# Interesting P-38 Comments



## V-1710 (Aug 30, 2006)

Some interesting P-38 comments from various WWII pilots: First off, concentration of firepower: There seems to be 2 views- one is that the P-38 had an advantage over other fighters in that since the guns were all in the nose, they were aimed straight ahead. No convergence issues. The other view was that since all the guns were in the nose, the concentration of firepower was over a smaller area, making aiming more critical. I think I would tend to believe the former, thinking that if you had the bogie in your sight, you had a good chance no matter the distance (to a point). Stall chracteristics: All argee the P-38 had the best stall of any WWII fighter. 2 reasons for this. First, the airfoil of the P-38 wing was such that it stalled from the center outward, which helped stability leading into the stall. Second, the P-38 was just about the only WWII fighter that had a center of gravity below the airframe's center of lift. Any other fighter would fall off on one wing of the other at the point of stall, as the center of gravity was above the center of lift. Was the P-38 given a fair chance in Europe? Subject of much debate, but the facts are it didn't have a very good heater and when it was in service there the 8th. was still unconvinced escorts were really needed. Probably the best recon. ship in the European theater, though. Was it a coincidence that many of the P-80 test pilots were men with considerable P-38 time? Since they were both products of Lockhead that was a factor, but with no torque due to the contra-rotating props, tricycle gear, and aerodynamically clean enough to go stupid fast in a dive, one would think a P-38 pilot would be more at home in a P-80 than a Mustang driver. The P-38 was the only U.S.A.A.C./U.S.A.A.F. fighter in production the first day of U.S. involvement in WWII and the last. And, least we forget that one of the P-38's principal designers was a man by the name of Kelly Johnson, who went on to distinguish himself by designing a few more airplanes for Lockheed..........


----------



## Glider (Aug 30, 2006)

Fair points but the only one I would disagree with is the PR statement. The Mossie and Spit were in my mind ahead of the game in this area.
I know that after the 8th Airforce arrived in the UK one of the first things they asked for were Spitfire XI's to replace the P38 in the PR role.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 31, 2006)

Glider said:


> Fair points but the only one I would disagree with is the PR statement. The Mossie and Spit were in my mind ahead of the game in this area.
> I know that after the 8th Airforce arrived in the UK one of the first things they asked for were Spitfire XI's to replace the P38 in the PR role.



That never happened. Only the F4 and F5 Lightnings had the performance and range to get deep into Germany. And that big nose could carry the camera's without displacing fuel tanks.

The 8th AF was always happy with the performace of these recon aircraft although the pilots froze like their fighter counterparts.


----------



## Glider (Aug 31, 2006)

The USAAF’s 14th Photographic Squadron of the 8th Air Force used Spitfire Mark XIs from November 1943 to April 1945


----------



## V-1710 (Aug 31, 2006)

I remember reading that Gen. Doolittle surveyed the D-Day landings personally in a P-38.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2006)

V-1710 said:


> Was it a coincidence that many of the P-80 test pilots were men with considerable P-38 time?


Are you referring to company test pilots or people like Richard Bong who was assigned to Lockheed as a government test pilot?


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 31, 2006)

Glider said:


> The USAAF’s 14th Photographic Squadron of the 8th Air Force used Spitfire Mark XIs from November 1943 to April 1945



That was a composite group of one squad of Spits and three additional squads of F4/F5's.

The 9th AF also had six F4/F5 squads and the 12th/15th AF's had six F4/F5 squads.

I am glad you mentioned this because I discovered I had some interesting autographs on the cover page of the book I referred to, "The Mighty Eight". I cant remember when it happened (maybe 1990-1991?), but I had Gabby Grabeski, Jerry Johnson, Paul Conger and two others of the 56th FG put their names to the book!


----------



## redcoat (Aug 31, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> That never happened. Only the F4 and F5 Lightnings had the performance and range to get deep into Germany. And that big nose could carry the camera's without displacing fuel tanks.
> 
> The 8th AF was always happy with the performace of these recon aircraft although the pilots froze like their fighter counterparts.


 Sorry, but Col. Homer Sanders, the CO of the 7th PG, who provided reconnaissance for the 8th AF, specifically asked Ira Eaker, the CO of the 8th AF, for Spitfire Mk. XIs, and they began to receive them in November, 1943.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2006)

redcoat said:


> Sorry, but Col. Homer Sanders, the CO of the 7th PG, who provided reconnaissance for the 8th AF, specifically asked Ira Eaker, the CO of the 8th AF, for Spitfire Mk. XIs, and they began to receive them in November, 1943.


But they were only operated in one squadron in numbers. The 7th Photo recon Group consisted of 4 squadrons, 13th, 14th, 22nd, and 27th. I show the 13th operating F-5A-Es through 1945 although they did have some Spits. The 14th seemed to have most of the Spits, the 22nd and 27th had F-5A-Es but also used a few Spits. It Seems the 7th PG used these aircraft plus a few P-51s right through the end of the war....


----------



## Glider (Aug 31, 2006)

The question that interests me, is why did he ask for them in the first place? Clearly the Spitfire had something the F4/F5 didn't or they wouldn't have been requested.


----------



## Glider (Aug 31, 2006)

Just found the following

Operating out of England, the photorecon Lightnings suffered from all the problems faced by their fighter brethren. High-altitude missions were generally limited to a maximum of 25,000 feet, as the Lightning had engine trouble at higher altitude. Even flying at 400mph at this altitude instead of at the expected 35,000 feet meant that the Lightnings were vulnerable to interception by the Luftwaffe. The Germans were well aware of the purpose of a single aircraft at high altitude, and their radar could easily track it. If the intercepting Bf 109s or Fw 190s were in position and given a sufficient altitude advantage, they could overtake the Lightning in a dive more easily than they could the British Mosquito. A photo ship's only real defense was to fly an erratic course to avoid interception by not allowing the German controller to position his fighters successfully. Additionally, the hope was that an erratic flight course would conceal the target objective. 

Because of the continued unreliability of the Allison engines at high altitude, the Lightning was replaced by reverse-LendLease Spitfire P.R.XIs for the most dangerous target-assessment missions. The Lightnings were returned to the job of photographically mapping northwest Europe for the planned invasion. To avoid alerting the Germans to the real invasion site, they flew missions from Blankenberge to Dunkerque, and from Le Touquet to St. Vaast de la Hague-virtually the entire coast of the English Channel-and they flew three missions elsewhere for every one flown over Normandy and the Cherbourg Peninsula. 

It would appear that the Mossie and the Spit had advantages over the F4/F5 in the PR role.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2006)

Glider said:


> The question that interests me, is why did he ask for them in the first place? Clearly the Spitfire had something the F4/F5 didn't or they wouldn't have been requested.


Possibly, or maybe they 7th PRG could get enough birds over to Europe. I would guess the F-5s were used for long range missions. Here's the "Little Friends" site, got some great photos...

8th Air Force Fighter Group - Littlefriends.co.uk


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2006)

Great post Glider, that answers it!!!


----------



## redcoat (Aug 31, 2006)

Glider said:


> The question that interests me, is why did he ask for them in the first place? Clearly the Spitfire had something the F4/F5 didn't or they wouldn't have been requested.


Especially in the winter months, the F4/5 had difficulty operating over 30,000ft. making them highly vulnerable to higher flying Me 109's.

ps, I posted this before I read Gliders excellent reply


----------



## k9kiwi (Sep 1, 2006)

The following is a description of a PR flight over enemy territory, written by an anonymous New Zealand pilot about the pressurised Spitfire PRU around 40,000 feet. 

"The engine itself, which was practically in one's lap, only made a sort of ticking noise like a clockwork mouse. The cold, the low pressure and the immobilizing effect of the elaborate equipment and bulky clothing in the tiny cockpit had the effect of damping down and subduing all the senses, except the sense of sight. On a clear day one could see an immense distance, whole countries at a time. Around them a scrap was going on, the fighters glinting as they circled in the sun. I felt like a man looking down into a pool watching minnows playing near the bottom. 

Outside the aircraft the temperature might be 60 or 70 degrees below freezing and if, as occasionally happened, the cabin heating failed, the cold was agonizing. Everything in the cockpit became covered with frost and long icicles grew from the pilots mask like Jack Frosts beard. Most alarming of all, the entire wind screen and blister hood was liable to frost over so that it was impossible to see out. At such times the air seemed full of Messerschmitts."


----------



## Tony Williams (Sep 7, 2006)

An interesting letter on the Gabelschwanz Teufel site:

20th Fighter Group Headquarters
APO 637 U.S. Army
(E-2)

3 June 1944

Subject: P-38 Airplane in Combat.

To: Commanding General, VIII Fighter Command, APO 637, U.S. Army.

1. The following observations are being put in writing by the undersigned at the request of the Commanding General, VII FC. They are intended purely as constructive criticism and are intended in any way to "low rate" our present equipment.

2. After flying the P-38 for a little over one hundred hours on combat missions it is my belief that the airplane, as it stands now, is too complicated for the 'average' pilot. I want to put strong emphasis on the word 'average, taking full consideration just how little combat training our pilots have before going on as operational status.

3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced", what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure.

4. In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost as least four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive action. The logical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit, trying to get organized that they were shot down before they could get going.

5. The question that arises is, what are you going to do about it? It is standard procedure for the group leader to call, five minutes before R/V and tell all the pilots to "prepare for trouble". This is the signal for everyone to get into auto rich, turn drop tank switches on, gun heaters on, combat and sight switches on and to increase RPM and manifold pressure to maximum cruise. This procedure, however, does not help the pilot who is bounced on the way in and who is trying to conserve his gasoline and equipment for the escort job ahead.

6. What is the answer to these difficulties? During the past several weeks we have been visited at this station time and time again by Lockheed representatives, Allison representatives and high ranking Army personnel connected with these two companies. They all ask about our troubles and then proceed to tell us about the marvelous mechanisms that they have devised to overcome these troubles that the Air Force has turned down as "unnecessary". Chief among these is a unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold pressure regulator, which will control power, RPM and mixture by use of a single lever. It is obvious that there is a crying need for a device like that in combat.

7. It is easy to understand why test pilots, who have never been in combat, cannot readily appreciate what each split second means when a "bounce" occurs. Every last motion when you get bounced is just another nail in your coffin. Any device which would eliminate any of the enumerated above, are obviously very necessary to make the P-38 a really effective combat airplane.

8. It is also felt that that much could done to simplify the gas switching system in this airplane. The switches {valve selector handles} are all in awkward positions and extremely hard to turn. The toggle switches for outboard tanks are almost impossible to operate with gloves on.

9. My personal feeling about this airplane is that it is a fine piece of equipment, and if properly handled, takes a back seat for nothing that the enemy can produce. But it does need simplifying to bring it within the capabilities of the 'average' pilot. I believe that pilots like Colonel Ben Kelsey and Colonel Cass Huff are among the finest pilots in the world today. But I also believe that it is difficult for men like them to place their thinking and ability on the level of a youngster with a bare 25 hours in the airplane, going into his first combat. That is the sort of thinking that will have to be done, in my opinion, to make the P-38 a first-class all around fighting airplane.

HAROLD J. RAU
Colonel, Air Corps,
Commanding.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2006)

Interesting memo - I have to laugh about this part...

_"3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced", what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure."_

Col. Rau gives a "worse case scenario" not only for flying a P-38, but for flying any twin engine aircraft. The switches he describes are no different on say A P-47 or P-51, the only problem there is 2 of them. See for your self in some of these links and the way the P-38, P-47 and P-51 cockpits are laid out.

P-38 COCKPIT

More P-47 Suff

More P-51 Stuff from real P-51 Mustang pilot and mechanic's manuals

Everything he describes could be held for the same on any other single engine aircraft - I see bias here but agree with his premise that a low time pilot of that era needed a lot more training to be proficient in the P-38...


----------



## Jank (Sep 7, 2006)

Tony, 

The Report of Joint Fighter Conference 1944 had similar criticisms of the P-38. Too complicated. Poor visibility was also criticized.


----------



## Glider (Sep 7, 2006)

Do we know if these changes or at least some of them were made on later versions of the plane?


----------



## Jank (Sep 7, 2006)

I don't know. However, The Report of Joint Fighter Conference 1944 used a "J" model in it's testing.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 7, 2006)

Glider said:


> Do we know if these changes or at least some of them were made on later versions of the plane?



Yes, many changes were made to the systems of the later P-38s
1. Two generators were added with the early J's - the single generator is singled out by Art Heiden as one of the worst problems for the early P-38s because the props were electrically controlled.
2, Turbo controls became automatic in the Js.
3. Cooling flaps became automatic with manual override in the J models - major engine and turbo problems esp at altitude were directly related to cold (~130deg oil at the engine) engine oil, mostly resulting from improper operating techniques.
4, Prop/mixture controls were simplified. a two setting mixture control was implemented in the H and Lockheed had a unified prop/mixture/throttle control designed but was denied permission to install it by the War Production Board.
5, Fuel system was redone to provide crossfeed from any internal tank to either engine.
6, heat ducting to the cockpit was redesigned for the J-25 and L models.
7, Hydraulic controls for the ailerons.
8, Almost forgot one of the most important, Intercoolers were changed to core type with auto temp control on the Js eliminating the too cool/overheated air issues the earlier aircraft had, and eliminating both a cockpit load and increasing hp by ~250hp each engine (the H had the same engines as the J but the intercoolers allowed full output).

As Colonel Rau mentioned the performance of the P-38 was great but the experience with combat and twin engines to low time pilots with inadequate training was a very great issue. As Flyboy pointed out the controls weren't that different from any other fighter of that era.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2006)

The fact that in June, 1944 he's still talking about early P-38 problems shows the bias. Bulb on the gun sight burning out?? Gun Heater (The report is June 44)??? This guy should of gotten a Pulitzer!


----------



## Twitch (Sep 7, 2006)

When you can't SEE the enemy you are in sad shape. In the ETO P-38 never had the defroster problem satisfactorily solved. Forget all the rest. When you have to carry rags and smear the perspex up to continually clear the frost and fog away at higher altitudes you can't even see enemy planes out gunning for you! Game over!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2006)

That I agree 100%


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 7, 2006)

Yep, if your are seen before you see your enemy your are as good as dead. The classic bounce...


----------



## V-1710 (Sep 8, 2006)

About the intercooler redesign on the J models: They solved one problem, but created another. The increased capacity of the core intercoolers over the leading edge duct type lessened the likelyhood of detonation at high boost settings, but the redesigned oil coolers introduced at the same time were too efficient (for conditions in the ETO), and caused the motor oil to thicken at high altitudes, resulting in the 'Allison Time Bomb'. It took some time to figure out that poor oil flow due to cold temps. was causing engine failures (it sure wasn't happening in the South Pacific). Overall, there's no denying the P-38 was best suited for the Pacific, though I think given time the P-38 could have been just as effective in Europe.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 10, 2006)

V-1710 said:


> About the intercooler redesign on the J models: They solved one problem, but created another. The increased capacity of the core intercoolers over the leading edge duct type lessened the likelyhood of detonation at high boost settings, but the redesigned oil coolers introduced at the same time were too efficient (for conditions in the ETO), and caused the motor oil to thicken at high altitudes, resulting in the 'Allison Time Bomb'. It took some time to figure out that poor oil flow due to cold temps. was causing engine failures (it sure wasn't happening in the South Pacific). Overall, there's no denying the P-38 was best suited for the Pacific, though I think given time the P-38 could have been just as effective in Europe.



I don't deny these things happened in the ETO but I've done some comparisons so please think about this:

1. The Aleutions had temps of -150f ON THE GROUND. The were no complaints regarding heat in cockpits, engine/turbo problems etc.
2. A significant number of escort and strategic strike missions were flown above 20,000' in ALL THEATERS, its -30/-40f at that altitudes everywhere, there were no complaints of heat, or bad engines/turbos.
3. the 20th FG had 4 losses due to failed engines.
4. the 8th AF flew between 75,000/100,000 sorties with P-38s. These included bombing, PR, G/A, training and escort missions with 451 aircraft lost. They also flew P-51s for 170,000/190,000 sorties primarily escort missions for a loss of 2,201 P-51s. Five times the P-51s lost as P-38s for ~2 times the sorties. The P-38s flew G/A much more that the P-51s though the P-51s did strikes after escorting the bombers out. The difference is that the P-51 made one pass then went to the next target, the P-38s were on orders to stay until the target was destroyed.
5. In March 45, the 428th F/B squadron flew their P-38J/Ls on 662 sorties for 8 aborts. That same month the 359th FS with P-51Ds flew 404 sorties with 22 aborts. Granted this was after these guys figured the P-38s out.

First its obvious the problems were greatly exaggerated.
Second, if you look at the operating procedures of the units everywhere but in Europe they normally flew with 25"-30" map and 2,000rpm, in the ETO they often flew with 18" and 2.500rpm. The lower map meant:
1. Less apparent compression resulting in higher fuel consumption.
2. Colder oil leading to higher turbo and engine failures.
3. Colder exhaust manifolds meant colder cockpits, granted they weren't very good at their best, lower pressure made it worse.

This is what Doolittle had to say about the P-38 in Europe as related to Warren Bodie in his book on the P-38.

The P-38 may not have been the best fighter in WWII, but concedes that this can probably be factors unrelated to the aircrafts capability's. Strategic and tactical doctrine proved to be a severe handicap to utilization of the type at the time the first groupers were deployed in northern Europe. Both the P-47 and P-51Bs would have faired poorly under the rules then prevailing, but it is necessary to recognize that neither type was developed or mass produced until later.

And

In his personal opinion was that on the balance the P-38 was far ahead of all but one or two of the most outstanding fighters of WWII. It was certainly the most versatile, outstripping even its contemporaries of the war years because it served widely and effectively in combat as an air-to-air combat fighter, long range escort fighter, dive/skip bomber, strategic bomber, tactical fighter/bomber, PR and radar equipped night fighter. 

Those are Doolittle's thoughts.

My point is that these issues were there but they weren't as great as publicized or completely the fault of the aircraft.

Check this mission out P-38s escorting Mossies to Singapore. 
Timur-I-Leng: Mission over Singapore

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 10, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> 1. The Aleutions had temps of -150f ON THE GROUND. The were no complaints regarding heat in cockpits, engine/turbo problems etc.



-150F? That must be a typo



> 2. A significant number of escort and strategic strike missions were flown above 20,000' in ALL THEATERS, its -30/-40f at that altitudes everywhere, there were no complaints of heat, or bad engines/turbos.



Escort/bombing missions in the PTO and CBI were always done at far lower altitudes.




> Check this mission out P-38s escorting Mossies to Singapore.
> Timur-I-Leng: Mission over Singapore



I posted informnation about that several months ago. That has to be the record for range for a fighter mission. Not even the 7th AF P47N's went on mission lenghts like that over Japan.


----------



## Jank (Sep 10, 2006)

Report of Joint Fighter Conference 1944 

*P-38L* (above I indicated that they tested a J model. My mistake) These are not criticisms in relation to other allied aircraft but just absolute criticisms recorded in an attempt to determine the negative attributes of the aircraft that ought to be addressed by aircraft manufacturers for future fighter design. 

The report is what it is. Accept it. Reject it. But realize it is the CRITICAL evaluation of fighter and test pilots trying to determine the NEGATIVE aspects of this aircraft.


Cockpit (separate critical comments from fighter and test pilots)

Complicated

Controls inaccessible

Crowded

Instrument panel and windshield too far away

Many switches could not be reached with harness locked - including auto override switches

Position of tabs poor

No landing grear position indicator

Visibility not good

Combat Qualities (separate critical comments from fighter and test pilots)

Bad visibility to sides and down

Would rather have F4U or F6F for Pacific

Would not consider this a modern fighting aircraft

Poor coordinatin of control forces and effectiveness, combined with weak directional stability make it a poor gun platform, and its manueverability is so low as to preclude its use in modern combat.

Too complicated and full of gadgets - would make serviceability rating low

Too much mechanical equipment for one man to operate in combat


----------



## davparlr (Sep 10, 2006)

Jank said:


> Report of Joint Fighter Conference 1944
> 
> *P-38L* (above I indicated that they tested a J model. My mistake) These are not criticisms in relation to other allied aircraft but just absolute criticisms recorded in an attempt to determine the negative attributes of the aircraft that ought to be addressed by aircraft manufacturers for future fighter design.
> 
> ...



Something you must remember about this report. The non-operating sevice and contractors flew each aircraft. That means Navy pilots and contractor pilots flew the P-38. Now if there is one thing that Navy pilots hated more than the Japs (using a WWII term here) was Army pilots followed closely by Army planes. And the P-38 was their direct competition, therefore, was probably their most hated Army plane. I doubt if they would have said positive things about the F8F, if it was an Army plane! Most Army plane reviews were mostly negative except for the P-51D, they seem to have some trouble criticizing it, but then (1944) it was not competing with the Navy in the Pacific.


----------



## Jank (Sep 10, 2006)

Davparlr, combat pilots from both operating and non-operating branches (Army Air Force, Navy and Marines) flew all the aircraft and included the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. In addition, there were test pilots and/or representatives from General Motors, Allison, Bell, Boeing, Chance Vought, Curtiss Wright, DeHaviland, General Electric, Goodyear, Grumman, Hamilton Standard Propellers, Lockheed, McDonnell, North American, Northrop, Packard, Pratt Whitney, Republic, Ryan, Sperry, Wright Aeronautical and United Aircraft Corp. NACA was also there.

To be fair though, the USN was over represented.

More on the impression the P-38L left on the fighter and test pilots in the conference.

*Best all-around cockpit*

Most votes - F8F
P-38 received no votes

*Worst cockpit*

Most votes - P-38

*Nicest arrangement of engine controls*

Most votes - P-51
P-38 tied for last in votes

*Most convenient gear and flap controls*

Most votes - F8F
P-38 tied for last in votes

*Most comfortable cockpit*

Most votes - P-47
P-38 received no votes

*Best all-around visibility*

Most votes - P-51
P-38 received no votes

*Best all-around armor*

Most votes - P-47
P-38 received no votes

*Best for overload takeoff from small area*

Most votes - F6F
P-38 tied for 5th place 

*Nicest harmonization of control forces*

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 received no votes

*Best ailerons at 350mph*

Most votes - P-51
P-38 voted 3rd place

*Best ailerons at 100mph*

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted 9th place

*Best elevator*

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted 12th place

*Best rudder*

Most votes - F7F
P-38 voted 6th place

*Fighter exhibiting nicest all-around stability*

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted last place

*Fighter appearing to have best control and stability in a dive*

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted last place 

*Best characteristics at 5mph above stall*

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted 3rd place

*Best all-around fighter above 25,000 feet*

Most votes - P-47
P-38 voted last place

*Best all-around fighter below 25,000 feet*

Most votes - F8F
P-38 received no votes

*Best fighter bomber*

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted last place

*Best strafer*

Most votes - P-47
P-38 voted 6th place

*Which powerplant operation inspires the most confidence*

Most votes - Pratt Whitney R-2800
Allison voted last place


----------



## davparlr (Sep 12, 2006)

Jank said:


> Davparlr, combat pilots from both operating and non-operating branches (Army Air Force, Navy and Marines) flew all the aircraft and included the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. In addition, there were test pilots and/or representatives from General Motors, Allison, Bell, Boeing, Chance Vought, Curtiss Wright, DeHaviland, General Electric, Goodyear, Grumman, Hamilton Standard Propellers, Lockheed, McDonnell, North American, Northrop, Packard, Pratt Whitney, Republic, Ryan, Sperry, Wright Aeronautical and United Aircraft Corp. NACA was also there.



All of this is true but, page 248 of the report, the Appendix right before the data sheets, state in the third paragraph: "The total number of cards turned in by each services is listed at the beginning of the summary for each aircraft. In general, the British representatives in pilot comments is small; furthermore _few pilots flew airplanes of their own service_. The comments are therefore about half from contractors' pilots, fifth or so from British pilots, _and the remainder from the service not sponsoring the aircraft in question_."

The comments on the P-38L were listed as follows:
Army-1
Navy-9
British-5
Contractors-13

And, if you figure that probably most (maybe all, since the aircraft contractor pilots would already be familar with there own aircraft) of the contractors were competition, then, by far, the reviewers were not prone to be favorable to the P-38L. I am sure they were mostly honest but also I am sure some prejudices got in.


----------



## Jank (Sep 12, 2006)

davparlr said, " I am sure they were mostly honest but also I am sure some prejudices got in."

I would agree with that and just as the reviewers were not prone to be favorable to the P-38L as a result of the fact that few pilots flew airplanes of their own service, neither were they prone to be favorable to any of the aircraft.

The 21 areas voted on above had a general 9:15 vote ratio of USAAF to USN (The USN had 2/3 more) and yet the P-47 still managed to ilk out top votes for most comfortable cockpit, best all-around armor, best all-around fighter above 25,000 feet and best strafer. 

And the comments breakdown of the P-47 was far more lopsided between USAAF and USN than with the P-38 (1:14 as opposed to 1:9). It was as follows:

Army-1
Navy-14
British-4
Contractors-10

Of interest also on page 248 is the following paragraph:

_"Separate test break-downs for each service and the contractors showed no significant differences in the results; the comments have therefore not been distinguished as to the auspices of the pilot making them."_


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 13, 2006)

Another point is that there were no pilots/ground crew familiar with the P-38. Most Fighter pilots of that time had an automatic prejudice against twin engined fighters. Check out this story about a pilot, his first impression and his eventual attitude about the P-38. P-38 Lightning Pilot Briefs: Robert Carey The first reaction with the P-38 was normally a low one because "Everyone knows a twin can't compete with a single engined fighter. Heres another story about P-38Ms against the aircraft in the '45/'46 era combair015.htm
moreover remember its worst kill ratio was 4:1 while the 475th 5th AF had a ratio of 20:1. Thats not a medicore fighter!

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 13, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> -150F? That must be a typo
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes the -150 should be -50f

Not everywhere, in the CBI probably not, the Pacific theaters were frequently at high altitudes - not all, tactical missions were always at low altitudes - but a fairly high proportion of them were strategic and at high altitudes. For instance even just flying over New Guinea you were above 20,000ft just to miss the mountains! Long range missions were almost always above 15,000ft and frequently above 20,000ft for both fuel efficiency and suprise. Further strategic missions in the MTO were at or above 20,000ft. In both the Pacific and Med a favorite tactic (tactical) was bombers at 12,000ft to 15,000ft, P-40s about 5,000ft above that and P-38s above that often to about 25,000ft. Also several Japanese mention the P-38s almost always came from above, and a 15,000ft cruise altitude for Japanese aircraft was fairly normal, that places the P-38s at least 5,000ft above or 20,000ft. Heres a site by someone who has researched the P-38 and interviewed many of its pilots
The P38 (C.C. Jordan; MakinKid; CDB100620) theres a lot of info here on the Lightning.

I believe your right about it being the longest mission and he claims they were using 165gal drop tanks.

My main points, there are two, are first: the conditions in Europe were encountered elsewhere but few of the problems were. Second: incorrect operations and usage, as commented on by Doolittle, had a very great impact on the outcome/issues the P-38 had.

Remember it was Doolittle's fighter of choice when he ventured over the lines! The P-38 esp the early ones weren't perfect but it always had an edge over its contemporaries if you learned to fly it. Even German commanders have made issues about the P-38s superiority, check out Stienhoffs remarks to Galland at this site: 
Planes and Pilots of WWII 

wmaxt


----------



## Jank (Sep 13, 2006)

wmaxt said, "while the 475th 5th AF had a ratio of 20:1. Thats not a medicore fighter!"

Certainly impressive. Reminds me of another high kill ratio in the Pacific. In one 18 day period in May of 1945, the 318th, often outnumbered 15 to 1, managed to rack up 102 air to air kills for a loss of only 3 of their P-47N's. (That's a ratio of 34:1)

Newspapers from coast to coast have acclaimed our Group as the

For more information on the Mighty 318th and it's exploits against the Japanese see:

~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html


----------



## davparlr (Sep 13, 2006)

All of the comments above are good. My thoughts about the P-38 are as follows:
-In capable hands the P-38 was a formidable fighter with very good range with external fuel.
-Pilots proficient in the P-38 was confident in its abilty against contemporary fighters.
-Wartime perfomance is self explainatory
-It did have some unique drawbacks
-It seem to be complex with an increase pilot workload requiring more time to be capable 
-In 1944-45, it was slow relative to contempory fighters. 414 mph was 10-20 mph slower. It could probably dive pretty good somewhat offsetting speed disadvantage.
-Mission reliability would be less than a single engine plane, e.g., there would be twice the probability of engine failure for any given time. However, if the engine failure was catastropic, the P-38 had a much better chance of returning so safety-of-flight was better. A classical trade-off between mission reliability and safety-of-flight reliability.
-Maintance hour per flight hour would be greater, reducing available aircraft, which may have been an issue early in the war, e.g. Aleutian campaign, South Pacific, etc.
-The P-38 was more expensive and I am sure had a higher operating cost, althought both of these were not significant in WWII.

Sill very capable, flexible and deadly. A great aircraft with a great record.


----------



## Jank (Sep 13, 2006)

wmaxt said, "*Remember it was Doolittle's fighter of choice when he ventured over the lines!*"

Just a thought. The allies were worried about friendly fire which is why they painted the invasion stripes on their planes. Such a concern over friendly fighters accidently shooting down a General (oops!) would be diminished further by flying a P-38 which can't be mistaken for a Bf-109 like a P-51 or an FW-190 like a P-47.

Here's a painting of Doolitle's flight over the beaches of Normandy. Robert Taylor, the artist, wrote the following account:

_"Sitting around waiting for intelligence reports was not Jimmy Doolittle’s style. He was going to see for himself what was happening! With Pat Partridge as wingman, they took off flying P-38 Lightnings – *chosen for their distinctive profile in the hopes they would deter friendly fire* – and climbed above the overcast."_







On a similar note, when Japan surrendered, they were initially going to use P-47N's from the 318th to escort the surrender delegation which was flying in on two Betty's. It was decided that they would play it safe and use P-38's from the 8th and 49th groups instead as it would be highly unlikely to mistake the incoming formation as a Japanese attack.

~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html

_"Col. McAfee had to explain to his men why the 318th would not be escorting the surrender delegation to Ie Shima as originally planned. The bottom line was aircraft identification. Two "Betty" bombers escorted by a bunch of P-47s could easily be misidentified as an enemy formation. Indeed, Marine F4U Corsairs had tried to attack 318th Thunderbolts at least once (they outran them rather than engage). No one wanted a SNAFU and there was no Japanese plane that looked anything like a P-38 Lightning. So P-38s would escort the surrender delegation. Period."_


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 15, 2006)

Jank said:


> wmaxt said, "*Remember it was Doolittle's fighter of choice when he ventured over the lines!*"
> 
> Just a thought. The allies were worried about friendly fire which is why they painted the invasion stripes on their planes. Such a concern over friendly fighters accidently shooting down a General (oops!) would be diminished further by flying a P-38 which can't be mistaken for a Bf-109 like a P-51 or an FW-190 like a P-47.
> 
> ...



With respect to D-Day and the surrender escort, that is undoubtedly true as the P-38s area because as you put it "Easy Identification". I don't have the back up but he flew P-38s on other occasions to.

Dave, The L model could go faster than 414mph, there are several reports including a AAF test, that its top speed at ~25,000ft was as high as 443mph. I only have a Lockheed graph at this time so I can't nail it down as fact (I require at least two different and reliable sources before I'll accept this kind of stuff as fact). Here are a couple of things to consider:
1. Absolute top speed is only an issue in level flight in a relatively straight line ie. persuing/running. Even using 414mph the only enemy fighter that exceeded that was the Bf-109K with special fuel. The P-51 was only faster (using 414mph) between 20,000ft and 27,000ft at all other altitudes the P-38 was as fast or faster. 
2. After two turns speed was running in the 250mph to 325mph range anyway with energy retention and acceleration being much more important, the P-38 excelled at both. These speeds also allowed the P-38 to use its maneuvering flaps letting it turn with about anything out there.
3. In a bounce/escape dive the level top speed doesn't enter into the equation.
4. Finally the maximum top speed is only valid at one altitude/condition so in reality it was only a bench mark and even that was dependant on aircraft condition.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Sep 15, 2006)

Now that is just pure nonsense wmaxt ! Nearly every German fighter in service by 44 could easily do over 414 mph - the K-4 did 450 + mph for christs sake ! Even the A-8, which was considered rather slow by German fighter pilots, could go 14 mph faster than that !

And about using maneuver flaps against German fighters, well if you had a wish of getting shot down then thats what you would've done - dropping flaps when fighting the FW-190 would get you killed VERY quickly ! And doing it against a Bf-109 would bring you into trouble equally fast.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 15, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> With respect to D-Day and the surrender escort, that is undoubtedly true as the P-38s area because as you put it "Easy Identification". I don't have the back up but he flew P-38s on other occasions to.
> 
> Dave, The L model could go faster than 414mph, there are several reports including a AAF test, that its top speed at ~25,000ft was as high as 443mph. I only have a Lockheed graph at this time so I can't nail it down as fact (I require at least two different and reliable sources before I'll accept this kind of stuff as fact). Here are a couple of things to consider:
> 1. Absolute top speed is only an issue in level flight in a relatively straight line ie. persuing/running. Even using 414mph the only enemy fighter that exceeded that was the Bf-109K with special fuel. The P-51 was only faster (using 414mph) between 20,000ft and 27,000ft at all other altitudes the P-38 was as fast or faster.
> ...


All you have said is good. I know that top speed in only a certain part of the equation for fighting. The info you have provided is probably more important. Unfortunately we often have top speed and little else in order to do an analysis (especially my data). 

I noted in my research that the P-38 was faster than most of the enemy planes until late in the war. 

You have certainly convinced me that the P-38 was a formidable fighting machine in the right hands. And the fact that the pilots had confidence in it also makes a good point. Pilots do not have confidence in aircraft that doesn't give them a fighting chance.

The comment in the fighter study about it not being a "modern" fighter is strange and smells of a bias input.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 15, 2006)

The P38 was a 1938 design.

And it was designed to shoot down bombers, not dogfight fighters.

Plus it wasnt designed for mass production, thus it had a complicated design and structure.

So yes it wasnt a modern type of fighter of what was expected in 1944/1945.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 16, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The P38 was a 1938 design.
> 
> And it was designed to shoot down bombers, not dogfight fighters.
> 
> ...



Yes it was a 1938 design and even late in the war it was considered advanced esp with items like hydraulic ailerons and dive slats.

It was designed as a fighter, the term interceptor was a label Kelesly used to let the contract for the design competition because the AAF had put a hold on new "Persuit" planes. However Lockheed did select the wing for climb making it a prime interceptor if one wished to use it that was.

Your right it wasn't particularly good for production, then again one (1) factory built 9,926 P-38s in 4 years. The last 8 months the P-80 was also built in the same factory. Had the P-38 been built in a second factory in '43 starting with the J model there would have been ~14,000/16,000 P-38s out there. The low number was due to the WPB refusal to set up a second factory. I belive of the Major US fighters the P-38 was the only one to go so long without a second factory. Commanders were begging for them in the MTO and the Pacific, Doolittle faced with high demand and fewer aircraft settled on the Mustang - not because it was better but because he could get more of them creating more consistency in inventories, planning and training. 

? The L model out performed the P-51D in every category except top speed between 22,000ft and 27,000ft and there is evidence that even that may not be true. Against an P-51H model it came up short on top speed but was still equal or exceeded it in other areas. They set up a second factory in 1945, does that suggest it was considered less capable when compared to the P-51H and P-47N both in production at that time?

Doolittle himself felt "The Lightning was far ahead of all but one (1) or two (2) of the most outstanding fighters of WWII".

And to wrap it up, in July 1944 with the introduction of the Me-262 ALL piston aircraft were just marking time the P-51H was obsolete before it went into production.

Soren, I mentioned the Bf-109K models earlier. they couldn't hit 452 without the C3 fuel and the evidence suggests that that fuel was only available intermittently and in small quantities. The Fw-190D and Ta-152s are a possible but the only tests I've seen show 414mph for the Fw-190D9 and I will need two corroborating test reports from separate sources before I accept a different figure. I'm not going to just accept an internet source theres too much crap out there, in regards to internet P-38 specs, even P-38 sites use METO power performance figures and those are often mixed or just plain wrong, and are inaccurate when referring to best performance. I have to assume the same level of inaccuracy (or worse due to the lack of surviving information) in regards to Luftwaffe aircraft.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 16, 2006)

The decision to not second source the P38 (and it should have been done in 1941) was one of the great blunders on the war.

Imagine having a couple hundred of these fighters available for operations in the SW Pacific by summer 1942.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 16, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The decision to not second source the P38 (and it should have been done in 1941) was one of the great blunders on the war.
> 
> Imagine having a couple hundred of these fighters available for operations in the SW Pacific by summer 1942.



I agree totally.

Add to that it would have given Lockheed the breathing room to include the unified power control and the K model that made the L look like it was stuck in the mud, with initial climb in the 5,000ft/mn and top speed ~450mph range.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Sep 16, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Soren, I mentioned the Bf-109K models earlier. they couldn't hit 452 without the C3 fuel and the evidence suggests that that fuel was only available intermittently and in small quantities.The Fw-190D and Ta-152s are a possible but the only tests I've seen show 414mph for the Fw-190D9 and I will need two corroborating test reports from separate sources before I accept a different figure.



wmaxt, not to be harsh but, that is bullsh*t and you know it ! Even on B-4 fuel the K-4, G-6/AS, G-10 and G-14 easily achieved speeds greater than 414 mph, the G-10 achieving 688 km/h (430 mph) on B-4 fuel.

The slowest listed speed for the Fw-190 D-9 is 685 km/h (428 mph) and was achieved at Start u. Notleistung - 1,[email protected],250RPM, with the MW-50 system installed speeds of over 704 km/h (440 mph) could be reached easily. And with the D-12 prop speed increased by another 10 mph, and with GM-1 speeds in excess of 760 km/h (475 mph) were reached.

These are 1945 period leistung charts:
Fw-190 D-9 speeds with ETC-504
Fw-190 Dora Ta 152 speeds on B-4 fuel without ETC racks

Here's a list of German fighters which could easily do over 414 mph by 1944:

Bf-109 G-6/AS /-10/-14/-14/AS
Bf-109 K-4
Fw-190 A-5/-6/-7/-8/-9
Fw-190 D-9/-11/-12/-13
Ta 152 H-0/-1

As you can see wmaxt, pretty much each and every LW fighter in service by 44 could do over 414 mph, and most significantly so !


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 17, 2006)

Soren said:


> wmaxt, not to be harsh but, that is bullsh*t and you know it ! Even on B-4 fuel the K-4, G-6/AS, G-10 and G-14 easily achieved speeds greater than 414 mph, the G-10 achieving 688 km/h (430 mph) on B-4 fuel.
> 
> The slowest listed speed for the Fw-190 D-9 is 685 km/h (428 mph) and was achieved at Start u. Notleistung - 1,[email protected],250RPM, with the MW-50 system installed speeds of over 704 km/h (440 mph) could be reached easily. And with the D-12 prop speed increased by another 10 mph, and with GM-1 speeds in excess of 760 km/h (475 mph) were reached.
> 
> ...



Soren, You might be right at least partially but I can't find those numbers anywhere else for instance the Finnish flight manual gives the top speed of the Bf-109G6 at 640kph (398mph) @ 6,300 meters. Your graphs would help a lot in I could read them but the only clear parts are the highlites and I have no way to interpret them, no offense intended. Just as neither you nor I will accept the one test graph I have of the P-38L @ 442mph as absolute fact, I need more to accept these numbers. Again, I don't feel you've tampered with the data or intentionally skewed it, I just need a bit more clear data before I accept it as absolute fact. 

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.

Maybe Eric can help us here, he seem to have the most data on the capabilities of the Luftwaffe.

I'm still open to the possibility, just not convinced yet.

wmaxt


----------



## Twitch (Sep 18, 2006)

Another tid-bit for the P-38 files- I talked to P-38 pilot yesterday with a different slant on the plane due to the theater he was in- The Aleutians. Of course he loved the Lightning. But because of the problems with the P-38 at altitude they stayed at low and medium altitudes, never venturing above 15,000 feet even escorting B-17s.


----------



## Soren (Sep 18, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Soren, You might be right at least partially but I can't find those numbers anywhere else for instance the Finnish flight manual gives the top speed of the Bf-109G6 at 640kph (398mph) @ 6,300 meters.



wmaxt, I'm talking about the 1944 model G-6/AS, not the early model G-6.



> Your graphs would help a lot in I could read them but the only clear parts are the highlites and I have no way to interpret them, no offense intended.



Which highlights ? Tell me and I'll happily translate them for you.



> Just as neither you nor I will accept the one test graph I have of the P-38L @ 442mph as absolute fact, I need more to accept these numbers.



wmaxt, I'm providing originals, you're providing what are supposedly digital copies ! That, combined with the fact that your P-38 figures can't be explained logically or aerodynamically, is why its hard for me to accept them as fact.



> Again, I don't feel you've tampered with the data or intentionally skewed it, I just need a bit more clear data before I accept it as absolute fact.



And I don't think you've tampered with any data either wmaxt, but you're believing the impossible. 

Now about your need for more "clear" data, well I really do not understand that, cause I've been providing very clear, solid and substantial amounts of data for a very long time now, so exactly what more do you need ?? - I think it is more your reluctance to accept this original and solid data, rather than it not being "clear" enough, thats the problem here. 



> 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.



Not so for the FW-190 however.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 18, 2006)

My source, which has proved reliable, shows the Fw 190A-5 as 656 km/hr and the A-6 as 651 km/hr.


----------



## Soren (Sep 19, 2006)

Thats running at 1.42ata davparlr, by mid 1943 the FW-190 was running at 1.65ata.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 19, 2006)

Soren said:


> Thats running at 1.42ata davparlr, by mid 1943 the FW-190 was running at 1.65ata.



I don't have that source just as I don't have the P-38L doing 440+mph, so I cannot contradict either one. You are the experts for each and I am sure you have a lot more info than I do on those specific aircraft.


----------



## Twitch (Sep 20, 2006)

Funny Dave I don't either from any book or publication from any era. Just because one guy in tests ran up illegally high maniford pressure and made ONE run at a higher than typical speed doesn't mean that is normal for the model. Prototypes consistantly show some higher performance until they are equipped for typical flight ops. Consistancy is what matters. We must also assume that everyone that researched specs and stats since 1945 for publication has been in error as well.


----------



## Soren (Sep 20, 2006)

From the A5-A6 POH - Performance at 1.42ata:


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2006)

A question here.....

We've discussed where the RAF tested the -190 with a "bad" engine. I could not find anywhere specifics on this. How was it being determined that this engine as not performing. In the air? During ground run-up? On any recip the manufacturer is going to set parameters for checking magnetos, manifold pressure and RPM on the ground. If it is determined that these parameters aren't being met during your ground run, you don't fly. I'd like to know the specifics behind this "bad running engine."


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 20, 2006)

Well it looks like the last models of the -190 and -109 were more than a match for the P38.

But it didnt matter because the -38 was at the end of its design life.

The P38 was an obscolesent design by 1945,and was really only usefull in the PTO due to the extreme range it could fly.


----------



## Soren (Sep 20, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A question here.....
> 
> We've discussed where the RAF tested the -190 with a "bad" engine. I could not find anywhere specifics on this. How was it being determined that this engine as not performing. In the air? During ground run-up? On any recip the manufacturer is going to set parameters for checking magnetos, manifold pressure and RPM on the ground. If it is determined that these parameters aren't being met during your ground run, you don't fly. I'd like to know the specifics behind this "bad running engine."




The sparkplugs and the fuel used caused the rough running of the engine. Later the British made it run perfectly fine by changing its sparkplugs with some siemens type plugs taken from a crashed Do-217 and using different type fuel, unfortunately by this time no more tests were to be carried out with the a/c.

As Erich Brown later put it:
"_It purred smoothly as it ran_"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2006)

Soren said:


> The sparkplugs and the fuel used caused the rough running of the engine. Later the British made it run perfectly fine by changing its sparkplugs with some siemens type plugs taken from a crashed Do-217 and using different type fuel, unfortunately by this time no more tests were to be carried out with the a/c.
> 
> As Erich Brown later put it:
> "_It purred smoothly as it ran_"



Rough running? Was it missing? Was it detonating? During the ground run if it made RPM, the required manifold pressure and mag drop, that should of been that. If it ran rough on the ground, any flight tests would of been a waste of time. If the original plugs were fouling becuase of fuel they could of been cleaned and re-installed, at that point an indication of the true engine performance could of been made before they starting fouling again (which probably would of been within a few minutes of operation). I have a feeling these tests were a 'rush to judgement' if indeed there was a problem with the engine. 

Thanks for the info Soren - I'm searching for the flight test report on this, i know it was posted here...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2006)

I found a copy of the report - interesting...

"Throughout the trials the engine has been running very roughly and as a result pilots flying the aircraft have little confidence in its reliability. The cause of this roughness has not yet been ascertained but it is thought that it may be due to a bad period of vibration at certain engine speeds which may also affect the injection system. "Later it was discovered that the roughness was due to fouling of the Bosch sparking plugs after a short period of running. The fault was cured by fitting Siemens type plugs taken from the BMW 801A engine of a crashed Do 217 bomber."

The paragraph prior reads "There are indications that the engine of this aircraft is de-rated, this being supported by the pilot's instruction card found in the cockpit. Further performance tests and engine investigation are to be carried out by the RAH and more definite information will then be available."

And in the conclusions...

"The rough running of the engine is much disliked by all pilots and must be a great disadvantage, as lack of confidence in an engine makes flying over bad country or water most unpleasant."

I don't know if Brown had anything to do with the initial report but a seasoned test pilot would of realized that the "rough" engine was probably caused by fouling and the common method to clear this is to lean. Now i know the 190 had a "one lever system" which was revolutionary for its time and might of made leaning of the engine impossible.




Tigar


----------



## Soren (Sep 21, 2006)

Actually I'm not even sure Brown ever flew Faber's A-3, but he flew the A-4 which he has described as running beautifully - ofcourse by this time (mid 43) the sparkplugs were ok and so was the fuel used. 

Eric Brown:
" _The BMW 801 was started by an inertia starter energized by a 24-volt external supply or by the aircraft's own battery. The big radial was primed internally and almost invariably fired during the propeller's first revolution; it purred smoothly as it ran._ "


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2006)

That might explain a few things...

I wonder if anyone ever figured out if Faber's -190 was really derated. And weren't the A-3s initially restricted from flying over the channel?


----------



## Soren (Sep 21, 2006)

No FLYBOYJ, only some BMW-801C engined aircraft were restricted to overland flights.

Here you go:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/fw-190-vs-spit-p-51-p-47-a-4849-6.html#post188500


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2006)

Ah, ok - thanks!


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 22, 2006)

I have been doing some research and it seem that the Bf-109G-6 could do as high as 428mph.

I have also seen the Fw-190D-9 report at Spitfire performance. I can't Gage the chart Soren posted because the only thing readable is the highlit ed portions. You can see my confusion.

I have owned but do not now posses an official USAF identification plate for the P-38L at 442mph and have seen an AAF P-38L test report that gives it 442mph and a climb at 4.91min to 20,000ft, again I don't have it and cannot share it. With 104/150 fuel the J model P-38 was cleared for 75" by the AAF Material Command on March 16, 1944, and on the 8th AF on July 11, 1944 cleared it for 65". The 414mph shown at Spitfireperformance in the P-38L test, doesn't even reach 1,600hp and so is not a true top speed rating. The P-38L was cleared for 64" and 1,725hp by both Lockheed and Allison on the normal fuel though the AAF officially cleared it at 60" and 1,600hp on the normal fuel.

The Spitfireperformance site with the fuel info also shows a Lockheed est at 70" and 75" (and approx 1,900hp) for a top speed of 431mph. In all honesty and considering the wing as designed for climb I feel this is probably the P-38's top speed in real terms under those conditions. Even at 420mph it would be competitive throughout WWII, no aircraft was above 350mph after a 360deg turn where the fighting took place. In a bounce, top speed was determined by the stalk and dive in most cases against an aircraft at cruise speed. 

Obsolete in 1944? The P-38L was still a better performer than many of its contemporaries. An argument can be made that the P-38 was obsolete when the P-51H and P-47N went into service but even then the P-38L had attributes that exceeded both with only top speed lagging significantly behind - but again piston engined aircraft were as a whole obsolete by that time. 

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Sep 24, 2006)

*Sigh* Here we go again.. 

wmaxt, forget about the FW-190D-9 tests on Spitfireperformance.com cause they were achieved with early batch engines which underperformed quite significantly - Infact the very source from which the data was taken makes this very clear.

And here's the chart I posted before, again, however this time it is larger and no highlights have been added: (I hope it is clear enough for you now)




By Dietmar Hermann: 
_The pleasing shape of the D-9 suggested an excellent performance, and its pilots were not disappointed. Although there was little to choose between the Jumo 213 A and the BMW 801 in terms of power, the D-9 was 28 km/h faster than the A-8 at low level and 41 km/h faster at the maximum boost altitude of 6600m. The Fw 190 D-9's maximum speed was 685 km/h at 6600m. A program to increase boost, the so-called "Sonderaktion 1900 PS" (Special Action 1900 h.p.), was introduced before the aircraft entered service. As a result of this, emergency power was increased to 1900 h.p. at altitudes to 5000m. This was intended to give German pilots a performance advantage over Allied fighters at low level and thus improve the chances of survival for the Luftwaffe's many young pilots. What was even more important against the Allied bombers was the improved high altitude performance of the Jumo 213 A above maximum boost altitude. Unlike units equipped with the Fw 190 A, those with the Fw 190 D did not require an escort of Bf 109's. 

Another performance-enhancing option was the MW 50 injection, which increased the performance of the standard Fw 190 D-9 to 702 km/h at 5700 meters, an improvement of 17 km/h. The graph on the following page_ (Click on thumbnail below) _shows clearly the D-9's impressive performance. The Fw 190 D-9 had a phenomenal rate of climb with MW 50 injection. At low level the D-9 was capable of 22.5 m/sec, compared to 18.7 m/sec without MW 50_. (BTW, this is from the same source as Spitfireperformance.com's data.)






And about the P-38L test data on Spitfireperformance.com, well whats wrong about it ? The results were achieved at 60" Hg, which is 1,530 BHP at SL just like it says. Here's the performance achieved running at 70" Hg: P-38J Performance Test



> Obsolete in 1944? The P-38L was still a better performer than many of its contemporaries.



Could you perhaps point out some of these contemporaries ? I'm esp. interested in the ETO I must add.



> An argument can be made that the P-38 was obsolete when the P-51H and P-47N went into service but even then the P-38L had attributes that exceeded both with only top speed lagging significantly behind



And exactly what attributes might that be when were talking fighter-aircraft ??


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 24, 2006)

By the end of 1944, the P38 was obsolescent in the ETO.

In the PTO, it's very long range capabilities still made it quite comparative, especially since the Japanese didnt have anything with the same speed and altitude capabilities.


----------



## Soren (Sep 25, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> In the PTO, it's very long range capabilities still made it quite comparative, especially since the Japanese didnt have anything with the same speed and altitude capabilities.



Except for the Ki-84 Hayate, J2M5 Raiden and N1K2-JA Shiden.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 25, 2006)

Soren said:


> Except for the Ki-84 Hayate, J2M5 Raiden and N1K2-JA Shiden.



None of them were a match for the P38.

P38 was still faster, faster climbing, carried heavier firepower, flew higher, flew further and was far stronger.

Aside from the Japanese fighters being more maneuverable, they were nothing for the P38 to fear.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 25, 2006)

The Raiden and Shiden were way slower than the P-38 and were probably an even match for the F6F, the Hayate was the Japanese best, although still slower than the P-38, had excellent armament, (and I'm talking about the later models). Despite this they were still too little too late and the later models were being produced with non-strategic materials which only hindered their over-all operational capability....


----------



## Soren (Sep 26, 2006)

All three Japanese planes were superior in maneuverability and most likely also climb-rate (I'm in doubt about the Shiden here), in speed they were either close to or superior to the P-38 at low altitude, at high altitude the P-38 was superior. 

The Ki-84 Hayate actually proved faster than even the P-51H at low to medium altitude.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2006)

All 3 had initial superior climb rates, the KI-84 was faster at lower altitudes but it's aileron stiffened up at 300 MPH. At higher altitudes the P-38L was faster. The Raiden had the same problem at about 325 MPH. The Shiden's climb performance really went to hell over 20,000 and was plagued with engine problems. It was maneuverable at lower altitudes and was probably the best armored Japenese fighter..


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 27, 2006)

The P-38 more than held its own everywhere it flew. Its performance charteristics were exceeded in certain areas by other contemporary aircraft but even in those cases it still had some advantages. Not everyone liked the P-38 even of those who flew it but that can be said of every aircraft ever flown.

Comments made about the P-38:

Stienhoff, commander of the Sardining Luftwaffe contingent. " The lightnings clear superiority in speed and maneuverability was especially disconcerting." This quote is from his book Messerschmits Over Sicily via Planes and Pilots of WWII

Galland one of the finest fighter pilots ever confirmed that he couldn't shake a P-38 in a Fw-190D. From the book Top Guns by Brennan and Joe Foss.

Franz Stiegler JG27 " [P-38s] could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to a climb insitainously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried 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 5-10deg of bank". (JohnneyL provided this)

Art Heiden, 350hrs combat in a P-38 more than 20,000hrs in his career that lasted into the '90s. "Nothing, to these pilots, after the hard winter of 1943-44 could be more beautiful than a P-38L outrolling and tailgating a German fighter straight down, following a spin or split-S or whatever gyration a startled, panicked and doomed German might attempt to initiate. You just couldn't get away from the P-38L. Whatever the German could do, the American in the P-38L could do better". Art was there and did it.

Art also flew the Mustang, in his words: "The P-51 was a new airplane and we were eager to fly it and were happy with it. It was so easy and comfortable to fly. The P-38had kept us on our toes and constantly busy (a rare observation most felt it was the other way around)-far more critical to fly. You never could relax in it. We were disappointed with the 51s rate of climb and concerned with reverse stick, especially if there was fuel was in the fuselage tank, a rash of rough engines from fouled plugs, and cracked heads which dumped coolant. With the 38 you could be at altitude before landfall over the continent, but with the 51 you still had a lot of climbing to go. The P-38 was an interceptor and if both engines were healthy, you could out climb any other airplane, and thats what wins dog fights. When you were in a dogfight below tree tops it is way more comfortable in a P-38 with its power and stall characteristics and for that matter at any altitude".
Arts comments can be found at 
http://home.att.net/~ww2avaition/P-38-2.html

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 27, 2006)

P-38J AAF test 47-1706-A
362mph @ 5,000ft - 394 @ 15,000ft 421 @ 25,800ft - ave climb 3750 to 20K
Later L models have similar specs and possibily more if higher boosts were used.

Japenese aircraft
Model - Speed @ Alt - Ave Climb
Ki-44 - 378 @ 17,000 - 3700ft/mn
Ki-61 - 362 @ 16,400ft - 2,380ft/mn
Ki-84 - 392 @ 21,325ft - 3790ft/mn
Ki-100 - 366 @ 19,700 - 2,750ft/mn
N1K1 - 363 @ 17,700ft - 2,510ft/mn 
N1K2 - 371 @ 18400ft - 2,675ft/mn
J2M3 - 365 @ 17,900 - 3,570ft/mn

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 27, 2006)

I'm showing higher performance for the Frank....

"16,400 feet being attained in 5 minutes 54 seconds"

Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 27, 2006)

Good find flyboy.


----------



## Soren (Sep 27, 2006)

> Stienhoff, commander of the Sardining Luftwaffe contingent. " The lightnings clear superiority in speed and maneuverability was especially disconcerting." This quote is from his book Messerschmits Over Sicily via Planes and Pilots of WWII



Thats not a comment made by Steinhoff wmaxt ! You're purposely twisting the original text from the website ! Only the the quotation marked words are from the book, Steinhoff never said any of the rest. 

But to be fair Johannes Steinhoff actually did think of the P-38 as a great fighter, but he never expressed any difficulty in out-turning it, infact only the exact opposite, and he mostly flew gondola equipped 109's (And later the Me262) - but here's what he had to say about the P-38:
"_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. _"

The P-38 was a Boom Zoom fighter, as described by nearly every German pilot who met it in combat, fast in the dive and packing a mean punch but not maneuverable compared to the single engined fighters.



> Galland one of the finest fighter pilots ever confirmed that he couldn't shake a P-38 in a Fw-190D. From the book Top Guns by Brennan and Joe Foss.



We've discussed this one before wmaxt, and it was just another one of Gallands jokes. Galland was infact not even present at the place where this incident supposedly occured.

By 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._ "



> Franz Stiegler JG27 " [P-38s] could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to a climb insitainously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried 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 5-10deg of bank". (JohnneyL provided this)



Ha ha ha !  Stigler certainly never said that ! 

Where is this JhonneyL guy, cause I'd really like to know where he read/heard that ! He obviously hasn't read the other comments made by Stigler about Allied fighters.

Fact is German fighter pilots didn't fear the P-38 at all, it was infact considered no match by most pilots. Only the pilots who flew the heavily armed bomber-destroyers occasionally expressed difficulty fighting the P-38, as it could climb better than they could and always attacked from above.


----------



## Jank (Sep 27, 2006)

Soren, as you seem to know quite a bit about how the Germans viewed their adversaries planes, do you have any information about what the Germans thought of the later model P-47's (paddle blade and water injection)?

How about P-51's?


----------



## Soren (Sep 27, 2006)

The Thunderbolt was in general considered an inferior fighter by the Germans who described it as sluggish and un-maneuverable, esp. at low alt, but "never try to dive away from a Thunderbolt" the advice was nonetheless. But at high altitudes the Thunderbolt was a force to be reckoned with, esp. by the many pilots flying bomber-destroyers.

The P-51 was a feared aircraft at most altitudes, mostly because of the huge numbers in which appeared, but also because it almost always had a height advantage to begin with, and at high speed it wasn't sluggish in maneuvering compared to the 109, but neither was the P-47 for that matter.

However the P-51 and the P-47 were both considered inferior at low to mid altitude compared to the latest German fighters such as the Fw-190 Dora-9, A-9 and Bf-109 K-4, where'as they were considered completely inferior compared to the Ta 152H-1 and Me262. 

But I'll dig out some comments for you Jank, from Hans Werner Lerche amongst others, a German test pilot who flew nearly every captured Allied fighter such as the P-38, P-51 and P-47 etc etc.


----------



## Jank (Sep 27, 2006)

Thanks.

I suspect the test was not of the paddle bladed, water injection model. That's relevant as the climb rate increased by 400fpm to a respectable 3,180fpm at S/L.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 28, 2006)

It still got Yamamoto. One of the best coup de grâce ever.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 29, 2006)

Soren said:


> But I'll dig out some comments for you Jank, from Hans Werner Lerche amongst others, a German test pilot who flew nearly every captured Allied fighter such as the P-38, P-51 and P-47 etc etc.



Always be careful about test pilot comments on foreign aircraft, other manufacturer's aircraft, or other service's aircraft. Most of the time, like all pilots, they seek out the negative and put down the positive of competing aircraft. This is why there is such conflicting data.


----------



## Soren (Sep 29, 2006)

*davparlr,*

Actually its very hard to find anything negative written by Hans Werner Lerche on the Allied fighters he tested, he seems to have been focused entirely on the positive.

*Jank,*

Lerche flew both the D-2 and the later version with paddle blades, I'll get the comments made about both.

I'll be back tomorrow with some comments by him..


----------



## Jank (Sep 29, 2006)

The D-2 was a dog.

The paddle blades were first installed in the D-22 production block I believe. They were retrofitted on existing D-10's forward.

I don't think they were commonplace until the Spring of 1944 though. 

3,180fpm climb at S/L is pretty respectable for a single engined fighter weighing in at over 14,000lbs.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 30, 2006)

Soren said:


> *davparlr,*
> 
> Actually its very hard to find anything negative written by Hans Werner Lerche on the Allied fighters he tested, he seems to have been focused entirely on the positive.
> 
> ..




Then he has my respect. That's why I said most of the time, but not all. Some can be objective.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 30, 2006)

Soren, Opinions are everywhere and the quotes I posted are just as valid as any others maybe more so in these specific cases. I've seen many others along the same vein. Colonel Rau who wrote the long letter to the AAF about symplifing the P-38 and in that letter "My personnel feeling about this airplane is that its a fine piece of equipment, and if properly handled, takes a back seat for nothing the enemy can produce". This theme is consistent in accounts of AAF pilots. The 20th FG ( who didn't really like the P-38) noted "Below 20,000ft the P-38 was better than the German aircraft we encounter but above that only equal"

I did not skew or twist Standoffs comment if it was modified in any way it was done before I read it, as I don't have his book I could not dbl check it there.

Joe Foss has never been accused as a liar and the Galland story was a, witnessed by many and b. confirmed before publication. Galland HATED the P-38, why? He made a point of pitying lesser aircraft and respecting others like the Spitfire of which he got 55. People like Galland save hatred for those he cannot predict or control not those that he can control.

Something that also needs to be taken into consideration here is that the majority of pilots were just airplane drivers. Only 5-10% of pilots accounted for 95% of the kills and ~80% of the kills were some form of bounces where the kill never saw it coming until it was to late on top of that most of the groups that got the P-38 in '43 and early '44 only had a few hours in the 38 and in combat against more experienced German pilots, they probably were sitting ducks!

Another thing about the P-38 is the perceptions and rumors of people not familiar with them. Here is a typical reaction to the P-38:
Robert Cary
"Tony LaVier, the famous Lockheed test pilot came over to Goxhill to demonstrate what the P-38 could do. His demonstration made my Carree as a fighter pilot. I already had tremendous faith in the Lockheed P-38 , but after Tony put on his exhibition, I had full faith and confidence in that airplane... what was so spectacular about it was that I'd heard along the way the P-38 was a killer" "I was never worried for one minutethat if I had to tangle with the Luftwaffe, I was going to be at a disadvantage, because the airplane could just outperform them. It was totally the function of the pilot. Not putting any accolades on my piloting ability, after watching that demonstration by Tony LaVier, I knew I could make the airplane do it".
P-38 Lightning Pilot Briefs: Robert Carey

Many of the same issues affected the Luftwaffe, inexperienced pilots were easier targets no matter what they flew and good aggressive pilots got the scores.

BTW: I know the Germans had some very capable aircraft esp in late '44-'45 and just as those reports concerning the P-38s speed don't count because we don't have them therefore don't know the particulars affecting them, I just want the same level of proof for the German aircraft plus evidence that the required support was available. Some things that I've seen on other forums include rampant engine problems and supply issues for special fuels. Some site on the 190D for instance report the 2400hp at sea level was down to 2,000 by 10,000ft. The report added to the test reports at Spitfireperformance indicate the engines were rated at 1,900hp and not 2,140 or 2,400hp. Is that really unreasonable?

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 30, 2006)

Theres also the issue of the 8th AF P38 groups being required to provide close escort for the bombers and not go on sweeps.

The kill ratio of the P38's would have been far higher if they werent tied down in that role.


----------



## Soren (Oct 1, 2006)

The comments on the P-47 by Hans Werner Lerche as promised:

The P-47D-2 in November 1943:
"_The Thunderbolt was rather lame and sluggish near the ground level, with a maximum speed scarcely over 500 km/h (310 mph). But its real performance potential was soon revealed, and I was astonished to note how lively the Thunderbolt became at higher altitudes. Thanks to its excellent exhaust-driven turbo-supercharger this American fighter climbed to 11,000m (36,000 ft) with ease, and its maximum speed at about 9000m (29,500 ft) was approximately 640 km/h (400 mph)._ " -

P-47D-10 in May 1944:
"_Except for the extra 300 hp provided by the water injection, this new P-47D Thunderbolt variant did not feature any fundamental innovations compared to the version I had already tested and evaluated_" - Lerche reached 697 km/h (433 mph) in this a/c.

The P-47D in General:
"_One thing was certain: the strong points of the Thunderbolt did not lie in dog-fighting or at heights under 5-6000m (14,600-19,700 ft). It was excellent in higher altitudes, in diving attacks and flying with maximum boost. No wonder then that the Thunderbolts were always the decisive factor as escort fighters for bomber attacls at high altitudes, their numerical superiority also putting them in a favourable position, of course. What the Thunderbolt lacked was good performance at lower altitudes_"

Worthy of note is that Lerche hardly flew any German single engined fighters, although he did fly many other types of German a/c.

German single engined fighters flow by Lerche:
Bf-109 F-4
Bf-109 G-2
FW-190 A-8


----------

