment on P-38 operations with the 12th and 15th air forces.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 22, 2011)

scottmsw said:


> The Lightning was the number one fighter in the MTO. The P-38 first flew combat in the MTO in December of 1942. It flew more escort missions with the 15th Air Force then the Mustang.
> 
> *Difficult to get all the data points to substantiate so far. The P-38 starting in November 1942 in North Africa and continuing to the end of the war flew in the 9th, 12th and 15th AF. The totals for ALL of the P-38 Groups throughout WWII in the MTO was 1419 air to air victory credits for 30 months of in theatre operations. The top scoring group was the 82nd which was credited with 553.
> 
> ...


 
It may be amusing to you that one group, powered entirely with the short range Spit and then long range Mustang from May 1944 to EOW destroyed more aircraft in the air (570.5) than any P-38 Gp.. and in less than one year of 15th AF Mustang ops destroyed 376 in the air. 

A rough but close total for P-51 credits for the 'non-P-38' Groups are 240(52ndFG), 100(332ndFG),242(325thFG) and 376(31stFG) = 958 air to air scores in less than 12 months of combined escort missions... or ~ 67% of the tally of the P-38 groups in the MTO during the entire war. 

Those four 'non-P-38' FG's destroyed (between P-40, Spit, P-47 and P-51) destroyed 1637.5 LW aircraft in the air from early 1943 (after P-38s started ops)... of that total the P-51 destroyed 59% in 11 months to the 41% in the 17 months preceeding P-51 Operations. 

So, summary - the top scoring MTO FG was the 31st FG (570.5) which flew Spitfires and Mustangs, the second top scorer was the 82nd FG (553) flying Lightnings, the third top scorer was the 325th (529) flying P-40, P-47 and Mustangs, the fourth was 1st FG flying P-38 (440), the fifth was the 52nd (425) flying Spit and Mustangs.

Source USAF Study 85 Victory Air Credits -USAAF and USAF.


----------



## MaximusGR (Jun 25, 2011)

P-51 and a very easy choice for me. P-38 design and performance had been and remained lacking throughout WW2. It was effective in the PTO because of its range and because of the low quality of Japanese aircraft and pilots. But so were other aircraft that faced the same opponent and would surely be struggling in the ETO. A theater in which P-38 also performed poorly and thats the reason it was quickly withdrawn and replaced by P-51s and P-47s.

Numbers and kill ratios never mean a lot since its a 'policy' of any winning side of a war to inflate victories and play down losses. If the numbers provided for the P-38 sorties/kills/losses were true it would have never been hastily pulled back from the ETO once large numbers of Mustangs and Thunderbolts were available. 

P-38 failed in both the fighter escort and the ground attack role. It had the range to escort bombers in Germany and the ordnance carrying capabilities but not the performance to cope with 109's and 190's, or the ruggeness of the P-47 against AAA. 

It was fortunate for the lives of many young American pilots that it was mostly withdrawn by mid '44 as the attrition from ground fire above the targets in Normandy and, later on, Germany would make its losses unsustainable.

Simply put, P-51 could pick up where P-47 left off and take the war to German airspace, finishing off the Luftwafe and winning the air-war. P-38 just couldnt..


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 30, 2011)

I am truly amazed that this thread has gone 400+ posts and there is still debate! The Mustang was very successful in all theaters of the war, the Lightning was not. The Mustang is obviously the best choice if you had to choose between the two if only one could be your air force's fighter. After the war no one wanted to buy surplus P-38s to equip their air force.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 30, 2011)

"... The Mustang is obviously the best choice" At half the cost. 


MM


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 30, 2011)

MaximusGR said:


> It was fortunate for the lives of many young American pilots that it was mostly withdrawn by mid '44 as the attrition from ground fire above the targets in Normandy and, later on, Germany would make its losses unsustainable.



And do have evidence showing that attrition rates were higher than the P-51 during that period? BTW, I agree the P-51 was the superior aircraft but the P-38 did not perform as poorly as you state. There were several P-38 squadrons in the ETO that did not want to convert to the P-51, the 338th Fighter Squadron being one of them. This was confirmed during a conversation with the late Col. Mike Alba, USAF Ret., back in 1994. Col. Alba indicated to me the P-51 was faster and more maneuvable, the P-38 was stronger and a better gun platform.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 30, 2011)

It seems that the ETO was the ONLY theater of operations were the P-38 had major problems. It was in great demand everywhere else, from the Mediterranean to the Aleutian Islands to the CBI. 

While the number that served in the CBI theater may be too small for a really accurate analysis, it that theater it was claimed that for similar strafing missions for every P-38 lost they would lose 4 P-51s or 3 P-47s. There may have only been a couple of squadrons but for one 5 month period they reported NO non-combat related engine failures.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 30, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> It seems that the ETO was the ONLY theater of operations were the P-38 had major problems. It was in great demand everywhere else, from the Mediterranean to the Aleutian Islands to the CBI.
> 
> While the number that served in the CBI theater may be too small for a really accurate analysis, it that theater it was claimed that for similar strafing missions for every P-38 lost they would lose 4 P-51s or 3 P-47s. There may have only been a couple of squadrons but for one 5 month period they reported NO non-combat related engine failures.


 
The ETO was indeed the only theater the P-38 had major problems, but it also was the only theater that was more important than all the other theaters combined. 

"the CBI theater may be too small for a really accurate analysis" 

That makes any comparison only interesting and not something to base conclusions on.

"There may have only been a couple of squadrons but for one 5 month period they reported NO non-combat related engine failures."

I think I heard a rumor that it was Indian curry powder added to the coolant and Chinese Soy they added to the engine oil that was responsible for this reliability.

The P-38 was a great plane and if you read Bodie's book it was the greatest American fighter until you read Bodie's P-47 book and vice versa.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 30, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... The Mustang is obviously the best choice" At half the cost.
> 
> 
> MM


 
Unless you were buying a war surplus P-38 at $1250.00 instead of a P-51 at $3500.00. Of course like cars today the cost of ownership over time is the true cost, in which case the P-51 is cheaper.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 1, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I am truly amazed that this thread has gone 400+ posts and there is still debate! The Mustang was was very successful in all theaters of the war, the Lightning was not. The Mustang is obviously the best choice if you had to choose between the two if only one could be your air force's fighter. After the war no one wanted to buy surplus P-38s to equip their air force.



Perhaps you'd be so kind to break down the 'success' of each fighter by year theater of war?


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 1, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Perhaps you'd be so kind to break down the 'success' of each fighter by year theater of war?


 
Unfortunately my kindness has limits of time and abundance. Sorry Tomo Pauk unless I decide to write a book (doubtful) you'll have to do that research yourself. Just because I rate the Mustang having overall superiority, doesn't mean I don't have high regard for the Lightning. After all the first four letters of Lightning create the beginning of my Forum name. Given the choice and having the money to do so I would buy today a P-38 without hesitation instead of a P-51. The Lightning has a strikingly unique and exotic beauty where as the Mustang is beautiful in a generic California Blonde kind of way. 

LIGHtningTHUNderboltMUSTang


----------



## pcjoseph1974 (Nov 5, 2011)

German pilots feared the p-38 more....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2011)

pcjoseph1974 said:


> German pilots feared the p-38 more....


Can you provide us with some references to back up your earth shattering statement?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2011)

Funny, I have never heard that anywhere?


----------



## parsifal (Nov 6, 2011)

I hadnt heard of it before this. i would think the aircraft most feqared by a german pilot is the one shooting at him, whatever that might be


----------



## MacArther (Nov 7, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I hadnt heard of it before this. i would think the aircraft most feqared by a german pilot is the one shooting at him, whatever that might be


Agreed!


----------



## Arossihman (Nov 20, 2011)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> well, even the books that i read which state that the Mustang was the best say that the P-38 was unfairly overshadowed, from reading the other posts it says that more P-51s were lost in training accidents than P-38s, P-38s were also (i think) in service way before the P-51
> 
> the P-51 was used in the Pacific, my grandfather told me numerous stories of P-51s strading nearby airfields in the Philippines, and has also seen a long dogfight between a P-51 and a Zero, and guess what, the Mustang came home, with Damage while the Zero escaped
> 
> ...



you are correct! the germans called the p-38's the fork tailed devil's because they hated fighting them because a p-38 could send them to hell!


----------



## Arossihman (Nov 20, 2011)

syscom3 said:


> P38's were in service in 1940.
> 
> The P38 was origionally designed as a bomber interceptor, while the Mustang (A-36 model) was origionally designed as a dive bomber.
> 
> The P38 was thrust into the fighter role, simply because in 1942 - (first part of) 1944, there were no alternatives.



To my knowledge the mustang was designed as a fighter but pushed into service as a dive bomber because of poor performance. A-36 pilots had to be careful because early P-36's would lose their wings tryin to pull out of steep dives so i think they added dive brakes later on to combat this.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 20, 2011)

Arossihman said:


> you are correct! the germans called the p-38's *the fork tailed devil's *because they hated fighting them because a p-38 could send them to hell!



That is NOT true. the "Forked Tailed Devil" title is a myth created by the aviation author Martin Cadin. Most Luftwaffe expertain thought the P-38 was a relative easy target. Read "Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe" by Toliver.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2011)

Arossihman said:


> you are correct! the germans called the p-38's the fork tailed devil's because they hated fighting them because a p-38 could send them to hell!



Sources?

If you are going to boldly state that, then please provide sources that back it up.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 21, 2011)

Arossihman said:


> To my knowledge the mustang was designed as a fighter but pushed into service as a dive bomber because of poor performance. A-36 pilots had to be careful because early P-36's would lose their wings tryin to pull out of steep dives so i think they added dive brakes later on to combat this.



Mustang was better performer than P-40 or P-39, so the argument about 'poor performance' is not valid. 
A-36 was built because USAAC did not have more funds allocated for fighters, but had funds available for bombers/attack planes.
Dive brakes were part of the A-36 from day one.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 21, 2011)

just a note P-36 and A-36 are not the same plane with a different mission, the A-36 is a P-51 variant


----------



## Arossihman (Nov 21, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sources?
> 
> If you are going to boldly state that, then please provide sources that back it up.



Will try to find the interview of that german pilot that made that statement.....got a lot of stuff to go through if im gonna find it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 21, 2011)

Arossihman said:


> Will try to find the interview of that german pilot that made that statement.....got a lot of stuff to go through if im gonna find it



_"The last of my Second World War examples is the name given to the distinctive Lockheed P-38, another aircraft designed as a heavy fighter (and arguably more effective in that role than the previous aircraft). Earliest reference is once again the latter half of 1943, in Popular Science magazine. Here (along with the Flight mag snippets posted above and countless websites/forums etc today) we see the power of the enthusiast to propagate what is essentially rumour, simply because it sounds powerful and macho, just like the other names given in this post. This time “Nazi pilots” are cited, but yet again, no individuals or other sources are named – it’s simply asserted with a good amount of relish, and a vaguely racist rendition of a hapless Japanese (note, not a German) pilot getting hosed by the “Devil”‘s guns. Perhaps tellingly, the Engineering News Record then claims that both German AND Japanese pilots use the term! This is clearly exaggeration at the least (assuming either one did use the name), if not total BS. Were the Axis powers conferring on their cowardly conventions for naming enemy aircraft?! If this too is a piece of wartime propaganda (created by press or military), the modern-day US Air Force is still buying it."_

fork-tailed devil « The BS Historian


----------



## Arossihman (Nov 21, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Mustang was better performer than P-40 or P-39, so the argument about 'poor performance' is not valid.
> A-36 was built because USAAC did not have more funds allocated for fighters, but had funds available for bombers/attack planes.
> Dive brakes were part of the A-36 from day one.



Okay...the documentery i have,stated that the military was unimpressed with the original mustangs performance and wanted more out of it at high altitude.....it was better than the 39 and 40 but not by enough.....hence it was used by england through lend lease and pushed into service as a dive bomber. Only after the merlin was added did the U.S. military see the potential of that design,from what i have seen without the merlin the mustang would have been a footnote in ww2 history. I will try and dig up which documentary i saw that on and repost tomorrow.


----------



## Arossihman (Nov 21, 2011)

Vincenzo said:


> just a note P-36 and A-36 are not the same plane with a different mission, the A-36 is a P-51 variant



Sorry...typo on the p-36 thing


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 21, 2011)

Here's another online article about the "Forked Tail Devil" myth.

P-38 Trivia

_"Many writers claim that the Germans referred to the P-38 as "Der Gabelschwanz Teufel" (The Fork-tailed Devil"). This is likely a post-war myth. Several authoritative books on the P-38 state that there is no period evidence to suggest this moniker was used during the war."_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2011)

Arossihman said:


> Will try to find the interview of that german pilot that made that statement.....got a lot of stuff to go through if im gonna find it



You will find it is wrong. The whole thing was a myth...


----------



## parsifal (Nov 21, 2011)

I'll bite...maybe it wasnt the germans who said it...sounds more like a japanese name....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I'll bite...maybe it wasnt the germans who said it...sounds more like a japanese name....



I can believe that more myself.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 22, 2011)

Likewise. Countless German pilots gave their accounts of the P-38 and it seemed like they did not fear it. Ray Toliver documented this in many of his books.


----------



## Arossihman (Dec 4, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I'll bite...maybe it wasnt the germans who said it...sounds more like a japanese name....



Still havent found where i heard the germans called it that but in staying in this line of thinking or speculation....if the japanese feared it then why not the germans? The zero was just as good a fighter as anything the germans had early on so one could speculate that the german pilots had reason to fear it as well. This is all speculation for me at this point but it makes sense to me....then again i'm just a simple country boy! I will keep searching for the syuff to back up my claim!
Tony


----------



## Arossihman (Dec 4, 2011)

Arossihman said:


> Still havent found where i heard the germans called it that but in staying in this line of thinking or speculation....if the japanese feared it then why not the germans? The zero was just as good a fighter as anything the germans had early on so one could speculate that the german pilots had reason to fear it as well. This is all speculation for me at this point but it makes sense to me....then again i'm just a simple country boy! I will keep searching for the syuff to back up my claim!
> Tony



Okay guys it says on wiki that the germans called it the "forked tailed devil" and the japs called it "two planes one pilot", so i'm back where i started with this little circus act! Gonna delve a little deeper tomorrow and see what pokes up!
Tony


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 4, 2011)

Arossihman said:


> Okay guys it says on wiki that the germans called it the "forked tailed devil" and the japs called it "two planes one pilot", so i'm back where i started with this little circus act! Gonna delve a little deeper tomorrow and see what pokes up!
> Tony


Take Wiki with a grain of a salt. Sometimes the writer of the article will give references from where they got their info. If there's anything on the Wiki page you saw that references Martin Cadin, it's BS, plain and simple.

Again, read Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe by Toliver and Constable - they have good documented interviews on what the top Luftwaffe pilots thought about the P-38 and it wasn't that favorable. None of them ever called the aircraft "The Forked Tailed Devil."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 5, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Likewise. Countless German pilots gave their accounts of the P-38 and it seemed like they did not fear it. Ray Toliver documented this in many of his books.




They might have feared it if it was on their tail, but not enough as a group to give it a fearsome nickname.


I doubt very much it ever received that name by German flyers. According to DG not that many German fighters were lost to the p-38, until quite late in the campaign over NW Europe.


the guy who would know for sure about this is Erich..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2011)

Arossihman said:


> Still havent found where i heard the germans called it that but in staying in this line of thinking or speculation....if the japanese feared it then why not the germans? The zero was just as good a fighter as anything the germans had early on so one could speculate that the german pilots had reason to fear it as well. This is all speculation for me at this point but it makes sense to me....then again i'm just a simple country boy! I will keep searching for the syuff to back up my claim!
> Tony



Keep searching. 

I am sure you heard it, but it is just a myth. A story that was started up. As Joe pointed out, Luftwaffe pilots did not think favorably of the aircraft. Of course any aircraft type that is on your tail is going to cause some fear (as parsifal has pointed out).


----------



## Arossihman (Dec 5, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Keep searching.
> 
> I am sure you heard it, but it is just a myth. A story that was started up. As Joe pointed out, Luftwaffe pilots did not think favorably of the aircraft. Of course any aircraft type that is on your tail is going to cause some fear (as parsifal has pointed out).



Without a doubt!


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 5, 2011)

Hi, Tony



Arossihman said:


> Still havent found where i heard the germans called it that but in staying in this line of thinking or speculation....if the japanese feared it then why not the germans? The zero was just as good a fighter as anything the germans had early on so one could speculate that the german pilots had reason to fear it as well. This is all speculation for me at this point but it makes sense to me....then again i'm just a simple country boy! I will keep searching for the syuff to back up my claim!
> Tony



Perhaps you might check out compare what Germans had to throw in combat vs. what Japanese had, for each of war years. The Zero was far slower than a contemporary Bf-109 or Fw-190, German fighters were about as good climbers as Zero, but far better divers, Fw-190 was one of best armed fighters in ww2. In pre-1943 time, German fighters were doing some 400 mph (give or take), P-38 is there too, but Zero can make up circa 350 mph. It took quite a while for Japanese to introduce a 400 mph fighter (1944?) so no wonder Japanese had a healthy respect for P-38.

Then, P-38 did encountered some issues in Europe, and that was because of technical, tactical training issues, and those issues were seldom occurrences in PTO. You may check out Shortround6's posts in this forum, or get yourself a book ("America's hundred-thousand" is great source about US planes).

As for a supposed name Germans gave it, it's already covered in above posts.

From a complicated country boy


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> ("America's hundred-thousand" is great source about US planes).



Great book! I bought it to use as a source for an Embry-Riddle Term Paper. I would recommend it to anyone.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2011)

Great book!
I mention Toliver a lot because he was one of the first people to actually interview former Luftwaffe pilots and not only confirm their exploits, but seperate a lot of fiction from fact.


----------



## renrich (Dec 5, 2011)

I feel sure that Schiffler and Dean appreciate this forum because of the increased sales of AHT. My brother was here in Prescott just before Thanksgiving. He is a pilot and after I showed him my dog eared copy of AHT, he went back to Texas and ordered a copy and is now reading it. I bought mine back in the late nineties and have referred to it many times. It is my go to book about WW2 US fighters.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 6, 2011)

renrich said:


> I bought mine back in the late nineties and have referred to it many times. It is my go to book about WW2 US fighters.


 
Mine to, along with Wagner's books on US and German aircraft.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 7, 2011)

Jeez, another addition to the Christmas list.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 21, 2012)

P-51, I don't like the idea of flying a bigger aircraft than my enemy. He'll probably see me before I see him.


----------



## igorlikesp-38 (Jan 31, 2012)

Hello everybody!
When dealing with the status of P-38 in the eyes of a german fighter pilot, i found an interesting appraisal for the 38 from the mout of Gen. Steinhoff (176 victories) later commander of JV 44 flying Me 262. I have to honestly say that so far this is the only interview have found so far that mentions apparaises P-38

Interview: Johannes Steinhoff

_WWII: Of all the Allied fighters you encountered, which was the most difficult to handle with a good pilot at the controls?

Steinhoff: The Lightning. It was fast, low profiled and a fantastic fighter, and a real danger when it was above you. It was only vulnerable if you were behind it, a little below and closing fast, or turning into it, but on the attack it was a tremendous aircraft. One shot me down from long range in 1944. That would be the one, although the P-51 [Mustang] was deadly because of the long range, and it could cover any air base in Europe. This made things difficult, especially later when flying the jets. _[/I]


----------



## Njaco (Jan 31, 2012)

Interesting how he speaks of the mission parameters and not the performance of the 51.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 1, 2012)

Mackie was one hell of a pilot. Also he fought P-38s mostly in the Med at altitudes that weren't punishing the Allisons and causing near instant compressibility when it pushed over in a dive...

and in late 1943 he was fighting against pilots who had a year of combat in the P-38 - while in ETO many of the P-38 pilots in fall of 43 were low combat hour/experience pilots.

ETO encounters in summer of 44 were a different ball game for the LW as the late model J's entered the arena as well as the manuever flaps. No easy to exploit weaknesses other than size and visibility enabling a smaller 109/190 pilot a choice to fight or flee by spotting the 38 first.


----------



## Dcazz7606 (Feb 6, 2012)

The U.S. wasn't really interested in another low level fighter so NA aproached the WPB with the idea that the Mustang was also a capable Dive Bomber that could also defend itself unlike the Stuka. The A-36 was produced as a stop gap (but very useful) and avoid cancellation before wizer heads finally recognized it's potential as a fighter.


syscom3 said:


> If it was designed as a fighter, why was it given the A-36 designation?
> 
> A = Attack
> 
> P = Pursuit


----------



## SamPZLP.7 (Feb 27, 2012)

In combat experience, both. But in performance P-51


----------



## alumacraft (Mar 6, 2012)

My father was a P-51 pilot stationed in Duxford England. He told me they would "jump" other friendly fighters that would happen to be in the area. He said Spitfires, P-47's, and Hurricanes were never a problem, he could whip them all..But, he he said one time a P-38 jumped him and he couldn't shake it no matter what he did....my dad said he will never ever forget the e vision of those monster props on his tail...lol ,,,,so as biased as I am for the P-51......the P-38 had to be a hell of an airplane if dear old dad couldn't shake it with his 51 !!! But he also said he never came across a pilot as skilled as the one in the P38. He said it went on and on for a long time at all altitudes......must have been a lot of fun..


----------



## blastermike66 (May 13, 2012)

sorry- P-38 sucked in a dive, plane and simple- engine problems up to the late stages of the war, great turning ability for a large plane, but the Germans figured out how to tackle the Lightning early on, and kill ratios NEVER rose ,even when the germans were losing the air war in the ETO!! Pilots like Dick Bong and and Thomas Mcguire( RIP) couldn't have scored as high against german pilots in better gunned better armed acft( and BETTER armored )!! you could knock down Japanese fighter with .30 cal even at the late parts of the WAR), especially in the high alt. the P-38s struggled in!!! The P-38 is an excellent long range fighter bomber, but when the P-47N came along, late as it was, i'd probably go with that beast!



alumacraft said:


> My father was a P-51 pilot stationed in Duxford England. He told me they would "jump" other friendly fighters that would happen to be in the area. He said Spitfires, P-47's, and Hurricanes were never a problem, he could whip them all..But, he he said one time a P-38 jumped him and he couldn't shake it no matter what he did....my dad said he will never ever forget the e vision of those monster props on his tail...lol ,,,,so as biased as I am for the P-51......the P-38 had to be a hell of an airplane if dear old dad couldn't shake it with his 51 !!! But he also said he never came across a pilot as skilled as the one in the P38. He said it went on and on for a long time at all altitudes......must have been a lot of fun..



funny that, alumacraft- over at History.net debate on the spit versus the P-51, everyone there claimed the Mustang was inferior to the Spitfire, and couldn't take one in a one on one mock combat! amazing ,but considering all acft in the war, It came down to pilot skill and how servicable the acft were!

to the credit of the mustang, it could take manifold pressure boosts and better performing merlin clone engines like its spitfire compatriot( and add some 150 octane fuel) and really kick butt- some of the war time tinkering in the field pushed even the B models and Ds to run at 445-450 mph, and climb at more than the pedestrian 3,320 ft/min ( actual tests of some D models by the AFDU, and Bascombe Downes Brit crowd) showed mustang III/IVs ( the B/C and d model for the U.S.) climbing at 3,475 ft/min and faster! Still the P-38 would outclimb it, but at altitude of 25K to 30 K the mustang was well in its element, and i doubt anything except a hard pushed P-38J or L could match it !!!



Dcazz7606 said:


> The U.S. wasn't really interested in another low level fighter so NA aproached the WPB with the idea that the Mustang was also a capable Dive Bomber that could also defend itself unlike the Stuka. The A-36 was produced as a stop gap (but very useful) and avoid cancellation before wizer heads finally recognized it's potential as a fighter.



the big difference between the Mustang I and the A-36 was DIVE BRAKES. The A-36 was purpose built for ground attack, whereas the Mustang I was simply placed in the role, in addition to fast low to med level recon, and some low to med level intercept duty. early on the Mustang I was actually FASTER than the spitfires in service at 5k to 15 K ( spitfires were flying at around 345 mph to 355 mph, versus the mustang I flying at 370 to 380 mph! funny syscom3 could find this info accurately online...



plan_D said:


> The first 'Mustang' was the NA-73/Mustang I, the only difference between the production type and prototype was the addition of armament to the RAF models. These were completed with the Allison V-1710-F3R engine. The fourth and tenth Mustangs off the line went to the USAAC at Wright Field, these were the NA-83/XP-51. The Mustang I first entered squadron service in No.26 Sqdn. in February 1942.
> 
> The USAAC found the XP-51 tests favourable but did not put a production order down for the P-51. Instead the RAF had ordered an up-gunned Mustang, which was the NA-91/Mustang IA. 150 of these were to be built and sent to the RAF, but the USAAC held 57 back for themselves. All but two were delivered to operational units as the P-51. These Mustangs had four 20mm Hispano-Suiza cannon in the wings. They were all modified in US service to carry two K-24 cameras, and were redesignated the F-6A or P-51-1. The 68th Observation Group in Tunisia were equipped with the F-6A and performed the USAAFs first Mustang mission of the war.
> 
> ...




... and thank GOD for the Brits wanting a "companion" to their much loved Spitfires!!! Don't think an acft would have come along as well suited for the American needs of a high altitude, fast performing fighter like the mustang, if not for the war Ministry looking for more acft !!! The P-47 and P-38 were good acft, but not exactly the match for the Luftwaffe in '43 and '44 like the spit developed into, or the mustang came out as! Arguments about the best U.S. acft have led to some claiming it was the F4U corsair( don't know if it could have handled the higher altitude fighting like the Mustang or even the P-47 in the ETO) and the F6F hellcat- no way it could have handled high altitude combat!!


----------



## Njaco (May 13, 2012)

Here we go again......

I will make one counter-point to your post, Blaster...........



> Pilots like Dick Bong and and Thomas Mcguire( RIP) couldn't have scored as high against german pilots in better gunned better armed acft( and BETTER armored )!!



You almost got the one unknown in the equation - the pilot. You can argue about the relative qualities of the equipment and machines but there is no doubt that the Allies had a concrete advantage over German pilots the last 2 years.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2012)

blastermike66 said:


> sorry- P-38 sucked in a dive, plane and simple- engine problems up to the late stages of the war


Sucked in a dive?!? Before or after the speed brake mods and what model?!? Engine problems? You mean the ETO or PTO?? Look into the history of the 475th FG and see how many "engine problems" they had...


----------



## Outta Leftfield (Aug 2, 2012)

American ace and fighter group commander Hub Zemke, who flew the P-38, P-47 and P-51 in combat, provided a comparision of the three fighters that is quoted in _Air Command_ (1997; ed. Jeffery Ethell). Zemke called the P-51 "By far the best air-to-air fighter aircraft of the three below 25,000." 
For Zemke, the P-47 was slow to climb, but was better at high altitude, "above 24,000 to 25,000" and "could excede any of the contenders in speed of entering a dive with a very good 'zoom' recovery to altitude." (So, "boom and zoom.")
Zemke acknowledges virtues in the P-38 but calls it "the poorest of the three US Army fighters in the ETO." The problems were: 1) poor engine performance in cold weather; 2) a "steep diving restriction"; 3) too-easy enemy identification; 4) trouble looking downward over the two engines. He did really like it as a gun platform, however, and liked its capacity "to take off" carrying "just about anything."
So, lots of pros and cons overall, but Zemke seems to be ranking them in the order given: 1) P-51, 2) P-47, 3) P-38.
_Air Command_ (a coffee table book I bought on close-out years ago) has many other first-hand comments by guys who actually flew the planes in combat.
On the P-38, one pilot condemns its cold-weather performance, and another calls the engines "a crew chief's nightmare." However, a third describes just barely getting home on a single good engine, then surviving a crash landing in a turnip patch. For him, leaving the smashed up Lightning in that field was "like saying goodbye to a very dear friend.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 2, 2012)

Joe - the addition of the dive brake/flap on the P-38J-25/L enabled them to control dive and recovery but didn't change the placard allowable dive speed. So, the late model 38s would hit drag divergence and then possibly transonic if pilot clueless enough to try to push it. Still, the P-51/47 and 109 and 190 would accelerate away and keep on going.

The one big problem the dive flap/brake solved was immediate transition into compressibility and stick lock down with entry into compressibility. That in itself made it more manueverable in a dive but it didn't make it dive faster without severe drag rise.

So, no - the P-38L may not have 'sucked' in a dive but it wouldn't stay with a 109/190 or 51/47 in a dive.


----------



## renrich (Aug 2, 2012)

In Robin Olds' bio, he flew both the P38 and P51 in combat in WW2. I got the strong impression he favored the P51. For one thing he liked the cockpit better and the stick over the yoke.


----------



## hurricane55 (Aug 2, 2012)

The Mustang and the Lightning were both very capable fighters, but I believe the Mustang was the better of the two. Lets compare a P51D and a P38L. Both aircraft had adequate armament and about equal speed (Mustang was 6 mph faster), but the P51 could turn tighter. The P51's weight was 7,635 lbs, while the P38's was 12,800 lbs, and the P38 was faster in a climb. However, the Lightning had a slightly higher service ceiling of 44,000 feet vs. the Mustang's 41,900.
Also, this doesn't really count, but despite contrary belief, both the Mustang and the Lightning were used in both the European and Pacific theaters with each plane more common in its respective theater. 
After writing down this info, it is hard to tell which fighter reigns supreme. I personally believe the Mustang holds the aforementioned title, but both are still excellent fighters.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 3, 2012)

In real life Robin was always equivocal liking aspects of both very much - and usually summed up his response as "I would fight anything in WWII with either of them".


----------



## eagledad (Aug 6, 2012)

Hello all

While Dragondog is correct about the the placard speed limits of the P-38 not changing, the flight manual did say that the pilot was not to exceed the placard limits by more than 20 mph with dive recovery flaps extended. I read this to mean that a P-38 pilot with the aircraft's dive flaps extended could reach 440 IAS at 10,000 feet, vs 420 IAS at the same altitude without flaps deployed. However, that is still 40 mph slower than what was allowed for a P-51 at that altitude. 

Eagledad.


----------



## yeti (Jan 13, 2016)

P51


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2016)

yeti said:


> P51



And why??????


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 4, 2016)

P-38 is much more versatile. Mustang is a poor ground attack aircraft as demonstrated in Korea.


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 4, 2016)

Ah, no it was the 9th AF that carried out most of the A2G in the ETO utilizing the P-47. P-38 was and excellent strafer owing to its concentrated armament and could carry twice the bomb load of Mustang. F-51's were withdrawn from Korea due to the susceptibility of the cooling system to ground fire.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 4, 2016)

The Droopsnoot was a pathfinder for a larger bombing force...it wasn't supposed to be anything else.

The RAF used Mossies in the same capacity.


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 4, 2016)

Down in the weeds : close air support in Korea

or
The P-51 Mustang Made a Korean War Comeback — War Is Boring


F-51s were withdrawn from USAF ops in Jan 53, aircraft were transferred to ROKAF.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 4, 2016)

On the contrary, the pathfinders did an excellent job and they made a wide range of modified types on the P-38 airframe.

The P-38 itself was a good fighter and accounted for a great deal of Axis aircraft. It was extremely successful in the MTO, too.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 4, 2016)

The P-38 is not, not was it ever, a medium bomber.

The P-38 was being phased out for the P-51D for several reasons and not because the P-38 was a "poor performer" but because the P-51D had matured to the point where the P-38's role was surpassed.

The P-38 was a maintenance nightmare, expensive to operate.

Also, the RAF rejected the Lightning I because it didn't have superchargers at the time, making it unsuitable for their higher altitude needs.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 4, 2016)

The RAF didn't take any later types necause they had managed to get out of their need for as many warplanes as they could get during the early stages of the war. The RAF and FAA were caught up short and played catch-up and by the time the P-38's bugs were worked out, they had their own top performers rolling off the line.

And the P-38's bombing missions were effective from several standpoints:
They hit their targets hard and fast
They had good target accuracy and saturation
They could fight their way out of a bounce


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 4, 2016)

James W. said:


> The RAF accepted Mustangs & Thunderbolts, (for sole use against the lesser forces of Nippon) & the FAA wanted F4U/F6Fs.
> The RAF didn't want P-38s, period.
> 
> The droop snoot P-38s were useless as fighters, & not much better as bombers..
> Proper medium bombers were preferred, & rightly, on the basis of results.


The RAF used the Mustang in the ETO and saw it's first combat in May 1942. Later in '42, they escorted Wellingtons on a raid into Germany.

Regarding the droopsnoots, they weren't intended to be fighters, they were pathfinders and used for occasional spot recon.

Also saying the P-38 wasn't a good bomber is also saying the P-51 or P-47 weren't either, as they performed the same bombing missions. Virtually all fighters during WWII were pressed into a bombing role at one point or another...not sure why you're singling out the P-38 and condemning it for the exact same mission profile all the other fighters (on both sides of the fence) performed.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2016)

You seem to be fixated on "medium bomber" for some reason.

The P-47 performed bombing missions, the P-51 performed bombing missions, the Tempest, the Spitfire, the Fw190, the Bf109 and on and on and on.

The droop snoot was not a bomber...it was a pathfinder...it led a force of bomb equipped P-38's to the target and they executed pinpoint strikes. The Mosquito was employed in the same manner, too.

When the modified P-38 wasn't leading a bombing mission, it was used on occasion for a fast recon role.

Then there were the high-speed unarmed P-38s, called the "F-5", used solely for high-speed photo recon. Much like the PRU Mosquitoes or Spitfires.

And by the way, your reference to a "B-38" doesn't apply to the P-38 in any form - the B-38 was was allocated to the Allison V-1710 equipped B-17.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2016)

James W. said:


> & what 'mission profile' did the droop snoot bombers lead?
> It was a 'medium bomber' role, wasn't it..


No, it was a fighter-bomber role, which the P-38 was very well adapted to with it's inner and outer hard-points.


James W. said:


> Were they much good at it, in terms of bombing results? No.


What are your sources, or are you going on sentiment?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2016)

You do know that when you edit a post to change your position, it shows up, right?

I asked you directly to show me your source to back up your claims regarding the P-38's shortcomings.

So bring your sources to the table


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2016)

I said *F-5*, which *was* unarmed...regardless of your back-tracking and editing, the fact remains I I asked you to source you P-38 claims.

So let's see it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2016)

James W. said:


> I wrote - quite clearly- "refer to 'The P-38 as a Bomber' thread", the data is there, & its front & centre, so - quick march!


You just posted bullsh!t in that thread...that is not a source.

What are your sources for your P-38 claims?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2016)

James W. said:


> So, you've read the entire thread have you?
> 
> & the FACTS posted there by better informed members than you, are "bullshit"- are they?
> 
> I'd reckon its obvious who's going for the crown as BS champ around here..


What is your source for the P-38's performance?

I will keep requesting this from you, so stop deflecting and produce your source of facts.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2016)

James W. said:


> Are you ETOH raddled or what? Read the bloody thread, if you want the facts, simples..


Again, deflection...

You come into the discussion with your opinion, which doesn't have any bearing on historical fact and when your called to account for your claims, you try every game in the book to get out of providing fact to back your claims.

Now provide the source for your claims that the pathfinder was a failure.

Provide loss to success ratios for the P-38's bombing missions.

Start backing your speculation with sources.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2016)

James W. said:


> I have 'directed' you to the facts of the matter G-G, they are there in the specific thread
> ( which you refuse to read, oddly enough).
> & that is the opposite of 'deflection'.. so why are you emulating shooter & his stupidities, now?


Personal attacks won't work.

I have asked you to back your claims, and you haven't yet.

I have asked you directly, in this thread, on the topic being discussed, to produce sources.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2016)

James W. said:


> Refer to post #524, this thread.


refer to my request for sources for your claims


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2016)

James W. said:


> Wow that's some real interesting stuff in the "P-38 as a Bomber " thread,
> so anyone who likes proper data related to this thread - best check it out.


Yep...I think everyone is seeing what's going on.

You cannot back your claims, so you resort to deflecting, name calling and then calling me a bully.

And after all this, you still haven't provided a single source for your claims of the P-38 Pathfinder's alledged shortcomings.

Do you want a tissue for that tear?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2016)

James W. said:


> All the shortcomings of the "P-38 as a Bomber" are noted in yep, you guessed it - that specific thread. Go figure..


What are your sources for the Pathfinder's performance?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2016)

So again, instead of providing a source, any source, you're resorting to clicking little icons on the posts.

Don't you think that you might spend this time reading about the P-38 Pathfinder and learning a little more about it so that you can engage in a qualified, historical discussion?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2016)

Keep clicking those icons...pretty much proves my point...

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2016)

James - stop being an asshole, you're getting one warning.


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 6, 2016)

Hypothetically, fake the report stating the aircraft is unsuited for the ETO so you can use it where you really want to use it in the Pacific which was low priority.


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 6, 2016)

Updating the aircraft to the L model shows some interest in the program. Don't forget that 38s and 47s cost twice as much as -51s.


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> Whaaa?
> 
> The USAAF priority was the 'glamour' 8th AF, in the ETO, & only the best was good enough for them, ( not the P-38).
> To state "fake" reports from Air Material Command is frankly, delusional.


As I stated, Hypothetical!


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 6, 2016)

I know its a big word, go ahead and look it up.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2016)

Are these posts submitted by grown men?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> Whaaa?
> 
> The USAAF priority was the 'glamour' 8th AF, in the ETO, & only the best was good enough for them, ( not the P-38).
> To state ( even as "hypothetical") "fake" reports from Air Material Command is frankly, delusional.
> ...


In military terms what is a "glamour" airforce? Also please show how the this glamour force could demand the best. My unlce was a spotter US navy gunners during and after D Day. P38s were used near the allied fleet because whatever their strengths and weaknesses they were easy to tell from SE fighters.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 6, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Are these posts submitted by grown men?


No


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> The 8th AF was the USAAF's 'main feature' - taking the 'lions share' of resources/publicity/wins & losses in the toughest fighting.
> 
> You are of course correct, pbehn - about the unmistakable appearance of the P-38,
> & although Eisenhower went sight-seeing in a 2-seat P-51, other flying US Generals chose the P-38 for that reason, AFAIR.
> ...


What is "the lions share"? Lions share of Carriers? Lions share of carrier based planes? Lions share of B29s? As I see it the USA sent resources to where they were most needed and suited.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> Sure FBJ, I apologise for allowing G-G to dog me into a response that you think is.. me being an asshole.
> & for those interested in the whole 'droop snoot' deal, SR6 has summarised it well, in the 'P-38 as Bomber' thread.


Go to the threads marked basic and re-read the rules of this forum - a challenge to someone's comments 
is welcomed but if it becomes out of hand those warned will see cyber space very quickly - I DON'T WANT TO WARN YOU AGAIN!


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 6, 2016)

James, you are obviously a P-38 hater, but don't discount the nose mounted armament. Wing mounted guns converge at one spot in front of the firing aircraft. Nose mounted armament in concentrated straight ahead making for easier shooting.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2016)

James W. said:


> Just read the report written by the USAAF Air Material Command listing the P-38's fundamental deficiencies.


If you ever fully read that report you'll find it was prepared by pilots who had little multi engine experience. Col Rau (20th FG) prepared and equally damaging report in June, 1944. I think pilots of the 475th FG would disagree with many of the findings of both reports.


James W. said:


> P-38 missed out on even a few basics like paddle-props & a blown bubble canopy.


Any modifications would have to be at the approval of the AAF. Lockheed developed the P-38K and it was discarded. A one piece blown canopy for the P-38 was not high on anyone's priority list. Kelly Johnson had several other mods he would have liked to see implemented (one of them a stick in lieu of a yoke) but the AAF had the final say.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 6, 2016)

I would note that the P-38s props were 11 ft 6 in diameter to begin ( a foot bigger in dia than a P-39 prop and 6in bigger than a P-40 prop) with and by the time it got to the J model each propeller had gained over 65lbs in weight from the prototype or YP-38 props. 
I don't know when the change/s were made or what they entailed but this constant notion that the P-38 was in desperate need of "paddle" blade props seems a bit mistaken. 

The Army certainly seems to have experimented with a number of different prop-blades on other aircraft at times. Perhaps tests of a P-38 with different blades will come to light. 

I would also note that the Convair plant in Nashville Tenn got a contract to build 2000P-38Ls on June 26th 1944, which sort of puts the idea that p-38s were unwanted out to pasture. Convair only managed to build 113 by the time the war ended in August of 1945. 
This also shows how far in advance you had to plan in order to get usable numbers of aircraft out of a new or retooled factory.
The Factory had made Vultee Vengeance dive bombers among other aircraft before the P-38 Contract.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## lapin-red (Dec 9, 2016)

IDIOT !!

You get 2 x P51 for the price of 1 x P38. So the question should be: Which is the better in a dogfight: 2 x P51 vs 1 x P38 - so P51 obviously wins.

Turning circle is the other key factor, which the P51 also wins. As to 'fightability' well only a pilot who has flown both knows that. And you wont get many of them on a Walt's forum.

The actual real answer is course: ME 109 (or perhaps Spifire) becasue they were not flown by fat overweight americans.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2016)

lapin-red said:


> IDIOT !!
> 
> You get 2 x P51 for the price of 1 x P38. So the question should be: Which is the better in a dogfight: 2 x P51 vs 1 x P38 - so P51 obviously wins.
> 
> ...



Who you calling an idiot?

Actually don't even answer, after reading your other postings which are just inflamatory, you will not be tolerated. Goodbye...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 9, 2016)

This right here:


lapin-red said:


> The actual real answer is course: ME 109 (or perhaps Spifire) becasue they were not flown by fat overweight americans.


Sounds remarkably like something the "political officer" would approve of, eh?

What a way to start a very short and un-memorable membership to the forums by being a complete dumbass...


----------



## pbehn (Dec 9, 2016)

Ignoring of course the historical facts.

1 Americans flew Spitfires on occasions.
2 Goering would have flown a Bf109 but he was too freakin' fat.
3 Since even today a pilot is worth more than the aircraft he flies two P51s are not cheaper than one P38, unless the sole object is to count them up parked on the ground.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2016)

This jerk-off is from Sheffield - can some of our friends in the UK pay a visit to this moron and give him a sulfuric acid enema?!?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 9, 2016)




----------



## pbehn (Dec 9, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> This jerk-off is from Sheffield - can some of our friends in the UK pay a visit to this moron and give him a sulfuric acid enema?!?


It must be Nick Clegg, everything is clear.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 9, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> This jerk-off is from Sheffield - can some of our friends in the UK pay a visit to this moron and give him a sulfuric acid enema?!?


Waste of good acid

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Guv (Mar 23, 2017)

The B-25 was a relative bargain compared to the likes of the B-26! The B-26 was one pretty pricey twin engine bomber. 
Oh, and I voted for neither, both were awesome fighters and had their strong points in my opinion. The concentrated guns on the P-38 kind of appeal to me.


----------



## Neal (Jun 13, 2017)

As much as I love the P51, and is a running joke in the family that I like the P38 so much, that I make everyone in my family know they use twin Allison V1710 engines, I will grudgingly say that the P51 is a better fighter. As far as a better aircraft overall, I'd have to give it to the P51 because of cost only. If cost wasn't a concern, then I'd say the P38 was the better choice overall.

There were several reasons they weren't used in the European theater, mostly due to bad circumstance. First, If you remember, the first batches of the P38's sent to England were early models, and they were not given superchargers. At that time, superchargers were a top secret thing, and they were afraid that the technology would be captured by the Germans if Germany invaded England. Because of that, they severely lacked power. England rejected them because they just didn't have enough power at altitude for that reason. Second, The British demanded they make several changes, like not wanting the propellers to rotate the same direction for commonality of parts. and as a third strike against them being used in the European theater was the fact they didn't have dive flaps. We all know about the compressibility issues with the P38. In a dive, the P38 would reach subsonic speeds, the tail would flutter, and the P38 would go into a dive with all control stuck. The retrofit flaps were sent out, but the ones sent to England were shot down by an RAF pilot due to mistaken identity. So, many of the early P38's in the European theater were not quite up to spec. By the time the P51's came, the P38's already had a bad reputation and were slowly phased out.

Now, in the Pacific theater, they worked just great. The twin engines helped bring many pilots home, the flaps worked fine, and they had superchargers. The P38 made for a fine interceptor. By that time, air tactics worked well. Although the Japanese Zero could out turn it during a dogfight, the P38 opened up other tactical options that other planes just could not do. In North Africa, they fared better, and withstood the sandy environment very well compared to other planes.

To directly compare the two.... both were quite fast. I believe the P38 could out climb a P51, they both dove well, The P38 was a better weapons platform overall since there are no convergence points on a P38. The P38 had more pilot workload than the P51. If there was a hypothetical dogfight between 50 of each planes, I think it would be a coin toss as to who would come out the winner. If there was a hypothetical bombing runs, Again it would be 50/50. For long range, they both could go pretty far.. P38's also have always had a type of "bubble canopy" which didn't come until later versions of the P51. But, when you factor in cost, It would be P51 hands down.

Which wold I want fly? I'd prefer the P-38J-25-LO (with dive flaps). If I was deciding which plane to be in my inventory for a war, it would be the P51. Which plane is better? Well, that's like asking which car is better... neither of those two planes are a Yugo.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 4, 2017)

Leaving aside the P-38's design defects, some of which made it nearly unusable for the 8th Air Force's escort needs, its performance was, overall, not superior to the P-51 and it had roughly twice the maintenance and supply needs. On these factors, alone, the P-51 should be considered superior. When you add that the P-38 was a more complicated aircraft to fly, requiring more training, the P-51 gets another point in its. favor.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 4, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Leaving aside the P-38's design defects, some of which made it nearly unusable for the 8th Air Force's escort needs, its performance was, overall, not superior to the P-51 and it had roughly twice the maintenance and supply needs.
> 
> *I'll grant that the P-38 had more than its share of problems in 1943. The fuel wasn't quite right
> for it and poor cabin heating...etc. I think I would have a problem maneuvering a twin aircraft
> ...


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2017)

With aircraft types I think a large credit should be given for being in existence. The P 38 first flew in 1939 and was in service in 1941, you cannot discount its service from 1941 to mid 1943 unless you say what plane could do the same job. Whatever its faults the P38 was there like the Hurricane.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dave Woods (Apr 21, 2018)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> well, even the books that i read which state that the Mustang was the best say that the P-38 was unfairly overshadowed, from reading the other posts it says that more P-51s were lost in training accidents than P-38s, P-38s were also (i think) in service way before the P-51
> 
> the P-51 was used in the Pacific, my grandfather told me numerous stories of P-51s strading nearby airfields in the Philippines, and has also seen a long dogfight between a P-51 and a Zero, and guess what, the Mustang came home, with Damage while the Zero escaped
> 
> ...


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2018)

Dave, welcome to the forum, Looma hasn't posted here for 6 years


----------



## Dave Woods (Apr 21, 2018)

d_bader remarks the P-38 was inferior to German planes and I think a lot of experts would disagree. While it was probably inferior to the P-51 as a pure dog fighter it was superior in many ways to the best American and German planes. If memory serves me correctly Richard Bong was one of the highest ranking AmericanAces of WWII and he flew P-38s almost exclusively. Most of our enemies feared the plane and had several nick names for it such as "two planes, one pilot", "fork tailed devil" and others. It had about the same top speed as the P-51 and by the end of the war when fitted with drop tanks had a 2500 mile range. It was less vulnerable to ground fire than the P-51 and a very forgiving plane to fly. Many consider the FW 190 the best German fighter it had slower top speed, slower acceleration, larger turning radius, much slower climb rates etc etc than the P-38 so the hard numbers factually are in favor of the P-38..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2018)

Dave Woods said:


> d_bader remarks the P-38 was inferior to German planes and I think a lot of experts would disagree. While it was probably inferior to the P-51 as a pure dog fighter it was superior in many ways to the best American and German planes. If memory serves me correctly Richard Bong was one of the highest ranking AmericanAces of WWII and he flew P-38s almost exclusively. Most of our enemies feared the plane and had several nick names for it such as "two planes, one pilot", "fork tailed devil" and others. It had about the same top speed as the P-51 and by the end of the war when fitted with drop tanks had a 2500 mile range. It was less vulnerable to ground fire than the P-51 and a very forgiving plane to fly. Many consider the FW 190 the best German fighter it had slower top speed, slower acceleration, larger turning radius, much slower climb rates etc etc than the P-38 so the hard numbers factually are in favor of the P-38..


Dave, d_bader hasn't posted here for 9 years.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 21, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Ignoring of course the historical facts.
> 
> 1 Americans flew Spitfires on occasions.
> 2 Goering would have flown a Bf109 but he was too freakin' fat.
> 3 Since even today a pilot is worth more than the aircraft he flies two P51s are not cheaper than one P38, unless the sole object is to count them up parked on the ground.



1: Yes; ask Bob Hoover
2: So what? Did Hap Arnold ever fly combat in WW2? Both had other responsibilities that most service pilots could not perform. (although I do think Goering crashing and burning, preferably with adolph in the plane, in 1939 would have been a wonderful thing...)
3: Well, you'll still need the same number of pilots to do the same tasks. The P-38, even by the most absurdly optimistic estimate wasn't enough better than the P-51 to replace them on a one-for-two basis. Since I don't think it was significantly, if any better, than the P-51, the USAAF would still need an equal number of P-38s as P-51s. Since they're likely to have lower dispatch rates and higher abort rates, more would be needed.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> 1: Yes; ask Bob Hoover
> 2: So what? Did Hap Arnold ever fly combat in WW2? Both had other responsibilities that most service pilots could not perform.
> 3: Well, you'll still need the same number of pilots to do the same tasks.


LOL swampy, my post was to a guy who actually got banned before I hit "post reply"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2018)

Dave Woods said:


> d_bader remarks the P-38 was inferior to German planes and I think a lot of experts would disagree. While it was probably inferior to the P-51 as a pure dog fighter it was superior in many ways to the best American and German planes. If memory serves me correctly Richard Bong was one of the highest ranking AmericanAces of WWII and he flew P-38s almost exclusively. Most of our enemies feared the plane and had several nick names for it such as "two planes, one pilot", *"fork tailed devil" *and others. It had about the same top speed as the P-51 and by the end of the war when fitted with drop tanks had a 2500 mile range. It was less vulnerable to ground fire than the P-51 and a very forgiving plane to fly. Many consider the FW 190 the best German fighter it had slower top speed, slower acceleration, larger turning radius, much slower climb rates etc etc than the P-38 so the hard numbers factually are in favor of the P-38..



I am not an anti-Lightning person, but the fork tailed devil nickname is a propoganda myth. The Germans never actually nicknamed it that.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am not an anti-Lightning person, but the fork tailed devil nickname is a propoganda myth. The Germans never actually nicknamed it that.


I believe the "two planes one pilot" is supposed to have come from the far east, such things can easily happen translating from one language to another. We all know what a bi-plane is, but it isn't two planes. Two planes, one pilot is no more or less valid than "single seater, twin boom". Often in Chinese and Japanese they use a single character to represent many concepts.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I believe the "two planes one pilot" is supposed to have come from the far east, such things can easily happen translating from one language to another. We all know what a bi-plane is, but it isn't two planes. Two planes, one pilot is no more or less valid than "single seater, twin boom". Often in Chinese and Japanese they use a single character to represent many concepts.



That I can believe, but the fork tailed devil has been debunked.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That I can believe, but the fork tailed devil has been debunked.


Adler, if a plane has wings because it flies like a bird, and has a tail because it flies like bird why does it have a nose and not a beak?

Aviation grew very quickly and had to find new words. Fuselage means spindle shaped, empennage means the feathering of an arrow, a pilot was a local expert mariner who guided ships in dangerous waters while "cockpit" came from where a naval man o war was steered, shaped like a pit that birds were put in to fight. Against that "One pilot, two planes" doesn't seem strange at all. 

Terms like "fork tailed devil" and "whispering death" have been largely debunked, but since the RAF pilots called Bf109s "snappers" if they were to call an enemy plane like the P-38 anything it would be "fork tailed [email protected]" and that wouldn't have been written into history.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 21, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am not an anti-Lightning person, but the fork tailed devil nickname is a propoganda myth. The Germans never actually nicknamed it that.



So, apparently, is "Whistling Death" for the Corsair.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> So, apparently, is "Whistling Death" for the Corsair.


Has anyone ever asked Shinpachi about this?


----------



## redcoat (Apr 21, 2018)

Neal said:


> In a dive, the P38 would reach subsonic speeds, the tail would flutter, and the P38 would go into a dive with all control stuck. The retrofit flaps were sent out, but the ones sent to England were shot down by an RAF pilot due to mistaken identity.


Only two were used by the 8th in Europe but due to the flaps constantly breaking they were soon exchanged for P-38's without these flaps
Source: The Mighty Eighth War Manual by Roger A. Freeman


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 22, 2018)

The enemy is rarely ever going to glorify their opponent's hardware with catchy names.

My great-Uncle, who flew P-38s in the PTO, called them "Fork-Tailed Devils" - the Germans typically referred to Allied aircraft by their names: Spitfire, Lightning, Mustang, Thunderbolt and so on.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 22, 2018)

Dave Woods said:


> d_bader remarks the P-38 was inferior to German planes and I think a lot of experts would disagree. While it was probably inferior to the P-51 as a pure dog fighter it was superior in many ways to the best American and German planes. If memory serves me correctly Richard Bong was one of the highest ranking AmericanAces of WWII and he flew P-38s almost exclusively.



Of course, Richard Bong flew exclusively in the PTO, so he wouldn't have come across many enemy aircraft with similar levels of armour, performance and firepower.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 22, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The enemy is rarely ever going to glorify their opponent's hardware with catchy names.... the Germans typically referred to Allied aircraft by their names: Spitfire, Lightning, Mustang, Thunderbolt and so on.



Those names sound catchy enough to me....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## redcoat (May 12, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am not an anti-Lightning person, but the fork tailed devil nickname is a propoganda myth. The Germans never actually nicknamed it that.


A nick-name that was attributed to the P-38 by the pilots of the USAAF 8th Air Force was the 'Ice-Box' due to its poor cockpit heating



Neal said:


> There were several reasons they weren't used in the European theater, mostly due to bad circumstance. First, If you remember, the first batches of the P38's sent to England were early models, and they were not given superchargers. At that time, superchargers were a top secret thing, and they were afraid that the technology would be captured by the Germans if Germany invaded England. Because of that, they severely lacked power. England rejected them because they just didn't have enough power at altitude for that reason. Second, The British demanded they make several changes, like not wanting the propellers to rotate the same direction for commonality of parts. and as a third strike against them being used in the European theater was the fact they didn't have dive flaps.


The P-38's ordered by the British never saw combat in the ETO so they were not responsible for the bad rep the P-38 gained in Northern Europe while serving with the 8th Air Force.
The P-38's used by the 8th were standard models fitted with superchargers.


----------



## swampyankee (May 12, 2018)

The P-38 was one of the innovative designs to see service; it was, alas, also one where the detailed design and flight testing were not well performed, which are some of the reason why it had numerous problems in the European Theatre of Operations -- the other was inadequate pilot training. Issues like inadequate cockpit heating and detonation at altitude should have been found and corrected before service entry. The problems with compressibility may be more forgivable, as the aerodynamic results of compressibility were not well understood, so they may not even have been looked for. The problems with pilot's crashing on engine failures were almost solely due to inadequate pilot training, which was the fault of the USAAF. 

The _other_ issue is that there were no missions that the P-38 could perform that the P-51, once it entered service, could not, and that the P-51 was less demanding of resources: the P-38 would cost close to twice as much to support as the P-51 and cost far more to purchase. In a strategic context, it's not whether you want a P-38 or a P-51; it's whether you want 500 P-38s or 1,000 P-51s.


So, P-51 or P-38?

P-51.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Rudeontour (Feb 10, 2021)

timshatz said:


> Bunch of other prices for Aircraft (in thousands):
> P36A- 23
> P35A- 22.5
> P39Q- 46
> ...


wow curious as to why the B-24 cost soo much more than the b-17, really surprised by the cost of the c-47 as well, i would have thought the b-25 would have cost way more than the c-47


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 11, 2021)

timshatz said:


> Another point for consideration:
> Mustang $54,000 each (P51D)
> Lightning $114,000 (P-38L)
> 
> When you get right down to it, it's all about the money.



Of course, the P-38 will also need more resources in the field: more maintenance, more spares, more fuel. The USAAF found out, the hard way, that more pilot training was also needed compared to the a single-engined aircraft.

When you add that the P-51 (and P-47) had very similar performance, the case for the P-38 was not strong.


----------

